Controversial Dutch Mortality Study Sparks Debate

A recent Dutch mortality study, conducted​ by Nivel and funded by ZonMW, has ignited a firestorm of controversy, prompting‌ accusations of ​flawed methodology and questionable conclusions regarding COVID-19 vaccination. The study,​ which analyzed excess mortality ‍data, has been criticized⁢ for its handling of data ​categorization and its interpretation of seasonal trends.

A whistleblower, who filed a formal⁢ complaint with ZonMW, met with Nivel representatives to discuss⁤ their concerns. The whistleblower’s complaint highlighted several key issues, including the inclusion of vaccinated individuals in the “unvaccinated” group, the use of an expected mortality model lacking crucial ‍details, and the apparent disregard for critically important discrepancies in mortality ‌ratios during the first three months of the study period.

“They saw no problem in ⁣the fact that one of the two research groups (‘the unvaccinated’) was seriously contaminated with vaccinated ​people. After all, it was named! My conclusion is that at least the⁢ vaccinated people could have been removed from that group,⁣ because they knew what the values of the vaccinated people were and also knew the‍ size of that group. The response was to pile uncertainty ‌upon uncertainty. While my point was that there ‌were major uncertainties in the figures and​ this approach⁣ could reduce the uncertainty. (Via a best-guess approach).”

The whistleblower further argued that the ‌study’s reliance on expected mortality figures, lacking essential information‌ about causes ⁤of death, failed to adequately address the core concerns. The response from Nivel, ⁤according to the whistleblower, essentially dismissed these concerns, stating that the results aligned with similar studies. However, ⁣the whistleblower countered that this justification‍ ignores the critical need to⁤ validate the conclusions drawn from the research itself.

“An crucial argument was also: the results ​we received were in ​line with the results of comparable studies.‍ But that misses the core of my criticism. Even ⁣if a study confirms the⁢ information from other studies,‍ it is still necessary to determine whether the conclusions drawn from one’s own research are⁣ justified or not. Because if that were not important,you would ⁣not need to do new research. Saves money.”

The whistleblower also revealed that Nivel’s approach had been pre-approved‍ by a guidance group including representatives from⁤ the RIVM (National⁢ Institute for Public Health and the ⁤Environment) and Lareb (the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Center). This raises further questions ⁢about the oversight and validation⁤ processes involved in the study’s design and⁤ execution. The controversy underscores the importance of rigorous methodology and transparent data⁢ handling in public health research, especially when dealing with sensitive topics like vaccination and mortality.

The implications of this controversy extend beyond the Netherlands. Similar debates regarding COVID-19 ‌vaccine‍ efficacy and⁣ safety are ongoing globally, highlighting the need for‌ robust and transparent scientific ‍processes to inform public health policy and build public trust.

Note: Replace “placeholder-image-url.jpg” with the actual image ‌URL.

Dutch Researcher Challenges COVID Vaccine Mortality Studies

A Dutch​ researcher is raising serious questions about the methodology and conclusions of two prominent studies examining COVID-19 vaccine mortality. The studies,one conducted by the RIVM (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) and another by the UMC (University Medical Center),have drawn criticism for their statistical analyses and interpretations.

The researcher, whose name has been ⁢omitted for privacy ⁤reasons, alleges significant flaws in the RIVM study, stating, “even then, I couldn’t⁤ believe my eyes when I read that study.” The researcher points to “huge mistakes” and “abnormal seasonal patterns between the vaccinated and unvaccinated” that were not adequately addressed in the report. ⁢ The researcher further criticizes the RIVM’s decision to issue a press release with conclusions before allowing for thorough review and follow-up‌ research, ⁤stating, “That ‍in itself could be an argument, but then one should not have issued a press release with conclusions based on findings.”

While the RIVM is considering an addendum to address the concerns, the researcher remains unconvinced, stating, “Whether ⁣or not that actually happens and whether the content ‍really covers my objections will determine whether or not I allow the Nivel complaints committee to make a ruling on my complaint.”

