Last week, the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) published a new report with the jubilant title "Three-quarters less likely to be admitted to hospital after corona repeat vaccination". The timing is no coincidence. The autumn campaign for people aged 60+ to get the umpteenth repeat vaccination against Covid-19 is in full swing, but many older people are not getting the repeat vaccination.
Now the RIVM has a downright abominable track record when it comes to the quality of reports that are released during a vaccination campaign. This time last year, the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) came up with a "report" That should prove that the vaccinations had saved as many as 88,000 hospitalizations. The National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) had made a model for the number of expected hospital admissions and compared it with the actual number of admissions. When that was much, much lower, they did not come to the correct conclusion, namely that their model was wrong, but concluded that the vaccinations were insanely successful. How coincidental in the middle of a prick campaign. Maurice de Hond wrote a nice article .
With this in mind, let's take a look at how RIVM fared this year. Have they produced a scientific report or is it again just a piece of propaganda with fantasized claims that are not supported by the data to convince people to participate in the jab campaign? I will already reveal that it is the latter, but it is of course still interesting how the RIVM has manipulated the figures to arrive at the desired, but incorrect, outcome. In addition, another conclusion can be drawn from the RIVM data that is interesting. Read on for that.
The news release from the RIVM a PDF with more data about the study. In it, we find that hospital admissions were looked at in the period 9 October to 20 November, using data from the NICE COVID-19 database. The report indicates that this data is not complete and that the relative incidences per vaccination status have therefore been examined. In this case, relative means comparing the ratio between the number of hospital admissions of people with and without a repeat vaccination compared to the ratio of those people in the general population. The idea is that if proportionally fewer people with repeat vaccinations are in hospital because of Covid-19 than the ratio in the general population within a certain age category, the repeat vaccination will be effective against Covid-19. So much for the theory.
There are a number of ways to manipulate this type of data:
- Build in a period between getting the repeat vaccination and being counted in the category "has had repeat vaccination"
- Taking a different time to calculate the ratio within the general population than the time of admission of the patient to the hospital
- Mixing patients who are in hospital due to Covid with patients who have tested positive for SARS-COV-2 upon entering for something else
- Assigning patients whose vaccination status is unknown to a specific category
We're going to go through all four of them.
Build in the period between getting the repeat vaccination and counting
In the original Pfizer trials, they saw that participants were actually more susceptible to infection with SARS-COV-2 in the first 14 days than people in the placebo group. Their solution was to count participants as unvaccinated in those first 14 days. If your research period is long enough, it doesn't really matter, but especially with shorter research periods, it makes a huge difference and you can make it appear that an ineffective drug is very effective. Statistics professor Norman Fenton has this in this video made transparent. If this trick was used in this study, we can assume that there were people in hospital who had already received the repeat vaccination, but were still put in the category "no repeat vaccination" in this study. Let's take a look at the report to see if they pulled off this magic trick. From the report:
“The first day of illness for all age groups is estimated at 7 days before hospitalization. Individuals will be classified as having at least one previous vaccination immediately after an initial vaccination and 7 days after the repeat vaccination in the autumn round 2023 as "Received the autumn vaccination 2023"
This means that a person who received the repeat vaccination 13 days before admission to hospital has indeed been placed in the category of vaccinated people who have received the repeat vaccination not have achieved. So the 14-day time-out is also included in this study. This is especially striking when you consider that this study only lasted 6 weeks. In that case, 2 weeks in which someone may have had a repeat vaccination, but is still registered as if that person had not had a repeat vaccination, is a very large share. To express this in figures, they have added 2/6ths of the repeat vaccination group to the group without repeat vaccination, which is therefore 8/6ths large. If the repeat vaccination were a saline solution with 0% effectiveness against COVID-19, it would seem as if this saline solution prevented no less than 50% of all hospital admissions as a result of this trick. This gives a good indication of what the actual purpose of this report was, and it certainly wasn't possible to find out whether the repeat vaccination leads to fewer hospital admissions.
If the repeat vaccination were a saline solution with 0% effectiveness against COVID-19, it seems as if this saline solution prevents no less than 50% of all hospital admissions due to this trick
Taking a different time to calculate the ratio within the general population than the time of admission of the patient to the hospital
One factor that makes this analysis very difficult is that this research is being carried out during the jab campaign. The ratio between people with and without a repeat vaccination in the general population therefore changes during the period studied, and for each person in hospital you will have to look at the admission date (or according to the RIVM 14 days before the admission date) and the ratio in the population at that time. That means that you have to calculate this per patient and start averaging it. That's pretty complex. However, if your goal is to make the repeat vaccination look positive, you simply take the ratio in the general population at the end date of the study. Unfortunately, the report does not say a word about how this calculation was carried out. So we can't check whether the data has been manipulated in a certain direction or not at this point.
