Naast mosselen, speciaalbieren met passende glazen, een "lang-zal-die-leven", virtuele felicitaties en veel liefde viel er uit totaal onverwachte hoek nóg een kadootje op de mat op 25 april.
As a thank you for everything, I would like you to share in the festive cheer! 🥳🥳🥳
The Other Newspaper | April 25, 2026 | No. 17 | page 10
HEALTH
NO COMBUSION ABOUT 10,000 ADDITIONAL DEATHS THAT OCCURRED IN 2025
“CBS masks excess mortality to avoid questions about corona shots”
CBS is trying to use 'figure manipulations' to conceal the fact that more than 10,000 more people will have died in 2025 than could be expected based on original predictions. That is the central claim of a group of independent researchers, including opinion pollster Maurice de Hond. According to De Hond, the worrying excess mortality is "refinedly masked" to prevent the phenomenon from being linked to the corona shots.
Toine de Graaf
Last month, Statistics Netherlands announced the total mortality for 2025: more than 173,000 people died. Independent researchers Anton Theunissen, Maurice de Hond, Herman Steigstra and Jillis Kriek point out on Virusvaria.nl that CBS predicted more than 163,000 deaths in 2019 for the year 2025. “There have therefore been approximately 10,000 more deaths, or an average of 200 additional deaths per week,” the four conclude. It was Theunissen who was the first to identify the "unexplained" excess mortality in our country in September 2021, after which MP Pieter Omtzigt made it a political agenda item.
In mid-April, De Hond drew attention to the new finding in his newsletter and on Maurice.nl, under the headline: “The 10,000 deceased persons concealed by CBS”. He states that the excess mortality of 2025 is being "refinedly" masked. “Critical questions about a possible link with mRNA vaccinations are therefore systematically avoided by the RIVM, the OMT and science journalists.”
De Hond says it is understandable that mortality in 2020 was more than 16,000 higher than expected: “Covid-19 affected a population without built-up immunity”. But after 2020, mortality remained structurally higher than previously expected — and continued to rise. Since March 2022, Covid-19 has barely played a role. “How can mortality still be so high?” asks De Hond. “And why isn't there any fuss about this?” His answer: the excess mortality is "camouflaged through figure manipulations", to prevent the extra mortality from being linked to the corona shots.
The juggling of figures started at the end of 2023. From 2020 onwards, CBS announced the weekly mortality figures and compared them with the forecast made in 2019, based on past trends. If the mortality rates were higher than the previous expectation, Statistics Netherlands reported that there was excess mortality. “CBS calculated an excess mortality of approximately 12,000 people for the whole of 2022,” writes De Hond.
But at the end of 2023, the RIVM took over the task and at the same time adjusted the system: from now on it took the real and therefore mainly high mortality of the five previous years (without 2020) as a starting point. “So be aware that to determine the excess mortality in 2025, the RIVM uses the years 2021 to 2024 as a reference,” De Hond warns. “And then the outcome is clear: there will hardly be any excess mortality in 2025!” According to him, it explains why there is no fuss about the 10,000 additional deaths that Statistics Netherlands did not expect in 2019, but which nevertheless occurred in 2025.
Prof. Ruben van Gaalen of CBS has now firmly denied the “hiding away” of the deceased, about which De Hond speaks. “The fact is that we have continuously reported that the recovery in life expectancy has started since 2022, but that this has been slower than expected,” said Van Gaalen. A defensive line that Theunissen filleted last weekend on Virusvaria.nl. What do you mean “continuous message!?”, he throws at the CBS researcher. “Come on, fact twister.”
CBS was “clearly surprised by Covid” in 2020, Theunissen writes. Afterwards, the institute predicted a rapid decline in mortality, just as had happened after the Spanish Flu of 1918-1919. But in 2021, the excess mortality did not appear to be over. After which CBS predicted a slightly faster normalization for 2022, but that also failed to materialize. Only from 2023 onwards did CBS change course and increased mortality was still expected for the following year. “Just like with the Spanish Flu,” as Van Gaalen suddenly claimed.
