On 4 December 2023 I (Norman) attended the Parliament meeting (arranged by Andrew Bridgen MP) where a number of short powerful presentations were made challenging the ‘official’ covid narrative and especially the safety of the vaccines. The presenters David Martin, Pierre Kory, Ryan Cole, Robert Malone, Angus Dalgleish and Steve Kirsch have been among the most prominent voices in the campaign to halt the continued rollout of the covid vaccines.
I understand that for the UN to declare a pandemic 6m people have to have been affected. Not sure the definition of affected, I'd guess seriously ill, (hospitalised?) or dead within a close timeframe?
I do know that those criteria were not fulfilled. The Military are trained in dealing with pandemic situations (body bag filling and disposal, peace keeping etc) but were never called up, other than to stab arms. Yet BoJo said 3 times in his pronouncements that he reserved the right to call in the military.
A question - what were UK GPs told in January / February 2020 about preparation for what might happen? That would be an email to every medic / surgery and professional body. My understanding is they were told to prepare body bags and PTS medications. Anyone have details? 🤔
Regarding "preparation" adn foreknowldedge quote from UK mortician:
JOHN O'LOONEY: So let me start from the beginning. So in 2019 I had a family come and see me who had lost a loved one and they had lost a loved one in the neighboring borough of Northampton. So they asked me to go to Northhampton and collect their loved one. And they complained that at the time the hospital wouldn't let them see that loved one. So I went to the Northampton Hospital and collected their loved one, and while I was there I asked the guys there in the mortuary, why wouldn't you let this family see their loved one? And they opened the chapel or the viewing room doors and there was a great big inflatable kind of blow-up pandemic mortuary. I've since found out this. And they told me there was something really horrible coming and this is why, because the viewing room was being used by this kit. And that was my introduction to covid. And that was back in end of November, beginning of December 2019.
In the summer of 2020 government asked for tenders to provide marquees in every major city to be used for body storage and to include destruction of the marquees at contract end. That was around the time of the Nightingale hospitals fiasco that were built but never used. Meanwhile actual hospitals stood empty and quiet. Govt clearly didn't get the memo that most folk were alive and well waiting for Eat Out to Help Out social highlight of the year along with Macdonald's queues.
This is the first sentence of Neil Ferguson et al’s notorious Imperial College modelling Report 9: “The global impact of COVID-19 has been profound, and the public health threat it represents is the most serious seen in a respiratory virus since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic.”*
Really?!
Based on what evidence in March 2020?
Also…big question marks over the 1918 flu bizzo as well, that bears a lot more looking into, the big ticket event that’s been used to bolster the flu and now Covid vax industry.
Big question marks about the efficacy of the smallpox vaccine from Alfred Wallace in 1898 that were never answered too. The entire medical profession and vaccine industry just ran with it with no investigation whatsoever. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/lets-hope-the-monkey-pox-nonsense
Dear Norman, great work as ever. I agree that the data you have requested would indeed prove the safety and efficacy of the shots as well as much more, but that is exactly why the ONS and the British government will never provide that infomation unless a court orders them to do so. Sadly, I can not say I have any more faith in the British justice system than I do with the British political class. However, I totally agree that one has to try
In Italy a court (TAR) did so, forcing the ministry of health to hand over the database. The database delivered is full of errors, a real disaster, and therefore unusable.
Reasonable or not, a court might well decide that it would 'not be in the public interest'; as, for instance, when the ONS was permitted to decline revealing exact numbers on child deaths from vaccination.
The expansion of the bio-sciences and novel 'vaccines' are central to UK economic and national security policy, and interference will not be tolerated by the Establishment.
This battle will NOT be won by cast-iron arguments based on sound data. Preparations for heavier censorship are clearly in hand, and dissemination of the truth will become impossible.
People would do well to appreciate that a global Totalitarian coup d'etat of a novel kind took place in early 2020, and we are now in a revolutionary phase in which old standards and rules, ethics, no longer apply. Only the shells of former institutions remain, they have been subverted.
Yes, it does seem “a global Totalitarian coup d'etat of a novel kind took place in early 2020”.
But it also seems a lot of illegal stuff has been and is happening.
The ‘middle managers’ need to be targeted - e.g. the medical folk who collaborated with mandated medical interventions, violating voluntary informed consent.
Yes, I agree, in this coup we have seen a subversion of all existing institutions, professional bodies, medical charities, agencies and advisory committees, legislatures, which gave a spurious appearance of legality and science to the injection programmes.
But we also saw - still see -the blatant trashing of legal and ethical norms: informed consent simply wasn't stood up for by almost the entire medical profession, and the Nuremberg code, the Declaration on Bio-ethics, etc, have been shown to be dead-letters.
