The UK’s 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) claim that releasing the data would lead to the “distress or anger” of bereaved relatives if a link were to be discovered.
Public health officials have also argued that publishing the data could damage the well-being and mental health of the families and friends of people who died.
The Telegraph reports: 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.
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.
UKHSA also claimed there would be a risk of individuals being identified, despite the request being made for an anonymised dataset. After a two-year battle, the Information Commissioner ruled in the UKHSA’s favour, backing its refusal to publish the data.
Reform UK has committed to a public inquiry into excess deaths and alleged Covid vaccine harms.
Richard Tice, the party’s deputy leader, said: “We knew there was concern about excess deaths, which is why we called for an inquiry. Instead, the unelected quango UKHSA is involved in a scandalous cover-up of how and why people are dying.
“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.
“Now we are seeing very similar behaviour from the UKHSA – we don’t know if the data would reveal any evidence of correlation, let alone causation, but we can see they are desperate to avoid having to answer that question in public.”
A UKHSA spokesman said: “Protecting patient confidentiality is of critical importance. Releasing this data presented a real possibility that it could be used to identify individuals, which could result in significant distress.
“UKHSA provided a carefully anonymised version of the dataset that removed the risk of identification. We welcome the decision of the tribunal to dismiss the appeal.”