• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

BMJ Publishes Belated Attack on the Great Barrington Declaration, but It Doesn’t Hit the Target

by Noah Carl
13 October 2021 8:02 AM

The Great Barrington Declaration, which advocates a focused protection strategy for dealing with COVID-19, was published in October last year – before many countries around the world imposed their winter lockdowns.   

Recently, The BMJ Opinion – a journalistic offshoot of the well-known medical journal – published a very belated hit piece against the authors. As you might expect, it’s light on scientific arguments and heavy on tactics like ad hominem, guilt by association and appeals to authority.

The authors, David Gorski and Gavin Yamey, really don’t mince words. For example, they describe the Declaration (which has been signed by hundreds of scientists and healthcare professionals) as a “well-funded sophisticated science denialist campaign based on ideological and corporate interests”.

Not exactly a respectful way to talk about your colleagues. But it’s hardly the first time the Declaration’s critics have sunk to this level. Just last month, Jay Bhattacharya became the subject of a censorious petition which claimed that he “sows mistrust of policies designed to protect the public health”.

Gorski and Yamey begin their article by criticising the Declaration’s authors for collaborating with the American Institute for Economic Research, which they claim is a “libertarian, climate-denialist, free market think tank”.

I’m not sure why this is a ‘gotcha’. Lockdown is about as un-libertarian a policy as you could imagine, so it’s not really surprising that a libertarian think tank would oppose it. And in any case, the Declaration’s website clearly states that the document was “was written and signed at the American Institute for Economic Research”.

Martin Kulldorff has since clarified that the AIER president and board did not know about the Declaration until after it was published. But even if they had done, so what? As Kulldorff notes, universities like Duke and Stanford have received money from the Koch brothers. Should we therefore completely disregard what their academics have to say?

Gorski and Yamey’s next move is to cite social media censorship of lockdown sceptics as evidence that their arguments constitute ‘misinformation’. (Incidentally, that term – which basically means ‘information that’s missing from the mainstream narrative’ – appears no fewer than six times in the article.)  

However, this argument relies on circular logic: ‘Something was censored on social media? Therefore, it’s misinformation. How do we know? Well, misinformation is what social media companies censor.’ In reality, of course, the fact that something was censored is no indication whatsoever that it’s factually incorrect.

The authors then allege that when Sunetra Gupta and Carl Heneghan met Boris Johnson in September of last year, they were successful in “persuading him to delay” a ‘circuit breaker’ lockdown, which could have forestalled the second wave of infections.

As historian Phil Magness has already noted, this argument is deficient on two counts. It’s not clear that Gupta and Heneghan did persuade the Prime Minister to shelve the ‘circuit breaker’ idea. But even if they did, there’s no reason to believe that policy would’ve prevented a large number of deaths.

Finally, Gorski and Yamey compare lockdown sceptics to ‘climate science deniers’, insofar as both groups “argue that evidence-based public health measures do not work”. They call for experts to push back against the Great Barrington Declaration by highlighting “scientific consensus”, citing the John Snow Memorandum.

Of course, the pro-lockdown John Snow Memorandum is just another public statement signed by scientists and health professionals. If it constitutes “scientific consensus”, then so does the Great Barrington Declaration. I’m only aware of one attempt to gauge overall expert opinion on focused protection: the survey by Daniele Fanelli.

He asked scientists who’d published at least one relevant paper, “In light of current evidence, to what extent do you support a ‘focused protection’ policy against COVID-19, like that proposed in the Great Barrington Declaration?” Of those who responded, more than 50% said “partially”, “mostly” or “fully”.  

Regardless of the exact number of experts who support focused protection, claiming there is a “scientific consensus” against it is simply false. Long before the Declaration itself was published, many scientists had proposed some version of precision shielding. In fact, this was basically the U.K.’s plan until the middle of March, 2020.

