2023-06-17 06:53:54
In 2022, according to calculations of the CBS an excess mortality of 14,500 people. So many people have died more than expected. This excess mortality is surprising, because under-mortality usually occurs after an epidemic. This is because especially the vulnerable die during the epidemic. Shortly after the epidemic, therefore, fewer vulnerable people remain.
Although the vaccination had long been rolled out, 8,200 people still died from COVID-19 in 2022. In the first months of 2022, many people still succumbed to corona as a result of the delta variant. However, the excess mortality was maintained after the delta variant had long since been supplanted by the much less pathogenic and less deadly omikron variant. In addition, people also died from influenza in 2022. But even then, 6,000 deaths remain unexplained.
Unsatisfactory
Reuben van Galen of CBS and the UvA admits: ‘It’s unsatisfying to say, but we just need more research here.’ As a possible explanation for the 6000 unexplained deaths, van Gaalen has two hypotheses.
Firstly, there is the lagging effect of corona: ‘It is not surprising that if a lot of people have been infected with a new virus, it leads to a kind of general weakening of the population.’ For example, people who previously had corona appear to have an increased risk of acute cardiovascular problems. Corona therefore not only thins out the number of vulnerable people due to mortality, it also creates new vulnerable people who can then die from something other than corona.
Secondly, Van Gaalen mentions that the measures regarding corona have contributed to the excess mortality. The first thing to consider is the effect of delayed treatments. Even if those treatments were not urgent, it can still lead to an aggravation of the condition. You can also think of an unhealthier lifestyle due to sitting at home a lot.
The poor state of health care in the Netherlands may also have contributed to the excess mortality in 2022. So is the number intensive carespots per 100,000 patients in the Netherlands is lower than in neighboring countries. Gijs van Loef believes that health care in the Netherlands is in worse shape than the average in Western Europe. That is also why the excess mortality in the Netherlands in 2022 was higher than the average in Europe.
If healthcare was already cramped prior to the epidemic due to an emphasis on market forces and cost-cutting, this will be felt all the more if the healthcare system is heavily used due to the epidemic, and then healthcare will also prove to be even more to be more affected. Healthcare economist Eline van den Broek confirms this picture when she says: ‘We had a capacity problem in healthcare, and we still have that.’
Fallacy
Van Gaalen considers excess mortality due to vaccination less likely. The reason he points out is that no increased mortality among vaccinated people compared to non-vaccinated people can be traced. He also mentions that there are countries with a high vaccination rate, but without excess mortality.
However, both reasons are based on a fallacy. It may well be that the number of people who do not die from corona due to vaccination is greater than the number of people who die as a result of vaccination. The fact that vaccination saves lives does not exclude the possibility that vaccination also costs lives. In both cases, the numbers may be significant, large enough to have a noticeable effect on excess mortality.
Excess mortality is a catch-all term that can refer to several tendencies, including opposing tendencies. That is also why the lack of excess mortality in some countries is still far from proof that no people die there as a result of vaccination.
You have to stick to the facts
Van Gaalen also says: ‘You have to stick to the facts. (…) And I have not seen any serious research that substantiates that this can be caused by vaccines.’ But, I think, if little research has been done on the contribution of vaccines to excess mortality, then the lack of confirmatory results from research does not prove that vaccines do not contribute to excess mortality.
The fact that hardly any research has been carried out into a connection between vaccination and excess mortality is because this was not possible for a long time: the data for such research was not released by RIVM and GGD for privacy reasons for a long time. Data have now been released under specific conditions and a number of studies into excess mortality have been completed SunMw approved. However, this only concerns research into excess mortality in 2021. 2022 is not included. Moreover, a study that aimed to establish more specifically whether there is a causal relationship between vaccination and excess mortality was rejected.
The studies that have been approved either do not look at a possible link between vaccination and excess mortality at all, or include that link as one of the possible options. There is therefore a chance that when the studies are completed in one or two years, there will still be no clarity about a possible causal relationship between vaccinations and excess mortality.
