One of the possible causes of excess mortality is -in addition to aging1CBS: Increase in death due to aging - vaak "uitgestelde zorg" of "zorginfarct" genoemd. Men denkt dan met name aan gemiste operaties en diagnoses en wijst naar de lange wachtlijsten. Verder gaat het niet: er wordt niet gekwantificeerd. Men schudt slechts instemmend en zorgelijk het hoofd. Wetenschappelijke onderbouwing is dan niet nodig. Kunnen we er toch iets over zeggen? Enkele schoten voor de boeg op basis van de overheidscommunicatie en publieke cijfers tot dusver, ook omdat de current investigations All this will not be treated by the causes of the overdiction.
Deferred care will certainly have contributed to the mortality. After all, it is difficult to conceivable that delayed care would lower mortality. In 2021 we already found that that contribution could not be substantial)2See one Article of the former Eucalyptic Society But that was on the basis of limited data: comparing annual reports (number of actions, occupation, sickness absence, etc.) of care and hospital organizations.
We are now four years later: time for an update.
Also excess where care has never been postponed
First of all: Countries that have known little or no deferred care have comparable over -mortality rates with the Netherlands. See, for example Germany, a country that even had sufficient capacity to also accommodate Dutch patients. The German CBS writes about 2021 that after the summer the excess mortality continuously above 10% remained up to 25%. No heat wave.3"In juni 2021 (+8 %) viel het verhoogde aantal sterfgevallen samen met een hittegolf en bereikte het zijn hoogtepunt in de 24e kalenderweek (14 tot 20 juni), het hoogtepunt van de hittegolf met +17 %. In juli lag het aantal sterfgevallen nog iets boven het average of previous years (+3%), and in August it was within that range. In September (+11%) and October (+12%), the number of deaths was again significantly above the comparable figure for previous years. During the fourth wave of the coronavirus pandemic, the number of deaths for November and December again exceeded the comparable figure more sharply: 22% more people died in November and 25% more in December than the average for the previous four years." Evaluatie van het aantal sterfgevallen sinds 2020 - Statis Corona? They were really well vaccinated there and there was no question of delayed care.
We zien in de laatste zin dat ook onze Oosterburen de sterfte duiden op basis van de vier voorgaande jaren. Dat zijn ze blijven doen. Duidingen van de latere jaren verliezen hierdoor steeds meer aan betekenis: je moet er eigenlijk het gemiddelde oversterftepercentage van de voorgaande 'coronajaren' bij optellen. Doe je dat niet, dan lijkt een aanhoudende oversterfte in de statistieken af te zwakken. Als 2020-2024 de referentiejaren zijn en de oversterfte neemt in werkelijkheid af, dan zou je nu echt in de negatieve percentages moeten zitten. Dat is niet zo. Zelfs niet in Duitsland.
Duitsland is eigenlijk al een showstopper voor 'uitgestelde zorg' als belangrijke aanjager van de oversterfte.
Over het al dan niet zichtbaar willen maken van de oversterfte schreven Herman Steigstra en ik een rapport ("Van verwachtingen naar normsterfte") en het parlement is gevraagd hierover een standpunt in te nemen. Het betreft immers een politieke keuze, geen medische of statistische.
Consider: politically, the state interest and that of NATO are paramount, so a political majority will like to keep the entire Corona affair invisible for the time being to avoid claims due to mismanagement-and worse and to keep attention as far away as possible of everything that has to do with biwapens. We will also have to wait a while for the rehabilitation of Arib.
Our other neighbor then. The excess percentages are considerably higher in the Netherlands than in Belgium for example4More about this in the Netherlands-Belgium: 13-4 . Ook daar wijt men oversterfte regelmatig aan uitgestelde zorg - maar waarom werkt dat daar zo anders uit? Hebben we hier zo dom geminderd? Hoe intelligent waren onze lockdowns in vergelijking met die van België? Hadden we toevallig net pech met een paar minder gelukkige vaccinbatches? Ook daar gaan we helaas nooit achter komen.
One other example: it all previously discussed Australia: No deferred care, but excess mortality. Just like the course in New Zealand where no one has ever complained about deferred care. The country is wrongly set as an example for a heavily vaccinated country, where there would be no excess. However, it is there.