On March 5th, Chris Whitty told the Health and Social Care Committee that we are “very keen” to “minimise economic and social disruption”, and mentioned that “one of the best things we can do” is “isolate older people from the virus”.

Another prominent scientist who has argued in favour of focused protection is Sir David Spiegelhalter. In an article published on May 29th, he and George Davey Smith said that we ought to “stratify shielding according to risk” because lockdown is “seriously damaging many aspects of people’s lives”.

They noted that this would require “a shift away from the notion that we are all seriously threatened by the disease, which has led to levels of personal fear being strikingly mismatched to objective risk of death”.

Among the ad hominems, appeals to authority and repeated uses of ‘misinformation’, finding a scientific argument in Gorski and Yamey’s article is not easy. And given that the content’s almost a year out of date, I’m not sure why the authors felt the need to publish it.

Tags: Focused protectionGreat Barrington DeclarationThe BMJ

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

No, Locking Down a Week Earlier Would Not Have Saved Tens of Thousands of Lives

Next Post

Have Continuing Covid Restrictions in Schools Left Children Feeling Unfurnished, Permanently Waiting for the Upholsterer?

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

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.

36 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Norman
Norman
3 years ago

When your scientific arguments come down to the ad hominems and appeals to authority, you have admitted defeat.

53
0
RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  Norman

Unfortunately not. Then, you’re probably an experienced, academic sophist who is well aware of the fact that silencing someone is as effective, if not more effective, as demonstrating that someone is wrong on something. This is the normal modus operandi of these people. They seek to win arguments by whichever means necessary, not to establish truth or falseness of something.

NB: All allusions intentional.

10
-1
BillRiceJr
BillRiceJr
3 years ago
Reply to  RW

I don’t even think they bother with trying to “win arguments.” Why worry about winning an argument with evidence or persuasion when you don’t even have to go to this trouble?

6
0
RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  BillRiceJr

Misunderstanding possibly caused by my idiosyncractic use of language here: I usually refer to a discussion as a conversation of various people arguing in favour of various standpoints or opinions with the goal to determine what they are and/ or to determine, which is true or false or makes the most sense in a given situation. In particular, this process is logic-driven and not competitive.

In contrast to this, winning an argument is based on a zero-sum game: Regardless of which party is in favour of which standpoint and regardless of the standpoints themselves, one party wins and the other loses, as determined by some audience both are addressing with whatever audience-winning techniques they can or desire to muster.

0
0
Julian
Julian
3 years ago

As time goes on and the voices speaking up get louder and more numerous, the attacks on them will become more vicious. If there start to be real signs that the sceptic side is gaining traction, our enemies will stop at virtually nothing to shut us down. That is the problem with the way they have backed themselves into a corner. There are only two ways out – crushing victory, or defeat ending in shame or worse. Do we really think that all of the world’s most powerful people and institutions will ever admit they were wrong, at least during the tenures of those at the top (which will be decades).

55
-1
Dave Angel Eco Warrier
Dave Angel Eco Warrier
3 years ago
Reply to  Julian

No, they will never admit they were wrong as they don’t see that they are. Unfortunately, this feeds into the average citizen, most of whom have fully taken on board all that lockdon champions have fed them. Like you say, it will be decades before any serious doubt will be confronted but no doubt we will have another ‘pandemic’ long before then and so on we go.

13
0
Julian
Julian
3 years ago
Reply to  Dave Angel Eco Warrier

“they don’t see that they are” I think this is true of some, not all. I cannot believe that Whitty and Vallance don’t know they are lying through their teeth. They are clever men.

20
-2
timsk
timsk
3 years ago

“. . . And given that the content’s almost a year out of date, I’m not sure why the authors felt the need to publish it.”

. . . Or why the BMJ felt the need to print it. Given how shockingly bad it is – it says more about the BMJ and the authors than it does about the Great Barrington Declaration. Foot, shoot, oneself (reputation).

