Life is complex – yet it is human nature to want straightforward narratives: B followed A, C comes with D, or X caused Y. But when multiple variables are confounded by multiple parameters and the data is – at best – fuzzy, it can be surprisingly hard to establish the facts, let alone separate them from fiction.
And – of course – correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
Mixing metaphors, the elephant is out of the bag – UK mortality stats have been running “hot” for much of 2022 and have persisted through the Christmas period. Something is awry.
Quite rightly, the infernal lockdowns get much of the blame for the problems we are suffering. But it is frustrating that people are only now wringing their hands on this matter: as previously outlined and evidenced by Reaction, it was clear from mid-March 2020 (before they were implemented in this country) that non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs, i.e. lockdowns) would be devastating and – crucially – were not necessary.
It is worth adding a quick sidenote: for the reasons outlined above it is wrong to blame lockdown collateral damage on “Covid”: note that countries that didn’t implement NPIs didn’t have much of a different outcome, and possibly even better. It was lockdowns what did it, not Covid, which has an incredibly low infection fatality rate. Certain Western countries – specifically the US – were more affected due to high levels of obesity, but that was then, and this is now – Covid deaths are few and far between. So why the elevated excess mortality across the board in Western countries, including the likes of Germany whose healthcare services are not under the same degree of strain as here in the UK?
This is somewhat of an embarrassment for the authorities, who have been keen to emphasise the “millions” of lives saved by their response to the crisis that should never have been turned into such a catastrophic disaster. If countries that didn’t lock down and didn’t vaccinate are doing better, how can their claim be true?
Sign up for our FREE Reaction Weekend Email
Read the week's best-read articles on politics, business and geopolitics
Receive offers and exclusive invites
Plus uplifting cultural commentary
All sorts of hypotheses have been raised, such as a lack of exercise due to lockdowns, or even an increase in exercise (such as open water swimming). These are discussed at length elsewhere – perhaps a raised eyebrow will suffice.
There is one particular matter that has joined the traditional banned dinner party topics of religion and politics on the verboten list – not unlike these, it is also a matter of fervent belief and tribal allegiance: yes, the Covid-19 injections. Many trusted news sources are quick – extremely quick, in fact – to dismiss these pharmaceutical interventions (the “jabs”) as a potential cause of our woes.
In addressing the mortality conundrum, mortality data from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) is heavily confounded – the BBC is right in (a small) part of this article when they point out that there are “too many complicating factors”, but it then lets itself down by using the same entirely equivocal ONS data from the first half of 2022 to justify the thesis that there is “no evidence of vaccine effect [on mortality excess]”. Apart from the obvious “this data is too confounded for you to make your point, but I’ll use it to make mine” issue, they are actually glossing over the fact that there is substantial evidence that the jabs are in fact problematic.
Regarding said ONS data, there has been some rather pathetic foot-shuffling from the ONS excusing the lack of subsequent data: if what it says is correct (and it is being “improved”), then it begs a couple of question: (1) is the ONS sitting on data yet to be released which could help people make crucial life-or-death decisions and (2) is the existing data that the BBC points to in fact incorrect?
All this is worrying, especially in the context of noted issues with the denominator of ONS data for numbers vaccinated (the ONS has previously claimed 8% are unvaccinated, which contradicts the UKHSA which has the number at closer to 20%, and the BBC’s own large survey which has that same percentage at 26%). I needn’t spell out the fact that if the UKHSA and the BBC’s surveys are closer to the truth, then the denominator would shift substantially and likely push the equivocal ONS data above into territory which looks decidedly tricky for those chanting the “safe and effective” mantra. The ONS is under substantial political pressure to “stick to the narrative” – consider this missive from Ed Humpherson, the Director General for Regulation at the Office for Statistics Regulation, castigating the ONS after it published wholly misleading data, which somewhat shockingly has not been removed. In fact, UKHSA data released in April 2022 indicates that hospitalisation rates of vaccinated people for non-Covid reasons was running at five times the rate of those who had not received the injection.
The introduction of new medicines requires careful monitoring to help regulators ascertain – as quickly as possible – if there are problems. The Bradford Hill Criteria are recognised worldwide as a tool for establishing the possibility of harm. In the absence of omnipotence, since 1965 they have been the “gold standard” (with subsequent improvements as time has gone on) in terms of assessing whether red flags need to be raised: the precautionary principle then applies, the onus then being on the promoter of the novel pharmaceutical or intervention to prove definitively that they are safe.
Bradford Hill criteria are not proof or sufficient condition to ascertain harm, but when applied to observational data, such as the Yellow Card system, they are a highly useful indicator of issues. The MHRA has now received the best part of half a million yellow cards related to the various Covid-related injections. The AstraZeneca one has of course since been phased out in the UK, and many yellow cards were related to that company’s offering. But the mRNA ones are still being “offered”, despite a large body of evidence showing the potential for a link to the blood and lymph systems, and the heart (especially in young males) and to disruption of the menstrual cycle in females (of all the things not to mess with… do we really want to find out in a few years that a generation of women of child-bearing age are permanently affected?). A typical rule of thumb has been that if around five of the Bradford Hill criteria are met, then red flag is raised until they have been investigated further. For these jabs, there is a case to argue that the first nine are all met (and the 10th is essentially difficult to show, as heart damage can be impossible to undo).
Kate Bingham, the vaccine tsar, tasked with procuring these vials, stated back in November 2020: “There’s going to be no vaccination of people under 18. It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable”. This point was emphasised by Reaction back in May 2021 – it is one thing to offer a medical intervention to those over 50 who might be at risk of respiratory disease (and who might be fine with the risk of an adverse effect), but it is a totally different matter to mandate it for younger people who are at essentially zero-risk from Covid.
Every death and adverse effect outside of the intended groups is therefore unacceptable. Both claims in the “safe and effective” mantra are highly suspect. It is high time this programme was fully halted until these worrying warning signals can be fully investigated. Burying our heads in the sand will not do. Establishing facts – and apportioning blame if need be – is a crucial defence against such mistakes being made again. We should have learned more from the 2009 Pandemrix scandal. There is nothing to be gained from shielding the manufacturers and other associated “promoter” of these injections in the face of this weight of evidence.
Safety first. Or, as the song goes, If You Tolerate This, Your Children Will Be Next.
Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at email@example.com