That's what it's starting to look like. On Tuesday, we already published a post in which we showed that there would be a huge "elixir of life" effect according to the figures in the Nivel article. The appendix with the calculations has since been removed from their website, but fortunately we have been able to secure a copy in time, in which the last valuable clues can be found.
Also available on Herman's linkedIn account
First, a brief overview of what we showed on Tuesday, based on the CBS figures:
This graph shows that excess mortality among the unvaccinated would suddenly rise at the time of vaccination. These are not the figures in the Nivel report, but the figures that Statistics Netherlands (CBS) on 23 February Presented. Therefore, this graph continues until the end of 2022, while Nivel does not go beyond 12 months after the first vaccination around April 2022. That is why we can now focus on the period from May 2022, when the overdue administration was also made up.
The figures used by Nivel came from approximately 400 GP practices, which together are representative of the average of all GPs. However, Nivel did use the same CIMS database, which means that the findings should in principle be the same.
These figures suggest a fatal and at the same time impossible side effect of the Corona vaccinations: they cause significant excess mortality among those who did not get vaccinated. However, this apparent increase in excess mortality among unvaccinated people can be explained by poor administration in CIMS. We have already posted several articles about this, including this one: Wanneer ben je gevaccineerd volgens CIMS? In short: there is an increasing backlog of up to 20% in CIMS, which has been documented and confirmed by the RIVM. This backlog could lead to vaccination registrations not being processed, for example if the patient had died in the meantime – i.e. as "unvaccinated". However, this backlog was not included in this graph, because we wanted to show what the consequences would be if you did not take it into account, such as the Nivel has done. It is therefore essential to inform how many vaccinated people have NOT ended up in the CIMS.
The missing figures
To our surprise, the appendix to the Nivel report (unfortunately no longer available for download) gives us the solution. We already knew the first backlog:
Thus, 7% of the people who were vaccinated did not consent to registration in CIMS. With the booster, it would have been 5%. The latter is not what the RIVM has communicated, but it is in accordance with our own analysis, but that is beside the point. And to be fair, we had not included this in our graph, but this has been taken into account in the new graph.
In the meantime, a memo from the LHV has also surfaced (thanks Leon1969). In this memo from On 21 June 2021, the LHV speaks out about her concerns about the growing backlog of registration in CIMS, which had risen to 38.02%. Also special is that the LHV reports that not 7% do not give consent ("opt-out") but even 11.75%. The RIVM reports in this memo that they expect 9%. So even on these basic figures, the various organizations do not agree. We're only working with that 7%, but we know that it's actually around 20% should be. This is now the same graph, but with this correction:
We can clearly see the difference in May 2021. The excess mortality among unvaccinated people is "only" 75% while without correction, in the previous graph, it was still above 100%. A small correction with big consequences.
But the second clue is much more interesting:
Here's what we want to know! It seems like an unimportant remark and perhaps even an unintended compliment to healthcare, but this is what it's all about. Realize for a moment what it says here. The general practitioners have their own information systems, in which they store the vaccinations of each patient themselves. In the CIMS, they can then find the vaccinations that have been carried out at the GGD. But apparently, 2.6% of these GP patients are missing from the CIMS registrations. That doesn't seem like much, but it's actually a lot, when you realize that the vaccination rate was 89% and therefore 11% unvaccinated. Those 11% are the people who are not in CIMS!
From May 2022 we will see it
In particular, we are now looking at the moment where Nivel stopped their analysis: May 2022. At that time, almost everyone had had the first jab in 2021 and so their analysis will end in 2022. We are now going to enlarge that period from May 2022. Unfortunately, CBS has only made their required data public until the end of 2022, but that's just enough as we'll see.
It is clear from this CBS figures also shows that 11% of deaths were unvaccinated after consulting CIMS. That would mean that it no longer mattered to your chances of dying whether you were vaccinated or not. We also saw this in the first graph from May 2022: the red and blue line coincide. So realize that Nivel only looked until 12 months after the first shot, so until May 2022! The part after May 2022 where the red and blue lines almost coincide has been disregarded, on purpose?
