The BBC has published another of its questionable ‘reality checks‘, this one by the aptly-titled “disinformation reporter” Rachel Schraer. Her target is doctor Steve James, who directly challenged Health Secretary Sajid Javid on the science behind the impending vaccination mandate when Mr. Javid visited the hospital where he works last week. Schraer, whose medical and scientific credentials are unclear, has taken it upon herself to assess Dr. James’s claims in a piece entitled “Fact-checking the doctor who challenged the Health Secretary“, saying the claims are “not exactly what the evidence shows”. However, the evidence she picks for this ‘fact check’ is very selective, and she overlooks several studies that do indeed back up what the brave doctor was saying.
Dr. James told Mr. Javid: “The vaccines are reducing transmission only for about eight weeks with Delta. For Omicron, it’s probably less.”
‘Disinformation reporter’ Schraer responds:
While vaccines remain very good at protecting against becoming severely ill with Covid, the protection they give against catching it and passing it on does wane more quickly.
Dr. James was referring to a study that found a vaccinated person with Covid was just 2% less likely than an unvaccinated person to pass it on, 12 weeks after a second Oxford-AstraZeneca jab – he acknowledges his reference to “eight weeks” was an error.
But the same study found the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which NHS staff are likely to have had, endured better. Vaccinated people had a 25% lower risk of infecting others than unvaccinated people after 12 weeks.
Well, 25% is not very much, and this is not the only study which looks at this, with others finding even smaller effect. A study in the Lancet found no difference in household secondary attack rate depending on whether the index case was vaccinated, and correspondingly no difference in viral load. A study by the U.S. CDC also found no difference in infectiousness and concluded: “Clinicians and public health practitioners should consider vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be no less infectious than unvaccinated persons.” UKHSA and others have also found viral load no lower in the vaccinated. These studies are all pre-Omicron, which is likely to be even more able to evade vaccines.
Schraer continues:
And this research alone doesn’t tell the whole story – the vaccines also reduce people’s risk to others by stopping them catching the virus in the first place.
One paper found those vaccinated with Pfizer 85% less likely than the unvaccinated to be infected with Covid after two weeks and 75% less likely after 12 weeks.
Vaccinated people also seem to clear the virus faster and have less of it in their system – reducing their chances of passing it on.
These studies all looked at the Delta variant, first identified in India.
Two vaccine doses appear to be less effective against catching and passing on Omicron infections – although, they are still good at preventing severe illness – but much of the benefit is restored with a third booster jab.
While some studies, particular older ones, have found high effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine against infection, others have found it drops much lower, with one study from Sweden finding “no effectiveness could be detected” after seven months. Against Omicron many studies have found negligible effectiveness after just three months. Furthermore, according to UKHSA data, infection rates in the ‘fully vaccinated’ have been higher than in the unvaccinated for a number of months – implying negligible or negative unadjusted vaccine effectiveness pre-Omicron – with boosters improving the situation but Omicron reversing the trend.
‘Disinformation’ Schraer then moves on to natural immunity.
The second part of Dr. James’s argument was that he had probably had Covid, providing him with some protection without a vaccine.
“I’ve got antibodies,” he said.
“I’ve been working on the Covid [intensive-care unit] since the beginning.”
So-called natural immunity – having immune cells such as antibodies and T-cells in your system that recognise and fight off the virus from an infection rather than a vaccine – can offer effective protection, although it comes with the risk of becoming very ill or developing “long Covid”.
This comment is irrelevant as Dr. James has already recovered from Covid and was not suggesting that others should contract it instead of being vaccinated (though some may conclude their risks from the vaccine outweigh those from the virus, particularly as the vaccine does not prevent contracting the virus).
Schraer continues:
But what the doctor didn’t mention is that, as with his point about vaccines, this protection also wanes and may be ineffective against infection with a different variant.
An Imperial College London study suggests the protection from having had Covid against infection by the Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa, “may be as low as 19%”.
The Imperial study was published on December 17th using early data and, contrary to most other studies, found “no evidence of Omicron having lower severity than Delta”. This suggests it should not be taken as the final word on Omicron and natural immunity. A more recent study puts the protection provided by natural immunity against Omicron infection at 56%, around the same level as is reported for the boosters (and more resilient).
Schraer adds:
The best protection against Covid comes from having an infection and being vaccinated too, several pieces of research have found.
What Schraer doesn’t mention, however, is that the gain from being vaccinated on top of infection is marginal, and needs to be considered in light of the risks of repeated vaccine doses.
To her credit, Schraer then quotes an academic who broadly supports Dr. James’s opposition to vaccine mandates.
Dominic Wilkinson, a Professor of Medical Ethics, at the University of Oxford, says doctors have a clear ethical duty to be vaccinated but sacking someone who is not but can show they have had a recent infection that may provide similar protection may be unjustifiable.
