The past six years have been dominated by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and efforts to limit the impact of the pandemic. Science played a central role in this. However, as time goes by, more and more questions arise about that role. What was initially presented as solidly scientifically substantiated conclusions, according to critics, in many cases turns out to be based on assumptions and incomplete or incorrect interpretations.Spread of the virus
For a long time, the WHO held to the assumption that the virus mainly spread through large droplets. The basic measures - such as 1.5 meters distance and face masks - were based on this. However, many scientists, including Maurice de Hond, suggested based on spread patterns that the virus mainly moved through the air, just like other respiratory viruses.
This graph (see also this tweet, for the numbers see NHS) shows the number of hospital admissions in seven English NHS regions, in almost perfect sync. This indicates that the virus moves over large distances in a short time, something that is unlikely when spread via large droplets.
The Dutch figures (the black line) are remarkably similar to those in England. With the North Sea in between, this seems difficult to reconcile with an exclusively droplet-bound distribution route.
Despite an open letter from 239 scientists in June 2020, the WHO continued to stick to the trickle model. It was not until April 2022 that scientists within the WHO recognized that the main route of transmission was indeed airborne.
What is the IFR
The IFR (Infection Fatality Ratio) indicates the chance of dying after an infection. In the Netherlands, Prof. Van Dissel (RIVM) initially assumed an IFR of 5%, which would mean that up to 900,000 people in the Netherlands would potentially die from COVID-19. The WHO then used an estimate of 3.2%.
Gradually, these figures have been sharply adjusted, to approximately 0.044% – more than a hundred times lower than Van Dissel's original estimate. The IFR also appears to be highly age-dependent, as shown by, among other things Ioannidis has been demonstrated. See this graph.
The dots are the IFR values for 7 age groups (read on the left) compared to the normal mortality rate for that group. It is striking that in many cases the IFR is barely higher than the regular mortality rate. That would imply that, if everyone had been infected, the number of COVID-19 deaths in the first year would have been around 170,000. In reality it remained at approximately 22,000.
For the Omikron variant, the adjusted IFR is approximately ten times lower, that is the green line. Read more in: How deadly was corona?
“Science” was ultimately wrong by a factor of a thousand in its assessment of the severity of the pandemic.
Measures
The measures were initially based on the principle of “Flatten the Curve”: limiting social contacts would slow the spread and reduce the pressure on healthcare. This is a well-known and theoretically logical principle.
The downside is that it takes longer to build up broad immunity. For the individual, the risk only really ends after an infection has been experienced. Measures postpone that moment, but do not take it away.
A frequently used comparison concerns the Netherlands and Belgium in December, at the time of the emergence of the Omikron variant. The Netherlands went into lockdown, Belgium did not. In Belgium, hospital admissions immediately rose, while in the Netherlands they fell briefly. A month later, this picture reversed: in the Netherlands the figures rose, while in Belgium they fell again.
We see a similar pattern in July 2021 during “Dancing for Jansen”: a rapid increase in admissions in the Netherlands, but not in Belgium, followed by lower numbers in the Netherlands in September.
To date, according to Science, the claim that the measures have saved many lives remains intact, despite these observations. Read more in the Corona Chronicle.
Vaccine safety
The safety of the vaccines is one of the most controversial topics. In an initial study with approximately 44,000 test subjects, Pfizer found no indications that the vaccine would be unsafe, after which the EMA authorized the drug.
However, critics argue that the absence of evidence is not proof of safety. A study of this size can only rule out a risk of death of about 1 in 250. Converted, this means that it was only certain that fewer than approximately 60,000 Dutch people would die as a result of the first dose. This is visualized in this graph. The yellow area is within which mortality would remain according to Pfizer.
Now that the annual excess mortality is around 14,000, it is concluded that the 60,000 scenario has not come true. Nevertheless, the question remains how robust the safety claims were. A detailed explanation is included How safe is safe?
In addition, it is argued that the production process of the vaccines used in the trials differed significantly from that of large-scale production, which would mean that a different product was effectively brought to market.
Despite these points, the message from science remained: “It is safe.”
Did the vaccines stop the pandemic?
In addition to safety, it was stated that the vaccines were effective and would stop the pandemic. On March 23, 2021, Minister Hugo de Jonge presented a letter to parliament with a graph which would show that mortality in nursing homes fell sharply thanks to the vaccinations:
The message was that mortality in nursing homes was falling sharply thanks to the vaccines. Of course, the two injection needles were not in this graph, we added them to indicate the vaccination moments. Infections had been declining for almost two months and it was also known that the vaccines only provided sufficient protection after a month. But the House trusted “Science” and accepted the RIVM message at face value.
