Thanks. It is encouraging. They are hiding behind the healthy vaccine effect whilst providing zero evidence to support this assumption. And in tandem admitting that given their data is utter crap. So why did they bother with such a waste of taxpayer money?
We dont recieve any help from students or other academics I'm afraid. As Bret Weistein said 'academia selects for cowardice'. And on the current climate no one listens never mind step forward.
Ahh… but luckily there are exceptions!! People who do want to look at themselves in the mirror in the morning and have peace of mind because they simply cannot corrupt themselves. Going against the grain requires great courage in times like these. Bless you and all the others that speak up and out ❤️
I recommend you read v2 of our paper and look at the appendix on the healthy vaxx effect. We argue that jab rates amongst the moribund were likely to be very high. An unhealthy vaccine effect if you will.
Next read the section dealing with ethnic participation rates. They were high, much higher the some assume. Also pakistani heritage etc have a better life expectancy than we've been actually been told.
We use evidence to support our assertions but are happy to be contradicted by better explanations supported by good evidence. We await the ONS doing this. They have the resources. We knock our stuff out on a part time basis with zero funding.
One point to consider on the ONS skewering by media outlets is the misleading use of 'person years', which has become the pharmaceutical industry's new strawman for death counts, which they're currently using to obscure the actual mortality rates.
I had a pro-vaccine shill attack me with the ONS dataset quoting another Substack where they massage the numbers to make vaccinated mortality rates seem lower (via the use of 'person years') when, if you look at the analysis I performed, it shows 5 vaccinated died for every 1 unvaccinated death, with unvaccinated all cause deaths literally dropping off a cliff (falling from 52k to 1-2k, compared to the continual 20k-30k in vaccinated):
So even with the ONS data skewering, it still contradicts their assessment that the vaccines are beneficial. The fact ONS have stopped publishing since May 2022 shows they know it makes the vaccines look bad.
i wanted to ask... I posted on Beagle too...regarding their post regarding ONS Jan '21 to may '22 (ever) vaccinated/ unvaccd mortality count.
"Thanks for this. I have also been following profs Fenton, Neil and Dr Craig et al.
I understand re the "person years" trope and the other ways the data has been misrepresented. Also that there SHOULD be a mortality benefit in the vaccd. if it did anything helpful ( also the population undercount of unvaccd; and the ridiculousness of stating that UNvaccd start to die MORE on jab rollout!... that's obvious miscategorisation.
What about per 100k , we know about 20% of uk pop are unjabbed in actuality. and 80% therefore jabbed:
IF the jabs did.literally nothing, zip, zilch, nada...( and no this is NOT what I am seeing around me : (
but.. you (the daily beagle) said roughly 1 : 5 ( 109, 891 : 531,118)
unjabbed : ever jabbed deaths,
is the maths:-
total= 6/6 ( around 600k died in all, 100k unjabbed plus the 500k jabbed)
ie 1/6 unjabbed, and 5/6 jabbed died...
ie roundabout 16.6% and 83%.
is this not almost the SAME proportion in each population ( jabbed population, roundabout 20% vs ever jabbed pop. 80%).
it SEEMS to show it has very little effect?
albeit tipped slightly in favour of unjabbed re mortality.
if this were the case, oh if only this were the case...
I do realise there are all sorts of complicated timings of jabs involved, but generally over the whole period ( jan '21 to may '22) not even talking excess deaths or whats expected in each age group ( as all are covered in jabbed and unjabbed populations now, and the raw data aren't available for the age group breakdown ever jabbed vs unjabbed.
although, this is AS GOOD AS they've been able to MAKE it look... even so, with all the 2 week post jab miscategorisation, still mortality benefit in unvaccd.
So likely much bigger difference, in favour of unvaccd.
This miscategorisation... in UKHSA data, seemed just 14 days post jab ONE...u were " unvaccd".
After that you just rolled over into each higher vacc level category, but 14 days "late", after each subsequent jab.
As in, you never went back to being completely "unvaccd".