If the vaccines completely blocked transmission, it would be a much simpler question, he says.
But since they are less effective against new variants, it is “no longer as clear”.
Unfortunately, ‘Disinformation’ Schraer then lets herself down and makes mischief for Dr. James by smearing him by association with the “reaction online”.
Another NHS hospital doctor, Dr Meenal Viz, who spends her spare time online correcting misinformation, told BBC News she feared the clip of Dr. James would be seized on by those who wanted to suggest the science for the vaccine in general was not strong enough – despite the huge weight of evidence from hundreds of independent institutions and millions of people that it prevented disease and death.
This fits into a pattern she regularly sees online, where short clips, single statistics or lines from a scientific study taken out of context can “completely blow up” and cause more confusion than straightforward falsehoods.
“On the internet, when things go viral, people tend to cherry-pick what they want,” Dr Viz said, potentially leaving people with the impression an intensive care doctor was doubting the science of the vaccine, rather than the much narrower and more complicated point Dr. James says he was making.
And her fears were not misplaced.
Dr James’s comments were eagerly seized on by those against vaccination, including some promoting false theories such as the virus is a hoax.
BBC News also found it referenced in more extreme encrypted chat groups, including one used to organise removals of sick patients from hospital against doctors’ advice and coordinate the serving of bogus legal writs accusing doctors and teachers of crimes against humanity.
But Dr. James stands by his comments: “If people wish to polarise, they will do that,” he says.
Leaving aside the malicious smearing-by-association with a random WhatsApp group the BBC found somewhere, it has to be asked, who’s more of a threat to the public right now, an obscure group of ineffectual online activists, or the people in Government and their flunkies in the media who wish to fire thousands of hard-working medical staff, at a time of national shortage, based on a false belief that vaccines prevent the spread of COVID-19?
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.
Good morning
Madam Shraer is not mischief making although I understand that is a euphemism for troublemaking for a very nice doctor. Shame on her.
Thank you Will – I posted a link to the BBC article with a request for the great and the good ie Will to look at it.
My suspicion was they were being selective in their studies and although that doesn’t negate the studies they chose it does highlight the fact there is a huge amount of error margins because of the inability to conduct fully robust scientific studies.
thanks for the rebuttals when I get challenged in this in the pub on Friday!
Oh the irony – the left wing media, and the Labour opposition which voted for it, wishes to sack conscientious medical staff for refusing the vaccine mandate. Clap for heroes? – ideology trumps their stated concern for the NHS.
By pushing the globalists Left/Right dichotomy, you are part of the problem. There is no Left and Right. All UK political parties are united in pursuing a globalist agenda.
“All UK political parties are united in pursuing a globalist agenda.”
Yes, that’s correct.
Because all our mainstream political parties are parties representing the globalist left, in various degrees and factional agendas.
That’s certainly been true at least since the “Conservative” Party fell completely into the hands of the Blairite faction of the left, and arguably for some time before that.
“By pushing the globalists Left/Right dichotomy, you are part of the problem. There is no Left and Right.“
No, this is just silly. Left and right are fundamental truths of human nature,. and globalism is inherently and by definition a dogma of the left, because it seeks to overturn the nation state in pursuance of supposed internationalist or other ideals.
The problem we face is mostly one of the near universal triumph of the left. It is the dogmas of the left that it is dangerous to question. It is conservative outlets that are being suppressed, and conservative opinions that get you sacked or “cancelled”.
You are confusing Left and Right with different degrees of authoritarianism. Both the extreme Left (communism) and extreme Right (fascism) are authoritarian.
Nope.
The idea of a left/right spectrum with a political right that is some kind of equivalent to the political left but in the opposite direction is simply false, and is used to try to enforce the establishment position by pretending it is “moderate” and “centrist” – the ploy the Blairites have used so effectively in this country.
There are leftists, who are those who believe that they can build a new, better world according to whatever theories they happen to adhere to, if they are only allowed enough power to sweep away obstacles, and there are those who resist such people and ideas. The latter are conservatives, the political “right”.
Authoritarianism is a separate issue, and is found in people on both left and right, though it tends to be associated more strongly with the left, because obviously if you are going to build a better world you need power in order to do so.
Fascism is a term that has been so abused over the decades that it is impossible to use without care. In its original form, it was classically a doctrine of the far left, seeking to sweep away traditional structures and build a new world order. It is mostly historical accident, to do with its bitter struggle with the other main far left strand of the early C20th, Marxism, that caused it to be superficially associated with the right. Certainly the German National Socialist (especially) and Italian Fascist forms were far left. You can argue that the Spanish version under Franco was conservative.
You wrote all that to try and shore up your Left/Right mindset, and failed. As shown in the pictorial above, there is only tyranny or freedom. You are arguing for the existence of some imaginary ‘Right’ that doesnt exist. In reality, both Left and Right as popularly conceived are on the side of tyranny.
