Nivel violates the Code of Conduct for Scientific Integrity on more than two points

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.

1. Honesty
2. Carefulness
3. Transparency
4. Independence
5. 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.

1. Honesty❌
2. Carefulness❌
3. Transparency❌
4. Independence❌
5. 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:

1. 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.
   
2. 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).
3. 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.

4. 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.