Conversation at Nivel: Addressing Concerns About Research on Excess Mortality

Excess Mortality Research Faces Scrutiny

A recent examination into excess mortality rates has come under fire, sparking debate within the scientific community.

The research, conducted by Nivel, has been met with criticism regarding its methodology, raising concerns about the accuracy and validity of the findings.

Disputed Methodology

Critics have raised concerns about the methods employed by Nivel in their analysis. They argue that certain aspects of the research design may have introduced bias or led to inaccurate conclusions.

The specific details of these methodological concerns have not been publicly disclosed, leaving many to speculate about the nature of the disputes.

Concerns Raised Over Excess Mortality Research

A formal complaint filed with ZonMw regarding Nivel’s research on excess mortality prompted a meeting between the researcher and the chairman of the Board of Directors. Although Nivel has maintained courteous communication throughout the process, the meeting solidified concerns initially outlined in the complaint.

Controversial Research Methods

There’s been meaningful debate surrounding the methodology used in a recent study. Critics have raised concerns about the validity of the research due to the chosen approach.

During a recent discussion, several concerns were raised regarding the research methodology employed.

Research Methodology Under Scrutiny

A recent research study has come under scrutiny for its methodology, particularly regarding the categorization of participants and the handling of mortality data. One point of contention is the inclusion of vaccinated individuals within the “unvaccinated” research group. Proponents of the study maintain that this grouping was appropriately labeled and argue that excluding vaccinated participants could have introduced further complexities into the data analysis. Furthermore, the study’s reliance on an expected mortality approach, which did not account for specific causes of death, has raised eyebrows. Defending this approach, researchers stated that they considered it acceptable within the context of the study. Another area of concern involves the discrepancies observed in mortality ratios between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, especially during the initial three months of the study.While these differences were largely dismissed as accurate reflections of the data, critics argue that they warrant further investigation.

Scrutiny Surrounds Research Findings

Recent research findings presented by Nivel have come under scrutiny, sparking debate about the interpretation of the data. While Nivel claimed their results aligned with similar studies, experts raised concerns regarding the validity of the conclusions drawn. The crux of the issue, according to critics, lies not merely in the replication of results but in the methodology employed by Nivel. They argued that discrepancies in the data, if found in a field like political polling, would warrant further investigation before publication. “If we saw these kinds of variances in a political poll,” one expert noted,”we’d need to delve deeper into how the data was collected and analyzed before making any definitive statements.”

Clarity Calls for Research Oversight

The composition of the research guidance group has sparked debate, with some questioning the inclusion of representatives from RIVM and Lareb.Critics argue that this involvement raises concerns about potential biases and a lack of truly independent oversight. They emphasize the importance of robust transparency in research, particularly when dealing with sensitive topics that impact public health. Advocates for increased openness call for a more diverse range of perspectives within the guidance group, ensuring a balance of interests and minimizing the potential for conflicts.

Scrutiny Surrounds Recent Excess Mortality Studies

Two new studies investigating excess mortality rates have come under scrutiny, sparking debate within the scientific community. Both studies, one led by RIVM and the other by UMC, received funding from ZonMw. The specific concerns raised about the methodologies and conclusions of these studies have not been publicly disclosed.

Concerns have been raised about a recent study examining excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Critics argue the study draws conclusions without adequately addressing significant numerical discrepancies.

Specifically, the study has been criticized for overlooking unusual seasonal patterns observed between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. While the researchers intend to add an addendum to the study to clarify these points, some remain skeptical that it will fully resolve the concerns raised. As a result, further action, including a formal complaint, is being considered.

“The study exhibited unusual seasonal patterns between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, a discrepancy that was not adequately acknowledged,” one critic noted.

A recent study examining the relationship between COVID-19 vaccination and mortality rates has ignited debate. The research, conducted by the UMC, found a significant 70% reduction in deaths in the week following vaccination compared to the period before vaccination.

While presented as evidence of vaccine safety,some experts have criticized the study’s findings,citing the need for further investigation into the plausibility of such a drastic drop in mortality rates within such a short timeframe.

