Hi folks, Mr Justice Swift rips up all sense of admissable evidence in yet another attempt to access ONS data which is paid for by public funds. In saying that the public can’t distinguish between correlation and causation and so can’t possibly make use of ONS data he is saying that we should not be influenced by “persuasive” data compiled by a Government body. His failure to understand that the Government has used and abused this opaque database in claiming that vaccines are safe and effective as they propagandise vaccine take-up, is of course the other side of the coin and this is completely ignored.
Absence of evidence (of causation) is not evidence of absence ( of causation), correlation is persuasive evidence of potential causation and could even be said to be prima facie evidence of causation until proved otherwise.
There is of course the additional point that members of the public who obtain this data from ONS are able to employ expert analysts to explain it in layman’s terms. Preventing access to this data on the grounds that you won’t understand it is totally invalid. On this basis we would be denied access to most Statutes regulations and court case recordings!
If facts are found that show a correlation between jab and injury or death then this at least surely at the very least should emphasise that the burden of proof of safety sits with the government.
UPDATED: this was reported in the TCW and posted here:
my apologies!