tl:dr? Skip to the last three paragraphs ...
We take much for granted. Most of us now live in Cities. There, we trust others for our air, and our water, and our food, and our light, and our warmth. More than anything else, we trust others for our health.
It was not always so, and perhaps our recent trust is an aberration. Cities were once dark, dirty, and diseased. Much was learned in the last century and cities are, by and large, clean, and comfortable, and relatively safe.
Science, and the scientific method, has featured in this change. We have relied on our collective ability to sort knowledge from belief, and to engineer change in sanitation and in lifestyles. Where once magic potions, incantations, and spells were part of medicine, our ability to record data over entire populations and lifetimes has allowed unbiased analysis to proceed and to inform best medical practice.
We rely on the scientific method. We expect transparency in science, that facts are open to question, and that once a fact is proven false, it ceases to be promoted as the truth.
What, then, are we to make of the government’s handling of the Covid-19 “Pandemic”? A “Public Health Emergency of International Concern”? The repercussions are reverberating to this day. The most recent revelations come from the UK’s Office for National Statistics.
At this point, though, enough could be said to fill a book, and I want to get into the UK government’s “Safe and Effective” position on the Covid-19 “Vaccines” as directly as I can. It immediately follows that any data that contradicted that position would be a problem for the government.
In early 2020 the government presented Covid-19 as a novel disease, one to which the population had no prior immunity, and thus great mortality was expected. That narrative did change.
“Of the 73,766 deaths due to COVID-19 in England and Wales in 2020, 12.8% had no pre-existing conditions mentioned on the death certificate; it was most common for there to be either one or two pre-existing conditions (56.0% of COVID-19 deaths).”[5]
Thus, in 2020, 9442 deaths occurred in healthy people in England and Wales. Would it be fair and reasonable to expect the figure for 2021 and later to be much lower? The government did not easily give up on their narrative.
When challenged on “Safe and Effective” the government response was that while side effects, adverse reactions, etc, might have occurred, some expanded version of “rare” is included in their response. Implicit is some replies is the notion that observed adverse effects are transitory, ie that the harms from the jabs dissipate within days.
Also included in the government response, is the notion of coincidence vs causality. Here the government neglects to mention that these inoculations are by way of trials of an experimental nature. As such, if an unexpected change occurs, eg death, the proof of non-causality falls on the experimenter to demonstrate coincidence in this matter ie that the “vaccine” is not the cause.
To refute this imposition is a logical impossibility, ie proof of a negative. It takes time, and data, and a method.
To begin with, we, collectively, have to agree a model for adverse effects prior to the beginning of that experiment. This is performed, in part by setting the objectives for any trials. If the trial sets out to demonstrate a reduction is symptoms in healthy adults, [1] (note that date) and the trial shows that only that reduction is achieved, those trial results cannot then be used to claim that the drug is “Safe and Effective”.
But the UK government did just that. Why? is just another unanswered question.
I will not get into the side effects as listed in writing in the documents circulated with the “vaccines”. Maybe you remember the fifteen minute wait in the clinic after the jab? That proves that someone went through the likely adverse effects to come up with a notional time-based profile of when these adverse events might kick in. Clearly, plausible deniability only applies after 15 minutes have passed.
Absent any medical knowledge, I would infer that the closer in time to the inoculation, the more likely a harm can be inferred to be a causal event, ie caused by the inoculation. Armed with this thought, and, for the moment, avoiding any medical opinion, what did the medical profession, and cohorts actually do in this respect?
A reasonable lay person would expect that, bearing in mind this is a largely untried, ie experimental, product, that great care would be taken to carefully monitor the effects immediately following inoculation, and especially in the populations expected to be most at risk.
There is some evidence of that intent. The MHRA spent millions purchasing an “AI” driven system to aid in the data entry and analysis of the effects of the inoculations. Once purchased, the system appears to have sunk without trace, the “Yellow Card” system in use was there prior to the new system being obtained. More staff were needed, hence a lay person might conclude that the adverse events were more numerous than anticipated.
At this point in time matters get a little complicated, and relevant facts are difficult to find. It appears that it was decided that “vaccinations” could not be immediately effective and that immunity from SARS-CoV-2 could not be expected until up to four weeks after inoculation. Now, bear in mind that the trials were only demonstrated to reduce symptoms. Put bluntly, four weeks after inoculation a patient could be heavily infected with SARS-CoV-2 but may not exhibit symptoms until after the disease progresses
This presented a conundrum to those tasked with patient care. Prior to the “vaccination” campaign, there were direct and indirect incentives to label any death “with Covid”. Now, in order to determine whether the inoculations improved Covid-19 outcomes, it was necessary to categorise patients with Covid-19 as either “vaccinated” or “unvaccinated”, and to record such status in a database. And patients could not be identified as “vaccinated" until 28 days after inoculation as a part of these records.
None of this would matter if the “vaccines” had been subjected to clinical trials extending over ten years or more. And had these been identified as “Gene therapy” the trials and the conditions would be more stringent and long lasting, if they had been granted leave to proceed at all.
As a result when mass jabbing began, almost nothing was known about the effect on hospital admissions, admission to intensive care, transmission, or death, even within the immediate future. Even less was known about the implications for long-term care and the implications for fertility and for the offspring of the vaxxed.
On the face of it, this classification of persons within 28 days of their inoculation as “unvaccinated” seems dubious to the point of creating danger. It provides an opportunity for things to go wrong. Any adverse event recorded within those 28 days might be recorded as happening to an unvaccinated person. While, in time, these errors should get corrected, these mistakes inevitably bias “Vaccine“ Reports to show that the unvaccinated have worse outcomes.
