The latest UK data is still DEEPLY flawed

But Joel Smalley figured out a way to use the data that avoids the flaws. He showed that even this biased data shows the vaccines are a disaster.

Executive summary

No government anywhere in the world has released accurate data that is stratified by age group and vaccination status. This is because they all intuitively know that the vaccines are not helpful. They don’t want that data out because it would increase vaccine hesitancy and also make them look bad.

Yesterday, we got the latest data release from the UK government. All the data scientists I know were looking forward to this because they anticipated that this dataset would fix the problems identified by Professor Fenton and his colleagues.

Sadly, a quick look at Table 1, reveals instantly that the data is strongly biased in favor of the vaccine.

However, despite these flaws, Joel Smalley was able to show that the vaccines increase all-cause mortality for all age groups. He also showed that the vaccines are basically a “wash” with respect to reducing your risk of dying from a COVID infection (depending on the timeframe, it might help or hurt).

In short, this new data release, even with its obvious flaws, is the nail in the coffin for the COVID vaccine.

Background on what I expected to see in the UK data

The official UK data shows:

• 2020: 690K deaths (on a population of 67.1M people)

• 2019: 605K deaths (population 66.8M people)

There were just 39K COVID deaths in the UK in 2022 (216K - 177K). So COVID is around a 6.4% increase over the base rate.

Here are the ASMR numbers (the age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR) per 100,000 population for the UK, which adjusts for changes in the population size and age-structure):

1. 2020: 1063

2. 2019: 941

3. 2018: 981

4. 2017: 982

These numbers are important as it sets a strict lower-bound for the ASMR for non-COVID deaths for both the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

The age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR) can’t vary by groups very much because:

1. The vaccine has a negligible impact on reducing COVID mortality. It’s basically a wash from all of the anecdotal data I’ve seen and nobody has ever shown me a counter-example… and I keep asking!

2. There isn’t much deadly COVID happening in 2022 (it should increase all the ASMR numbers by around 6%)

3. The vaccine has a very pronounced impact on increasing non-COVID ACM so the ASMR for anyone who is vaccinated should be higher than the unvaccinated.

Therefore, the ASMR numbers we expect would show lower rates for unvaccinated and the highest rates for the fully vaccinated and boosted, but the ASMR for the vaccinated groups shouldn’t be more than around 10% higher than unvaccinated.

So if we find from the non-COVID UK data that either of these rules is violated:

1. ASMR >1000 for the unvaccinated

2. ASMR < 900 for vaxxed or unvaxxed

that would be a HUGE red flag.

Now, go look at your favorite pro-vaccine advocate and you’ll find that they all missed this basic validation.

What the UK data shows (Table 1)

Check this out from Table 1 of the UK data:

Click the image to expand.

The first 5 rows of the “Non-COVID deaths” section violate both our sanity check rules. And, guess what? The violations make the second dose of the vaccine look like a fountain of youth and they make the unvaccinated look like people took poison.

So means the entire dataset is suspect and is clearly biased in favor of making the vaccine look good.

The official story

They think the vaccine works and are completely blind to the obvious problems I pointed out:

Sarah Caul @SarahCaul_ONS

Today we released an update on Deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status up to December 2022. Here is a thread on the release (1/10)

Why the official story is wrong

I can’t find a success anecdote. Can you name a nursing home where deaths decreased after the vaccines rolled out? I’m still looking for a success case. If you believe the UK data, these should be easy to find. So how come nobody can find one.

Joel’s analysis

Joel Smalley found a way around the issues by ignoring the unvaccinated data. He showed that the percentage of deaths of the vaccinated were higher, for each age group, than the % of people vaccinated. In short, the black lines very quickly rose above the cyan range.

Here’s just one of the examples:

Joel also found that, according to the dubious data, the vaccines sometimes helped you die from COVID, while at other times (months 6 to 14) helped reduce your COVID death risk:

At the end of the day, it was a wash.

Bottom line: even with the flawed data that favored the vaccine, the vaccine still looks bad.