Theunissen previously demonstrated on Virusvaria.nl how the CBS official played a kind of ball game on Twitter with the Spanish Flu. At the beginning of March 2021, Van Gaalen tweeted that the Spanish Flu had "short-term effects" and that he did not expect corona to have a structural influence on mortality either. When he realized in 2023 that this was the case, the tone about the Spanish Flu also changed. In April of that year, Van Gaalen suddenly tweeted that after the flu, the “higher mortality” lagged behind until 1923.
“By 2023, no one could avoid it anymore: the excess mortality was seriously wrong,” Theunissen concludes. “The narrative had to be adjusted.” The story about the Spanish Flu no longer came out well and was rewritten. A maneuver that De Hond qualifies as “villainous” because suddenly “proof” emerged that after the Spanish Flu, when there were no vaccinations yet, mortality rates would also have remained high. While at the time they "clearly fell below the pre-1918 level", according to De Hond.
Theunissen also follows the Actuarial Society (AG), the Dutch professional association for actuarial professionals. An actuary, also called an actuarial calculator or insurance mathematician, calculates financial risks for, for example, insurers and pension funds. Every two years, the AG makes its own mortality forecast ('forecast table') on which, among other things, insurance premiums and pensions are based. In 2022, the AG still thought that excess mortality would halve every year. They adjusted this in 2024 because they had been too optimistic. But they still reckoned that the increase in mortality would only be temporary.
However, there is nothing to indicate this, as appears from the mortality monitor of actuarial consultancy firm Sprenkels. Theunissen quotes from their message from last February: "In the year 2025, approximately 3.4 percent more people (5,730) died than was expected based on the Forecast Table AG2024. Mortality was higher than expected in almost all groups. (...) Looking at the year 2024, more people also died than expected. In 2024, excess mortality was lower (2.4 percent) than in 2025 (3.4 percent). This results in a further increase in excess mortality.”
'CBS researcher speaks gibberish about excess mortality'
Last weekend, the “unexplained” excess mortality once again made it to a national newspaper: the AD. The reason was the premiere in the Amsterdam Pathé Tuschinski, earlier this month, of the excess mortality documentary De Silte Schreeuwt by Frank de Rooij. “A full cinema, two realities: where does the excess mortality in the Netherlands come from?” was the headline above the piece.
AD investigative journalist Cyril Rosman asked CBS researcher Ruben van Gaalen, among others, for a response. According to an analysis by Anton Theunissen on Virusvaria.nl, he made a mess of it. The low point is this statement from the CBS researcher: "And yes, there are studies that show that there are side effects of vaccinations that have occasionally led to death, but it has not yet been established whether there is a direct causal relationship."
Theunissen decided to cut this confusing statement down to the bone, and left this as an abbreviated paraphrase: “scientific research shows without causal connection that something has repeatedly led to a certain outcome.” It does not occur to the AD investigative journalist (or he values his job) to ask how A can lead to B in a scientific study, without a causal relationship having been demonstrated," says Theunissen. "Is it in the word 'direct causal'? After all, a causal chain is also causal, even though the beginning and end are indirectly connected, for example through blood clots.”
References:
Screenshot of the page
Nicely summarized. Now all the other newspapers. Go Maarten, you can do it!
Who would give that thumbs down under Pjotr's comment above?
Fear that those who have had their shots out of fear will never recognize that vaccines can cause damage.
I can see the category that did this out of opportunism, say the Jack van Gelder category, doing this.
I think a necessary condition for fear is also a belief in harmful viruses and their natural origins.
Frequent attendance at virologist conferences makes this possible.
Doubting the natural origin makes doubt easier and thus makes it possible to recognize vaccination damage. (The John Campbells)
Fear that the best achievable for MK is controlled opposition, given its position on climate change.
Also beautiful, but I think this is it.
The result is that in MSM the fairy tale that with mRNA vaccines, against all expectations and science, a cure has finally been found against serious respiratory diseases, possibly fatal, will continue at all costs.