“You are arguing for the existence of some imaginary ‘Right’ that doesnt exist.”
Eh? That’s what you are doing. My point is precisely that “the right” is merely resistance to leftism in its various forms.
To declare “there is only tyranny or freedom” is fatuous. There are many forms and degrees of tyranny, and likewise for freedom. At this historical moment we do not face a reactionary tyranny (granted, such things can exist), rather we face tyrannies all based upon zealotries that seek to force us to embrace coerced change, in order to be better people, to build a better world (of the left by definition).
Fascism is a term that has been so abused over the decades that it is impossible to use without care. In its original form, it was classically a doctrine of the far left, seeking to sweep away traditional structures and build a new world order.
I can’t really speak for fascism as I’m largely unfamiliar with it beyond pointing out that Mussolini’s corporatist state was based on an originally medieval concept which had been abandoned during industrialization in the 19th century, but for national-socialism, your idea is completely bizarre. The traditional order of Germany had just been swept away by the victorious (sort of) Entente powers and an originally communist revolution the antirevolutional social democrats had violently suppressed with the help of the army which had returned home after the armistice (slight simplifcation). Instead, a presidental republic based on representative democracy had been installed and the former great power Germany had been completely crippled by the demands of the treaty of Versailles.
This, the NSDAP sought to reverse and return to what they considered a saner state of affairs, a society essentially based on military command-structure and on respecting and utilizing the unequalness of people. In the long term, this was first supposed to restore Germany to the status of a great power, recover the territory it had lost, including the German parts of the former Habsburg monarchy and ultimatively, enable it to wage a successful war against the marxist Sovjet Union based on the idea of getting rid of an inherent enemy of mankind and of acquiring sufficient territory in Europe to meet the needs of the expanding German population (instead of suppressing that expansion by artifically introduced infertility).
The Nazi program had nothing to do with restoring anything except German power and prestige, it was based on creating a radical and totally new society based on race. It represented a return to authoritarianism only because authoritarianism was in Hitler’s nature and his military background, and was necessary to impose radical change. Granted there was some posturing to enlist conservative supporters by dressing in the clothes of traditionalism, but there was no substance to any of that. As I’ve noted here before, I like the formulation used by TIKHistory for this:
“Marxism is but one version of socialism, and there are many versions of socialism. Marxism is not the core concept of socialism. In fact, the idea of socialism predates Marxism. As I will show later, socialism is state control of the economy. Marxism is a class version of this state control of the economy. Marx said that the utopian socialists that came before him were unscientific and therefore not real socialists, like he was. And so he created a class-theory of history, and an ideology based on class socialism. Then Hitler came along and said Marx was not a real socialist either, calling him unscientific, and embraced a racial-theory of history, and an ideology based on race-socialism.”
Hitler’s Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments
Basically, Marxism is mass murderous class-based socialist tyranny, and nazism was mass murderous race-based socialist tyranny.
Someone seems to have stumbled over Marx claim to have turned Hegel from standing on his head to standing on his feet and wrongly attributed that to Hitler as statement about Marx. The same someone apparently also wrongly attributed Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s theory about races Hitler pretty much adopted as original creation to him (Hitler) which makes this a rather amusing bit of nonsense. Hitler was also very explictly opposed to the so-called conservatives of the Weimar republic and his idea of Marxism was that it was just the final state of the secret, Jewish plan for world domination by destroying (European) civilisation. His idea of socalism was not about controlling the economy as such but of a solidaric society of members of a tribe (ie, a group of related people).
I suggest that you don’t use obviously modernly politicized secondary sources here, especially not if they ignore historical facts (like the German revolution the Nazis wanted to undo).
Certainly not “relying” on TIKhistory, just recognised it as a good description, based on my own decades of direct study of these matters (many years ago, now).
Nothing you wrote there seems to contest the core point, and most of it appears irrelevant. The Nazis sought to build a completely new society in which all institutions and forces were subordinated to the Party and the Leader. That kind of radicalism has got nothing to do with the political right and is a quintessentially leftist program.
Some of Hitler’s tactical manoeuvring and political postures were directly intended to appeal to conservatives – quite successfully at times, but that was never more than a ploy.
As a matter of interest, why, when you are seeking to argue for the idea that “there is no such thing as left and right” and “far right” is as tyrannical as “far left”, did you post an image of a diagram which suggests a polar opposite to your position?
Your diagram shows a clear left/right axis with the far left end of the spectrum being high state control, incorporating both fascism and communism as far left, and the “far right” being libertarianism and various forms of anarchism.
The diagram is actually a much better depiction of reality than your own position. To some extent, low state control obviously limits the extent to which people can be forced into leftist (by definition) New World Orders. The problem is that state power is not the only source of coercive power in the world, obviously, though it has been the biggest through the long C20th. There is a shift to corporate power, for sure, and the latter is playing an increasing part in driving leftist ideology currently.
