HART’s must-read report “COVID-19: an overview of the evidence“, written about in Lockdown Sceptics on Thursday, has been making waves today. Former Supreme Court Judge Jonathan Sumption praised it in the Telegraph this morning, and then this afternoon Times Science Editor Tom Whipple did his best to bury it under smears of being anti-vaccine and “extremely irresponsible”.
In a mean-spirited piece that makes no effort to engage with the arguments of the report, Whipple rounds up the usual suspects to heap opprobrium on anything that deviates from the establishment line or raises awkward questions.
Originally headlined “Scientists condemn report claiming vaccines caused second wave deaths”, it now reads “Scientists condemn report questioning role of vaccine in second wave deaths”, presumably after someone pointed out to the editors that the report never makes such a claim but only raises questions based on patterns in data. The report clearly states that “we cannot infer causation from correlation”.
Whipple writes:
Among arguments about the harms caused by lockdown the 50-page document also states that the rollout of the Pfizer vaccine coincided with a large number of deaths and this may not have been a coincidence. “When something in data is this unusual, we have to ask questions, no matter how uncomfortable they may be,” it states, in a chapter written by a “quantitative analyst” called Joel Smalley. “It would be extremely unscientific and even negligent not to investigate whether the rise in deaths during this period is linked in some way to the vaccine rollout.” He suggested the Pfizer vaccine had not been tested sufficiently on older people.
Jeremy Brown, from UCL and a member of the Government’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, said this was “ridiculous”. He pointed to the now extensive real-world data showing the vaccines were safe and reduced deaths. “It is quite conclusively true that the vaccine offers protection in the real world,” he said. Far from killing people, he said, “if you’ve been vaccinated you have around an 85% lower chance of ending up in hospital”.
The rise in deaths was caused by infections, he said, rather than vaccines.
He added that academics should not be endorsing the idea vaccines may be causing mass death. “The only way out of this mess is the vaccine so anything that undermines that is distinctly unhelpful,” he said.
Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, added that to make the link “shows a blatant disregard for the facts” and “is irresponsible in the extreme”.
HART this evening published a response that clarifies they are not making claims so much as raising questions.
While scientists quoted in the article have dismissed HART’s suggestion that there is a possible link between vaccination and COVID-19 infections, it is worth highlighting that earlier this month a study led by Public Health England found a “notable” rise in COVID-19 infections in the over-70s immediately after receiving a vaccine.
We are not asserting that vaccines are the only possible cause of “second wave” cases and deaths. We are not asserting that the vaccines are, in and of themselves, dangerous or deadly. There are many factors at play here. For example, the increased contact from the vaccination programme or from possible relaxation of social distancing following vaccination have been suggested as possible causes for the correlation. It has also been shown that lymphocyte levels fall in the first three days after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination. The phase two trial of AstraZeneca showed a transient neutropenia in 46% of patients in the vaccine arm (compared to 7% in the control arm). Whether this suppressed immunity sufficiently accounts for increased susceptibility is uncertain. These observations have no bearing on the efficacy of the vaccines which is a separate issue.
They draw attention to a number of studies that show a spike in infections in the days following vaccination: the FDA Pfizer report that found a 40% increase in the vaccinated versus placebo arm in the first week of the trial; an Israeli study reporting a doubling in daily incidence until about eight days after the Pfizer vaccine had been given; a Danish paper showing a 40% increase of COVID-19 in the vaccinated in the first two weeks; and a Public Health England study that noted a 48% increase in Covid in the first nine days after vaccination.
Whipple also takes the report to task for supposedly getting the false positive rate of PCR tests wrong.
The report, which has been backed by other Tory MPs, also states that the false positive rate of Covid tests is 0.8-4%. To support this claim, which contradicts all the real-world evidence, it cites a paper that explicitly says the true rate must be lower.