Who is good?
Yet the pharmaceutical industry. The Institutes for Pandemic Preparedness.
The US, which gets an deal from Trump (while Kennedy watches and a pharmaceutical executive faints), has Bourla invest billions in profits thanks to the corona hype in the US by building mRNA-producing factories.
The super rich who operate super nationally, remain behind the scenes, and through the use of (blackmailable) politics, through the media, by setting things in motion, with insider knowledge (after all, initiate what is about to happen), further enrich themselves, granting each other something, and with the help of tech (okay, we also benefit from it) to keep control over potentially (someday) rebellious citizens.
There.
I have an optimistic outlook on life. So I assume someone accidentally tapped the right thumb while scrolling.
The number of deaths due to lung removal in 2020 was significantly lower than in 2019. This also applied to the number of dementia deaths, while that number normally rises annually.
So in 2020 the death rates were 'polluted'. Many people who died at that time and coincidentally also tested positive for Covid-19 and had similar symptoms were noted as Covid deaths. Two years later, this became a conscious policy after the WHO said that people who died with Covid (an unreliable test?) should also be registered as people who died from Covid.
“The fact is that we have continuously reported that the recovery in life expectancy has started since 2022, but that this has been slower than expected”
He blasphemed God, what more can we witness? Behold, now you have heard his blasphemy. What do you think? (Mattheus Passie, BWV 244).
CBS also recognizes the excess mortality, but “just expresses this a bit differently”….. Hahaha……
In addition, 'recovery in life expectancy' is a very minimal goal or starting point. 'Recovery of the annually increasing life expectancy' seems to me to be a better description.
At sometime.
However. The key question that can hardly be answered with certainty is: how quickly will life expectancy increase? Because that is the standard/measure on the basis of which the numbers of excess deaths are determined.
But I would also like to point this out again:
“CBS in 2019 predicted more than 163,000 deaths for the year 2025” Yes, but with a limited expected population growth at the time. So 173,000 -/- 163,000 is not 10,000 excess deaths.
and
“The 10,000 hidden deaths by CBS [of 2023]” (Maurice, Anton & Herman)
and
"In the year 2025, approximately 3.4 percent more people (5,730) died than was expected based on the Forecast Table AG2024. Mortality was higher than expected in almost all groups. (...) Viewed in the year 2024, more people also died than expected. In 2024, excess mortality was lower (2.4 percent) than in 2025 (3.4 percent). This means there is a further increase in the excess mortality.”
In my opinion, it does not follow that the excess mortality is 3.4% or 3.4%, because they had already adjusted their 2021 forecasts. But, as far as I know, they do not amount to 10,000.
Conclusion: the 10,000 is the worst case scenario, assuming a (practically) linear continuous decline in the trend of mortality/100,000/year from 2011 - 2019. But not most likely.
And at the same time: the excess mortality is not (yet) over!
However, we are now so far away from “unpolluted” benchmarks up to and including 2019 that it is becoming increasingly difficult to indisputably determine the level of excess mortality.
Therefore, the only real solution is to investigate the relationship between mortality and vaccination based on all raw data to truly resolve our concerns. When will that data finally become available?
Hi Jan, I would like to add something to this. That 10,000 is over one year, but after 2021 we are now several years further. The number of people who died during that period was therefore considerably higher. More on the order of 30,000 if you take a middle ground between different models as you suggest.
Second point, and an important one: yes, aging plays a role and is a determining factor. But the excess mortality, as you have shown with your graphs, is not primarily in the 80+ group. At the same time, part of the population growth is due to immigration of relatively young people, who contribute proportionately less to total mortality. That makes the picture more complex than just aging as an explanation.
As for the data, detailed raw data is limited, making independent analysis difficult. In addition, causes of death cannot always be clearly determined in practice and registrations can be influenced by choices in classification. That can introduce bias into the final statistics. Even when CBS publishes its reports, it remains important to look at the assumptions and methodology behind those figures.
