This post was originally published on 26 August at plagueonbothhouses.com where you can read more of Rusere’s work.
“I am alone, I thought, and they are everybody.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Reliable data analysis of vaccine efficacy is highly dependent on reliable estimates of the population of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people. Professor Norman Fenton, a mathematician by training and Professor of Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London, has been looking into this for some time now. On 12th August, he released a short bombshell of a video that puts yet another nail in the coffin of the UK Government’s vaccine data analysis.
In the UK, Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures claim that the proportion of unvaccinated people in the adult population is a mere 8%. However, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) figures show the proportion of unvaccinated adults to be around 20%. That’s a large discrepancy, and it matters because any understatement of the unvaccinated population has the effect of overstating the mortality and illness stats in that group when compared with the vaccinated. And that, in turn, has fuelled reckless statements by government officials, amplified in the media, about ‘pandemics of the unvaccinated’. We now know the opposite to be true.
Unsurprisingly, the 8% claim is the accepted figure for all propagators of the official narrative. With its unfavourable distorting effect on the statistics for the unvaccinated, it sharpens the blade wielded by the Covidian cult to hack away at those who have decided to opt out of the global mRNA experiment. The UK’s chief propagandist, the BBC, ran with the 8% figure in its promotion of a TV programme aired in July about ‘the unvaccinated’ — those miscreants who have been causing the puritanical inquisitors at the Beeb to rend their garments in anguish.
Fronted by Professor Hannah Fry, this hit piece disguised as ‘documentary’ was premised on the BBC inviting seven unvaccinated adults to a hotel to condescendingly “help them see the light”, as a programme reviewer put it.
To understand the BBC’s trademark blend of professional-managerial-class arrogance and stupidity you only have to read one sentence about the programme from its Science Commissioning editor, no less:
“With Covid infections on the rise again, there couldn’t be a more important time to examine the reasons why so many are still not getting the vaccine.”Tom Coveney, BBC Commissioning Editor, Science.
Does Mr Coveney detect no irony in covid infections being on the rise in a highly vaccinated population? Has he not unwittingly hinted at the utter uselessness of the ‘vaccine’ and therefore answered his own question? Is the Commissioning Editor of Science unaware that the covid ‘vaccines’ do not prevent infection or that the vaccine trials were not designed to find out if they would prevent transmission, a fundamental endpoint for any vaccine? Might this minor detail represent but one of many factors that contributed to the decision of ‘so many’ to give these ‘vaccines’ a wide berth?
Is Mr Coveney aware that there is a mountain of evidence that ‘vaccines’ are not just useless, but predispose you to getting covid, with rates of infection highest in the triple vaccinated who are dutifully following Government and BBC advice to get boosted? That’s before we take account of the evidence that these ‘vaccines’ increase the risk of conditions such as heart damage (see also here and here). Why would I subject myself to BBC re-education when a group of doctors in the UK have concluded that the “latest data [on potential heart damage in young people] brings the decision to continue with this [covid vaccine] program into the more serious realm of malfeasance”?
Why would I do anything other than laugh scornfully at BBC brainwashing when there is now compelling evidence from research in the US and Sweden confirming what I instinctively knew from a cursory risk-benefit analysis before the ‘vaccines’ were rolled out – that the ‘vaccines’ are more likely to put you in hospital with a serious adverse event than keep you out of hospital by protecting you from Covid?
How do you get to be a commissioning editor of science at the august BBC and remain blissfully ignorant of these salient facts? I actually don’t have the slightest problem with Mr Coveney swimming gleefully in his cesspool of ignorance. All I ask is that the Gollums at the BBC refrain from crawling out of the dark cave they have made for themselves with the express purpose of dragging me into it to satisfy their need for false safety in numbers. In the same way that I respect the pious BBC cult’s right to enthusiastically offer up their bodies to pharmaceutical experimentation to further the cause of “The Science” and profits, I wish they would quietly respect my right not to.
Again, I want to stress that I don’t object to Mr Coveney’s and Ms Fry’s ignorance about the dangers of the covid ‘vaccines’. To be human is to be ignorant about something or other. But I do object to the most dangerous form of ignorance displayed by the BBC – that which insists that others must join in, by force if necessary.
In any event, while trying to “gently educate” the great unvaxxed, the BBC has inadvertently revealed the true proportion of unvaccinated to be at least 20%. Professor Fenton explains how the BBC was hoist with its own petard.
In the propaganda hit-piece, the BBC’s Hannah Fry boasts of having “commissioned the largest UK-wide survey since the vaccine roll-out including over 2,500 people of which more than 600 are unvaccinated”. Whoops, let’s just rewind that…yep, 24% unvaccinated. And this is the UK adult population, not the total population, which would return a much higher percentage of unvaccinated. Okay, so maybe the survey is not representative of the UK adult population. Professor Fenton kicked the tyres on this by looking at the dataset published on the website of the company that conducted the survey. (The survey itself was carried out between 27 April and 2 May 2022.) And it turns out the survey demographics are very much in line with the national demographic profile reflected in the ONS data. Moreover, the precise survey numbers are 664 unvaccinated out of a sample total of 2,570 – 26% unvaccinated.
