In a previous article1The mystery of the disappeared forms bespraken we de groeiende categorie "Overige doodsoorzaken" in samenhang met de toename van ontbrekende doodsoorzaakformulieren. Hans Verwaart heeft berekend wat het effect is van die slordigheid op de sterftecijfers van hart- en vaatziektes in Nederland. Zijn die ziektes nou zo belangrijk? Als je Maarten Keulemans moet geloven in elk geval niet, daar kom ik aan het eind van het artikel nog even op terug. Eerst Hans:
Sterftestijging door hartproblemen in NL - sinds april 2021
CBS recently published the causes of death of 2024. One of the most important is cardiovascular disease and it forms 23% of the known causes. That information is drawn up on the basis of the B forms that Statistics Netherlands receives on which doctors indicate the cause of death. (The A form goes to the population register). Before 2020, the forms of around half a percent of those who had died in the Netherlands were usually missing. That increased to 2.5%in 2024. The CBS report shows that there is no difference in terms of age distribution between those of whom a form has arrived and of which not.
If you want to analyze the course of the causes of death from 2015, you will have to apply a correction for that strong increase in the non -received forms. Based on the fact that 23% of the causes of death concerns cardiovascular disease, it can be estimated how many people who have not received a form have died of that cause.
Table: Estimation of extra deaths in cardiovascular disease
| Year | Number |
| 2020 | 109 (90 – 125) |
| 2021 | 422 (380 – 470) |
| 2022 | 547 (500 – 600) |
| 2023 | 687 (600 – 770) |
| 2024 | 1266 (1100 – 1450) |
You should not see these numbers as "absolutely", because the number of deaths within the non-reception forms can of course be more or less than 23%. It is about the order of size. The numbers in brackets indicate the possible spread.
Analysis of the trends - method 1
As the first, let's use a not so very scientific method, namely just look at a progressive average of monthly mortality since January 2015. Because the deaths have a season pattern, we opt for a period of 12 months that we determine that average. We do not correct for aging or population growth.
A 12-month advancing average has the following characteristics:
- If the next value of the progressive average (from one month later) is smaller, then the value (number of deaths) of the last month is smaller than that of exactly one year ago;
- If the next value of the progressive average (from one month later) is greater, then the value (number of deaths) of the last month is greater than that of exactly one year ago.
The graph of the advancing average from 2016 is as follows:
The first value of the line on the left side of the X-axis is the average of the period February 2015 to January 2016. The year under the X-axis always relates to the last month included in the average. The last value of the blue line (on the far right) therefore relates to the period April 2020 to March 2021.
What do we see here? We see a clearly falling trend with a few wrinkles. Even in the first two corona years 2020 and 2021 we see no increase. Death of myocarditis by Corona? Could, but it is not apparent from this graph. Towards the end, the falling trend even seems to accelerate.
In 2016 and 2017 we see two tops that are just above 39,000 deaths. The minimum is reached in 2021 and is located near the 36,000 deaths.
Now the question is of course why the graph stops after three months in 2021. That answer shows the next graph if we get the other months of 2021, as well as the 2022 to 2024.
We see a clear trend break here. In the previous graph we have seen that we have fallen from around 39,000 to around 36,000 in a period of five years (with a few fluctuations). A decrease of an average of 600 deaths per year. Now we go from around 36,000 to around 40,500 deaths in a period of two years. An increase of 2,250 per year on average! The increase is therefore about four times as fast as the decrease until the beginning of 2021. The peak even comes close to the 40,500 deaths of cardiovascular disease and is clearly higher than the maximum in the first graph. After the top is reached (average over the period April 2022 - March 2023), another decrease will occur that ends at the end of 2023. The last two months seem to give a decrease again. Whether that decrease will continue in 2025 is not yet clear.
Analyse van de trends - methode 2
We can also look more scientifically at the figures, taking into account aging and growth The population. CBS has published annual mortality data per five -year age group, for both men and women. For every five-year group we can calculate the number of deaths per 100,000 of that group and extrapolate from the 2010-2019 series to later years. We can then construct a fairly reliable baseline. That is a line that shows how developments would go if the trend of previous years does not change.
In a graph we can show the baseline and the actual death. That looks like this:
The baseline shows a very clearly falling trend from 2015 that is going faster and faster up to and including 2023. And that is not so strange considering the first figure in the previous section. In the first Corona year we do not see excess mortality in cardiovascular disease, the falling line is simply continued. That also happens in the first three months of 2021.Then the trend changes and the numbers will rise.