Can you tell me if this is so with ONS data? or do they get put back to ZERO and get counted unjabbed after multiple ones? ie 14 days after EACH
wow. thankyou for that info. (i got the 20- 26% from prof Fenton dissection of that BBC 250k study for their awful programme. he took the 20% as a conservative, the very, very least it could be according to their own figures!) I'm very glad to hear it's more like 30%!
" Isn't the 'person years' data a good way of standardising risk"
No it isn't, because a fatality is a fatality. It fudges the mortality counts by trying to supplant numbers of deaths with how long people live (or don't live) for, which makes a supposition on lifespans that is simply unwarranted.
Are you going to argue one type of death is lesser compared to another based on life lived or not lived? That's ageism and dark trend towards age-based eugenics. Pass. Just report total numbers of deaths, we don't need reinterpretation of the datasets.
"I've read your article, and your method suffers the problem of age bias; the vaxxed are on average older, and therefore more much likely to die of all causes"
We know myocarditis and pericarditis adversely impacts *young* males disproportionately, under 40s specifically:
Everyone above the age of 11 is included in the ONS dataset. So your argument isn't as strong, and we wouldn't see an all-cause mortality improvement in children anyway, because they're not at risk from SARS-CoV-2 (2 deaths per million at most).
Further, I challenge your generalisations with the following questions:
On average older by how much?
According to what dataset?
At what point does age become a factor in increasing all-cause mortality? What ages decrease all-cause mortality? What is your breakdown?
Are you suggesting the recently born have stronger immune systems than a 20 year old? Why or why not? At what age does the immune system become sufficiently strong enough?
Of which studies do you refer regarding all-cause mortality in terms of the age brackets provided?
Your supposition needs way more data for it to be factored in properly, rather than a vague generalisation on age.
Also, my method uses only what the ONS dataset provides, which offers no age related breakdowns for vaccine status and mortality. You're asking me to project an unevidenced assumption on age-related all-cause mortality brackets of which the dataset isn't provided.
Further, the burden is on the vaccine industry to show that all-cause mortality is lower in the vaccinated compared to unvaccinated in the same age groups. They have failed to provide any peer-reviewed studies that show compelling evidence of this.
My task was to refute the claims made on another Substack using the same ONS data - which I did - so any so-called "bias" in my dataset also exists in theirs.
Jan 24, 2023·edited Jan 24, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton
"first thing is to stratify the data by age groups to eliminate age bias in the deaths"
Okay, I'll clarify. ONS does not provide sufficient granularity in their age groupings to provide any accurate analysis. I would rather have the specific ages (how many in *each year*, not groupings).
If you look under Table 2, you will find they have a group called "18-39". This grouping is abnormal because all other groups are spaced by 10 years (40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89, 90+).
The 18-39 is also abnormal in its lumping because these are the formative years of the human body.
If breakdown was consistent (even if starting from 18), we would see:
18-29
30-39
This would likely reveal the shots cause more harms in the young. Therefore, per your request, I cannot do an accurate age analysis. Hence, I have not tried to do so. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
"The ONS data covers 18 months. In that 18 months one person could be unvaxx for the whole 18 months. Another spends 9 months unvaxxed, 3 months 1-dose, 6 months 2-dose."
Again, you're adding on an unnecessary requirement for my particular task (refuting someone using the same dataset). Further, to rebut this point, that would actually skewer *in favour* of vaccinated, because to be unvaccinated you have to spend your whole life in that state. To be vaccinated, you could literally take the shot within the last 5 minutes and then die.
Hence why I completely reject person years as a measurement. Total death count. Total death count has been the basis for arguing in favour of the shots for many years, the industry cannot now turn around and drop the notion of death counts simply because it now looks bad for them. Moving the goalposts and massaging datasets is not within my remit. I will still to death counts, there's nothing more standard than dying.
Thanks for your comment. Actually if you read our report: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30898.07362 on page 4 (3 paras up from bottom) we explicitly acknowledge that the ONS do account for the fact that over the period of the report a person could be in several different of the vaxx categories. Hence the same person can have part of their 17 person months assigned to different categories
I think one of the great problems is the interpretation of the data.