Lockdowns and deferred care
Als lockdowns een belangrijke oorzaak zouden zijn van de langdurige oversterfte vanwege 'vanzelfsprekende' zorgvermindering, dan zouden landen met strengere lockdowns dan Nederland in 2021–2022 ook structureel hogere oversterfte moeten hebben. Maar dat patroon zien we niet. België had vergelijkbare en soms strengere maatregelen dan Nederland5 see grok over Stringency index, but has since had a considerably lower excess percentage. Also in countries such as Denmark, Finland, Australia and New Zealand, where Lockdowns went much further, we see nothing that comes close to the Netherlands.
The care infarction?
Urgent care has always just passed, we are only talking about planned care that always got into trouble for a few months due to lockdowns and/or covid peaks. There has been no calculation of the potential effect of temporary dysfunction of the (planned and preventive) care. That this would lead to a structural death rise that lasts for four years is not substantiated anywhere. It is always presented in reverse: the raised mortality shows how bad it is with the care infarction.
No one explaining how deferred care to the Abrupt plateau increase of the death degree in mid -2021 could lead.
Het is ontegenzeggelijk waar dat het steeds erger wordt met het zorginfarct. De zorgsector kampt met een groeiend personeelstekort. Bezuinigingen op alle fronten halen de kwaliteit omlaag. Steeds minder handen aan de bedden, geen tijd voor persoonlijke aandacht. Ziekenhuizen worden gesloten of samengevoegd. De druk op de zorg neemt alsmaar toe, nog steeds - maar wat zien we nu? De oversterfte loopt sinds 2022 langzaam terug! Dat valt niet met elkaar te rijmen.
We are looking for. Let's look at what RIVM has said about the situation in the Netherlands and what the impact of care in the most important causes of death could be in the worst case.
We look at missed
- operations
- Cancer diagnoses (cause of death 1)
- heart disease diagnoses (cause of death 2)
- screening
Missed operations
The RIVM reported that in 2020 and 2021 more than 320,000 QALY (Quality-Adjusted Life Years) were lost due to deferred planned operations. It is important to understand what a Qaly actually measures: it is a measure of the loss of quality of life, not for the loss of lifetime of mortality. For example, a QALY can stand for a year with limited mobility or chronic pain. If you live with pain for a year, that year may only have been worth 0.8 Qaly. If you do that for 20 years, it counts up to 20 × 0.2 = 4 lost Qaly - without lived one year of life.
This mainly concerns around 305,000 deferred planable operations, especially cataracts, hip and knee operations (source: Rivm.nl). With these interventions, the contribution to excess mortality is at its best negligible. No matter how important qalies are for care policy, they have No direct relationship with the current excess mortality.
Unlike planned operations, postponing acute care could have influence - insofar as they concern life -saving treatments. Think of resuscitation, ventilation, defibrillation, doping, acute heart operations or appendix operations.
This is not an indictment against healthcare. There is no doubt that medical treatments can be life -saving. We owe a lot to the quality of care, both before and after mid -2021. Fortunately, acute and essential care, according to all official (and fewer official) sources, continued during the coronape period.
Missed Diagnoses
Bij sterfte door uitgestelde zorg wordt ook vaak gedacht aan gemiste diagnoses door uitstel of door 'zorgmijding', omdat mensen niet naar het ziekenhuis durfden te komen, werden afgezegd uit angst voor besmetting (terwijl toch overal desinfectiepompjes stonden!) of thuis in isolatie moesten blijven.
It is unfortunately unclear how long those periods took and they also seem to differ per region and per specialization. It is also not reflected in how many agreements have been canceled or not met by the patient or by doctor/hospital. Reference is made to waiting lists. But yes, in 2018 there was already complaining about the long waiting lists6Behind Paywall: https://www.zorgvisie.nl/nza-wachttijden-zorg-lopen-de-spuigaten-uit/ , dus dat was niet nieuw in de directe aanloop naar medio 2021. En als er wordt geklaagd over 'gemiste diagnoses': hoeveel dan? En hoeveel meer is dat dan voorheen...? Artsen reageren verontwaardigd als ik daarnaar informeer.
What type of diagnoses is then primarily eligible in the context of the mortality rates? It must be about diseases that did not (yet) result in serious symptoms, let alone danger to life, otherwise it would have been urgent care. At the same time, it must be about diseases that lead to death within one and a half to two years after diagnosis, otherwise they would not have been able to cause the excess from 2021 to (for the time being) 2024.
Those two basic conditions considerably limit the candidates to be included.
Een zoektocht in medische jaarrapporten mondt uit in voornamelijk zeer agressieve ziektes als uitgezaaide kanker, alvleesklierkanker, hooggradige astrocyten (agressieve hersentumoren) en cardiovasculaire klachten - al vallen die laatste vaak weer onder de acute zorg. Samen zijn ze goed voor 50% van de sterfgevallen.
