This question has been around for a while and all kinds of things are being shouted, but the image is getting sharper and sharper. And the nice thing is that it is supported from all sides by government documents. Let me start on that side first. What do we know, also thanks to the detective work of Leon1969.

• From Official Gazette of 1 December 2020, which sets out the conditions for providing the necessary personal data to CIMS: no information if the vaccinated person has died.
• One WMD document of 4 March 2021, which mentions the entry into production of the new version of CIMS 2.0 on 25 February 2021.
• One memo from RIVM on 20 April 2021 in which RIVM expresses its concerns about a 29.7% backlog in registering in CIMS.
• From CBS publication of 23 February 2024 in which CBS published mortality figures broken down by vaccination status according to CIMS.
• The Nivel report Under-mortality among COVID-19 vaccinated and excess mortality among unvaccinated people, in which Nivel mentions missing vaccinations. However, the estimate for the percentage appears to be far too low and has been calculated incorrectly.

The reconstruction

Of course, the government doesn't have a script for us on how everything works, but we can now put it together ourselves. To begin with, the government has decided to exclude deceased people from the CIMS database, where the vaccinations are registered. At first glance, this seems valid and was substantiated with the argument that the deceased should not receive a call for a second vaccination. But if you want to use that same database to analyse the figures, that is disastrous. It would be possible if the vaccination is introduced immediately and happens before a possible death occurs.

From the CBS figures of 23 February 2024, we were able to reconstruct the backlog that would exist at the CIMS. This graph we showed:

The difference between the blue and the black line is the lag we saw. After further reconstruction, we understand more and more what we see here.

On March 4, 2021, it is reported that a new version of CIMS, version 2.0, will be put into production. That in itself should not be big news, but it seems that it was only then that the restriction was built in that the deceased could not be registered. We see that on that date the black and blue lines suddenly separated:

It's too coincidental not to be able to attribute it to the new version. But let's move on to the reconstruction. On 20 April 2021, the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) wrote a memo in which it was concerned about the increasing backlog in the registrations of vaccinations in CIMS. According to the RIVM, there would be a backlog of 29.7% of the number of injections administered so far on that date. Very remarkable and of course that didn't make it into the newspaper. But of course we can now include that 29.7% in this graph and see if it corresponds to our own calculations from the CBS figures:

And indeed, we find almost the same backlog in the CBS figures (29.7% of the vaccination coverage is equal to our 20% missing registrations). This gives confidence that both RIVM and CBS are close to the actual backlog.

Is that 29.7% correct?

So the RIVM reports the 29.7% overdue registration in its memo, but is that correct? It is their estimate, based on the number of vaccines delivered. Fortunately, we can fall back on the CBS figures as of 23 February. In it, we find a total number of vaccinated deaths of 1347 for the week in question. We can then compare this with the total mortality published weekly by CBS, which was 3144 for that week. So the ratio should correspond to the vaccination rate. We find a quotient of 42.8%, which is considerably less than the vaccination rate of 62.4%. If we subtract that 29.7% from that 62.4%, we arrive at 43.9%, which is almost equal to the 42.8%. That 29.7% was therefore a fairly accurate estimate by RIVM of the backlog in registration with CIMS.

Later, there is a Update of these figures Appeared. These confirm the picture of increasing backlog, which was later slowly made up again.

What's the backlog now?

We now have all the ingredients to be able to calculate the backlog in the CIMS administration. The difference between the black and blue lines is the backlog in CIMS based on the CBS figures as of 23 February. If we move to the left from the black line, the time between the lines is the lag that has been accumulated. For example, if we look at March 26, 2021, where the vaccination rate is 49% (blue), we see that in CIMS (black) it was only reached around May 1, a backlog of about 5 weeks on May 1.

We can calculate this for each week and then we come up with the following graph:

We see here as a green line that the backlog will increase from March 2021 to as much as 10 weeks at the beginning of April. Undoubtedly, the enormous workload at the GPs and vaccination centres will have contributed to the fact that the administration has fallen behind.