However, as HART point out in their response, the figure they use is simply the Government’s own current estimate of the false positive rate. If that “contradicts all the real-world evidence” then Whipple should take it up with Public Health England, not HART.
Whipple is also unhappy with the claim that “50% of the population is already immune to the coronavirus”. It appears from the report that this figure is drawn from a review of evidence on pre-existing immunity in the BMJ.
Memory T cells are known for their ability to affect the clinical severity and susceptibility to future infection, and the T cell studies documenting pre-existing reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 in 20-50% of people suggest that antibodies are not the full story.
While these results do not necessarily mean 50% of the population has pre-existing immunity, as Dr Mike Yeadon wrote for Lockdown Sceptics, with COVID-19 one must also factor children into the immune category, and between adults with T cells and children you are getting on for “about 50%”, as HART put it.
Whipple also quibbles with the report’s claim that “there is no evidence the UK variant, which has come to dominate in countries around the world, is more transmissible”. Yet this claim was drawn from a study in Nature headed: “No evidence for increased transmissibility from recurrent mutations in SARS-CoV-2.” The evidence on this may change of course, but it’s worth keeping in mind that science does not proceed by consensus and it is not “irresponsible” to cite peer-reviewed papers to support an alternative point of view.
Having amassed what he presumably regards as conclusive evidence that the report is full of falsehoods and heresy, Whipple attempts to tar others by association for daring to endorse it, including Toby, while the editors obligingly stick a picture of Sir Graham Brady at the top. That’ll teach MPs to think twice before backing anything from the renegade scientists again.
Whipple writes:
The report has found other backers. Jonathan Sumption, the former Supreme Court Judge, described it in the Telegraph as “scrupulously referenced to specialist research”. Toby Young, a journalist and founder of the Lockdown Sceptics website, described it as a “devastating” assessment by “highly qualified” experts.
In contrast Simon Clarke, Associate Professor in Cellular Microbiology at the University of Reading, said the report was “the reverse of science” and “bizarre”, adding that the authors “seem to have worked backwards, deploying only research findings which fit their ideology, or they simply don’t bother with anything so inconvenient”.
“The smearing of some of the current vaccines is particularly egregious,” he said. “It seems calculated to grab attention and frighten people, it could cost lives if anyone were foolish enough to believe it.”
The piece initially went out without a comment from HART, though one was later added:
A spokesperson for HART said, “In HART’s recently published overview of COVID-19 evidence, we noted that the January peak in Covid cases and deaths correlated both in time and geographically with the mass roll-out of the novel vaccines. However, HART is mindful that correlation does not always equal causation and we are not asserting that vaccines are the cause.”
At Lockdown Sceptics we are acutely aware that, as far as the Government and much of the public is concerned, as Jeremy Brown said, “the only way out of this mess is the vaccine”. That’s why we support the (voluntary, obviously) vaccination programmes and would never discourage anyone from getting a vaccine if that is what they consider to be right for them and their health. However, we also believe in free enquiry, and scientists raising questions, and exploring potential trends in data to see what they might be telling us – and we don’t think that that is irresponsible, pandemic or no pandemic. On the contrary, the irresponsible thing is to close down scientific enquiry for the sake of a questionable “greater good”.
Stop Press: Whipple’s article is headlined: “Scientists condemn report questioning role of vaccine in second wave deaths.” But not all scientists, it seems. A woman describing herself as a “scientist” at UCL wrote this Rapid Response in the BMJ on Monday: “After the initiation of vaccine programme, almost all countries experienced a sudden surge of transmission and most countries had to impose strict lockdown measures.”
Stop Press 2: Hector Drummond was unimpressed with Whipple’s mudslinging, tweeting: “The establishment is badly rattled. This is a hatchet job of unprecedented partisanship by the Times‘ tame science lapdog Tom Whipple. They’d prefer to say nothing about HART’s report, but have been forced to attack it because it is getting noticed.”
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
So once again, ”Worth reading in full” leads us to a paywall. Why does DS continue to do this when there’s a non-paywalled version of the same story available?
