Julian Assange
618 weeks of deprivation of liberty for telling the truth
618 weeks of deprivation of liberty for telling the truth
While the Belgian daily newspaper Le Soir published an article on pages 2–3 (the most expensive in terms of advertising after the first page) with a headline on the cover: » Covid increases mortality in Europe « , we contacted Christophe De Brouwer. Former president of the School of Public Health of the Free University of Brussels, he has beenanalyzing the Covid figures and the media and political lies about their interpretation for over two years. His conclusions are without appeal: this article by Xavier Counasse is a real fake news, as the mainstream newspapers themselves like to call them. We add that in addition to spreading fears and anxieties, this kind of article literally sows death.
Last week, a mainstream daily newspaper, on its front page, presented us with a real pickle. But the goal is achieved: to increase anxiety. Let’s examine and try to understand.
The author states that for all observed causes, the excess mortality for 2022 in mid-July in Belgium (actually June 20), would already be 1,534 deaths compared to the "expected" which he says is the average daily death rate of the non-covid years 2017-2019. This " excess mortality " would be attributable to covid ("Not all countries account for their "covid" deaths in the same way (...) there is another method for which all EU countries have a similar accounting: the calculation of excess mortality").
There are two statements in this assertion that we need to consider — we will not deal with other countries, except our own; Belgium. As the author of this article correctly states, when comparing one country to another, one is most often comparing apples and pears. Already on Belgium, there is work to do…
Unless we find the polynomial(1) that best fits the curve drawn by this 3‑year average (2017–2018-2019), we are left with significant uncertainties. Calculating an « expected » (what should be observed in a so-called « normal » situation) based on only three years introduces a large variability in the comparison, as the graph below shows. So what are we talking about?
(Note that it is an abuse of language to make believe that all the countries of the Union use his method to calculate an « expected »: of course not, this task is entrusted to competent people in this field who use various methods).
Let’s continue to explore this data and put it in perspective with the three covid years, compared to the average of the 3 non-covid years from 2017 to 2019 (represented by the « 0% » bar), as the author of the article suggests.
The author of the article explains that as of June 20, 2022, the 1,534 deaths found in excess (actually 1,534.7, which I rounded up to 1,535), represent 2.8% more deaths than should have been …
NB: (a) All-cause mortality data statbel are currently available through August 14, 2022. (b) The 0% bar represents the average of the three years 2017–2018-2019 expressed as a %.
Looking at the graph above, several things jump out:
1. The year 2021 is below the expected. This so-called « covid » year performs better, in terms of overall mortality (all causes), than the average of 3 non-covid years. In this case, I suppose that the author of this article, on the basis of his logic, will explain to us that covid will have saved 1,291 deaths as of June 20, 2021 (or will he remain prudish like sciensano with his » undetectable » since the journalist falsely claims that « the [l’année 2022] is similar to the excess mortality observed during the year 2021 « ???)
2. Based on the average of the three years 2017 to 2019, we observe a steady increase in overall mortality in 2022 starting in March, and in April begin to develop an excess over the proposed average (represented by the 0% bar). In no case can we detect in the shape of the curve a correlation with the peaks of the original omicron, then omicron-BA2, then omicron-BA5. Unlike 2020, where part of the increase can be reasonably attributed to covid, in this case it is not possible on the basis of these data to attribute the observed increase in overall mortality to omicron compared to the average of the three non-covid years.
Let’s explore this further using the raw data and compare it with the deaths attributed to covid by sciensano. Let’s do it for the years 2021 and 2022. Here, the « 0 » bar represents the average of the three years 2017–2018-2019.
Amazing, isn’t it? The year 2021, for the period under consideration, shows lower overall mortality than the average of the three non-covid years of 2017–2018 and 2019, and yet it is the year with significantly more mortality attributed to covid, according to Sciensano, than 2022.
This has two obvious consequences:
1. Excess all-cause mortality cannot be used to estimate a mortality attributed to covid: NO, it is not another method to calculate » their dead covid » .
2. Mortality attributed to covid suffers from excess and not a little. (See « Graphs 54, point 3 Mortality »(2))
In short, the author of the propaganda article has it all wrong. And that’s an understatement.
Let’s explore the expectations: is it reliable?
On June 14, 2021, Sciensano decided to change its expectations. One of the reasons given is: » Some episodes of excess mortality, mainly from 2021 onwards, will now be observed when they were not previously detected. » In other words, by modifying the « expected » towards the decrease, Sciensano, in a very artificial and voluntary way, will be able to declare large sequences of observed mortality (reality) in overmortality. This is what I called in my « Graphs 89(3), ab nihilo, ad nihilum, per vanitatis.