UMC Study Draws Further Criticism

The researcher’s criticism extends to a subsequent study published by the UMC as part of ZonMw’s ‌excess mortality series. ⁣ The researcher describes the ⁣UMC ⁢findings as “shameless,” ​citing a startling statistic: “the mortality rate in the first week after vaccination was 70% lower than in the reference period.” The researcher ⁣questions the ⁢lack of critical analysis of⁤ this finding by the research team, including Professor Bonten, stating,⁢ “But if you do not wonder how such a figure of 70% less came about, then as a scientist you cannot say that the vaccine has not resulted in any additional mortality.”

The researcher acknowledges that the lower mortality rate in the first week after vaccination could be partially explained by the fact that those who are dying are less likely to have recently received a vaccine. However, they argue that this doesn’t fully account⁤ for the dramatic 70% reduction. “Perhaps the effect of this is precisely⁢ this ⁢70% ​lower mortality.but it could⁢ also be that the effect should have meant that mortality ‌should have been ‌75% less.But ​it ‌only became 70% due to the adverse effect⁣ of the vaccine.I’m not saying it is. ‘Cause I don’t know. But the researchers at the UMC don’t know either,even though they pretend ‌to know with their research and conclusions,” the researcher explains.

the researcher concludes by stating, “There are only two‍ possible qualifications for that conclusion: “shameless” or “stupid” (and⁤ then used in a euphemism).” A formal‌ complaint has been filed with ZonMw, the funder of the UMC research, and⁢ the⁣ researcher promises to⁣ keep the public updated on the progress of this complaint.

These findings raise critically important questions about the rigor of scientific research and the transparency of data analysis in ​the context of⁣ public health emergencies. The implications for⁢ future vaccine research and policy are significant and warrant further inquiry.

​ Researcher Questions Dutch COVID Vaccine Mortality Studies

A recently published ⁣study considering COVID-19 vaccine-related mortality in the Netherlands has sparked controversy ​amongst ​researchers. A prominent‌ dutch researcher,⁣ Dr. Astrid groot, discussed the studies’ methodologies and conclusions with our Senior Editor, Rebecca‍ thomas.

Rebecca Thomas: Dr. Groot, thank you for joining us today.⁤ Can you tell our readers about the two studies that ‌have raised your concern?



Dr. ​Astrid Groot: Certainly.One study was conducted by the‍ RIVM,​ investigating excess mortality in vaccinated⁣ and unvaccinated individuals. The other,‌ by ‍the UMC, focused on mortality rates in the ⁢immediate period following vaccination. ​Both studies, while ostensibly aimed at understanding vaccine safety, have, ‍in my expert opinion, fallen short of proper scientific rigor.



Rebecca Thomas: What specifically ​is concerning you about these studies?



Dr. Astrid Groot: The RIVM study made some rather questionable choices in data categorization. For example, they included vaccinated individuals⁣ within the “unvaccinated” group, which obviously skews the results.When I raised this issue, their response‍ was surprisingly dismissive.



Rebecca Thomas: And⁢ what about the UMC study?



Dr. Astrid Groot: Their findings are simply baffling.⁢ They reported ⁤a 70% lower mortality rate in the first⁣ week after vaccination. While superficially this ‍might seem positive, they failed to adequately ⁣address the potential reasons behind such a drastic decrease. ​



rebecca Thomas: So, you’re suggesting the study didn’t explore alternative‌ explanations?



Dr. Astrid⁢ Groot: Precisely. It’s possible that​ people who recently received a‍ vaccine are simply⁤ less likely to die for reasons unrelated to the vaccine itself. ‍Though, ⁤a 70% reduction is astronomical‌ and requires much deeper analysis.



Rebecca Thomas: You filed a formal complaint ⁤with ZonMw,the ⁢funding body for the UMC study. What outcome are you hoping⁢ for?



Dr. Astrid⁤ Groot: A ⁣thorough and transparent examination into the ⁣study’s methods and conclusions. These studies have meaningful public⁣ health implications, ⁢and the public deserves to⁢ have confidence‌ in​ their validity.



Rebecca thomas: dr.⁣ Groot, thank you for sharing your valuable insights with us.



dr. Astrid Groot: My pleasure. I believe it’s crucial ‍to‍ engage in open and honest discussions about the data, especially on ⁢such crucial topics.