I hope that you have always been able to carry out your work as independently as possible. At the same time, I wonder to what extent external factors, such as policy choices regarding retirement age and the corona period, have indirectly influenced how analyzes and forecasts are made. That is not a simple issue, but it is relevant to continue to discuss critically.
And yes, that also affects people who play a visible role in this, such as Ruben van Gaalen. The question to what extent individual interpretations and institutional frameworks influence each other seems to me to be a legitimate part of this conversation.
Just a short answer:
1. Agree.
2. My graphs and Anton/Herman's standard mortality are based on mortality/100,000/age year. So greening or aging (due to immigration or baby boom or something else) has no influence on this. Unless that immigration always comes at the top (December) or bottom (January) of an age group, which is very unlikely. If you take cohorts of multiple years, then it gets tricky... B ut you can also compensate for that nicely. Anton and Herman do that. In my graphs this is not done correctly (yet!).
3. Cause of death is relevant but not decisive for determining excess mortality. Significant difference in All-cause mortality between vaccinated and non-vaccinated, excluding HVE, etc., is enough to require further research. If you don't find anything there, then I think it's simply not there. But I fear the worst: I estimate that there is a lot to be found there, despite the vaccination rate of around 90%. Fortunately, the numbers of unvaccinated people are large enough. And I also suspect that the data to be able to investigate this properly is not released for that reason. I have no other reasonable explanation for that absurd secrecy; In any case, it is not privacy...
4. I fear that most policymakers cherry pick data and arguments to arrive at desired outcomes. I experienced this painfully once when comparing 2 software packages. A totally political thing. As executive director, I was ultimately confronted with a dirty compromise that cost a lot of money and a lot of trouble. We are talking about the Chamber of Commerce around 1999. Furthermore, I have always managed to arrive at rational decisions (including summary dismissal successfully implemented, VAT fraud prevented, quality monitor introduced with enormous impact, costs halved through centralization of telephone information provision, successful appeal to database rights {appealed to HR), etc. etc.). Often to the irritation of those who had to “give up”.
So my personal (professional) experience is generally: : no matter how fast the lie is, the (logic of) truth catches up/overcomes it…. But I realize damn well that in many places people are in the driver's seat who do not take logic and finding the truth very seriously. Sometimes out of personal interest or the interests of “friends”, often out of ideological infatuation, often because of one's own reputation. This causes many employees to have a crisis of conscience; they usually leave. If they become a whistleblower, to put it euphemistically, their career is over. That touches on your point 5.
5. This is difficult to investigate, because employees, and certainly not directors, in general. not showing the back of their tongue; certainly not for the stage. Too much depends on it...
Interesting Jan!
Thanks Jan, I have a lot of respect for you keeping your back straight. Your answer is in line with my ideas and I fear that this is a fairly realistic representation of things.
I probably should have been a little more specific about the aging population; I will therefore take your points 2 and 3 together. I have read several articles in which the higher mortality is attributed, among other things, to an aging population. This is not always directly linked to excess mortality, but it does have that suggestion, while, as you also indicate, mortality in the 80+ group is around the expected level and has already been corrected for this in the models.
Without insight into vaccination status, it will indeed be difficult to properly relate mortality to causes of death. What strikes me in the Netherlands is that there are no extreme outliers visible in the cause of death statistics. Several forms of cancer (such as brain tumors, thyroid and colon cancer) appear relatively stable, in contrast to some signals from the United States.
We do see an increase in cardiovascular diseases, as also described by Hans. https://maurice.nl/2025/05/29/opvallende-stijging-doden-aan-hartfalen-sinds-mei-2021
In addition, there are analyzes that point to specific patterns within certain groups, for example younger women who also represent 80 percent of LC patients.
https://virusvaria.nl/addendum-migratie-en-de-oversterfte-bij-jonge-vrouwen
These are signals that raise questions, but do not yet provide a clear explanatory picture.