What can possibly revive them if the medical profession itself won't take them seriously? Too many are now deeply complicit in this crime, as well as being victims and vaxxed up to the eyeballs, even now. I am doubtful that the medical sector can ever regain its integrity.
Interestingly, talking to university medics, it seems to me that the ethical instruction element in medical school is taught neither properly nor seriously: it certainly needs input from historians who won't suffer from inevitable professional malformation and complacency.
Hark! What is that sound I hear? Alas, I don't think it is the sound of the Office for Nobbled Statistics tripping over themselves to provide said data. It may be the sound of gnashing teeth however.
It's truly remarkable that we're expected to trust data from the same source that has a 3 year track record of credibility issues. Putting faith in data provided by an entity like this raises serious questions about the reliability of the conclusions drawn. The outlined data request and analysis, while thorough, still relies on observational data, introducing inherent limitations, especially in establishing causation. Even if the hypothesis tests were to reveal evidence against vaccine safety, there's a critical gap—the data doesn't definitively pinpoint the actual cause of death. Perhaps an independent third party could be used to monitor the data collection. Or perhaps there’s an alternative source of reliable data. A robust investigation into vaccine safety demands comprehensive and unbiased information to make truly informed decisions. At this juncture it’s difficult to trust ONS or the CDC.
Dec 14, 2023·edited Dec 14, 2023Liked by Martin Neil, Norman Fenton
Let's hope he asks the question that - presumably - you have already asked and been denied an answer - at least a direct one?
My bet is that the government will instruct the ONS to - maybe - supply the data, but then will state that there are many confounding factors beyond C19 - and even then will claim that there is no way to tell whether people died from the disease or the injection and that there are many other causes of death not captured by the data. I think we got some idea of the government's response when the health minister replied to Andrw Bridgen after one of his speeches.
If only we could get the data, right? Would be of global sighnficance for accountability! "Hey look, the Brits can do it, why can't we?"
Turn the tables..., and can we also have the data that shows the vaccines are Not Related to the fetal death increase we've been witnessing in the hospitals since the shots began in pregnant mothers?
Important questions for brave people & scientifically-minded doctors to pursue.
The ‘wisdom of the crowd’ already knows (or suspects) the truth, with few-to-none accepting multiple ‘boosters.’ But we need more courageous people to step forward & speak out.
This is one of the defining issues & moments of our time. ‘What did you do?’ will likely be one of the questions in the future that children will ask of their parents and grandparents.
Those I know who haven't had more than the 3rd shot, the first booster, it's mostly only because it hasn't been required for travel. If it were, they'd have had all 7 by now, I'm sure! They haven't turned their backs on the vaxxes in any sense.
They don't suspect anything, and are not enlightened. Moreover, they don't want to be: even experiencing repeated 'Covid infections doesn't wake them up.
If we are to trust official UK figures on the take-up rate for the current seasonal Covid shots, it's all going swimmingly, with 10 million done in the first month, including 7 million pensioners, poor fools.
The vaccines are not safe or effective..well they are effective...at killing people. And they know this full well..its a genocide programme. Anyone who thinks differently have well and truly been coerced.
John, I perceived that covid was going to be an international scam already on Jan 9, 2020, even before it was called covid. I wrote extensively against covid as a threat beginning in March. I wrote even more against lockdowns and masks. I was the 1st person I knew to write against the covid shots, and already by Jan 2021 I had estimated the shots would kill a whopping 1 in 1000 participants. I correctly predicted that the shots would appear to be effective, but their efficacy would wane down to zero within a few months. I watched in horror as my community suffered this assault. Despite all this, I have never once thought that the covid shot is a genocide. A mass sterilization program, maybe. And I can imagine that the harms might have been tolerated because so many in power wish to reduce the world's population. But I cannot see any viable way for the shot to be a genocide. I may be wrong on this point, but if so it is not because I have "truly been coerced."
Investigating vaccination and vaccination policy for the past 15 years I’ve seen this playbook used over and over again, beating up fear about disease to sell lucrative vaccine products to mass population markets, but they went completely over the top batshit crazy this time.
It’s bewildering they were able to pull this off given it was out in plain sight after the 2009 swine flu beat-up, but the compliant flunkeys in the science and medical establishment went along with it with barely a whimper, they dare not challenge the blessed golden Church of Vaccination…
I questioned what was happening in March 2020, see my BMJ rapid response:
Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2
Dear Editor
If children, young adults and others can mount their own effective immune response to SARS-CoV2, is it ethical to impede their ability to access natural immunity by interfering with the natural progression of the virus?
