This article is subject to change. We suspect that there will be a drastic correction to the figures discussed. If that is the case, the fact remains that data management is severely substandard.
The correction has been received: because the last two days of week 52 fell in 2022, it was apparently decided in week 2 to remove those two days from week 52 with retroactive effect and to add a week 0 to 2022 in which only those two days are included. The text of this article has been amended accordingly.
On New Year's Eve, men like Ruben van Gaalen and Jaap van Dissel must have thought: next year we are going to do it right. But the start was already false when week 52 was reported with a sharp delay. The unexplained excess mortality had dropped unexpectedly and not just a little bit: in 4 weeks from 989 to 21. That was almost unbelievable. What is our surprise when we saw how week 52 turned out to have done much better a week later than reported a week earlier: an UNDERmortality of no less than 571!
The statement
Week 52 of 2021 had only 5 days. However, CBS had calculated the excess mortality at 7 days. Therefore, it seemed as if there was a huge undermortality. See the graph below. Hover over it to see what it looked like.
We have been wrong-footed because an extra 'week' of 2 days was only inserted in week 2, with week number 0.
This brings the total to 3,621, which makes excess mortality only 112 lower than in week 51 and therefore more comparable.
However, CBS did calculate the full seven days in the "expected mortality", including the two days of week 0. This caused this remarkable undermortality. Perhaps we should have considered that CBS uses a different count in week 1 than in week 2. For mobile users (who can't hover) below is the wrong graph.
And GONE is the unexplained excess mortality!
This is the graph, where week 0 is added to week 52, so that the weekly total is again synchronized with the expected weekly mortality.
The weeks are therefore divided differently in the case of expected mortality. Data management still does not inspire confidence. The unexplained mortality really disappears like snow in the sun.
The earlier hypothesis that it would concern unregistered covid mortality can thus once again be relegated to the realm of fables. It gets busy there.
The impression is created that everything is being done to plausibise the data in a desired direction. An independent investigation is urgently needed. So not by interested parties.
Pieter Omtzigt is working on the road
Pieter Omtzigt submitted a motion to have independent academic research carried out into excess mortality. I have described the motion and De Jonge's ducking reaction earlier and can be read in the foldout below. It also contains a letter that I sent to Omtzigt.
Letter to Pieter Omtzigt
December 20, 2022
Dear Mr. Omtzigt, dear Pieter,
It was with dismay that I read a statement that related to your 'excess mortality motion'. The motion was as follows:
MOTION BY MEMBER OMTZIGT
Proposed 1 December 2021
The Chamber,
after hearing the deliberations,
- noting that, according to Statistics Netherlands, 800 to 900 more people died per week than expected in the past two weeks;
- noting that the RIVM reports that approximately 300 people per week have died from COVID-19 in the past two weeks;
- whereas the other causes of this high excess mortality are unclear;
calls on the government to start an academic study as soon as possible to investigate the reasons and causes of excess mortality up to and including November 2021, and to inform the House of Representatives about this as soon as possible, and proceeds to the order of the day.
Omtzigt Hotels
I have been paying attention to this subject since August. Maurice de Hond informed me some time ago that he had pointed out my articles to some of his contacts in The Hague. It gave me great satisfaction that my efforts may have contributed to the creation of the above motion. Until I read the following announcement from outgoing Minister de Jonge:
'The adopted motion by member Omtzigt calling for an academic study to be started into the reasons and causes of excess mortality up to and including November 2021 cannot yet be taken up.
Excess mortality from CBS is the difference compared to a multi-year average. If the difference is large, it is likely that this is due to COVID19, but this is not certain due to the lack of insight into the underlying causes of death.
Insight into the underlying causes of death of the deceased in November and thus into the causes of excess mortality was not available to CBS until early April 2022. This motion can then be taken up and worked out further.'
Outgoing Minister Hugo de Jonge
There is a lot to be said about that. I will mention a few points.
- It is not up to the minister to determine whether or not an external, independent research group can do its work. If he decides that in advance, he de facto blocks the investigation.
- No academic group can conduct research if the data are not available. Moreover, this would indicate an unscientific working method on the part of the data collectors and owners. Science is transparent, at least in accordance with the guidelines for scientific integrity of the KNAW. The parties involved do not meet these standards, which is already a red flag that makes external investigation all the more necessary.
- The insight of CBS is not there yet, the minister literally argues. Fortunately, it is not about the insight of CBS either. It is about an independent academic insight into the long-standing data.