My main point is that an increase in mortality, spread across different age groups, must ultimately become visible somewhere in the cause of death statistics. At the same time, we see an increase in reports of sudden deaths or unclear causes such as falls from kitchen steps, but that in itself cannot be the complete explanation.
It therefore remains a complex puzzle. Without access to more detailed data such as vaccination status in relation to mortality, it is difficult to move beyond this type of indirect analysis. While with these data you could of course demonstrate what is being said, namely that these vaccinations have provided such good protection, right?
Mostly agree, but some minor comments:
1. I have not conducted any research into causes of death; but I have also read about the Netherlands, I think I remember, that there were also strange increases for some causes (you yourself mention the “sudden mortality” [especially in younger men; small in number, so not so striking, but large in percentages])
2. That last point is an additional argument: if vaccines are not the culprits, throw that data out on the street and the whole discussion will be over in one go. An additional argument, “that there is something going on with that data”….
It's nice that this – the excess mortality – is now seen in a broader circle. Kudos to Anton et al. for the tireless work on this matter. Unfortunately, this continues to be 'messing around with numbers, assumptions, poor or missing basic data, etc.'
An idea, already launched before: why not link this fact (continued excess mortality) to REAL observable and peer-reviewed published data that demonstrate a causal link between the injections (both vector and mRNA based) and mortality. Note that in the US it has already been estimated at many tens of thousands, in Germany the same, with plenty of evidence. In addition, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, but what matters here are real mechanistic links, i.e. how do vaccines cause the damage leading to death? Which MSM magazine has the courage to reveal this? Maarten?
The question remains, who orders this?
Where does the assignment to spread this figure hocus-pocus come from?
Does pharma have such long arms?
It is also possible without a central design or assignment: A conspiracy-free reconstruction.
Congratulations Anton (x2). Good to read that you continue to enjoy life. 🙂
It just occurred to me: 14 deaths due to a train accident in Indonesia is apparently relevant enough to make the news (NOS), but for several years, thousands of deaths per year, excess mortality should not be further investigated in depth and reported on... I continue to find it special. It's good that the Other Newspaper is paying attention to it.
I also made the comparison with bus accidents. Herman has counted the numbers of MH-17s.
If it doesn't happen suddenly, we'll all be frogs in the warming boiling water.
I personally suspect that the paradigm shift has already quietly taken place for Maarten. Above all, he has to come to terms with it himself.
However, just as a paradigm shift is co-determined sociologically, the last powerful bastions of the old regime must subsequently be socially taken into account by 'the sinking ship' leavers. And there are quite a few.
If Maarten positions himself well, he will remain a groundbreaking, open-minded pioneer for the MSM. Ehem. Too early, and he loses what he has built up - because he's exhausted. (Which has happened to most brave whistleblowers. Kudos to them.) Too late, and he becomes the 'bagman'.
The paradox remains: personally, despite his views that lead to excess mortality, I personally think Maarten is a nice guy, and he is willing to respond here. Rare. There are a lot of 'celebrities' who have become more entrenched in - by analogy - their 'flat earth' paradigm.
So, I say better late than never. Welcome to the regretters. If you dare.
Certainly. He also has my appreciation for that. The time when I had to be afraid of an “anti-wappie spider” is over. We move forward unnoticed. Keep pushing baby!
I see it just differently. Yes, the day that Maarten Keulemans openly acknowledges that he has gone way too far with the story of science (and therefore has to leave the Volkskrant) is a memorable day, not least for Maarten Keulemans himself. You call it 'being puked out', but I (an expert who once also participated in science, took it way too far and was allowed to leave science when I spoke out openly about it) see it more as the symbolism of Jonas and the whale. Not vomited but: (in Ai summary)
The story of Jonas in the whale (from the Bible and Koran) symbolizes rebirth after a spiritual crisis.
* Rebirth: The stay in the stomach represents a moment of reflection
* Literal/Figurative impasse: It's a story about being stuck (in the stomach, in a situation) and coming out changed.
* “Jonassen”: Colloquially it refers to a joke in which someone is thrown with their hands and feet in the air, referring to Jonas who ended up in the fish.
