ONS recording of deaths are delayed by up to a year; it is only now we are getting a glimpse of the magnitude of the covid injection death toll
RHODA WILSON for THE EXPOSE
After one of his subscribers donated time and money to obtain the data from the UK Office for National Statistics (“ONS”), Joel Smalley has analysed the data for England and Wales of deaths by date and age at time of death.
The ONS claims that deaths are registered and recorded by them within a week or so of the event occurring. But this new data shows this is NOT the case – there is up to a year in delay of deaths being recorded.
Based on this new data, in July 2021 the deaths for the 25 to 44 age bracket represented an unprecedented 6 sigma event – a clear post-covid-injection mortality signal “missed” by UK officials.
“The new cumulative excess mortality series starts on 02 July 2021, two weeks after the peak of the jab campaign … In six months, we can revisit this when the few thousand missing deaths are finally reported and see where the post-jab era really tallies – much higher,” Smalley wrote.
By Joel Smalley
Thanks to the efforts (and expense) of a subscriber, the ONS has released a dataset of deaths by date of occurrence and age for England and Wales, complementing the dataset I sponsored for England only.
This allows us to make a direct comparison between the deaths that actually occurred with the deaths the ONS report in their weekly bulletins, which rather inconveniently do not separate the data between the two countries (yes, Wales really is a country in its own right).
If you plot the two data series for all ages, you see what the lazy ONS management sees.
Notwithstanding the obvious delays around Christmas and some in Easter and summer, you fool yourself into thinking, meh, there’s about a 1-week delay in the majority of cases so, we’ll just keep churning out crap analyses based on this data, no matter what that upstart, armchair analyst keeps telling us.
But, by now, we all know that you can’t just lump all the ages together and jump to such conclusions, don’t we?! Not that we should… it’s their job – if only they would do it properly.
When you break it down by age, even aggregating 15 to 44-year-olds (ONS age bucket from the 2018 report), the picture is somewhat different:
For sure, the tail-off in the recent months is pretty damned obvious, right? In fact, the two series start to deviate from around April 2022. Yes, more than a year of artefact in the registration-data data and evidently a whole load of deaths that has indeed occurred but is yet to be reported.
It’s easy to quantify this. Between 01-Apr-22 and 28-Jul-23, there were 22,389 deaths registered but only 17,148 of them occurred in the same period. In other words, almost a quarter of those deaths relate to a prior period. Not exactly “most deaths are reported within a week” type of hand-wave scenario, is it?
There are still many people using this data to make erroneous claims, even presenting them to investigative agencies so I apologise but I have to shout this again:
The current registration-date data anomalies represent nothing more than catching up with deaths that occurred a long time ago, possibly over a year. Any analysis using this dataset is erroneous at best.
Indeed, there are loads of data points over the 3-sigma level in the recent period. But, also look at the stochasticity of this data. This is noise. And registrations are high because the backlog of occurrences is being filled. It’s a signal but if you focus on it, you’re looking in the wrong place.
Not only does the registration-date data create the illusion of something happening now that actually occurred sometime in the past, 1 inevitably, it misses that “thing” when it actually happened – in the past!
Take a look at the week ending 23-Jul-21, highlighted in the chart. The ONS reported 313 deaths for that week. On average in 2018 and 2019, 293 15 to 44-year-olds died each week in England and Wales, with a standard deviation of 18.
So, 313 deaths would be just over 1-sigma (fancy Greek letter used instead of standard deviation). Typical “expectation” bounds are 2 to 3 sigma, so this would not register as a signal in any analysis.
However, the actual number of deaths that occurred that week was 405 (at least, because this silly registration process can be somewhat indefinite).
This is a 6-sigma event.
This is “unprecedented.” 2 The chance of this happening without something causing it would be 2* 10^(-9) or 2 in a billion or 500 million-to-1 if it were fair betting odds.
Worse still, there are two subsequent periods where weekly deaths touch the 3-sigma mark (10-Sep-21 and 31-Dec-21). These are rare events for this cohort, and to follow each other so closely makes things even worse.
Moreover, it is also clear that deaths do not trend below the mean thereafter (the pull-forward effect). We can see exactly how much excess or unexpected death there is by looking at the cumulative series:
Evidently, there were 679 excess deaths for “epidemic” covid (and associated iatrogenesis) for spring to autumn 2020; 803 for the same for autumn 2020 to spring 2021; and a prolonged period of 1,023 cumulative excess deaths in the “post-jab” era between summer 2021 and mid-winter 2022. In six months, we can revisit this when the few thousand missing deaths are finally reported and see where the post-jab era really tallies – much higher.
So, if the mortality event of summer 2021 was not possibly (probably!) due to random chance, what did cause it?
Here’s a clue: it wasn’t covid. 3 There was little covid death at that time, even by the most liberal of determination – “covid-19 mentioned on the death certificate”.
Here’s another clue: it was the “vaccine.” 4
How do we know? Or rather, why do we suspect under the logical guide of Occam’s razor? Well, temporal proximity for one.
The new cumulative excess mortality series starts on 02-Jul-21, two weeks after the peak of the jab campaign. That’s when “they” said deaths would fall precipitously. Oh?
And deaths peak on 23-Jul-21, right as the campaign stops. Oh?
And finally, why won’t this question be answered by the ONS? Because they never asked the question. If you don’t look (properly), there’s never anything to see.
However, the coroner knows something about it because the registration of those deaths was severely delayed. I guess the “investigative journalists” will cover this when they’ve finished salivating over Russell Brand’s salacious past life?
[Related: Neil Oliver Becomes First National Broadcaster on Corporate News To Debate Allegations of State Democide Using Midazolam, With Covid As Cover, Maajid Nawaz, 17 September 2023. This GB News broadcast on midazolam was aired the same evening that the Murdoch corporatist media cartel at the Times and Sunday Times, alongside Channel 4’s (UK Deep State) Dispatches documentary, broadcast old but incredibly serious allegations already known to have surrounded British comedian and born-again televangelist Russell Brand.]
Oh, and how about that 23-Dec-22 spike? When we revisit this in about six months when the data might be almost complete, where do you think that is going to settle? I’m thinking every bit as high as the April 2020, Jan 2021 and July 2021 peaks.
Unfortunately, by the time we know, it will be waaaaay too late to do anything about it. Not that the “authorities” would even if they simply collected the data on time. We know they won’t be honest with their analysis of it, otherwise, they would have reported on July 2021 by now?
And if you think this is just some cherry-picked data point with no scientific or medical rationale, I’m afraid I’ve got more bad news for your narrative:
The first false narrative was the virus is unassailable, we have to stay in lockdown and be fearful. The second false narrative is to take a vaccine, it’s safe and effective. We are now seeing a third false narrative. The third false narrative is: it’s not the vaccine causing these problems, it’s covid.
Read more: Three False Narratives from Captured Governments and Unelected Agencies Around the World, Joel Smalley, 16 September 2023
- 1 Notwithstanding the fact that if the deaths are distributed over a number of registration periods, they might not be noticed at all, ever, even anachronistically.
- 2 It is twice as many unexpected deaths as those poor souls who lost their lives at the Ariana Grande concert in the Manchester Arena in May 2017.
- 3 Apparently, it still needs saying for the zealots – for it to be covid, your hypothesis must prove why covid is at least as virulent 15 months into the “pandemic” as it was when it first emerged, in spite of: a) viruses naturally attenuate; b) greater protective herd immunity; c) full-forward effect of excess mortality; d) weakest are already dead; e) seasonality; f) better treatments (less deleterious ventilation and sedation, more pragmatic, early use of anti-virals and anti-bacterials). If you cannot prove all of these, you must accept the other side of the coin, i.e., that the host has been compromised, generating a new cohort of susceptible people. Then, refute the multitude of literature demonstrating that the covid “vaccine”: a) compromises the immune system for at least 2 weeks immediately post-jab; b) subverts the immune system longer term due to OAS (or immune imprinting to non-circulating strain); c) produces the same symptoms as the virus itself; d) PCR generates greater proportion of false-positives when there is low incidence; e) most importantly, ranks way off the scale for every single disease category, including fatal ones, in terms of adverse events. And, remember where the bar is set – demonstrate all of this to prove that the intervention was “safe and effective” – the July 2021 wave of excess death for 15 to 44-year-olds comes immediately after the end of the jab campaign for this cohort. I do not have to prove that it caused the death but the odds are heavily stacked in my favour, all the same.
- 4 Occam’s razor – a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which, other things equal, explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more.
About the Author
Joel Smalley is a blockchain architect and an early-stage, polymath data-driven technologist. He has a background in capital markets, biotechnology, retail payments and blockchain architecture. He conducts pro bono covid data analysis for legal challenges and independent media seeking the truth. He regularly publishes articles on his Substack ‘Dead Man Talking’ which you can subscribe to HERE.
Featured image: Anti-lockdown protesters descend on central London, The Telegraph, 26 June 2021
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.