Mixing patients who are in hospital due to Covid with patients who have tested positive for SARS-COV-2 upon entering for something else
In the period studied, 1,563 individuals were admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Of these, 1,403 were 60 years of age or older. So 160 were under the age of 60. Are these persons included on account of COVID-19 or did a swab end up their nose upon entry for something else that happened to yield a positive result for SARS-COV-2? With COVID-19, in other words. Since January 2022, NICE has been keeping track of whether an admission was with or before COVID-19. So can we assume that all patients included in this study were there because of COVID-19? Well, no. From the report:
“Since 25 January 2022, when registering in NICE, the patient's reason for admission has been asked. Patients indicated to have been admitted for a reason other than COVID-19 were excluded from this analysis. However, the reason for withdrawal is unknown for 52% of admissions since September 25, 2023. These recordings were included in the analysis. It is therefore likely that a number of patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 but were hospitalized for another reason influenced the RRV estimates.“
For 52% or 813 of the patients studied, it is therefore not known whether they were admitted because of or with COVID-19, but they were included in this study. Historical data from last year shows that most patients who receive a COVID-19 label are admitted with COVID-19 and not by COVID-19. Thus, it is very likely that most of these 813 patients were admitted with COVID-19 and it is therefore possible that of those 140 patients under the age of 60, for example, not a single one has been admitted because of COVID-19. Of course, that doesn't bode well for data quality. If you only want to look at the relative incidence anyway, you might as well have left those 813 patients out of the study. That would have improved the data quality. It is unclear why the RIVM researchers did not choose to do so. It is possible that including these 813 patients led to an outcome that better matched the desired outcome.
Assigning patients whose vaccination status is unknown to a specific category
The vaccination status of not all Dutch people is known. This may be due to problems in the data collection at the time of the vaccination campaigns or because they have indicated that their status may not be registered. By assigning these patients to a specific category, you artificially increase the number of patients in that category. Have they done sitting? From the report:
"Another limitation of the NICE data enriched with vaccination data from CIMS is that CIMS only contains information from people who have consented to the inclusion of their vaccination data in this register. As a result, a number of patients without known vaccination data in CIMS have indeed been vaccinated, while they are categorized as unvaccinated in this analysis."
They therefore did not use these people to artificially increase the proportion of "Received an autumn jab 2023" compared to "At least one previous vaccination", but to increase the proportion of "Not vaccinated" compared to the others.
If we look at the graph with this knowledge that is supposed to prove that the repeat vaccination is very effective, we see the following:
The graph on the right shows the difference between hospital admissions of people who have had the last repeat vaccination and people who have been vaccinated but have not had the last repeat vaccination. At least, according to the definition of the RIVM, which we have already seen was deliberately chosen to make the repeat vaccination look more positive than it actually is. If we want to correct for the 14-day trick, we need to reduce the values of the "At least one previous vaccination" group by 25% and increase those of the "Receive an autumn vaccination 2023" group by 50%. It is not possible to say anything about a correction for a repeat vaccination rate in the general population that is too rosy, because these data are missing from the report. What we already see after correction for the 14-day trick is that for all groups except the 80-89 year group, differences between the groups with and without a repeat vaccination are completely within the margin of uncertainty. The small difference for the group of 80-89-year-olds can probably be explained by a rosily chosen repeat vaccination rate. On the basis of these figures, only one conclusion can be justified: It cannot be concluded that the autumn vaccination leads to a lower number of hospital admissions.
On the basis of these figures, it cannot be concluded that the autumn vaccination actually leads to a lower number of hospital admissions.
Is this study totally uninteresting? No, she's not. In the report, we see three groups and of one of those groups, we can safely say that it has remained stable during the entire study period: The group unvaccinated. In addition, due to the RIVM's attempt to push the repeat vaccination, they have now used almost all the tricks that are normally used to artificially boost the numbers for the Corona vaccines compared to unvaccinated people to make the effectiveness of the repeat vaccination appear more positive than it actually is. Only assigning patients with unknown status to the group of unvaccinated people has been used to artificially increase that group.
