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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?!
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
I cannot see any reason why these data should not be provided. Other than of course, they are afraid of what it might 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.
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?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/12/13/patrick-vallance-pandemic-diary-secret-covid-inquiry-boris/
Slightly off topic, but why has Vallance's pandemic diary been withheld from the inquiry?
His lawyers have invoked his 'human rights', but what about ours- tossed out of the window?
The inquiry is a whitewash.
I wish Professor Fenton could have access and apply his skills.
Some hope.
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.
Good luck with that!
Excellent
The truth always comes out
With your efforts it will be much sooner
Thank You!
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.
Excellent work. Keep it up.
Given that the fraudulent PCR test is used for "cases", "hosptalizations", and "deaths", how is any of this meaningful?
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
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.