Safe and Effective TM is Fraud as the injectable product does not stop transmission and SM102 is not approved for human use and no trials were required under Emergency Use Authorisation, all are facts so the intire thing is fraudulent: ie theatre, it is simply a fantasy🍻🧚
Agreed. The burden does not rest on me to retroactively prove the shots are unsafe in my musings (especially given my area is Citizen Journalism, not healthcare advisor), nor is to do the extortionate legwork for free.
The burden rests on the multi-billion dollar firms to establish their experiment is clearly safe, *without* using shortcuts, bypasses, scaremongering, inflated and misleading statistics, 'press releases', withheld data, FOIA blockades, invocations of commercial confidentiality (that somehow trumps livelihoods, health, safety and lives), corrupt health regulators who handwave clearly red flag signals, hired goons and dirt diggers who slander and suppress dissent, or 'rah-rah' rhetoric to fire up the masses into turning into the closest near-miss to a full blown medical tyranny I've ever had the displeasure of encountering.
The vaccine crowd cannot stand in their pile of criminal dung and berate me on my processes when I'm not the one mass-pushing a product using dubious data massaging techniques and data suppression. When will the health regulators disclose the information the BMJ asked about the mRNA instability issues and why are they prioritising killing people to protect commercial "secrets" for a product paid for using PUBLIC MONEY?
One of my may concerns is that because of the multi layered complexity of the situation, that we loose the basics and end up debating endless data points etc and constantly have to justify our positions and this greatly holds back unity and progress. (Endless bunfight.
We need to focus on variafiable basics and build a solid case.
The whole thing is Fraudulent and it was from day one.
Why? Safe and Effective TM is a lie
I told a friend who works for the government that SM102 is not approved for human or vetinary use and he said I was talking rubbish (although I could provide the screen shots) , so even on this level we have our challenges🍻👍
Essential reporting, and in such brevity. Though the authorities have already more than sufficiently discredited themselves globally, and though the struggle for public opinion is tiresome, further evidence like this remains of crucial importance.
Thank you for fighting the good fight up in Albion.
Thank you so much. This was greatly needed. Now, if those responsible for pushing the narrative with this data will retract it - publicly - then perhaps more people will wake up to what has been done on both sides of the pond.
Consider people in care homes vaccinated by flying cadres of vaccinations, with tight schedules and lots of work to do.
How many care homes at that time would have been careful enough to check for and obtain medical power of attorney for each and every patient?
So it is maybe plausible that people were vaccinated, died and given no paperwork existed with PoA permission were then retrospectively recategorised after the event to reduce legal risk
The ONS claim that, for their report on mortality by vaccination status, that the category 'never vaccinated' really does mean that the person died before ever having a single dose and that is why thet have a separate category "<14 days" meaning they died within 14 days of first dose etc. However, the point we have always made is the, despite what they say (and maybe even believe) they are simply the recipients of the data from other sources and it is certain that many who died very shortly after first dose are wrongly classified as never vaccinated etc.
I confess to being under-informed about your argument and what you've already done to address counter-arguments.
A lag in assigning deaths into the 1 dose<21 days bucket would clearly imply a lag in assigning deaths into the 2 dose<21 days bucket. So in early 2021, when the injection interval was longer, there would be a piling of post-dose-2 deaths into the 1 dose≥21 bucket. Lagged post-2nd dose deaths have nowhere in the spreadsheet to hide, they can't go back to the unvaxxed.
If we follow [*edit: in table 2 using raw deaths per kpy not age-adjusted] 80-89s, vs. a January baseline 236 unvaccinated dpky which you would claim is a lag artifact since it's too late for the real baseline, the 1dose≥21 days group clocks 89, 67, 71 in January, February, March. And that holds for other groups in later months when lagged deaths might fall into either the <≥ 1 dose buckets but there's no signal. (Until enough time goes by that the ≥21 days buckets just mirror the bias against injecting the ill.)
Effectively the 1 dose groups are a control group to validate there is no lag.
They are reluctant to admit having blood on their hands, not just because of their precious egos, but because it opens them up to massive legal consequences.
I’m sure a lot collaborators or at least those complicit in the Third Reich took denials of wrongdoing to their graves.
Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
If the healthy vaccinee effect explains the low deaths in the vaccinated in the first few weeks after vaccination then as many have pointed out it can't also be true that the non-covid mortality for example in the 70-79 age group suddenly increases in the unvaccinated in March 2021 just after first doses have occurred, to 5X the rate of the ever vaccinated rate. But that's what the ONS dataset at face value says. So it has to be wrong in some other way as this directly contradicts the healthy vaccinee hypothesis.. But this isn't covered in the UK statistics regulator reply.
Note also that ONS sneaked in a huge change in unvaccinated numbers in the 70-79 age group in particular between their deaths to 31st October 2021 and deaths to December 2021 datasets, but never explained they had done this. So it shows they have mis-categorised unvaccinated in the past even looking at the official data and changes.
For example the average unvaccinated 70-79 year old population in March 2021 in the ONS PHDA dataset of deaths to 31st October 2021 publication was 327,758 (=27,837 x 365/31) but this has now reduced to 171,316 (= 14,554 x 365/31) in the latest ONS to May 2022 publication. But these should essentially be the same unvaccinated people in these two datasets. So roughly for every 2 70-79 unvaccinated in the to 31st October publication at March 2021 (around the time of first vaccinations) the ONS have just moved one of those two into the vaccinated group in the subsequent publications. If you look at the total numbers in their dataset you can see that the total 70-79 population at March 2021 stays about the same while this change happens so it's a clear reallocation. of unvaccinated to vaccinated.
I contacted ONS about the change in March 2021 in the 70-79 age group between the to October 2021 and to December 2021 reports at the time (I emailed on 9th February 2022), to ask them to explain why such a major revision took place, but they've never responded to my email.
So the ONS have already in front of our eyes corrected a huge mis-allocation of the unvaccinated population. What other mis-allocations haven't they corrected for, and what other mis-allocations of deaths are occurring?
What seems to have happened is that a number of first doses haven't been picked up by the ONS in their data extract for their deaths to 31st October 2021 report (perhaps they weren't recorded in NIMS when the PHDA is linked to NIMS?). While this is a relatively small % of the vaccinated the error is a big percentage of the unvaccinated. Hence about half of the unvaccinated get removed when this gets corrected in later reports. You can see this is what has happened by looking at the subsequent revisions by dose. When the unrecorded vaccinated later get their second dose they exit the unvaccinated category in the to 31st October 2021 dataset because they will then have been recorded as having at least one dose (albeit they've had two). The correction is apparent in other age groups too but it's not so large in % terms. The first dose vaccinated wrongly categorised as unvaccinated in dataset terms seem to experience the mortality of the dataset vaccinated; there is a reduction of unvaccinated deaths in the later datasets but that reduction is less in percentage terms than the reduction in unvaccinated population. The to 31st October dataset is based on a NIMS extract at 21/11/2021 and the to 31st December dataset is based on a NIMS extract at 18/1/2022. Perhaps these errors were corrected in NIMS between these dates. However looking at the weekly NIMS data that the UKHSA have been publishing I can't find this correction apparent there. So I'm somewhat baffled.
I don't think this helps with getting insight into what miscategorisations remain, but it's interesting that such a major error was made
Hi Gary
Thanks. It is encouraging. They are hiding behind the healthy vaccine effect whilst providing zero evidence to support this assumption. And in tandem admitting that given their data is utter crap. So why did they bother with such a waste of taxpayer money?
We dont recieve any help from students or other academics I'm afraid. As Bret Weistein said 'academia selects for cowardice'. And on the current climate no one listens never mind step forward.
Martin
Ahh… but luckily there are exceptions!! People who do want to look at themselves in the mirror in the morning and have peace of mind because they simply cannot corrupt themselves. Going against the grain requires great courage in times like these. Bless you and all the others that speak up and out ❤️
I recommend you read v2 of our paper and look at the appendix on the healthy vaxx effect. We argue that jab rates amongst the moribund were likely to be very high. An unhealthy vaccine effect if you will.
Next read the section dealing with ethnic participation rates. They were high, much higher the some assume. Also pakistani heritage etc have a better life expectancy than we've been actually been told.
