Modelling has frequently been used to claim implausible results from Government interventions, not least when the UKHSA claimed the vaccines had prevented 25m infections when there had only been 6m infections in total.
The UKHSA publishes a regular Vaccine Surveillance Report, but it never mentions side-effects. Is that because it doesn't like what it sees?
A study from Oxford, Edinburgh and Swansea universities has found the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines have negative effectiveness against hospitalisation and death within two to three months.
The UKHSA's vaccine effectiveness estimates rely on a method that assumes the vaccines don't increase susceptibility to other similar diseases. But what if that assumption is wrong, as it has been with other vaccines?
The UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Reports have published vaccine effectiveness estimates since May 2021, but the estimates have slipped down and down with each passing month. How effective are the jabs really?
The Government started out publishing the raw vaccine data, presumably in the belief they would support the narrative. It wasn't long before it got a nasty surprise as infection rates in the vaccinated soared.
A recent paper from the University of Oxford claimed to show myocarditis is higher after Covid than vaccination, but a closer look finds multiple flaws and suggests the vaccines actually increase the risk by 30%.
The latest official UK data from the UKHSA show Covid hospitalisation rates among the vaccinated the same or higher than among the unvaccinated, suggesting no protection is being provided.
As the Government suppression of the truth about harms from Covid policy goes on, the consequences of the truth coming out become more and more severe. But this is no 'Noble Lie' and the truth must be faced.
New data from the ONS make the vaccines look good, until you realise they're based on estimates of the unvaccinated population that, if true, would mean more than 100% of the population was vaccinated.
© 2026 Skeptics Ltd.