According to the WHO, "Illness due to COVID-19 infection is generally mild, especially for children and young adults."[1]
Is the focus on future fast-tracked vaccine products blocking full consideration of the opportunity for natural herd immunity? Who is Neil Ferguson to say "The only exit strategy [in the] long term for this is really vaccination or other forms of innovative technology that allows us to control transmission".[2]
In regards to young people's and others' right to natural immunity, it's also vital to consider the startling admission by Heidi Larson, Director of The Vaccine Confidence Project, during the recent WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, i.e. "...We've shifted the human population...to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity...We're in a very fragile state now. We have developed a world that is dependent on vaccinations".[3]
This is a very alarming statement by Professor Larson, particularly with the prospect of other epidemics emerging in the future. We have to learn to deal with epidemics and illnesses as they emerge, it's not feasible to vaccinate the global population against every threat.
In a recent article raising concern about making decisions about this pandemic without reliable data, John Ioannidis notes that "School closures may also diminish the chances of developing herd immunity in an age group that is spared serious disease".[4] The UK's chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, raised the prospect of developing natural herd immunity[5], but this idea was subsequently howled down by Matt Hancock, the UK secretary of state for health and social care[6], and others such as Willem van Schaik, a professor of microbiology and infection, as reported by the Science Media Centre.[7]
Again, is it ethical to deny children, young people and others their opportunity for natural immunity, and to plan to make them dependent on vaccine-induce immunity, to in effect make them dependent on the vaccine industry?
This is even more serious to consider in light of emerging vaccine product failures, e.g. pertussis and mumps.
The international community must be assured that independent and objective thinkers are carefully considering the way ahead on this matter.
References: 1. WHO Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19) - Should I worry about COVID-19. 9 March 2020. 2. Elisabeth Mahase. Covid-19: UK starts social distancing after new model points to 260 000 potential deaths. BMJ2020;368:m1089 3. Heidi Larson. Vaccine safety in the next decade. Why we need new modes of trust building? WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, 2-3 December 2019. 4. John P.A. Ioannidis. A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data. STAT, 17 March 2020. 5. Coronavirus: 60% of UK population need to become infected so country can build 'herd immunity', government's chief scientist says. Independent, 13 March 2020. 6. The UK backs away from "herd immunity" coronavirus proposal amid blowback. Vox, 15 March 2020. 7. Expert comments about herd immunity. Science Media Centre, 13 March 2020.
Competing interests: No competing interests
25 March 2020
Elizabeth M Hart
Independent citizen investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
"The figures in item 5 address all hypotheses relating to the accuracy of covid testing and its severity, while the figures in item 6 address all hypotheses relating to the accuracy of the covid death classification"
The preamble to the interview below is even better than the interview itself. One of the best summations I've heard of the full horrors of what hospitals did to often-elderly, sick and disabled patients.
Thank you so much for these in-depth views from the nursing trenches.. Most enlightening, damning and shocking. My heart aches for these wonderful nurses and for mcCarthy's book "what the nurses knew" MUST, MUST SEE. One very interesting comment is that EPIC EHR had no code in system for "vaccinated".. Talk about screwed up data....!!!!
Even if the ONS (or CDC, etc.) do provide the requested data, what is the guarantee that the data will be COMPLETELY valid (i.e. not doctored to hide or attenuate potential deadly effects of the vaccines)? We obviously need a better assurance than "these trusted organizations would never do such a thing".
Thinking off the top of my head, a good way to "audit" the ONS data and check for validity is to independently gather several samples of deaths in 2020-2023 from the general population (e.g. samples of 1000 or even 10000 deaths at a time) as reported by the decedents' family members or friends and subsequently verified. Then, make sure EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE DEATHS IS COUNTED once and only once in the ONS mortality data set. In other words, make sure none of the deaths in those verified samples from the general population are either omitted OR counted more than once in the ONS mortality data. If there are omissions or repeat-counted deaths, they should be very rare (far less than 1%). Most importantly, any such errors should NOT be disproportionately associated with certain populations (for example, it is a definite red flag if omitted deaths are more common in higher vaccinated populations while double-counted deaths are more common in lesser vaccinated populations). A second way (not very reliable or useful) to assess the validity of the data is to obtain the same set of variables as done for the UK ONS data from several other countries around the world as well, in order to see how well the mortality effects associated with vaccination match up between the different data sets, accounting for the expected differences between the populations.
