After a public inquiry showed "a lack of openness, transparency and candour, shown by the NHS & government, such that the truth has been hidden for decades", why is covid vaccine data being withheld?
UsForThem is an independent, non-profit, non-affiliated group focused on high impact campaigning and strategic legal activity.
We have successfully impacted policies and moved public debate on issues spanning children’s welfare and futures, freedom of speech, and pandemic response policies.
Our objective is to restore accountability, ethics, transparency and good governance to democracy. Only then will we have government and policy-making that we can feel proud to leave to our children.
A transcript with additional comment and snapshots is below.
The Infected Blood Inquiry
Kingsley begins by providing some context in relation to The Infected Blood Inquiry, whose report was published earlier this year:
This is the next episode in our new series in which we expose issues [which] for whatever reason the mainstream press don’t seem to want to cover.
In May this year, as many of you may will know, there was a major UK public inquiry into a devastating health scandal. That inquiry of course was the Infected Blood Inquiry:
And in [The Report (p7)], Sir Brian Langstaff, Chairman of the Inquiry, who authored its final report, talked about “a lack of openness, transparency and candour, shown by the NHS and government, such that the truth has been hidden for decades”.
I want you to bear those words in mind as I talk to you about today’s topic which is the suppression and obscuration of covid vaccine harm data.
Worrying and widely-reported health trends in the UK
She then turns to a recent post by Dominic Cummings1 in which he alluded to the need for jail time time for officials in the US for their part in the suppression of the lab leak theory, and apparently “very much hopes” that the new US administration “will publish ALL hidden data on covid vaccines to begin restoring trust after the old regime lied and destroyed trust.”
She says that:
The whole issue of covid vaccine harms is a topic that has received far too little candid commentary in the mainstream press. Despite this, it’s very clear that the subject of covid vaccine harms remains of huge interest to many of the British public, [UsforThem] included.
It’s no secret that we are seeing any number of worrying health trends in the UK. And in fact these trends have been widely reported, even if their cause has not.
And cites headlines such as these in relation to cardiac and stroke events, an explosion in cancers (particularly young people), and soaring levels of long-term sickness and disability claims:
She continues:
The reporting on these issues is really interesting as much for what it doesn’t say as for what it does, because if you went solely on the basis of mainstream reporting you’d assume that these are long-term trends that result from multi-factorial issues… often very-hard-to-identify issues… We hear… suggestions ranging from “the pandemic” and NHS closures… huge waiting lists… rising obesity, a general lack of fitness, diet, screens, smartphones… even climate change has been attributed as a cause of heart attacks.
All of [the above] might be true, and doubtless in some case is true in part…
But contends that such reporting:
…paints a very partial picture, and a picture which many of us might say is disingenuous. Because… when you dig down into some of the datasets… what you see is a gradual increase in these negative trends… these conditions worsened from perhaps the early 2000s. And then there is a dramatic increase — in some cases a spike — not from 2020 in the pandemic, but from 2021 and the vaccine rollout.
She cites two examples to illustrate her point:
A graph of the percentage change in cardiovascular incidents in Scotland, which rose substantially from Q2 2021 and have remained substantially above baseline since:
This chart of disability and sickness claims,2 again showing a stark increase from around Q2 2021:
There is a lot of other similar data from highly-vaccinated countries, some of which is featured here in this post from April:
A reluctance to discuss the issues and to release data
Kingsley continues:
I am certainly not saying that the covid vaccine will be behind all these illnesses and trends. But the covid vaccine is a known risk factor for cardiac issues, strokes, and… more recently, it has been suggested, cancers, particularly in young people. And no-one seems willing to have a frank conversation about the extent to which covid vaccination has contributed to the UK’s worsening health.
And it’s worse than that too, because not only are we seeing a reluctance to discuss this issue, but datasets which might go some way to establishing — or not causation are actually being suppressed from the British public.
In the UK we know that mortality data stratified by vaccine doses exists. And indeed we know it has been given to pharmaceutical companies to support their safety monitoring activities.
However, that data has been withheld not only from the British public but from UK parliamentarians who have asked repeatedly for it… We know that because UsforThem has been intimately involved in trying to extract this data.
And cites this article by way of illustration of the wall of silence:
Before adding that:
There is now a significant evidential trail documenting the refusal of ministers and certain public officials to release this dataset.
She cites several examples.
[1] Lack of response to a letter sent by 15 UK parliamentarians to the ONS, the MHRA, the Department of Health and the UKHSA
A February 2024 letter, sent by 15 parliamentarians to the ONS, the MHRA, the Department of Health and the UKHSA:
And in that letter, the members of Parliament said, “We write to you in light of the growing public and professional concerns being expressed about the UK’s rates of excess deaths since 2020.”
The letter asked for the publication of “anonymised record-level official mortality data which could facilitate a more complete understanding of the [proximate] causes of excess deaths in the UK, and may also enable certain factors to be ruled out.” It noted that, incredibly, such data had been shared with the vaccine companies but not the British public or Parliamentarians.
To quote the letter: “similar data, collected by the MHRA’s CPRD team (including, we believe, from the ONS), has already been shared with pharmaceutical groups to enable them to produce post-authorisation safety study reports for their products.”
