Seven Members of Parliament including Andrew Bridgen MP sent a letter to the head of the UK ONS requesting that they publish a comprehensive time-series cohort analysis of the UK data (weekly buckets for 152 weeks starting in Jan 2021). The request was also validated by UK Professors Norman Fenton and Carl Heneghan. Although, the head of the UK ONS says that the data is available for qualified researchers, qualified researchers who have challenged the narrative have been denied access. So the data shall remain hidden! (Source)

Professor Diamond, head of the UK ONS wrote a letter in response to advise that the vaccines are safe and they have better things to do with their time than run a report that would have taken them less than 1 hour of effort to do, wrote Steve Kirsh.

March 2nd 2024 Steve Kirsch predicted “If the ONS refuses the request, then the MPs will be able to shift the blame for this crisis squarely on the ONS. And all MPs will then pile on later I predict since nobody wants not to have a chair when the music stops.”

Alternatively:

“If the ONS complies with the request, then we will have the evidence needed to go after other agencies. It will end the debate as to whether the shots were safe, and begin the debate on who is to blame and how to hold them accountable.

The truth will be out and the public wins.

“If the UK ONS is smart, they will comply with the request.

If the UK ONS wants to tacitly admit to the UK public that they are working for big pharma, refusing the request is a good way to accomplish that.

The choice is theirs.” “Source.

It is therefore Steve Kirsch’s belief that by refusing the request, the ONS are admitting to the public that they are indeed working for big pharma. Steve Kirsch wrote continues in the article below.

Executive summary

In fact, it seems likely that Professor Diamond spent more time writing the letter explaining why he was denying the request than it would have taken to comply with the request.

Professor Diamond also used the excuse (without any evidence whatsoever) that small counts could reveal personal information. For example, suppose you knew that one man aged between 70 and 75 died 4 weeks after his most recent shot in the UK in the month of April 2023. Can you identify the man? Of course not!

He said that the data is available for qualified researchers but qualified researchers who have challenged the narrative have been denied access in the past. So the data shall remain hidden!

Short story: they do not want the public to know the truth.

The request

Here is the letter requesting the data.

Having spent many months analyzing the data from New Zealand, I can assure you that the requested UK data would reveal the truth and does not reveal anyone’s PII.

You prove this for yourself with the New Zealand data that is published on my server.

The denial of the the request

Science and truth

Science is all about finding the truth.

The UK ONS is convinced they are right, so reasonable requests from people with opposing views are denied. That is anti-science.

They say misinformation is dangerous yet they are unwilling to respond to a very simple request to determine who is telling the truth.

There is a huge excess mortality problem in the UK. Nobody can explain it. The reason is simple: the staff at the UK ONS is standing in the way of transparency.

Summary

The requested data would reveal the truth, but they don’t want the truth to be known.

The MPs simply requested the ONS to re-run the analysis they’ve already done, but with different parameters. This should take far less than 60 minutes of someone’s time to do.

The excuse that it might reveal personal information is simply gaslighting. New Zealand has a population of only 5M compared with the UK 69M. I’ve shown that by putting deaths of over 100 years into a single bucket, no person can be identified with the requested analysis, even if there are single counts.

The analysis requested by the MPs would be dispositive. It would expose the truth.

Anytime people dodge easy data transparency requests like this, it’s compelling evidence that the data doesn’t support their claims.

They don’t want you to know how deadly the COVID vaccines were. It’s no more complicated than that.

Next steps

A UK researcher will request permission to do the analysis we requested. I predict the ONS will find a reason to deny that as well.

Sources:

Steve Kirsch “UK ONS denies request from 7 MPs by claiming that the vaccines are safe so there is no need to do any analysis that might show otherwise” https://kirschsubstack.com/p/uk-ons-denies-request-from-7-mps?utm_campaign=post.

Steve Kirsch “Breaking seven MPs Request Comprehensive data transparency from the UK ONS https://kirschsubstack.com/p/breaking-seven-mps-request-comprehensive

full 3-page letter from 7 MPs to the head of the UK ONS Professor Sir Ian Diamond.