"The truth is we will probably never know how many vaccinated people did die in those early months of 2021". And that is exactly what they had planned, they have muddied the waters deliberately. Who plans to launch an experimental injection and tries to put it into the arms of every man, woman and child without being able to cover their cowardly backs, no mistakes were made.
You wrote that "the ONS have only admitted to fewer than 2,044 deaths being misclassified". But the email said that 2,044 people were excluded because they died soon after vaccination, so why did you write that it's fewer than 2,044?
The bulletin of the latest August 2023 version of the ONS dataset said: "In rare cases, a vaccination may not be recorded if the person has died soon after vaccination and before the record is entered into the system. We therefore include in our dataset an extract of people who died soon after vaccination and do not have a record in NIMS up to 28 June 2023. There were 1,484 new vaccination entries for people who linked to our 2021 Census-linked dataset who were vaccinated but not included in the NIMS data as their vaccine record was entered after they had died." (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/latest) The February 2023 bulletin included a similar paragraph but it said that 1,027 people were added instead, the July 2022 bulletin said that 1,436 people were added, and the May 2022 bulletin 2,044 people were added.
Did the number later decrease from 2,044 because some people who did not initially have a record in NIMS later had a record added? Or did it decrease because some people who were added in the May 2022 release were no longer included in the linked population in the last two releases that were based on the 2021 census?
---
In any case, the admission by the ONS was not breaking news because they had already admitted the same thing in May 2022. And you and Norman Fenton misrepresented the email as somehow indicating that it vindicated your preprints about the ONS data, even though the ONS had already fixed the error a long time ago and it didn't have much effect on the overall mortality rates in their dataset. The latest edition of the dataset has a total of 986,395 deaths in vaccinated people, so even 2,000 extra deaths doesn't make much difference.
The error didn't explain the various phenomena that you attempted to explain in your preprints, like why unvaccinated people had high non-COVID ASMR in early 2021, why the ASMR of people with n-1 doses shoots up when the nth dose is rolled out, why there is a low number of deaths in the first two weeks after vaccination, and why unvaccinated people continue to have higher ASMR than vaccinated people even during periods with a low number of COVID deaths. All of those phenomena remained in place in the last 4 editions of the ONS dataset even though the error had been fixed.
I think all phenomena can be explained by the healthy vaccinee effect instead, because similar phenomena can be seen in the Czech record-level data, even though it doesn't employ any cheap trick where deaths in recently vaccinated people would be classified as unvaccinated for a certain number of weeks: sars2.net/czech.html#Plot_for_ASMR_by_dose_and_date.
The way you and Fenton et al. presented the email made it seem like the email was an admission that your preprints were right and that the HVE didn't account for the anomalies you identified. And the screenshot of the email went semi-viral, because people were excited by the secret redacted email where the ONS said that Clare Craig was right about something. But I think people wouldn't have been as excited if you just showed them a screenshot of the ONS bulletin from May 2022 which said essentially the same thing as the email, but which additionally showed that the issue affected only 1,393 linked people.
You didn't initially show the second email which you included in this post and in the original version of this post in HART's blog, and the second email was not included in the Substack post by Where are the Numbers either, so your readers weren't able to tell that the issue the ONS was talking about only affected about 1000-2000 people. So some of your readers might have misunderstood the scope of the issue and thought that it would explain why for example unvaccinated people had a large increase in non-COVID ASMR in early 2021.
And also you also didn't make it clear enough that the ONS had already fixed the issue and written about it in their bulletins. If you knew that the figure of 2,044 people that was featured in the second email had also been mentioned in the May 2022 bulletin, you should've mentioned it in this post.