Through a letter to the minister we asked for a further explanation, but the letter was forwarded to the Commission of Inquiry. A more detailed description in End of corona thanks to vaccinations?
The 2G bill
Scientists from TU Delft published a report in which a 2G policy (only access for vaccinated and cured people) was strongly recommended over 3G, where a negative test was also sufficient. The bill was already in the House of Representatives when Maurice de Hond and we got wind of it.
After our analysis, the report turned out to contain serious calculation errors and incorrect assumptions. A recalculation made the alleged advantage of 2G disappear, as can be read in The Fata Morgana of the 2G efficiency. After the intervention of the later Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport (Fleur Agema), the bill was withdrawn.
This once again put “Science” in a bad light.
Has excess mortality disappeared?
It is increasingly stated that there is no longer excess mortality. Minister Conny Dijkstra even refused to implement an adopted motion calling for further investigation.
This message is fed by the scientists at the RIVM, who have taken over the weekly reporting of mortality figures from CBS from 2024. The RIVM bases its forecasts on mortality in the last five years, while CBS assumed population growth and aging.
The result is that the expected annual mortality increase according to the RIVM has increased from approximately 0.6% to 4.5%. This means that the prognosis is closer to actual mortality, making excess mortality statistically less visible. The RIVM is there! we wrote cynically.
Member of Parliament Ria De Korte asked the RIVM to reconsider the calculation method through a motion. We also contributed through our proposal Van verwachtingen naar normsterfte. The RIVM subsequently acknowledged that their calculation method is unsuitable for monitoring long-term trends and therefore not for determining excess mortality. Read the article we wrote about this here: RIVM emphasizes the need for standard mortality model.
“Science” therefore opted for a different calculation method, with which the excess mortality disappeared.
The Nivel study
A striking study came from Nivel. Under the leadership of Prof. Robert Verheij, it was concluded that there was under-mortality among vaccinated people and excess mortality among unvaccinated people, up to a factor of ten difference in the three months after taking or not taking a vaccine.
The report received heavy criticism, including from Prof. Ronald Meester and Maurice de Hond, due to serious calculation errors and incorrect assumptions. It was repealed and amended several times. Although the underlying attachments were removed, the main conclusion remained. Both politicians and scientists still refer to this report. Read, for example, this article: Nivel's farce.
Apparently that's how science works now.
Is there administrative excess mortality?
Registration in the CIMS system plays an important role in the analysis of vaccination effectiveness. Minister Hugo de Jonge repeatedly expressed concerns about backlogs of up to 60%, while a maximum of 5% had been agreed.
We wrote several articles about this, including this one: Administrative excess mortality according to CIMS. Due to administrative problems at CIMS, some of the vaccinated people are missing from their administration. Read the relevant articles for further explanation. This graph shows the final outcome of the “reconstruction” we made, which led to Nivel's conclusion that excess mortality is exclusively among the unvaccinated.
Here we see the progression of mortality until February 2021 until the end of the second wave. No one has been vaccinated yet. In February, vaccinated people appear to die much more often than unvaccinated people, but this can still be explained by age differences.
But when version 2.0 of CIMS is put into use on February 25, 2021, something very strange happens. Because there is a significant backlog in registration, there is a huge administrative increase in deaths among unvaccinated people. To compensate, the vaccinated must die much less often, because the total mortality at that time is almost normal (a "small" excess mortality of around 8%). That is also what Nivel thinks: excess mortality among unvaccinated people.
We even see that mortality among unvaccinated people is up to threefold compared to the first wave. If we had not started vaccinating in 2021, according to their calculation model, annual mortality would have been almost 100,000 higher from March 1. An extremely unlikely outcome.
Also realize that this concerns all causes of death and therefore not Covid-19. This also includes traffic victims, cancer and falls from kitchen steps.
“Science”, led by the RIVM, firmly believes in the elixir of life effect of the mRNA vaccines. In the first 3 months it reduces your risk of dying by up to 40%.
Is there a relationship between vaccination and excess mortality?
Our assumption is at odds with that of the scientists at the RIVM. We suspect that vaccines actually increase the risk of death. Much has already been written about it, but this graph illustrates what we think we see.
