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.
| Population | Deaths | Attack rate | VE | |
| Vaccinated | 62,4% | 43,9% | 70,3% | 52,9% |
| Unvaccinated | 37,6% | 56,1% | 149,3% |
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.
See also this interview with Prof Norman Fenton
https://youtu.be/sG2pZ3qDdqc?si=-31HwRsJwQX9gKP9
Great work! Note: negative effectiveness in the first weeks also implies that the people who got covid during that period were protected afterwards as a result of past infection. So that contributes to the 'effectiveness'. It is not for nothing that people were only considered 'vaccinated' 1 or 2 weeks after the second injection, even in the RCTs that was applied. Something that is 'unique' within the world of vaccination studies (itt regular medicines). If you're nice, you can call that an "art flaw" from the point of view of "evidence-based" medicine, but other qualifications are also possible.
We can talk long or short, but the bottom line is that the government and all the agencies involved have been bottling things up.
There is absolutely no need to investigate this further, it is clear by now.
The government will not cooperate in making the crime it has caused really visible.
The excess mortality is the result of the syringes until proven otherwise.
Your neat calculations confirm this crime.
Just something for Sunday morning.
This is mostly about the 'vaccinations', and that is an important topic. The reason, the lever actually, to roll out those vaccinations en masse was the 'pandemic'. I often see Herman using Covid deaths in his articles. Partly to determine how effective the 'vaccines' actually are. I don't think LinkedIn is the place to respond in detail. Not enough room to add nuances. So hope you agree with a comment on this site.
The numbers of Covid deaths therefore play a major role in the vaccination statistics, but I am now convinced, not on the basis of emotion but on the basis of logic and data, that by far the largest number of Covid deaths were WITH Covid and not BECAUSE of Covid. I had that feeling from the beginning, but it could never be proven. We don't know how big that percentage was. But here and there are publications that might help.
See this piece on Fenton and Neil's Substack: https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/covid-flu-and-excess-deaths-in-northern
In the Netherlands, you could already see on the CBS website at the beginning of 2021 that the number of deaths from other causes (not Covid) was considerably lower than normal during 2020. Respiratory diseases, cancer, cardiovascular diseases. All lower than before. Many Covid deaths would have died anyway, but everyone was subjected to the very dubious PCR test in the hospital. Flu was gone. Was it supplanted by the Covid virus or was just about every respiratory disease seen as Covid by the PCR tests? In addition, an antibiotic/steroid treatment was banned (the protocols) in case of a 'Covid' infection that developed into pneumonia. Other conditions were also not treated in the normal way. Patients were hooked up to respirators. We now know(?) that especially people who are already in poor health rarely come out of it well. The already weak alveoli are put under great pressure. And early treatment was banned under penalty of fines (HCQ, Ivermectin, zinc). I'm not a medical doctor, so if anyone can articulate or explain the above better, I'd love to hear it.
Many Covid deaths should therefore be seen as iatrogenic. Or as the well-known final push in which the flu normally plays a role.
This quote from Northern Ireland is telling:
"Of the 5,674 Covid-19 related deaths that had occurred up to 15 March 2024 (accounting for registrations up to and including 20 March 2024), 275 had Covid-19 as the only cause of death mentioned on the death certificate. The remaining 5,399 covid-19 related deaths had at least one other cause of death mentioned on the death certificate."
It's a bit short-sighted, but with these numbers, only 5% of all Covid deaths would have died from Covid itself.
Let us not forget that in 2020, this kind of manipulation has made the population fearful. People who used their common sense at the time could already see in 2020 that the narrative did not match the actual numbers. It was all based on 'numbers of infections', meaning positive results of a PCR test. Not from a diagnosis. And on models, especially by Neil Ferguson, who always missed the mark in the past. The rest of the world copied the dramatic predictions indiscriminately. The book 'Fighting Goliath' by Fenton and Neil goes all the way back to the beginning. Recommended.
I have now come to the point where I assume that there has never been a deadly pandemic. By a deadly pandemic, I mean that a pathogen is circulating that kills healthy people in droves. The only Covid death known to me is my wife's 99-year-old grandmother who had a laundry list of comorbitations and didn't have long to live anyway. Anecdotally, I know. But many anecdotes make it a pattern.
Is this still relevant? I think so, because the death rates are also used in the vaccination statistics to indicate how effective the 'vaccines' are. If the majority of Covid deaths were not Covid deaths at all, there is actually hardly any link between vacccination and Covid deaths. And that, in turn, has consequences for the Vaccine Effectiveness calculation.
There's a lot more to say about it. But I wanted to point out that all these things are interrelated. You can't separate the rollout of the "vaccines" from the scaremongering that preceded it (and the propaganda still continues).
The treatment methods and real numbers of Covid patients since 2020 are relevant. After all, proponents of the mRNA regime will argue that these "vaccines" have saved millions of lives. I haven't seen a decent substantiation of that claim anywhere. If we assume that there was never a pandemic in the classical sense of the word, only the adverse consequences of the medical and non-medical interventions remain.
There must have been a Corona virus circulating. Whether that was completely new or not doesn't really matter. The panic in China in late 2019/early 2020 (those videos), combined with a WHO that finally got its long-awaited pandemic (even though the definition of 'pandemic' had to be adjusted) has set something in motion. The Hollywood movie 'Contagious' with heroic virologists who save the world was redone. I didn't think Marion Koopmans quite reached the level of Kate Winslet. No Oscar yet, but nice try. The pharmaceutical industry was happy to give the final push.
And it doesn't stop. Babies born to c-vaccinated mothers are more likely to get the RS virus and also to become seriously ill from it. And all of a sudden, the "vaccine" against that (or for?) approved Mrs. P is overjoyed because she didn't succeed for years (because it doesn't work). So much worry about my next generations because the chance of a healthy partner is almost nil. And no matter how sweet someone is, an unhealthy partner always causes worries and the like. If only because one is at the mercy of protocols in healthcare and these can cause additional illness or even death has already been shown. My healthy parents didn't even survive the corona measures without having had covid.
Zeer interessante link naar artikel over onderzoek naar geval van vaccinatieschade via substack Fenton:
https://tkp.at/2024/09/04/auf-der-suche-nach-moerdern-anlaesslich-des-ploetzlichen-und-unerwarteten-todes-eines-34-jaehrigen/