The decrease in the first three months ensures that the total excess in 2021 (approx. 1,500) is not that bad compared to the following three years. The excess will be just above 4,000 in 2022 and has its maximum in 2023, above 4,500 deaths. In 2024 that number is slightly lower, but still exceeds 4,500.In 2023 and 2024, the excess mortality is more than 13% compared to the baseline.
There is of course an uncertainty in the number of missed deaths of cardiovascular disease in the non-reception cause forms. Based on the periodic reports of CBS, we know that in the second half year of 2024, 184 extra deaths of cardiovascular disease for the year 2023 of the 687 were added. We still miss around 500. We know how large the excess is actually in 2023 and 2024, but we have made it plausible that this is caused by the approx. And without correction there are a maximum of 4,000 in 2023 and that number is already very high.
Summary and conclusions
In two ways we looked in this article at the development of the deaths of heart and vascular disease through time.
- In the first way, by applying the 12-month advancing average, we showed that the long-term falling trend will be translated from April 2021 into a rising trend with a larger slope. After two years (April 2023) a maximum is reached, after which the trend will fall again.
- In the second, more scientific way, we can quantify the excess mortality on an annual basis, because we have determined a baseline for the death of cardiovascular disease. In the first corona year there is no excess, which starts in 2021 and reaches its maximum in 2023, whereby the overdiction affects the 4,000 deaths.
The strong increase in the number of non-reclaiming cause of death forms from 2020 means that a number of deaths in cardiovascular disease will not be reported as such, but ends up in the category of other causes of death. If you are going to correct for this, the actual number of deaths will increase. This increase is greatest in 2024. In 2023 and 2024, the excess mortality could then be 4,500 extra deaths per year, more than 13% compared to the baseline.
It is of the utmost importance that is recognized that something is really wrong here and that research is being done to find out the causes, whereby no cause should be excluded in advance.
Post -scriff editors:
So of those massive death waar stromannetjesmaker Keulemans zo druk over doet, daarvan is echt geen sprake. Het gaat slechts om zo'n 4.500 extra overlijdens per jaar, zeg 10 à 15 per dag. Alleen al aan hartfalen. Dat is natuurlijk volstrekt te verwaarlozen, nietwaar Maarten? Daar kun je mensen om bespotten, dat ze zich daar zorgen over maken. Bovendien is het gewoon niet waar natuurlijk, vraag maar aan Pieter. En anders bel je Marion even of een of andere cardioloog die zich hard heeft gemaakt voor de vaccinaties.
Met je "massaal" 'deauddd'.
An anthology from: https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Amkeulemans%20massaal&src=typed_query&f=top
What does this acclaimed science journalist actually show here? A golden rule of quality journalism: "Als iemand iets signaleert wat je niet bevalt, dan kun je gewoon het woordje 'mass' erbij zetten en zeggen dat dat grote onzin is, dan heb je altijd gelijk." And that is not limited to heart failure: cancer and immune diseases can also be knocked down. And although the variation in fallacies is just as limited as the vocabulary: it does work! For him then. And for Pieter Klok2Cracked Counter Noise Bell Naturally.
Footnotes
- 1
- 2
Good article. But I find it strange that Pfizer seems more fatal than moderna, at least when it comes to cardiovascular disease.
There are also many indications that Moderna is much more dangerous, partly because of the higher dose. See for example the investigation of Steve Kirsch. This concerns the ACM (All Cause Mortality).
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/a-summary-of-why-the-czech-republic#%C2%A7confirmatory-data-methods
I make a separate article of this because you are absolutely right. I'm going to explain that.
Death "by" Corona has also hidden a lot of death through myocarditis, for example.
If you want to make this article stronger, you should show the uncorrected figures of death on HVZ over time. That gives an underestimation of the "real" (unknown) figure, but if that underestimation is more than normal (say 2019, or 2015-2019, stratified on LFT) then we know the minimum "extra" risk
That is the blue line in the last graph. Or do you not mean that?
Seen over. Clearly. Connect with the scope of the corrected data.
I interpret the first line in Willem's reaction. Maybe I don't understand well, then I'll hear it. A large part of the coronadodes had several comorbities, partly of course HVZ. The "with" or "by" Corona story. Everyone who had once encountered a positive test (and we know how reliable they are) and then died, Corona got a cause of death. It seems likely that this is the explanation for the relatively strong fall in CVZ in 2020, especially since other diseases as a cause of death in that period fell. For example, mental disorders/nervous system and respiratory organs (2000 lower than in 2019). I noticed that at the end of 2020. I couldn't say it anywhere. As an interpretation, I think it is essential because it also says something about the number of claimed coronadodes in 2020. That is heavily thickened because of the misclassifications. About 20,000 people would have died by Corona in 2020. That is Quatsch. We don't know how much there are real. But Iatrogenic causes and misclassification seem to play a major role in this.