After each vaccination round we see a coinciding peak in excess mortality AND a secondary wave 3 months afterwards. We have seen this very clearly since 2022 and to a lesser extent in 2021, because vaccinations took place almost continuously. Persistent excess mortality is therefore more than a baseline that may or may not have increased. It's a pattern that has manifested itself since vaccinations started in 2021.
And no, this is not legal proof that the vaccines are the cause of this, but the opposite is certainly impossible. There is not even any indication that vaccines have reduced mortality. It remains with results from opaque calculation models that do not fit the observations.
The disbelief that there could be a relationship with vaccination could be due to the fact that victims of vaccination have no special characteristics. They don't die with a green head or broken limbs. Their cause of death is camouflaged, because they die from seemingly mundane causes. Experts speak of microscopic bleeding or “the ratio of IgG1 and IgG3 to IgG4”. Could we still submit that question to “Science”?
Can there be under-mortality among vaccinated people?
The most basic question there is. The first Pfizer study conducted before admission showed no significant difference between vaccinated and non-vaccinated people. That is not yet proof that there is no difference, but it does determine the limits between which the difference should lie. That is a chance of approximately 1:250 for this Pfizer study. This applies to both increased mortality in vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
What does that mean for the chance that excess mortality will now only occur among unvaccinated people? If the figures from the Nivel study are correct (so up to 40% under-mortality among vaccinated people) and we see an excess mortality of 8% across the entire population, which is completely at odds with the outcome of the Pfizer study. After all, that study found an excess mortality among the unvaccinated of at most 0.4%, or 40% excess mortality. The 500-900% excess mortality from Nivel's findings is therefore disproportionately higher.
The first thing you should do as a scientist is to test your own findings against scientific publications. Prof. Robert Verheij was not prepared to do this, preferring his own findings to those of Pfizer.
Concluding remarks
Science has long excelled at finding logical explanations for observations. That tradition seems to have weakened. Elixir of life effect of vaccines is embraced by science. Journalism is also no longer able to critically monitor science, as it used to be.
The conclusion drawn from this is stark: science is no longer what it used to be. Or are we back to the Middle Ages?
Where is the science?
Would you like a notification e-mail with each new article?
Contributing to virusvaria is allowed! Click and enter the amount yourself via Ideal or Paypal
👇
👍
Then come the Wappies! After Helmut Sterz, Paul Cullen and Stefan Homburg also go into it again
One Holy Grail of tinsel
How governments are lying about the COVID vaccines
Katy Talento: 'Confessions of a Public Health Priestess in the White House'
Birthday present
Factchecker debunks influencer Mary Bowden
My answer to Maarten Keulemans
CBS oracles, AD legitimizes and De Stilte Screams
The revised Spanish Flu myth: how science and media normalize excess mortality
Addendum: migration and excess mortality among young women
Drug fact check from Knack.be
Would you like a notification e-mail with each new article?
Reactions
Comments that are not related to the topic of discussion will be deleted. Always keep comments respectful and substantive.
19 Comments
Post a Comment
amnesty Anne Frank monkeypox bhakdi variegated fraud
ionization young people we can query life expectancy face masks Un Lawsuits
thrombosis safety pregnancy Bulgaria Deltavax factcheck
John long covid Repopulation privacy RKI deferred care
asmr censorship conspiracy theory effectiveness iq Excess mortality debate
rivm UK Baseline Burkhardt filosofie nocebo
alijst Parliamentary inquiry Badbatches IC OUR responsibility
narrative paradogma Vaccination readiness Measures norm mortality ivermectin
mdhaero manipulation society women research infection lableak
scientific integrity disinformation communication media vaccination excess mortality
statistics science science corruption aerosols CBS politics
Side effects hve Public health Wuhan Children Australia
Level Wynia praise Government information mediacracy Pfizer
NRC Fauci Post-Covid journalism opinion lockdowns
Germany foreign country Wob sociology placebo obfuscation
Gupta data ChatGPT cardiovascular vitaminD Mortality Monitor
forecast table PeterSweden Ukraine Koopmans Japan Causes
calculator Anti-VAX WOO VE Spike qaly
Nice overview.
Let's figure out a few more points, including: "The graph has been corrected", which ends in a vacuum.
Furthermore, when discussing the clinical trials, I would be the first to mention that it concerned a different product, not as a final reflection.
By the way, I read about it for longer than 9 minutes, and that's how it should be.
I would also add that in the Woo request to ZonMW, the institute takes the position that they do not have the codes, etc. from RivM and therefore cannot provide them. We (Biomedical Audit Chamber) have appealed and argue that ZonMW, as client, must ensure complete transparency.