What Maarten Keulemans thinks about Covid, climate and other pseudoscience is something that does not interest me. I don't need Maarten Keulemans' brain for that interpretation. I find it remarkable that he responds here, but I do not rule out that it has to do with 'being stuck in something' or 'spiritual crisis.' I am not saying that it is the case, but just suggesting the possibility. It could be that Maarten is reacting here out of a spiritual crisis.
And that's why I don't think we should Jonassen Maarten too much. I feel that (in my previous comments) I have not always kept that commandment. But I do try.
Finally…
In any case, I sense an apology to Maarten here.
(By 'you' you mean Alison, you didn't respond under her comment so I'll just add it)
I think “spiritual crisis” sounds stigmatizing. That could be more constructive. The novelist in you occasionally rears its ugly head.
Let's just say that he is becoming more and more curious, or maybe there is something nagging somewhere ('they are very persistent. It won't be...')
I try to avoid comments that say nothing other than 'Jonassen'. Indeed, let's keep it somewhat civil in the comments.
Yes, this belonged under Allison's comment. 'Spiritual crisis' has been heavily emphasized. 'Paradigm shift' might be better.
If I hear someone say an untruth, I sometimes want to respond sharply. The underlying cause is that I am trusting and naively assume that everything said to me is nothing more and nothing less than the truth. I go very far in this. If you say to me: 'hello, I'm the man from the moon', my first thought is: 'I'm talking to the man from the moon again!'
Only later, when I try to remember what was said to me, can I make much better sense of what is true and what is not true. This is nothing special, Kahneman called it Thinking fast and slow. If it then turns out (later) that something unfactual was said to me, while it was pretended to be factual, I will consider that a serious insult. See my response there.
What I would like to forget, however, is that the person who told me something untrue may not even know that he is speaking an untruth. And therefore I don't understand where my strong reaction comes from.
Now I can say: 'but Covid was sooo 2020.' Six years have passed and we still don't know what happened?
But if you have never thought about whether what you always believed to be true, and passed on as such, might not be true, then the aha experience will not happen either.
For example, it took me 40 years to see Sonja Barend as a talk show host with an emphasis on show. I never thought about it until I saw it. Then I no longer saw greatness in the grand old lady, but only emptiness.
By the way, here is the episode from 1983 where I saw it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c2xfsborrqQ&t=865s
What makes an aha experience moment difficult is if you are too close to the source. I think one of the reasons that skeptics and whistleblowers are often former (retired) journalists/scientists/army leaders is because they have been able to distance themselves from what they were always so concerned about.
Seen from this perspective, I can imagine that Maarten Keulemans has not yet reached that point and therefore deserves an apology. Well: Sorry Maarten.
But an apology alone is not enough. I think there must be some kind of improvement plan. Something that tells you I will never do it again. And that improvement plan will never happen. I have endless patience for people whose opinions don't matter because their job isn't to get those people's opinions heard. But people whose job it is that they should know in the right way, but don't know; I have no patience with them. I point them out and continue. But I interpret them conditionally, which means that I always give them the opportunity to gain insight. I'm just not going to wait for it.
Enough! The weather is too nice for these kinds of long digressions. The garden also deserves water.
I have once again committed a great sin, something I blame myself for: I have once again been unclear.
Sorry Anton, this comment of mine did not refer to an apology from me for my 'rancid suggestion' (according to Maarten Keulemans) that Maarten threw at me in the previous thread, but to the fact that in the previous thread I compared Maarten Keulemans with Ivan Lendl.
Anyway, I have now placed everything under the correct wire (see https://virusvaria.nl/mijn-antwoord-aan-maarten-keulemans/), so there you go.
By the way, the soap is not worth the effort and it only distracts from the question that really matters: will you and Jilles (and by extension, the readers of virusvaria) receive a substantive answer to the letter you sent to Maarten Keulemans?
Time will tell.