The data is 'muddied' at source owing to the PCR test - it was/is being used to identify/ diagnose a 'case' of a virus labelled 'Covid-19'. The phrase "high non-COVID ASMR" is meaningless as is "..a low number of COVID deaths". How can any number of the deaths between 2020-2022 be attributed to the virus labelled Covid-19 when the virus was never physically isolated? It wasn't 'novel', it didn't have unique symptoms. The list of symptoms on the NHS website were those typical of colds, and Whitty said for most people ( healthy, no co morbidity, younger age ranges) it would be a mild illness. He even said early in 2020 that the virus wasn't severe enough to warrant fast tracked vaccines!
Serious adverse reactions/deaths from the 'vaccines' have to be looked at as a separate issue, not part of the whole alleged 'Covid-19' thing. That is not to deny a flu like illness/ virus did the rounds, and, old people or those vulnerable in health can die after catching a cold. Societies have never shut down nor rolled out 'vaccines' for almost the entire age ranges.....yet, this was done for a respiratory virus ( they circulate the globe with regularity) they called 'Covid -19'.
All this data from the ONS is deliberate obfuscation, and no comparisons with other countries make any sense either because their data is compromised as well. How do you even know that the ONS had "already fixed the error"? The ONS is the Establishment's 'shield' and will do what it is told to do. There has to be trust and respect in an 'authority' for its data to be believed or relied upon.
And the screenshot of the second email that is included in this Substack post said: "There were 2,044 people who had been excluded because they died shortly after vaccination. We have now added them to our monthly mortality rates by vaccination status, and included them in our analysis of vaccine safety in young people, which will be published tomorrow."
I forgot to ask from Clare Craig or whoever runs this blog: what was the date of the second email? I think it's vital information which you omitted from this post. You made it seem as if it was some kind of news that ONS had admitted the error, even though they already admitted it in their bulletin in May 2022.
(BTW In my previous comment I said that there were 2,044 deaths added in the May 2022 release, but I guess it was only 1,393 if all people were not linked.)
Actually the bulletin for the 6th release of the ONS dataset on May 2022 said: "In rare cases, a vaccination may not be recorded if the person has died soon after vaccination and before the record is entered into the system. We therefore include in our dataset an extract of people who died soon after vaccination and do not have a record in NIMS up to 15 February 2022. There were 2,044 people who were vaccinated but not included in the NIMS data as their vaccine record was entered after they had died. Of these, 1,393 linked to our PHDA dataset."
The bulletin for the 7th release in July 2022 said: "In rare cases, a vaccination may not be recorded if the person has died soon after vaccination and before the record is entered into the system. We therefore include in our dataset an extract of people who died soon after vaccination and do not have a record in NIMS up to 25 May 2022. There were 1,436 people who linked to our PHDA dataset who were vaccinated but not included in the NIMS data as their vaccine record was entered after they had died." The reason why the number of added people increased by 91 could've been because there was now about 4 months more data, or it could've also been if more deaths had been registered after a registration delay.
The bulletin for the 8th release in February 2023 said: "In rare cases, a vaccination may not be recorded if the person has died soon after vaccination and before the record is entered into the system. We therefore include in our dataset an extract of people who died soon after vaccination and do not have a record in NIMS up to 1 November 2022. There were 1,027 new vaccination entries for people who linked to our Census 2021 linked dataset who were vaccinated but not included in the NIMS data as their vaccine record was entered after they had died." The wording had now been changed so that the paragraph said "There were 1,027 new vaccination entries", so I don't know if it also included the previously added vaccination entries or only new entries.
The bulletin for the 9th release in August 2023 said: "In rare cases, a vaccination may not be recorded if the person has died soon after vaccination and before the record is entered into the system. We therefore include in our dataset an extract of people who died soon after vaccination and do not have a record in NIMS up to 28 June 2023. There were 1,484 new vaccination entries for people who linked to our 2021 Census-linked dataset who were vaccinated but not included in the NIMS data as their vaccine record was entered after they had died." It again said that there were "1,484 new vaccination entries".
