Official Lies: Distrust the Government Must be the Order of the Day! By Richard Miller (London)

Professor Norman Fenton et al., is one of the few academic epidemiologists and statisticians to have challenged at many points the official Covid narrative. On one point, he maintained that the official UK ONS (Office for National Statistics) statistics on the Covid deaths for the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, was methodologically flawed. In 2021, he and co-researchers noticed there were large spikes in the non-Covid death rates in the unvaccinated. They argued at the time that this was due to the ONS categorising anyone who died within 20 days of being vaxxes as "unvaccinated." The ONS while doing this, denied it as well, as this served their purpose of inflating the number of Covid deaths, generating public hysteria and forcing the masses out of sheer fear to get the jab.

But now it turns out that the ONS did engage in miscategorising, no doubt deliberately to aid the vax mania. As Professor Fenton concludes: "They therefore lied and intentionally created and spread misinformation. We were accused of conspiracy thinking and our reputations were tarnished as a result. But we were right!"

The meta-political significance of this, is that shows how the government will engage in deliberate and calculated lies to achieve a policy objective. It should produce in all thinking persons a principle of guilty until proven innocent as far as anything a government says and does. Corruption is so deep that distrust must be the order of the day now.

https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/we-were-right-the-uk-ons-now-admit

"We were right! The UK ONS now admit that deaths in the vaccinated were categorised as unvaccinated in 2021. The ONS denied it then but admit it now.

In 2021 when the UK ONS (Office for National statistics) started releasing its vaccine by mortality status reports we exposed that there were large spikes in the non-covid death rates in the 'unvaccinated'. These spikes in mortality coincided with the first main vaccine rollout and did so for each age group …

We asserted that these obvious anomalies were a result of the standard ONS procedure of categorising anyone within 20 days of their first dose as 'unvaccinated'. However, in our own discussions with the ONS they maintained that, although that method was used for their efficacy calculations, it was not used when it came to mortality. They clearly said that a person dying any time after vaccination was correctly categorised, as a vaccinated death, in the mortality data they regularly released to the public and which formed the basis of a massive public communication campaign encouraging vaccination.

To 'explain' the spikes the ONS pushed the implicit assumption that there was a phenomenon called the 'healthy vaccinee' effect, whereby they claimed that people 'close to death' were not vaccinated. And they made this bold claim without any data to support it whatsoever.

Apart from the fact that this would have contradicted the NHS policy at the time we showed that, while a healthy vaccinee effect might have partly explained the longer term lower non-covid mortality rates in the vaccinated, it could not possibly have explained those spikes in mortality rates.

They could only be explained by categorising deaths shortly after vaccination as unvaccinated. Yet the ONS, along with many of the staunchest covid vaccine disciples, doubled down on their insistence that such miscategorisation did not occur. To them all the anomalies in the ONS data could only be explained by the hallowed 'healthy vaccinee effect'.

Later, the ONS did actually claim that there was indeed an 'unhealthy vaccinee effect' but did so to explain other anomalies in the data. Clearly the ONS was so self-serving they did not see the contradictions between these claims and simply wanted to have their cake and eat it.

As a result of a subject access request that Clare Craig submitted to the ONS we have now found out that we were correct after all!

Clare has posted on this twitter/X thread, an internal ONS email confirming that the NIMS database of vaccinated people, that the ONS relied upon, had excluded those people who had died before vaccine records had been sent back to the central system.

When we pointed out to the ONS exactly this possibility for miscategorisation in 2021 they continued to deny that it had happened (see Table 8 of our report here).

Why is this so important? Because the ONS data - possibly more so than any other source of data in the world - was used to bolster the claim that the vaccines were highly effective and safe.

And, as we have always argued, and which is now certain, any claims of efficacy and safety based on their data were completely illusionary and subject to the cheap trick of miscategorisation whereby even a placebo - or something even worse - could be 'shown' to be safe and effective.

They therefore lied and intentionally created and spread misinformation. We were accused of conspiracy thinking and our reputations were tarnished as a result.

But we were right!"