The design of any clinical trial, by its structure and goals, reveals the intentions of the designer and of the company sponsoring the trials. A recent criminal trial, that of Purdue Pharma, benchmarks the present morals and ethics of American Medicine. The involvement of the Sackler family [2] and the trial of Purdue Pharma [3] for deceptive practices reflects the decline of morals and of ethics over many decades.
Covid-19 appears to have crossed a threshold. Fraudulent practices [4] were uncovered but were found acceptable by the US Government.
It now appears that fraud, including falsification of the results of clinical trials, and extending to the covering up of harms done, is now part of the business of Big Pharma. Fines are merely part of the cost of doing business, and provided a profit is made, ethical and moral constraints can be adjusted to fit.
Questions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines are not new. They began almost as soon as the vaccines appeared. What is different this time around is that Government claims that the novel, experimental, Covid-19 “vaccines” are Safe and Effective, while placing the burden of proof on the public. And the public must do this while all the powers of the State, and most of the private sector, are assembled against it.
At first sight, the Government claim of ‘Safe and Effective’ ought to be easy to disprove. If people die soon after inoculation, the “vaccine” cannot be ‘Safe and Effective’. All that is needed is data that can be trusted, right? Not so fast!
To set the scene, and within a timeframe of one year from first covid inoculation, I suggest a model of 75% of (rare) excess deaths to occur within 28 days, and 50% of these excess deaths to occur within 10 days. But, according to the medical perspective noted earlier, these people are medically unvaccinated because the expected immunity to Covid-19 is not yet present. Worse, this gives the appearance of excess deaths in the unvaccinated population, thus enhancing the “Safe and Effective” narrative.
In the winter of 2020/2021, there are already excess deaths possibly attributable to Covid-19 as the number of covid cases surge, and the jabs are rolled out to the elderly population.
Government Agencies, including the Office for National Statistics, report the deaths on a more or less daily basis, and the ONS publishes updated spreadsheets of deaths on a weekly basis. Comparisons for averages of weekly deaths in the years 2015-2019 allows estimates of excess deaths to be made.
Anyone attempting to make sense of the excess deaths figures published for England and Wales quickly runs into problems. And pointing out the problems to the ONS was of little use. The ONS, to paraphrase what was said, simply responded that they publish the data they are given.
Hence, in late 2021, the government took what it wanted from the statistics and announced “Safe and Effective” anytime they were challenged on the data.
Meanwhile, as 2021 rolled into 2022, it was already clear that there were excess deaths, mostly in the very elderly; associated in time with the several jabs; and in those where Covid-19 clearly posed no, or an exceptionally rare, threat.
And it was clear that something was missing in the mortality data.
That something turned out to be coroner’s reports. If someone dies outside of ongoing medical care, we want to know why, and that means an autopsy. And an autopsy means a coroners report to determine the cause of death, and that introduces a delay in the data in the range 3 months to 18 months.
Even then, the coroner may not include vaccination status in his report, and one might suppose that if someone died within a day of inoculation, the vaccination report might not get filed, or might not get filed until some reconciliation of “vaccination” records takes place at a much later date.
Gradually, the difference between the published data and other records began to be reconciled, often by members of the public paying the ONS to produce specific targeted reports. So the ONS had the data, or had access to the data, or other government bodies had the data but limited the access available to the public.
One intrepid researcher finally broke through. It took from 2 February 2023 [6] until 13 May 2024 [7] to prise the data out of the vaults. A week or two later the alt news media was able to say
what we knew all along, “They Lied”.
“They therefore lied and intentionally created and spread misinformation. We were accused of conspiracy thinking and our reputations were tarnished as a result.” [8]
“You see how many more deaths there really were in the vaccinated (black line resulting for Clare Craig’s FOI request) compared to their original bulletin in Dec 2021 (green line) that was seized upon by the MSM to vilify all the dirty unvaccinated?
What a difference three years makes, eh? And we only know because of Clare’s diligence. Left to their own devices, the ONS wouldn’t have bothered with any further updates.” [9] (see chart)
Why is this important? Because the current claim is that the “vaccines” saved lives. Earlier they claimed they were “Safe and Effective”. We now know that that claim is false. We also know that excess deaths in the UK are running at a little over 1,000 per week. Here’s the unanswered question : How long before the known rate of excess deaths exceeds the unknown “Lives Saved”?
Did you remember that 9442 Covid deaths occurred in healthy people in England and Wales in 2020? and that the UK was an outlier? That Germany, for example, had no excess deaths in 2020? But that is a story for another day.
[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4058
[2] https://www.npr.org/2021/04/08/984870694/in-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-sacklers-opioid-empire-an-american-dream-turns-toxic
[3] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-global-resolution-criminal-and-civil-investigations-opioid
[4] https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
[5] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsregisteredduetocovid19/2020
[6] http://web.archive.org/web/20230611143632/https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/death_data_for_vaccinated_popula
[7] http://web.archive.org/web/20240530160216/http://whatdotheyknow.com/request/deaths_in_nims_database
[8] https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/we-were-right-the-uk-ons-now-admit
[9] https://metatron.substack.com/p/the-ons-is-one-of-the-biggest-sources
Some data from the USA by way of physician testimony on clinical malpractice during the Covid "emergency".
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-price-of-truth-vs-deception-in
"•Elected officials are beginning to look into filing criminal charges against the COVID cartel and I believe we are now at moment when the weight of Miller’s testimony can create political shockwaves.
•He (as far as I know) is the first American doctor who has formally gone on record about the cruelty to patients which occurred throughout COVID-19."
Nice one Richard.