A final issue, which is probably unavoidable but still a tremendous problem, is that it is realistically impossible to PROPERLY account for healthy vaccine user bias given the absence of data on BMI, smoking status, physical activity, and socioeconomic status, just to name a few variables. These variables are HUGELY correlated with both COVID and non-COVID mortality, and the advantage they confer to the vaccinated would easily dwarf a 15-20% increase in non-COVID mortality from vaccination (which I would bet is very close to the real effect as it was observed in both the Pfizer and Moderna RCTs, and is also consistent with other evidence). In other words, this healthy vaccine user bias, which is impossible to adjust for, would give the misleading impression that the vaccinated have lower all-cause mortality, even if the vaccine truly INCREASES all-cause mortality. It is entirely possible for BOTH to be simultaneously true: the vaccinated may STILL have lower mortality (due to all the aforementioned advantages) EVEN IF the vaccine itself actually increases mortality.
Bravo, very well stated! Your first suggestion for verifying the accuracy of the "official" data using samples of deaths from the general population is a really smart idea- but tedious for sure! And I suspect the ONS (and any other organization) will put every possible spoke in the wheel under the pretext of "data privacy" and "protected health information", to make it nearly impossible to verify their death data.
To quote John Mayer: "when they own the information, oh they can bend it all they want".
I agree there is no guarantee of "undoctored data" unless they can be legally accountable to provide undoctored data but proving that is likely a huge stretch. Your suggestion is a good one -- independent cross-verification of deaths by family members and/or other sources -- assuming they are willing or knowedgeable enough to provide such data (i.e. vax status, dob, comorbidities etc.). The data is there but collating it is a huge task.
Thanks for your comment, I agree with everything that you said. But your point about the extreme difficulty in proving the validity vs. invalidity of the data only underscores the fact that organizations like the ONS can indeed get away with significantly manipulating their data to hide potential deadly effects of the vaccines. Suppose that mRNA vaccines increased non-COVID deaths by a sizeable amount, such as 15-20% (which would be my bet, as it is what Pfizer and Moderna's own RCTs showed). In that case, the ONS, CDC, etc. have to choose between either providing the honest data and admitting that the vaccines killed sizeable amounts of people, OR manipulating the data and pretending that the vaccines hardly killed anyone, assuming that no one will be able to prove that they lied anytime soon. Between those two options, isn't the second option far, far preferable and less damning for them, given that, as we both agree, it is extremely unlikely that outsiders can PROVE data manipulation by these organizations, even if the data ARE indeed significantly manipulated?
Of course, the organizations have a third option of a middle-ground strategy, which is to provide moderately but not obscenely manipulated data, which are at least remotely accurate such that they still look embarrassingly bad for the vaccines, but manipulated and massaged just enough to avoid any proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the vaccines actually killed lots of people. The key to this strategy is to attribute much of the post-vaccine mortality increase to COVID, even if much of the increase was actually due to non-COVID deaths that are vaccine-related. If I had to bet, this is the strategy that the US CDC (and many other countries) decided upon. The CDC did admit a >5% INCREASE in US all-cause mortality in 2021 compared to 2020 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db456.pdf, which obviously wouldn't be possible if it were truly a "safe and effective" vaccine that the majority of the US population and almost all high-risk individuals received. However, the CDC made sure the issue is cloudy enough by implying that about half of that all-cause mortality increase is due to a major rise in COVID deaths from 2020 to 2021 (which obviously disproves vaccine effectiveness, but at least helps to steer the conversation away from vaccine deaths). The data from the vast majority of highly mRNA vaccinated countries paint a similar picture: they inevitably reveal that the vaccine was a terrible failure, but make it impossible to prove that it was deadly rather than merely ineffective. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-deaths-per-million-covid?tab=chart&time=2020-01-25..2022-12-31&country=AUS~CAN~USA~JPN~GBR~DEU~ITA~NZL~KOR.
This is frustrating!
The basic question is still not being asked and answered…
Why was there a mass population vaccination campaign against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn’t a serious threat to most people?!
Related questions:
What was the emergency?
To what signs or signals of an emergency was the government responding? Can we see the data which show those signs or signals?
Correct me if I'm wrong please.
I understand that for the UN to declare a pandemic 6m people have to have been affected. Not sure the definition of affected, I'd guess seriously ill, (hospitalised?) or dead within a close timeframe?
I do know that those criteria were not fulfilled. The Military are trained in dealing with pandemic situations (body bag filling and disposal, peace keeping etc) but were never called up, other than to stab arms. Yet BoJo said 3 times in his pronouncements that he reserved the right to call in the military.
A question - what were UK GPs told in January / February 2020 about preparation for what might happen? That would be an email to every medic / surgery and professional body. My understanding is they were told to prepare body bags and PTS medications. Anyone have details? 🤔
Speaking of GPs and medicos…how were they so easily duped by this scam?
Honestly, with very few exceptions, most of these people seem devoid of critical thinking.
