Based on the first two key points of the Code of Conduct for Research IntegrityMaurice de Hond filed a complaint at ZonMW, about violations of that code in the Nivel report on excess mortality and vaccination. He was concerned with Honesty and Carefulness. Let's also briefly look at the other three points. With extra attention to Responsibility.
- Honesty
- Carefulness
- Transparency
- Independence
- Responsibility
Transparency
The data sources are not available. Replication (the recalculation) is therefore not possible, not even of the expectations calculated by Nivel that serve as the basis for determining the excess mortality.
Furthermore, it is a requirement that any personal involvement of the researchers or the institute in the subject of the research is explicitly stated in a scientific research report.
Nivel nowhere explicitly mentions in its publications regarding Covid vaccinations that it itself has been involved in the urgent recommendation of Covid vaccinations and in their administration by the professional group(s) they represent. This in itself is a violation of the Dutch Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.
Independence
Among the many imperfections identified, it is striking that they are without exception in favor of the vaccinated. The chance that this is due to coincidence is so small that there seems to be a bias in favor of the doctors (partly affiliated with Nivel) and the bodies that recommended these vaccinations, including Nivel itself. Independence is then difficult to maintain.
Responsibility
This one is more difficult. The guidelines describe this as:"Responsibility means, among other things, that one [... [ takes into account the legitimate interests of persons and animals involved in the research, of any sponsors and funders, and of the environment."
Taking clients or financiers into account...? That is "Independence", where it is indicated that the research"should not be guided by extra-scientific considerations (e.g. considerations of a commercial or political nature)."So on the one hand "Don't let it be guided" by commerce but by commerce"take into account"Clients.
"Taking into account the legitimate interests of clients"but also"not to be guided by extra-scientific considerations".
Now these guidelines are from 2018 so they must have run into that by now, you would think. But the guidelines have not been updated since then, so apparently no one has been bothered by this area of tension.
And"involved in the research and animals", which seems to refer to test subjects. There is no responsibility in the directives towards those to whom the results apply, in this case the entire population.
So suppose for a moment that the vaccinations turn out to be quite harmful, then Nivel is in any case not to blame with this report if people get boostered again in the next campaign. It is not stated in the guidelines that they are (partly) responsible for this.
The vaccinated people who were looked at in the study were asked for permission at the vaccination moment to use the medical data for research. Some (7% to 10%) did not agree with this. Nivel later requested that missing information for research purposes via GP files, against the express wishes of those vaccinated people and without informing them.
The wishes of the persons involved have not been taken into account. That directly violates the rule of Responsibility.
Looking at the previous key concepts: it is also not transparent, it is not fair and not careful. If people go through the motions to make a point, it even calls into question independence.
- Honesty❌
- Carefulness❌
- Transparency❌
- Independence❌
- Responsibility❌
ZonMW's answer
ZonMW has received the letter and will undoubtedly forward it to NWO, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. They have a hotline that dealt with one complaint in 2023 (inadmissible due to the complainant's failure to respond). In 2022, there were only three complaints. One of them is very similar to the current complaint by Maurice de Hond. It concerns a VWS study subsidized by ZonMW and was therefore forwarded to another reporting point: that of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport...
“… this complaint sought that as a result of the research commissioned by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport and subsidised by ZonMw, unsubstantiated claims were made, results were reported incorrectly and a careless research methodology was applied. The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport has its own WI Hotline for integrity violations and is bound by the Code of Conduct for State Integrity. The complainant was therefore referred to the WI Hotline of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport."
It is therefore possible that the complaint will be declared inadmissible or forwarded to the WI hotline. This in turn presumably refers to the LOWI (National Body for Scientific Integrity). The answer I received in 2021 fromLOWIwhen I contacted them in response to theConduct of RIVM:"Only at the request of a party in a specific complaints procedure does the LOWI issue advice on scientific integrity."
Case closed.
Everything shows that the integrity handling was aimed at an investigator who discovered abuses at another investigator from the same institute. But if an entire institute, including the WI employee, is on the same page, they can do whatever they want. Outsiders do not interfere.
Thelongshot.nl of Magdalena Dzambo
Now this ducking is not specifically something from Nivel. The fact that no one dares to take that responsibility is already a sign on the wall. On the blog of Magdalena Dzambothelongshot.nlit becomes clear how that works. You would say: you get redress from the manufacturer, but:
- The manufacturer is indemnified by the government. They signed for it that they were aware that they might be buying a faulty product. The manufacturer has warned about it, it is not to blame.