It gets even more interesting because the survey results get adjusted to bring the demographic composition into line with the national ONS demographic profile. This is not problematic because the survey demographic is already very well aligned to the ONS national profile. So, adjustments to the survey results for things like age, sex and social grouping don’t end up having a material effect on the result of the survey demographic composition. All good so far.
Here’s where we enter the grey zone. In the final cut of the survey report numbers, the one figure from the sample that should have been left untouched – the total unvaccinated number of 664 – gets whacked down to 216 (8% of the total sample of 2,570) in order to align it with the ONS estimated percentage of 8%. This is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, the survey sample is highly representative of the UK demographic. This suggests that the unvaccinated survey result of 664 is a reliable proxy for estimating the proportion of unvaccinated people in the wider population. Secondly, the ONS number is contested, not least because it conflicts with other UK government data, namely that from the UKHSA, which reflects a proportion of 20% unvaccinated.
So, it looks as though the survey sample has acted as an audit of the dubious ONS 8% unvaccinated proportion, with the result that the ONS figure has been found wanting. The question then is: why would the BBC just scrub out the 26% unvaccinated figure from its survey sample and pretend it never happened? The answer of course is that The ScienceÔ (or more precisely, The Statistics) is simply a means to a political end. Other inconvenient survey components also get mysteriously scaled down in the production of the final cut for the report. For example, the actual number of people who reported either never having been vaccinated or having decided to never get another dose is 825, or 32% of the total. That number is mysteriously halved in the weighting process.
Professor Fenton’s conclusion:
“I think that we can now safely conclude that the ONS claim of 8% of UK adult population of unvaccinated is a massive underestimate. I’m pretty sure now that it is at least 20%. What this means is that all of the analyses which claims effectiveness and safety of the vaccine based on the ONS estimates of the proportion of unvaccinated to vaccinated are biased. They are massively overestimating the covid rate and the fatality rate of the unvaccinated compared to the vaccinated.” [emphasis added]
Science, statistics, propaganda and technocracy
For me, one key take-home from Professor Fenton’s exposé of the BBC’s latest propaganda stunt is that science and statistics are simply tools. Like all tools they are subject to good-faith use and bad-faith abuse. A hammer in the hands of a reliable builder will dependably drive nails into floorboards. But hammers are also used by thieves to smash car windows. The BBC is a propaganda machine, and a statistic placed anywhere in a BBC narrative is guilty until proven innocent.
Vaccinated versus unvaccinated statistics have been wielded as a tool in an information war where the unvaccinated have been comprehensively dehumanised as a tiny minority of deviant ignoramuses and scapegoated as a threat to society greater than Al Qaeda and Isis. Statistics have been abused in bad faith to gaslight the unvaccinated into believing that they are part of a triflingly small band of idiots, trifling enough that no-one would miss them if the majority decided to dispense with them. At the height of the spittle-flecked fury directed at the unvaxxed, the message of Fleet Street Fox and other hateful demagogues was clear – it would be wise for the unvaccinated to wave a white flag in the battle to retain sovereignty over their bodies. And, paradoxically, science under the banner of progressivism was enlisted for this hate campaign.
It is quite conceivable that a society in thrall to a data-driven technocracy could dispense with 25% of its population on the grounds that this ‘backward’ segment refuses to bow to the diktats of biomedical technocracy and is therefore impeding society’s Great Leap Forward to technocratic utopia. It’s been done before, and we don’t appear to have learned many lessons.
From a moral standpoint, it doesn’t matter how small a group is in any determination, science-based or otherwise, to commit crimes against it. If killing is wrong, then a single murder cannot be swept under the rug on the grounds that one is a small number. We know this to be true because that’s how our criminal justice system works. And yet perversely, if the crowd goes mad as it did recently, killing or severe marginalisation of huge numbers could be overlooked as a mere expediency on the journey to AI/technocratic/biomedical utopia.
It is this perversity that has in fact come to characterise the atrocities committed under the pretence of saving lives. Whether through destructive lockdowns, a global mountain of vaccine injuries and deaths or through the concerted efforts of the mass media to dehumanise and marginalise huge numbers of unvaccinated people, the Western world now seems hell-bent on resurrecting Stalin as its lodestar. For it was Stalin who pointed out that one death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic. Not only does there seem to be a direct relationship between the enormity of crimes and the tolerance for them, but the science, or more accurately the art, of statistics has been recruited to launder these crimes.
The West has replaced God with Science as the moral determinant of all things good and pure. But science is a slave to human ideology, and the ideology of technocracy is gaining ascendancy. This is the idea that the entire universe, including humanity itself, is mechanistic and should be ruthlessly controlled by data-augmented technology. Thus, statistical rules can be written to decree that if a group of troublesome people comprising less than [insert an arbitrary percentage that the public will accept as trifling…like…oh, I don’t know, 8%], then that group can be dispensed with for the greater good of the remaining [insert the percentage of the majority in the ‘right’]. There’s just one small problem for the technocratic ideologues suffering from narcissistic control-freakery – neither nature nor humanity are machines to be controlled, and to treat them as such is opening the door to our destruction.
There is another important message from Professor Fenton’s debunking of the BBC’s claims and the message is this: to those who stood firm and refused to be swept up in the madness of the crowd – you are not alone; the crowd is not everybody.