Medsafe Observed vs. natural deaths
Clem White made this Official Information request to Ministry of Health
This request has an unknown status. We're waiting for Clem White to read recent responses and update the status.
From: Clem White
Dear Ministry of Health,
The medsafe adverse events reports include this line:
"To date, the observed number of deaths reported after vaccination is actually less than the expected number of natural deaths."
I would like to request a copy of the calculations used to support this statement. I realise that natural deaths statistic are publicly available, but I am specifically requesting the actual calculation process because simply having access to various forms of public information is not the same as seeing the methodology used to back up a statement that underpins the entire rational for public faith in the vaccine program. I would also like to know how this calculation process takes into account the fact that not all deaths that have occurred in vaccinated people will have been represented in the Medsafe reports - i.e. simply dividing the Medsafe number by the people expected to die in that time period would give a misleading result.
Yours faithfully,
Clem White
From: OIA Requests
Kia ora Clem,
Thank you for your request for official information. The Ministry's
reference number for your request is: H202114799.
As required under the Official Information Act 1982, the Ministry will
endeavour to respond to your request no later than 20 working days after
the day your request was received. If you'd like to calculate the
timeframe, you can use the Ombudsman's online calculator
here: [1]http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
Due to the COVID-19 global pandemic response, the Ministry is experiencing
significantly higher volumes of queries and requests for information. If
we are unable to respond to your request within this time frame, we will
notify you of an extension of that time frame.
If you have any queries related to this request, please do not hesitate to
get in touch.
Ngā mihi
OIA Services
Government Services
Office of the Director-General
Ministry of Health
E: [email address]
show quoted sections
victor left an annotation ()
https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/saf...
2,501
Observed Rates
2,627
Expected Rates
'The relative risk of 1.03 does not indicate there is an increased risk of mortality in this ethnicity group because the lower end of the confidence interval is 0.99 (i.e., ≤1.0). Medsafe will continue to monitor this closely'
Someone needs to explain.
1. Use of RR when using OR 1.03
2. How the statement of 1.03 is derived from the statistical presented in the table
What is going on inside medsafe and MOH.
victor left an annotation ()
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/safe...
Age Breakdown
Dose 1
32 + 86 + 359 = 477
Table total = 485
Dose 2
20 + 42 + 197 = 259
Table total = 264
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/safe...
Ethnicity breakdown (change)
173 + 62 + 56 + 2210 = 2501
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/safe...
Age breakdown (change)
Dose 1
9 + 45 + 132 + 432 = 618
Table total = 623
Dose 2
7 + 42 + 95 + 379 = 525
Table total = 527
Observed deaths.
749* - Report 28
2501 - Report 31 (+ 1752)
1150* - Report 32 (- 1351)
Not only do the published statistics not add to the totals but there is no data to back up the wildly fluctuating statistics and alternating presentations.
Medsafe and MOH are openly editing and manipulating the statistics which are unsupported in public data or evidence.
Where is the underreporting rate for comparison between observed deaths within 21 days of injected when compared against historical data of deaths not injected with the same product
Medsafe and MOH are highly deceptive in pretending the comparison is meaningful except to illustrate the plumbed depths.
Publicise the underreporting rate
https://trialsitenews.com/why-wont-the-c...
From: OIA Requests
Kia ora Clem,
Please find attached a response to your official information act request.
Ngā mihi
OIA Services
Government Services
Office of the Director-General
Ministry of Health
E: [1][email address]
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
From: Clem White
Kia ora OIA Requests,
Many thanks for your reply to my request. This doesn't exactly supply what I asked for, which was the actual workings that were used to derive these figures, so something like the spreadsheet or relevant files for whatever statistical package was used for the calculations would have been expected.
However in lieu of this, some explanation of why these figures are so clearly flawed yet still used as if they represent something meaningful would be acceptable. It is unmissable that there is problem with the figures for the observed deaths, which for dose 1 are a fraction of the expected deaths in each age category except 80+ (which is still well below), and just over half the expected deaths overall. I realise that rates will fluctuate over time, but this amount of consistent variation from what is expected does not seem remotely plausible. Has any statistical analysis been done to determine the chances of the death rate in every age group being so dramatically lower than what would be expected for any any randomly selected time period? The fact that the same phenomena can be observed in every report further exacerbates the unlikeliness.
Therefore it would seem that either there is a problem with the calculations, or not all deaths in the vaccinated population have been recorded during the monitoring period. Either scenario would appear to render entirely meaningless the claim that "the observed number of deaths reported after vaccination is actually less than the expected number of natural deaths."
Is it really the case that no one from MedSafe or MoH looked at relative risk in the range 0.28 - 0.85 and concluded that something must be going on to render these figures unreliable or misleading?
