Despite the ‘pandemic response’ being a non-issue in the General Election (all parties were compliant and consequently complicit in the single most disastrous policy ever followed by any Government) the issue of vaccine harms hasn’t entirely gone away. A paper published in the BMJ Public Health journal and covered in a front page piece by Sarah Knapton in the Telegraph gave the issue much needed credence. This was followed by David Davis MP repeating a call for a proper inquiry into excess deaths and a post from Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, published on their Substack Trust the Evidence and reprinted in the Daily Sceptic.
Heneghan and Jefferson state:
Suddenly, it’s okay to question the vaccine narrative. The Lancet estimated that vaccinations prevented 19·8 million excess deaths. Mathematical modelling should not be used to justify the policy — the latest report shows the numbers don’t add up.
Of course, it isn’t only the Lancet that has relied on nonsensical mathematical modelling to justify widespread adoption of mRNA technology. Disappointingly, both Rod Liddle and Fraser Nelson in recent articles published in the Times and Telegraph respectively repeated the farcical claim that the AstraZeneca vaccine saved six million lives. Claims that 500,000 lives were saved by lockdown, that 20 million lives were saved by mRNA vaccines or six million were saved by AstraZeneca all rely on modelling. However, we have real-world data that paint a very different picture.
During part of the winter of 2021-22 the U.K. experienced its last period where Covid accounted for more than 10% of all-cause deaths. The rollout of the vaccines had been completed in the prior autumn, by which point most elderly and vulnerable people (who accounted for the vast majority of Covid deaths) had been vaccinated at least three and in many cases four times.
If Covid vaccines really prevented 20 million deaths and the AstraZeneca vaccine really saved six million lives, then you would assume that during the 2021-22 mini ‘Covid spike’, deaths of the ‘never-vaccinated’ would have increased faster than deaths of the vaccinated.
The fact that this didn’t happen confirms that vaccines didn’t work. Figure 1, in one simple chart, using official U.K. Government data, demonstrates that while Covid deaths spiked in January 2022, all-cause deaths of the ‘never-vaccinated’, rather than increasing, modestly declined (green line). In fact the reduction of all-cause deaths in the never-vaccinated was somewhat more pronounced than that of the vaccinated (red line)!
The data for this chart come from two Government bodies: the ONS report of monthly deaths by vaccine status running from April 1st 2021 to the end of May 2023; and the Office for Health Improvements and Disparities (OHID) showing weekly deaths, spliced and diced in multiple ways, from October 2021 to July 2022.
It’s worth noting that the OHID abandoned its excellent monthly report in December 2023 following its controversial decision to adopt the ONS’s radical change to the ‘expected deaths’ calculation. Prior to this the OHID was showing excess deaths from heart failure, diabetes and cirrhosis running well ahead of the ‘expected’ levels. Yet another change that created distrust in the authorities.
Remarkably, the chart confirms that over the winter months, December to February:
- ‘Covid deaths’ (plotted against the left-hand axis) increased by 74% from 3,145 in December 2021 to 5,460 in January 2022, before dropping back by 25% to 4,088 in February.
- Amongst the ‘never-vaccinated’, all-cause deaths decreased by 7% from December 2021’s total of 3,858 to 3,606 in January 2022, before declining again in February 2022 by a further 30% to 2,533.
- Among the vaccinated, December’s total deaths of 46,951 decreased by 3% to 45,587 deaths in January, followed by a further 14% fall back to 39,063 in February.
How can this be? Between December 2021 and February 2022 deaths in the vaccinated fell by 17% while deaths in the never-vaccinated fell by 34%, twice the rate of decline of the vaccinated.
There can only be two explanations: either the proportion of vaccinated people increased, or vaccines didn’t work.
The Government’s coronavirus dashboard confirms that hardly any never-vaccinated people decided, late in 2021 or in early 2022 to get themselves vaccinated. Anecdotally, I’ve met many people who regret getting vaccinated, but I’ve never met anyone who regretted not getting vaccinated, and I’ve never come across anyone who, having held out against vaccination throughout 2021, decided late in 2021 or early 2022 to opt onto that particular merry-go-round. Certainly, the number of the never-vaccinated didn’t materially change during this period. Which means the only logical conclusion is that vaccines didn’t work.