A really good point Mark. As a left libertarian my concern is that the tyranny of the new authoritarian imperatives are being pursued by the corporate world through departments like HR and Legal Counsel in large corporates. The unfreedom of losing your job because you don’t kow-tow can be weighted with the similar injustice. That of denied a fair wage, being overworked, being exposed to undue risks in the service of corporate profit etc. That can be balanced with the state creating dependency and despair through welfare policies which sap individual effort and agency. These issues show the need for a much more judicious setting of the plumb line between right and left.
What would differentiate a left libertarian from a right libertarian?
A right libertarian keeps hold of his house to pass on to his offspring but a left libertarian would confiscate that house for the ‘common good’ – much like masking up and getting injected for the ‘common good’.
I think as long as you try to set a “plumb line between right and left”, you will always have problems because it is based on a basic (albeit widespread) misunderstanding, as discussed above.
As I wrote, there is leftism and there is resistance to it, which is the only thing that defines the right. Left/right is not about state/corporate or class-based bigotry – those are the particular issues of the mid-C20th, that came to define the divide in the minds of those generations.
I don’t say that left is is always bad. Clearly there are reforms that are needed, and that are ultimately accepted. But leftism pursued with zealotry is almost always more harmful than any good it achieves. The wise balance varies from time to time and from society to society.
In our world of cancel culture, of “hate speech” illiberalism, of internationalist destruction, and of various reformist zealotries imposed by coercion, our problem has been and remains an excess of leftism.
Cornubia, the German Nazi Party took over a workers party and promoted national socialism, as opposed to the international socialism of communism.
The NSDAP grew out of the DAP, a splinter party less than a dozen people had formed in Munich, Adolf Hitler encountered more-or-less by accident during a military political reconnaissance operation.
It’s not about Left V Right but about Freedom V Tyranny
And btw, globalism is an ideology of the communist Left (Marxism) and fascist Right (corporate oligarchy). They have a symbiotic relationship.
“And btw, globalism is an ideology of the communist Left (Marxism) and fascist Right (corporate oligarchy). “
The corporate oligarchy looks pretty leftist to me (and to any honest person) at the moment.
The elite are pushing for a fusion of state/corporate power on a global scale ie global fascism. They fund millions of ostensibly leftist NGO driven ‘useful idiots’ to achieve their goal. Meanwhile, the useful idiots on the supposed right keep voting for corporate-funded globalist parties. While we keep playing the Left/Right game, thisglobalist merry-go-round will continue. We must learn to vote for freedom or tyranny.
“ostensibly leftist”
This seems to be some kind of denial on your part. There’s nothing “ostensible” about sacking people who dissent from leftist dogmas and shutting down dissenting businesses and speech outlets.
“Freedom or tyranny” is just empty sloganeering.
Fashionable childishness like “both sides are wrong” is superficially attractive, and has the consequence of being tactically correct (by chance) in seeking new parties to replace the ones we have that are all captured by the triumphant globalist left, but in the end you will most likely just end up falling for some new form of leftist activism (like those who went for the “Green” leftism when they thought they were choosing “neither side” in the previous political generation).
A more fundamental understanding of politics is better, imo.
I’m a Georgist (i.e. classic Adam Smith capitalist, and against credit-communist central “bank” setting of credit prices ) and I see to annoy “left” and “right”.
If you hold to a minority position such as that (not saying it’s necessarily wrong as a theoretical analysis, just that it has little practical influence as an ideology, and there is no prospect of you getting to impose it on society), it’s really a matter of where you stand on the particular issues being pushed by the left atm. And that’s much wider than mere economics and ownership.
The rise of the globalists corresponds with the fall of my ideology, it used to be the main way the post-feudalist western world worked.
i.e. tax is the cost of title protection, not the state owns the people and gives it to the establishment
As long as you are looking at it as a general sensible approach based on what has worked in the past, rather than a prescriptive ideology, then that’s a pretty conservative outlook.
The west never escaped feudalism. We just got a different bunch of rulers.
The useful idiots pushing the covid tyranny are ostensibly Left in that they support the covid agenda because, on the face of it, its a good opportunity to collectivise society while in reality they are progressing corporate fascism. Any true Leftist would realise that. .
Of course. One could argue that an internationalist, socialist state and a large multi-national corporation have a lot of similarities, eg, a centrally-planned command economy. The corporations of Mussolini’s corporatism where (incorporated) trade guilds and not (incorporated) companies.
The reality is that it matters little to the victim if the power crushing you is wielded by a capitalist manager or a state apparatchik.
No matter how often that intentional confusion of of a homonym is rolled out, it remains equally wrong: corporatism, as used by Mussolini, has nothing to do with the modern meaning of the word corporation, especially not multinational corporation. It’s antithetical to very notion of it.