44
0
RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  timsk

My guess would be because it’s again October and it’s supposed to cover the flanks of the powers-who-are who have again started to argue for mask mandates or school closures or a two week cirtuit-breaker lockdown or – even better – all of that to keep case numbers under control behind the scenes.

8
0
DevonBlueBoy
DevonBlueBoy
3 years ago
Reply to  timsk

Is this the same BMJ that railed against the revolving door that saw Witless, Unbalanced and Von Scam all sharing the same pharma employer before becoming Government ‘experts’?

0
0
DanClarke
DanClarke
3 years ago

“well-funded sophisticated science denialist campaign based on ideological and corporate interests”. That sounds like the BMJ. Most of us can only use our own experiences of the covid agenda/debacle.

35
0
jeff1000
jeff1000
3 years ago

I don’t know who Gavin Yamey is but I am very familiar with Dr. David Gorski’s hit pieces. His tactics are beneath those of his profession and I know of at least one fellow physician, Dr. Hooman Noorchasm, who took him to task in a published email, available online. Dr. Gorski has been a self appointed ‘quack’ checker for some time.

17
0
BeBopRockSteady
BeBopRockSteady
3 years ago

Did they mention Trump?

Or call the GBD racist?

They’ve ticked most boxes by the sounds of it.

14
0
John
John
3 years ago
Reply to  BeBopRockSteady

Trump does get a mention in passing.

5
0
John
John
3 years ago

Declared competing interests:
”Competing interests: GY has received research funding from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (Gavi) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, both of which support COVID-19 vaccine development and deployment. He was an unpaid member of the World Bank’s COVID-19 Vaccine Development Taskforce and an unpaid adviser to Gavi in the design of COVAX. He has written articles, including in TIME, in support of public health measures to curb COVID-19 (including masks; test, trace, isolate, and support; distancing; workplace and school safety measures; and ventilation of buildings). He was a co-author of a Lancet correspondence, “Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now” (Lancet 2020;396:E71-E72) that was the basis for the Jon Snow Memorandum. DHG has no competing financial interests. He does however, edit a weblog that has published many posts pushing back against COVID-19 and antivaccine misinformation and has been critical of the GBD in particular.”

24
0
CynicalRealist
CynicalRealist
3 years ago

given that the content’s almost a year out of date, I’m not sure why the authors felt the need to publish it.

Probably a pre-emptive attack on the objections to the next inevitable lockdown!

11
0
Moist Von Lipwig
Moist Von Lipwig
3 years ago

Ah, a Marxist attack on corporations, because lockdown is communist.

4
0
Anti_socialist
Anti_socialist
3 years ago
Reply to  Moist Von Lipwig

Indeed they are.

1
0
RW
RW
3 years ago

Refering to a consensus, is an appeal to popularity which is a logic error in its own right. Once upon a time in the past, there was a scientific consenus that planets, stars, the moon and the sun all revolve around earth, complete with ever more elaborate mathematical models to predict their movements. That lots of people do or don’t believe in something is immaterial for determining whether or not something is true.

There’s also an instance of No true scotsman here: The authors claim there was a scientific consensus because whoever disagrees with the supposed consensus is no true scientist.

10
0
brachiopod
brachiopod
3 years ago

Yesterday I came across the explanation of why the Government dropped the classification of the SARS-CoV-2 as a High Consequence Infectious Disease (see https://onthewight.com/why-covid-19-was-downgraded-from-high-consequence-infectious-disease-hcid-classification-the-reasons-and-understanding-them/ ).
It fits well with the jabbers’ intentions.
If the HCID status of the virus had remained in place the Government would have had to do everything to – require an enhanced individual, population and system response and to ensure it is managed effectively, efficiently and safely – so practically everything they were able to do by dropping this classification would have been ‘illegal’ – especially wasting huge sums of taxpayers’ money on ‘thevaccine’ and failing to use ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, etc in early treatment of the resulting Covid disease.

9
0
brachiopod
brachiopod
3 years ago

In yet another twisted version of the truth by the Guardian today, they put the ‘success’ of Japan in thwarting a ‘wave’ of Covid was due to thevaccine, masks, etc., completely ignoring that the Japanese equivalent of our CMO told doctors to use ivermectin (discovered in Japan originally) as ‘cases of Covid’ began to rise. It is also worth noting that the Japanese have also cancelled the mRNA thevaccines opting instead for the Novavax actualvaccine.

14
0
PhantomOfLiberty
PhantomOfLiberty
3 years ago

David Gorski is a notorious web bully writing a blog Respectful Insolence since 2008 sometimes using the pseudonym Orac, formerly on Science Blogs which in turn was for a long time was incorporated into National Geographic.
https://respectfulinsolence.com/
The characteristic problem of Respectful Insolence is that the columns begin with an ad hominem tirade – generally if there is any understandable scientific point it will come way down the page. People who read Respectful Insolence certainly know who they are supposed to hate, for instance anyone who remotely criticises vaccines or the vaccine industry aka “anti-vaxxers”. It is invariably pitched at the level of hate first. Above all what this represents is disparagement of rational polite dialogue. For Gorski the people he writes about are so bad that they do not deserve to belong to humanity, and unfortunately he only invokes science in order to justify behaving in an unpleasant way – if you don’t like it you must be a very bad person. The BMJ Opinion column is just a milder version

I suppose being accorded an article in BMJ Opinion is not quite the same as being in the journal proper though it carries some important articles, and it does not entail pubmed listing. Surely Kulldorff et al should be offered a column to reply.

Last edited 3 years ago by PhantomOfLiberty
9
0
RickH
RickH
3 years ago
Reply to  PhantomOfLiberty

Should such debris be given more publicity?

4
0
PhantomOfLiberty
PhantomOfLiberty
3 years ago
Reply to  RickH

A good question.

1
0
BillRiceJr
BillRiceJr
3 years ago

The GBD is described as a “well-funded sophisticated science denialist campaign based on ideological and corporate interests”.

Okay, let’s compare the “funding” of the GBD to the “funding” of the other side – which, as far as I can tell, has been funded by EVERY government, big corporation, think tank and media organization in the world. I’d also opine that these entities are a lot more “sophisticated” in their campaigns.

Basically, Goliath – cheered on by the whole world – is pissed off that David has one one or two people on his side.

…. Still, David has a secret weapon which clearly frightens Goliath and his backers.

5
0
BillRiceJr
BillRiceJr
3 years ago
Reply to  BillRiceJr

And we really get to the heart of the matter when the Great Barrington Declaration team members are smeared as “climate denialists.”

That’s the real fight. One way or another, most people – wounded as society may be – will survive Covid. The world’s real medicine will be administered with all the coming draconian measures to save “the climate.”

5
0
BillRiceJr
BillRiceJr
3 years ago
Reply to  BillRiceJr

The “secret weapon” is of course logic, real science, common sense, known data, better arguments, etc.

One suspects this paper was published now because the authors have noted with alarm that large swaths of the world’s population happen to agree with the GBD authors and think those on their side are dangerous, duplicitous, arrogant and evil frauds. They are worried that their side might not prevail after all. The truth scares them.

5
0
crisisgarden
crisisgarden
3 years ago

Institutional capture writ large. What a disgrace.

1
0
Robert Liddell
Robert Liddell
3 years ago

Another great piece of analysis by Noah Carl.
The BMJ and the Lancet have become embarrassments to my profession.

8
0
wantok87
wantok87
3 years ago

This BMJ article by two USA based zealots is a thinly disguised attack on clinicians who question ‘their own truth’. Sadly the BMJ has permitted this unscientific article to be published.Be it the broadcast media or scientific journals, the facts relating to the origin, infection mortality,vaccine efficacy and morbidity and public Heath interventions are unknown. History will be able to discern whether the BMJ or the Daily Skeptic was the most relevant publication for SARS- CoV-2 (Covid19) information-
I know where my vote would be cast – but then I signed the GND.