US Mortality analysis

Ben found the same problems as I did and came to the same conclusion as Joel.

Then he created a second analysis which I referenced in this tweet:

Basically, there is a bigger killer than COVID and NOBODY can figure out what it is! Isn’t that odd?

Norman Fenton’s take

He was unimpressed. Are you surprised?

Click the image to load the thread

Clare’s take

Clare wasn’t impressed either.

Igor’s take

He wrote: ONS Data: 25% Excess Mortality Among the Boosted is Obscured by Undercounting of the Unvaccinated.

The Expose article draws from Igor’s article. Basically, the unvaccinated are uncounted by a factor of around 2X so that when you correct the error, the vaccinated do worse than the unvaccinated.

El Gato Malo’s take

He initially wrote:

it looks to me like they cranked down the denominator of "unvaxxed" even more from the last set so they are attributing the deaths to an even smaller group. this was the argument against the data before. they impute the data by taking some pop estimate and subtracting the people who get vaccines. but they use dated population data, so that remainder is WAY too small.

for example, they claim that from age 70-79, only 2.5% are unvaxxed. yet the UKHSA (which is not extrapolated, it's counted from actual medical records) shows 4.4% for that group.

they claim 6.3% unvaxxed in 50-59, but records show 11.7%

the ONS defense seem to be that HSA is a subset and while that is true, it's also a pretty representative one and if anything probably under-expressed tendency to be unvaxxed as it does not have as many immigrants.

and i'm just seeing no way the unvaxxed population is THAT much smaller than the HSA set (which is still most of the population).

Then he created a entire substack article about it, the new UK ONS data is out and it's worse than before:

Short story, the data is even more manipulated to hide the signal. At the end, he calls for data transparency, just like I’ve called for.

The Expose article noted the same flaws

Like my friends, the Expose wasn’t fooled either. Here is their article ONS has finally released Deaths by Vaccination Status data for England – and its flawed.

They point out that when you correct for the undercounting of the unvaccinated, the unvaccinated are doing better than their vaccinated peers.

My message to Sarah Caul

On Feb 22, 2023, I emailed Sarah directly and suggested she look at my data transparency article as a way forward to avoid problems in the future.

Hi Sarah,

I’m a friend of Norman and his colleagues.

The latest UK data dump is deeply flawed which is immediately obvious when looking at the non-COVID ASMRs.  For example, the unvaxxed ASMRs should be close to baseline rates and the vaxxed ASMRs cannot be below baseline rates.

Perhaps you could consider instead my proposal below to simply release the merge of the death and vaccination records? This would allow everyone to analyze the raw data without errors. It is simple and straightforward to execute. It would provide, for the first time, data transparency without errors.

Thanks for your consideration of my request.

UK ONS response

I requested record level info (age range, date of death, vax dates). They wrote back the following:

Good morning

Thank you for your email.

We are governed by the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 which prohibits the release of identifiable data. Whilst we can provide bespoke requests for data, we are required to undertake disclosure control to aggregate to ensure the level of information released, for example date of death, date of registration, single year of age, cause, and geography would not identify the deceased.  

More information can be found in our Policy on protecting confidentiality in tables of birth and death statistics and in the Code of Practice for Statistics

We do have a pathway for Accredited Researchers to access unpublished de-identified data through our Secure Research Service.

A couple of things:

1. They can easily bucket the date of death and vax date to a week number. They can easily do a table based on vax # (so it would just have an age range and two dates which makes it non-identifiable)

2. Researchers who get access to the data must specify exactly what analyses they want to do in advance and they must get consent from the ONS to publish their findings.

Summary

We are still hoping that someone in the world will release accurate data that scientists can use to determine whether the vaccines are safe or dangerous.

The data is still being held hostage.

Until they release the data from captivity, everyone in the world should refuse the shots.

The data we have looks very bad for the vaccine.

The only sane advice doctors should be giving to patients is: no data transparency, no shot.