It is all about it. The regular CBS report on causes of death could have shown where last summer's excess mortality came from. However, since 1 July, CBS no longer reports causes of death on a monthly basis. Because this causes quite a stir and is therefore doubted, below are some confirmations of this fact.
For some unspecified reason, this monthly reporting has simply been abolished (I should also try this with my customers...). From now on, only quarterly reporting will take place. We are now in October: month 10. The third quarter is now over and there is still no report with causes of death about the second quarter. Way too slow, of course, in a period like this.
A crisis requires real-time monitoring of the situation. Surely it will not be the case that CBS will treat its quarterly reports in the same way as the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport does with FOI requests: delaying, sabotaging, filtering, in short, withholding information and redacting in documents what they do not like? What and when, they decide for themselves. (See also this article by Follow the Money.) This can no longer be called 'Open Government', this is totalitarian behavior and unworthy of a parliamentary democracy.
The possible reason for the radio silence at CBS
'Plausibility checks' are carried out on the data. Previously I would have welcomed that, but confidence in the processes at governments and large institutions has fallen to a minimum. It is not inconceivable that the 'plausibility criteria' will lead to intense internal discussions. We see in the cabinet formation how disagreement can lead to paralysis.
Meaning-giving
http://nl.wikisage.org/wiki/Plausibiliteit
Plausibility is about filling a gapcognitivegap by adding a missing link that makes the preliminary conclusion acceptable. Plausibility andprobabilityare related. Characteristic is not an exact, scientific determination, but a reasoned (mental) process ofMeaning-making, an obvious explanation, a new fact, the interpretation of a thinking step, an associative expectation pattern or an interpretation that fits a certain presupposition or experience of reality, making 'the picture seem complete'.
The origin of the word 'plausibility' has in common with 'applauding', or cheering. It is a subjective process that can easily be applied unscientifically. Aerosol transmission has long been implausible too - and still isn't, according to some arteriosclerotic scientists. Plausibility can very easily be confused with 'desirability', because it fits the probabilities associated with a particular view. Paradigms are persistent. How do you ever figure out which causes of death are plausible?
Data corruption also makes its appearance, then we know that
With desirability checks, the door is open for confirming efficiency or preparing new policy by means of data processing. Plausibility is a subjective matter, a way of interpreting. Data collectors and suppliers should stay away from interpretation. They should arm themselves against their own bias. Interpretation and resulting policy adjustments are up to politicians, not to the data manager. If the data supplier starts pre-sorting on policy, this will inevitably lead to data corruption. Because who pays the data supplier? Indeed: the policymaker and he has a hard enough time with all that goodness, which some people just don't want to understand.
In this way, totalitarian elements weave themselves through the government like a fungus. At first, you don't even see it; At most, it starts to smell a bit musty. While a fungal thread at one end doesn't know what the other end is doing, they all do the same thing. They are connected to each other and they don't even realize it. This way they can build whole stink mushrooms without even noticing.
What if causes of death resemble the list of vaccine side effects
De doodsoorzaken van afgelopen zomer zijn van niet te onderschatten waarde. Als CBS in samenspraak met VWS en rivm data ziet die niet plausibel lijken, dan moet er iets mee gebeuren. Wat dan? Weghalen? Vervangen door andere data? "Onzeker" invullen? We weten het niet. Hoe dan ook, het is een gevaarlijke slag om de arm bij het rapporteren van data. Data zijn toch echt data. Als data leiden tot conclusies die volgens jou niet plausibel zijn en daarom niet in je kraam te pas komen, dan moet je niet morrelen aan de data maar aan je kraam.
"What? But then our measures would not have had any effect? That's not plausible!"
"So much mortality after vaccination...? Extremely unbelievable. That must be Covid, an invisible variant, that's plausible."
Nonsense, of course – but how does it work? No idea.
TRANSPARENCY
The raw data must be able to be placed next to the report, so that independent peer reviewers can assess the extent to which the original data has been rightly corrected or violated. Dates of this importance should never be prepared in a small committee for presentation, whatever story they tell. The provisional data should be requested on the basis of the transparency required in the Public Administration Act.
Coding of causes of death
The categorization of causes of death is done according to the guidelines of the WHO. The WHO benefits greatly from outcomes that reflect an adequate approach to the pandemic. With the right figures, WHO will be able to justify their close relationship with the Chinese, for example, from whom they have taken so much good advice (intubation, lockdowns, incomplete virus sequences, PCR testing, social credit system - oh no not that one). Now in real science there is no butcher who wants to inspect his own meat. Unfortunately, that scientific integrity is hard to find among governments and also medical government officials and scientific institutes (see, for example, my article about the KNAW).
Het CBS zal te rade moeten gaan bij het rivm om te vragen of doodsoorzaken plausibel zijn, rekenkundig is dat niet aan te tonen. Het rivm wordt zo dus gevraagd om de effectiviteitstoets van haar eigen functioneren te redigeren. Nu zal ook het rivm haar maatregelen en vaccinpropaganda graag geëffectueerd willen zien in de data. Opnieuw dringt mijn favoriete vraag zich op: "What could possibly go wrong?"
Just a bad idea
In short: there are far too many and far too large interests at stake to allow the agencies that have made a mess of it over the past year and a half, not only in terms of public health but certainly in terms of data and mathematics, to now manipulate the figures on the basis of 'plausibility checks'. What are the plausibility criteria? How are they described? The same clique of Dissel adepts uses plausibility that was scientifically debunked decades ago!
There is a possibility that it is data that harms the willingness to vaccinate. Because vaccinations are good, this is a possible legitimization to present the data in a more vaccine-friendly way. This has been happening for some time in the media, at Lareb, by vax representatives on talk shows, by ministers, advisors and not least at the RIVM itself.
CBS en rivm hebben al eerder gezegd dat de data te complex zijn om 'transparant te kunnen rapporteren'. Laten we ons niet voor de gek laten houden: dat is pure mystificatie (* Engels heeft een beter woord: "obfuscation": verdoezelen, bedekken, verhaspelen om te verbergen). Als het rivm al denkt de cijfers correct te kunnen interpreteren, dan is het voor professionele data-analisten en andere serieuze data-researchers zéker goed te doen.
It seems to me worthy of a WOB request to get the provisional, unredacted data from Causes of Death Q2 on the table. It has already come to that with my trust in the government. I'm not the only one, as evidenced by this blog of the Eucalyptic Society.
Related articles on Virusvaria:
Oud-CBS-directeur Jan van der Zanden: https://virusvaria.nl/voormalig-cbs-directeur-duidt-huiveringwekkende-cijfers/
Oversterfte zomer 2021: https://virusvaria.nl/vanwaar-al-die-zomerdoden/
KNAW - The decline of scientific integrity: https://virusvaria.nl/knaw-verloochent-gedragscode-voor-wetenschappelijke-integriteit-met-erepenning-van-dissel/
Knurftige datapresentatie: https://virusvaria.nl/modellen-als-spiegels-van-de-competentie/
Dood na vaccinatie wordt bij Lareb nauwelijks gemeld (of geaccepteerd?): https://virusvaria.nl/lareb/