If we look at the all-cause deaths of the never-vaccinated as a percentage of all deaths, shown in Figure 3, two things are apparent. Firstly, the lines for each age cohort fall consistently; there are no upticks. Surely, if a deadly virus was on the loose that only multiple vaccinations could save you from, you might expect to see deaths amongst the never-vaccinated demonstrate some volatility, especially during times when Covid deaths surged. Secondly, we see that the percentage of all-cause deaths amongst the never-vaccinated is about the same as or lower than the overall proportion of people within each age cohort (which I’ve indicated in red in Figure 2). In other words, the never-vaccinated are not over-represented in deaths, as you would expect if the vaccines were saving lots of lives among the vaccinated.
These ‘real-world’ data illustrate another feature of the ‘pandemic’: over-reporting or over-diagnosis of Covid deaths. Figure 4, lifted straight from the OHID website, shows that in week ending 22nd January 2021 (the bolder coloured column) there were 17,568 registered deaths, of which 8,013 were ‘Covid deaths’; that’s 46% of the total. The expected number of deaths for that week was 12,535, indicated by the dashed line. Surely this must mean that in the absence of Covid we would have seen just 9,555 deaths (17,568 all-cause minus 8,013 Covid), but that would be 2,980 (31%) fewer deaths than were expected.
Of course this is nonsense. If deaths that week excluding Covid deaths had been at the expected level, then it would suggest that 37% of the Covid deaths were an overstatement. Overestimates like this get fed into the mathematical models. They in turn lead to errors in ‘case fatality rates’ and very soon we have error compounding error and the whole calculation loses credibility.
It’s good news that the likes of David Davis, Carl Heneghan, Tom Jefferson and Andrew Bridgen are calling for an inquiry into the potential role of vaccines in recent excess deaths. But we shouldn’t overlook the data we have publicly available (I think uniquely in the world) showing outcomes for the ‘never-vaccinated’, our very own ‘control group’ which shows very clearly that their health outcomes were certainly no worse, and in all likelihood significantly better than the vaccinated.
Before Fraser Nelson, Rod Liddle and any other commentators are tempted to trot out the nonsense about millions of lives saved by vaccination they should ask the question: “So, where did we bury the disproportionate number of ‘never-vaccinated’ who must surely have died since 2021?” I’ve looked and I can’t find them.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“This is calculated ‘climate change’ propaganda marketed as entertainment.”
Almost all BBC output is political propaganda marketed as entertainment or news or current affairs or sports coverage. The goes for most TV ads and probably a whole load of other TV, films that I simply cannot watch any more.
Very true, and most of us have known that for many years. But ofcourse propaganda depends on most of the people not having sufficient time or inclination to investigate every issue as they are very busy with work and raising families. I am totally aware of all the TV propaganda, the Attenborough nonsense and the endless screeching about a “climate crisis” for political purposes which most people simply have no clue even exists. They think it is all about “science”. ——As my brother said to me once “Why would they say there is global warming if it isn’t true”? A classic example of how the propaganda works for most people. ——But the bit you mentioned about TV ads was the bit of your comment that had me laughing the most even if all of this stuff is no laughing matter. Almost every TV ad features a white wife and a black husband or vice versa, and you will find it very difficult to see 5 white people in an ad. You would think in a country where only 13% of people are black that this would be almost statistically impossible, and it actually makes a mockery of their “colour blind” excuse. Just like the excuse they used in the absurd Bridgerton TV program . But imagine if we had a period drama set in the Congo in 1850 and a quarter of the actors were white, or imagine if there was a film about Nelson Mandela and George Clooney was the lead actor. There would be flames coming out from the eyes of the social justice people.——Diversity only ever works in one direction.
Western civilisation committing suicide before our eyes. The idiots. The sheep who are going along with this will regret it when it’s gone.