We use evidence to support our assertions but are happy to be contradicted by better explanations supported by good evidence. We await the ONS doing this. They have the resources. We knock our stuff out on a part time basis with zero funding.
David vs Goliath. David won.
Martin
Great work.. thank you..
They said to rely on the UKHSA? That’s hilarious given the UKHSA stopped reporting updated statistics last spring/summer. 🤦♂️
Thanks for dealing responsibly and competently with the data, regardless of the prestige of the organisation. Much appreciated.
One point to consider on the ONS skewering by media outlets is the misleading use of 'person years', which has become the pharmaceutical industry's new strawman for death counts, which they're currently using to obscure the actual mortality rates.
I had a pro-vaccine shill attack me with the ONS dataset quoting another Substack where they massage the numbers to make vaccinated mortality rates seem lower (via the use of 'person years') when, if you look at the analysis I performed, it shows 5 vaccinated died for every 1 unvaccinated death, with unvaccinated all cause deaths literally dropping off a cliff (falling from 52k to 1-2k, compared to the continual 20k-30k in vaccinated):
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/moderna-shill-accidentally-confirms
So even with the ONS data skewering, it still contradicts their assessment that the vaccines are beneficial. The fact ONS have stopped publishing since May 2022 shows they know it makes the vaccines look bad.
i wanted to ask... I posted on Beagle too...regarding their post regarding ONS Jan '21 to may '22 (ever) vaccinated/ unvaccd mortality count.
"Thanks for this. I have also been following profs Fenton, Neil and Dr Craig et al.
I understand re the "person years" trope and the other ways the data has been misrepresented. Also that there SHOULD be a mortality benefit in the vaccd. if it did anything helpful ( also the population undercount of unvaccd; and the ridiculousness of stating that UNvaccd start to die MORE on jab rollout!... that's obvious miscategorisation.
What about per 100k , we know about 20% of uk pop are unjabbed in actuality. and 80% therefore jabbed:
IF the jabs did.literally nothing, zip, zilch, nada...( and no this is NOT what I am seeing around me : (
but.. you (the daily beagle) said roughly 1 : 5 ( 109, 891 : 531,118)
unjabbed : ever jabbed deaths,
is the maths:-
total= 6/6 ( around 600k died in all, 100k unjabbed plus the 500k jabbed)
ie 1/6 unjabbed, and 5/6 jabbed died...
ie roundabout 16.6% and 83%.
is this not almost the SAME proportion in each population ( jabbed population, roundabout 20% vs ever jabbed pop. 80%).
it SEEMS to show it has very little effect?
albeit tipped slightly in favour of unjabbed re mortality.
if this were the case, oh if only this were the case...
I do realise there are all sorts of complicated timings of jabs involved, but generally over the whole period ( jan '21 to may '22) not even talking excess deaths or whats expected in each age group ( as all are covered in jabbed and unjabbed populations now, and the raw data aren't available for the age group breakdown ever jabbed vs unjabbed.
although, this is AS GOOD AS they've been able to MAKE it look... even so, with all the 2 week post jab miscategorisation, still mortality benefit in unvaccd.
So likely much bigger difference, in favour of unvaccd.
This miscategorisation... in UKHSA data, seemed just 14 days post jab ONE...u were " unvaccd".
After that you just rolled over into each higher vacc level category, but 14 days "late", after each subsequent jab.
As in, you never went back to being completely "unvaccd".
Can you tell me if this is so with ONS data? or do they get put back to ZERO and get counted unjabbed after multiple ones? ie 14 days after EACH
wow. thankyou for that info. (i got the 20- 26% from prof Fenton dissection of that BBC 250k study for their awful programme. he took the 20% as a conservative, the very, very least it could be according to their own figures!) I'm very glad to hear it's more like 30%!
" Isn't the 'person years' data a good way of standardising risk"
No it isn't, because a fatality is a fatality. It fudges the mortality counts by trying to supplant numbers of deaths with how long people live (or don't live) for, which makes a supposition on lifespans that is simply unwarranted.