You’ve saved me making that comment. We really do need to stop alienating people who are on our side on this point purely because they did or didn’t vote for Brexit, do or don’t support Trade Unions etc. Left or Right, we’re in a dictatorship which we need to unite against and we shouldn’t expect anyone in power to be with us.
According to Sajid Javid it was an opinion. Please come and join our friendly peaceful events to fight this nonsense.
Saturday 15th January 5pm
Silent lighted walk behind one simple sign
“No More Lockdown”
Bring torches, candles and other lights
Meet Corner of Castle Hill & High St,
Windsor SL4 1PQ
Stand in the Park Sundays 10am make friends, ignore the madness & keep sane
Wokingham – Howard Palmer Gardens Cockpit Path car park Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
It’s way past time that the BBC was thoroughly ‘fact checked’. And when exactly did it become a political party?
I would imagine if you were to do a vox pop of say 100 people on any high street they would not say that they pay their licence fee to the BBC so that it can sit and “fact check” doctors who gave their honest opinion on something when asked for it.
Can anyone explain how or why injections that were shown by reports in the BMJ (26/11/20) and Lancet (20/4/21) to have almost ZERO efficacy are being reported, even in sceptic circles, as having wonderful efficacy?
This is a huge data problem. Different studies at different times in different countries by different people – some having an agenda, others not. I’ve seen so much study data that it’s almost impossible to draw any definitive conclusions. The data also has a number of factors that vary significantly between different populations e.g. obesity, average age etc. From what I’ve seen, I’d draw these very shaky conclusions that the shots (in general):
All observational estimation though.
You are saying the injections are 70% effective, and then the efficacy wanes – which is a repeat of the govt narrative. I have shown you evidence of the injections having zero efficacy. Although you have been unable to refute that evidence, you assert they have 70% efficacy. If you cannot produce evidence to support your assertion, you should not make that assertion.
I believe “Free Lemming” is taking in as much data as possible and reaching their own conclusion….quoting studies from the BMJ and Lancet doesn’t really help either (both have proved incorrect, putting it lightly, in the past).
The bottom line is the injections do effect the immune system early on, do cause a higher risk to the recipient, do have adverse effects and do little or nothing to stem the flow of respiratory viruses.
We will probably never know the real effect, as PCR testing is also dodgy (at best).
The question with any medicine is: “Do you need to take it?” The answer is……up to you.
I am asking Free Lemming to provide a source for his claim of 70% efficacy. Whats wrong with that? You on the other hand are dismissing evidence of zero efficacy not on its merits, but by trying to discredit the source.
Here’s a small selection of my bookmarks (all read)…
It’s not a repeat of the government narrative at all. I made no ‘assertion’, try reading before replying. I’m merely saying that there are many studies that do show efficacy, but those studies vary in their conclusions, so it’s difficult to draw a definitive conclusion. Citing one or two studies is irrelevant as they’ll be others that find something different. And I’m not advocating shots – in now way whatsoever, I won’t go near them with a bargepole – I was just trying to give a kind of average from what I’ve read so far.
Jeez, your aggressive “I am not wrong” attitude is no better than the pro-vax zealots that have manufactured this problem. Read and absorb before making rash replies.
You words were “I’d guess that the peak efficacy is more like 70%”. That is clearly an assertion of 70% efficacy. I would just like to know how an injection with a proven almost zero efficacy suddenly went to the ‘70% efficacy’ you claim exists.
The word ‘guess’ tells you that this is not an assertion. All studies report something different, that’s the point. Not continuing this discussion any further as you seem to have a very loose grasp of the meaning of words.
The moral of the story is – don’t state, imply or suggest 70% efficacy without having the evidence to support the claim.
Assume you’re conveniently ignoring the part-bookmarks image I posted, which contains many articles/studies on efficacy? Nope, the moral of the story for me is not to get into discussions with complete f*ckin idiots.
It’s far more important to understand what pharmaceutical companies mean by ‘efficacy’ – in short, they mean the relative risk reduction (RRR) rather than the absolute risk reduction (ARR) which is the only thing that should matter to either a clinician or patient. Early on I calculated the ARR of the Pfizer shot to be 0.7%. I’ve seen other calculations that that place the ARR between 0.7% and 0.84%; either way it’s not a lot of benefit for the known and unknown risks involved. Whether the RRR is 95% or 70% is, in the scheme of thing, irrelevant – the shots are at best useless, like statins, and dangerous, certainly in the short term and most probably in the long term.
Thats exacly my point. When these people talk about ‘70% efficacy’, they are aiding and abetting the enemy in committing efficacy fraud. The only thing that matters is ARR, and that is virtually zero.
