Decline the jab

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

Has he provided an interpretation from the different data, or just provided/advised the use of a different set of data?

As to Susan Oliver having a sneering attitude, that is of course subjective - I find her playfully jocular, yet serious at times - also subjective. By the way, have you seen her list of publications (gulp)? That does not make her right of course, but it is still impressive.

---

Not an interpretation but if you look at post #273 and read the quote you will see he recommends the UK HSA.

Problem is, the UK HSA stopped producing the figures in 2022, so the statistically best measure ended and now the only ongoing measures is the ONS one.

The ONS is the most up to date, some may say. However the ONS figure for "ever vaccinated" of 90%+ is still the same as it was a year ago when the UK HSA was 80%.

Here's another example of what happens. Remember back in 2022 the BBC Documentary "Unvaccinated"? Well they used ICM to put together some data for the programme.

Here's the ICM front page.
https://www.icmunlimited.com/our-wor...tions-for-stv/
2570 residents sampled.
1894 ever vaccinated
74%

Click on download, open the spreadsheet, Counts and Percents Tab, B16 and the 664 unvaccinated have all of a sudden been reduced to 207 and magically we have the vaccinated as 92%. Over 400 unvaccinated people have been shunted in to the vaccinated side of the equation.

Look at rows 24 and 25

"All unvaccinated and no further doses" which is essence means I haven't been and never will be.
Row 25 is the polling number
Row 24 is the weighted number.
Column B25 - the actual figure is 825
Column B24 - the weighted figureis 451 - adjusted to better reflect what exactly for the proposes of this analysis.

Look at the background tab, and you can see the explanation of the weighting which is linked back to the ONS Census derived data.

So why do the poll? Because they've done their poll and then weighted it to match precisely the data from the ONS.
ONS that our statistics regulator has already identified as weighted against the unvaccinated.

If weighting, why use the ONS and not the more accurate UK HSA and notice the poll more closely reflected the UK HSA figures so might well have been pretty much on the money.

Some call this weighting. I call it deception.

Continual gerrymandering of what is real until eventually the only figure out there is 92% and then all analysis flowing from that is worth diddly-squat, but it keeps everyone off the Governments, NHS, Sage, Pfizer and Modernas backs and gives 80% of the population reassurance.

When first you practice to deceive...

The UK's Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) 'Finally Admits it Failed to Test the Safety of Mass Manufactured Covid Vaccine Batches"...

'On December 8th 2020, June Raine, Head of the MHRA, assured us all that “no corners have been cut” when the Government gave Temporary Authorisation to the Pfizer Covid vaccine. Based on the evidence from FOIs to MHRA, it’s hard to see how that was an honest statement.'

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/28/...ccine-batches/

Raine actually wrote "Of course, no stone should be left unturned" which is not the same as "no corners have been cut".

I thought her piece was rather elegant but then I am fascinated by corporate discourse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

Raine actually wrote "Of course, no stone should be left unturned" which is not the same as "no corners have been cut".

I thought her piece was rather elegant but then I am fascinated by corporate discourse.

---

Of course, no stone should be left unturned. And that’s why it’s important that we don’t just rely on our own analysis. So, once we have reviewed the data, we seek advice from the Government’s independent advisory body, the Commission on Human Medicines. They critically assess the data too before advising the UK government on the safety, quality and effectiveness of any vaccine.

On 1 December we received a letter from the Department of Health and Social Care asking us to authorise the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine under Regulation 174, an EU provision introduced in national law that allows for the authorisation of a medicine in response to a public health need.

This means that, instead of having to go through the centralised licensing route of the European Medicines Agency (as most vaccines do until the end of the transition period), we were able to authorise the supply of the vaccine based on public health need, provided the batches meet specific conditions laid out by us. For those concerned about this, I can assure you without reservation that the standards we have worked to are equivalent to those around the world – no corners have been cut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

Raine actually wrote "Of course, no stone should be left unturned" which is not the same as "no corners have been cut".

I thought her piece was rather elegant but then I am fascinated by corporate discourse.

---

She actually did write and claim "For those concerned about this, I can assure you without reservation that the standards we have worked to are equivalent to those around the world – no corners have been cut." (emphasis added). See para 14 in the linked article.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/j...st-of-the-west

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Of course, no stone should be left unturned. And that’s why it’s important that we don’t just rely on our own analysis. So, once we have reviewed the data, we seek advice from the Government’s independent advisory body, the Commission on Human Medicines. They critically assess the data too before advising the UK government on the safety, quality and effectiveness of any vaccine.

On 1 December we received a letter from the Department of Health and Social Care asking us to authorise the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine under Regulation 174, an EU provision introduced in national law that allows for the authorisation of a medicine in response to a public health need.

This means that, instead of having to go through the centralised licensing route of the European Medicines Agency (as most vaccines do until the end of the transition period), we were able to authorise the supply of the vaccine based on public health need, provided the batches meet specific conditions laid out by us. For those concerned about this, I can assure you without reservation that the standards we have worked to are equivalent to those around the world – no corners have been cut.

---

Snap :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mossdog

Snap :)

---

Just for everyone, Mossdog is not me, and neither was Khamsin :cool:

This is starting to read like one of Oracle's posts. Just saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mossdog

She actually did write and claim "For those concerned about this, I can assure you without reservation that the standards we have worked to are equivalent to those around the world – no corners have been cut." (emphasis added). See para 14 in the linked article.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/j...st-of-the-west

---

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Here's another example of what happens. Remember back in 2022 the BBC Documentary "Unvaccinated"? Well they used ICM to put together some data for the programme.

Here's the ICM front page.
https://www.icmunlimited.com/our-wor...tions-for-stv/
2570 residents sampled.
1894 ever vaccinated
74%

Click on download, open the spreadsheet, Counts and Percents Tab, B16 and the 664 unvaccinated have all of a sudden been reduced to 207 and magically we have the vaccinated as 92%. Over 400 unvaccinated people have been shunted in to the vaccinated side of the equation.

---

For those of you who are time-short, here is the ICM front page, and below it the spreadsheet they invite you to download with the different unvaccinated figure.


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...86cb314d_b.jpg


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6ea402c8_b.jpg