Are you going to argue one type of death is lesser compared to another based on life lived or not lived? That's ageism and dark trend towards age-based eugenics. Pass. Just report total numbers of deaths, we don't need reinterpretation of the datasets.
"I've read your article, and your method suffers the problem of age bias; the vaxxed are on average older, and therefore more much likely to die of all causes"
We know myocarditis and pericarditis adversely impacts *young* males disproportionately, under 40s specifically:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36576362/
Everyone above the age of 11 is included in the ONS dataset. So your argument isn't as strong, and we wouldn't see an all-cause mortality improvement in children anyway, because they're not at risk from SARS-CoV-2 (2 deaths per million at most).
Further, I challenge your generalisations with the following questions:
On average older by how much?
According to what dataset?
At what point does age become a factor in increasing all-cause mortality? What ages decrease all-cause mortality? What is your breakdown?
Are you suggesting the recently born have stronger immune systems than a 20 year old? Why or why not? At what age does the immune system become sufficiently strong enough?
Of which studies do you refer regarding all-cause mortality in terms of the age brackets provided?
Your supposition needs way more data for it to be factored in properly, rather than a vague generalisation on age.
Also, my method uses only what the ONS dataset provides, which offers no age related breakdowns for vaccine status and mortality. You're asking me to project an unevidenced assumption on age-related all-cause mortality brackets of which the dataset isn't provided.
Further, the burden is on the vaccine industry to show that all-cause mortality is lower in the vaccinated compared to unvaccinated in the same age groups. They have failed to provide any peer-reviewed studies that show compelling evidence of this.
They have also been forced to admit transmission prevention studies were not conducted at the time (see MEP Rob Roos video: https://twitter.com/intent_w/status/1614278021103378433) and that it does not prevent transmission (see: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risk-of-vaccinated-covid-transmission-is-not-low/).
My task was to refute the claims made on another Substack using the same ONS data - which I did - so any so-called "bias" in my dataset also exists in theirs.
So the argument it reduces all-cause mortality is still very much dubious. I refer you back to the 52k *excess* deaths the UK is currently experiencing as counter (see: https://news.sky.com/video/50-000-excess-deaths-is-clearly-concerning-says-health-secretary-12784135) the vaccine can't be working that well if the number of deaths goes up after it is deployed (and not during the pandemic).
"first thing is to stratify the data by age groups to eliminate age bias in the deaths"
Okay, I'll clarify. ONS does not provide sufficient granularity in their age groupings to provide any accurate analysis. I would rather have the specific ages (how many in *each year*, not groupings).
If you look under Table 2, you will find they have a group called "18-39". This grouping is abnormal because all other groups are spaced by 10 years (40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89, 90+).
The 18-39 is also abnormal in its lumping because these are the formative years of the human body.
If breakdown was consistent (even if starting from 18), we would see:
18-29
30-39
This would likely reveal the shots cause more harms in the young. Therefore, per your request, I cannot do an accurate age analysis. Hence, I have not tried to do so. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
"The ONS data covers 18 months. In that 18 months one person could be unvaxx for the whole 18 months. Another spends 9 months unvaxxed, 3 months 1-dose, 6 months 2-dose."
Again, you're adding on an unnecessary requirement for my particular task (refuting someone using the same dataset). Further, to rebut this point, that would actually skewer *in favour* of vaccinated, because to be unvaccinated you have to spend your whole life in that state. To be vaccinated, you could literally take the shot within the last 5 minutes and then die.
Hence why I completely reject person years as a measurement. Total death count. Total death count has been the basis for arguing in favour of the shots for many years, the industry cannot now turn around and drop the notion of death counts simply because it now looks bad for them. Moving the goalposts and massaging datasets is not within my remit. I will still to death counts, there's nothing more standard than dying.
Thanks for your comment. Actually if you read our report: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30898.07362 on page 4 (3 paras up from bottom) we explicitly acknowledge that the ONS do account for the fact that over the period of the report a person could be in several different of the vaxx categories. Hence the same person can have part of their 17 person months assigned to different categories
I think one of the great problems is the interpretation of the data.