It’s about how the data is reported. If it was reported that the average risk of hosptalisation from covid is 0.01% for the vaccinated and 0.08% for the unvaccinated, most people would think there’s little benefit to being vaccinated. However, if people are bombarded day in, day out with videos and images of posh-speaking people in business clothing or with white coats and stethoscopes telling them they have 70% less risk if vaccinated, it’s not surprising they believe it. BTW, I was told years ago to always question a quoted 70% statistic because 70% is more often the figure used by someone making up a statistic. Apparently, <60% is unpersuasive and >80% is unbelievable. I have concluded that 70% of all statistics are made up.
The Fact Haters went into overdrive on this one. How could a dissenting voice have been allowed to get out? That voice must be quashed. One could almost hear the deep rumbling of dissatisfaction from the underbelly of the Trusted News Cartel at the doctor’s intervention. The machine immediately sprung into action.
Well the BBC and government are going to look even more ridiculous in a few months if Omicron is still dominant and they’re going to fire thousands of health workers because they sensibly are not feeling sufficiently threatened by a virus, which is now indistinguishable from the common cold, that they will run out to get jabbed against. Anyone with half a brain can see the bullshit here. Low-risk, healthy, working-age adults, who’ve managed to survive all previous, more severe variants with their innate immune system protecting them ( and dodgy PPE at work ), must now succumb to a jab which has less efficacy and a shit-ton of adverse effects, and Omicron is managing to evade like a pro. Utterly illogical cock and bull. Especially now Pfizer’s CEO has even admitted 2 shots of his product do sweet FA! How very confidence-inducing! LMFAO..
I read that on the BBC. and thought oh hail the propaganda machine.
Then moved on with my life.
The viral load argument between vaxed and unvaxed seems to always miss the point. There are two types of unvaxed – with and without prior infection. The ones without prior infection that become infected will know they are infected as they will have symptoms (and adjust their interaction with others accordingly), whereas the vaxed, because of the reduced symptoms that the shots provide, are far less likely to know they are infected. So the vaxed are far more likely to share their viral load with others. The unvaxed with prior infection are far less likely than the vaxed to become reinfected. Either way, the unvaxxed are less likely to infect others than the vaxed. These obvious points always seem be overlooked even in columns that are not pro-vax.
The big elephant in the room, so to say.
And that alone outweighs any beneficial effect the vaccines might temporarily have with regard to a lesser chance of getting infected, if it exists at all.
It is absolutely clear what the resulting policies should be, if this was about public and in particular patients health:
Testing everyone daily before work, in particular carers, doctors and nurses.
Actually, taking the temperature of the unvaxxed would be sufficient, but we should not discriminate against the vaxxed.
Obviously, in my book that would also require the standardization of these tests first if one was interested in their results being truly meaningful and making them non invasive only, if one was also interested in the health of the tested and value and respect each person’s inalienable, supreme right of bodily autonomy.
Before anyone gets sacked would it not be better to test for natural immunity????
Surely no one who has natural immunity to covid should lose their job because they don’t want to take a jab they don’t need?
NI far superior to the results of some dodgy testing
I’m really hoping readers of this excellent site are tuning in to GB News. It really is excellent and the only news channel to question the narrative. They need our support!
Yes they have really upped the ante of late with distinguished guests Robert Malone , Mike Yeadon and last night american cardiologist Peter McCollough .
I think they can see which way the wind is blowing on this one.
Especially Neil Oliver and Dan Wooton
The doctor strayed from the narrative and must be discredited by Pravda. This is the same BBC fact checking that insists face coverings make all the difference…
Thank you, a great and very helpful job, Dr. Will.
When this incident was first ventilated on here, a number of commentators were of the opinion that this was all staged.
I venture to hope that since the BBC have decided to stage a ‘fact-check’ that the incident was completely genuine.
This could be wishful thinking, of course.
I don’t think it was staged. Javid was a bumbling mess, and you could see from his eyes that he was seething at being confronted in such a fashion. He even turned to the hapless nurses to ask if they agreed with the doctor, and again they blanked him. Javid was desperately out of his depth. If that was staged then it was staged to make Javid look ridiculous and inept.
Doesn’t need to be staged, he’s about as useful as a chocolate teapot
Immediate P45 for Schraer.
The British Brainwashing Corporation is very good at lies and propaganda so much so that the vast majority of comments on it’s facebook page and below the line all favour the official narrative.
‘BBC News also found ]James’s comments] referenced in more extreme encrypted chat groups, including one used to organise removals of sick patients from hospital against doctors’ advice and coordinate the serving of bogus legal writs accusing doctors and teachers of crimes against humanity.’ (my bold)
1. Such as the ‘patient’ in a Wales hospital who put out a video (which is on GETTR) pleading for help because he’s being ‘held against his will’? Some context would be helpful here, Trusted News overlord.
2. Note the objective and impartial reference to ‘bogus legal writs’. You don’t even pretend to be balanced anymore, BBC. Yes, Trusted News overlord, we have witnessed crimes against humanity of an industrial scale. This can be demonstrated from the existence of objective moral norms and philosophical argumentation.