Anyhoo, seems that Khant has just recruited some of the Jew-hating Hamasshole yobs, going by the pictures. That’s my bet anyway. They have the exact same demeanour too. Well they do make up his voter base so he wouldn’t have to look very hard would he?
”TfL said the security guards wore plain, dark clothes while on the job and were also allowed to wear hats.
It refused to comment on the guards wearing balaclavas and masks but said the use of mobile camera vans will be reviewed continually to ensure the Ulez was being enforced effectively.
A TfL spokesperson said: ‘Our security workers are directed not to wear face coverings unless they feel threatened by being closely filmed.
‘Wearing of medical masks is permitted. We will remind our contractors of the situations when they can be worn.
They added: ‘We have hired a small number of qualified security staff who are suitably licensed by the Security Industry Authority, due to ongoing criminal damage to Ulez cameras and vehicles.
‘They are held to high standards of professionalism.
‘Unfortunately, our contractors have been subjected to threats and abuse while carrying out their duties so they are advised to record any issues on body-worn cameras to deescalate conflict and if necessary, record evidence for police investigations.
‘Vandalism is unacceptable and all incidents on our network are reported to the police for investigation.
‘Criminal damage to Ulez cameras or vehicles puts the perpetrators at risk of prosecution and injury, while simultaneously risking the safety of the public.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12868309/The-ULEZ-goon-squad-Sadiq-Khan-using-mob-masked-heavies-intimidate-harass-London-homeowners-protect-hated-cameras-Blade-Runners.html
The way to get around paywalls, Mogs…https://archive.is/
Cheers, Aethelred.
Just narks me a bit why we can’t just use a source that already exists sans paywall really…
When it became bloody obvious that the dinghy imports were young fighting age men I repeatedly made the point that they were being brought in as an alternative army. I see no reason to change that opinion.
But wouldn’t we have heard something more definitive about that if it were the case by now? There’s no doubting that they’re all young men and juvenile males arriving, but if there were some sort of clandestine operation taking place, surely some information would have leaked or there’d be some eye witness accounts somewhere, but all we really have to go on presently are rumours and guesswork. I know you mentioned John O’Looney ages back but I’ve not heard anything from him in a long while. I’m not saying it’s not a possibility but we need something more to go on than just theories.
If all of these young guys were being trained up for something it’d all have to be being done in top secret, right under our noses, and these men wouldn’t have the opportunity to be going out and committing the crimes they do, and we have the evidence for this. This would also be an ideal opportunity for some secret intel to be leaked; if one of them committed a crime and it came out that he was here as part of some government initiative to be trained up for some operation. But with the lack of anything much to go on it just doesn’t really stack up for me.
I think they’re simply here as our replacements and the idea is, the men/boys do the arduous journey to get a foot in the door and set up here then they apply for family reunification, then shed-loads of relatives come over. The whole ‘asylum seeker’ farce is nothing but a Trojan horse. So whether your theory is true or not, either way our governments are screwing us over, whichever way you look at it.
Your point of view is more than plausible Mogs. I still see malicious intent behind the import of the dinghy hordes.
“security were held to high standards of professionalism, and had been told they should hide their face only if they feel intimidated by being closely filmed.”
Ah, so “high-standard” “professional” security are so easily intimidated that they don’t like close-ups from a camera. Hmm. Nothing to hide, obviously.
My feeling is that, with the sole exception of the Bladerunners, whenever anybody dons a mask they turn into an absolute arsehole. Yes, ‘bare-cheeked’ arseholes are still ten a penny, but there’s something about the transformation that takes place in a person’s character that emboldens them to behave in a seriously anti-social and hostile manner. The evidence of this is all over the internet, in footage on social media, for all to see. I have literally yet to see, during any type of protest or crowd gathering, people on the *right* side ( that’d be the decent, reasonable folk ) wearing masks. No matter the context it is always the screaming banshee, aggressive lunatics that get up to no good and in people’s faces who wear a face covering. We need the input of Dr Sidley on this observation, STAT!
