Is Jonathan Sumption being wilfully blind? I ask this because I’ve always identified with the libertarian/Sumption wing of lockdown scepticism. Certainly, my principal objection to Covid policies has been the denial of individual rights and freedoms. For listeners of London Calling, think of me as Team Toby rather than Team James.
Jonathan Sumption was very sound on the issue of lockdowns, but he’s been far less strident in objecting to the Government’s coercive behaviour when it came to vaccination. He has now written an article in the Telegraph that lays the blame for excess deaths at the door of the NHS’s failure to pick up and treat principally cancers during the lockdowns. My objection to his thesis is that it’s wrong.
Sumption writes:
But the contribution of lockdowns to long-term excess deaths from other causes is becoming increasingly obvious.
The clearest case is cancer.
I agree with him that the lockdowns caused untold harm to people’s physical and mental health. But I worry that this diagnosis – ‘it’s the lockdowns wot done it’ – plays a little too neatly into the Government narrative of laying the blame on the effective shutdown of the NHS during the lockdowns, when it seems all too likely that the real fault lies with the Government’s abdication of responsibility to the ‘blob’, and the bio-medical tyranny that followed.
I don’t wholly blame the vaccines for excess deaths. Sweden vaccinated a higher proportion of its population than we have, yet we don’t see such high levels of excess death there. However, the deaths of Lisa Shaw and many others are directly attributable to the vaccines. Clearly, the vaccines have killed some people who, in the absence of vaccination would not have died. Sumption’s article ignores both vaccination and the coercive measures adopted to get people vaccinated, which meant that far more people than was ever warranted found themselves taking under-tested vaccines.
This article tests some of Sumption’s assumptions.
Let’s start by looking at excess cancer deaths over the past 33 months.
Figure 1 is taken from the Office for Health Improvements and Disparities’ interactive website (a brilliant resource, hats off to the wonks who produced it). It shows excess cancer deaths right through the pandemic period and up to the end of 2022. During this period, it was expected that we’d see 433,149 cancer deaths. In the event, 441,768 cancer deaths were registered – 8,619, or 2%, more than were expected. Tough if one of those extra deaths is you, but in the grand scheme of things not a figure to generate much alarm.
Figure 2 shows excess cancer deaths for just 2022. They were less than 1% above the expected rate.
Professor Angus Dalgleish has stated that mRNA vaccines seem to be causing or reactivating dormant cancers. Cancers tend to be pretty slow burn, there may be a wave of cancer deaths coming down the track, but as yet fatality rates don’t reflect this. Jonathan Sumption’s assumption that cancer is the main driver of excess deaths is evidently wrong.
Before going on, let’s just test the assumption that all-cause mortality was indeed higher than expected in 2022. Figure 3 shows all-cause U.K. excess deaths over the past year. You can see that in the second half of 2022, excess deaths were running in the range of 10%-20%, clearly, breaking the 20% barrier in the last couple of weeks of the year. Contrast those figures to the cancer deaths (shown in figure 2) in December 2022, which are significantly below the expected level. Cancer didn’t contribute much to excess deaths.
Figure 4 demonstrates that the U.K. isn’t alone in seeing excess deaths, in fact we’re about mid table. Just to give a bit of context to the chart in figure 4, I’ve added a right-hand scale showing approximately what the excess level of deaths means in terms of all-cause deaths. It varies country to country, but as a rule of thumb about 1% of the population die in any year. That’s 10,000 per million, so excess deaths of 1,000 per million represents about a 10% increase in expected deaths. So, whatever is driving excess deaths, and we know it’s not Covid, is having an impact in multiple countries.
In addition to cancer, Sumption points the finger at Alzheimer’s and ischaemic heart disease. He writes: “Cancer is far from being the only issue. Excess deaths from ischaemic heart and Alzheimer’s disease rose rapidly during the lockdowns and have continued high.”
Let’s see how deaths from dementia and Alzheimer’s compare to expected levels. There were 270,172 such deaths over the past three years, compared to expected deaths of 261,081. Excess deaths were 9,091, or 3.3%, more than expected. If we look at dementia and Alzheimer’s for just 2022 we see that there were 7,527 fewer deaths than were expected. So, all-cause excess deaths weren’t being driven by dementia and Alzheimer’s.
If it wasn’t cancer, dementia or Alzheimer’s, what about Sumption’s final option of ischaemic heart disease? Figure 6 shows the data from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities website for all cardiovascular disease, ischaemic heart disease and heart failure. Over the past three years, deaths from heart related diseases have been about 14% higher than expected.
Figure 7 shows deaths from heart failure for just 2022. Certainly, deaths from heart failure are significantly elevated, getting on for 15% above the expected level.
Where does this lead us? Indeed, where does it leave Jonathan Sumption? Figure 8 uses data from the Office for Health Improvements and Disparities to rank the largest to smallest contributors to excess deaths in 2022. All-cause cardiovascular deaths and other circulatory diseases are out in front. The catch-all terms are primarily made up of heart disease and ischaemic heart disease.
Cancer, chronic respiratory disease and dementia have had the least impact on excess deaths.
A 15% increase in heart failure is significant but it isn’t Armageddon. Team James conspiracy theorists may still hold out, but this doesn’t look like genocide. Of course, the jury is still out on what the longer-term consequences will be for cancer. But to date, cancer deaths appear to have been remarkably normal.
Looking at the data, the claims and counter claims, it’s also undeniable that there is a lot of ‘noise’ in the data. In 2020 and early 2021, undoubtedly, Covid claimed many victims who were very ill with one of these comorbidities. In addition, conditions such as urinary tract infections were exacerbated by the lockdowns. Trying to identify cause and effect will continue to be debated.
While Chris Whitty has attempted to place the blame on the failure of the NHS to prescribe enough statins and other medications during the lockdowns, Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson have queried whether there has been a significant reduction in statins, and have further demonstrated that any reductions in statins has had minimal impact on deaths.
Jonathan Sumption, along with Chris Whitty, has done his best not to see the elephant in the room. But while the vaccines aren’t wiping out whole swathes of the population, we know that they can cause heart problems, and it’s heart problems that are the biggest cause of excess deaths. It’s time this was addressed.
Stop Press: Toby Green and Thomas Fazi, authors of the The Covid Consensus, have done an analysis of excess deaths across Europe for UnHerd. After considering all the usual suspects, they conclude:
Finally, there is one possible explanation that has to be considered, at least as a contributing factor for the rise in non-Covid excess deaths: the role of the vaccines, in particular those from Pfizer and Moderna that use the new mRNA technology. This is a hyper-polarising issue, so let’s start with what we know: the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are associated with a higher risk of developing myocarditis (heart inflammation), especially in younger males (possibly due to the spike protein generated by the vaccine circulating in the blood), and other serious adverse events such as blood clots. This is confirmed by a number of studies (see, for example, here, here, here, here, and here) and even by the CDC’s own data. There is quite a lot of variability between the studies, but they appear to suggest that, with young people, the risk from the vaccine may well outweigh the risk from Covid or from post-Covid myocarditis.
That said, proving a connection between vaccine-related harms and the disproportionately high number of young people dying at the moment is not straightforward. However, a number of studies — such as a recent analysis by Martin Neil, professor of computer science and statistics at Queen Mary University in London, and Norman Fenton, a mathematician and leading expert on risk assessment and statistics — do show a statistically significant correlation between vaccination rates and excess mortality.
To what extent this correlation actually implies causation does, of course, remain unclear. But just as lockdowns are clearly a factor, it seems unwise to rule out the vaccines as a contributing factor without proper investigation — the point is that we simply don’t know, as we don’t have enough data to establish or disprove a link. Ultimately, the causes of the excess deaths are probably varied, and involve a combination of factors. This shouldn’t be surprising, since lockdowns and vaccines were always connected in the pandemic response. But we shall never know for sure if we don’t start asking these uncomfortable questions — especially when our politicians and public-health experts seem reluctant to do so themselves.
Worth reading in full.
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.
Why would it blow up in the Government’s face? If opposition exists at all, it is in disarray.
That’s a really good question because when Tories simply adopt everything Labour would want to implement as well, voting becomes an obvious farce. “Don’t want to be buried alive? Sorry, that’s not on the ballot paper. But you may chose your own undertaker!”
Is there something except mask mandates, covaxx coercion and Christmas lockdowns Rishi hasn’t yet back-pedalled on? If not, when can we expect these last three crowning achievements of his career as Mr Open Hands, “Want to see policies implemented? Remember to include the cheque in the envelope, otherwise, they won’t be considered!”
Kid:
Mum, Dad ‘Surrogate Parents – I want to talk to you, I don’t know if I’m a boy or a girl’SP – Sorry, person, it would be illegal for us to advise you. Just note that currently, caucasian boys are accused of inherent white privilege and all boys are emblematic of patriarchal control, while the whole concept of girls is being systematically erased from the English language. Unless they’re 4th gen Disney-esque girlbosses who don’t need love, children or a sense of community to get them through the day, that is. In the meantime, the concept of transgender is based on biologyphobic ideology and primary colour hair dye, combined with sterilising drugs and mutiliating surgery. Take your pick.’
“the whole concept of girls is being systematically erased from the English language”
Also very confusing. Isn’t that misgendering 99.9% of girls?
Is that going to be a crime too?
Or not?
Likewise, isn’t affirmative genitital mutilation an attempt to change someone’s sex and gender? And what about Stonewall adepts proselytizing in schools?
I saw this on a BTL somewhere a while ago –
i find the logic confusing. if gender is a social construct, how is transgender in and of itself not also a social construct? what I mean is, would I have to be trans to be trans? how can trans be any more legitimate than either the male and female that they’re grown from? can you claim to have a gender when gender isn’t real? if woman has no definition how can you even know you’re trans? aren’t you really just a topographically redesigned person?
Topographically redesigned. Love it.
Topography
Definition 1 of three for this word.