Incidentally, it does not detract from the essence of the article. That increase from 2021 is clear and worrying. .
Once there was a gentleman who found that the theater doctor said strange things with his old deceased father and opened the closed envelope with the causes of death form and to his bewilderment as the cause of "Corona", father would not have been sick. It became a lawsuit after many "mud throwing". The man has been convicted and the doctor has gone free. One should not open that envelope, one should not mention the name of the doctor, etc. At the moment, those notes of "doctors" also come along with all kinds of medical disinformation about how dangerous it is to call the flu a cold because your heart can collapse, blablabla. I will not mention the names, but especially DPG Media is guilty and now also has RTL under the umbrella. I read on site Inct Punt NL that DPG Media develop aids together with Utrecht University for ethical use of data and AI 😩, but stress is bad for my heart and especially now that I have a break in the sun, read heat 🤡
Thank you again for this piece, compliments for the quality and respect for your persistence.
Just a comment:
Unfortunately, statistics remain emotionless. 10 to 15 extra dead per day at 18 million? You don't feel much about it, but if it affects your family, someone will die 100%, much too early and with unnecessary suffering. A piece from your family and daily life is torn away.
Statistically we all die a bit, but in real ones worlds for real people pouring 10 to 15 times a day, 365 days every day every day.
And then I am not talking about the thousands of other serious side effects, how many are there per day?
Can that be analyzed or calculated?
For example, how big is the chance that someone in his family loses someone or becomes seriously ill?
Maybe that appeals to more people or is it becoming too gray?
It is not to make it look worse, but to show that it is worse than it seems.
The lottery of death pays very often, every day, and the lottery tickets are purchased for us by the government and medical world and you have more guarantee on the main prize than in the postcode lottery where it often stays with a chocolate bar.
Without your efforts, explanations and statistics, I would not have known this of course, my point is that the story gets less when you don't turn it around, so you or a family member is one of those 10 to 15 early unnecessary deaths a day. I miss that emotional emphasis in these kinds of analyzes and I think that the general public continues to think that it only happens to others. What is the chance that it happens to me?
In general, people no longer think, possibly for years dragged by the many nonsense, colors and pictures that their brains have to process daily. Is it an idea to insert a piece of human factor as an intro or something with not too much explanation and text? The explanation as usual then comes for the thinkers.
Maarten Keulemans, Leni Riefenstahl ... times change, talents too, people not.
I don't think this reaction is appropriate. Or a little scary. At least not nice.
That is allowed. I even understand that. However, I think the analogy is correct. Not appropriate, scary, not nice: that's what the democide spokespersons are and have done. If I am not even allowed to appeal to them unpatiously about what they have on their conscience? I don't see the need to treat them as "gentlemen", because they are not.
I see a necessity for independent research, not a cover. I see a need for recognition of - if you add it worldwide - millions and millions of deaths and permanently damaged. I am disgusted by the Covid Democide spokespersons and I will show that.
And if you are reproach that this contribution would be a Godwin, then I say: my family has been internished and me worked in the camp. The camps have irrevocably shaped my youth family and I reserve the right to compare things with the 2nd WO when I see that agreement.
By the way: nothing but respect for your article and this site itself. Sorry, if I'm rude. Sometimes neatly doesn't work anymore. I mean: why did Gideon van Meijeren step out of the cover/investigation to Covid? There will be no right and I am disgusted.
Making visible such as with, among other things, the X messages of MK above helps to ultimately make the right prevail. The nonsense that one proclaimed makes visible, showing the contradictory messages, calculating or calculating the figures, it all helps. The craziest things are claimed and sold as a medical science and everywhere people put "probably" to what was previously not allowed and still not in my opinion. Now again reports about allergies and that would all be due to global warming and climate change. The medical history is thus erased. They died not so long ago whether they went outdoor air schools (Rob de Nijs), to Davos or emigrate to countries with mountains, etc. Unfortunately also far too much medication (with side effects) have changed the image but there would be no increase if they had not taken the C-pricks ... the umpteenth cover-up. I do notice more and more panic to come up with new cover-ups and cling to them, at parties with many (pricked) doctors. Previously I had to let the arrogance pass me then we were ridiculed and excluded and nowadays they even come to ask. It will soon be the first to ask compensation, I fear.
Have you looked at this: https://theethicalskeptic.com/2025/05/28/the-state-of-things-pandemic/
What do you think of these analyzes Anton. Does this seem reliable?
Maybe something for a new article?