My email conversation with Sarah Caul at the UK ONS
I can't wait for the response to my email...
Executive summary
We are about to find out real soon now whether the UK ONS is protecting the pharma companies or the people of the UK.
Background
Sarah Caul is the public face for the UK ONS data.
I sent her an email on Dec 4, 2023 asking if she wanted to see the New Zealand record level data.
Her reply
Dear Steve,
I am unable to comment on New Zealand data, I recommend you speak to those who work with the data.
I have seen through other communication that you are interested in receiving similar record level data for England.
The data is available as part of the ONS' Secure Research Service (SRS). Information on the SRS and how people can access this data can be found using this link:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/statistics/requestingstatistics/secureresearchservice
Hope this helps
Many thanks
Sarah
My response
Sarah,
Thank you for your response.
1. Regarding the SRS offer, I have chatted with Professor Fenton and Clare Craig, and the problem is that there are so many strings attached with that data. We want to take the ONS data, anonymize it in a way that protects privacy, and make it publicly accessible. Would such a project be approved? Who can I speak with on the phone about that? That would be more efficient than sending in dozens of proposals and getting them rejected each time. That would take years. How about we simply work collaboratively on defining a joint project that WOULD be approved since it is jointly designed?
2. Regarding the New Zealand data, it gives you additional insights into the safety of the vaccine. In 5 countries, we see mortality rise after EACH dose. THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED. The slope in the deaths since dose curve is always negative for any fixed size cohort, not positive. Deaths are always proportional to the # of people available to die, so the slope is always negative unless something highly unusual is going on, like a deadly vaccine. Having it be positive for a year after the dose is EXTREMELY problematic and your health authorities need to explain it or acknowledge the vaccine is killing people. Is there another agency which is looking at that and explaining it? Do you have the contact info for a person? I am not aware of anyone in the world that can explain how this can happen if the vaccine is safe. Are you?
3. Why doesn't ONS itself make the patient record-level data publicly available just like I did in New Zealand. The technique I used resulted in not a single person finding their record or saying that their privacy was breached. I am happy to share the technique with you. Even if someone knew everything about a person except for one fact, they wouldn't be able to find the missing information.
4. Why doesn't the ONS run the time-series cohort analysis again, but with 5 year age buckets and WEEKLY buckets after a dose is given. So you'd have 100 weekly buckets (instead of the 2 or 3 you use now), and a final bucket for "over 100 weeks". This would clearly reveal that the vaccines are killing people. Your current choice of buckets today is far too crude and hides the safety signal. This should be easy and would be just a small parameter change. If the vaccine is safe, you have nothing to lose and you would reduce vaccine hesitancy. AFAIK, there is no reason you cannot do this. I'm happy to provide you with a python program that would generate the required stats. Let me know.
Finally, I acknowledge your cohort time-series analysis is an excellent way to convey what is going on, but only if you do #4 above. No other government provides this, so I applaud you for your attempt at transparency and using modern epidemiological techniques. You are way ahead of any other world government. But doing #4 would complete the effort.
I look forward to your response to my four points. Please cc: the folks on the cc: line.
Thank you.
-steve
Summary
It will be very interesting to see how she responds to my four points.
UK MP Andrew Bridgen was copied on the email. I’m sure the 20+ other MP’s who were in the COVID vaccine safety session we held in Parliament on December 4, 2023 will be interested as well as to how she responds.
Stay tuned…
I sent the following email to the ONS. I received an automatic response that they will get back to me in ten days. In the meantime, if anyone here could read through my analysis of these published statistics and provide some feedback, that would be most helpful. Thanks.
