Why Checking Sources Matters

 Currently making the alt.right rounds is this:

This is official UK government data for ages 10-59 (brown line is vaxxed):

Source:
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/vaccinated-english-adults-under-60

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland

Berenson's article says:

I have checked the underlying dataset myself and this graph is correct. Vaccinated people under 60 are twice as likely to die as unvaccinated people. And overall deaths in Britain are running well above normal.

I don’t know how to explain this other than vaccine-caused mortality.

The basic data is available here, download the Excel file and see table 4:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland 

Since I at am least skeptical of how honestly a lot of the vaccine claims are, I downloaded that spreadsheet. I looked in Table 4 and all the others.  There were no death rates.  Table 4 column headers contain nothing like this.  At most there is "Age-standardised mortality rate / 100,000 person-years."  There might be some data somewhere that shows death rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated in Britain, or perhaps derived from that spreadsheet, but that is not what Berenson claims.

This all reminds me of the current battles in the courts on gun ban laws after Bruen.  The "expert witnesses" their side keeps trotting out make false claims galore.  So many and so absurd that I could write a book about them.  My wife has a theory that their side's pursuit of billable hours for their lawyers and "expert witnesses" means that they do not care that they are wrong and will not win.  Prof. Saul Cornell charges California $500 per hour for his work.  So what if it is wrong?  That's a nice chunk of change for a college professor.