1.We showed ONS England data from November did NOT support vaccine efficacy claims. The ONS’s December report claims anomalies we identified are caused by healthy vaccinee effect.

We examined the new ONS data and found NO evidence to support this claim: dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.…
2. The healthy vaccinee effect occurs when people closer to death are too ill to be vaccinated and so become concentrated in a shrinking unvaccinated population, thus increasing the group’s mortality rate.
3. NHS recommended that the most critically ill people be prioritised for vaccination in each age group.

However, the ONS not only contradict NHS guidance but also contradict themselves in their own report:
4. If the ONS are right then we would see:

a) The percentage of the unvaccinated in poor health rise as vaccine rollout progresses

b) A steady non-Covid mortality rate among the unhealthy (because they are dying at same rate as they always have done).
5. To support their claim the ONS released the percentage of 70-79 age group with "very poor" health in each vaccination category.

Oddly, the vaccinated population contains a higher percentage of those in very poor health and this increases over time.
6. Surprisingly the unvaccinated population has the LOWEST concentration of the unhealthy and the percentage declines over time.
7. In this unhealthy sub-population we found the non-Covid mortality rate for the unvaccinated is HIGHER than for the vaccinated. Both rates should be equivalent

Again, we see unnatural spikes in non-Covid mortality just after vaccine roll out as seen before in whole population
8. Therefore, those in poorest health were NOT more likely to remain unvaccinated.

Also, there is a rise in non-Covid mortality, coincidental with vaccine rollout that is not only seen in the population as a whole but is also seen in those with the poorest health.
9. We conclude that healthy vaccine effect cannot explain the anomalies we discovered in the ONS data and believe it is up to advocates for this hypothesis to now prove their case using the released data.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Prof Martin Neil

Prof Martin Neil Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MartinNeil9

5 Dec 21
Delighted to learn that @_johnbye has brought to light yet another concern about the reliability of the UK @ONS mortality surveillance data.
Although we rejected the hypothesis he raises because, as we wrote in our paper, there is no indication of people not being vaccinated because they were "too ill" or infirm -- if anything just the opposite.
After all, the most vulnerable were prioritised in the vaccination campaign. But whatever the ultimate explanation for the anomalies we uncovered, we trust @_johnbye will support our call for @ONS to release the underlying data so that researchers can sort things out
Read 5 tweets
3 Dec 21
1.Our research team have now analysed the ONS England November mortality data. We conclude that despite seeming evidence to support vaccine effectiveness this conclusion is doubtful because of a range of serious inconsistencies and anomalies.

See: dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.…
2.The data appear to show lower non-Covid mortality for the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. Odd. Also unvaccinated mortality rates peak at the same time as the vaccine rollout peaks for the age group, then falls and closes in on the vaccinated. This is not natural
3. Consider what we are witnessing here. We have a vaccine whose recipients are suffering fewer non-covid deaths and hence are benefitting from improved mortality. And the mortality rates look to differ significantly from historical norms, as evidenced in mortality lifetables.
Read 15 tweets
19 Mar 21
1.The BMJ have kindly published my ‘raid response’ about single gene target testing in the UK.

bmj.com/content/372/bm…

From Sept 2020 to March 2021 up to 38% UK Covid-19 positive cases have only found a single ‘target gene', rather than the two or more required.
2. The maximum percentage reported using ‘single gene’ calls was 65%, in the East of England in October 2020, and for period 1 March 2021 50% of positives in the North East and 56% of positives in Scotland were called on single target genes only.
3. Without diagnostic validation, for both the original virus and any variants, it is not clear what can be concluded from a positive test resulting from a single target gene call, especially if there was no confirmatory testing.
Read 6 tweets
25 Feb 21
1. From Sept 2020 to Jan 2021 up to 35% UK Covid-19 positive cases have only found a single ‘target gene', rather than the two or more required by the PCR kit manufacturer and the WHO. Positive cases may therefore be inconclusive, negative, or caused by competing pathogens.
2. The maximum percentage reported using ‘single gene’ calls is 81%, in London in the week beginning 21 December. In Wales it is 48%, in Northern Ireland it is 47% and in Scotland it is 49%, over the period Sept 2020-Jan 2021.
3. Clear shift in testing policy around mid-November, coincident with the reported significant increase in transmission of the new variant B1.1.7 in South East region of UK. Presence of new variant cannot explain why percentage of target gene calls increased in other regions.
Read 7 tweets
26 Oct 20
@MichaelYeadon3 @FatEmperor @ClareCraigPath @DrLeeJones @carlhenegha @BallouxFrancois
@ProfKarolSikora

1. On 19th March the UK 4 nations public health HCID group made a decision that COVID-19 is NOT a high consequence infectious disease (HCID): gov.uk/guidance/high-…
@MichaelYeadon3 @FatEmperor @ClareCraigPath @DrLeeJones @carlhenegha @BallouxFrancois
@ProfKarolSikora

2. Note this important statement: "The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID."
@MichaelYeadon3 @FatEmperor @ClareCraigPath @DrLeeJones @carlhenegha @BallouxFrancois
@ProfKarolSikora

3. In the UK an HCID is defined as an acute infectious disease, with high case-fatality rate requires an enhanced individual, population and system response.
Read 10 tweets
26 Oct 20
1. On 19th March the UK 4 nations public health HCID group made a decision that COVID-19 is NOT a high consequence infectious disease (HCID):

gov.uk/guidance/high-…
2. Note this important statement: "The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID."
3. In the UK an HCID is defined as an acute infectious disease, has a high case-fatality rate and requires an enhanced individual, population and system response. COVID-19 is NOT on the government list of high consequence infectious diseases (HCID).
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(