I still miss the proportionality of the measures.
The calculation by EZ officials at the end of March 2020 has proven to be more than correct:
The Measures (lockdown) would save a maximum of approximately 100,000 life years (qalys).
They would cost approximately 620,000 years of life. 320,000 have already been admitted/calculated by RIVM on the basis of a partial calculation in 2022; RIVM has no longer carried out further and comprehensive damage calculations.
On balance, therefore, 520,000 negative life years! C.q. at least “officially” negative for 220,000 life years, also according to the RIVM.
The costs would amount to €100 billion. Based on data from CPB, CBS and the Tax Authorities, the financial and economic damage has amounted to approximately €150 billion.
That is approximately €1.5 million/life year, while the standard is €20,000/life year. A consciously chosen excess by a factor of 75. In flagrant violation of the VWS/EZ/MinFin policy.
In addition to this calculation, the capital error of applying the Rule of Rescue instead of utilitarian principles should be mentioned! If there is no awareness about this, this mistake will also be repeated next time.
Totally agree. That is worthy of a separate article. I think Anton has written something about that before. We can't stop talking about it!
Nice overview.
Good overview 👍 Many deaths were also caused by incorrect (and not in primary care) treatment protocols (and research protocol). Many in healthcare know and knew this, but following along and looking away is the norm.
Nice overview, Herman. I also see:
– the PCR madness as a very big factor. We know how unsuitable these were to determine a 'contamination'. Those 'case numbers', especially in the 'autumn peak' in 2020, were pure propaganda. What they call Corona was an accumulation of random RNA and DNA residues in nasal passages.
– the hospital and nursing home protocols. This has led to large numbers of iatrogenic deaths. Not only the incorrect diagnoses as indicated by Willem Lijfering, but also the withholding of antibiotics for people who had bacterial pneumonia, the increased use of Midazolam (in England this can be seen in much larger numbers of doses than normal. Is this also the case in the Netherlands?).
– The way in which 'vaccine' propaganda is carried out. For effectiveness, the Relative Risk Reduction is always used. The Absolute Risk Reduction was almost negligible. If someone were already making a decision about whether or not to vaccinate, you would actually need to know the ARR.
https://pandata.org/understanding-relative-risk-reduction-and-absolute-risk-reduction-in-vaccine-trials/
– Finally, the government propaganda that was deliberately organized. See the articles by Cees vd Bos and Leon Kuunders. This propaganda could only work with the help of the media.
Without the 'nudging' to prepare the population for a massive 'vaccine' roll-out with barely tested technology, it would never have been possible to persuade a large part of the population to get injected. The booster story is insane. Level Bassie and Adriaan (no insult to B&A but their target group is small children).
So totally agree with your list, but there's more to it. The real problem is that the masses still live in denial, and that is not good, because the propaganda still continues, enthusiastically supported by our mass media. I don't even want to use the word "pandemic" in this context. There was no pandemic in the classic sense of the word. If there was a pandemic, it was a pandemic of naivety/stupidity/fear on the one hand and propaganda/stupidity/fear/profiteering on the other. There will probably have been an additional respiratory illness in the winter of 2020, but doing nothing is also an option. I don't think we even noticed. The Hong Kong flu of 1969 is comparable if you take into account that we had half (!) of the world's population at the time. No measures, and within a year it was over.
The question is whether the general public will ever have doubts. The problem is, as 'we' know, your entire worldview slowly changes or even collapses as soon as you see how propaganda works. And that jump is quite scary. I no longer read anything without taking into account what message they are actually trying to convey. I think there is another layer underneath this, we have been moving towards a different shared narrative for decades: Our democracy works fine, the government knows what is good for us, anyone who criticizes is suspect. Open discussion based on arguments has been replaced by polarization. Read 'The Road to Serfdom' by Friedrich Hayek.
The above is undoubtedly incomplete, and is more of a 'rant' than a response. But I still wanted to share it.
Agree with everything. However, with this piece we have attempted to record the scientific findings.
The lessons I learned from the corona period:
Policy responses are often as damaging (and in C19 even more damaging) than the disease itself and fear and groupthink are more contagious than a virus and very difficult to combat.
As others say, a nice overview, thank you!
Apparently something went wrong with a percentage: "an additional mortality among the unvaccinated of at most 0.4%, or 40% excess mortality." In this case, 0.4% is and remains just 0.4%, right?