But even with this trick, we see that the share of unvaccinated in the total number of hospitalizations is between 10% and 13% for the different age groups over 60 years old. This is fairly similar to the share of unvaccinated people in the general population in those age categories. We already knew from studies abroad that the Corona vaccinations increase the risk of reinfection with SARS-COV-2, but this is the first time that RIVM shows data showing that the Corona vaccinations have no demonstrable effectiveness against hospital admissions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the figures shown by RIVM in this report do not determine the effectiveness of the repeat vaccination. Even more interesting is that any effectiveness of the Corona vaccinations compared to unvaccinated people cannot be established at all. This report did not look at people who ended up in hospital (or died) as a result of the repeat vaccination, but we have seen from previous studies that this number is unfortunately not zero. Based on these figures, we can therefore only advise against the repeat vaccination. Also for the elderly population. The risk of serious side effects of this jab is offset by an immeasurable effectiveness against hospitalisation with or because of COVID-19.
This weekend there will be a follow-up article in response to this report with, among other things, a graphical representation of the vaccine figures as reported by the RIVM, compared with a graph of an effective vaccine – and what that means for the unexplained excess mortality. "Stay tuned" 🙂
Gosh, I just wanted to run to the vaccination street with my sleeve rolled up and I'm reading this....
I did receive an invitation. I threw away the previous one, but I'm going to keep this one. Maybe it will become a collector's item in the future. Because of the nonsense content.
Symptoms may include: Pain at the site of the injection, Headache, fatigue, muscle pain, fever.
That's it. The leaflet of 573 pages, which is not mentioned, contains a little more. Is that allowed?
And the need to first take the basic series that was still in place last year has been eliminated. Apparently, next to nothing is enough. I suspect that the old jabs have expired in the meantime. And then, just like that, the medical necessity disappears. Again fascinating.
'The corona jab brings your immune system back up to standard'. That's what it says. What it means? I don't know.
It's far from over.
I'm curious about the developments around Barry Young. Have you seen anything in MSM?
I would like to know what the advice is for elderly people over the age of 90 who still need to be vaccinated: to be vaccinated or not?
Does this negative vaccination advice from the above article only apply to mRNA vaccines?
Is it already clear whether the Novavax vaccine, which will be used in December, will help?
And is this a safer vaccine for the very elderly?
Nicely filleted, Martijn. Look forward to the sequel.
Could it be that the difference in the 80-89 group in favour of repeat vaccinations after correction can also be partly explained by the fact that this group was not able to accept an invitation to visit the vaccination site in the event of poor health (resulting in later hospitalization with a greater susceptibility to picking up an omicron as a result). And so ended up in the hospital in greater numbers unvaccinated with omicron. (It is possible that healthy 90+ people have been vaccinated more at home).
Thank you. Personally, I think that the RIVM has taken 20 November as the measurement moment for the ratio between repeat vaccination and non-repeat vaccination in the general population. Unfortunately, there is nothing about this in the report, but if they have done so, it artificially lowers the bars in the rightmost bar graph of "Figure 1". If your goal is to portray the repeat vaccination favorably, that's an easy method to get that done.
— Martin.
Hi Elisabeth,
I think that would be more of a question for a doctor of integrity. I am a data analyst and unfortunately there is not enough data available about the Novavax vaccine to be able to make a statement about this.
— Martin.
And where is such a doctor, Martijn?
Which agency, doctor can help me?
Time is running out, otherwise the injection has already been given to mother without me being able to make a proper assessment for her.
@Florence. @Elisabeth, I would see if you can ask your question to Jan Bonten (https://janbhommel.nl/contact). He has a lot of knowledge in this field and often a surprisingly nuanced view.
Don't!
Cleopatra, please let me give you your motivation
I'll eat my hat, and maybe even my entire stock of firewood if Jan B. starts giving positive vaccination advice:-).
Dear Elisabeth, Older than 90 but also younger have recently been vaccinated (the ones they persuaded to do it or who could not refuse) with an mrna booster shot. It gave us a number of extra cremations, after an average of 9 days, so later than 6 working days after death. Mayors and others who have to give permission for the longer use of mortuary will have been terribly busy with this for a long time now, but why don't we hear that in the old media? Diagnoses were often sudden and remarkably high levels of acute leukemia. My 85+ year old parent, who could easily have lived to be 100, died furiously within a week. Screaming that I was right after all (very nasty way to be right...) and furious at doctors, government and everyone who unleashed their propaganda while persuading them to take a shot (again). Good luck with your decision to have novavax injected, maybe useful to have the ears sprayed out with it, that seems more useful to me.
It's outrageous how a parasitic institute like the RIVM is allowed to continue to lie, manipulate and scaremonge. It is pure state propaganda from which Kim Yong Un can still learn. All intended to mask the vaccination genocide. At the cost of thousands of additional dramatic cases of sudden death and serious side effects. Apparently, the (old) government doesn't give a damn about that. In fact, that saves a lot of state pension and healthcare costs so that their unholy climate psychopathic plans can continue to be financed.