And what does this mean? First of all, we have to ask ourselves how reliable that 2.6% is. It is an investigation from the administration of the general practitioners. They had to catch up with their 63% deficit in the course of 2021. Apparently, 2.6% was left out. Perhaps there is still a part of them that has refused registration. Is that also representative of the backlog of the deceased? That is why, as a precautionary measure, we set this registration backlog at 1%. It can hardly be much less. If further research would show that it would still go towards that 2.6%, it would be easy to adjust that.
Now we also know how to correct the figures, starting from 1%. The 11% of unvaccinated deaths was therefore only 10% after correction and the vaccinated deaths therefore rise from 89% to 90%. And because of this seemingly small correction, excess mortality within the vaccinated group suddenly rises to around 10% and among the unvaccinated drops to around 0%. Normal mortality among the unvaccinated and 10% excess mortality among the vaccinated. This adjustment has already been incorporated in the last graph.
But now let's magnify this part:
Now it is becoming abundantly clear that the excess mortality is exclusively among the vaccinated. Without this correction, the risk of death for vaccinated and unvaccinated people would have been almost the same, after correction the excess mortality among unvaccinated people disappears.
But there is something else that is now becoming visible. On the right, we see two bumps in the vaccinated. The first bump appears when vaccination was carried out in October 2022. The second bump was influenza, which hit the vaccinated much harder than the unvaccinated. The excess mortality among the vaccinated was no less than 30%, among the unvaccinated only 10%. An indication that vaccination has also done something to our immune system?
What does Nivel actually say?
We have done the math a few times and can hardly believe our eyes. This graph shows the mortality expectation according to the (now withdrawn) report by Nivel. We had to adjust the scale quite a bit to get a picture of it:
Nivel comes with ten times the excess mortality within the unvaccinated group compared to the first wave and then also during the first six months in which everyone received the first shot. This explosive excess mortality in those months would therefore be among the people who did not receive any vaccination. We understand very well that Nivel is shocked by their own findings, this really can't be true. Maurice de Hond also paid attention to this and today a similar picture emerged: The Nivel study is even stranger than I thought.
Now, after the retraction of their research (the article in question with firm conclusions is surprisingly still there) we are curious to see whether Nivel can come to the same conclusions after substantial adjustments. You could still disagree about the middle part (i.e. until May 2022), where the administration of vaccinations has played a dominant role. Was there really an elixir of life and do you really believe in it? The degree of (dis)belief also depends on confidence in the correctness of the backlog figures that the RIVM itself also provides. There can hardly be any misunderstanding about mortality from May 2022 onwards. After all, these are the official CBS figures, supplemented by the percentage of missing vaccinations in CIMS according to the Nivel report. In other words, excess mortality among the vaccinated. We can't make anything else out of it!
Still too much guesswork in the analysis. You (we, the Dutch) don't get real figures, everything has been covered up by "our" government. Consequence for the reader: no more vaccinations, even if the RIVM advises this.
Glad to see that the guesswork stems from murky numbers. I also understand that you call it 'guesswork', although I see it as 'defensible hypothesis'. 😉
It would be nice to keep the number of nonsense graphs to a minimum, Anton. No valid conclusion can be drawn from corrupted data.
Because we have known for a long time that the vaccines do not work and cause more harm than benefit, we focus on what we do know: deaths and (possibly) reasons for hospitalization.
Causes of death are unreliable because of definitional changes and wishful thinking: Before the "Corona" jab and after "prefer something else".
By the way, I don't hear anyone anymore about the diagnostic unreliability of the PCR test....
Wat mij betreft is de analyse die Wouter Aukema losliet op de CBS-cijfers supergaaf: https://x.com/waukema/status/1763244509880545591.
Deze is over sterfte tot 51 jaar: https://x.com/waukema/status/1786144788133114308
Ook die op bijwerkingen en prescriptiegedrag uit EUdraVigilance; een video:
https://rumble.com/v4st9ab-true-horrors-of-covid-vaccine-harm-data-exposed.html
It would be nice to keep the number of nonsense graphs to a minimum, Anton. No valid conclusion can be drawn from corrupted data.