———————————
This email is intended for Sarah Caul, head of Mortality Analysis at the Office of National Statistics. I have found what I believe to be a compelling association between the UK Health Security Agency's published data on vaccine uptake and the ONS data on excess mortality by covid vaccine status. Can you please review my analysis and provide some feedback as to the conclusions? It's a fairly straight-forward comparison and I have been as explicit as possible and have included all the relevant links. This breakdown was originally posted on social media but I plan to write a larger article about the issue although I need some expert feedback before I proceed to ensure that the methodology and assumptions aren't fundamentally flawed in ways that I've overlooked. If you can identify any obvious errors in the reasoning I've applied to this, please be as specific as possible.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and I look forward to a thoughtful response. Sincerely,
Stuart F. Andrews
___________________
This is a fairly complicated post with a LOT of numbers but don't be intimidated. At the core of it, the principle is extremely simple. It's a straight forward compare and contrast between two sets of numbers so I'll do my best to break it down as clearly as possible but the conclusions are utterly compelling so try to hang in there.
The Office of National Statistics in the U.K. published an incredible set of data by revealing "All Cause Mortality" from April 2021 to May 2023 broken down by covid injection status.
You can download the spreadsheet to see it all for yourself.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland?fbclid=IwAR0ZsbzZMy8fSapisVMOYIGnUU498TnmYI3lendx2dlPEvgIRx0lNRVcQHg
The reason they did this was to track if there was a clear signal between the rollout of the experimental injections and an increase in all cause mortality. I read a number of pieces on the BBC declaring that there was no such signal although these articles disingenuously obfuscate the data with absurd false comparisons.
But the headline of the following BBC article screams volumes:
EXCESS DEATHS IN 2022 AMONG WORST IN 50 YEARShttps://www.bbc.com/news/health-64209221
In this piece, the BBC dares to ask if there's any evidence of the so-called vaccines being implicated in these deaths to which they conclude, "Figures up to June 2022 looking at deaths from all causes show unvaccinated people were more likely to die than vaccinated people."
And they link to the same data from the Office of National Statistics that I mentioned above.
Anyway, is it true what they're saying? Do the figures show that the unvaccinated are more likely to die from ALL CAUSES than the vaccinated?
Well, using nothing more than official published data, I can answer that for you with a resounding NO, as I will demonstrate with crystal clear clarity in the following breakdown:
Along with the ONS data on excess mortality by covid vaccination status, the UK Health Security Agency kindly published covid vaccine uptake statistics broken down by age groups.
The data we need to focus on is listed in the chart on page 65. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1088929/Weekly_Flu_and_COVID-19_report_w27.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3x067_H0oYjC6q_6E_K8XSOeTPNL1B6DQkrbZhep0LJinUJospNl0hQHI
These two data sets allow us to perform a very simple compare and contrast exercise to help determine if there's an obvious signal for the covid injections being implicated in the crisis of EXCESS DEATHS (a crisis the BBC admits to).
Let's start with the HSA table which is an extremely revealing set of official published statistics. The baseline is the total number of eligible recipients in the U.K. across the entire population. The number they provide is 63.3 million.
But for the purposes of our exercise, I'm only interested in the 18-40 age range, the least likely age group to die from covid but like every other age group, is also experiencing dramatic spikes in excess deaths due to non-covid causes.
According to the data in the table, this cohort breaks down like this:
18-20 - 1.3 million
20-25 - 3.9 million
25-30 - 4.5 million
30-35 - 4.8 million
35-40 - 4.6 million
That's a total of 19.1 million eligible injection recipients.
So looking at the next column over, the numbers of people in this age bracket who received at least one dose in England are...
18-20 - 1.0 million
20-25 - 2.8 million
25-30 - 3.1 million
30-35 - 3.4 million
35-40 - 3.4 million
This is a total number of 13.7 million.
So 13.7 out of 19.1 million equals 71%.
That means that in this age range, 29% of people in England are covid injection "Refuseniks".
But proportionally speaking, if the vaccines aren't implicated in the crisis of excess mortality, we should see the very same proportions of vaxxed versus unvaxxed mirrored in the 18-40 group of excess deaths, meaning that roughly 29% of the deaths should be in the unvaccinated group.
