Even when they publish the data, governments are still hiding the massive wave of death left in the wake of the Covid vaccine rollouts by publishing the raw data in indigestible and confusing formats, banking on the public's inability to do its own analysis.

The good:
England publishes its deaths statistics broken down by age group and vaccination status.

The bad:
The statistics they publish are purposely and nearly-hopelessly obfuscated.

The ugly:
When you analyze the data, it very clearly shows that the vaccines are killing children.

In fact, if just this data including the healthiest and most robust individuals in society were extrapolated to the population as a whole, we can confidently say that the government would effectively kill off a minimum of 0.5% of its healthy population every year by mandating they take 3 doses of Covid vaccines, almost certainly in the single-digit, if not higher, percentages for the less healthy and the elderly.

And they know this; which is the reason they hide these results from the public being able to see them in any meaningful way without doing their own math and creating their own spreadsheets and charts to analyze them.

When you look at the raw data England publishes, first of all, you will be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of it.  Second, you will be frustrated at the uselessness of the format of the data (America's CDC publications are even worse).  But once you dive into it, you will be shocked at what they are covering up and just how they are doing it...

HIDING THE TRUTH IN PLAIN SIGHT

The most indefensible data is that of children between the ages of 10-14 years old.  These human beings with their whole lives ahead of them stand at nearly zero statistical risk from Covid.  And yet, as we will see, their otherwise negligible risk of death multiplies astronomically after taking the vaccine.  And keep in mind these data do not even cover injuries or chronic illnesses such as myocarditis or paralysis or other permanent disability such as acquired immune deficiency or sterility, etc., nor any hospitalizations that do not terminate in death.

One thing the British did provide that is helpful, though, was the breakdown of how many doses and also how much time had passed before a death occurred.  This is enlightening, as it clearly shows that the risk from taking the vaccine does not decrease over time, meaning it would be associated with a transient reaction, but is actually a systemic disease process that metastasizes over time.  That makes sense since these so-called vaccines are not really vaccines but genetic experiments with multiple vectors of toxicity and disease programmed into them.  (The mRNA codes the host's cells into replicating copies of the Covid spike protein, which is in itself toxic and contains multiple genetic sequences (not seen in nature but only in gain of function) taken from HIV's spike protein, which was coincidentally another novel virus definitely not man made.)

The most insidious trick England played on the public with the data was to show the column labeled "Person-years" as just an un-connected number without associating it to any of the raw death figures.  This misleads the casual viewer into ignoring that column, since it requires a mathematical formula to force all of the other data to show any sort of meaningful information.  Since there are massive variations in the sample sizes between the raw death figures, the numbers can seem to suggest that there is no correlation, or even a negative correlation, between vaccine status and deaths.  In fact, there is a statistically massive correlation that indicates that more doses plus more time elapsed equals more deaths.  

Examining the data, we find that Covid deaths are statistically insignificant in the unvaccinated.  There is a minor spike after the 1st shot, and we can assume that children who suffered a bad reaction from the 1st would not have gotten a 2nd, hence those who are prone to a bad reaction are self-selected out of the data for the 2nd shot which shows no casualties in the first 3 weeks.  Non-Covid deaths begin increasing rapidly after 3 weeks after the 2nd dose and then again skyrocket massively after their unfortunate 3rd dose.  When 3 weeks have transpired since their 3rd dose/booster, child Covid deaths shoot up exponentially, seemingly out of nowhere, as we will see.

Now, here is how they present the data, if you navigate over to Table 6 (I'll show you where this data can be found at the end of the article)...

Everything seems random and innocuous.  But that's because the significance of the data is hidden within the sample size, which is shown in the "Person-years" column.  The large death counts for unvaccinated children are misleading since the sample size of that category is over 2.68 million individuals.

In the notes, we see that "Person-years" take into account both the number of people and the amount of time spent in each vaccination status. So to convert this figure into a meaningful "per 100,000" number we use the formula: Person-years divided by 100,000 and then convert that number into a 12-month period (the period covered by the data is actually 14 months, so we multiply the numbers by 12 divided by 14 to fit the data to 1 statistical year, which is probably not necessary, as "Person-years" likely is already the right number to go with, but my methodology gives the vaccine a generous gift of a few percentage points off their death tolls, just to be sporting).

Note that the sample sizes are smaller in the later 2nd dose and the 3rd dose data.  This does not mean that the death counts are unreliable--it simply means that the confidence level is lower than for those with higher sample sizes.  That means that the overall real-world averages might be either higher or lower than these data suggest, but it does not mean we should dismiss these deaths as insignificant or ignore the obvious trends they suggest.

Knowing that, let's convert the data into a meaningful format (I've rounded to the nearest whole number, since figures less than one are not statistically relevant when dealing in per-100,000 data)...

Now let's look at a bar graph of that data...

And if you'd like to see how those increased vaccine-death numbers equate to percentages...

We can infer from the data that the "normal" baseline death rate among this age group would be 0.01% (one one-hundredth of one percent) per year.  When the data might even come close to suggesting that this age group would be dying at 46 times higher rates, this should signal the most grave and urgent government response imaginable.  That they are instead choosing to hide this data and to persecute those who seek answers is the most damning indictment.  They are committing genocide on a scale just short of sending troops out to shoot innocent people minding their own business.

This data should have triggered international alarm bells, it should have triggered massive criminal investigations, and of course it should have triggered an immediate halt to and recall of all Covid vaccines.

But it didn't, and they continue to lie to you and to mandate these deadly shots for our children.

Lest any fact checker come along and claim that the sample sizes are too small to make a reliable analysis, let me say this: I AGREE.  Let's use all the data all at once instead of just focusing on this most-vulnerable of the population who depend on their parents to exercise a modicum of common sense.  Here I have compiled ALL of the data of ALL ages, excluding those older than 80 years, since they approach the life expectancy threshold and hence will not help in this analysis.

Okay; we have 30 million vaxxed and 15 million un-vaxxed.  Any concerns about sample size?  Note that the people who compiled this data in the first place could have presented it in this useful format as I have, but they chose instead to hide the only actual useful conclusion and present the data in a way that is just barely better than throwing a file cabinet's worth of papers onto the floor and claiming they're doing their job of informing you.

The "increased vax death rate" formula is the difference between vaxxed death percent and unvaxxed death percent, divided by unvaxxed death percent.  That way if the two numbers were the same, we'd have a zero there, as it should be.

I've heard that the funeral homes are quite busy, and I wasn't sure if that was alarmism or fake news, but looks like it's not only real news but suppressed news at that.

By my math, that's 69,238 people that the vax killed in England over the course of 14 months.  That's the amount of excess deaths in the vaxxed (1.21% of 30,319,073) compared to if they had died at the un-vaxxed death rate (0.38%).  This is unheard of even in war time.  This is a monumental tragedy and yet it appears nobody is speaking out.  The government should be first in line to investigate this colossal anomaly of near-holocaust proportions, and yet they only seem interested in silencing those who ask questions.  So if people are dying in numbers that pale those of fighting men in war, does this not constitute a war?  By whom, against whom?  

Here is where you will find the link to download the Excel data:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland

This is the link for the data I used:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2Fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2Fbirthsdeathsandmarriages%2Fdeaths%2Fdatasets%2Fdeathsbyvaccinationstatusengland%2Fdeathsoccurringbetween1january2021and31march2022/referencetable20220516accessiblecorrected.xlsx