It is indeed remarkable that Maarten Keulemans, after all his articles in which he has seamlessly propagated the government narrative (including denial of the lab escape, adherence to wet market theory, the effectiveness of the measures and, last but not least, denial of the negative side effects of the vaccines) has now apparently become curious and 'moved' on this site. Albeit by continuously questioning many factual matters, but still... A good sign, because nothing in the world is carved in stone and insights - based on certain initial data - can be adjusted on the basis of other, newer/better data. The condition is that you, especially as a top investigative journalist, are open to all data, both the earlier narrative-compliant and the other/later narrative-correcting data. Maarten, if you are reading this: we had an earlier discussion about virus origins and other matters. Are you willing to face data that does NOT fit your narrative belief? With an open mind and without reacting directly ad hominem? I look forward to it. It would be nice if our top newspaper, the Volkskrant, would finally show ALL sides of the corona medal. A scoop that will ultimately be greatly appreciated by many readers, subscribers and beyond. Let the discussions on this site help to view matters in a much more nuanced and less polarized way than is currently the case, etc. Where did I read that in many cases (mercury in the environment - cf. Minamata; thalidomide, thimerosal in vaccines, aluminum in vaccines, etc.) it takes time to recognize that 'we were wrong' and to radically change course? And heads that will have to roll? Oh well, HdJ, EK, MR, JvD et al. are already 'gone' (and will - given the operation of our NL system - be spared) and MK will immediately retire. AO is always ready behind the scenes, now probably for the upcoming H5N1 outbreak…. that's something else, we'll see...
We are on a constructive path, I thought. There are certainly more topics worth discussing. Maybe that will come. Let's first answer some questions and see how that turns out.
https://x.com/nicksortor/status/2049135738852184131
Also a birthday present? 🙂
(high-ranking official charged in US over Covid cover-up)
Would it start after all...?
Well, Liberation Day is of course only a week away. 🤪
Open letter to Maarten Keulemans
Prominent in the news today (see document cloud, 596 pages);
In my own words: 'the injections were not as innocent as they were made out to be, and "they" knew about it and kept it under wraps.
For the insiders, this is information just released by Senator Johnson. Downright shocking. it was already known in the then available VAERS database that more deaths (21) had occurred in the vaccine arm of the then 'safety study' than in the control arm (15). Like myself, there must have been others who were surprised at the 'simply' admission of the vaccines without further research? Six more deaths in short-term research, how do we get away with that, must have been a thought among the under-the-cap holders involved, it seems to me...
Maarten, if you read this, and also the long list of conditions diagnosed after the injections, what do you think? All nonsense? And how does this relate to what Arne Burckhardt described in his book about autopsies after the injections (Geimpft). Isn't this the right time for a scoop in de Volkskrant? Something like: FINALLY CLARITY – MANY ERRORS IN THE CORONA POLICY NOW CONFIRMED. Predictable: the Volkskrant would be sold out on the day of publication, and people would come in with follow-up articles... I immediately assume that - in addition to the initiator - many knowledgeable readers of this site would also like to contribute to (finally) exposing what went wrong and how the people have suffered from a range of unhelpful measures. The story about continued excess mortality, despite all the problems with incomplete or withheld data, also fits in seamlessly with this. And, let's face it, in a society with only fair or justifiable measures or policies, there is no need to withhold data, so the short conclusion is: it stinks, people are hiding something... What then? Yes, we won't know until people make things open, but could it be related to the policy or the urge to inject? Well, Maarten, we are curious.
Even regardless of the study numbers, 15 by 21 is not significant, but “normal” noise.
See: https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk_651ff42c-5df2-4df4-b3b6-1591436a9dd5
Another non-statistician trying to prove something when it isn't proof.
Gemini didn't understand it well at first... But after guidance, Gemini comes to the same conclusion: https://gemini.google.com/share/639f98c51819
I want all the micro data. Then we can really make progress. Or studies with significant differences.
The larger the less significant. At n=21 it is significant.
Beats. But. At n= 23 (total 46) it is no longer significant...
I can assume that the research group was a lot larger...