Because we have known for a long time that the vaccines do not work and cause more harm than benefit, we focus on what we do know: deaths and (possibly) reasons for hospitalization.
Causes of death are unreliable because of definitional changes and wishful thinking: Before the "Corona" jab and after "prefer something else".
By the way, I don't hear anyone anymore about the diagnostic unreliability of the PCR test....
As far as I'm concerned, the analysis that Wouter Aukema unleashed on the CBS figures is super cool. And also those on
mortality up to 51 years of age.
Also those on side effects and prescribing behavior from EUdraVigilance in a video on Rumble.
Unfortunately I can't upload the links here, but I'm happy to send them to you.
But with those nonsense graphs it becomes clear that they have messed things up and are still doing it. In my environment I notice how happy people are with newspaper headlines about the death of unvaccinated people, even though they don't know anyone and there is a lot of trouble with those who have been vaccinated, so that even anniversaries are brought forward under the guise of "now they are still there". Again, it's fear and especially for himself. Meanwhile, there are people who spend every spare minute trying to get to the bottom of it. I am eternally grateful!
Interesting analysis, thanks!
The fact that from the same data you can get an approximately 100-fold increased risk of mortality in the unvaccinated (compared to vaccinated people) and a 10-fold increased risk of mortality in vaccinated people (compared to unvaccinated) is a strong indication that the data are incomplete. It's like those pictures where you can see both a young woman and an old woman or (for my favorite picture) both a rabbit and a duck (the journalistic 'canard') (otherwise Google Jastrow Rabbit duck for this picture).
The solution to the problem of ambiguous data from which you can draw two opposite conclusions is simple: collect more data. A flying rabbit is really a duck and a jumping duck is actually a rabbit!
It is therefore somewhat puzzling why there is no call from 'science' for more data in the excess mortality debate. Or maybe it's not so puzzling when you realize that the conclusion regarding excess mortality was already predetermined (it's due to unvaccinated people) at science TM. Then all you have to do is find confirmation in the data (that the excess mortality is a result of being unvaccinated) and I think that's the reason why Nivel overlooked the errors/impossibilities within the data.
Now we have to wait for the rectification by Nivel and Keulemans et al. Which might take a while... the evil (in interpreting an ambiguous picture as if it were a rabbit) has of course been done a long time ago, and happened earlier as the whole Covid saga was a period in which pictures were played with that have a double meaning.
“Of all persons in the study, 2.6% only had vaccinations in the GP data,” Nivel writes in her withdrawn report. In the current report ( https://nivel.nl/sites/default/files/bestanden/1004607_1.pdf ) that sentence no longer occurs.
Virusvaria: “[GPs] had to catch up on their 63% deficit in the course of 2021. Apparently, 2.6% were left out.”
There is no good reason to assume that the 2.6% has anything to do with a backlog. Nivel does not do this in its current report: "In our study, the group of unvaccinated people could not be distinguished from the group of people who were vaccinated, but who did not give permission for their data to be included in the CIMS register. [...] This concerns about 7% of those vaccinated by the GGD in the basic series. We call this group 'unregistered'. We combined data from CIMS with vaccination data from GP files. This way we have reduced this percentage to 4.5%. bring back.”
Nivel seems to assume here that the percentage of people vaccinated by their GP who have not given permission for admission to CIMS is the same as that for those vaccinated by the GGD (7%). Assuming that 2.6% is a rounded 2.55%, we get the percentage of 7 – 2.55 = 4.5 that Nivel mentions.
Perhaps Nivel knows that it is only a matter of no consent because general practitioners must have recorded this somewhere. However, people who were not registered in CIMS by their GP due to death shortly after vaccination also appear to belong to the 2.6% group.
Nivel: “The share of the group 'unregistered' within the group 'unvaccinated/unregistered' is estimated at a quarter […].” The percentage of visibly vaccinated people of the population studied was 84.1 and that of the “unvaccinated/unregistered” was 15.9. Said share is then (0.045 * 0.841 / 0.955) / 0.159 = 0.249; indeed a quarter.