- The government, in health affairs, is the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. You would say.
What does VWS say? "You took the shot at your own risk, you were not obliged. If you have any damage, I will refer you to the Legal Desk." (source). 
Een blik op de website van het Juridisch Loket wekt niet de indruk dat ze daar veel ervaring hebben met vaccinatieschade. “Aankopen & Garantie” misschien…
"Have you read the leaflet correctly...?" I can already hear them say it.
- So we went to the GGD, which considers errors in the vaccination very unlikely and knows nothing more about previous phone calls from Magdalena. With regard to the further provision of information, they refer to other bodies, such as the RIVM, the MEB and... the manufacturer of the vaccine. And then we are back to the contracts: "We have never guaranteed that there would be no side effects, we have even explicitly stated that we do not yet know enough about them. Just look in the contracts" (I'll fill this in myself, it's not a quote.)
And then we are legally ready.
Read more on thelongshot.nl, Magdalena Dzambo's wonderful blog with references to Vaccine Injury Assistance, with interesting podcasts, interviews and much more.
Due to a malfunction, 26 Likes and the Two comments on this message is no longer visible.
Anton, just another topic. I try to determine a timeline for myself about the first half of 2020. Currently, there are still a number of complaints against the general practitioners who have prescribed off-label medicines and thus kept people out of the hospital. Early treatment was against the prevailing protocol.
-There were a number of categories of deaths of people in hospital.
-1. people who were admitted to MET Corona (positive PCR test) (early treatment could probably have largely prevented this).
-2. people who ran into a positive test in the hospital (completely different reason for admission) and therefore ended up in the Covid protocols. Willem Lijfering cites pulmonary embolism as an example.
-3In addition, the abuses in nursing homes where -presumably- people have also died due to wrong treatments. Or lack of treatment.
-4 and there may also be completely healthy people who die from a Covid-19 infection. Maybe people who had not built up the right resistance in the past.
Add to that the magical decline in other causes of death.
All discussed before here.
The chance for a healthy person to die from Covid was very small, especially if early treatment would have been allowed. How large is actually the proportion of deaths that were 100% due to Covid during the spring peak of 2020?
That spring peak of 2020 paved the way for years of nonsensical measures. Not only in the Netherlands, but all around us. I think it would be extremely relevant to understand more of what happened in the hospitals at that time.
And when were the 'protocols' actually introduced? Ban on early treatment, put everything on Covid treatment in the hospitals, no antibiotics against bacterial pneumonia, people with respiratory infections on ventilators.
Is it true that the great dying only started after the measures were announced? I don't remember. Tried to look it up in the timeline of the central government (useful information in itself) but couldn't really find anything about it.
Does anyone know how and when those treatment protocols were introduced?
That differed from hospital to hospital. It was often a club of 'wise men' within a hospital/region who may or may not have introduced the WHO protocols as a diagnostic protocol.
In the south of the country I know (first-hand and 100% sure) the who Covid protocols were introduced around March 11, 2020 and they became leading (first demonstrate/rule out Covid before looking at other diseases)
In the north of the Netherlands I know (anecdotally and second-hand so not 100% sure) that the existing protocols remained leading and only when old diseases were ruled out (such as pulmonary embolism) then the new WHO protocol was brought in to demonstrate/rule out Covid.
One of the reasons to keep the old protocols leading is that the WHO protocols insisted on terrible contagiousness, so that all patients with Covid complaints (coughing, increased temp, increased infection parameters etc) had to be treated completely sterile (doctor in moon suit, put pt under several layers of plastic before touching, a radiology machine, such as a CT scan could only be operated with difficulty, because first had to be made completely sterile / and cleaned after 1 patient with suspected covid was scanned...). So if you first looked/excluded old diseases before looking at the new disease (Covid), that was much more practical (from those down-to-earth northerners).
Interesting in this is that the Covid mania at the time was mainly in the south of the country and the north magically remained free of covid. Which, Simsalabim, had to be explained by... Carnival!
Anyway, the anecdote I quote from the north: whether that is certain, I don't know. But to find that out seems like a piece of cake for an investigative journalist, for example. Just call a few departments and request the diagnostic protocols that were leading in the Netherlands at the time. It's just a tip...
I picked up the RIVM site of that time on the way back machine. Jonathan Engler argues that the great dying only started AFTER the measures were announced. That seemed quite drastic to me. But it seems that he is right.
