The Highwire with Del Bigtree - UK’S ONS CHANGES FORMULA TO HIDE EXCESS DEATHS

Episode Date: March 12, 2024

With the urgent signal of surging excess deaths after the COVID shot rollout, the UK’s ONS has changed its formula to hide the increase, rather than address the elephant in the room.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

There's some things that we've been reporting on for the last couple years that are changing drastically right now. And people out there may not have heard of the word excess deaths if they've been watching the legacy media. But independent journalists, independent shows like ours and others have been sounding the alarm on this. Excess deaths over normal during the COVID pandemic. Right. And we were told you get this shot and it's going to stop this. The pandemic will be over. It didn't.

It just made these excess deaths in so many countries around the world go even further. So we have people in our government in UK Parliament like Andrew Bridgen. He's been bringing up these ideas in the UK Parliament. He actually had a meeting in the Parliament last month in January trying to talk about this on the parliamentary floor. And so when we talk about excess desk, let's really put some numbers on this. So we go to Mortality Watch. And you can look at this graph here.

And we see Mortality Watch is kind of an aggregator of all of the sources. And they're one of the largest, most detailed on the web. And you can see here, the United States, you look across, and you see these highlighted in yellow, starting at 2020, going all the way at 2023, and there's an average of 15.7% excess deaths. That's over. So they took what was going on before the pandemic. They had an average, and then they took what was going on during the pandemic,

and you see this average is way above. That's a flashing red signal. You had Edward Dowd at the congressional hearing talking about this. But then you have England and Wales, 10.4%. That's gigantic. And so let's just just as Edward Dowd said. 10% is like, you know, a multiple-sul-sigma event, like a once-in-a-200-year hurricane, we'll see a rise of 10% death rate.

Right. So these are massive, massive numbers. Very, very rare. Extremely rare. And again, we were told the shot was going to stop this. They were going up in two. So we go to this next graph here. Our world data, this is the UK.

It's 2023 from the entire year of 2023. You see the United Kingdom up there. That's about 36, a little over 36,000. based on the projected number of death from the same period in previous years. So what people are asking these questions, what's going on? The governments are silent. The UK government is silent. So the Office for National Statistics, this is the place that counts these and that tracks excess deaths and should be there.

If there's a signal, they should say, hey, we have a signal here. There's a problem. They've been silent except till now. Take a listen. All right. During and since the coronavirus pandemic, we've generally seen more people die than we'd expect. We call these deaths above average excess deaths.

Different organisations have used different ways to calculate this, each with merit and particular uses, for example for planning health interventions and identifying emerging threats. In the spirit of continuous improvement, we've been working with independent experts and those across government and the devolved nations to develop a common UK-wide approach.

Using our new approach, today's release estimates 11,000 excess deaths in 2023. While this is lower than our previous estimate, our new method accounts for the growth and ageing of the population. These are key factors in understanding how many deaths we'd expect to see and whether the number of deaths is below or above this estimate. Looking more closely at the last months of 2023, there were actually negative excess deaths, meaning fewer deaths than our number of our number. having been registered. So... This is literally the definition of cooking the books. Right.

I mean, they're literally telling the entire nation, we have seen a rise and so we decided to get together and cook the books. Right. We have negative deaths in the last part. Wow. Yeah. Based on our model. And what's amazing about this is modeling is usually use when you don't know where you're going, right?

We've got to try and guess where we're at. They're using models to replace the actual numbers they have. Exactly. So 36,000 plus goes to 11,000. No problem anymore. And so we go to the Office for National Statistics, actual website, and it says here on there, how are they counting these now?

It says, trends in population size, aging, and mortality rates are accounted for by the new method for estimating the expected number of deaths using the calculation for excess mortality, the difference between the actual and expected number of deaths. This is not the case for the current method, which use a simple five-year average

to estimate the number of expected deaths. So the old method used just a simple method, look at what happened before the pandemic and then compare it. No, we're not going to do that anymore. We're throwing Occam's razor out the door, which is the simplest answer is usually the one that's right. We're going to try and make this as complicated as we absolutely can. Right.

How complicated you ask? Let's go to that same paper. Okay. They actually show their algorithm that they use, their mathematical model. So this is actually, when they get the number of deaths, they run it through this model first. And they run it through for age and sex and geography. But then for the expectations, what's expected, they take a longer one. They run it through this model, this statistical model.