“daddy, I know I’m your eldest son and I know you insisted I’m not supposed to, but I *really* like my friend”
“You bigot! She’s female and you’re male. I guess you didn’t ask “insert-ideological-term-of-compliance-here” (her/him/they/fk-off-not-your-business) for consent before you enjoyed your lurid dreams and your thought-crimes.
Yes, I’m told she has a bonus hole and perhaps a few other interesting contours, but I reject your obsession, but now I have to spew.
Igor, heat-up the irons to red-hot, this supposed (soon-to-be-ex) son of mine needs an object lesson in humility and agony.
No – it doesn’t count because the DEI score says so…
I have no idea what that means.
All I do know is that denying childrens’ gender identity is misgendering and Great Ormond Street Hospital has in effect banned the use of words like ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ and issued guidance threatening staff with disciplinary action.
But that is still misgendering 99.9% of the patients.
So it is OK to misgender children who are boys and girls but it is not OK to misgender children who are boys and girls who don’t want to be boys and girls.
I am really very confused by all of this.
Just what the public want and need – more laws telling them new things they can’t do.
My life still feels too free, there are still areas of my day to day existence that I get to decide for myself. Can parliament please step it up a bit and hurry up making some more laws. I want every little nook and cranny of my life to be legislated and regulated. So I don’t have to think at all.
Or, actually, better still, just shoot me in the back of the head now and get the same result quicker.
Why do they always look like they stink of fish and old meat?
This is unbelievably confusing and precisely because all of the woke trans ideology has turned our world upsides down.
What exactly is the controversy about?
Is it to be criminal to help a child decide to transition or not to transition? Which is it? Or is it both or none of the above.
The answer is this is another crap feelgood law with no intelligible meaning which lawyers and judges can interpret in whichever way they want to interpret it.
So, you’re liable for up to a 7 year prison sentence for counselling in support of FGM under the 2003 FGM Act.
But, you’ll be liable for a prison sentence if you counsel someone to not move towards genital mutilation if it’s for trans reasons?
Mmmm, someone smarter than me needs to explain that one to me.
(not aimed at NickR, healthy sarcasm involved)
Comrade, you nailed the double-think, you must either have MANY extra vodka rations (as your only salary) or be punished for your precocity because, while your your vote-for-me is absolutely mandatory, your positive-opinion of me is also mandatory, whether expressed in public or private..
Did I just hear a peep of dissent from you? I’m told Siberia is lovely in June, but I couldn’t care less as my Dacha is in Odessa. It’s only my winter-house. Saying that, there’s a wonderful job opportunity coming-up but it’s far, far, far to the east of us.
Comrade Orwell tried to warn us before, but it was only in a novel and so very easily disregarded (what a-wheezy-‘karen’ non-entity he turned out to be, lol)
I get that you’re just holding-up the hypocrisy for scrutiny, I’d truly wonder if you really believed this stuff. Mr Orwell would be proud of you.
The ambiguity will get me caught soon – just one unguarded opinion and I’ll be on the trains…
</sarc>
We are being taken into Hell.
Dark untold truth of transgenderism
Once again our enemies have hijacked the language and sadly even the headline here sort of falls for it. “Conversion therapy” is actually the opposite of what it appears to mean. The people who are attempting to “convert” the confused are the “trans” activists. You are either conceived as a man or a woman, and that’s it. You cannot be “converted” to what you already are – that is nonsense.
Perhaps one-day gassing will be referred to as a ‘zyklon-b-hug’
They are utterly insane and EVIL.
Guy Fawkes had a very good point me thinks.
But sadly he was betrayed by the conscience of a still unidentified supporter who wrote an anonymous letter in late October 1605 to Lord Monteagle, a Catholic.
Monteagle intended to attend the opening of Parliament a few days later, on November 5.
The unsigned letter stated: “My lord, out of the love I bear to some of your friends, I have a care of your preservation, therefore I would advise you as you tender your life to devise some excuse to shift of your attendance at this parliament . . . for though there be no appearance of any stir, yet I say they shall receive a terrible blow.”
Monteagle he forwarded the letter to Robert Cecil, chief minister of King James I and the rest, as they say, is history.
I write ‘sadly’ but do not condone the purpose of the plotters who would have succeeded in an act of terrorism with terrible consequences had it not been for the conscience of the writer of that anonymous letter.
It was a remarkable plan which anticipated and predates modern terrorism by four centuries.
Notice these words from that letter “out of the love I bear to some of your friends“.
So the writer was known not to Monteagle but to ‘some of his friends’. And of course must have been known to Fawkes or someone close to him or his plotters.
That means potentially Cecil could have identified the writer but presumably Cecil got the information he wanted of the identities of Fawkes’ co-conspirators from torture inflicted on Fawkes.
Of course, Monteagle was given little choice but to pass on the letter.
Had he not done so and excused himself from attending Parliament on 5th November that would cast suspicion upon him.
And so we can also see how this 400 year old precursor to modern counter-terrorism worked then but based on luck and intelligence from an unwitting informant instead of by design.
Sadly, those who love freedom in the UK these days are very few. And virtually non-existent in Parliament.