Let’s examine this:
The change is not small, it proposes, as of June 14, 2021, a decrease of 11 deaths per day. The consequence for 2022 is clearly visible: the entire year 2022 is, according to Sciensano’s expectation, in overmortality. That’s enough to raise everyone’s anxiety level, bravo!
If Sciensano had kept its old expectations, this stuffing (I can’t find other words to qualify this) would not have taken place and more realistic periods of « excess mortality » would have been delimited (in April for example), allowing a real questioning of public health and if necessary a correctly targeted action.
Decidedly, the modeling of « expectations » is very, too much in my opinion, sensitive to the most diverse manipulations to be a reliable model. This is unfortunately a good example.
But then what to do? In public health, methods that use an « expectation » are called indirect methods, precisely because they use a model (the expectation). But there are so-called « direct » methods, which simply compare data to each other, whether « standardized » (best)(4) or not.
Statbel, in its overview(5), provides numerous direct comparison tables from 2017 to 2022. Since the data are raw (not standardized), you will see an almost imperceptible trend of increasing deaths from year to year (except for the year 2020 which is special). And this is normal, on January1, 2017, we were in Belgium 11,322,088 inhabitants and on January1, 2022, 11,584,008. But we’ve also gotten older: the average age in 2017 is 41.52 and in 2021, 41.98. The increase in life expectancy compensates very partially for this. It is therefore normal that we die a little more each year, although it is not very noticeable.
With this in mind, let’s look at mortality by age group (statbel data). I present them every week in my « Charts »(6), but it is worth looking at them in the context of this work.
These 6 charts, by age group, compare 4 years, from 2019 to 2022. Their examination teaches us many things.
But, in the context of the question dealt with here, we shall be content to note the following:
What can explain this? It should be noted that people aged 85 and over are above all a very fragile population, generally suffering from polypathologies. The hypothesis of a lethal covid seems unlikely, as this is the most vaccinated population in the country, including a second booster, if not to think that the gene therapy vaccine is of little use for this age group. And it is true that the data proposed by Sciensano, according to the vaccination status, concerning hospitalizations, ICU and hospital deaths show a vaccine efficacy largely at half-mast for the 65 years old and more, sometimes even a negative « efficacy » ‑an increased risk- (pudimentarily named by Sciensano of » relative risk reduction [suite au vaccin] not detectable »). I address this, week after week, in my « Charts »(7).
Another hypothetical cause for this observation would be in the nature of the gene therapy vaccine itself and the 85+ year olds have indeed received so much and more of this experimental gene therapy vaccine. That the gene therapy vaccine is being considered as a cofactor of death in the very elderly seems to me to be a hypothesis that deserves attention. From this point of view, it would be interesting to know the number of deaths within 24 and 60 days after injection. The British had offered us this data, so why shouldn’t we?
But obviously, it is not because we are currently observing an increase in mortality in the 85+ age group that we can say that, according to some, it is obviously the fault of covid, or for others obviously the fault of the gene therapy vaccine.
No, that’s not how it works. The cause is most probably multifactorial: it is the age and other intercurrent infections and the tendency to diabetes and hypertension and decreased immune capacity and obesity/alcoholism/smoking and polypathology and vaccine-gene therapy, and covid… In what proportion? This is obviously what should be the subject of rigorous research.
The article of this mainstream newspaper, placed on the first page ‑excuse me- which was the pretext for this analysis turns out to be a false construction, a fake, charged with anguish and fear. We really don’t need this right now on top of everything else(8). Based on figures diverted from their real meaning, the intellectual construction that is proposed is false from « A to Z ». It is quite astonishing that a mainstream newspaper, which used to be read for the quality of the information it provided, for the appearance of a counter-power it presented, can propose such nonsense. But in the end, is it so surprising? Today’s mainstream press has long since abandoned its role as guardian, critic of authority, a fortiori as « fourth estate » and guarantor of freedom of expression. It has turned into an uncompromising propagandist of the narrative, a narrative parallel to the realities we live in, which our « elites » (in Maffesoli’s sense: » those who have the power to say and the power to do ») feed us. Both are co-responsible for this social distancing, this abyss that is growing between the « elite » and the people and that announces uncertain times. Sad and dangerous.
Christophe de Brouwer
Honorary full professor and former chair of the School of Public Health at the Université Libre de Bruxelles.