Regarding "preparation" adn foreknowldedge quote from UK mortician:
JOHN O'LOONEY: So let me start from the beginning. So in 2019 I had a family come and see me who had lost a loved one and they had lost a loved one in the neighboring borough of Northampton. So they asked me to go to Northhampton and collect their loved one. And they complained that at the time the hospital wouldn't let them see that loved one. So I went to the Northampton Hospital and collected their loved one, and while I was there I asked the guys there in the mortuary, why wouldn't you let this family see their loved one? And they opened the chapel or the viewing room doors and there was a great big inflatable kind of blow-up pandemic mortuary. I've since found out this. And they told me there was something really horrible coming and this is why, because the viewing room was being used by this kit. And that was my introduction to covid. And that was back in end of November, beginning of December 2019.
So Christmas came and—
In the summer of 2020 government asked for tenders to provide marquees in every major city to be used for body storage and to include destruction of the marquees at contract end. That was around the time of the Nightingale hospitals fiasco that were built but never used. Meanwhile actual hospitals stood empty and quiet. Govt clearly didn't get the memo that most folk were alive and well waiting for Eat Out to Help Out social highlight of the year along with Macdonald's queues.
source for above: video url:
MUST WATCH!!! Funeral Director John O'Looney Blows the Whistle on Covid
https://www.bitchute.com/video/gigUyK3yLtMU/
This is the first sentence of Neil Ferguson et al’s notorious Imperial College modelling Report 9: “The global impact of COVID-19 has been profound, and the public health threat it represents is the most serious seen in a respiratory virus since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic.”*
Really?!
Based on what evidence in March 2020?
Also…big question marks over the 1918 flu bizzo as well, that bears a lot more looking into, the big ticket event that’s been used to bolster the flu and now Covid vax industry.
* https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-03-16-COVID19-Report-9.pdf
Big question marks about the efficacy of the smallpox vaccine from Alfred Wallace in 1898 that were never answered too. The entire medical profession and vaccine industry just ran with it with no investigation whatsoever. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/lets-hope-the-monkey-pox-nonsense
Because 5 billion vaccine shots with zero liability is the biggest wet dream any drug pusher can hope to achieve?
And…coercion…and MANDATES!!! In supposedly free countries!
Voluntary informed consent for vaccination was destroyed in Australia, with the wholehearted support of the wretched medical ‘profession’…
I’ve written about it on my substack, see:
MANDATED vaccination... NO VALID CONSENT! It's mind-boggling!
https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/mandated-vaccination-no-valid-consent
Yes,I why most people were injected after 1 year+. Like if you hadn't been sick yet there was any chance you might be.
Dear Norman, great work as ever. I agree that the data you have requested would indeed prove the safety and efficacy of the shots as well as much more, but that is exactly why the ONS and the British government will never provide that infomation unless a court orders them to do so. Sadly, I can not say I have any more faith in the British justice system than I do with the British political class. However, I totally agree that one has to try
In Italy a court (TAR) did so, forcing the ministry of health to hand over the database. The database delivered is full of errors, a real disaster, and therefore unusable.
https://odysee.com/@CMSi:9/InfovaxTrambusti1012:5?r=E5d5tsUh2zCcHStH13L9GWCqRv4V7hxw
I cannot see any reason why these data should not be provided. Other than of course, they are afraid of what it might reveal.
Reasonable or not, a court might well decide that it would 'not be in the public interest'; as, for instance, when the ONS was permitted to decline revealing exact numbers on child deaths from vaccination.
The expansion of the bio-sciences and novel 'vaccines' are central to UK economic and national security policy, and interference will not be tolerated by the Establishment.
This battle will NOT be won by cast-iron arguments based on sound data. Preparations for heavier censorship are clearly in hand, and dissemination of the truth will become impossible.
People would do well to appreciate that a global Totalitarian coup d'etat of a novel kind took place in early 2020, and we are now in a revolutionary phase in which old standards and rules, ethics, no longer apply. Only the shells of former institutions remain, they have been subverted.
Yes, it does seem “a global Totalitarian coup d'etat of a novel kind took place in early 2020”.
But it also seems a lot of illegal stuff has been and is happening.
The ‘middle managers’ need to be targeted - e.g. the medical folk who collaborated with mandated medical interventions, violating voluntary informed consent.
Yes, I agree, in this coup we have seen a subversion of all existing institutions, professional bodies, medical charities, agencies and advisory committees, legislatures, which gave a spurious appearance of legality and science to the injection programmes.
But we also saw - still see -the blatant trashing of legal and ethical norms: informed consent simply wasn't stood up for by almost the entire medical profession, and the Nuremberg code, the Declaration on Bio-ethics, etc, have been shown to be dead-letters.
What can possibly revive them if the medical profession itself won't take them seriously? Too many are now deeply complicit in this crime, as well as being victims and vaxxed up to the eyeballs, even now. I am doubtful that the medical sector can ever regain its integrity.