Safe and Effective TM is Fraud as the injectable product does not stop transmission and SM102 is not approved for human use and no trials were required under Emergency Use Authorisation, all are facts so the intire thing is fraudulent: ie theatre, it is simply a fantasy🍻🧚
Agreed. The burden does not rest on me to retroactively prove the shots are unsafe in my musings (especially given my area is Citizen Journalism, not healthcare advisor), nor is to do the extortionate legwork for free.
The burden rests on the multi-billion dollar firms to establish their experiment is clearly safe, *without* using shortcuts, bypasses, scaremongering, inflated and misleading statistics, 'press releases', withheld data, FOIA blockades, invocations of commercial confidentiality (that somehow trumps livelihoods, health, safety and lives), corrupt health regulators who handwave clearly red flag signals, hired goons and dirt diggers who slander and suppress dissent, or 'rah-rah' rhetoric to fire up the masses into turning into the closest near-miss to a full blown medical tyranny I've ever had the displeasure of encountering.
The vaccine crowd cannot stand in their pile of criminal dung and berate me on my processes when I'm not the one mass-pushing a product using dubious data massaging techniques and data suppression. When will the health regulators disclose the information the BMJ asked about the mRNA instability issues and why are they prioritising killing people to protect commercial "secrets" for a product paid for using PUBLIC MONEY?
One of my may concerns is that because of the multi layered complexity of the situation, that we loose the basics and end up debating endless data points etc and constantly have to justify our positions and this greatly holds back unity and progress. (Endless bunfight.
We need to focus on variafiable basics and build a solid case.
The whole thing is Fraudulent and it was from day one.
Why? Safe and Effective TM is a lie
I told a friend who works for the government that SM102 is not approved for human or vetinary use and he said I was talking rubbish (although I could provide the screen shots) , so even on this level we have our challenges🍻👍
Essential reporting, and in such brevity. Though the authorities have already more than sufficiently discredited themselves globally, and though the struggle for public opinion is tiresome, further evidence like this remains of crucial importance.
Thank you for fighting the good fight up in Albion.
Thank you so much. This was greatly needed. Now, if those responsible for pushing the narrative with this data will retract it - publicly - then perhaps more people will wake up to what has been done on both sides of the pond.
Consider people in care homes vaccinated by flying cadres of vaccinations, with tight schedules and lots of work to do.
How many care homes at that time would have been careful enough to check for and obtain medical power of attorney for each and every patient?
So it is maybe plausible that people were vaccinated, died and given no paperwork existed with PoA permission were then retrospectively recategorised after the event to reduce legal risk
Or hospitals, I had few patients who were heavily coerced by nazi docs while hospitalized and don’t even have cards to know their date.
Why has nobody made a FOIA request for the current ONS data by vaccination status and for their definition of what "unvaccinated" includes?
The ONS claim that, for their report on mortality by vaccination status, that the category 'never vaccinated' really does mean that the person died before ever having a single dose and that is why thet have a separate category "<14 days" meaning they died within 14 days of first dose etc. However, the point we have always made is the, despite what they say (and maybe even believe) they are simply the recipients of the data from other sources and it is certain that many who died very shortly after first dose are wrongly classified as never vaccinated etc.
Thanks and agreed. Thought you might enjoy this :
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/democracy-dies-in-data-adulteration?
Did you or will you make a FOIA request for current ONS data by vaccination status?
I confess to being under-informed about your argument and what you've already done to address counter-arguments.
A lag in assigning deaths into the 1 dose<21 days bucket would clearly imply a lag in assigning deaths into the 2 dose<21 days bucket. So in early 2021, when the injection interval was longer, there would be a piling of post-dose-2 deaths into the 1 dose≥21 bucket. Lagged post-2nd dose deaths have nowhere in the spreadsheet to hide, they can't go back to the unvaxxed.
If we follow [*edit: in table 2 using raw deaths per kpy not age-adjusted] 80-89s, vs. a January baseline 236 unvaccinated dpky which you would claim is a lag artifact since it's too late for the real baseline, the 1dose≥21 days group clocks 89, 67, 71 in January, February, March. And that holds for other groups in later months when lagged deaths might fall into either the <≥ 1 dose buckets but there's no signal. (Until enough time goes by that the ≥21 days buckets just mirror the bias against injecting the ill.)