Be careful what you blithely dismiss, dear, because you’ll be held accountable, too.
The BMJ did their own fact-checking after being blacklisted by Facebook and came up with some interesting observations – Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1170
Schraer is the BBCs very own Winston Smith, tasked with rewriting the words of those who speak out against the regime.
I bet she’s proud of the work she does, picking on the little guy who has the brass balls to confront a high priest of the covid cult.
Orwell was the BBC’s very own Winston Smith. That’s the whole point. 1984 is literally a warning about the abusive power of the BBC.
So-called natural immunity. So-called. Are we to assume that the human immune system is actually a right wing myth, a piece of disinfo created by trump supporters? This woman is an absolute disgrace. So is the entire BBC but she takes the biscuit, largely because she takes the thirty pieces of silver to carefully, with lawyers on either side, discredit and smear with out of date studies, careful misreadings and guilt by association.
I hope she gets exactly what she deserves.
I saw this article yesterday and my blood started to boil at the selective facts so i thought, right I’m going to complain to the BBC! I then remembered the bog standard response to anything criticizing the BBC.
BBC News is always aware of the need to report with sensitivity, while maintaining the principles of accurate, factual and impartial news coverage. I have shared your feedback regarding this matter on our audience feedback report with the BBC News teams responsible for our online reporting. This daily report helps inform them on future decisions about the content of our articles.
Thanks again for taking the time to get in touch.
I didn’t bother
Yep, don’t bother feeding them energy or money.Take away your funding if you haven’t already. That hurts them more!
The demise of the malevolant bbc should be expedited, they are nothing more than an imitation Soviet era Pravda!
Good job.
I have just watched the whole of a video of a lecture given in 2011 by Dr Ray Obomsawin concerning the history of the whole concept and practice of vaccination. Find it here:
https://pennybutler.com/vaccine-lies-forever/
It blows both the theory and the idea that the vaccines have played any role in eliminating the major diseases out of the water. People should not be placing their faith in any vaccine, let alone the so-called vaccines produced by Pfizer et al.
Also came across this 2021 paper by Classen:
US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, “All Cause Severe Morbidity”. Trends Int Med. 1: 1-6.
Summary of Obomsawin’s video:
14 mins – first populations vaccinated for smallpox (Bavaria, Prussia) suffered much more from the disease.
16 mins – Dr Hadwen talk in 1896. ‘Since the passing of the [UK compulsory vaccination] Act of 1853 we have had no less than three distinct epidemics. In 1857-59 we had more than 14,000 deaths from smallpox; in the 1863-65 epidemic the deaths had increased to 20,000; and in 1871-72 …44,800.’ Stricter enforcement led to the highest vaccination rate ever achieved in England in 1871 – 97.5%. This coincided with England’s worst smallpox epidemic.
17 mins – LA Parry ‘Fatality rates of smallpox in the vaccinated and unvaccinated,’ BMJ. Smallpox is 5x as likely to be fatal in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated. Germany – the best vaccinated country in the world – has many more smallpox deaths proportionally than England.
21 mins – In 190 Vaccination Acts of England repealed. By 1919 E&W were one of the least vaccinated countries – only 28 smallpox deaths. Contrast triple-vaxxed Philippines (popn. Almost 4x smaller) 47,368 deaths.
21.30 mins WHO claim that its program eradicated smallpox. In truth, the disease was eradicated by (i) isolation, (ii) attenuation of the virus itself (less pathogenic), and (iii) social determinants e.g. sanitation & nutrition.
29.30 mins – High mortality from Spanish Flu due to over-prescription of the new drug aspirin, stimulating fluid overflow in lungs. See here.
32.30 mins – polio. Rise and fall of polio linked to neurotoxic pesticides such as DDT.
45 mins – measles plummets long before vax program
46.25 mins – scurvy & measles, showing the role of diet/vit. C
47.25 mins – TB (vax for TB never adopted in USA) … also at 54.30 mins (TB vaccines increase incidence of the disease)
48.30 mins – whooping cough, again cf. scurvy
50.00 mins – scarlet fever; influenza
57.10 mins – mumps, chickenpox, whooping cough, measles outbreaks – most of the cases were among the vaccinated
58.45 mins – safety concerns – IBS, diabetes as side-effects
1:02.30 – privately funded NL study comparing health of those who received full panoply of recommended vaccines with those who received no vaccines – pattern of immune system being destroyed
1:05.00 – the effect of the CDC mandating that under-5s be vaccinated for flu: massive increase in deaths
1:06:30 – comparing under-5s mortality by country according to how many different vaccines are given, Sweden lowest, USA highest
1:08.00 – VAERS – most doctors are trained to dismiss vaccine-related effects, 1:10.00 – Gardasil HPV vaccine
1:20 mins – paper written in 2009 by lawyer specialising in vaccine injury cases, arguing that the best science is done by researchers independent of pharma companies and recommending a federal injunction to suspend all vaccine licenses
1:23 mins – autism once unknown, now common, research showing strong link to vaccines, e.g. to the common adjuvant aluminium hydroxide. See also http://vaccinepapers.org/ focusing on the connection between aluminium and autism.
