Thursday, 21 October 2021

Comparing all-cause mortality rate by age group: vaccinated v unvaccinated

In a previous article we argued that to determine the overall risk-benefit of Covid-19 vaccines it is crucial to be able to compare the all-cause mortality rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated in each different age category. However, current publicly available UK Government statistics do not include raw data on mortality by age category and vaccination status. Hence, we are unable to make the necessary comparison. In a new paper we explain how we attempted to reverse engineer estimates of mortality by age category and vaccination status from the various relevant public Government datasets; unfortunately, we found numerous discrepancies and inconsistencies which indicate that the Office for National Statistics reports on vaccine effectiveness are grossly underestimating the number of unvaccinated people. Hence, official statistics may be underestimating the mortality rates for vaccinated people in each age category. Although we have not subjected this data to statistical testing, the potential implications of these results on the effects of vaccination on all-cause mortality, and by implication, the future of the vaccination programme is profound.

The new paper 

Martin Neil, Norman Fenton and Scott McLachlan (2021), "Discrepancies and inconsistencies in UK Government datasets compromise accuracy of mortality rate comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated",  [Update: there are errors in this version on ResearchGate). A significantly updated version of the paper is here]


  1. "Office for National Statistics reports on vaccine effectiveness are grossly underestimating the number of unvaccinated people. Hence, official statistics may be underestimating the mortality rates for vaccinated people in each age category."
    Shouldn't it be "overestimating rates in unvaccinated"?

    "it is likely that in many age categories the mortality rate for the unvaccinated will be overestimated (since the ‘denominator’ will be lower than it should be)."

    1. No. The mortality rates for vaccinated in each age category are underestimaed, while the morotality rates for the unvaccinated are overestimated.

    2. Suppose 10 people die out of 10,000 vaccinated - this is 1 in 1000
      But if in reality this was exaggerated and only 8000 were vaccinated in reality, then the death rate is 10 in 8000 or 1 in 800 ie higher.

      Meanwhile, for the unvaccinated, if they say that 10 in 10,000 are dying but if the total of this group was in reality 50% higher, the real death rate would be 10 in 15,000.

      It is easy to 'accidentally on purpose' underestimate the unjabbed as there is no list. It is harder to exaggerate the number jabbed surely as they should know exactly how many they jabbed? The two ways they could overestimate the jabbed are as follows:
      a)accounting errors b) People with access to the database (eg a jabbing chemist) might falsely enter that they jabbed people when they did not, if the person wanted a false record of a jabbing to keep their job. Apparently the going rate in Russia for this is $300 for a doctor to say he gave one when he did not.

  2. I get "forbidden" when I try to open the study via the link "the paper is also here". Thank you!

    1. Try another browser, it might be your current browser thinks that downloading a pdf is 'risky' due to viruses. You could ask a friend to download it and send it in an email attachment.

  3. This post came at the very right time. Thanks for taking time to write this educating post. I have save this post and will come back for new post. Start Up Business Grants

  4. Also quite important: vaccine said to reduce hospitalization and severe illness. But is it less effective at that for those vaxxed > 9 mos. ago?

    Robert Clark

    1. The effectiveness of the vaccines has dropped off dramatically

  5. Nice article I was really impressed seeing this article, it was very interesting and it is very useful for me. You might want to check out spotify discount reddit

  6. Nice article I was really impressed seeing this article, it was very interesting and it is very useful for me. You might want to check out free hats by mail 2021 

  7. cant you do a FOIR to get the data you need?

  8. you say: ''The fundamental problem we noted in our article was that the ONS did not provide this raw data and so it was therefore impossible to verify their ASMR calculations. If we had the raw age-categorized data we would be able to simply compare, for each age category''

    ...could you do a freedom of information request to get this? It seems important to say the least!!

    thnx a lot for your analysis, really helpful.

    Appalling that the Govt is so brazenly cavalier about our health that they haven't thrown a few of Gates millions at analysing this data themselves....

  9. The 1-jab death rate goes from 8.9 to 89. This could be because the aged 50-70 largely failed to turn up for their jabs, therefore the 1-jab group had severe under-representation of ages 50-70. However the ones that did turn up suffered a high death rate. So when age-adjusted, this poorly-represented group 50-70 suddenly 'grew very large' as it was age adjusted, and so did the deaths that this group contained. So it was this age group that made the 3rd column go UP. It is these deaths in this under-represented group that made the death rate go up ten times in the 3rd column. This effect (ie going UP from 2nd-3rd col) completely swamped what was going on with the aged 71-100, which was over-represented and therefore tended to have the effect of making the third column go DOWN compared with the 2nd col. The effects of the 50-70 had more impact (they made final column bigger) than the impact of the age 71-100 (they made the final column smaller)

    And the reason the 2-jab had a low death rate of 14 is because this age group had been partially obliterated by their first dose (ie they were killed and therefore reduced in number). So when they worked out the death rate they assumed there were still a lot more alive than there really were. This would underestimate the death rate. Also, if the first dose killed off the most frail ones, the ones who survived the ordeal and managed to make it to the second dose without dying were the more sturdy ones, and this explains why they did quite well on the 2nd dose - their weaker colleagues had all been eliminated by the trauma of the first dose. So the ones who made it to the 2nd dose were the fit ones.

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  11. From appendix A: "We define a person as ‘vaccinated’ if they have received at least one dose. As we are not
    interested in whether a person becomes a ‘Covid case’, any other definition is flawed as it
    will fail to acknowledge that adverse reactions (including death) from vaccines often occur
    shortly after vaccination."
    So would you sum the 3 'vaccinated to some degree' Age-specific rates per 100,000 and subtract them from the 'unvaccinated' Age-specific rate per 100,000(table 4 in the excel dataset)?
    If that is the case then the cost of vaccination would by far outweigh the benefits in almost all age groups as early as from week 9. That can't be right?

  12. The new version provides an http address that causes errors with browsers ... a better address is

  13. The entire world has been duped by Snake Oil myths and fairy tales.
    The whole virus mantra was formed and based on utter 'Pharma' science.
    Without causing to much mental stress among the masses , here is why the whole endless global virus trope is total PR nonsense.
    A substance was soiled and trashed 120 years ago because it appeared to be a cure when all other treatments failed. This substance is Iodine.
    To date the most lethal substance known to science that kills and destroys all known pathogens, parasites and fungi causing ails is iodine.
    Big Pharma had to rid the world of this mineral so they could patent and sell their own anti this and anti that products. Non, I repeat, non come close to iodine.
    When Big Pharma harp on about ''Super Bugs'' these are simply normal bugs that have become resistant to their useless products.
    95% of people lack iodine. Fighting disease causing bugs with RDA levels of iodine is near impossible unless you adhere to a very strict diet, a diet that feeds your biome and not pathogens.
    As a bench mark for iodine dosing I personally take anything from 25 to 50mg a day!! This is vastly more than the useless RDA suggested intake.
    At these levels I can with 100% confidence drink river and stream water.
    I repeat, no bug, no ''virus'' can survive contact with iodine.
    Never fear a parasite or pathogen. Rather Fear the lies and evil PR of our Bent corporate world.
    thank me later