This reply from the ONS will make you smile

10/10 for trying to them but it still made my day

Received a reply in the e-mail exchange with the Office for National Statistics:

The results referred to are specifically looking at deaths after vaccination. Changes in excess deaths in the weekly reports are observed without considering vaccination status and therefore cannot be causally attributed to vaccinations from these reports alone. The work we undertook, and continue to look into further, looks specifically into whether there is a causal link between vaccination and increased risk of death soon after. To do this we compared mortality risk soon after vaccination to later after vaccination. We found no evidence for a link between vaccination and a rise in the risk of death.

I hope this clarifies,

So I’ve answered back:

“Thank you for the reply - I am going to keep it for posterity. It made me smile.

Do you wish some information, links, data and statistical analysis reports of death rates before and after the start of the mass “covid vaccination” programmes including many that were done on the ONS’s own officially released data to help your investigations? Just ask and I will supply them to yourself or your superiors.

I also understand about correlation and causality and with specific reference to the “covid vaccinations” there are 2 major issues - I do understand that it is not the ONS’s remit to force Government to amend or demand certain post-mortem tests to be carried out - and without them being addressed then no link can be confirmed nor denied between the person’s death and the “covid vaccination” and it is just a case of none so blind as those who do not want to see and which until these issues are addressed your statement "We found no evidence for a link between vaccination and a rise in the risk of death.” is totally meaningless.

To expand on this, this country is a signatory through the European Medicines Agency to this agreement:

https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E6_R2_Addendum.pdf

Section 1.1 states:

1.1 Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) In the pre-approval clinical experience with a new medicinal product or its new usages, particularly as the therapeutic dose(s) may not be established: all noxious and unintended responses to a medicinal product related to any dose should be considered adverse drug reactions. The phrase responses to a medicinal product means that a causal relationship between a medicinal product and an adverse event is at least a reasonable possibility, i.e., the relationship cannot be ruled out. Regarding marketed medicinal products: a response to a drug which is noxious and unintended and which occurs at doses normally used in man for prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy of diseases or for modification of physiological function (see the ICH Guideline for Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting).

So in other words - with experimental medicines err on the side of caution and assume the problem was caused by the drug unless or until proven otherwise.

The “covid vaccinations” are under Emergency Use Approval only, have no marketing approval, no full product licence issued, have had only 3-6 months of trials performed which were then truncated and unblinded in a rush to get the mass vaccination programme started, required the UK legislation to be changed so that it was now legal in use them on the population without a Public Assessment Report being written and published and these were unavailable due to the lack of a completed safety trial.

So this classifies the “covid vaccinations” as experimental doesn’t it?

So the default position according to out obligations under the ICH agreement is that the vaccination the person received is to blame UNTIL it is shown this is not the case.

But how do you prove it is not the vaccination the person received that is to blame for their death?

You cannot just take the doctor’s word for it can you?

But this is what the coroners and others in authority are doing.

You cannot just take the vaccine manufacturer’s word for it can you?

But authorities have done just this without any further questions.

You analyse the long-term 5-10 year safety trial data.

Oh there isn’t any.

You perform a post-mortem and before certain tests that can show if a vaccination caused or contributed to a person’s death.

Oh but these tests are not being run on the few post-mortems that  are being carried out.

Why not?

These tests have been carried out in limited numbers of autopsies in Germany and are now colloquially known as the Burkhardt Protocols.

Here is a link to his research:

Bhakdi/Burkhardt pathology results show 93% of people who died after being vaccinated were killed by the vaccine

Here is a quote:

Fifteen bodies were examined (all died from 7 days to 6 months after vaccination; ages 28 to 95). The coroner or the public prosecutor didn’t associate the vaccine as the cause of death in any of the cases. However, further examination revealed that the vaccine was implicated in the deaths of 14 of the 15 cases. The most attacked organ was the heart 

When the Burkhardt Protocols.are carried out during significant and sufficient numbers of post-mortem examinations to gather an adequate data set of information then and only then can your statement "We found no evidence for a link between vaccination and a rise in the risk of death.” be considered valid and true.

As I stated above, feel free to ask me for any links to support my claims so that the ONS (or you personally) can research this subject for yourselves rather than just taking my brief comments on the subject at either face value or as nonsense.”

Wonder what they will come back with, if anything.