The Latest UK Data is Still DEEPLY Flawed
By Steve Kirsch
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
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
- 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):
- 2020: 1063
- 2019: 941
- 2018: 981
- 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:
- 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!
- There isn’t much deadly COVID happening in 2022 (it should increase all the ASMR numbers by around 6%)
- 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:
- ASMR >1000 for the unvaccinated
- 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)
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
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)
— Sarah Caul (@SarahCaul_ONS) February 21, 2023
Why the official story is wrong
Joel’s analysis
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
Norman Fenton’s take
Clare’s take
Igor’s take
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
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 an 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
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
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
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:
- 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)
- 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
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.