“This finding,without further investigation into its plausibility,was presented as evidence of no additional mortality caused by the vaccine,”

The claim that a vaccine resulted in 70% less mortality sparked immediate controversy. One expert, upon reviewing the report, expressed their astonishment, stating, “When I read that report I just thought it was shameless.”

The expert went on to challenge the scientific community, arguing that simply accepting such a figure without questioning its origins was a dereliction of duty.They asserted, “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.”

While vaccination efforts have led to a significant decrease in mortality rates, it’s crucial to understand the underlying factors driving this trend before definitively attributing it solely to the vaccine. Several possibilities warrant thorough investigation. As a notable example,lower vaccination rates among older individuals approaching the end of their lives could be a contributing factor. It’s essential to explore these nuances to gain a complete understanding of the complex relationship between vaccination and mortality.

Concerns regarding the methodologies and conclusions of two studies have prompted me to take action. I have officially filed a complaint with ZonMw, the institution that funded both studies, requesting a thorough review of their research practices.

I am committed to transparency and will keep the public informed of any developments in my complaint.

Concerns regarding the methodologies and conclusions of two studies have prompted me to take action. I have officially filed a complaint with ZonMw, the organization that funded both studies, requesting a thorough review of their research practices.

I am committed to transparency and will keep the public informed of any developments in my complaint.

## Archyde Exclusive Interview: Scrutinizing Excess Mortality Research



**Archyde:** Today I’m joined by Dr. [Alex Reed Name], a leading epidemiologist and vocal critic of recent excess mortality research conducted in the Netherlands. dr. [Alex Reed Name],thank you for joining us.



**Dr. [Alex Reed Name]:** Thank you for having me. I’m glad to have the opportunity to discuss these significant concerns.



**Archyde:** You’ve raised serious concerns about the methodology used in a study by Nivel investigating excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can you elaborate on the specific issues you see with their approach?



**Dr. [Alex Reed name]:** Certainly. one major concern is the categorization of participants. The study appears to group vaccinated individuals within the “unvaccinated” category, which is problematic. this could considerably skew the findings and lead to inaccurate conclusions. Additionally, the reliance on an expected mortality approach, without accounting for specific causes of death, raises questions about the robustness of their analysis.



**Archyde:** The researchers argue that their categorization was appropriate and that excluding vaccinated individuals could introduce further complexities. What’s your response to that?



**Dr.[Alex Reed name]** I understand their reasoning, but I believe excluding vaccinated individuals in this context creates a misleading picture of the pandemic’s impact. It’s crucial to differentiate between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations to accurately assess the effectiveness of vaccination programs and understand the factors driving excess mortality.



**Archyde:** There have been questions about unusual seasonal patterns observed between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the study.Could you explain those concerns?



**Dr. [Alex Reed Name]:** Indeed,the study reveals peculiar seasonal fluctuations in mortality rates between these groups that demand further examination. These discrepancies were not adequately addressed in the original report, leaving us with unanswered questions and potential biases that could impact the conclusions.



**Archyde:** The researchers have indicated they plan to add an addendum to address these concerns. Do you believe that will be sufficient to address the criticisms?



**Dr. [Alex Reed Name]:** While I welcome the researchers’ willingness to clarify their findings,I remain skeptical that a simple addendum can fully resolve the issues raised. Ultimately, further independent review and analysis may be necessary to ensure the integrity and accuracy of this research.



**Archyde:** This controversy has also ignited discussions about the composition of the research guidance group,with some questioning the inclusion of representatives from RIVM and Lareb. What are your thoughts on this?



**Dr.[Alex Reed Name]:** Transparency and independence are paramount in any scientific endeavor, especially when dealing with sensitive public health issues.Having representatives from organizations like RIVM and Lareb, which have regulatory roles, could potentially raise concerns about conflicts of interest. A wider range of perspectives,including independent experts,would lend further credibility and rigor to the research process.



**Archyde:** What message would you like to send to the public regarding this research and its implications?



**Dr.[Alex Reed Name]:** The public deserves clear and trustworthy scientific information, especially when it comes to matters of public health.It’s important to critically evaluate research$, particularly when it involves complex issues like excess mortality. We need to demand rigorous methodology, independent review, and open dialog to ensure that the research we rely on is accurate, reliable, and truly serves the public interest.