- There is no doubt that the data itself is there. CBS stopped monthly pre-reporting on 1 July, but that does not mean that the data would not be collected.
- The data may not yet have been interpreted or even 'plausibilized', but an academic research group should be expected to be perfectly capable of doing so itself. That is exactly what the group should do. The exclusive right to this competence may never be claimed exclusively by a government institution.
- Also with 'plausibilization', which is the intention before reporting, the question is how subjectively it is determined what is considered plausible and what is not. Stakeholders may prefer other plausibility than independent researchers. Bias must be excluded.
- Waiting for a report on quarter 4 is completely unnecessary. It is of the utmost importance that the vaccines are excluded as soon as possible as a (co-)cause of excess mortality. Research over the second and third quarters is sufficient for this. In due course, the findings can be tested against the figures for the fourth quarter. The urgency is based on the fact that the trend has led to 3,000 unexplained excess deaths in the last four weeks. (Unexplained means: the total excess mortality minus the covid mortality reported by RIVM.)
- In any case, the data from quarters 2 and 3 have been collected and digitized, i.e. ready for delivery. After all, quarter 3 would be publicly reported within a few weeks, hopefully less thickened than quarter two.
- The lack of the dates of October and/or November is no problem at all. It is precisely quarters 2 and 3 that need to be analyzed.
- The fact that the necessary data from quarters 2 and 3 is not made available is, looking at other civilized countries, shameful. Although there is a condensed report for quarter 2, it is not sufficient to carry out fine-grained analyses. Essential vectors are missing. In these quarters two and three, the intended excess mortality trend has clearly emerged. It is of the utmost importance that this data is immediately made available to science. A black box-like method does not fit in with a parliamentary democracy.
Please be prepared for in-depth explanation,
Anton Theunissen
Attachments
Charts
Statistics
A meeting with statistician Prof. Dr. Ronald Meester (professor of probability calculation at the VU) resulted inthis study. It demonstrates a certain correlation with astonishingly convincing figures. Despite the fact that I have some methodological comments, I am glad that it has been scientifically confirmed that I am not chasing a figment of my imagination.
Daniël van der Tuin discussed the research in an article with the headline:statistical research points to injections as part of explanation. As far as we are concerned, this is too suggestive a title that is not substantiated in the study. Virusvaria and The Eucalyptic Society are working together on an article with reflections on this research. Any articles will appear on virusvaria.nl and eucalyptischgenootschap.nl.
Legal notice
Perhaps unnecessarily, the current legal framework for CBS provides for the possibility of providing detailed data on registered deaths (including registered cause of death, etc.) to scientific institutes for scientific research. Of course within the framework of privacy assurance. To this end, the institute in question must then submit a request to Statistics Netherlands. In view of the urgency of the issue at hand, release for scientific research is now very much needed and contrasts with the deadline for publication of the figures by Statistics Netherlands (CBS), as indicated by outgoing Minister de Jonge. This concerns disclosure and is different from provision for scientific research under the provisions of the aforementioned legislation.
And now?
Hugo de Jonge has tried to give a new twist to the unanimously adopted motion. De Jonge generously promised that the research will be taken up immediately – but by RIVM and CBS. Of course that is not possible. These are interested parties, who have been sitting on their data for a year and a half like a hen on its eggs.
It is one from the book of "How do I load the appearance of a conflict of interest on me" or else: "How do I give the impression that I have something to hide". As if the Capo is saying to the tax inspector: go home quietly; I'll let my consiglieri look at it. Why independent research? So the intention is now that the cabinet commissions the investigation to the department behind which the same cabinet is constantly hiding...?
It's good that Pieter Omtzigt is once again pushing for independent research and transparency – but it's terrible that it's necessary.
CBS and RIVM are not going to come to an agreement, that much is clear. And if they do, they will not be credible. A damning judgment should be possible, but that would disqualify the assessors themselves. Such a research result is therefore not in line with expectations. We have to face the fact that these parties do not have the right competencies and, moreover, will not bite the hand that feeds them.
It will be noticeable that the quality of the images is a bit less than usual. That's because both the data analysts and the Graphics, Presentation & Visualization Department of the Eucalyptic Society almost gave up. "I'm going crazy with these kinds of mutations from week to week, what's this about? I think those figures will still be corrected – can't be right!" exclaimed Akkermans in despair. Hekking patted him on the shoulder encouragingly.