Interestingly, talking to university medics, it seems to me that the ethical instruction element in medical school is taught neither properly nor seriously: it certainly needs input from historians who won't suffer from inevitable professional malformation and complacency.
The medical 'profession' is an ethical desert...
See my complaint/notification about Australia's Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly, who capitulated to the demands of politicians for vaccination mandates, and trashed voluntary informed consent for vaccination: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/notification-to-ahpra-re-medical-practitioner-paul-kelly.pdf
Will reveal
Hark! What is that sound I hear? Alas, I don't think it is the sound of the Office for Nobbled Statistics tripping over themselves to provide said data. It may be the sound of gnashing teeth however.
ONS=Office for Nobbled Statistics, could not be more appropriately described! And while we're at it, CDC=Centers for Deception and Concealment?
It's truly remarkable that we're expected to trust data from the same source that has a 3 year track record of credibility issues. Putting faith in data provided by an entity like this raises serious questions about the reliability of the conclusions drawn. The outlined data request and analysis, while thorough, still relies on observational data, introducing inherent limitations, especially in establishing causation. Even if the hypothesis tests were to reveal evidence against vaccine safety, there's a critical gap—the data doesn't definitively pinpoint the actual cause of death. Perhaps an independent third party could be used to monitor the data collection. Or perhaps there’s an alternative source of reliable data. A robust investigation into vaccine safety demands comprehensive and unbiased information to make truly informed decisions. At this juncture it’s difficult to trust ONS or the CDC.
Let's hope he asks the question that - presumably - you have already asked and been denied an answer - at least a direct one?
My bet is that the government will instruct the ONS to - maybe - supply the data, but then will state that there are many confounding factors beyond C19 - and even then will claim that there is no way to tell whether people died from the disease or the injection and that there are many other causes of death not captured by the data. I think we got some idea of the government's response when the health minister replied to Andrw Bridgen after one of his speeches.
If only we could get the data, right? Would be of global sighnficance for accountability! "Hey look, the Brits can do it, why can't we?"
Turn the tables..., and can we also have the data that shows the vaccines are Not Related to the fetal death increase we've been witnessing in the hospitals since the shots began in pregnant mothers?
The data we asked for would also answer that question
https://dee746.substack.com/p/fetal-death-and-miscarriage-rates
Good luck with that!
Important questions for brave people & scientifically-minded doctors to pursue.
The ‘wisdom of the crowd’ already knows (or suspects) the truth, with few-to-none accepting multiple ‘boosters.’ But we need more courageous people to step forward & speak out.
This is one of the defining issues & moments of our time. ‘What did you do?’ will likely be one of the questions in the future that children will ask of their parents and grandparents.
Those I know who haven't had more than the 3rd shot, the first booster, it's mostly only because it hasn't been required for travel. If it were, they'd have had all 7 by now, I'm sure! They haven't turned their backs on the vaxxes in any sense.
They don't suspect anything, and are not enlightened. Moreover, they don't want to be: even experiencing repeated 'Covid infections doesn't wake them up.
If we are to trust official UK figures on the take-up rate for the current seasonal Covid shots, it's all going swimmingly, with 10 million done in the first month, including 7 million pensioners, poor fools.
will they have any grandparents to ask is the question
The vaccines are not safe or effective..well they are effective...at killing people. And they know this full well..its a genocide programme. Anyone who thinks differently have well and truly been coerced.
John, I perceived that covid was going to be an international scam already on Jan 9, 2020, even before it was called covid. I wrote extensively against covid as a threat beginning in March. I wrote even more against lockdowns and masks. I was the 1st person I knew to write against the covid shots, and already by Jan 2021 I had estimated the shots would kill a whopping 1 in 1000 participants. I correctly predicted that the shots would appear to be effective, but their efficacy would wane down to zero within a few months. I watched in horror as my community suffered this assault. Despite all this, I have never once thought that the covid shot is a genocide. A mass sterilization program, maybe. And I can imagine that the harms might have been tolerated because so many in power wish to reduce the world's population. But I cannot see any viable way for the shot to be a genocide. I may be wrong on this point, but if so it is not because I have "truly been coerced."
I knew it was a scam in early 2020 too.
Investigating vaccination and vaccination policy for the past 15 years I’ve seen this playbook used over and over again, beating up fear about disease to sell lucrative vaccine products to mass population markets, but they went completely over the top batshit crazy this time.
