I want to pick up a few threads from the debate on excess deaths on January 16th secured by Andrew Bridgen MP (transcript and video).
The debate was about the fact that significantly more people than expected have been dying for over two years now, particularly in younger age groups. This is not in dispute – it was acknowledged by both the Health Minister and her Labour Shadow as a concern which needed to be investigated. Well, get on with it then!
The threads I want to pick up are, first, the data required to investigate the issue and, second, the recent study published in the Lancet which one Labour MP trotted out during the debate in support of the Covid vaccines to try to rubbish what Andrew Bridgen had said.
First, the data. Andrew Bridgen mentioned that any investigation would require record-level data on Covid vaccine dosage, dates and deaths. He noted that the HART Group had requested those data from the Government over a year ago. Both UKHSA and MHRA have confirmed that the data exist but are, currently, avoiding releasing them. A complaint to the Information Commissioner is pending. Andrew Bridgen pointed out the irony that the MHRA has already released the data to Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna. I can shed more light on that from my own research and FOI requests.
MHRA approved the release of the data to Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca over two years ago for use in their Post-Authorisation Safety Studies (PASS). Basically, the PASS studies – which I first wrote about here – are using using national health records on millions of people in Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and U.K. to investigate whether there is an increased risk of Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI; including death) associated with the Covid vaccines.
I recently managed to obtain the companies’ PASS interim reports via an FOI request. U.K. data for 2020 and 2021 were included in the companies’ first interim reports but not for 2022 and 2023. Those data were unavailable for subsequent PASS interim reports due to, firstly, “CPRD server capacity issues” (page 72 of Pfizer’s second report dated September 2022) and then “a quality issue with the CPRD data availability” (page 74 of its third report) which wasn’t resolved in time for its fourth (dated September 2023). Negligence, incompetence, sinister? Make of it what you will.
Anyway, despite the limited U.K. data, what do the latest PASS reports say? Well, they are very long – thousands of pages and hundreds of tables so they take a lot of digesting. But in summary, there are conflicting results between national datasets for the same AESI, and there are some AESIs where incidence rates are higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated and vice versa. So it’s quite hard to see the wood for the trees. But, taking the Pfizer fourth interim report (dated September 2023 but which used U.K. data for 2020-21 only), if one jumps to the ‘discussion’ there are some worrying words (from page 159):
- Arrhythmia: “Rates were comparable between vaccinated and non-vaccinated. In the tails of the survival curves (after 100 days), the curves flattened in most data sources except in CPRD [Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a depository of data from primary care doctors] where the risk increased.”
- Heart failure: “The incidence of heart failure was uncommon any time after the start of follow-up and increased with age, as expected, in all data sources. Rates were comparable between vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals. In the tails of the survival curves (after 100 days), the curves flattened in most data sources except in CPRD where the risk increased.”
- Acute coronary artery disease: “From day 100-150 onwards the incidence was much lower, and the curves flattened in all databases except in CPRD where there was an increase in the cumulative incidence, especially in the vaccinated cohort.”
I readily acknowledge that for some other AESIs, the incidence rate is higher in the unvaccinated cohort which, in isolation, may support Covid vaccination (absent a healthy vaccinee bias). But that’s the ‘benefit’ side of the equation. The ‘safety’ side of the equation is that, for those AESIs I have picked out, there is a higher incident rate in the vaccinated cohort. To me, that’s a loud safety signal which would surely have rung alarm bells in MHRA. You would therefore think that MHRA would therefore have strained every sinew to make sure U.K. data for 2022 and 2023 were available as soon as possible, certainly for the companies’ final PASS reports due later this year. Perhaps an MP would like to ask the Health Secretary to provide a proper explanation of the data availability issues and confirmation that they have been resolved.
The other thread I want to pick up from the debate is when Sir George Howarth quoted a study just published in the Lancet. He said that the report concluded that “Missed vaccines ‘caused 7,000 Covid hospitalisations and deaths’” which “makes completely the opposite point to his (Bridgen)”. Unfortunately for Sir George, he seems not to have read the report because its conclusion relates to the under-vaccinated not the unvaccinated. The report actually says “Our estimates for the 16-74 years and 75 years and older age groups show that being unvaccinated was associated with similar or lower hazard ratio for severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with being vaccinated but having a vaccine deficit of at least one dose.”
The study offered a couple of explanations for that inconvenient truth: vaccine waning and healthier individuals being more likely to be unvaccinated. There are two very serious problems with that:
- Conventional wisdom is that unvaccinated individuals are, on average, unhealthier than those who get vaccinated. However, the Lancet’s peer-reviewers obviously didn’t bat an eyelid at a study which tries to explain an inconvenient truth by claiming the complete opposite.
- The Lancet’s peer-reviewers didn’t think to ask whether another explanation might be immune degradation resulting from the Covid vaccines. I think that’s an obvious question and I’m just an Engineer and Safety Manager.
My takeaways from the excess death debate were therefore:
- The Government needs urgently to get on with the investigation into excess deaths which it readily agrees is required. Deferral of the Covid Inquiry Module 4 (Vaccines and Therapeutics) – which Andrew Bridgen mentioned in his speech – indicates the opposite.