I was just muting the ads but I need to look away now. Luckily I don’t watch much TV, mainly old films and re-runs, and I have shelves full of old books enough to last me until I am gone so I don’t need to buy anything contemporary. As far as I am concerned the people who are pushing this crap have declared war on me.
I also mute the ads or record TV programs and skip past them. I refuse to watch anything I deem to be pushing political agendas, mainly around Equality, Diversity, Race, Gender or Climate. If I want to watch drama I do not want social justice messages crammed in there. If I want to watch sport I do not want to hear about “taking the knee” or “there are not enough minority referees” I do not want to know whether a professional football player is gay. That is none of my business. etc etc etc
Appalling climate porn from Attenborough! The poor little penguin the rain! No context and no data. It is blatant brainwashing of our young for political reasons.
The most ridiculous bit is actually Then there will be a future for the planet — the planet, an enormous ball of stone (mostly), will have a future regardless of the fate of any individual species of animals currently living on it. The hybris is breathtaking. Humans are incapable of ensuring an uninterrupted power supply to their homes in the face of perfectly ordinary storms or end periodic, long-lasting flooding of vast swathes of the countryside but they and they alone can save the whole planet which is mortally endangered by their mostly insignificant presence.
Attenborough is somewhat notorious for being in favour of human extinction, preferably human self-extinction through birth preventation. Considering this, I wouldn’t want to take any advice regarding human affairs from him as it’s very unlikely that that’s meant to be beneficial to members of a species he openly despises. Additionally, the I am the anti-messias who’s going to bring mankind death to save the world! megalomanic delusion doesn’t exactly speek for a rational mind.
Why does the BBC fund sorry would-be murderous lunatics like him?
Because they don’t have to worry about earning the money they stuff in that charlatan’s pockets
The BBC didn’t do that in, say, 1954, and hence, the stock US platitude The state is sooo eeeeeviiiillll!!!127 remains the same tired nonsense it alway was.
The prevailing political wind in 1954 was different. At least in the US there are some major media companies presenting a slightly different view (well, mainly just Fox). In the UK I think the dominance of the BBC because of it’s guaranteed income stream, the stamp of authority that comes from being the state broadcaster, and it’s long history as the only broadcaster, give it a big advantage.
What’s the German TV media like? Anyone decent reaching good numbers of viewers?
The prevailing political wind in 1954 was different.
Precisely. The problem is not that the BBC has a guaranteed income stream. The problem is that the BBC is controlled (and presumably, largely also staffed) by people paying lip services to what the BBC is supposed to do while they’re actually doing someting completely different: Instead of informing a supposedly intellectually mature audience to enable its members to form opinions of their own, they’re telling an audience they believe to be too infantile to think right about anything what the opinions of its members should be.
What’s the German TV media like? Anyone decent reaching good numbers of viewers?
By and large, I have no idea about that as I stopped viewing TV in the mid-1990s and haven’t been living in Germany since December 2010. The general situation is probably worse: There are two public broadcasters, ARD and ZDF. ARD was the original one, the ZDF (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen, second German broadcaster) was originally founded because it was believed that the ARD was organizationally too close to the SPD (social democrats, originally, today, its more genderqueer diversity whatevers seeking state employment) to report objectively about a CDU government. But that was in 1959 (original plan). Today, both of them are controlled by councils proportionally staffed by members of the established establishment parties and other organizations said parties consider socially important, eg, the churches.
The platitude is yours not mine. The problem started when the BBC stopped reporting the facts and decided to share their opinions with us. It’s difficult to say exactly when that happened but my best guess is around the early/mid 70s. I moved abroad in 1970 and returned to the UK in 1975. The starting point may well have been the protests around the Vietnam war. The Beeb looked across the pond and liked the prestige given to their US cousins affecting the political discourse and decided to follow the same path over here.
The arrival of the AGW scam poured fuel onto their self righteous fire. And the desire to be seen as still relevant in an age of social media ‘likes’ just fanned the flames.
And the matter is made worse by their choice of commentators, individuals without any relevant qualifications or background on scientific issues, which they demonstrate by only ever presenting one side of the argument.