There is also the matter that Victor raised in his annotation, which is that the table columns consistently do not add up to the totals. I realise that it's possible this could be explained with the note "Some cells could not be calculated because the numbers were too low (<6)" - but this doesn't appear to make sense. If there were say 5 deaths in a particular age group for example, why could the number 5 not just be put in that column?
I look forward to receiving further clarification on this issue. I appreciate that this is a busy time for all involved and value any efforts made to provide this information, but also think it is worthwhile as this data is essential for maintaining confidence in the vaccination program.
Yours sincerely,
Clem White
From: OIA Requests
Kia ora,
Thank you for your Official Information Act (the Act) request. This is
an automatic reply to let you know we received it.
Due to the COVID-19 global pandemic response, the Ministry is experiencing
significantly higher volumes of queries and requests for information. We
will endeavour to acknowledge your request as soon as possible. Further
information about COVID-19 can be found on our
website: [1]https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dise...
In accordance with the Act, we'll let you know our decision within no more
than 20 working days. If you'd like to calculate the timeframe, you can
use the Ombudsman's online calculator
here: [2]http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
If you have any questions while we're processing your request, please let
us know via [3][email address]
Ngā mihi
OIA Services Team
[4]Ministry of Health information releases
[5]Unite against COVID-19
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dise...
2. http://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=15517&a...
3. mailto:[email address]
4. https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministr...
5. https://covid19.govt.nz/
From: OIA Requests
Kia ora Clem,
Thank you for your follow up request for official information. The
Ministry's reference number for your request is: H202115559.
As required under the Official Information Act 1982, the Ministry will
endeavour to respond to your request no later than 20 working days after
the day your request was received. If you'd like to calculate the
timeframe, you can use the Ombudsman's online calculator
here: [1]http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
Due to the COVID-19 global pandemic response, the Ministry is experiencing
significantly higher volumes of queries and requests for information. If
we are unable to respond to your request within this time frame, we will
notify you of an extension of that time frame.
If you have any queries related to this request, please do not hesitate to
get in touch.
Ngā mihi
OIA Services
Government Services
Office of the Director-General
Ministry of Health
E: [2][email address]
show quoted sections
victor left an annotation ()
Important requests and details behind your query. Thank you.
One must also query by which logic can dose specific age specific groups which are observed to have passed up to 21 days of receiving either or dose or the product...
Could rationally be compared to age specific groups which have received neither dose of the product which is unequivocally linked to thousands of observed deaths and however many un-observed deaths following injection of pfizer comirnaty BNT162b2.
From: OIA Requests
Kia ora Clem,
Please find attached a response to your official information act request.
Ngā mihi
OIA Services
Government Services
Office of the Director-General
Ministry of Health
E: [1][email address]
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
victor left an annotation ()
Chris James
GM Medsafe.
Further hiding behind the falsehood of 'privacy' because they are selling a sham in full public view
The request was for the calculations and actual workings to derive the figures.
There was no request for personally identifiable information to be included.
Chris James has once again cowed behind the shield of 'privacy'.
Provide the formula and workings calculations so the public can asses the level of deceit on display through what is published.
"People that are extremely unwell do not get the vaccine (sic)"
Chris James
GM Medsafe.
That statement requires being unpacked as it is highly disingenuous and incorrect according to the prioritisation of the immunocompromised and so called 'at risk' groups which include the unwell and extremely unwell.
Temporary exemption criteria does not include option for 'extremely unwell' where is the definition, Chris ?
Is that a medical or scientific terminology?
Chris James on record with an example of misinformation and unsupported commentary in official government documentation.
From: Clem White
Kia ora Chris / OIA Requests,
Thanks for your reply to my request. I understand that parts of it have been refused for reasons that probably are legally valid, although I have to say that if the intention was complete transparency a little effort to address these concerns would be more reassuring than seeking a technical grounds for refusal at any opportunity.
The one answer that I was given was: "People that are extremely unwell do not get the vaccine and therefore, we expect the death rates in the 21 days after vaccination to be lower than average."
This in itself is an extremely important point that is omitted from the Medsafe reports. It means that we are comparing historical death rates which include terminally ill and others with high likelihood of dying within the next few weeks, with a vaccinated population that excludes this group. This would appear to make the observation that "the observed number of deaths reported after vaccination is actually less than the expected number of natural deaths" entirely meaningless, and without context extremely misleading. Effectively this means that if there were any increase in overall deaths due to the vaccine, it would need to be vast to ever meet the threshold for a risk value greater than 1.0 and trigger investigation.
Based on the previous reply I do not expect any explanation or comment on this observation. However I have one further question that hopefully will fall under the category of information that is known by the agency. Given that this potential to mislead has been raised by myself and presumably others, are there any plans to alter the wording used in future reports to rectify this issue and make it clear that relative risk is calculated using data sets that are not comparable?