The backlog then decreases to 5 weeks and then remains stable. We are curious about the explanation that the government has for systematically lagging behind by 5 weeks in registration. Is that still work pressure or just a prescription? Be that as it may, because of that 5-week delay, a completely distorted picture of the effectiveness of the vaccines emerges. Where, on the basis of the uncorrected figures, an elixir effect of a factor of 3-5 was claimed by both RIVM and NIVEL, in the best case we can only claim that vaccination has not had a beneficial effect or the mortality chances after vaccination.

What if there was no backlog at all?

That would be strange, because it would mean that RIVM spread disinformation about the alleged backlog on 20 April 2021. Why would they have done that? If that backlog was indeed there, but it has since been made up, then the government has acted in violation of its own BRP regulations, by providing data of deceased persons to CIMS. Anyway, the government often doesn't take it very seriously, so maybe it could be right after all. But in that case, the chance of death as an unvaccinated person would suddenly be up to five times according to the Nivel study, without anything having happened to the unvaccinated person and that is strange. The mortality rate for the vaccinated would have fallen sharply for ALL causes, not just for corona. That is also strange, so vaccination works as an elixir of life. There does not seem to be any indication that the government has acted against its own regulations here.

HVE

In addition to the purely numerical approach based on vaccination coverage, we also have to deal with the HVE: the Healthy Vaccinee Effect. This is the phenomenon that people who are too sick and too vulnerable no longer get vaccinated. This gives a distortion of the VE: it therefore appears larger. Unfortunately, this effect is difficult to quantify, but it certainly plays a role.

(For more info on how to calculate VE, see the previous post)

What does this mean now?

For the time being, this is an analysis of mortality regardless of the cause of death. The outcome is that vaccination has not produced the big differences that have been thought, on the contrary. It is also not an answer to the question of whether vaccination is the cause of excess mortality, because the vaccination figures are too uncertain for that. Around 11% of the population is now unvaccinated and excess mortality is about 10%. If exactly 11% were indeed unvaccinated, there would be no indication that the vaccination would be the cause of excess mortality. But if it turns out that 12% are unvaccinated, then the excess mortality is suddenly entirely among the vaccinated (after all, 1% less mortality among the unvaccinated is 10% more mortality among the vaccinated). The differences are too small to make it clear this figures. But that certainly doesn't dismiss the vaccines as candidate No. 1.

What we can do, however, is make a better estimate of the protection the vaccine has given us in preventing covid-19 as a cause of death.

We have shown this graph before, based on the February 23 figures:

Negative protection in the first 4 weeks and thereafter varying between 25 and 75%. From the Omicron variant onwards, it drops to around zero. It should be noted, however, that in the months when the VE was above 50%, there was virtually no corona. Just when it was needed, during the Delta wave, the protection was virtually gone.

What if the vaccine doesn't do anything at all?

Suppose the vaccine would have the same effect as a placebo and we know that there is a backlog in administration, what are we going to see? We take 20 April 2021 as an example, because the RIVM itself also indicates that 29.7% of vaccinated people have not yet been admitted to CIMS. According to figures from the RIVM, the vaccination rate was 62.4% in that week, and with that we can now do the math.

So if we were to vaccinate with a placebo, we would see a protection of more than 50% just because of the backlog in registration. As vaccination coverage increases, so will the apparent VE towards 80%.

By the way, we see that the VE we calculated only became positive in March 2021, before that it was negative. We have already described this in April of this year. But if we zoom in on the first few months, we see that the positive outcome of the supposed protection coincides with the commissioning of the new CIMS version.

Of course, it may be a coincidence, but it is certain that the backlog in registration, also reported by RIVM, is causing more and more question marks.

Conclusions

Overdue administration is the main reason that the pharmaceutical industry has been able to present the protection of the vaccines far too rosy. The figures indicate that there has been an average backlog of 5 weeks, which means that vaccinated deaths in the first 5 weeks were counted as unvaccinated. By April 2021, that backlog had even risen to 10 weeks.

These figures give the impression that even an ineffective vaccine would still provide more than 50% protection.

It would be to the credit of the government if they would come up with official and more reliable figures to confirm this reconstruction.