With a probability bordering on certainty, this concerns the group of people who die in the period between vaccination and the moment when it was "the turn of registration". They do not enter CIMS because the law prevents that. I would like to emphasize that this does not suggest a relationship between vaccination and death. This primarily concerns deaths that are therefore counted as unvaccinated. On the other hand, this also camouflages vaccination as a possible cause of death. So you cannot draw any conclusions about that. It does ensure that there is a false protection against Covid-19 as a cause of death.
Thanks for the response Herman. Glad someone took note of my comment.
Herman: “With a probability bordering on certainty, this concerns the group of people who die in the period between vaccination and the moment when registration was 'due'. They are not included in CIMS, because the law prevents that.”
In addition to those who are not registered in CIMS because they did not want to be, i.e. the unregistered who were injected by the GGD (4.5% of the study population) and the unregistered who were injected by the GP (2.6%); together 7%.
It doesn't work that way. You can't add them up. SUppose that in the first month after vaccination NO ONE is registered due to backlog. ANYONE who dies in that month is recorded as unvaccinated. The vaccine therefore appears to provide 100% protection against death from any cause. Even traffic accidents.
That is also what NIVEL reports: in the first 3 months the risk of death for unvaccinated people is up to 10X higher. Prof. Ronald Meester and Bram Bakker had a more than 1000X increased risk of death in the first few days. This is a very strong indication of how that works. That 7% is just a diversion!
Read e.g https://steig.nl/2024/11/nivel-voor-dummies/
That 7% is Nivel's estimate, I should have been clearer about that. My concern was that the other unregistered people had been tested by the GGD. Whatever the percentage (of the research population) of this actually is, you can add it to that 2.6% to obtain the percentage of unregistered.
I understand that the results of the Nivel study are idiotic, I was concerned with the meaning of that 2.6%. Nivel claims that this only concerns people who did not want to be included in CIMS, but I had already written in my original response that "[p]ersons who were not registered in CIMS due to death shortly after vaccination by their GP, however, also appear to belong to the 2.6% group."
We know that 7%. That is the % of ALL vaccinated people who did not end up in CIMS. But we are interested in the % of vaccinated people who die and are in CIMS. That is very different. That is much less than one percent in the first days after vaccination. So 99.9% of vaccinated deaths are administratively unvaccinated. That % will decrease over time to the actual % unvaccinated and that is say 10% plus that 7% and that will also decrease to that 10% at the end of 2021 after catching up. And if general practitioners say that only a few percent are in their own administration but not in CIMS, then these are probably the vaccinated people who have since died. But these are explicitly NOT the people who died as a result of vaccination, but simply died administratively more often than the vaccinated.
"We know that 7%. That is the % of ALL vaccinated people who did not end up in CIMS.[…] That % decreases over time to the actual % unvaccinated and that is say 10% plus that 7% and that also drops to that 10% at the end of 2021 after catching up."
This would mean that the claim by Nivel, among others, that approximately 7% of those injected do not want to be registered in CIMS is incorrect; that in reality that percentage is negligible.
“And if general practitioners say that only a few percent are in their own administration but not in CIMS, then these are probably the vaccinated people who have since died.”
The percentage comes from Nivel and was compared to the total research group. What you would like to know is what the percentage is compared to the number of injections given by general practitioners. By “fallen by the wayside,” you apparently meant deceased before attempting to register in CIMS.
The “catch up” also makes me wonder what happened to those deceased who were not allowed to be admitted to CIMS.
But these are explicitly NOT the people who died as a result of vaccination, but simply died administratively more often than the vaccinated [passed as unvaccinated?].”
A bit lame to so explicitly debunk a stupidity that I have not suggested anywhere.
I'm going to answer this long answer briefly:
* Anyone who dies in the first week after vaccination is counted with 99% certainty as unvaccinated
* If you die a few months after vaccination, the risk has increased considerably, but is still far from 100%
* The “catch up” only concerns people who have NOT died in the meantime.
* Research is always about people who DID die