ONS Won't Explain Why They Changed Definitions | FudgeGate

ONS worker Sarah Caul won't provide the scientific basis

In the ONS dataset COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness estimated using Census 2021 variables, it lists ‘unvaccinated’ people as either not receiving the shot, or <21 after receipt of the first shot.

But, in ONS dataset Deaths by vaccination status, England, it mentions unvaccinated circularly as meaning ‘unvaccinated’, and has <21 first dose receivers under their own, distinct category, as “vaccinated with first does only, less than 21 days after first vaccination”, showing receipt of the shot means vaccination.

The separated group is the correct approach. So why does effectiveness (not mortality) lump <21 days shot receipt in the unvaccinated group?

Vaccination Is Not Immunity

Don’t confuse immunity (E.G. developing antibodies) with vaccination (receipt of the shot). Even the vaccine deaths by mortality on the ONS classifies shot receipt as vaccination. They confirmed this in an FOIA.

And yet the ONS dataset for effectiveness invents a new standard for unvaccinated people as including receipt of first dose at <21 days on their vaccine effectiveness dataset (that said, effectiveness does have a relation to mortality as well).

This differs from the CDC’s definition of ‘vaccinated’, which has >14 days listed (implying <=14 days as unvaccinated). No scientific basis for that claim is provided by either (emphasis added):

A COVID-19 case in a fully vaccinated person occurred when SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen was detected in a respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after completing the primary series of a COVID-19 vaccine with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval or emergency use authorization.

Given these magically invented days pulled out of thin air, The Daily Beagle had a very simple question for @SarahCaul_ONS:

What scientific basis do the ONS have for classifying those who receive the shots at <21 days as being unvaccinated?

Sarah confirmed receipt of dose under mortality is from any time, but did not answer the question:

She confirmed to another that for efficacy they used a different definition for unvaccinated, but did not answer the question:

She confirmed there are two different datasets with different definitions, but did not answer the question:

She posted a peer-reviewed paper about antibody responses, a paper which does not mention <21 days (or 21 days, or anything relating to it), failing to explain why it justifies <21 days counting as unvaccined, and did not answer the question:

The paper was ironically co-authored by Jeremy Farrar (yes, that lableak denying one), and John Irving Bell, the UK government advisor who was former board of directors for Roche with over £770,000 in Roche shares selling antibody screening kits. Vwoop vwoop, conflict of interest alert!

We asked again, after she kept ignoring the questions:

She feigned ignorance on the ONS disappearing deaths despite us providing evidence for that claim. And in response to our question of what scientific basis for <21 days for the shots, she supplied an unscientific NHS link:

This NHS link is a webpage. It is not a peer-reviewed journal. It is not a scientific basis. It doesn’t even mention ‘21 days’ or even ‘21’. All it talks about is who can get the SARS-CoV-2 shots. It is nothing more than advertising. Did she genuinely think this would fool us? Where is the scientific basis?!

It does not answer the question. We highlighted this to Sarah, and got no response:

She seemed equally undisturbed by the fact her organisation are perpetuating inaccurate statistics and appear to be engaging in fraud, a most serious accusation.

No Answer To Rephrasing, Either

The Daily Beagle then rephrased the question, in-case the original was somehow too challenging:

Unsurprisingly, it was met with a stony silence. The Daily Beagle asked again:

It has been more than 2 days since the ONS published that ‘effectiveness’ dataset, and more than 2 days since The Daily Beagle — and others — have asked the question about the <21 days classification.

Diagnostic pathologist Dr Clare Craig had the same question:

In response to Dr Clare’s query, Sarah Caul offered a circular justification, which boils down to ‘we classify it as <21 days because our effectiveness paper requires it to be classified that way’.

Dr Clare righly calls it out as disingenious:

Sarah Caul, after a back-and-forth with Dr Clare, in laissez-faire attitude notes that maybe they might correct it in the next release. No urgency to correct the fraud now, propaganda news articles need a’peddlin’:

After additional questioning, Sarah Caul then admitted the ONS combines two groups ‘in effectiveness’, using the circular justification they’re measuring the effectiveness of the vaccine ‘when it has enough time to work’, I.E. excluding all the ineffective period when the vaccines don’t work:

This is known as ‘data forcing’ (a specific variant of data manipulation), where you edit and exclude data in order to force the conclusion you want to see, rather than allowing the signal to emerge naturally by presenting data raw.

But The Antibodies!

Sarah Caul makes the data forcing more explicit in another Tweet, where they claim “evidence” (not provided) ‘suggest[sic] vaccine takes 3-4 weeks to become effective’, I.E ONS are intentionally excluding the vaccine’s supposedly ineffective 3-4 weeks period to make it look better:

Even if you believe inconvenient vaccine data ought to be excluded (which you really shouldn’t as that’s fraud), antibodies don’t magically appear instantly at exactly 21 days. There’s a gradual increase over time, so this selection criterion is arbitrary and unjustified.

One peer-reviewed paper argued seroconversion (read: when antibodies start appearing) after being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 is less than 7 days:

When the actual timing of the results is compared, these studies are not in conflict with our data regarding early seroconversion at < 7 days from symptom onset. Although early antibody detection is seen in other studies [19] many assay formats have limited sensitivity [20] and may not detect early antibody, at low levels.

The peer-reviewed study notes that other studies use less sensitive antibody screening when determining when seroconversion first appears. Is the ONS seriously trying to suggest the SARS-CoV-2 shots lounge around for 20 days doing nothing and then antibodies magically appear out of thin air on day 21?

Then there’s the inconvenient part about antibodies waning after 2 to 3 months. They don’t exclude those datasets groups on the basis of antibodies.

Additionally, if it’s about antibody levels, then it should say that, and not falsely claim it is about vaccination status. People can start with pre-existing antibodies prior to receipt of the shots, as well. Do they not exist from day 0?

It’s all patently absurd! Their attempts to conflate immune system reaction with vaccination receipt is a flimsy attempt to exclude the inconvenient datasets that make the vaccines look bad by applying cherry picking on bad data!

---

Subscribe for more content from The Daily Beagle. Also consider becoming a paid member as well if you enjoy how we’re flustering the UK government.

Make people aware of the ONS inconsistencies!

And leave a comment below.