Absolute. I also don't understand why the AIs started looking for a larger n. That should be a smaller one.
The quality of the article and the reputation of The Epoch Times are unfortunately very questionable... Hence the “hard” conclusion about a non-significant difference.
That's right, Jan. But even small numbers or differences can indicate something. Not significant? What limit then? 95% or 99% or maybe 90% Or what about 80%? Some math, but the facts remain... And this isn't just about anything, I thought... Life or death, something like that….
We generally assume 95% reliability, 1.96 (= approx. 2) x sigma.
If the deviation is smaller than the noise, it really means nothing. Then it could be purely coincidental. That seems counter-intuitive, but that's the way it is.
Small numbers indicate noise. Whether it concerns gambling, life/death, reaching the moon, being able to pay your rent. Doesn't matter. Only when the difference is greater than the noise does it say anything.
If you repeat the experiment 10 times, you get 210 resp. 150, then things will be different. Then it says a lot. But if, for example, n = 10,000 you get 12 and 15, then it is just noise. I can't make it more beautiful. Any good scientist will see it that way.
Lean/six sigma is used in critical processes. That's not even enough for the moon landing...
De term Six Sigma duidt op een proces waarbij de grens voor defecten op $6 \sigma$ van het gemiddelde ligt.
In theoretical (short-term) statistics, the chance that a result falls within these limits is 99.9999998%. This means that there is only a 2 chance in a billion that there is a deviation.
In practice, however, the 3.4 DPMO (Defects Per Million Opportunities) is used. This amounts to a 99.99966% chance that a product or measurement is correct.
In the social/gamma sciences we usually settle for a 2 sigma = 5% chance that it is just a coincidence. Then it is acceptable to base socio-economic policy on it.
Based on the picture below, can the effect of the mRNA vaccines, in terms of mortality reduction due to Covid, compared to vector vaccines, also be interpreted as noise?
Looks like it. On balance, the mRNAs, compared to vector vaccines, appear to do little in terms of mortality in the relatively short term.
I think another, Bayesian approach is also possible, which allows more to be said.
Perhaps consult Ronald Meester for this.
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2589004223008106-gr1.jpg
See for more information.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004223008106
Just opinions of the experts
van Maarten here.
https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/mrna-vaccins-zijn-de-toekomst-gaat-de-revolutie-te-hard-wel-volgens-dwarse-deense-onderzoekers~b7df95aa/
Of course, it often happens that a hypothesis does not reach significance. It is worth noting that the result (relatively strong, but not significant) is opposite to the hypothesis.
If only because that says something about how underpowered the study actually is, while it is done as a final verdict for approval. I don't think much attention has been paid to that.
If they had considered the relative difference between 15 and 21 deaths important, for example because it was a disease with a low IFR, they would have had to organize a trial of about 350,000 people. (I remember too an article from August '25, which is exactly about this.)
The current VAERS database nicely supplements the 'suspicion' of wrongdoing when granting the injection permit. Take a look at what Senator Johnson has now uncovered and at the significant effects of the injections on, for example, 'sudden cardiac death' and other conditions. See American literature. Add this to the findings of direct 'microclotting' by the injections, as well as the extremely clogged vessels in deceased people after the injection. See also Arne Burckhardt's book. Why is it so quiet in the Netherlands, while this scandal is now being publicly discussed in the US and also in Germany. Now with charges against Fauci's most important advisor David Morens, and also great pressure on Fauci himself (despite the immunity granted to him by Biden, there are still chances of prosecution).
An important comment about statistical significance (or not): what do we actually use as an output variable? Death, serious health damage or minor damage? And what term do we use (after injection), 1 week, 2, 4, 8 or 16 weeks, or 1/2 or 1 year? Or more? We now know that the mRNA effects remain in the body of many people for up to 2 years (and probably longer); one's own body as a spike factory. Spike protein with all its toxic properties, especially effects on blood vessels. A ticking time bomb. How do we reconcile this with the current narrative? Shouldn't our Dutch policy makers be woken up? Maarten, help!