 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
The UK Statistics Regulator has confirmed, in writing, that data published by the Office for National Statistics (“ONS”) cannot be used in support of the “safe and effective” narrative.
“Many researchers and news organisations have made claims of vaccine efficacy and safety based on the ONS reports. We therefore now call on all those who have made such claims to publicly retract them,” said Professors Norman Fenton and Martin Neil. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Interesting.
In fact, the UK's yellow card system for reporting adverse events (from all medicines) shows that the vaccines at least are far from "safe and effective".
Yellow card data shows that 1 in 800 people had a "severe event" - If you take into account that the MRHA's own figures suggest that only 10% of severe events are actually reported, then that could mean 1 in 80 people have a severe event. That's far from "safe and effective" in my book. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orny PTMan
over a year ago
Peterborough |
What percentage of people with side effects, go on to report their experiences with Yellow Card. I've only done it once?
i.e. Contac 400 negates Viagra. (might be useful info for priapism sufferers). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting.
In fact, the UK's yellow card system for reporting adverse events (from all medicines) shows that the vaccines at least are far from "safe and effective".
Yellow card data shows that 1 in 800 people had a "severe event" - If you take into account that the MRHA's own figures suggest that only 10% of severe events are actually reported, then that could mean 1 in 80 people have a severe event. That's far from "safe and effective" in my book."
yellow card system is also self reporting. Just because its reported does not mean it has actually happened |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I took the time to find the actual correspondence quoted by OP. I am not sure if OP actually bothered reading the actual letter or just quoted from a media report of it?
The _actual_ letter from the regulator says that a specific report (Deaths by Vaccination Status publication) from the ONS (which was explicitly made clear by the ONS gives no information about vaccine efficiency) should not be used for claims about vaccine efficiency. That seems more than reasonable to me.
If you want to learn about vaccine efficiency the regulators letter then points you to using the Covid 19 vaccine surveillance report from the UKHSA instead. Helpfully the UKHSA report is full of information about the effectiveness of the vaccine in case anyone should be in any doubt.
Having read the actual letter I can safely say that what was written in the letter and what is being claimed about its contents are fairly far apart.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I can't imagine anybody using ons data to prove safe and effective. It's not collected in anything like a clinical trial but... Sure if twats have used cans of baked beans to attempt to prove safety then yes it's wrong and should be retracted and ideally replaced with proper clinical trial data. It won't be of course. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The UK Statistics Regulator has confirmed, in writing, that data published by the Office for National Statistics (“ONS”) cannot be used in support of the “safe and effective” narrative.
“Many researchers and news organisations have made claims of vaccine efficacy and safety based on the ONS reports. We therefore now call on all those who have made such claims to publicly retract them,” said Professors Norman Fenton and Martin Neil."
Was this report from Japan?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The UK Statistics Regulator has confirmed, in writing, that data published by the Office for National Statistics (“ONS”) cannot be used in support of the “safe and effective” narrative.
“Many researchers and news organisations have made claims of vaccine efficacy and safety based on the ONS reports. We therefore now call on all those who have made such claims to publicly retract them,” said Professors Norman Fenton and Martin Neil.
Was this report from Japan? "
Ah So.......
Winston |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I took the time to find the actual correspondence quoted by OP. I am not sure if OP actually bothered reading the actual letter or just quoted from a media report of it?
The _actual_ letter from the regulator says that a specific report (Deaths by Vaccination Status publication) from the ONS (which was explicitly made clear by the ONS gives no information about vaccine efficiency) should not be used for claims about vaccine efficiency. That seems more than reasonable to me.
If you want to learn about vaccine efficiency the regulators letter then points you to using the Covid 19 vaccine surveillance report from the UKHSA instead. Helpfully the UKHSA report is full of information about the effectiveness of the vaccine in case anyone should be in any doubt.
Having read the actual letter I can safely say that what was written in the letter and what is being claimed about its contents are fairly far apart.
"
Are you suggesting the report the OP refers to says something completely different to what he claims?
Most unlike him.
Winston |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I took the time to find the actual correspondence quoted by OP. I am not sure if OP actually bothered reading the actual letter or just quoted from a media report of it?
The _actual_ letter from the regulator says that a specific report (Deaths by Vaccination Status publication) from the ONS (which was explicitly made clear by the ONS gives no information about vaccine efficiency) should not be used for claims about vaccine efficiency. That seems more than reasonable to me.
If you want to learn about vaccine efficiency the regulators letter then points you to using the Covid 19 vaccine surveillance report from the UKHSA instead. Helpfully the UKHSA report is full of information about the effectiveness of the vaccine in case anyone should be in any doubt.
Having read the actual letter I can safely say that what was written in the letter and what is being claimed about its contents are fairly far apart.
Are you suggesting the report the OP refers to says something completely different to what he claims?
Most unlike him.
Winston"
I am merely observing that reading the underlying source material is an interesting and enlightening experience  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I took the time to find the actual correspondence quoted by OP. I am not sure if OP actually bothered reading the actual letter or just quoted from a media report of it?
The _actual_ letter from the regulator says that a specific report (Deaths by Vaccination Status publication) from the ONS (which was explicitly made clear by the ONS gives no information about vaccine efficiency) should not be used for claims about vaccine efficiency. That seems more than reasonable to me.
If you want to learn about vaccine efficiency the regulators letter then points you to using the Covid 19 vaccine surveillance report from the UKHSA instead. Helpfully the UKHSA report is full of information about the effectiveness of the vaccine in case anyone should be in any doubt.
Having read the actual letter I can safely say that what was written in the letter and what is being claimed about its contents are fairly far apart.
Are you suggesting the report the OP refers to says something completely different to what he claims?
Most unlike him.
Winston
I am merely observing that reading the underlying source material is an interesting and enlightening experience "
Always check your sources... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I took the time to find the actual correspondence quoted by OP. I am not sure if OP actually bothered reading the actual letter or just quoted from a media report of it?
The _actual_ letter from the regulator says that a specific report (Deaths by Vaccination Status publication) from the ONS (which was explicitly made clear by the ONS gives no information about vaccine efficiency) should not be used for claims about vaccine efficiency. That seems more than reasonable to me.
If you want to learn about vaccine efficiency the regulators letter then points you to using the Covid 19 vaccine surveillance report from the UKHSA instead. Helpfully the UKHSA report is full of information about the effectiveness of the vaccine in case anyone should be in any doubt.
Having read the actual letter I can safely say that what was written in the letter and what is being claimed about its contents are fairly far apart.
Are you suggesting the report the OP refers to says something completely different to what he claims?
Most unlike him.
Winston
I am merely observing that reading the underlying source material is an interesting and enlightening experience "
I agree, more "people" should do it.
Winston |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I took the time to find the actual correspondence quoted by OP. I am not sure if OP actually bothered reading the actual letter or just quoted from a media report of it?
The _actual_ letter from the regulator says that a specific report (Deaths by Vaccination Status publication) from the ONS (which was explicitly made clear by the ONS gives no information about vaccine efficiency) should not be used for claims about vaccine efficiency. That seems more than reasonable to me.
If you want to learn about vaccine efficiency the regulators letter then points you to using the Covid 19 vaccine surveillance report from the UKHSA instead. Helpfully the UKHSA report is full of information about the effectiveness of the vaccine in case anyone should be in any doubt.
Having read the actual letter I can safely say that what was written in the letter and what is being claimed about its contents are fairly far apart.
Are you suggesting the report the OP refers to says something completely different to what he claims?
Most unlike him.
Winston"
Yeah I feel a bit dirty having responded twice in one day. I'm off to disinfect myself and check my brain function. Damn it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