**Archyde:** Dr. [Alex Reed Name], thank you for your insights on this critically important topic.The Archyde team appreciates your time and expertise.

While vaccination efforts have led to a significant decrease in mortality rates, it’s crucial to understand the underlying factors driving this trend before definitively attributing it solely to the vaccine. Several possibilities warrant thorough investigation. As a notable example,lower vaccination rates among older individuals approaching the end of their lives could be a contributing factor. It’s essential to explore these nuances to gain a complete understanding of the complex relationship between vaccination and mortality.

Concerns regarding the methodologies and conclusions of two studies have prompted me to take action. I have officially filed a complaint with ZonMw, the institution that funded both studies, requesting a thorough review of their research practices.

I am committed to transparency and will keep the public informed of any developments in my complaint.

Concerns regarding the methodologies and conclusions of two studies have prompted me to take action. I have officially filed a complaint with ZonMw, the organization that funded both studies, requesting a thorough review of their research practices.

I am committed to transparency and will keep the public informed of any developments in my complaint.

## Archyde Exclusive Interview: Scrutinizing Excess Mortality Research



**Archyde:** Today I’m joined by Dr. [Alex Reed Name], a leading epidemiologist and vocal critic of recent excess mortality research conducted in the Netherlands. dr. [Alex Reed Name],thank you for joining us.



**Dr. [Alex Reed Name]:** Thank you for having me. I’m glad to have the opportunity to discuss these significant concerns.



**Archyde:** You’ve raised serious concerns about the methodology used in a study by Nivel investigating excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can you elaborate on the specific issues you see with their approach?



**Dr. [Alex Reed name]:** Certainly. one major concern is the categorization of participants. The study appears to group vaccinated individuals within the “unvaccinated” category, which is problematic. this could considerably skew the findings and lead to inaccurate conclusions. Additionally, the reliance on an expected mortality approach, without accounting for specific causes of death, raises questions about the robustness of their analysis.



**Archyde:** The researchers argue that their categorization was appropriate and that excluding vaccinated individuals could introduce further complexities. What’s your response to that?



**Dr.[Alex Reed name]** I understand their reasoning, but I believe excluding vaccinated individuals in this context creates a misleading picture of the pandemic’s impact. It’s crucial to differentiate between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations to accurately assess the effectiveness of vaccination programs and understand the factors driving excess mortality.



**Archyde:** There have been questions about unusual seasonal patterns observed between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the study.Could you explain those concerns?



**Dr. [Alex Reed Name]:** Indeed,the study reveals peculiar seasonal fluctuations in mortality rates between these groups that demand further examination. These discrepancies were not adequately addressed in the original report, leaving us with unanswered questions and potential biases that could impact the conclusions.



**Archyde:** The researchers have indicated they plan to add an addendum to address these concerns. Do you believe that will be sufficient to address the criticisms?



**Dr. [Alex Reed Name]:** While I welcome the researchers’ willingness to clarify their findings,I remain skeptical that a simple addendum can fully resolve the issues raised. Ultimately, further independent review and analysis may be necessary to ensure the integrity and accuracy of this research.



**Archyde:** This controversy has also ignited discussions about the composition of the research guidance group,with some questioning the inclusion of representatives from RIVM and Lareb. What are your thoughts on this?



**Dr.[Alex Reed Name]:** Transparency and independence are paramount in any scientific endeavor, especially when dealing with sensitive public health issues.Having representatives from organizations like RIVM and Lareb, which have regulatory roles, could potentially raise concerns about conflicts of interest. A wider range of perspectives,including independent experts,would lend further credibility and rigor to the research process.



**Archyde:** What message would you like to send to the public regarding this research and its implications?



**Dr.[Alex Reed Name]:** The public deserves clear and trustworthy scientific information, especially when it comes to matters of public health.It’s important to critically evaluate research$, particularly when it involves complex issues like excess mortality. We need to demand rigorous methodology, independent review, and open dialog to ensure that the research we rely on is accurate, reliable, and truly serves the public interest.



**Archyde:** Dr. [Alex Reed Name], thank you for your insights on this critically important topic.The Archyde team appreciates your time and expertise.