So you have these two things. And so the health advisory recovery team, the heart team, they put on an article just to summarize this, because it starts to get in the weeds a little bit. But there are going to- You think? I mean, there's absolutely no one on this planet, you know, that's not an astrophysicist who can figure out that map. Exactly, exactly. So what they title of their article, too many deaths are to be. expected. It's kind of laughable if wasn't so serious, but it says any changes due to a problem with health gets baked into their next prediction of deaths. This is for their new method. If deaths have been high, then they say we should expect them to be high. They have created a model that would call a hockey stick rise in deaths, something which should be almost entirely expected.

I mean, the level of insanity here when you think that these are supposed to be scientists. Because sure, I mean, I guess what they're saying COVID was here. Or in this case, we gave you a vacancy. that we just admitted last week causes myocrititis and causes anaphylaxis and all these other things. And they'd like to say it's small, but nobody was actually told it was causing that. So what happens now that they know? But either way, they're seeing this rise and say, well, that rise is going to be here. So we're just going to bake it into this cake. So how do we know if we've come off it? I mean, they're literally whitewashing all the science you need to track human health.

Exactly. Like, why would you need to do this? And the only reason, the only reason they're doing this is for us so that, we aren't panicked about what we're seeing because we can make sense of it right now. Let's make it so confusing that you just take yourself out of the game and we're going to just try and see if we can track what's going on without you. I mean, and you have to imagine. This is clearly now science, the worst type of science, which is going for an end result.

It is clear that the goal was to reduce this number. Not to like get it more vivid, not to, you know, let the chips fall where they may. So you have to imagine when they built this model, you know, and we have computers that can do, this now we've all done it on our own computers let me add this oh no the number goes up no don't don't add that you know statistic how about this one oh yeah it went down if we do that how about that one down oh oh no no take that one out let's build it out of a model of all the things that bring this number down so we can get to the result that makes us happy and us able to say nothing to see here world they start with an ends and they create a mathematical means to get to that ends this is

how it is the death of science this is the death of humanity this is the most dangerous type of science and world leadership now that we have ever seen. And we knew this was going to happen. 2022, we were reporting on this. You said this. If anybody wasn't watching then, this is what Dell said. People say, Dell, they're going to try and hide it. Hide what?

You might be able to hide COVID deaths. You might be able to sort of manipulate the COVID deaths and take people that are having heart attacks and put them in the COVID category. You might be able to hide the actual COVID vaccine rates and who was true. vaccinated? Were they fully vaccinated? Were they boosted? Did they only have one shot? Was there only 14 days after the second shot? They're manipulating all of that. But one thing you cannot manipulate is the all-cause mortality, just meaning if there's a rise in just death across the board in every nation, that is going to be really hard to hide. I didn't know that they had a mathematical

formulation plan to try and deal with that, but it is the case. And this is what I keep thinking about. As I, you know, when we're at the Ron Johnson hearings, the Washington Post comes up in New York Times. They still like to throw this idea of misinformation. I'm like, what did you report on that you're proud of? Like, tell me what part of what you reported on actually stuck. You said the vaccine was stopped transmission. I said it wouldn't.

It does not. You said, you know, it would end the pandemic. It's now endemic. You were wrong. I was right. I said there appeared to be a Wuhan lab leak. You said, no, there wasn't. I was right.

You were wrong. You want to tell me how you're standing here with any kind of moral authority saying that you can look down on the work we're doing, I'll put all of my videos against everything that's ever been written by the New York Times of Washington Post. And here's what's amazing. When you look at that, how was it? We predicted that was when the vaccine is still rolling out.

We didn't know. I literally put it on the line. So did you in the work that we did and said, we are predicting a rise in all cause excess mortality that will be caused by this vaccine that even once the virus is gone or wherever it's at, you will see a rise in excess mortality. If it is there, we were right. The fact that we predicted that means that this should be a five alarm, you know, alert across the world, and it's got to be, this is the problem.

The anti-vaxxers got it right. We got it right. We proved to the world we were right, and now they are stuck cooking the books. I mean, we got to get them out of there. We've got to get these government officials out of there immediately.