- There is something seriously wrong when the Government releases our health data to Big Pharma but won’t release thrm to us.
- MPs who quote studies should actually read them, not rely on the mainstream media headlines.
- The Lancet, once one of the most respected medical journals, should hang its head in shame.
Until Nick retired a few years ago, he was a Senior Civil Servant in the Ministry of Defence responsible for the safety and effectiveness of ammunition used by the Armed Forces. He is co-author of the Perseus Group report on U.K. medicines regulator the MHRA.
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.
The author surmises that quackcines had a benefit. Not a single shred or piece of evidence exists to support this. I worked in the HSA as a data architect for Rona. As soon as the stabs were deployed, death rates spiked and spiked after all 3 of the major stabbinations. Everyone knows this.
They are still spiking or ‘excess deading’ today. Every single G20 country has the same pattern. I believe in patterns and real data. The stabs have murdered some 150 K in this country. The toxins and spikey spikey’s will continue to generate cancer, neurological and other issues (to be blamed on climate). The fact that the NHS, MHRA and the pharmament will not release all the data is all I need to know. ‘Open science’ and all that. The criminals will simply delete the evidence.
And the longer they delay any inquiry, the more obfuscated the causes will be. The delay to the official Inquiry during the run up to the General Election tells its own story, politically. They’ll come with something else to blame.
How about a nice big war to make it all go away? If the warmongers are to be believed, Moscow and Beijing will even be kind enough to wait a few years while the UK re-arms with pine tanks and balsa wood drones (no steel, plenty timber) and figures out what aircraft carriers do.
Errrr…….no need for warmongering……we already have a war…..or two…..
The requirement is for peacemongering…..if you wish for peace, then prepare for war…….
Which wars? The proxy ones or the insidious one being waged by the UK regime against the British public?
If you wish for peace, make sure no-one profits from war.
We are already in a (cold) war with Russia and an at times hot one with the Houthis. Both are defensive.
No-one profiteers from war. Defence company shareholders earn from their investments in the same way that investors in all public companies are recompensed on their capital investment.
General Dynamics shareholders:
Longview Asset Management, Llc, Vanguard Group Inc, Wellington Management Group Llp, Newport Trust Co, BlackRock Inc., State Street Corp, Bank Of America Corp /de/, Massachusetts Financial Services Co /ma/, VTSMX – Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Investor Shares
BAE major shareholders
Barclays 3.98%, BlackRock 9.90%, Capital Group Companies 14.18%, Invesco 4.97% and Silchester International Investors 3.01%.
And so on etc.
Most of the defence supplies sent to Ukraine would time expire and have to be replaced at some stage in any case.
The idea that there is ‘warmongering’ going on is just plain silly.
The idea that Russia is seeking to establish a land corridor through Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus to Kaliningrad, encircling the Baltic States, is evidenced by their own strategic planning documents.
For the hard of understanding, please explain how it is not possible for anyone to profit from war?
Quite clearly neither Russia, Ukraine, Hamas, Israel, the Houthis have profited from war, dying, in the case of Russia and Ukraine in their hundreds of thousands, Ukrainian cities, towns, levelled, parts of Russia, particularly Belgorod, damaged
Who is it that you appear to believe profits from war?
‘According to the 2024 FYDP, DoD’s costs would remain nearly unchanged in real terms through 2028’
‘…..when adjusted for inflation, the increase in (UK) defence spending over this period (2021/2-2024/5) is expected to be £1.1 billion…….Most of this additional funding has been allocated to capital budgets (money that is spent on major projects and investment), whereas the Ministry of Defence’s day-to-day budget is set to decline in real terms over this period.’
Ok, I think I understand now: no financial, political or ideological gains can be made from war by anyone, anywhere, ever.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with ChatGPT.
You are very negative. Why not offer something positive?
Who is it that you believe profits from war?
There’s a comment waiting for approval further down the thread. Might be helpful training the algorithm of any bots on here.
Plain Silly says the 77th !
That really is just plain silly.
If Blackrock and Vanguard (et al) are stockholders by virtue of an “index” fund, however constituted or replicated, the fact remains that they are only such because others investing, buying or selling, on a discretionary, “active” basis determine the make up of that index – the ETFs are passengers, Remoras if you like.
ETFs and other computer controlled “programmes” are a massive influence on any stock market. I do not underestimate the influence Vanguard/BR or any other investment manager wield in the manner of Bloomberg & co in their attempt to force ESG blx on everyone else – very reminiscent of the “if investors see profit, they will follow the hype” – if for different reasons.
Indeed. I just don’t see any evidence of ‘war profiteering’
‘It hasn’t been a great year for defense stocks. The likes of the RTX (RTX 0.07%), General Dynamics (GD -0.64%), and Lockheed Martin (LMT -0.39%) are all in negative territory in 2023, and the defense businesses of General Electric (GE 0.98%) and Boeing (BA 1.61%) have both had significant issues this year.’ 11 Oct 2023
Only you mentioned profiteering but since you did, here’s a paper from Stanford on “War profiteering in Iraq”:
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.stanford.edu%2Fclass%2Fe297a%2FWar%2520Profiteering%2520in%2520Iraq.doc
There’s already companies in the countries with governments that are helping destroy Ukraine lining up to rebuild Ukraine.
