FudgeGate: ONS Caught Fudging Mortality Data
Where have I heard this before?
Update: The UK government have since rushed out an ‘update’ so the observations may no longer be relevant, however you can refer to the backup copy to confirm the same results.
Original article below:
Originally spotted by Dr Clare Craig, co-chair of HART:
She noticed a slew of inconsistencies with the recently released ONS dataset that compares vaccination status to number of deaths. Specifically, she noticed that the male dataset was cut-off. We’ve kept a backup lest they try to sweep it under the carpet.
The ONS stopped publishing this back in May 2022, and hadn’t released any new updates until this week. Yet given how fudged the data is, you’d think they only spent a week on it. If you download the current version (or use the above backup if changed), you can see for yourself.
Male Dataset Is Cut-Off, Female Dataset Starts Later
The Daily Beagle also found out the Female dataset is offset so it starts later. Lets look shall we?
Open the downloaded ‘referencetable.xlsx’, and click the Sheet tab for ‘Table 4’.
Click the number on the far-left hand side, to select the entirety of Row 4, then go to data→autofilter to apply the autofilter to that row specifically.
Then, under ‘Sex’ filter to ‘Male’. These next criterion are arbitrary and any combination will produce the same results, however an example is given for ease of understanding.
Under ‘Cause of Death’ filter to ‘All causes’, under ‘Age group’ filter to ‘70-79’, under ‘vaccination status’ filter to ‘unvaccinated’. Notice how the data for males starts in January 2021, and ends in September 2022.
Now to reveal the fudge. Go to ‘Sex’ and change the filter to ‘Female’. Notice how the length remains the same, but Females start in April 2021, not January 2021. Notice the end date is December 2022, and not September 2022 like the Male dataset.
ONS expects us to believe absolutely no elderly females over 70 years old died prior to April 2021.
This fudge occurs regardless of age. Here’s the Female 40-49 group for example:
It also occurs regardless of vaccination status. Here’s the Male first dose group:
The Tallies Abuse This Fudged Offset
We can expand the fudge further. If you switch to the Sheet named ‘Table 1’, select Row 4, do data→autofilter, filter ‘Cause of Death’ to ‘All causes’ and set Vaccination status to ‘Ever vaccinated’. Notice the date ranges from April 2021 to December 2022?
So, lets get this straight, Females only count from April 2021 to December 2022, and Males only count from January 2021 to September 2022. All other times of the year they take an equal 3 month break from dying, even if elderly?
Now, you might be thinking ‘but Daily Beagle, what if the dataset only starts in April and the Male January data stuff is an error’.
Well, we know it’s a fudge because on the ONS own download page, if you scroll down, you will find the ONS dataset starts back to 1st January 2021:
So where did the three months data for Females go between January and March? And where did the three months data for males go between October to December?
It is evident the ONS are engaging in a massive cover-up of vaccine deaths!
They Also Undercount Person-Years For Vaccinated
Substacker Igor Chudov found another fudge with the ONS dataset, finding they undercount vaccinated person years by approximately one-half. We won’t rehash his work and you should read his Substack article, it is fascinating.
This is one more reason why The Daily Beagle will only ever use total count of deaths, and never person years, which is a fudge designed to obfuscate the death signal in toxic products. What does person-years mean relative to a death?
Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
The ONS now joins the CDC in the FudgeGate hall of shame.
If you haven’t already, feel free to read FudgeGate: Return Of The Fudge, and FudgeGate: CDC Caught Fudging Vaccine Mortality Data.
Feel free to Subscribe for more content like this from The Daily Beagle.
Want to warn others of the corruption?
And leave a comment below:
Can I call this another "shocked" moment? They're not even trying to hide the lies. The Lugenpresse will run with the hot take and pretty graphics. The Lie gets aired before anyone even gets into the datasets. Anyone who challenges the now-established Narrative is spreading misinformation and must be silenced. Nice positive feedback cycle they have there.
I think they probably just forgot to change the months to start from April instead of Jan. Yeah, it's incredible that they are using written word months and not numerical values but I think it's as simple as that on this one. I don't know why they started from April this time round but perhaps they listened to us and knew that they couldn't make any VE claims prior to then because no-one was "fully protected"? Or, perhaps because a load of the deaths they "found" made those early few months much worse than they had previously claimed and they didn't want to have to announce the correction? easier just to leave it out this time round and hope no-one notices? Apart from hundreds of data sleuths of course!