And the letter finished by saying, “We and many of our constituents are… disturbed by reports that the DHSC, the UKHSA, the MHRA and the independent ONS have not been responding with candour or transparency, nor often on a timely basis, to the many serious and legitimate concerns voiced on this topic, even now that those concerns are being echoed in Parliament.”
The letter was signed by:
Graham Stringer MP (Lab)
Jim Shannon MP (DUP)
Philip Davies MP (Con)
And co-signed in support by:
Karl McCartney MP (Con)
Rt Hon Sammy Wilson MP (DUP)
Danny Kruger MP (Con)
Paul Girvan MP (DUP)
Neale Hanvey MP (Alba)
Miriam Cates MP (Con)
Chris Green MP (Con)
Sir Robert Syms MP (Con)
Lord Strathcarron
Lord Moylan
Rt Hon Baroness Foster
Thomas Coke, Earl of Leicester
[2] The words of Dame Jenny Harries
In March of this year, Dame Jenny Harries [who in Spring 2020 had repeatedly warned against wearing masks3] confirmed to Parliament that the UKHSA had provided the covid manufacturers with official mortality data. But — and this is just unbelievable — she suggested to parliamentarians that the public and Parliament could be denied that data because is was commercially sensitive.
The statement can be found at 8:40 in the video, or here:
Harries’ exact words were:
We have released anonymised aggregate data to [mRNA vaccine] manufacturers. This is for their own vaccines to support their obligation to report to MHRA as part of the routine safety surveillance, but these data are commercially sensitive.
Kingsley comments (with good reason):
It’s just so insulting… because it’s really hard to see why there would be hesitancy about withholding this data unless it showed a serious issue relevant to a commercial product… I really hope that isn’t the case. It would be really great if someone from these authorities could confirm, if it wasn’t the case.
Don’t miss out — subscribe for free to receive new posts as soon as they are published (Substack sends only the posts, and no spam)
[3] Stonewalling re Freedom of Information requests
As you can see here… the mortality and vaccine dosage data has also been the subject of various Freedom of Information requests from concerned members of the public…
Some of the responses that have been given by the authorities in declining disclosure really stretch belief. [For example] one of the responses [is] here: “The UKHSA disclosure may have negative consequences on the mental health of the families of those deceased individuals to whom [this] data relates.”
I find that incredibly concerning, because how could disclosure possibly impact the mental health of families of the deceased unless it indicated the possibility that the vaccine had played a causal role in the death of their loved ones?
[4] Stonewalling re questions raised in Parliament by Danny Kruger MP
The final clip I’m going to show you… is [from] Danny Kruger MP [who] has been fantastic on speaking up on some of the issues…
He also called for the release of this stonewalled excess deaths data.
A clip of Kruger — who you may have seen speaking out about assisted suicide — can be seen at 11:30 in the video:
These questions are increasingly being asked by the public and raised in the media.
Let me conclude quickly with what I have been doing. I hope that we will get more answers from the Minister than I have had so far from the Government. On 17 April 2023—a year ago yesterday—I wrote privately to the Secretary of State, asking him for evidence that justified the Government’s assertion that there was no link between the vaccines and the excess deaths. I did that because I had so much correspondence from people raising that concern. I said:
“I am writing privately in this way rather than raising the question in Parliament because I am determined not to give credence to unscientific, conspiratorial accusations, nor to undermine the vaccination programme in public if it is, indeed, entirely safe and effective.”
I did not want to do this in public; I wanted to give the Government the opportunity to give me the evidence, so that I could pass it back to constituents, but I am afraid that the reply I received from a Minister was the one that we have already heard: the bland assertion that a combination of factors—flu, old age and so on—probably accounts for the excess deaths. The rest of the letter was all about what the Government were doing to combat excess deaths, and the answer was mostly “more vaccines.” I did not think that was good enough.
A year rolled by, the evidence seemed to mount, and more and more people were raising this concern, so I joined the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir Philip Davies), who could not be here today—he wanted me to explain that he is on important constituency business but is very much here in spirit—and others in writing this time a public letter to the Government asking the same question in more detail. We asked specifically, “What is the evidence for the definitive statement about safety and efficacy?” The Government said:
“There is no evidence linking excess deaths to the vaccine.”
If so, that is great news, but may we have the evidence on which that assertion is based?
Secondly, we asked: “Will the Department for Health, the MHRA, and the UKSHA release the data that is needed to understand what is going on?” The data that we are asking for is already made available privately to pharmaceutical companies for them to use in their safety studies of the vaccine. Why do they get it, but not the public? Why cannot independent scientists look at that data? I am sorry to say that we had replies neither to that letter, which was written in February—here we are in April—nor, after months, to the freedom of information requests that went to the agencies.
Kingsley comments:
As you can see… these aren’t isolated incidents. Danny’s clip dates from April, and in that he says he’s been asking [for] this data for a year. This is official data which has already been withheld from the public for a period of years.
And what is even worse is that even this is just the tip of an iceberg of what is starting to look like a vast exercise to suppress, manipulate and obscure official data relating to the covid vaccines. It is absolutely chilling.