I don't know if the total number of added entries should be calculated together by adding the figures in the last 3 releases (1436+1027+1484), last 4 releases (1393+1436+1027+1484), or only the last release (1484). I think the option of last 3 releases is most likely, because the wording seems to have changed between the 7th and 8th releases so that the figure in the 8th release seemed to include only new added vaccination entries and not total added entries. And I don't think there would've been 1,436 new vaccination entries added between the 6th and 7th releases if there were only 2,044 total entries added in the 6th release since the start of the data. But the time interval between the 8th and 9th releases was much longer than the time inteval between the 6th and 7th releases.
But in any case, it could be that some of the missing vaccination entries were for second or further doses, so some of the added vaccination entries didn't necessarily turn unvaccinated deaths into vaccinated deaths but they could've turned deaths in people with one dose into deaths in people with two doses or deaths in people with three doses into deaths in people with four doses. In fact that's probably the case if there were 1,484 new vaccination entries added in the final August 2023 release, because there were no longer that many new people who got a first dose in 2023 so that 1,484 additional deaths in unvaccinated people could've been classified as deaths in vaccinated people.
Or actually I changed my mind again, because the reason why the figure for the added vaccination records was lower in the 8th release than the 7th release could've been because the 8th release was missing deaths in the first 3 months of 2021, because the 8th release was the first release that was based on the 2021 census so it was missing the first three months of 2021.
If the figure of 1,027 given in the 8th release would've only included new records that had been added since the 7th release and not total added records since the start of the dataset, I would've expected the ONS to have indicated it more clearly or to also have mentioned the total number of added records since the start of the dataset.
"The truth is we will probably never know how many vaccinated people did die in those early months of 2021". And that is exactly what they had planned, they have muddied the waters deliberately. Who plans to launch an experimental injection and tries to put it into the arms of every man, woman and child without being able to cover their cowardly backs, no mistakes were made.
it will be decades before we will know how many of those people definitely died from the vaccine and can't be attributed to anything else.....
all been coveredup by all parties
2mil dead extrapelation from dutch study
Do you mean *before* or *after* the coming WW3?
theytried to get me lastcristmas 'our records sayi haveyettoo get 1 shot invever did fall forthe fraudso nerverhadone
goodluck
Lies, damned lies, and statistics ...
You wrote that "the ONS have only admitted to fewer than 2,044 deaths being misclassified". But the email said that 2,044 people were excluded because they died soon after vaccination, so why did you write that it's fewer than 2,044?
The bulletin of the latest August 2023 version of the ONS dataset said: "In rare cases, a vaccination may not be recorded if the person has died soon after vaccination and before the record is entered into the system. We therefore include in our dataset an extract of people who died soon after vaccination and do not have a record in NIMS up to 28 June 2023. There were 1,484 new vaccination entries for people who linked to our 2021 Census-linked dataset who were vaccinated but not included in the NIMS data as their vaccine record was entered after they had died." (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/latest) The February 2023 bulletin included a similar paragraph but it said that 1,027 people were added instead, the July 2022 bulletin said that 1,436 people were added, and the May 2022 bulletin 2,044 people were added.
Did the number later decrease from 2,044 because some people who did not initially have a record in NIMS later had a record added? Or did it decrease because some people who were added in the May 2022 release were no longer included in the linked population in the last two releases that were based on the 2021 census?
---
In any case, the admission by the ONS was not breaking news because they had already admitted the same thing in May 2022. And you and Norman Fenton misrepresented the email as somehow indicating that it vindicated your preprints about the ONS data, even though the ONS had already fixed the error a long time ago and it didn't have much effect on the overall mortality rates in their dataset. The latest edition of the dataset has a total of 986,395 deaths in vaccinated people, so even 2,000 extra deaths doesn't make much difference.
The error didn't explain the various phenomena that you attempted to explain in your preprints, like why unvaccinated people had high non-COVID ASMR in early 2021, why the ASMR of people with n-1 doses shoots up when the nth dose is rolled out, why there is a low number of deaths in the first two weeks after vaccination, and why unvaccinated people continue to have higher ASMR than vaccinated people even during periods with a low number of COVID deaths. All of those phenomena remained in place in the last 4 editions of the ONS dataset even though the error had been fixed.
