ONS Covers Up Excess Deaths | FudgeGate
What we if skewered it like this...
The Office for National Fudge Statistics of ‘people die from symptoms’ infamy has once again engaged in even more fudge, this time trying to hide excess deaths by arbitarily changing how they calculate death statistics.
What’s their magic tricks this time?
Outright Fraud
Conjuring Up 54 Thousand Elderly People Out Of Thin Air (For One Year)
54k? That’s basically the same number estimated to have died in 2023, how conveniently and perfectly shaped.
Magic how precisely such a narrow age group could suddenly conveniently shift an age bracket in such a large percentage in one single year only (apparently they don’t get older in any of the other age brackets or other years?).
Moving The Goalposts To 2020 (And Ignoring Everything Before It)
They also used another fudge method; moving the goalposts to 2020 and ignoring everything pre-2020 (whilst talking arse about ‘5 year averages’… from a less than 4 year coverage). Stuart McDonald, who brags they were involved in ONS’ fudge…
…Admits this is done by adjusting the comparison point to the pandemic year by now ignoring pre-pandemic deaths (2020 gives them an artificially high death count to work from, making the excess deaths seem ‘less’)…
Scouring Every Possible Model To Bring You The Worst One
To give you an idea of how desperate ONS have become, they scraped the barrel for 11 different models to find one that gives them the lowest number of excess deaths. This even included blackbox ‘neural network’ models infamous for their lack of transparency:
ONS also admitted their new fudged statistics on mortality are worthless for measuring mortality of the 2020 pandemic (because they use the 2020 as the rigged baseline — and you can’t compare rigged baselines to themselves). Read: because they deleted pre-2020, they can’t show 2020 had high mortality.
ONS even admit they don’t use death counts to estimate mortality (death), just some age-averaged number. ONS are ignoring death counts in order to report on death counts.
The methodology is so great that… ONS won’t be revising historic deaths data trends (re-normalising the data would reveal the excess deaths again, and you can’t retroactively compare their 2020 fudge point historically to earlier years):
Getting Their Usual Corrupt Buddies To Help Out
The usual suspects were involved, including ONS’ ‘can’t give a straight answer to a question’ Sarah Caul, who appears to be also operating under another account (odd that, are private Twitter accounts subject to FOI?).
This is likely why the whitewash so-called COVID-19 “inquiry” wanted to stall investigations into the vaccines and excess deaths until after the election — so they have time to fudge the datasets and downplay the severe harms the shots have caused.
Twitter did their best to desperately hide and suppress the dissent to ONS’ blatant fudge from large numbers of people by artificially fixing the count of requotes (we even got to see the requote number revert before our very own eyes).
One merely need only peer at the replies in the ONS’ announcement to see the historic levels of outrage at their blatantly obvious fudge.
Is it surprising the Office of National Fudge has fudged statistics once again?
Addendum: ONS Head Worked For UK C19 Briefings
In another surprise plot twist, the ONS head, Julie Stanborough who pushed for the change in mortality reporting, was the one responsible for publishing the COVID-19 daily briefings.
Read: they’re partly responsible for the consequences of the pandemic and thus have a vested interest (when they shouldn’t). Found by John Sullivan.
Related Articles To Read
Found this informative?
Help inform?
Thoughts, dear reader?
There's also about 4,500 deaths over a year after the fatality waiting just to be registered due to coroner investigations. These have doubled in the past few years. That's not the only way deaths can fail to be registered so I wonder if ONS even presents the real number of deaths??
Skewered them. Bravo. Woof