This contradicts your earlier assertion: If the present-day BBC modelled its behaviour on US media companies, said behaviour can’t have been caused by the business model of the BBC being different from theirs.
A business model is a financial issue. Behaviour is a cultural matter. If you don’t have to worry about your income then you can choose your cultural approach without concern for any negative impact on your finances. The BBC sees itself as the state broadcaster and thus above such irrelevant issues as funding. US broadcasters are commercial animals and act accordingly.
The BBC’s behaviour is caused precisely because they are not commercial.
In the 21st Century the concept of a state broadcaster is only appropriate for a dictatorship. Lies are Truth.
The BBC will put anyone in front of a camera that is prepared to spout Liberal Progressive dogma. They will put a microphone in front a bin man as long as he tells the viewers that they need to cut emissions or be taking the knee. The BBC supposedly have a motto —Free Fair and Impartial—They are none of those things. Their world view is all to the Progressive Left despite the fact that half of Licence payers are not Progressives. So it is really remarkable that a Conservative government actually had an 80 seat majority just a short time ago. But as it turned out they are not really Conservatives which is why Labour now has a 36 point lead. The entire hand wringing political class pander to globalists and UN agenda’s instead of to the people who voted for them, but as we saw in Italy that can all change, but it can only change if the likes of the BBC are exposed for what they are.
Meanwhile in the arctic, sea levels are rising due to the ice sheets being weighed down by too many polar bears, and as the little icebergs they’re drifting around on sink under their weight, the killer whales are having them for breakfast – all caught on film by a sobbing camera crew singing sad songs of lament about climate change!
I believe that the Western Antarctic peninsula is the most populous area for homo sapiens in Antarctica. Maybe the Adelies want a bit of privacy.
No, they just want David Attenborough to stop feeling sorry for them!
Must be a case of That Attenborough guy has repeatedly been seen in neighbourhood. Better move elsewhere now before it gets even worse.
Nature programmes used to be more fun when they weren’t wrapped up in political soundbites. David Attenborough used to be a firm favourite of mine for his boyish enthusiasm and knowledge about his subject but his conversion to the religion of climate change has switched off that particular avenue of simple pleasure for me. The cherry-picking of images and statistics and the emotional manipulation of a public who are desperate for some sort of meaningful connection with the natural world but then get this emotional scattergunning of emotive scenes depicting penguins on their own or being stabbed to death by starving sea gulls. All we need are the massed violins of the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra playing Elgar’s Nimrod and a few bloodied feathers floating in the freezing waters and the masses will be burning their cars en masse and demanding Net Zero social credits and CBDCs and all the nonsense that is coming their way. Attenborough has that annoyingly quiet and sincere voice that makes people want to adopt him as their favourite grandad (in addition to Morgan Freeman) and, more worryingly, believe every well spoken metaphor to describe the ensuing catastrophe that emanates from his mouth. I think he is being played. If you could get access to him and show him the alternative data and facts, I’m sure he would be interested but this is a BBC show and I can only imagine that the show’s producers and backers are not interested in a balanced perspective. Cue violins as I watch my car being towed away…
Attenborough being played.
No way. He is a humanity hating eugenecist and it’s about time he sat down with God to explain his actions. Evil piece of shyte.
Strong words, HP. Is he really a eugenicist? I had no idea. Is he a mate of Gates?
Excellent article Chris
No doubt the Woke left will demand a state funeral for this cretin when he shuffles off this mortal coil. Please God.
Today’s substack by Steve Kirsch
https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=548354&post_id=79313774&utm_source=post-email-title&isFreemail=false&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODMwMjgzNywicG9zdF9pZCI6NzkzMTM3NzQsImlhdCI6MTY2NjE2MzQyMywiZXhwIjoxNjY4NzU1NDIzLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNTQ4MzU0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.3VXtFNBPJdnch-dKIXc5Dne9HfAT_thTanjLy_OfaMA
Really all you need to know about this overall topic is that the Nazi regime was the most environmentally focussed in history (Nazism is basically Nature-worship writ large);
And that the contemporary political movement was initiated by the formation of the German Green Party (the seed corn for all the other branches, including the British one) by former members of the Nazi Party immediately after the end of WWII.