It’s bewildering they were able to pull this off given it was out in plain sight after the 2009 swine flu beat-up, but the compliant flunkeys in the science and medical establishment went along with it with barely a whimper, they dare not challenge the blessed golden Church of Vaccination…
I questioned what was happening in March 2020, see my BMJ rapid response:
https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1089/rr-6
Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2
Dear Editor
If children, young adults and others can mount their own effective immune response to SARS-CoV2, is it ethical to impede their ability to access natural immunity by interfering with the natural progression of the virus?
According to the WHO, "Illness due to COVID-19 infection is generally mild, especially for children and young adults."[1]
Is the focus on future fast-tracked vaccine products blocking full consideration of the opportunity for natural herd immunity? Who is Neil Ferguson to say "The only exit strategy [in the] long term for this is really vaccination or other forms of innovative technology that allows us to control transmission".[2]
In regards to young people's and others' right to natural immunity, it's also vital to consider the startling admission by Heidi Larson, Director of The Vaccine Confidence Project, during the recent WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, i.e. "...We've shifted the human population...to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity...We're in a very fragile state now. We have developed a world that is dependent on vaccinations".[3]
This is a very alarming statement by Professor Larson, particularly with the prospect of other epidemics emerging in the future. We have to learn to deal with epidemics and illnesses as they emerge, it's not feasible to vaccinate the global population against every threat.
In a recent article raising concern about making decisions about this pandemic without reliable data, John Ioannidis notes that "School closures may also diminish the chances of developing herd immunity in an age group that is spared serious disease".[4] The UK's chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, raised the prospect of developing natural herd immunity[5], but this idea was subsequently howled down by Matt Hancock, the UK secretary of state for health and social care[6], and others such as Willem van Schaik, a professor of microbiology and infection, as reported by the Science Media Centre.[7]
Again, is it ethical to deny children, young people and others their opportunity for natural immunity, and to plan to make them dependent on vaccine-induce immunity, to in effect make them dependent on the vaccine industry?
This is even more serious to consider in light of emerging vaccine product failures, e.g. pertussis and mumps.
The international community must be assured that independent and objective thinkers are carefully considering the way ahead on this matter.
References: 1. WHO Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19) - Should I worry about COVID-19. 9 March 2020. 2. Elisabeth Mahase. Covid-19: UK starts social distancing after new model points to 260 000 potential deaths. BMJ2020;368:m1089 3. Heidi Larson. Vaccine safety in the next decade. Why we need new modes of trust building? WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, 2-3 December 2019. 4. John P.A. Ioannidis. A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data. STAT, 17 March 2020. 5. Coronavirus: 60% of UK population need to become infected so country can build 'herd immunity', government's chief scientist says. Independent, 13 March 2020. 6. The UK backs away from "herd immunity" coronavirus proposal amid blowback. Vox, 15 March 2020. 7. Expert comments about herd immunity. Science Media Centre, 13 March 2020.
Competing interests: No competing interests
25 March 2020
Elizabeth M Hart
Independent citizen investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
Adelaide, Australia
Excellent
The truth always comes out
With your efforts it will be much sooner
Thank You!
Excellent work. Keep it up.
Given that the fraudulent PCR test is used for "cases", "hosptalizations", and "deaths", how is any of this meaningful?
Note that we say
"The figures in item 5 address all hypotheses relating to the accuracy of covid testing and its severity, while the figures in item 6 address all hypotheses relating to the accuracy of the covid death classification"
The preamble to the interview below is even better than the interview itself. One of the best summations I've heard of the full horrors of what hospitals did to often-elderly, sick and disabled patients.
https://twitter.com/FreedomIsUpToUS/status/1734702742017294459?s=19
https://makismd.substack.com/p/video-icu-nurse-childrens-health
Thank you so much for these in-depth views from the nursing trenches.. Most enlightening, damning and shocking. My heart aches for these wonderful nurses and for mcCarthy's book "what the nurses knew" MUST, MUST SEE. One very interesting comment is that EPIC EHR had no code in system for "vaccinated".. Talk about screwed up data....!!!!
Sofia's video is brilliant 👏
Thank you so much. I wondered what the hospital experience was like, having worked at one of the best known ones in Dallas, TX
Even if the ONS (or CDC, etc.) do provide the requested data, what is the guarantee that the data will be COMPLETELY valid (i.e. not doctored to hide or attenuate potential deadly effects of the vaccines)? We obviously need a better assurance than "these trusted organizations would never do such a thing".
