Don’t call it a cover-up. Think of it as a “Noble Lie.” We should forgive and forget. Trust the experts who told us to take the jab or else to tell us whether it was actually killing people.
Or, just call it a cover-up. Because that is what it is.
🚨 The public health watchdog has been accused of a “cover-up” after refusing to publish data that could link the Covid vaccine to excess deaths.
Read the full story ⬇️https://t.co/OQCSeXzBm4 pic.twitter.com/qnc75g8ajs
— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) November 15, 2025
In a story that ought to be explosive, but is, in fact, getting remarkably little coverage (thank you, Telegraph), we learn that the UK’s public health service is refusing to release data on the potential relationship between the COVID vaccine and excess deaths.
What is their excuse? It will upset people to learn the truth.
Seriously. That is their excuse.
The public health watchdog has been accused of a “cover-up” after refusing to publish data that could link the Covid vaccine to excess deaths.
The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) argued that releasing the data would lead to the “distress or anger” of bereaved relatives if a link were to be discovered.
Public health officials also argued that publishing the data risked damaging the well-being and mental health of the families and friends of people who died.
Last year, a cross-party group expressed alarm about “growing public and professional concerns” over the UK’s rates of excess deaths since 2020.
In a letter to UKHSA and Department for Health, the MPs and peers said that potentially critical data – which map the date of people’s Covid vaccine doses to the date of their deaths – had been released to pharmaceutical companies but not put into the public domain.
I’ve written a lot about the “mystery” of excess deaths, which have continued long past the period of time one would have expected after the initial spike you would expect in the midst of a pandemic. When communicable diseases burn through a population, they take out the majority of the people who are vulnerable to it as you would expect, while most of the population acquires natural immunity from being exposed to the bug. As that happens, the death rate returns to the background level one would expect.
That hasn’t happened so much with COVID. In fact, excess deaths have continued apace, leading to obvious speculation that the mass distribution of an experimental vaccine (that didn’t work as advertised) might be a contributing factor.
Obviously, the smart thing to do is examine the data, and the more people who do so (especially those who have no conflicts of interest), the better.
Yeah, well, not this time. The answers might upset us.
They argued that the data should be released “on the same anonymised basis that it was shared with the pharmaceutical groups, and there seems to be no credible reason why that should not be done immediately”.
UsForThem, a campaign group, requested that UKHSA release the data under freedom of information laws. But the agency refused, making a number of different arguments including that publishing the data “could lead to misinformation” that would “have an adverse impact on vaccine uptake” in the public.
Uh, gee, folks. Vaccine uptake is not the gold standard outcome. Reduced morbidity and mortality is. Not to mention that informed consent is a bedrock principle of medical ethics. Unless the same people pushing for medical assistance in dying think you shouldn’t know.
“This is totally unacceptable, and the Health Secretary must overrule them. If we are not prepared to learn lessons about why people are dying, what sort of society are we?”
Ben Kingsley, the legal director of UsForThem, said the way the UKHSA had handled the case “reveals a desperation that this data should not, in any form, see the light of day”.
He added: “It is perverse for UKHSA to argue that this data should not be released because the public could feel distressed or angry if patterns or correlations were to be identified.
“You have to ask yourself why it is that the public are considered incapable of handling this data. It reveals a patronising mindset, which also characterised the pandemic response – ‘do what we say, don’t ask any questions, we know what is best for you’.”
Mr Kingsley said the Government’s approach appeared similar to the response to the infected blood scandal, in which thousands of people contracted HIV and hepatitis C from contaminated blood products.
“The infected blood inquiry published its report while this case was under way,” he said. “We learnt that for years and years the government didn’t think the public could handle the truth, so they kept it from us.
This is exactly the sort of tactic used to maintain The Narrative™. Tell people what you want them to think while withholding any information that might undermine it.
Sure, there is something of a Streisand effect, but less than you would think. People inclined to trust the intentions of the powers that be barely notice information they have been denied.
Those of us who DO notice? We are “conspiracy theorists.”
This reminds me of when San Francisco decided to cut off public access to CCTV videos of crimes on the BART. They decided that you shouldn’t know who is committing crimes.
CBS in SF: “BART Withholding Surveillance Videos of Crime to Avoid ‘Stereotypes'”
Common, but seldom so explicit.https://t.co/5LvVXJetK0 pic.twitter.com/9SzaQcYbEA
— Steve Sailer (@Steve_Sailer) July 11, 2017
Or all those stories about illegal aliens getting deported; we see the crying “victims,” but the fact that they have committed horrific crimes is conveniently left out.
The Narrative™. Is there nothing it can’t excuse?
Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
