Why would mortality data by vaccine exposure be withheld from Parliament and Jane/Joe Public?
We do not know the answer; all we can do is formulate hypotheses, flapping in the breeze…………………
In our post …..
we reported that the UKHSA has data on mortality by number of vaccine doses but will not disclose the data, although they shared them with pharmaceutical companies. The reason is simple: commercial in confidence.
Just to be clear, this was the Chief Executive of the UKHSA making the statement to the Health Select Committee. You can watch it here.
Refusal means that the UKHSA reported having the data showing how many people died (in an unspecified time frame, for unspecified reasons) divided by the number of doses of vaccine(s) X Y Z: one, two, three and so on but it is their and pharma’s business, no one else’s.
The statement appears extraordinary (how we have abused this term recently).
Why?
First, it was a throwaway statement, a by-the-bye from the Chief Executive of the UKHSA. The tone of what you would expect from someone you meet in the street who tells you your shoelace is undone.
Select Committee MPs did not react.
Depending on the amount of funding received by the taxpayer (itself a riddle wrapped up in an enigma), it is the equivalent of selling you a car but forbidding you to look under the bonnet.
But here comes the serious stuff.
Why would you stop recipients (those who received one or more doses of X vaccine) or their heirs from accessing these types of data? Honest guv, we do not know the answer; all we can do is formulate some hypotheses.
UKHSA/HMG is forbidden by contract - more of that below
UKHSA/pharma wants to perform some alchemy on the data with the help of Nostradamus
The data show a dose-response effect - the more you are exposed, the more you are likely to cop it
There is no difference between UKHSA or HMG and pharma.
A combination there of
Other reasons (please add).
There may be more, but that is what we can come up with at present. None of these explanations is reassuring to the public, and none of them engenders faith in vaccination—completely the opposite, in fact.
The more you refuse access, the more likely the dark plots with SPECTRE, Blofeld, Sauron and Gates are.
You cannot support both secrecy and vaccination. Requesting data is not a sign of being against drugs or vaccines; it shows that you are in favour of transparency. Those who try to keep data confidential and criticise those who ask for evidence are anti an evidence-based approach.
How can you have informed consent if you do not know exactly what is going on?
It is a wonder to us that these dames and knights do not understand this simple concept.
Hey, wait, do we have precedents for this kind of behaviour?
Alas not very good, going back to 2005-2010. Here is a review based on regulatory and litigation documents of the influenza pandemic vaccines. Remember those? The ones that got rolled out during the 2009 influenza pandemic, if there was such a thing, when it was on the wane.
Some of you may not remember them. If you do not, and have a weak stomach, please do not read the Chapter. Just make sure you have your wallet handy and protected. The review is in the guise of a book chapter. As we do not know how we stand with copyright, we have put it behind a paywall.