To help clarify this point, in case it's at all confusing, what we're doing by identifying the percentages of jabbed versus the unjabbed in this age group is simply describing the overall makeup of a particular population. If we had 71% of people with brown hair and 29% of people with blonde hair, and then we had a sudden epidemic of excess deaths in the same population, if we noticed that more of the blondes were dying than the browns, and in very high numbers proportionally, then it would be natural to examine the role of hair colour in excess deaths. If hair colour isn't a factor, then we should expect to see that same distribution (more or less) mirrored in the numbers of excess deaths.
So what we need to do next is look at the ONS data which shows excess mortality in this age group due to ALL CAUSES. If the total number of non-vaxxed in the group exceeds 29%, that's a signal that being unvaxxed leads to excess mortality......
BUT....
If the total number of non-vaxxed excess mortality is LESS than 29%, that's a strong signal that the jabs may be implicated in excess mortality.
However the good news is that we actually CAN do this comparison on our own. We have the data right there and a complete breakdown of excess mortality in the 18-39 range from April 2021 to May 2023.
Incidentally, I'm only looking at the data from 2022 onwards because I imagine most people who were gonna get jabbed, were likely jabbed by Jan 2022. Using data from the earlier months is meaningless because there will be many more "not yet injected" people in the unjabbed group so that's going to throw off our percentages.
But let's compare the 29% number above to ALL CAUSE mortality and thankfully, the ONS have made this extremely simple for us. They give us two values: The exact number of Unvaxxed deaths and the exact number of Vaxxed (at least one dose) deaths.
Here's the data (which you can clearly see for yourself in the spreadsheet linked to below):
Jan 2022
ALL CAUSE deaths in the Unvaxxed 2166
ALL CAUSE deaths in the Vaxxed 38457
Feb 2022
Unvaxxed 1493
Vaxxed 32613
Mar 2022
Unvaxxed 1437
Vaxxed 35348
Apr 2022
Unvaxxed 1349
Vaxxed 34885
May 2022
Unvaxxed 1017
Vaxxed 29468
June 2022
Unvaxxed 1436
Vaxxed 35371
July 2022
Unvaxxed 1704
Vaxxed 38422
Aug 2022
Unvaxxed 1499
Vaxxed 36518
Sep 2022
Unvaxxed 1353
Vaxxed 35450
Oct 2022
Unvaxxed 1562
Vaxxed 40940
Nov 2022
Unvaxxed 1481
Vaxxed 38828
Dec 2022
Unvaxxed 2048
Vaxxed 52508
Jan 2023
Unvaxxed 1757
Vaxxed 47274
Feb 2023
Unvaxxed 1384
Vaxxed 36731
Mar 2023
Unvaxxed 1433
Vaxxed 40537
Apr 2023
Unvaxxed 1319
Vaxxed 35984
May 2023
Unvaxxed 1165
Vaxxed 33980
And here's the TOTAL numbers of all the preceding months added together:
Unvaxxed 25603
Vaxxed 643314
So to summarize, 25603 is 3.9 % of 643314.
Now, keep in mind, there will be some slight variance in those percentages because we're not comparing two exact values. The ONS data looks at 18-39 and the HSA data is from 18-40 but this is as about as close as we can get to comparing apples to apples.
Nevertheless, this percentage is MASSIVELY lower than what we'd expect to see if the jabs were harmless. Supposedly, in this age range, 29% of 18-39 year olds are unvaccinated, but according to the government's own data, this unvaccinated group accounts for only 3.9% of excess mortality from All Causes.
This is a clear and obvious signal that something is seriously wrong with these injections, despite what the BBC says.
I'm going to share this breakdown with a number of individuals skilled in the realm of data analysis to hopefully get some perspective on whether or not my conclusions are as reasonable and rational as I believe they are.
In a piece by Patrick Lawrence (written in Consortium News Volume 28, Number 343 - Friday, December 12, 2023.) [consortiumnews.com] he wrote the following:
"In late-imperial phases all cultural institutions must be made to serve the state. Universities, museums, media, the important sectors - we can count all these as cultural entities and note the case wherein they are required to reflect the state's ideology and conform to its dictates."
I think this explains what's happening in the world.
Regards, Andy. 15 Dec. 2023.