Missed cancer diagnoses
With the aforementioned malignant cancers, a timely diagnosis can extend life by a few months. Someone who gets a diagnosis with a prognosis from 6 months to a year is generally quickly treated. The treatment directive for diagnoses of these types of disorders is palliative, aimed at quality of life, not with life extension as the first treatment goal.
In short: it is precisely with these diseases, which could contribute substantially to excess mortality in this period, that care is hardly any life -prolonging. The lack of that care cannot be an important driver from the overdiction of mid -2021 to (almost) mid -2025. Of course, people are sometimes declared cancer -free after treatment. These are then less aggressive forms that do not cause a dying wave in a year or a half after a (few months?) Deposited diagnosis. How long did that delay last? We don't know either.
The first figures confirmed this line of thought: the death of cancer did not seem to have increased during the COVID-19 Pandemie in 2020 and 2021.7Website International Cancer Center Netherlands. Dat maakte een bijdrage aan de huidige oversterfte onwaarschijnlijk, of beter: uitgesloten. Als kanker in de toekomst meer opspeelt door vaccinatiegerelateerde mechanismen (zoals IgG-4-shift, DNA-integratie of SV-40-contaminatie) wordt de uitgesteldezorg-kaart vast wel weer getrokken. Misschien dat er dan duidelijk kan worden gemaakt waar het precies om gaat bij 'uitgestelde zorg'.
In the meantime, the cancer diagnoses in 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 have been increased enormously (approx. 10%), see this striking graph of the age group 30-44 years8nkr-cijfers.ikn.nl. This cannot be traced back in any way to a temporary postponement of care agreements in 2020.
Missed heart problem
- Diagnoses
We do not know whether people with life -threatening heart problems have actually done or have been banned in large numbers, but that chance seems very small. It certainly does not seem that fewer ambulances have been called, for example (follow Waukema on X of Telegram). From the official side, we have also been told every time that urgent care has continued. - Heart surgery
Hartoperaties kunnen levensreddend zijn dus het pauzeren daarvan kan extra sterfte tot gevolg hebben. In 2020 zijn er ca. 1500 hartoperaties minder gedaan dan gemiddeld. Als urgente zorg inderdaad is doorgegaan, moeten dat toch 1500 niet-urgente operaties zijn geweest. Het is een mogelijkheid dat een aantal van die operaties eigenlijk toch wel hoognodig was en dat die gemiste operaties binnen een jaar tot overlijden hebben geleid. Maar om welk percentage het dan gaat, van die 1.500, is ongewis. Als dat een hoog percentage is, zou de claim dat 'acute zorg is doorgegaan' onjuist zijn. We laten dat even in het midden. Als het bijvoorbeeld 10% is, hebben we het om 150 overlijdens, een minieme bijdrage aan de onverklaarde oversterfte. - Other heart conditions
In heart failure, ischemic heart disease and heart attacks, the average death rates per 100,000 in 2020 (and 1st half 2021) are lower than the averages of 2015-2019. The average age of death is around 84 years old in most heart conditions, but the current overdolution also concerns the younger age groups.9Website hartenvaatcijfers.nl. So here too a connection with deferred care is difficult to harden.
Fewer Dotter treatments
The ZonMw research by Prof. dr. Dr. Eline van den Broek focused on heart problems, in particular doping. Duttering is a demonstrable life -prolonging intervention. Eline came to around 2,300 fewer diagnoses than expected. We will never know exactly how many of those never's diagnoses have actually led to a deadly outcome, but it could be 2,300. However, we do not know why there were fewer dotter diagnoses and treatments. Maybe those patients were on the IC with Covid, who will say it.
Nu we tegen tienduizenden onverklaarde overlijdens aankijken, wijst dat mogelijke(!) maximale aantal van 2.300 in die periode, bij een van de meest effectieve levensreddende diagnose/interventie combi's, er eerder op dat uitgestelde zorg niet de belangrijkste aanjager van de oversterfte kan zijn geweest.
But now we are also a few years later.
De daling in diagnoses hartfalen in 2020 blijkt achteraf eigenlijk helemaal niet zo afwijkend. Het aantal interventies in 2020 was wel wat lager dan 2019 maar goed vergelijkbaar met de latere jaren. Als het dipje in 2020 al substantieel zou kunnen bijdragen tot oversterfte, wat moet dat dan wel niet worden na 2023...!(?)