For another example, see e.g. this HART article from February in relation to the ONS modelling away the excess mortality:
Revisiting the concluding remarks from the Infected Blood Inquiry Report
Kingsley ends where she started, with the Report of Sir Brian Langstaff in the Infected Blood Inquiry, and particularly the final part — Volume 7, the Response of Government:
She points out that, in his concluding remarks, Langstaff:
…reminded our public officials today — not those from the 70s and 80s involved in that scandal — he reminded our public officials of the Nolan principles of public life. And he said that, “the Nolan principles of public life are paramount. They emphasise that those holding public office are expected to behave with objectivity, openness and honesty.”
The relevant section can be found on page 128 of Volume 7 (the html version is easier to search than the pdf):
She adds that:
I think many of us are struggling to understand why what seemed like such a manifestly important dataset relating to a product that was given to millions of us — and of course in some cases our children — why that is being withheld? On what possible grounds could it be withheld… And I don’t mean here what technical exemptions under Freedom of Information Act requests, or what commercial sensitivities there might be. Clearly it is in the public interest to release this data…
NB in some cases people took the injections under the threat of losing their job if they did not comply. And I wonder whether anyone had properly informed consent, i.e. was provided with information such as that detailed e.g. here in this post:
Kingsley concludes by appealing again for the release of that data, and adds that:
If it isn’t released… the words of Sir Brian on concluding his report are also relevant.
He concluded that there had been a cover-up in that case, and he said, “Not in the sense of a handful of people plotting in an orchestrated conspiracy to mislead, but in a way that was more subtle, more pervasive and more chilling in its implications. In this way there has been a hiding of much of the truth.”
See page 297 of Volume 7:
And we have to make sure that a similar public inquiry in 20 years from now is not saying the same kind of things about data suppression here.
Postscript: planned legal action
In the context of the above, indefatigable pathologist Dr Clare Craig is asking for help to take legal action against the Information Commissioner’s Office:
She explains:
I’m Dr. Clare Craig, a Diagnostic Pathologist and co-chair of the HART group.
I have exhausted all avenues of rational medical and scientific reasoning with the UK Health Security Agency and Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) in my petitioning of them to release vital information on the dates of vaccination and deaths during and after the Covid Pandemic.
The UKHSA has confirmed it holds the information we scientists and medical experts need in order hold authorities to account.
The ICO says that the release of the information could ‘be harmful’. We strongly disagree and that makes us even more determined to take them to court to force release the data the UKHSA holds.
It is remarkable that the organisation who is charged with upholding public and expert access to national data of scientific and medical policy importance is itself blocking its release.
So now we have commenced legal action to force disclosure.
Our Legal costs are estimated at around £8,000 to take this all the way through the court process. I hope that you can see the wrongfulness of the ICO’s stance and will support me and my fellow doctors / scientists in funding this vital challenge. In the event that our legal costs work out less or we raise more than our fundraising target, we will ringfence any surplus to support similar future legal campaigns focused on public policy data release for the benefit of independent analysis.
Further context is provided by this interview with solicitor Gordon Davies:
So there we have it: a UK taxpayer appealing to other UK taxpayers to crowdfund a court case to force UK taxpayer-funded authorities to release data whose collection has been funded by UK taxpayers.
It will be interesting to see what they are actually hiding.
You may recall that during the covid era, Harries repeatedly advised against wearing masks. Below is a transcript of various clips while she was appearing regularly on TV:
In an appearance with Boris Johnson: “the evidence on face coverings is not very strong in either direction”
Channel 5 interview: “for most people… they tend to get a mask — and it's a behavioural issue as well — they put it on… they take it off… they’ll perhaps put it down somewhere where they’ll get the virus and put it back on again, and therefore in some ways they may actually risk catching the disease rather than preventing it. So routinely we don't recommend them.”
In conversation with Boris Johnson, who asks, “Tell us about the value of wearing face masks. You see face masks all around the place… Is there any point to that?” Harries replies: “If a health care professional hasn’t advised you to wear a face mask, it’s usually quite a bad idea. People tend to leave them on. They contaminate the face mask and then wipe it over something, so it’s really not a good idea and doesn’t help.”
Good Morning Britain: “…you might actually be creating a problem in the sense of trapping virus and then not disposing of it [carefully]”
On the BBC: “[for the] average member of the public wandering down the street, [wearing a mask] is really not a good idea. What tends to happen is people will have one mask. You can imagine they don’t wear it all the time. They’ll take it off when they get home. They’ll put it down on a surface that they haven’t cleaned. Or they’ll be out and they haven’t washed their hands… they’ll go and have a cup of coffee somewhere, they half hook it off, they’ll wipe something over it, they’ll put it back up… and in fact you can actually trap the virus in the mask and then start breathing in… because of this issue of… behavioural issues, which are really important when we’re talking about infectious diseases, people… can… adversely put themselves at more risk than less.”
I don’t recall hearing much from Harries later on when the routine wearing of face masks was introduced in shops, pubs, restaurants, churches — and even schools. She was later appointed Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) in the 2022 New Year Honours “for services to health”.