Thinking off the top of my head, a good way to "audit" the ONS data and check for validity is to independently gather several samples of deaths in 2020-2023 from the general population (e.g. samples of 1000 or even 10000 deaths at a time) as reported by the decedents' family members or friends and subsequently verified. Then, make sure EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE DEATHS IS COUNTED once and only once in the ONS mortality data set. In other words, make sure none of the deaths in those verified samples from the general population are either omitted OR counted more than once in the ONS mortality data. If there are omissions or repeat-counted deaths, they should be very rare (far less than 1%). Most importantly, any such errors should NOT be disproportionately associated with certain populations (for example, it is a definite red flag if omitted deaths are more common in higher vaccinated populations while double-counted deaths are more common in lesser vaccinated populations). A second way (not very reliable or useful) to assess the validity of the data is to obtain the same set of variables as done for the UK ONS data from several other countries around the world as well, in order to see how well the mortality effects associated with vaccination match up between the different data sets, accounting for the expected differences between the populations.
A final issue, which is probably unavoidable but still a tremendous problem, is that it is realistically impossible to PROPERLY account for healthy vaccine user bias given the absence of data on BMI, smoking status, physical activity, and socioeconomic status, just to name a few variables. These variables are HUGELY correlated with both COVID and non-COVID mortality, and the advantage they confer to the vaccinated would easily dwarf a 15-20% increase in non-COVID mortality from vaccination (which I would bet is very close to the real effect as it was observed in both the Pfizer and Moderna RCTs, and is also consistent with other evidence). In other words, this healthy vaccine user bias, which is impossible to adjust for, would give the misleading impression that the vaccinated have lower all-cause mortality, even if the vaccine truly INCREASES all-cause mortality. It is entirely possible for BOTH to be simultaneously true: the vaccinated may STILL have lower mortality (due to all the aforementioned advantages) EVEN IF the vaccine itself actually increases mortality.
Bravo, very well stated! Your first suggestion for verifying the accuracy of the "official" data using samples of deaths from the general population is a really smart idea- but tedious for sure! And I suspect the ONS (and any other organization) will put every possible spoke in the wheel under the pretext of "data privacy" and "protected health information", to make it nearly impossible to verify their death data.
To quote John Mayer: "when they own the information, oh they can bend it all they want".
I agree there is no guarantee of "undoctored data" unless they can be legally accountable to provide undoctored data but proving that is likely a huge stretch. Your suggestion is a good one -- independent cross-verification of deaths by family members and/or other sources -- assuming they are willing or knowedgeable enough to provide such data (i.e. vax status, dob, comorbidities etc.). The data is there but collating it is a huge task.
Thanks for your comment, I agree with everything that you said. But your point about the extreme difficulty in proving the validity vs. invalidity of the data only underscores the fact that organizations like the ONS can indeed get away with significantly manipulating their data to hide potential deadly effects of the vaccines. Suppose that mRNA vaccines increased non-COVID deaths by a sizeable amount, such as 15-20% (which would be my bet, as it is what Pfizer and Moderna's own RCTs showed). In that case, the ONS, CDC, etc. have to choose between either providing the honest data and admitting that the vaccines killed sizeable amounts of people, OR manipulating the data and pretending that the vaccines hardly killed anyone, assuming that no one will be able to prove that they lied anytime soon. Between those two options, isn't the second option far, far preferable and less damning for them, given that, as we both agree, it is extremely unlikely that outsiders can PROVE data manipulation by these organizations, even if the data ARE indeed significantly manipulated?
Of course, the organizations have a third option of a middle-ground strategy, which is to provide moderately but not obscenely manipulated data, which are at least remotely accurate such that they still look embarrassingly bad for the vaccines, but manipulated and massaged just enough to avoid any proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the vaccines actually killed lots of people. The key to this strategy is to attribute much of the post-vaccine mortality increase to COVID, even if much of the increase was actually due to non-COVID deaths that are vaccine-related. If I had to bet, this is the strategy that the US CDC (and many other countries) decided upon. The CDC did admit a >5% INCREASE in US all-cause mortality in 2021 compared to 2020 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db456.pdf, which obviously wouldn't be possible if it were truly a "safe and effective" vaccine that the majority of the US population and almost all high-risk individuals received. However, the CDC made sure the issue is cloudy enough by implying that about half of that all-cause mortality increase is due to a major rise in COVID deaths from 2020 to 2021 (which obviously disproves vaccine effectiveness, but at least helps to steer the conversation away from vaccine deaths). The data from the vast majority of highly mRNA vaccinated countries paint a similar picture: they inevitably reveal that the vaccine was a terrible failure, but make it impossible to prove that it was deadly rather than merely ineffective. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-deaths-per-million-covid?tab=chart&time=2020-01-25..2022-12-31&country=AUS~CAN~USA~JPN~GBR~DEU~ITA~NZL~KOR.
Data, who needs data the Lord Pfizer has spoken, the jab is safe and effective. It’s time for us to get on our knees and worship big Pharma.
or not
I am sure that next year big Pharma and the psychopaths will come up with kneepads for the recalcitrant