“Iraq War Profiteers: 25 Companies Who Benefit From The War”:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/iraq-war-profiteers-25-co_n_115004
Vladimir Putin will profit from the Israel conflict according to the Economist i.e. even the Economist thinks profit is to be made from war:
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/10/17/putins-plan-to-profit-from-the-israel-hamas-war
In the Defence Command Paper Refresh speech on 18th July while discussing funding for stockpiling (required due to a protracted conflict in Ukraine), Ben Wallace highlighted the benefit to business:
“That will be good news for the likes of Thales and NLAW in Belfast”
Jeremy Quinn highlighting the benefit to UK business:
“The House will be pleased to hear that the challenge laid down by Putin’s brutal war has been seized by UK industry. I have been delighted by the agility that the UK’s defence sector has shown, working closely with Defence Equipment and Support, in bringing through innovative ideas…”
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-05-25/debates/8717B67A-F29C-4741-AE65-E07C7A5C6DCB/Ukraine
Thales receiving protests due to being on both sides of the Ukraine conflict:
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/defence/protest-at-belfast-factory-over-ludicrous-nature-of-arms-trade-with-thales-built-equipment-aiding-both-russia-and-ukraine-3616476
The Iraq war was an unmitigated disaster for the United States and is still costing that country large sums of money. It wasn’t much better for the defence contractors involved. KBR had to pay the U.S. government $400m in fines, Constellis (took over Blackwater) has debts of $1bn. Total U.S. costs to date are estimated at about $1.79 trillion, not including funds requested for FY2024. If the costs of future U.S. veterans medical and disability care are included, these costs will reach about $2.89 trillion by 2050.
To make a profit means to make an improvement in circumstances. If you really believe that Russia’s circumstances have improved either as a consequence of its invasion of Ukraine or as a consequence of the Hamas pogrom, then you have joined Putin in going ‘the full tonto’
Benefits are not ‘profiteering’. As I point out above, any increase in Britain’s defence spending has been derisory. The Hansard quote certainly does not highlight any ‘profiteering’, simply referring to innovation and agility which British defence companies, the smaller ones, have always possessed.
Thales said: “[We have] always operated in strict compliance with French and international regulations, including the European sanctions imposed on Russia in 2014.” Nothing to do with profiteering. The kit supplied to Russia was old, predating sanctions by several years.
This is one of those things that, even being as cynical as I am, knowing how corrupt the system is, still when I heard Bridgen explain this I just shook my head in amazement.
How can this be? How can the people allowing this not be utterly ashamed? How does this not raise huge alarm bells in those who become aware of it? How can they continue as if.. oh, well, one of those things.
The only reasonable explanation is that our bureaucratic system of governance is basically a runaway train of control train that no one can stop and the only choices are hopping on and hoping you get something out of it or scrambling out of the way in the hope it doesn’t run you over in some way.
The govt and civil service have plenty of form in obfuscation and misdirection.
Exhibit number 1. The Post Office.
They’re only reacting to that now because it’s been on telly. They’d have been fine keeping that suppressed otherwise.
The Lancet lost the plot when it championed the Peter Daszak petition which made it clear that Covid 19 was Not a product of man and not due to a Lab Leak .
I believe virtually all the prestigious medical journals have been bought and paid for over the last four years and can no longer be trusted to publish the truth. They have joined the Medical Regulators, and our Governments in a shameful cover up of Covid injection deaths and injuries.
My main takeaways from the Excess Deaths debate was that only about 19 of “our” MPs could be bothered to attend a debate to discuss which is affecting ALL constituencies in the UK and Andrew Bridgen is quite possibly the only MP who is worth paying any attention to.
Mine – Chris Loder – couldn’t be bothered. So the chances of him getting my vote this year are zero.
John Lamont had a prior engagement. In response to a request to attend the previous adjournment debate, he promoted the vaccination booster rollout but did say he would attend if free (he didn’t attend).
John Lamont has received a flood of warnings from me about Covid vaccine safety and the obfuscation of the MHRA. All dismissed with disdain.
Interesting, thanks.
MPs are drones at the service of their parties who are in turn at the service of the state bureaucracy.
They’ve been told to stay away and all but the independent minded and those with nothing left to lose turn up.
I have written many times to Neil O’Brien, he of the very accurate mnemonic derived from his initials, and specifically asked if he would attend this – zilch reply – follow up with a report highlighted by Robert Malone ( SV40 contamination etc etc ), requesting he helps me to get GP to conduct tests – zilch response; in the past he has replied, spasmodically, albeit predominantly with Cabinet Office c&p rubbish.
19/650 …..I am convinced this does not reflect the depth of knowledge in the HoC but it sums up the WoS we are in, in these islands.
Government agencies , politicians , protect pharmaceutical companies not Us, The People