There are undoubtedly even more diseases to look further, but these are the most important causes of death that could play a quantitative role in this period. In addition, consideration would be worth:
- Strokes we did not investigate further. In the first instance this falls under acute care. An important problem with strokes is also determining whether life -prolonging treatment - if successful - is desirable. And if the prescription of blood thinners is postponed for six months, what is the effect for the following years?
- Subject screening/population screening
The influence of screening testing on the mortality is even less clear. Here too, the rapid, dangerous variants of a disease to be diagnosed are not treatable. Slowly developing diseases are sometimes discovered but have much less influence on this period, while many false positive results are also generated with even negative consequences.10See Ned Tijdschr Medicine. 2018; 162: C4055 and overestimation of the effect of early diagnosis in large -scale screening investigations
The delay of care may also have resulted in vaccination operations being not recognized in time. Unfortunately, the available data is insufficient to be able to say something about it. Making public an anonymous vaccination register with usable research data Stuur on problems with the government agencies, despite the many WOO requests, for example by the Biomedical Court of Auditors11The Biomedical Court is persistent, see them last status update.
Very understandable, nobody cooperates in his own conviction, let alone being caught red -handed. Institutes apparently have appropriated that human rights have appropriated.
It remains remarkable that the collective press does not include this right to remain silent as an implicit confession. It could be a journalistic starting point - but yes, those who may have made themselves complicit would rather not dig too deep.
Footnotes
- 1
- 2
- 3"In juni 2021 (+8 %) viel het verhoogde aantal sterfgevallen samen met een hittegolf en bereikte het zijn hoogtepunt in de 24e kalenderweek (14 tot 20 juni), het hoogtepunt van de hittegolf met +17 %. In juli lag het aantal sterfgevallen nog iets boven het average of previous years (+3%), and in August it was within that range. In September (+11%) and October (+12%), the number of deaths was again significantly above the comparable figure for previous years. During the fourth wave of the coronavirus pandemic, the number of deaths for November and December again exceeded the comparable figure more sharply: 22% more people died in November and 25% more in December than the average for the previous four years." Evaluatie van het aantal sterfgevallen sinds 2020 - Statis
- 4
- 5see grok over Stringency index
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9Website hartenvaatcijfers.nl
- 10
- 11The Biomedical Court is persistent, see them last status update
Yes, something is called. Another approach: don't forget that incorrect medical action is deadly number 3 in our regions. Then we have about incorrect diagnoses, wrong drug use, operations that go wrong etc. See also the columns and books by Dick Bijl about this. Something often goes wrong. We implicitly assume that postponed care costs lives, perhaps it is the other way around. So how much damage do you cause, and how much misery do you prevent by putting the care a little more in rest.
Strong example in my area (I know, anecdotal, but it did happen): someone is admitted to the hospital (covid pricking and an arsenal of boosters in the body) because of serious complaints. The solution? The gallbladder goes out. Operation took place, adapted diet etc. But after a year or so the patient is still not really recovered and all kinds of other complaints occur. On the MRI scan, it appears to be astonishment of everyone that the gallbladder is still on board. Nobody knows exactly what happened. But there is a scar. Have they removed something else, removed a gallbladder from another person? It is no longer possible to check.
The table below comes from the website of the central government. We spend a goodness on care, but apparently it is still not enough. Or is this a vicious circle? Spending a lot of money on something does not mean that the quality goes up. Often the opposite.
Time for a Dutch Maha.
By the way, are there people who go to the DNW day on July 4?
Distribution of expenditure rich
In billions
Care 106.2
Social Security and Labor Market 107.5
Other -1.8
Education, Culture and Science 52.7
Municipal Fund, Provincial Fund and VAT Compensation Fund 52.2
Ministry of Finance Brontable as CSV (183 bytes)
Last Friday we received messages in our mailboxes from a general practitioner that we have never seen (sent to all "member files") that "we don't have to call so often because they have no time for that at all. All those questions ... just schedule an appointment on the website and/or through the Health Net." Seriously true. 80% of all care can go! A good acquaintance with a very old mother, who is still independent, had to come up because a home visit was unexpectedly communicated from a geriatric doctor at mother. Whether my good acquaintance came out was not asked. During the unnecessary home visit of one hour, an attempt was made to sell several digital "tools". Mother refused everything very much and resolutely, but unfortunately they got trammelant with the bank a short time later because the geriatric doctor had "diagnosed" that my well -known and her mother performed the banking affairs a little illegally despite the joint account and the authorization because it was not digital enough ... seriously true! How many anecdotes do we still have to tell?