I think all phenomena can be explained by the healthy vaccinee effect instead, because similar phenomena can be seen in the Czech record-level data, even though it doesn't employ any cheap trick where deaths in recently vaccinated people would be classified as unvaccinated for a certain number of weeks: sars2.net/czech.html#Plot_for_ASMR_by_dose_and_date.
You have answered your own question about why we said "fewer".
We made no claim that the ONS excuse accounted for the discrepancies. It does not. That is the point.
The way you and Fenton et al. presented the email made it seem like the email was an admission that your preprints were right and that the HVE didn't account for the anomalies you identified. And the screenshot of the email went semi-viral, because people were excited by the secret redacted email where the ONS said that Clare Craig was right about something. But I think people wouldn't have been as excited if you just showed them a screenshot of the ONS bulletin from May 2022 which said essentially the same thing as the email, but which additionally showed that the issue affected only 1,393 linked people.
You didn't initially show the second email which you included in this post and in the original version of this post in HART's blog, and the second email was not included in the Substack post by Where are the Numbers either, so your readers weren't able to tell that the issue the ONS was talking about only affected about 1000-2000 people. So some of your readers might have misunderstood the scope of the issue and thought that it would explain why for example unvaccinated people had a large increase in non-COVID ASMR in early 2021.
And also you also didn't make it clear enough that the ONS had already fixed the issue and written about it in their bulletins. If you knew that the figure of 2,044 people that was featured in the second email had also been mentioned in the May 2022 bulletin, you should've mentioned it in this post.
The data is 'muddied' at source owing to the PCR test - it was/is being used to identify/ diagnose a 'case' of a virus labelled 'Covid-19'. The phrase "high non-COVID ASMR" is meaningless as is "..a low number of COVID deaths". How can any number of the deaths between 2020-2022 be attributed to the virus labelled Covid-19 when the virus was never physically isolated? It wasn't 'novel', it didn't have unique symptoms. The list of symptoms on the NHS website were those typical of colds, and Whitty said for most people ( healthy, no co morbidity, younger age ranges) it would be a mild illness. He even said early in 2020 that the virus wasn't severe enough to warrant fast tracked vaccines!
Serious adverse reactions/deaths from the 'vaccines' have to be looked at as a separate issue, not part of the whole alleged 'Covid-19' thing. That is not to deny a flu like illness/ virus did the rounds, and, old people or those vulnerable in health can die after catching a cold. Societies have never shut down nor rolled out 'vaccines' for almost the entire age ranges.....yet, this was done for a respiratory virus ( they circulate the globe with regularity) they called 'Covid -19'.
All this data from the ONS is deliberate obfuscation, and no comparisons with other countries make any sense either because their data is compromised as well. How do you even know that the ONS had "already fixed the error"? The ONS is the Establishment's 'shield' and will do what it is told to do. There has to be trust and respect in an 'authority' for its data to be believed or relied upon.
The May 2022 bulletin by the ONS said that they had fixed the error: "In rare cases, a vaccination may not be recorded if the person has died soon after vaccination and before the record is entered into the system. We therefore include in our dataset an extract of people who died soon after vaccination and do not have a record in NIMS up to 15 February 2022. There were 2,044 people who were vaccinated but not included in the NIMS data as their vaccine record was entered after they had died. Of these, 1,393 linked to our PHDA dataset." (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween1january2021and31march2022)
And the screenshot of the second email that is included in this Substack post said: "There were 2,044 people who had been excluded because they died shortly after vaccination. We have now added them to our monthly mortality rates by vaccination status, and included them in our analysis of vaccine safety in young people, which will be published tomorrow."