There is also something else to be said about that 0.4% (in the end, more deaths were reported in the vaccination group despite falsification of data and that makes the chances unequal afterwards) but as a rule of thumb it seems reasonable to me. Maybe you can find out how approximately 1 in 250 was determined, or a reference about that?
If there is an additional mortality of 0.4% of the population and 1% dies annually, then the excess mortality is 0.4%/1% = 40%.
In a group of 22,000, 1% dies annually. In 3 months 0.25%. That is 55. The uncertainty is 7. You are comparing 2 groups, so there must be a difference of 7 X 2X root(2) = 20. So 1:1000 in 3 months. So 1:250 on an annual basis. Figures have been rounded for readability.
Thank you for the clarification! With the assumption of 1% per year deaths in the population (unfortunately not the same composition as in the clinical study), the picture is complete.
I looked at the required size of clinical studies to find a certain effect size, and then the same required order of magnitude can be found with calculation models available on the Internet such as https://riskcalc.org.
Beats. It remains a matter of looking at coffee grounds. If you assume a healthier population, you can conclude that it could be less harmful for a healthier population. The fact remains that no conclusion for harmfulness has been “proven”. This requires tens of millions of test subjects. And even then, an acceptable level of safety is unprovable. Billions of subjects to rule out something like 1:100,000. That's over a hundred deaths.
Let's summarize it for you:
1. 'Spread of the virus'
Was similar to the flu
2. 'What was the IFR'
Similar to the flu
3. 'Measures'
Tyrannical and completely nonsensical
4. 'Vaccine safety'
Killershots
5. “Did the Vaccines Stop the Pandemic?”
The syringe was never there to stop anything, it's a killer shot.
6. 'The 2G bill'
The dictators' wet dream
7. 'Has excess mortality disappeared?'
Nope and that will never happen again
8. 'The Nivel research'
That was not an investigation, just a failed money laundering operation
9. 'Is there Administrative Excess Mortality?'
If it were up to the criminals, no, as planned.
5 years later, simply increase the zero line.
10. 'Is there a relationship between vaccination and excess mortality?'
It is the reason, until proven otherwise
The proof will never come
11. 'Can under-mortality exist among vaccinated people?'
Only in the new normal, the new zero line, so unfortunately......never
12. 'Concluding consideration'
We were always in the Middle Ages
Also the calculation of the “prevented” deaths by using vaccines.
By just looking at the number of additional deaths due to COVID without a vaccine, you can easily deduce that the number of "prevented" deaths cannot be correct. It is many times greater than the number of deaths in the first COVID year and herd immunity is now also playing a role. Then only fewer people can die from COVID.
Simple common sense.
The 'science' surrounding vaccines is bankrupt, with the exception of a few (such as Stabell Benn).
The religion that prevails here may still be brought to light through law:
https://open.substack.com/pub/pgtzsche1/p/a-masterpiece-lawyer-aaron-siris?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1lysl7
Science or the meta-concept of epistemology is hot. Also at Clintel and Maurice. https://clintel.nl/van-wetenschap-naar-scientisme-de-crisis-van-de-moderne-wetenschap/
I think it's a really good, in-depth article. But not much new for us wappies. I wish that our “scientists” at the institutes and universities and the MSM journalists would really understand this. And draw consequences from that.
Good piece indeed. Usable for academics. But they have forgotten the most important requirement: transparency. A number of the criteria mentioned in the article often cannot even be tested due to a lack of transparency. If the transparency requirement were met, the ideological nonsense would soon come to an end. That is, if the media were to do something with it. Otherwise it still doesn't matter to society, it will continue to be skirmishes within the academia.
You are certainly right about how “science” is (mis)used in policy. This requires a razor-sharp press.
But I (and the author) are of the opinion that the “scientists” at both universities and institutes (RIVM, KNMI, TNO, etc.) should rise from their own echo chamber even without the press. They in particular should listen less to the press and let their Aristotelian scientific compass work. And they almost structurally don't do that. That is really very worrying.
That is also the tenor of the article. The scientists themselves respectively the scientific institutions are rotten through and through.
But why is that so?
Perhaps because far too many people simply need to obtain a university degree, while by previous standards they may not have gone beyond HBO?
It is still interesting to know how that happens...
I see a lot of academic mediocrity around me.
This is funny. Science or the media do not play a role in how you think about climate.
But the decisive factor is your social bubble and the pressure it creates.
https://esb.nu/klimaatopvattingen/
Unfortunately, the article then puts a completely different spin on this than would be logical: more (left-wing) education leads to better awareness of the climate hoax.