The elephant in the room is avoided.
In 2020 there was only 1 diagnosis: Covid until the contrary was proven. As a result, disease images such as pulmonary embolism, heart attack, pneumonia, even flu (can also be serious) like snow in the sun.
In other words: the aforementioned syndromes were on vacation for a while.
Much, if not all, of the aforementioned diseases you do not treat with ventilation, brakedesivir, strict insulation, but for example with anticoagulation, bypass operation, or simply very ordinary: by doing nothing (eg flu).
This is what, using the reverse burden of proof (which you can apply in the event of medical negligence), the overdolution declares completely in 2020 (there was no vaccine at that time), and at least partly of post 2021.
I am still reading, and I thought it was very good to half, but I immediately report a mistake:
Een Qualy is volgens zeggen “a measure of the state of health of a person or group in which the benefits, in terms of length of life, are adjusted to reflect the quality of life” ofwel “considering both the quality and quantity of life they provide”.
So it is wrong to state that a Qualy "is a measure of the loss of quality of life, not for the loss of lifespan". It is, on the contrary, lifetime, corrected for quality of life. "Quality Adjusted Life Year", the name says it all.
Please correctly correct, at first glance it has no consequences.
Thanks Harald, but in my opinion it is really different. It is a widespread misunderstanding though.
In principle, the actual lifespan really remains the same. Because the quality is lower, it is converted (Adjusted) to a hypothetical shorter lifespan to create a similar unity. But in principle this has no influence on the actual death.
It could well be that someone who would otherwise have turned 84 will not be older than 78, but that is not what Qaly calculates. And even if it was, we see it spread in many decades back in over mortality.
The following article explains it extensively, with examples. They argue that instead of simply multiplying quality with lifespan, "Qaly must be calculated as the square root of (length of life^2 + utility^2)". In any case, a doubling of the lifespan in constant quality of life also doubles the number of QALYS. Fortunately, this is not important for your argument.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC317370/
Yes, of course the expected lifespan duration determines the number of qaly - but not vice versa.
A future quality of 0.7 leads to another predicted result to lost Qalys in a 20-year-old than with an 80-year-old. Precisely because the actual lifespan is a fact. This therefore does not necessarily become longer or shorter.
And indeed: it doesn't matter for the story here either.
All declarations of care go via Vecozo. DBC (DOT) is declared there. They therefore have all the figures.
There are figures, that is not the problem. The problem is that nobody is allowed.
Such files are public, but only show the so -called main diagnoses (= that which is considered the most important diagnosis). In 2020-2022 it was Covid.
As a result, "disappear" disease that has the same symptomatology as COVID from these public files and therefore see less pulmonary embolism, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, heart failure etc in 2020.
At detailed level (but that is only allowed using payment = € price, where you have to prove that you are affiliated with a scientific institute) you can also get the so -called secondary diagnoses (= that which is considered complication or consequence of the main diagnosis).
In this way, for example, you will see a decrease in pulmonary embolism in 2020 and in 2021 no/hardly any increase in pulmonary embolism (with vaccine) when you select on main diagnosis, while if you can also view the secondary diagnoses, you will see a 23% increase in pulmonary embolism in 2020, and in 2021 a 50% increase.
Publication where you can find the latter figures here are here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40172984/
You can find the former figures via https://opendisdata.nza.nl, or can I possibly be used by e -mail (tables can be filled in in the commentary section).
It's just astonishing. Even cancer was booked on Covid but you saw that. There you will also find those missing deaths in the secondary diagnoses. If we level all those holes and peaks that way, a piece of covid mortality will be gone. We have already done that in other analyzes, albeit not per cause of death, but by looking purely at over mortality: if covid mortality was greater than the excess mortality, it was therefore "replacement disease".
"After all, it is difficult to conceive that delayed care would lower mortality."
Well, this is very conceivable. According to experts, the entire medical "science" is only 11% scientific. The rest is Trial & Error and ... belief. Vaccination is also simply medical care, and it has been counted in the Coronape period. Out mortality due to excessive care. Usually it is better to get your healthy "farmers?" to use your mind and take less care. That is so natural and better for you!
That is indeed a very unbelievable position.
In much discussed research of employees of the Johns Hopkins Medicine in the US, a few years before the Corona crisis, it turned out that the "medical mistakes" category was the third cause of death (after new forms and cardiovascular disease). This can be exaggerated, or only apply to the US, but "deferred care" will in any case reduce the risks of errors in diagnoses, treatments, etc. proportionally.