Causality
I wonder, by the way, how such a causal relationship can be shown. Does this mean that it is possible to discover the mechanism by which vaccination with mRNA vaccines such as Pfizer and Moderna would lead to mortality? That seems to me, frankly, a difficult requirement to achieve. Moreover, it is a requirement that can only be realized with very specific research from different angles. A study that includes a possible link between vaccination and excess mortality is completely insufficient for this purpose.
Incidentally, many sciences do not get around to researching the precise mechanism of influence. All statistically oriented sciences don’t actually talk about causation. And also philosophically causation is a problem.
As an empiricist, David Hume (1711-1776) assumed that causality is nothing more than that one phenomenon is always followed by another. Causality is thus no more than a correlation with the value 1 (or 100 percent) which then leads to an experience of necessity. But that means that causation is not very different from correlation. There is only a quantitative difference between a correlation of 1 and less than 1.
Shadowy
Minister in the House of Representatives Ernst Kuipers of Public Health is particularly shadowy when asked whether the approved studies also investigate whether vaccination is a possible cause of excess mortality. My suspicion is that Kuipers is careful to only investigate whether vaccination leads to excess mortality on balance. In that case, the opposing trends are not separated from each other, so that the conclusion will be that vaccination does not, on balance, lead to excess mortality. This will then be taken for political use if vaccination does not lead to excess mortality.
And if vaccination does not lead to excess mortality, then vaccination cannot cause excess mortality. However, the reasoning is based on the fallacy that Van Gaalen also made. However, since it is a fallacy to fap, it is a fallacy, an attempt at deception.
Let’s call things by their name
My suspicion of deception is based on a fallacy because Kuipers’ German colleague, Karl Lauterbach, has already tried this in parliament. Lauterbach says that there is no indication whatsoever for the possibility of excess mortality from vaccination and that this possibility is also not plausible from a medical point of view.
He considers it dangerous even to suggest the possibility of a connection. These are bold claims, relying heavily on the authority of science and medicine. However, the monkey comes out of his sleeve when he says in response to a question from parliament:
‘I must point out that the impression should not be given that there was only excess mortality. We also know, of course, that hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved in the context of the fight against corona, which would have died if we had not taken measures. You can’t imagine it that way. as if the side effects of the vaccinations are the most important. That’s what you’re after. Let’s call things by their name. With such a question, you assume that in reality more people would have survived if we had not consistently fought the corona pandemic. That is a lie, that is not correct, that is not supported by any scientific knowledge.’
What Lauterbach is doing here is simplifying the claim that vaccination contributes to excess mortality to the claim that vaccination causes excess mortality. If that last statement he can then say that it is incorrect. In this simplification he puts himself in the position of his opponent’s intentions. He then pretends to want to spread these inaccuracies into the world.
It is striking that Kuipers also puts himself in the position of his opponent’s intentions, and on that basis comes to a resolute rejection. This happens when he answers an interruption from Thierry Baudet with:
‘I understand very well where Mr. Baudet wants to go, and I emphatically stay away from it. Vaccination status and excess mortality are looked at, period.’
Abuse of scientific understanding
Kuipers, however, is less than Lauterbach, looking into the cards. When asked by Baudet, Kuipers says that all possible causes of excess mortality are being looked at. After a long tug of war, he then agrees to the President of the House that research is also being done into vaccination as a cause of excess mortality.
At first glance this seems like a satisfactory answer, but I don’t think it is. After all, it cannot be ruled out that only an assessment is made of whether vaccination leads to excess mortality on balance. If in due course it turns out that more people have been saved by vaccination than have died by vaccination, then Kuipers’ message will be that vaccination ‘therefore’ has not led to excess mortality.
In the meantime, it may just be that vaccination has made a significant contribution to the excess mortality. With his shadowy statements, Kuipers therefore does not strive for clarity and clarity, but he consciously creates conceptual confusion. I call that scientific lying: he misuses his scientific insight to fool both the House of Representatives and the Dutch population.
Paul Hekens is author of ‘Silent Spring’, the Time.news of the months that Corona invaded the Netherlands. ‘Silent Spring’ is available everywhere, such as HERE Recommended!
Wynia’s Week appears 104 times a year with reporting that is as independent as it is much needed. The donors make that possible.Are you in?Thank you!
#Minister #Health #Kuipers #lies #scientifically #excess #mortality