Effectively the 1 dose groups are a control group to validate there is no lag.
John Campbell should do a video about this.
Great thanks
Amazing work. Thank you. Sharing with everyone I know!
They are reluctant to admit having blood on their hands, not just because of their precious egos, but because it opens them up to massive legal consequences.
I’m sure a lot collaborators or at least those complicit in the Third Reich took denials of wrongdoing to their graves.
Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
The Narrative (tm) was always fraudulent, those who we're watching closely knew already early in 2020.
The faster the narrative crumbles, the better for humanity.
BUT, without accountability and the removal of those guilty of fraud and manipulation, it will all be for naught
Thank you for all your work here!
If the healthy vaccinee effect explains the low deaths in the vaccinated in the first few weeks after vaccination then as many have pointed out it can't also be true that the non-covid mortality for example in the 70-79 age group suddenly increases in the unvaccinated in March 2021 just after first doses have occurred, to 5X the rate of the ever vaccinated rate. But that's what the ONS dataset at face value says. So it has to be wrong in some other way as this directly contradicts the healthy vaccinee hypothesis.. But this isn't covered in the UK statistics regulator reply.
Note also that ONS sneaked in a huge change in unvaccinated numbers in the 70-79 age group in particular between their deaths to 31st October 2021 and deaths to December 2021 datasets, but never explained they had done this. So it shows they have mis-categorised unvaccinated in the past even looking at the official data and changes.
For example the average unvaccinated 70-79 year old population in March 2021 in the ONS PHDA dataset of deaths to 31st October 2021 publication was 327,758 (=27,837 x 365/31) but this has now reduced to 171,316 (= 14,554 x 365/31) in the latest ONS to May 2022 publication. But these should essentially be the same unvaccinated people in these two datasets. So roughly for every 2 70-79 unvaccinated in the to 31st October publication at March 2021 (around the time of first vaccinations) the ONS have just moved one of those two into the vaccinated group in the subsequent publications. If you look at the total numbers in their dataset you can see that the total 70-79 population at March 2021 stays about the same while this change happens so it's a clear reallocation. of unvaccinated to vaccinated.
I contacted ONS about the change in March 2021 in the 70-79 age group between the to October 2021 and to December 2021 reports at the time (I emailed on 9th February 2022), to ask them to explain why such a major revision took place, but they've never responded to my email.
So the ONS have already in front of our eyes corrected a huge mis-allocation of the unvaccinated population. What other mis-allocations haven't they corrected for, and what other mis-allocations of deaths are occurring?
Thanks - will check this.
Here is the response to my FOI I have received today from the ONS
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/changeinpopulationmeasureindeathsbyvaccinationstatusenglandpublication
The response doesn't make sense and seems like a fob off to me.
What seems to have happened is that a number of first doses haven't been picked up by the ONS in their data extract for their deaths to 31st October 2021 report (perhaps they weren't recorded in NIMS when the PHDA is linked to NIMS?). While this is a relatively small % of the vaccinated the error is a big percentage of the unvaccinated. Hence about half of the unvaccinated get removed when this gets corrected in later reports. You can see this is what has happened by looking at the subsequent revisions by dose. When the unrecorded vaccinated later get their second dose they exit the unvaccinated category in the to 31st October 2021 dataset because they will then have been recorded as having at least one dose (albeit they've had two). The correction is apparent in other age groups too but it's not so large in % terms. The first dose vaccinated wrongly categorised as unvaccinated in dataset terms seem to experience the mortality of the dataset vaccinated; there is a reduction of unvaccinated deaths in the later datasets but that reduction is less in percentage terms than the reduction in unvaccinated population. The to 31st October dataset is based on a NIMS extract at 21/11/2021 and the to 31st December dataset is based on a NIMS extract at 18/1/2022. Perhaps these errors were corrected in NIMS between these dates. However looking at the weekly NIMS data that the UKHSA have been publishing I can't find this correction apparent there. So I'm somewhat baffled.
I don't think this helps with getting insight into what miscategorisations remain, but it's interesting that such a major error was made