The Disinformation Commissioner

Those of you who read this post this week will have had their eyes open to the shenanigans that NSW health have been up to in hiding the adverse COVID vaccine data which showed that the governments, Pfizer, Moderna and basically every “respected” institution misled the public.

Of course, it isn’t just NSW Health but all health data institutions from countries that conducted secret contracts for COVID vaccines, including the UK, EU, Canada and the US. The reason we focus on NSW health and the UKHSA is that these two entities are really the only organisations that produce data with enough detail to analyse. They do this presumably to promote a particular “transparent data” narrative from “trusted authorities” but in so doing make mistakes which allow us to see how the data was manipulated. As these are government organisations they are supposedly bound by transparency and probity laws intended to give the public redress to ask questions when they appear to be malfeasant.

So you would think that the Office of the Information Commissioner would be the last vestige for seeking truth. You would be wrong. The statutory office, which is supposed to be the ultimate arbiter deciding whether freedom of information requests should be disclosed to the public (that is, to provide transparency to the public in order to expose governmental corruption), has been limping along for a few years since it was marked for dissolution - by, of course, the very government it is meant to oversee.

Graphic: Matt Golding for the Canberra Times

So, why have I picked this subject for today’s article? Well, it seems that the Information Commissioner believes that NSW health don’t have to answer for the data crimes that we exposed earlier this week. They also believe that NSW health can claim that they “do not have the data” in one week in the very format they produced the week or month before. If you are confused by this you might need to go back to the previous article:

Catch me if you can

To recap, NSW health claimed that one week they could produce data in the categories shown in this graphic:

…. and in the next week they could only produce amalgamated data from the very same data set.

The situation got worse because by February, NSW health had not only dumped all the children’s cases into the “unvaccinated” group but they then put all the “unknown” cases in there too. At the same time they stopped reporting on cases (beacuse as we showed, this became too embarrassing for the claim of efficacy against infection which is now forgotten about) and decided to only report on ICU admissions and deaths. Here is the amalgamated report from week ending 26th Feb from the same data source:

This seemed pretty fishy to anybody following these shenanigans so a FOI¹ request was made to NSW health to ask for the properly categorised data in the same format they produced the week before.

What happened next? NSW health refused this FOI. Yep, that’s right. The information that you paid for with your tax dollars was now forbidden.

So, quite rightly, the requestor sent this to the Information Commissioner. Because, obviously this is a cover-up, right? Nobody in their right mind would think that the government could produce data one week and from the same data source can’t produce it the next week without manipulating it to suit their narrative.

Except the DisInformation Commissioner, obviously. Here is the section of the report that shows NSW Health’s claim for the reasons to refuse the FOI.

Yep, that’s right. For “point 1” they are saying they don’t have the very data they already produced. But the excuse for “point 2” is a doozy. What they are saying here is that there is no email or paper trail for the decision to do the jiggery-pokery with the data, it was all done in clandestine meetings by word of mouth. Something like this maybe?

Example of a clandestine committee meeting

Which reminds me, because we like throw in movie themes, of the secret society meetings in Hot Fuzz (perhaps this is the UKHSA version 😉).

It’s all for the “greater good²” after all, isn’t it?

Well it appears that the NSW Information Commissioner thought that having secret society meetings to hide stuff from the public was OK, because this was their ruling on the review:

So, just to recap

1. NSW health amalgamated categories that they had previously published, because the data looked embarrassing for the narrative they had promoted.

2. We The People caught them doing this and put in a Freedom of Information request to ask for the original format and the paper trail behind the decision to change.

3. NSW health then denied that they had the very data they published the week before and there was no paper trail for the decision to manipulate the data

4. The Information Commissioner said that was fine. Move along now.

Well that’s fine then. In which case the information commissioner won’t mind that we share their report… so here it is.

Ipcreview Gpia22 102 Redacted

236KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

And remember, folks - misinformation kills.

Actual headline from Scientific American, Oct 2020

1. The state version of FOI is a GIPA request

2. The “greater good” is one of history’s most democidal dogmas, as any study of tyrannical regimes will show you. A reasonable explanation of this is here and another here and, if you prefer video, here: