Verdwijntrucs in het mortuarium: RIVM en Pfizer

In the healthcare industry, everything revolves around the patients, but once they have passed away, the deceased are not exactly treated with respect. At least not at the top of that industry. And certainly not if a link could be established between death and vaccinations. This already started in the Pfizer trials and we now also see it in the Dutch government's approach that makes excess mortality disappear from statistics.

RIVM in transition

As previously reported, RIVM is taking over the monitoring of mortality from CBS. Strangely enough, this is reason for RIVM to gradually increase its own old expectation level. We compare the new RIVM baseline with the usual baseline of CBS. What stands out? I took some elements from Herman Steigstra's graphs.

• It may have escaped your notice, but as of mid-2022, Dutch people have died on average a few months earlier than previously expected, which will be extended to a 5-month shorter life for the average Dutch person by the end of 2023. So we are heading towards half a year shorter life and maybe our life will be shortened even further. Cause? Unknown, or rather: unexplained. We are curious to see what this will mean for insurance and pensions.
• The RIVM forecast starts three years ago. The forecast for 2021, which was previously calculated by CBS, has therefore been adjusted downwards with retroactive effect. Why don't they start at the level where CBS stopped? I see two options:
  1. The starting point had to be in line with the existing expectations of RIVM, otherwise it would seem as if they had been too low all these years. So there had to be a bridge between the old RIVM baseline and the new, increased expectation.
  2. A lower forecast for 2021 means that excess mortality in 2021 will turn out to be higher than expected. There was still some Covid mortality at the time. In the past, CBS has attributed all excess mortality to Covid, including in 2021. If that remains the case, even more excess mortality could now be attributed to Covid.
• As of mid-2022, there are hardly any corona deaths. There, the mortality expectation jumps up and the excess mortality is therefore systematically eliminated. In mid-2023, we will see another jump up and the increase in expectations will also continue. It will seem as if excess mortality disappeared along with corona...

The National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) considers the permanently elevated mortality to be a fait accompli and includes it in its mortality forecast for the coming years. In itself, this is defensible, because the RIVM wants to be able to identify occasional flu peaks and heat waves. This is not possible if mortality is always above the signal level anyway.

The fact that the RIVM is no longer concerned with post-vax excess mortality is actually a blessing in disguise. This problem was too big for them. Wrong models (according to @dimgrr "the methodology of the Three Dice Chimpanzees™"), wrong measures, wrong priorities, unscientific behavior, to name but a few. Let them indeed deal with flu and heat waves, they are better at that.

This does not alter the fact that the excess mortality that has now been calculated Unexplained even though it is no longer called excess mortality. It is now 'expected' or 'normal' mortality, in the view of the RIVM. However, in the interest of public health and the government's duty of care, it is important to keep an eye on unexplained mortality and to find out where it comes from. The government fails to do so, while we are talking about tens of thousands of deaths, certainly over the years, including proportionally fewer and fewer people over 80.

Conclusions

1. It is necessary to keep track of the real baseline and not to confuse it with the expectation of the RIVM. This is to prevent the entire 'unexplained excess mortality' item from disappearing from the agenda, including the vaccination cesspool that can no longer be kept on the lid.
2. We will also have to adapt our terminology. We used to talk about "unexplained excess mortality". This causes confusion because from now on this unexplained mortality is expected by the RIVM and is therefore no longer excess mortality in their eyes. From now on, it should therefore probably be "unexplained mortality" instead of "unexplained excess mortality" in RIVM terms.

So:

• Expected mortality is the total number of expected deaths for next year (and further ahead)
• The baseline is the number of future deaths, calculated on long-term trends in demographics. In our opinion, that is the only real baseline and it may deviate from expectations. However, if the RIVM also uses the word baseline for their forecast based on recent developments, we will have to speak of the "virus varia baseline" in order to keep the distinction clear
  • The unexplained mortality may or may not be included in the expectation and, depending on this, will be either 'unexplained mortality' or 'unexplained excess mortality'
  • The RIVM forecast includes the unexplained post-vax mortality increase in the calculation
  • The Virusvaria baseline still considers the anticipated aftermath of the post-vax mortality as excess mortality. We therefore do anticipate additional mortality, but in the form of excess mortality above (our) baseline
• The bandwidth is a tolerance for deviations from baseline or expectation
  • The bandwidth can be determined with or without seasonal peaks
  • Just like RIVM, we opt for a fairly constant bandwidth (this is different from what CBS did; they were concerned with a correct expectation, not with signal values)
• Increased mortality is the number of deaths above the baseline. (For the RIVM: above expectations).
• Excess mortality indicates bandwidth overruns
• Unexplained mortality is the total mortality minus the baseline minus incidental declared deaths, such as influenza and heat waves.

The term 'unexplained excess mortality' will therefore be dropped in the RIVM terminology, which will become 'unexplained mortality'. After all, it is no longer 'excess' mortality for them: after all, they expect it and thus abandon the traditional baseline. In addition, we also see that they overestimate this future excess mortality, a downward trend is already visible. RIVM will therefore show undermortality in the coming years. As a result, the excess mortality will be written off, everything will be back in balance and the excess mortality figures will be neatly averaged out over the years.

So much for this evaluation of the deletion of deaths. But even in the trials, every effort was made to keep mortality out of the picture. What happened in that trial, namely the fiddling with possible vaccine-related deaths, appears to have had a high predictive value. Too bad it wasn't reported.

Pfizer forgot two body bags

In a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Dr. Jeyanthi convincingly demonstrates that Pfizer did not report all deaths during their COVID-19 vaccine trials to the FDA. He realized that the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) would be jeopardized. If these deaths had been reported, it would have doubled the number of deaths among vaccinated people. That would have shown that the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID vaccine did not reduce mortality as originally claimed ("The benefits outweigh the risks"). After all, the number of deaths in the placebo group would have been the same as that among the test subjects.

In addition, both unreported deaths involved heart failure, which, according to the researchers, could not be directly traced back to participation in the trials. This raises questions about the reliability and ethical aspects of the reporting process, Kunadhasan writes.

He backs this up with FOIA (WOO) documents, which Pfizer said it would not be able to provide for another 75 years. That wasn't right.

It is to be hoped that Tony Fauci was not informed about this, not even informally, although I am not ruling anything out.

Dr. Jeyanthi Kunadhasan is an anaesthetist and perioperative physician in Australia. He examined the data released on the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency website, which formed the basis for the FDA's Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of Pfizer-BioNTech's BNT162b2 mRNA COVID vaccine. He is also treasurer of the Australian Medical Professionals Society and co-author of several other reports.

Read the full letter at dailyclout.io