If I see men, especially young men, anywhere near me, individually or in a group, and their faces are covered in some way, I consider my options and expect trouble.
Well that’s it. 1) They’re mentally ill, or 2) They’re up to no good. That’s my thought process anyway. Fortunately I’m seeing zero masktards round my way.
Ditto.
They either have something to hide, or are about to something they should not be doing, or they are trying to look hard and may be easily triggered.
Or they could be feeling intimidated, since that seems to be an acceptable reason for hiding one’s face according to the Mayor of London
Leaving these “security guards” aside, if someone feels intimidated on the street and wears a mask it tells me they are possibly edgy and likely to kick off – steer clear.
Well, Khan’s performance when being held to account for his actions and their outcomes particularly his refusal to answer questions do not exactly inspire confidence in his motives or agenda.
A dump but an important one – the culling of the elderly in 2020. Paul Weston calls this mass murder. I might have used the same words myself occasionally.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/a-beginners-guide-to-the-great-covid-con-part-3-manufacturing-excess-deaths/
I recommend that everyone reads this article. It’s a very succinct account of an absolutely horrific event.
Thanks RW.
“the security were held to high standards of professionalism, and had been told they should hide their face only if they feel intimidated by being closely filmed.”
Which is tantamount to saying – “this is your excuse, ‘I felt intimidated.’
A bit like saying they can do what they want.
Who decides ‘high standards of professionalism?”
“Masked security “goons” hired to guard Sadiq Khan’s Low Emission Zone cameras have been accused of assaulting and intimidating locals.”
As the ULEZ scheme was not asked for by the citizens of London and Khan is using thugs to protect his instruments of extortion this is looking like a very clever coup.
Also assuming the picture is of one of the actual “security guards”, it’s good to see that their high professional choice of mask is a horror mask designed to frighten and convey aggression. Quite appropriate really.
All the hallmarks of a fledgling totalitarian state. Impose some rules and then use the heavy mob to enforce them.
Surely these goons can’t guard every single camera? I mean the ones they can’t ‘protect;’ will be subject to things like wear and tear, unexplained tornados, meteors, Bermuda Triangle disappearances etc. And, out of scientific interest as I certainly wouldn’t suggest it or promote such behaviour, if someone smeared an epoxy resin over the lens surface, wouldn’t that make it all blurry?
And where is the money coming from to pay for Khan’s version of the NKVD?
No doubt the funds will come from ULEZ ‘fines’.
Beria would be so proud!
This is going down. Doesn’t make me happy because the world after won’t be any better than the world before but at least there is some resistance.
“…claims a security guard purposefully ran her over…”
‘deliberately’ or ‘on purpose’ – not “purposefully” (which means something quite different, although likely to be true of these fascist bastards)
The thing to do here is simply call 999. These are not proper licenced security people, they are threatening thugs. This is a criminal offence, and if Khan has hired them he should be in court. Security people are not allowed to hide their identity, in fact they have their license on the arm, if not they are thugs.
Oh if only that would work. The police if they arrived, would start on the locals. Thats where we are now. There will ultimately be a more ‘vigorous’ response to this stasi reincarnation.
Drip, drip, drip. I fear we may actually be on the verge of true anarchy.
The signs are there.
There will ultimately be a more ‘vigorous’ response to this stasi revival.
What then? Escalation becomes inevitable as more and more of the general population see and feel the effects of ALL the multi faceted crocks of sh1t surrounding them.
They will become more…’enthused’ and more inclined to start looking out for their own best interests.
How did that go with the original incarnation of the Stasi?
All part of much bigger malfeasant plan?
Are ‘they’ awakening a sleeping giant?
I know what I think.
Time will tell.
Employing mercenaries. I see the war is advancing towards the shooting stage.