But in addition, the delay of care during the Pandemie has also reduced the risk of infection, because healthcare institutions are of course always prominent infections.
"Detest of care" must be taken together with the "avoiding care", because this is in fact forced to postpone care.
During the Pandemie, avoiding care was especially visible in the nursing and care homes sector, especially in 2020 and 2021. In that sector even for a while of vacancy caused by a greatly reduced inflow, after the enormous dying wave in March and April 2020. The effects thereof must normally be quantifiable on the basis of existing statistical sources.
A lot of good things happen in healthcare. But it would be interesting to investigate really well (but yes, then you must have all patient data and annual accounts and insurance data, etc.): Is the population better off if only much needed care is given? Or, also a nice one: is there a correlation between those 11% treatments on a scientific basis and the treatment results thereof, compared to the other "Trial & Error" treatments?
Just like you, I am convinced that many people work with heart and soul in healthcare to do well. The big problem is to follow protocols that that care is stiff.
Of course I have no idea, but I think we are on the wrong track now.
There are very few people who work with heart and soul to do well. We got to know most of those people and they are now being monitored and even being prosecuted and found to be innocent. And I don't write this to sow fear but to call for independence. In the event of a serious accident in my area, I had to bring that person to the first aid because a scan had to be made and an antibiotics and the like, but with talking as Brugman against the protocols in the same person taken home again. Bizarre enough it was quite a job to come in, but a "helpful" receptionist wanted to get rid of us because the wounded by me was put in a wheelchair in the middle of the hall and the floor turned red ... and when we were inside there was no one at first because they were all smoking outside. And that is no longer allowed on the site of the hospital so they were to a shopping center nearby. Break me the ... not open. Incidentally, everyone can smoke from me as long as they do not cause any nuisance. Of course I follow protocols that are useful and/or legally, but inform yourself well just as you do when you purchase, for example, a car to stay with the ANWB advice. And my earlier advice: follow a first aid course, possibly with the whole family or group of friends.
I do recognize what you say about doctors and nurses who want to deliver against the protocol in care who then puts them into trouble. It is especially painful if it turns out that only the protocol following afterwards has not been really smart. What happens then is completely problematic, because instead of teaching from the facts, a censorship is set up that we unfortunately see now and not just in this file.
But to state that few people work in healthcare to do well, I think exaggerated. My experiences are not entirely unfavorable because unfortunately I also needed care at some time. And then I am not talking about something that had come to a successful end with a first aid level. Beware I think your reasoning is good and it doesn't hurt to train yourself to be able to solve as much as possible.
Exactly what I mean. Sometimes you have to decide to go to a care provider, but keep control! Unfortunately that is increasingly difficult. At first there were already the flaps (not in the workplace in institutions and still not for permanent employees) then we had to clap and then they started again about extra flaps. Some "inventions" are really useful, such as an ultrasound examination, but accelerating and inspecting the own toilet duck with your own meat has taken on really dangerous forms, I have to say even more dangerous because there is a whole generation where the unnecessary almonds are cut without an anesthesia by traveling doctors. Maarten 't Hart describes that in his book about his youth. Babies were also operated on without anesthesia as long ago because they thought that babies could not experience pain. At that time people were already worried about whether fish could experience pain. In addition, the status that one has enforced and received makes them survive as makke lambs to white coats. Not so long ago, the biggest houses and most beautiful cars of the dentist, the doctor (who worked for many hours), the notary, the bank director and the mayor were not so long ago. Everyone knows someone who has experienced and/or has experienced a medical mistake. They get away with it today and they know that!
Almonds are needed and cutting unnecessary. Sorry to make the mistake (errors) in my writings. Thank you very much for reading. As a medical whistleblower, it is not long for a long time to warn people. In 2019 the idea of a book came to write, but the events from the beginning of 2020 caught up with me ... so happy with the articles here but also with all the responses.
I have read the book “Doctors and patients misled” with a lot of attention. The 11% scientificity comes from this. It seems logical to me. Take the vaccinations. Who claims that vaccinations work, who chats. Scientifically you cannot prove that it works. Not even that it doesn't work by the way. You just have to believe it does what it should do and have no further side effects. This applies broadly to every medicine. What works for one does not work for the other. There was talk about 90% effectiveness, but that is simply not true. Just how you look at it. My father (89) claims that vaccines is the greatest success story of the 20th century, I think the greatest misconception. Sure there are a number of medical successes to report, but for me the medical world is like the ANWB. Only call in emergency situations.
A lot can be read about vaccination, but what strikes me is that you really don't see a critical note about the usefulness of vaccination. And then of course we are talking about the traditional form being an injection of a weakened disease to train the immune system.
Research has been serving the hand it feeds for a long time for what it is worth.
Since the introduction of sewerage and better housing, the importance of vaccination has become less relevant. But see to box against a wealthy body.
Are medical successes not the result of a financial injection?
If you really want to dive into the details, read "Dissoling Illusions" by Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk. Said often here, but can't hurt to repeat it again. It is true that better housing/conditions, clean water, food, hygiene, etc. have caused the greatest decrease in traditional infectious diseases. This decrease took place from about the beginning of the 20th century (depending on the region). During the industrial revolution, the living circumstances of people were heavens. This while the vaccination practices since Edward Jenner were applied in the 17th century. But then in a barbaric way. In the eyes of the majority, Jenner is a hero, in the eyes of others a quack. In any case, he managed to sell it well.
The Leicester expirement is also interesting. This was the first large city where the hygienists got a foot on the ground and where decent sewerage/water supply/housing was arranged by the city council. With impressive results, without vaccinations.
For most vaccines, the large vaccination movement only started in the fifties when most infectious diseases had almost disappeared. It looks a bit like the climate graph that Marcel Crok shows., The decrease started around the beginning of the century. If you only show the last part of the graph, it seems like the vaccinations were the cause of the decrease. If you magnify the graph and extend until the beginning of the century you can see that there is not even a dent in the graph at the time of the vaccine rollout.
I find the book very convincing. Would be curious about substantive criticism, but I haven't seen that yet. With me there will never be a vaccine again. Even the flu shot turns out to be a big scam.
Incidentally, you came to this book via the website of by Frankema (Stichting Vaccin Vrij).
It is a pity that science is abused as a vehicle to push through ideas.
Vaccinations only work from the stock market of the person who is ahead.
That generates a lot of money and immediately causes a misconception in the narrative.
Vaccinations work because we see a decrease in reports of diseases.
That other developments could be responsible for this is unthinkable from the Money Plaatje. Because vaccines are declared holy and the only reason for the fact that we have overcome all kinds of diseases. I place serious question marks.
Why figures that are indeed do not come public seems somewhat clear to me.
If it is conclusively certain that injecting a substance unknown to everyone would really be effective and safe, that is very good news. And then I think I see the data also in chocolate letters everywhere. That is also what we have seen just a pity that very large gaps were soon shot in the data that was based on that misleading campaign.
The fact is in the fact that now very gullible citizens are thinking somewhere anyway.
So it was safe and effective, while there is really no splash of evidence for that, on the contrary.
It's great that there are people who see through this hassle and continue to inform us correctly.
Armand Girbes (Prof. in the IC in Amsterdam) claimed in the Rode Hoed that he was obliged to reserve around 75% of his IC capacity for hopeless Corona patients, with the result that he had to die heart and cancer patients that he could have helped ……
And who should we feel sorry for? And why Armand carried out the protocols on hopeless corona patients and why were they hopeless while there would have been medication in primary care. And who did he have to do that? From the NCTV? I know from reliable information directly from his department that there were indeed hopeless patients for a very long time i.v.m. Their beliefs, the family regularly asked for transfer to the birth country, but first people were not allowed to travel, you still remember ... Armand Girbes regularly folds a bit out of the Schoo (F) L and that is appreciated. Incidentally, those cardiovative patients just went to other hospitals. Just like the corona patients for which there was no room. Those I know personally survived and that is mainly due to their family and themselves.
That had to be done from the https://lcps.nu/ Who was then still led by the later Minister Kuipers. He protested a lot against it (he said himself), but without fruits. He thought it was flooded, antisocial, etc. but couldn't start anything against it. He said that he later saw those rejected patients, who could no longer be saved due to the delay. So acute continued, but Engzins intervene on time to prevent worse was blocked by that oil -stupid policy. I think Eline vd Broek has done research into that. But perhaps to other patients groups with other diseases….
Yes: they have zoomed in on dotter treatments. One of the few (often unexpected and in that case actually urgent) interventions that are apparent/measurable life -saving. Sometimes doping is made on the day of diagnosis itself, others are scheduled. If it is not to be hard for doping, then you can forget other delayed care.
The excess mortality is so terribly high that this idd. impossible only to be deferred care. That too had significant consequences, but not 7 - 10%. But it is certainly not 0.
