The Disinformation Think Tank is starting to get wilder and wilder. Now again on the occasion of the broadcast of Ongehoord Nieuws, in which I also figured. Of course, the attention was mainly on Theo Schetters (excellent because more impact, I was glad he had come along). The shining example of the Think Tank, Maarten Keulemans, already took the lead when the broadcast was only announced. Of course, he aimed his arrows at Theo Schetters. Keulemans deserves some attention because he has a large reach, both via Twitter and via de Volkskrant. Theo is not on Twitter and has been banned from LinkedIn for the known reasons. Nevertheless, there must be something of a rebuttal. It is rather unheard of what Maarten brings up.
Before the broadcast: the teaser.
Maarten is already taking an advance on the seething tweets that will undoubtedly follow the broadcast. He wants to bet that Schetters will do the following:
- [Beweren] dat er zoiets is als 'negatieve vaccineffectiviteit' (not);
- Only the group 12-49 show (while excess mortality is at 80+);
- Omitting margins of uncertainty, adding trend lines.
Let's look at that point by point, that's still clear.
1. About Negative Vaccine Effectiveness
Negatieve VE zou niet bestaan. Dat is een wat onbeholpen Twitterbite. Zo'n onzinnige uitspraak moeten we anders interpreteren omdat we de schrijver een bepaalde redelijkheid toedichten. Maarten bedoelt waarschijnlijk te zeggen dat er geen sprake is van Negatieve Vaccineffectiviteit bij de COVID-vaccins. Hij spreekt hiermee RIVM en CBS tegen.
Negative Effectiveness against death in double-vaccinated persons is mentioned in the CBS-RIVM Excess mortality report. It is even mentioned repeatedly and that is always accompanied by comments that reflect the prevailing bias: there is probably another cause, it is unlikely that it is really because of the vaccinations.
Negative VE is clearly visible in the graphs in one of the PDF attachments to this excess mortality report. (The purple elements are mine.)
Het valt misschien niet zo op maar in de omcirkelingen is de onzekerheidsmarge naar beneden (een streepje) weggevallen. "Onzekerheidslijntjes weglaten" heet dat meen ik. Die waarde zou in werkelijkheid dus lager kunnen uitvallen dan getoond.
At 70-89 years, it does not show how the double-vaccinated who have not been vaccinated are doing, hence my question mark. In fact, this applies to all age groups. The green booster balls are not a reason to remove the blue ones. A color legend then offers solace.
The graphs give the impression that every double-vaccinated person is boosted; one group automatically merges into another group. That is not the case. A quarter of the double-vaccinated are NOT boosted: that is approx. three million people. Eliminated from the graphs.
The right graph, 12-49 years, is also truncated at -25% at the bottom. (left graph of the next two). In the right graph, I moved the spheres to the actual values of the corresponding table. Unfortunately, the uncertainty margins were not included and because we do not have the underlying data, we cannot supplement it. We see a value of -90% at some point. That's a nearly doubled chance of death compared to the unvaccinated. So really: Negative effectiveness against all causes of death. Vaccination mortality.
Mij lijkt dat een oplettende journalist dit ook had kunnen zien. Het vak "grafieklezen" op de school voor journalistiek kan wel een boostertje gebruiken denk ik.
[edit 18-9:] In the House of Representatives hearing Jaap van Dissel presented a different graph. The last four red balls at 12-49 also give a higher mortality risk than in the unvaccinated, but much less than the blue ones above.
In the graph VE against death by Covid-19, the last balls have been omitted.
Risk of death after 2nd dose of basic series
Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 mortality
This should be sufficient for this point. See more extensively the previous article https://virusvaria.nl/cbs-en-rivm-zien-ook-negatieve-vaccin-effectiviteit-in-zelfrapportage/
2. Excess mortality under the age of 80
Maarten is under the impression that excess mortality is only at 80+. I have heard that misconception before and I have recently delved into it. It was even about 65-year-olds, an even younger group than 80-year-olds. The conclusion based on CBS and RIVM figures is as follows:
The mysterious excess mortality has cost more lives to 65-year-olds last year alone than the entire coronavirus epidemic has taken away in this age group, including the first and second waves.
For substantiation: Virusvaria article from two weeks ago.
3. Graphic illusions
We have neatly shown the RIVM-CBS graph, with Margins and without added trend lines. Contrary to what Keulemans claims, there is nothing against correctly calculated trend lines. It can clarify interpretations. After all, not everyone sees patterns or trends as easily. But it has to be said: we have seen quite a few manipulated graphs in recent years, so vigilance is required.
Graphs are no more than means of presentation and communication that should facilitate interpretation and discussion of figures. Not everyone always has to agree with that interpretation. You can discuss or even demonstrate a wrong trend line. But if there is little to argue with in terms of content, the arrows are often aimed at the messenger or at the presentation. It's no different.