On March 6, 2020, the first Corona death was reported on the RIVM site. An 86-year-old man....
You can see a mortality peak from about the second week of March. Strangely enough, that is largely over around April 12 (seasonal course?).
https://web.archive.org/web/20200415065244/https://www.rivm.nl/coronavirus-covid-19/grafieken
I can't upload the images here but have saved them in a document and added the link.
These pictures are not per region. But it does indeed seem that the problems only started after large-scale testing.
The text below is also interesting: Last paragraph indicates that the actual number of deceased is higher because not every deceased has been tested. I like to turn that around: So everyone who died with a 'positive' test was registered as a Covid death. The number of deaths DUE to Covid was therefore considerably lower.
Number of deaths by date of death
This graph shows the number of reported deceased patients per day, by date of death. Part of the number of deaths is not reported until one or a few days later. For this reason, the numbers from a few days ago are sometimes adjusted (the new numbers can be seen in yellow). Checks sometimes show that some reports are incorrect, which sometimes means that the numbers of reports from previous days are adjusted.
The actual number of COVID-19 deaths is higher than the number of reported COVID-19 patients in surveillance, because not all deceased patients are tested.
Herman Steigstra has credibly calculated for the Netherlands how many deaths from Covid have actually been exceeded. I don't know exactly in which article either.
Comparison with (southern) Germany (with carnival) may be useful. I seem to remember that there was no excess mortality there during the first wave.
Indeed, there is work to be done for investigative journalism.
Cees, I can't work that out for you, no time and also too blurry. Then you would have to plough through all the old posts of Hans Verwaart (on Maurice.nl and later on his Substack), some of mine but especially of Herman.
It is very possible to imagine a scenario that Covid was just a flu and that the rest was caused by the hysteria. But that cannot be substantiated. Then you have to start doubting cause-of-death registrations, for example – but suspicion alone won't get you there. And you will never get there again.
Someone like Denis Rancourt is convinced that the excess mortality was only caused by hysteria. In his research, he shows that the misery only started after the alarm bell had sounded.
But then you can also say: they were there in time with the alarm bell...
Thank you, Anton. I get it. I'm going to think about this with someone else. Can't put infinite time into it either, but now I find it very intriguing. That wayback machine is incredibly useful. And fun!
Saw in my own timeline that in mid-March in New York doctors were at a loss because ventilation often did not help with so-called silent hypoxia. Especially overweight black people died in droves. So causes turned out to be vitamin D deficiency and obesity. And ventilation did not do any good because intervention was much too late. Monitoring saturation and oxygen on time worked much better.
Indeed. You only mean intubation instead of ventilation I think.
In (ongeveer) oktober van 2020 (ver)sprak prof. Peter van der Voort, toen hoofd ic in Groningen bij Jinek over resveratrol omdat dit supplement covid zou tegengaan bij bijna alle patiënten want 80% van de patiënten met covid hadden ernstig overgewicht. Diederik Gommers (nu anti-windturbines want cijfers over windturbines van het rivm kloppen van geen kant en er komen windturbines in zijn achtertuin) bevestigde dat in hetzelfde programma. Peter van der Voort deed (doet?) onderzoek naar resveratrol maar hield zelf als eerste kamerlid voor D66 onderzoek naar eerstelijnszorg bij covid tegen. Er was zelfs bijna gelijk een verbod op, zie Rob Elens en anderen. Ook zijn patiënten niet onderzocht op longembolieën waardoor intuberen/beademen dodelijk werd. Onvoorstelbaar wat er allemaal nog meer is gebeurd.
Bij het lezen van Magdalena Dzambo’s beschrijving van haar vaccinatieschade moest ik meteen denken aan John Campbell’s interview met Brianne Dressen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re2rTfCWuVg – ander vaccin (AZ), maar ong. zelfde ernstige verloop van felle autoimmuunreactie met onherstelbare gevolgen.
En, nog bijna erger, op dezelfde manier “afgeserveerd” door de instanties (met hun grote beloften en “je doet het voor de ander”). Schofterig gedrag is dat. Voor mij … bewijst dat schofterige gedrag bijna dat ze weten dat ze fout zitten met het ontkennen van de mog. van vax als oorzaak en dat ze “the guts” niet hebben om schuld of tenminste medeverantwoordelijkheid of ten allerminste ongelijk te bekennen!