Those 320,000 Qalies from RIVM (which, incidentally, are very incomplete!), Indicate that it was worth the effort, but again, not nearly as much as the total overortation.
"But couldn't do anything against it. "
Where there is a will is a road.
Apparently the will at Armand Girbes was missing.
Why he was missing remains unclear
Not that you can't guess over it, but I leave that for now. I have already written a book about people from the medical world who wanted so badly, but could not, I have already written.
In retrospect, all those medical experts can consult themselves: "Why couldn't I actually do it?"
-It is easier to deny the entire period. I also know such experts!
In that respect, Girbes is not the worst. The teacher in me would have given him a 2 on the test: "Know yourself". That is more than a 1 or a 0, but still (heavy) insufficient.
Come on Armand, you got a 2 of me (more than a 0) because at least you realize that you couldn't do it. "But why couldn't you?
I am happy that you would put your job and your reputation as a professor at stake.
But I do understand that Girbes didn't. Although he has traveled to The Hague several times and has tried to prevent the madness through friendly politicians. And has given newspaper interviews. But was also canceled from the media at some point. Only in his own hospital did he manage that the staff still retained some freedoms.
We lived in a fascist dictatorship. And it is handsome of you to call on the sidelines that he should have been brave ... ..
I am not saying he should have given up his job. I also don't say he didn't do anything. I just ask him why he couldn't.
Interesting that you know an answer to that.
How do you know that?
Because I did not live under a stone and was in the Rode Hoed at the meeting.
I want to take it now for Willem because with "on the sidelines" you do it short. He was a front soldier when it came to it.
Afterwards you can say that it is on the sidelines.
But see Rutte: With a backbone of whipped cream you achieve more than with integrity. That is hard to cope for everyone with a sharp focused moral compass.
Great, I don't know Willem, but that is no reason/excuse to take the size of Girbes in this way….
I think.
As a protester, WOB researcher, activist writer against all that Corona Kul.
Jan, delve into Willem for a moment because he has a backbone of concrete! The minister (s) were and are therefore also the LCPS under the command of, among other things, the NCTV. Minister Agema clapped from De Schoo (F) L on questions from Pepijn van Houweling and later confirmed this in writing. All our files were also wide open without our permission. Fortunately, Gommers is now worried about windmills in his backyard ...
Excuse Anton, that I do this thread with reactions to .. Armand Girbes contamination.
Okay, you were in the red hat, that explains everything. Who knows!
But if Girbes said there what you say what he said ... Then he is even worse than all those debilous doctors who thought they would do the right one (blind staring at Covid). Girbes knew (you say) that such a protocol would lead to killing. And yet he came along in that policy.
What brings me to the question: how could he do that?
Moreover, how can he sit at his professor site without puking over all the stupidity and pride that he can see in his colleagues to this day.
I couldn't do anything like that!
You should have seen his reaction: he stunned and was annoyed by the attitude of the regular of the policy makers.
I have had some explanations for this absurd behavior, which I have already published, also here,. Maybe it helps you to see what happened and will happen again if "people" will not get it.
1. Rule of Rescue
Read this article from 2022: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ethiek-bij-de-evaluatie-van-corona-maatregelen-jan-van-der-zanden Especially the end is just as current as 3 years ago. Nobody apparently understands this analysis. There is also no understanding for alternative media. While it is really very crucial to see through this mechanism of the rule of rescue. And if you understand English: then also read the article by Orr & Wolf. Or have it translated by AI. Then you understand how all that misery has been poured out over us. With the best intentions.
2. Baan security
The explanation that people like Girbes, who realized it, participated is simple. Not everyone has the courage to really rebel against the mainstream powers. You are also a bit of a Don Quixotte in that case. Because "the people" was also (for around 80%) under the spell of that rule of rescue philosophy. The people who did openly resisted very often lost their jobs. Not everyone can afford that. I was self -employed and could afford my resistance. And I have also been thunder with a client.
But I do understand that people like Girbes did their best to protest, but eventually resigned themselves.
Apparently much or all those patients had obesity, but I still miss some urgency on the chapter prevention. The interest in that detail is suddenly there when it can be earned.
The chances of the IC often had large obesity. They would have been more likely if they had gone to diet immediately in March 2020 ...
Maurice de Hond's research on the way of spread and the long -term glass -hard denial of this is of course also a capital blunder.
Similarly the favorable effect vitamin D that is actually still regularly denied.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076020302764
A small group of patients but with spectacular result.
You would think about it with a larger group, but I don't see that?