OMFG. I don’t really like this hackneyed phrase but here, it’s absolutely appropriate: I don’t know what your smoking but you should absolutely stop it.
The German green party (Die Grünen) was founded in 1980 by a bunch of somewhat prominent ex-hippies, ie, the people who believed the USA was a fascist dictatorship which would need to be overcome by a violent (communist) revolution about 10 years earlier and who were the nucleus of all-things-woke of our times. They’d stone you to death it if became known that your grandfather once knew a guy who had been a passenger on a train someone who claimed to have heard of someone else who was claimed to have seen a real photo of Adolf Hitler had also used at an earlier date because of your irredemable contamination with fascist DNA if they were only allowed to do so (they’re still working on that).
Re:
‘The German green party (Die Grünen) was founded in 1980‘
Thank you for pointing that out, I researched the history of environmentalism in Germany a long time ago and have obviously become confused about organisational origins and dates in the interim.
The fact remains that there was complete continuity in post-war West Germany with the uniquely strong Nazi environmentalist (or conservationist) agenda and policies.
Hermann Goering’s Reich Nature Protection law of 1935 which “extended protection to rare or endangered plants and nongame animals, natural monuments and their surroundings, nature reserves, and other landscape areas in open nature” (sound familiar?) was kept in place, as was Hans Klose, the Nazi Director of the Reich Agency for Nature Protection – name simply changed post-war to the Central Office for Nature Conservation and Landscape Conservation.
‘by a bunch of somewhat prominent ex-hippies‘
The 1960s western hippy movement has strong ideological connections with the early 20th century German anti-urban / nature-loving Wandervogel movement, which was subsumed into the Hitler Youth when the Nazis seized power in 1933.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandervogel
For those who still fall for the hippy ‘peace and love’ smokescreen, it’s worth remembering that the movement called those that it disagreed with ‘pigs’, had very few darker-skinned members, and one of the most famous examples of its communes was known as the Manson Family;
A long-haired and kaftan wearing grouping that murdered at least 9 individuals, including the pregnant actress Sharon Tate, in 1969.
They used environmentalism as one of their main motivations / excuses, and have a look at this image of Charles Manson:
https://www.altaonline.com/dispatches/a5330/charles-manson-true-crime-industry/
Note the swastika.
Beyond any hippy connections founders of the German Green Party in 1980 included August Haussleiter, a prominent Nazi who took part in Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch of 1923, Baldur Springmann a former member of the SA, and Werner Vorgel, another former Nazi stormtrooper was among the first members of the Greens elected to the Bundestag in 1983.
https://www.jpost.com/jewish-world/jewish-features/the-nazi-roots-of-the-german-greens-318973
the people who believed the USA was a fascist dictatorship which would need to be overcome by a violent (communist) revolution about 10 years earlier and who were the nucleus of all-things-woke of our times. They’d stone you to death it if became known that your grandfather once knew a guy who had been a passenger on a train someone who claimed to have heard of someone else who was claimed to have seen a real photo of Adolf Hitler had also used at an earlier date because of your irredemable contamination with fascist DNA if they were only allowed to do so (they’re still working on that).
Nazism and Communism are two sides of the same tyrannical, anti-democratic and mass murderous coin. Just like rival football hooligan gangs the adherents falsely perceive themselves to belong to opposite ideological and practical camps.
To illustrate this point the Nazi and German Communist Parties conspired together in the Reichstag to undermine and ultimately overthrow the liberal democratic Weimar Constitution
And just to tie the whole thing back to the inherently fascistic and misanthropic Green ideology, it is worth remembering that alongside Nazi environmentalism already covered the Marxist Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot murdered millions of civilians in Cambodia as a result of the Green-inspired ‘Clear the Cities’ programme.
I only watch match of the day now. Nothing else. Cancelled my tv license last week as I refuse to fund this woke left wing propaganda machine any more.