De andere grafiek die regelmatig door de regie werd getoond ging over gemeten cijfers in het verleden, niet over verwachtingen in de toekomst. De 'ontbrekende' marges zijn daar niet alleen veel kleiner maar ook irrelevant voor het getoonde patroon.
By the way, margins are relative: with expected mortality, an annual margin is not the same as 52x the weekly margin, see the basic method Bandwidths for dummies.
"Onzekerheidsmarges weghalen", is dat eigenlijk niet een adequate omschrijving van wat we in de CBS/rivm-grafiekjes hierboven hebben zien gebeuren? Vreemd dat daar totaal geen commentaar op komt uit de medische/politieke/journalistieke hoek. Een heel negatief segment anders representeren? Als een bedrijf zo de CO2-boekhouding inlevert komen er mensen achter de tralies. Binnen de overheid kan het. "Dood door vaccinatie" wordt hier weggemoffeld. Waar is Radar, Kassa, Argos, Nieuwsuur?
After the broadcast: the review
De recensie achteraf is een hele draad van 17 tweets, het zit hem hoog. Pffff.... Ik zal er een paar tweets uitlichten maar dat volgt later in "Ongehoorde kritiek - Deel II". Dit artikel wordt anders weer onleesbaar lang en bovendien moet ik aan het werk. De meeste statements zijn niet zo moeilijk te weerspreken maar het moet wel onderbouwd en dat kost tijd. Tenminste als je niet wil blijven hangen in loze kreten en het cancellen van anderen. Dat hoort niet, net zo min als het erbij halen van grote broer die de boodschapper wel een lesje zal leren. Foei, foei, foei toch.
Let me read Freudian with "Before the broadcast: the taser". Still bad, that my unconscious (and undoubtedly that of others) is already so conditioned.
... or wishful thinking? 🙂
Wishful thinking? Not consciously at least. Above all, I wish for a return to honest science and journalism with an open debate based on transparent decision-making and available datasets.
What I do catch myself doing, in the context of gentle healers, make stinking wounds: that the excess mortality and side effects are so undeniably serious in number and nature, that the political repression and pharmaceutical lies are no longer accepted by the masses and ALL vaccine protections that producers now have are reversed and pharmaceutical companies themselves can be criminally charged by individual citizens. Liability.
That's my wishful thinking.
That and criminal prosecution for grossly violating the Nuremberg Code.
After all, democide remains democide.
Nice story of you and Theo Schetters at Ongehoord Nieuws, Anton! It's nice that you were given the time to go into this in relative detail. And also funny to see, because I happened to be in that program a week ago!
I hope Van Dissel does something good just like the call of Theo...
Maarten Keulemans is really completely lost. Instead of going into the content, he starts beating wildly around him like a madman. As a Volkskrant, I would immediately send him out of the lane. Fortunately, facts are facts and even such a fool cannot ignore the truth. It is time for him to stop his defamation and defamation practices.
The latter is not necessary, it seems to me. The jug goes into the water for so long until it bursts.
I would like to know what Mr Keulemans' real state of mind is at the moment. Keulemans follows the developments closely, surely he can't help but see that the ship makes water? Instead of wildly denying all kinds of facts, he could also show progressive insight. As he now imagines himself, it looks like a flight forward. The decline will be all the greater.
It is a fairly well-known phonemeen, that people can hardly tolerate criticism of a taken opinion. This is especially difficult, as long as there are only a few actual facts – evidence – available.
I have seen the broadcast and believe that it was brought very reasonably all.
What Keulemans lacks above all is mainly a form of caution in drawing conclusions. In the case of interventions in the human body, of which it is scientifically recognized that we have only a fraction of knowledge, we can certainly expect restraint in administering drugs with little or no experience. And if questions arise, then you are doubly voirzichtig. I'll leave out the financial importance of pharma for a moment. The stock market values are rising enormously.
All this should at least urge Keulemans to be careful. But apparently he imagines himself to be more of a scientist than a journalist. But scoring is paramount. Very questionable. Your cautious approach Anton and also that of Theo Schetters, come across as a lot more sympathetic.
Hi Anton, have you seen this one from Unherd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tcct-SVvZE
UnHerd's Freddie Sayers is joined by Stuart McDonald to discuss the curious case of the UK's excess deaths.
For me, the interlocutor falls through the basket despite his probably good intentions: even if the data point very strongly to vaccination, he sticks to opinions that he derives from mainstream medical science, due to a lack of medical knowledge. Unfortunately, few people can see something that they believe cannot exist. If Kuipers brings a lot of people to the vaccination street, I think the evidence will follow that it was a very bad idea, unfortunately.
I also get the impression that the actuary doesn't see it quite right yet. Good interview again.