3
0
sskinner
sskinner
3 years ago

 “well-funded sophisticated science denialist campaign based on ideological and corporate interests”. This is blatant projection.

3
0
marebobowl
marebobowl
3 years ago

I don’t agree with the GBD authors advocating an experimental biological, but it is difficult to argue with Florida’s success at managing the plandemic. Governor DeSantis sought advise from Drs. Martin Kuldorff and Jay Battacharya. He stayed well away from Tony Fauci.

1
0
BungleIsABogan
BungleIsABogan
3 years ago

The BMJ, another discredited, once great publication.

3
0
Martin Sewell
Martin Sewell
3 years ago

Gavin Yamey and David Gorski are reduced to ad hominem, guilt by association and appeals to authority because they are wrong about everything.

What is herd immunity?
Herd immunity is not a strategy, it is an inevitable intermittent transitory state that occurs during an epidemic. In theory the herd immunity threshold is reached when, if the population had zero infections and a small number of infections were introduced, zero infections is a stable equilibrium. The herd immunity threshold is a function of the basic reproduction number of the dominant variant, the season and variation in the population’s susceptibility, so varies through time. Herd immunity is obtained each time the epidemic curve reaches a maximum, but is transitory. So, with COVID-19 in the UK, herd immunity comes and goes as dominant variants and seasons change, but the ultimate outcome is that COVID-19 becomes another endemic seasonal mutating respiratory disease, like the cold and the flu.

Do lockdowns work?
The empirical evidence (as opposed to unreliable modelling) from the UK and globally informs us that lockdowns had no significant positive impact on COVID-19 infections, cases, hospitalisations or deaths. Simon Wood from the University of Edinburgh showed that, for each of the first three waves and lockdowns in the UK, infections were most likely in decline before the lockdown even began. Yet lockdowns caused considerable collateral damage in both the short-term and the long-term. The disruption of cancer care alone has and will lead to thousands of avoidable deaths. The costs of lockdowns were orders of magnitude greater than the benefits. So why did the UK, and the world, sustain lockdowns? The government, overly pessimistic modelling and saturated media coverage spread fear among the public. The public, irrationally fearful, assuming that lockdowns worked and motivated to virtue signal, largely supported them. So the politicians, motivated to seek or maintain power and thus keen to appease the median voter, maintained them. Lockdowns have turned out to be the worst health economics mistake in modern history.

Do masks work?
Abaluck et al. (2021) conducted a cluster-randomised trial of community-level mask promotion in rural Bangladesh from November 2020 to April 2021, with 600 villages and 342,126 adult participants. Previous studies have evidenced that masks act primarily as a source control (they protect others from the person wearing the mask), and there is plenty of intergenerational mixing in rural Bangladesh, so if masks were effective, we’d expect a decrease in COVID-19 infections across all age groups in the intervention villages. However, the reduction in infections in the intervention villages was concentrated among individuals aged over 50, with no significant effect found for those aged under 50. The most parsimonious explanation is that the masks had no effect, and the over 50s, being at greater risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19, practiced more physical distancing and went out less. Making masks mandatory in a community setting fails to pass a cost–benefit analysis.