I forgot to ask from Clare Craig or whoever runs this blog: what was the date of the second email? I think it's vital information which you omitted from this post. You made it seem as if it was some kind of news that ONS had admitted the error, even though they already admitted it in their bulletin in May 2022.
(BTW In my previous comment I said that there were 2,044 deaths added in the May 2022 release, but I guess it was only 1,393 if all people were not linked.)
Actually the bulletin for the 6th release of the ONS dataset on May 2022 said: "In rare cases, a vaccination may not be recorded if the person has died soon after vaccination and before the record is entered into the system. We therefore include in our dataset an extract of people who died soon after vaccination and do not have a record in NIMS up to 15 February 2022. There were 2,044 people who were vaccinated but not included in the NIMS data as their vaccine record was entered after they had died. Of these, 1,393 linked to our PHDA dataset."
The bulletin for the 7th release in July 2022 said: "In rare cases, a vaccination may not be recorded if the person has died soon after vaccination and before the record is entered into the system. We therefore include in our dataset an extract of people who died soon after vaccination and do not have a record in NIMS up to 25 May 2022. There were 1,436 people who linked to our PHDA dataset who were vaccinated but not included in the NIMS data as their vaccine record was entered after they had died." The reason why the number of added people increased by 91 could've been because there was now about 4 months more data, or it could've also been if more deaths had been registered after a registration delay.
The bulletin for the 8th release in February 2023 said: "In rare cases, a vaccination may not be recorded if the person has died soon after vaccination and before the record is entered into the system. We therefore include in our dataset an extract of people who died soon after vaccination and do not have a record in NIMS up to 1 November 2022. There were 1,027 new vaccination entries for people who linked to our Census 2021 linked dataset who were vaccinated but not included in the NIMS data as their vaccine record was entered after they had died." The wording had now been changed so that the paragraph said "There were 1,027 new vaccination entries", so I don't know if it also included the previously added vaccination entries or only new entries.
The bulletin for the 9th release in August 2023 said: "In rare cases, a vaccination may not be recorded if the person has died soon after vaccination and before the record is entered into the system. We therefore include in our dataset an extract of people who died soon after vaccination and do not have a record in NIMS up to 28 June 2023. There were 1,484 new vaccination entries for people who linked to our 2021 Census-linked dataset who were vaccinated but not included in the NIMS data as their vaccine record was entered after they had died." It again said that there were "1,484 new vaccination entries".
I don't know if the total number of added entries should be calculated together by adding the figures in the last 3 releases (1436+1027+1484), last 4 releases (1393+1436+1027+1484), or only the last release (1484). I think the option of last 3 releases is most likely, because the wording seems to have changed between the 7th and 8th releases so that the figure in the 8th release seemed to include only new added vaccination entries and not total added entries. And I don't think there would've been 1,436 new vaccination entries added between the 6th and 7th releases if there were only 2,044 total entries added in the 6th release since the start of the data. But the time interval between the 8th and 9th releases was much longer than the time inteval between the 6th and 7th releases.
But in any case, it could be that some of the missing vaccination entries were for second or further doses, so some of the added vaccination entries didn't necessarily turn unvaccinated deaths into vaccinated deaths but they could've turned deaths in people with one dose into deaths in people with two doses or deaths in people with three doses into deaths in people with four doses. In fact that's probably the case if there were 1,484 new vaccination entries added in the final August 2023 release, because there were no longer that many new people who got a first dose in 2023 so that 1,484 additional deaths in unvaccinated people could've been classified as deaths in vaccinated people.
Or actually I changed my mind again, because the reason why the figure for the added vaccination records was lower in the 8th release than the 7th release could've been because the 8th release was missing deaths in the first 3 months of 2021, because the 8th release was the first release that was based on the 2021 census so it was missing the first three months of 2021.
If the figure of 1,027 given in the 8th release would've only included new records that had been added since the 7th release and not total added records since the start of the dataset, I would've expected the ONS to have indicated it more clearly or to also have mentioned the total number of added records since the start of the dataset.