Yours sincerely,
Clem White
From: OIA Requests
Kia ora,
Thank you for your Official Information Act (the Act) request. This is
an automatic reply to let you know we received it.
Due to the COVID-19 global pandemic response, the Ministry is experiencing
significantly higher volumes of queries and requests for information. We
will endeavour to acknowledge your request as soon as possible. Further
information about COVID-19 can be found on our
website: [1]https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dise...
In accordance with the Act, we'll let you know our decision within no more
than 20 working days. If you'd like to calculate the timeframe, you can
use the Ombudsman's online calculator
here: [2]http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
If you have any questions while we're processing your request, please let
us know via [3][email address]
Ngā mihi
OIA Services Team
[4]Ministry of Health information releases
[5]Unite against COVID-19
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dise...
2. http://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=15517&a...
3. mailto:[email address]
4. https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministr...
5. https://covid19.govt.nz/
From: OIA Requests
Kia ora Clem,
Thank you for your request to the Ministry of Health on 21 September 2021
for the following:
"Given that this potential to mislead has been raised by myself and
presumably others, are there any plans to alter the wording used in
future reports to rectify this issue and make it clear that relative
risk is calculated using data sets that are not comparable?"
In response to this part of your request it is important to note that
while the OIA allows people to ask for information, it does not require
the Ministry to create new information, compile information it does not
hold, or in the case of this part of your request, to provide or prove an
opinion. The OIA does not support requests where a comment or a
hypothetical statement is put to it and the Ministry is asked to comment
on it, couched as a request for official information. This part of your
request is therefore refused under section 18(g) of the Act as the
information is not held by the Ministry and there are no grounds for
believing it is held by another agency subject to the Act.
However, please be aware that your comments have been noted by Medsafe.
Under section 28(3) of the Act, you have the right to ask the Ombudsman to
review any decisions made under this request. The Ombudsman may be
contacted by email at: [email address] or by calling 0800 802
602.
Ngā mihi
OIA Services
Government Services
Office of the Director-General
Ministry of Health
E: [1][email address]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Clem White <[FOI #17290 email]>
Sent: Sunday, 21 November 2021 14:57
To: OIA Requests <[email address]>
Subject: Re: OIA H202115559 Response
Kia ora Chris / OIA Requests,
Thanks for your reply to my request. I understand that parts of it have
been refused for reasons that probably are legally valid, although I have
to say that if the intention was complete transparency a little effort to
address these concerns would be more reassuring than seeking a technical
grounds for refusal at any opportunity.
The one answer that I was given was: "People that are extremely unwell do
not get the vaccine and therefore, we expect the death rates in the 21
days after vaccination to be lower than average."
This in itself is an extremely important point that is omitted from the
Medsafe reports. It means that we are comparing historical death rates
which include terminally ill and others with high likelihood of dying
within the next few weeks, with a vaccinated population that excludes this
group. This would appear to make the observation that "the observed number
of deaths reported after vaccination is actually less than the expected
number of natural deaths" entirely meaningless, and without context
extremely misleading. Effectively this means that if there were any
increase in overall deaths due to the vaccine, it would need to be vast to
ever meet the threshold for a risk value greater than 1.0 and trigger
investigation.
Based on the previous reply I do not expect any explanation or comment on
this observation. However I have one further question that hopefully will
fall under the category of information that is known by the agency. Given
that this potential to mislead has been raised by myself and presumably
others, are there any plans to alter the wording used in future reports to
rectify this issue and make it clear that relative risk is calculated
using data sets that are not comparable?
Yours sincerely,
Clem White
show quoted sections
victor left an annotation ()
"The relative risk of 1.10 does not indicate there is an increased risk of mortality in this age group because the lower end of the confidence interval is 0.95 (ie, <1.0).
The COVID-19 Independent Safety Monitoring Board (CV-ISMB) has reviewed AEFIs in the elderly and found that this group was not disproportionately affected by the vaccine. Medsafe will continue to monitor this closely"
https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/saf...
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this request
victor left an annotation ()
Leaving aside the disregard for human life that 749 deaths don't qualify for the medsafe assessment process.
749 deaths count only toward a calculation formula used to create a false perception.
Leaving aside that officially 86 deaths following comirnaty are confirmed by medsafe with a 3 week lag and an unquantified underreporting rate.
Background rates are groups of historical human lives lost for which the data sets are also quality substandard.
Not a single comirnaty injected statistic among the background rates data.
Medsafe and MOH are making a claim that being injected with the mrna product is associated with lower mortality rates.
Medsafe and MOH have been operating this scheme an extended period time.
Link to this