Thanks again for this article! 🙂
All in all, it seems to be having an effect. "It's going in the right direction." ...
https://www.ninefornews.nl/onderzoek-naar-italiaanse-hugo-de-jonge-vanwege-moord-dat-gaat-de-goede-kant-op/
… al moeten we natuurlijk maar afwachten of en in hoeverre dit geen ‘operatie doofpot/ zondebok’ wordt. Hoe dan ook, de noodzaak tot handelen wordt gevoeld. En dat is een goede zaak.
The once developed Netherlands no longer has medical institutes that are focused on health. They are extensions of the industry to deceive the population so that their products are taken away. Given the effect of these products, they are very creditable, due to the many cancer cases and a wide range of side effects, which in turn leads to the sale of even more drugs. A smart revenue model, because only with 'vaccines' can you lure healthy people into their sickening and drug-devouring people. Amazing how the media brainwashing has been so effective that people do not show the inclination to get out of this world of lies. The sharply increasing number of cancer cases, neurological, heart and brain problems in the immediate environment pulls them even more into the medical swamp.
And the natural sciences have died a slow death over the past 150 years, with money from big pharma.
Greetings, I'm going back into my vegetable garden.
Jan Bonte has not yet responded to my cry for help: my 93-year-old mother will be vaccinated for the 4th time with the Pfizer vaccine on Tuesday.
Is there an advantage for her to do it or not?
Waiting longer is not possible, according to the GGD, vaccination is no longer possible after December 22.
The advantage, she was told, is;
-She really needs it because of her age, 93 years.
-it protects 80% against getting very sick from corona
-after vaccination you are protected for at least 9 months
-after vaccination you will not be in the hospital
-you become real! genuine! less sick.
Elizabeth, scrolling up a few replies, a certain 'J' has posted an unequivocal opinion. If it's not Jan Bonte himself, then it's someone who imitates his style very well. But don't you think it's strange to ask this question on a forum that is mainly visited by people who are skeptical and critical of the mRNA shots? Everyone has a duty to inform themselves. Would you accept medical advice from a complete stranger who may not even be a doctor? It is a personal decision to blindly accept the RIVM/GGD advice or to consult other sources.
Dear Cees,
Thank you for responding.
The duty to inform yourself has been met, you know: my mother had already spoken to a doctor from the GGD and her own, young, GP.
You have read their arguments for vaccinating, but I hope to find out through this forum whether these arguments are really correct.
I'm looking for substantiated on this forum! answers to the above questions. Please respond, people.
By the way, are there any other sources that I can view, listen to and answer my questions?
I don't master reading data and statistics, so I prefer text.
Just a recent example.
https://robindeboer.substack.com/p/waarom-er-straks-alleen-nog-maar
Agree Cees. I answered anyway. But no yes/no. Apart from the shaky data, this always remains an individual consideration. Only with healthy children do I dare to say: "don't do it".
The vaccination coverage of people who end up in hospital with corona is comparable to that of the population.
The 80% percent protection of this booster shot would only apply to everyone who has had all previous shots and is therefore struggling with reduced resistance (because the total is comparable to unvaccinated).
It is impossible to give good advice. A 93-year-old can die from both; from the injection or from the disease or just from old age after either. You will have just given the wrong advice, even though the chance may have been smaller...
Thanks for the (too) big compliment because Dr Jan Bonte is a very good writer, buy his books! I have a nursing background and quickly in 2020 a bad feeling that belongs to a profession in healthcare and that unfortunately not everyone has, especially in healthcare. Elisabeth, and others with the dilemma of whether or not to get vaccinated with a corona shot, I give the following advice: Watch episodes of unheard news, for example with Prof Dr Theo Schetters. Blckbx.tv episodes with Geert vandenBossche, Het Belgische, Tegenwind, De nieuwe wereld, and so on. Fortunately, there is still plenty to see and read. Keep in mind that the censorship was and is strong, but if you can ask a question here, you will know the way to the most accurate information. Good luck but also strength. My experience is that at the moment the somewhat healthier elderly die after the corona booster this fall, but I have no evidence and/or substantiation for that (yet) because it is based on observation and therefore anecdotal. In our environment, there is still persistent misery among all ages among those vaccinated with and without this autumn booster. There is plenty of evidence for this if you really want to search, read and find. Greetings from J. (Because of my work and environment, I still only have to use this initial. My heroes and heroines are the people who openly warn (with scientific substantiation and common sense)! Thank you all for that!