Have COVID-19 vaccination programmes been successful?
COVID-19 vaccination programmes can increase spread because the vaccinated can carry significant viral loads whilst remaining asymptomatic. Whilst, because COVID-19 vaccines are leaky, vaccination programmes can also cause more virulent strains of the virus to evolve (as evidenced by the vaccine used for Marek’s disease in chickens). So, COVID-19 vaccination programmes can lead to the worst-case scenario: increased infectivity and increased virulence. (Although a vaccinated person is less likely to suffer severe COVID-19 outcomes that an unvaccinated person, a vaccination programme could increase the total number of severe outcomes.) What is the empirical evidence? Despite increasing immunity within the community and improvements in treating COVID-19 in hospitals, in the UK infections, cases, hospitalisations and deaths are all higher than they were at the same time a year ago (a reasonable comparison, given that COVID-19 is seasonal). Whilst, globally, there is no evidence that countries that vaccinated a higher proportion of their population have ended up with lower rates of COVID-19 cases or deaths. COVID-19 vaccination programmes have failed to mitigate COVID-19.

4
0
SomersetHoops
SomersetHoops
3 years ago

There can be only one reason this report has been published, and that is part of the plan to whitewash mistakes made by multiple governments. I presume the authors are trying to ingratiate themselves with governments, so they can become part of the next generation of inaccurate government advisors like Ferguson and the UK SAGE Committee.

1
0
True Spirit of America Party
True Spirit of America Party
2 years ago

The real John Snow must be spinning in his grave….

0
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

The Sceptic | Episode 45: Jack Hadfield on the Anti-Asylum Protests, Alan Miller on the Tyranny of Digital ID and James Graham on the Net Zero Pension Threat

by Richard Eldred
25 July 2025
0

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

25 July 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

News Round-Up

25 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

Half of Public Think Islam is Incompatible with British Values

25 July 2025
by Will Jones

Covid Vaccines Saved Far Fewer Lives Than Claimed by WHO, Major New Study Finds

25 July 2025
by Will Jones

Wind Power Price Soars 11% as Government’s Promise to Cut Bills by £300 Fails to Materialise

25 July 2025
by Ben Pile

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

24

White Britons Are Right to Resist Becoming a Minority

50

News Round-Up

20

Covid Vaccines Saved Far Fewer Lives Than Claimed by WHO, Major New Study Finds

17

Half of Public Think Islam is Incompatible with British Values

17

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

25 July 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

Wind Power Price Soars 11% as Government’s Promise to Cut Bills by £300 Fails to Materialise

25 July 2025
by Ben Pile

Report on Black Maternity Experiences Blames “Racism” Without Evidence

24 July 2025
by Dr Roger Watson

White Britons Are Right to Resist Becoming a Minority

24 July 2025
by Charlie Cole

Twice as Many People Work in Environment ‘Charities’ Than in Wind Power Generation: ONS Report Reveals Shocking Truth About UK’s ‘Green Jobs’

24 July 2025
by Chris Morrison

POSTS BY DATE

October 2021
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Sep   Nov »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

POSTS BY DATE

October 2021
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Sep   Nov »

DONATE

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

25 July 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

News Round-Up

25 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

Half of Public Think Islam is Incompatible with British Values

25 July 2025
by Will Jones

Covid Vaccines Saved Far Fewer Lives Than Claimed by WHO, Major New Study Finds

25 July 2025
by Will Jones

Wind Power Price Soars 11% as Government’s Promise to Cut Bills by £300 Fails to Materialise

25 July 2025
by Ben Pile

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

24

White Britons Are Right to Resist Becoming a Minority

50

News Round-Up

20

Covid Vaccines Saved Far Fewer Lives Than Claimed by WHO, Major New Study Finds

17

Half of Public Think Islam is Incompatible with British Values

17

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

25 July 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

Wind Power Price Soars 11% as Government’s Promise to Cut Bills by £300 Fails to Materialise

25 July 2025
by Ben Pile

Report on Black Maternity Experiences Blames “Racism” Without Evidence

24 July 2025
by Dr Roger Watson

White Britons Are Right to Resist Becoming a Minority

24 July 2025
by Charlie Cole

Twice as Many People Work in Environment ‘Charities’ Than in Wind Power Generation: ONS Report Reveals Shocking Truth About UK’s ‘Green Jobs’

24 July 2025
by Chris Morrison

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences