Some insurance company data from Germany
Explanatory evaluations of the letter to the Paul Ehrlich Institute of February 21, 2022
BKK Provita is a German insurer. Recently, a board member revealed data indicating that adverse events associated with the COVID-19 injectable products are in great excess to the AEs reported by the Paul Ehrlich Institute (German Federal Agency and Medical Regulatory Body) confirming a great divide between what’s actually happening to people with regard to damage, and what’s being reported.
Verbatim from a Press Release dated February 25, 2022:
As a company health insurance fund with the statutory task of maintaining,
restoring or improving the health of the insured, its board has had extensive
data checks carried out, which take a closer look at the previous vaccination
process for the COVID-19 vaccinations from a billing point of view. The data
basis for our evaluation is the billing data of the doctors. Our sample is taken
from the anonymized database of the company health insurance funds. The
sample includes 10,937,716 insured persons (reference date: February 21, 2022).
So far, we have the doctors’ billing data for the first half of 2021 and about half
for the third quarter of 2021. The following valid ICD codes for vaccination side
effects were filtered during the evaluation:
T88.1: “Other complications following immunization, not elsewhere classified”1
T88.0: “Infection following immunization”
U12.9*: This particular code is new: “U12.9 COVID-19 vaccines causing adverse effects in therapeutic use, unspecified” under “Provisional assignment of new diseases of uncertain etiology or emergency use U00-U49”2
Y59.9**: This particular code is new: “Other and unspecified vaccines and biological substances” or “Complications due to vaccines or biological substances”3
During the evaluation, each person was only recorded once.
*N.B. I find it disturbing that neither Y59.9 nor U12.9 can be found in the updated ICD-10data code list.4
**I had to find these 2 codes on obscure foreign websites. It seems to me that both are explicitly relevant in the context of the COVID-19 products and thus should be in the updated ICD-10data code list. The group Y39-Y61 entries are simply omitted. And the fact that the code that indicates a causative effect from vaccines is entirely missing from the updated ICD10data code list is very suspect to me.
Here are the 4 charts showing the data per quarter for each respective ICD10data code. The data is published here as well.
In this first case (chart) below, there is a clear rise in reports of complications following injection for 2021. The average number of reports of this kind for all quarters in 2019 and 2020 is 3,171, and the average number of reports of this kind for the 2 quarters reported for 2021 is 65,150. This means that there is a 1,955% increase in reporting when comparing 2019-2020 to 2021. That’s strange. What ‘immunizations’ were being primarily injected in 2021 that were not in 2019 and 2020?
In this second case (chart) below, there is a clear rise in reports of ‘infections after vaccination’ in 2021. The average number of reports of this kind for all quarters for 2019 and 2020 is 166 and the average for the 2 quarters reported here for 2021 is 578. This means that there is a 248% increase in reports of infections following injection when comparing 2019-2020 and 2021.
This third case is not extremely interesting to me since there was no COVID-19 intervention in the form of injectables prior to 2021. But still, I have charts that confirm this type of trend for AEs in VAERS in the context of the COVID-19 injectable products when compared to all other vaccines combined for the past 30 years.
In this fourth case (chart) below, there is a clear rise is undesirable side effects from ‘biologically-active substances’ used in 2021. Again, the average number of reports of this kind for all quarters in 2019 and 2020 is 179 and the average for 2021 for reports of this kind is 529 and thuas there is a 196% increase in reports of undesirable side effects associated with biologically-active substances administered in 2021.
We reported the result of our data analysis to the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI) as the supreme authority for vaccine safety, since the number of 216,695 cases treated by us for the entire period (Q1 to mid-Q3) in relation to the number of insured persons was significant to the number of 244,576 suspected cases of vaccination side effects specified by the PEI in the current safety report of February 7th, 2022 for the period December 27th, 2020 to December 31st, 2021. We see ourselves obliged to do this within the framework of the statutory mandate. In this context we refer to page 39 of the safety report of the PEI for the method of data collection at the PEI.
BKK ProVita does not interpret this data. Rather, it seeks contact with the responsible authorities, chambers and associations. In order to provide the PEI with all conceivable support in its enormously important task, the Executive Board has of course agreed to an in-depth data discussion with the PEI for the coming week. The BKK ProVita would like to encourage all health insurance companies with the legal mandate to follow their example and to evaluate their own databases for the benefit of the insured in a corresponding way.
BKK ProVita clearly distances itself from the dubious statements made by the Virchowbund in its press release of February 24th, 2022. [Dr.] Dirk Heinrich, as national chairman of the Virchowbund, never communicated with the board of directors of BKK ProVita or requested insight into the data analysis. Only serious and factual data analysis can benefit vaccine safety and thus the health of the insured. We reject polemical statements as an unsuitable means of dispute. The Paul Ehrlich Institute is solely responsible for clarifying the safety of the vaccines.
Their position is quite clear and strong: they extricate themselves from subsequent implication following a transparent revelation of a clear problem in adverse event data reporting in the context of the COVID-19 injectable products.
“Our analysis shows that we are dealing with a clear underreporting. According to our calculations, we consider 400,000 visits to the doctor by our policyholders because of vaccination complications to be realistic to this day. Extrapolated to the total population, this value would be three million.”
Explaining why this massive under-reporting might be occurring, Schöfbeck names the reporting system as a problem.
“Doctors are not paid to report side effects of vaccinations. At the same time, this process is very time-consuming. It’s simply impossible to report everything.”
Schöfbeck approached various institutions with his findings, including the German Medical Association, the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds, and the Standing Vaccination Commission.
Schöfbeck has since been fired for refusing to commit fraud. Go here to read more.
https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/S00-T88/T80-T88/T88-
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsandadversereactionsfollowingthecovid19vaccine
https://gesund.bund.de/en/icd-code-search/y59-9
https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes
Jessica, you heard that CEO Schöfbeck from BKK who wrote the letter got sacked on 1 March in the afternoon by the board of directors, shortly before the meeting scheduled with the regulator (Paul Ehrlich Institut) at 16:00? He had been CEO there for 20 years… https://reitschuster.de/post/kritischer-bkk-vorstand-entlassen/
You just unknowingly made my current project easier. Thank you.