Excellent – thank you for producing and sharing this breakdown
I think this is really telling:
“1:02.30 – privately funded NL study comparing health of those who received full panoply of recommended vaccines with those who received no vaccines – pattern of immune system being destroyed”
No wonder Andre Wakefield was so denigrated for his research – must have been directly over the target.
Dr James, did not need to mention his vaccine status as it clearly deflected from the root of his question. What he should have asked was why are they continuing to demand that clearly healthy people who have survived this “Pandamic”, as being railroaded into undergoing a procedure which provides no benefit and has clear negative impacts.
Come the deadline they should all ring in sick on mass, as in sick of the hole farce.
This is what makes me think the situation was real. There was a number of things the good doctor could have said, but he bravely took the bit between the teeth, and said what he could in the moment. I bet afterwards he thought of a million other things he’d wished he could have said but when all the media cameras are on you, the pressure is immense.
Good post Will, was just waiting for someone to post this.
BBC Fact Checker finds that God exists.
BBC Fact Checker finds that God doesn’t exist.
BBC Fact Checker finds that whatever the BBC Fact Checker finds is the truth.
Oh, is that the truth – or did you hear it from the BBC?
🙂
I’m more likely to listen to an actual nurse/doctor Over a health secretary who doesn’t have any qualifications in health care. Javid is a snake
The trouble is that most doctors are just paid shills who, when told, would then ask “which of your muddy shoes would you like me to lick clean first, sir?”
Peter Bone MP has the correct idea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs5BOnXsJkU
TV Licence fee: Peter Bone asks Boris Johnson for support in abolishing the fee
Boris supports extortion funded entertainment.
He’s as libertarian as stalin.
But that would mean a “Conservative” government actually doing something conservative.
That’s almost unprecedented in the post-Thatcher era, and seems almost heretical these days.
It is not only the BBC that is still playing the propaganda.
One local newspaper put up a story that readers want a circuit breaker lockdown to curb Covid spike, poll finds. The story said something different.survey has shown that there are many people in the area who would welcome stricter Covid rules during the beginning of the year.
A number of comments questioned this. Some asked for more information about the results of this survey. One asked where was this survey, as they had never seen it.
The newspaper never responded to any question, like writing a new story to answer those questions. They just removed the readers questions.
When you do a search for the headlines it looks like a syndicated story too.
Propaganda writers don’t you just love them.
Topmost in “disinformation reporter” Rachel Schraer’s job description is “defending the BBC agenda”.
‘But the same study found the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which NHS staff are likely to have had, endured better. Vaccinated people had a 25% lower risk of infecting others than unvaccinated people after 12 weeks.’
Probably because so many of those injected are now dead or housebound due to the horrendous side effects.
interesting interview with Dr Steve James https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ik6cxFBbBw&ab_channel=UnHerd
In contrast to slime balls interviewing him on GMB: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh2vWO58sj4&t=56s
Subtle – but in reality just a nasty tabloid “Hit Piece” from the disgusting”BBC” now sliding into the gutter!
Not “sliding” David, fully immersed.
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko said anyone that willfully vilified and obstructed access to hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of Covid-19 is guilty of first degree capital murder, genocide, and crimes against humanity. They are trying to jab as many people as possible so that their great reset aka depopulation plan work. I believe in God & Jesus. If I get sick I will take my Ivermectin that I stashed just in case and leave rest to God. If you want to get Ivermectin you can visit https://ivmpharmacy.com
Will could have a 72-hour week job fact checking all the dubious “fact checks.”
Comrade Shraer might also consider that vaccines are considered to have no effects for the first 2 weeks – the dose is literally not counted towards your vaccination status until them – and so 12 weeks after “vaccination” actually only includes 10 weeks of claimed efficacy.
This becomes significant when you consider the frequency of regular, endless “top-up”[*] doses. With UKHSA now reducing the claimed efficacy of 2019 era mRNA doses against omicron as just 10 weeks, they have to be overlapped by 2 weeks and so that actually translates into rolling your sleeve up every 56 days in order to be remain pure in the sight of Sir Whitty.
[*] “Top up” has replaced “booster” in Savage Jabbit’s lexicon. A booster gets you to a destination quickly. A top up just keeps you going indefinitely. The significance is not lost on me.
“….the people in Government and their flunkies in the media who wish to fire thousands of hard-working medical staff, at a time of national shortage, based on a false belief that vaccines prevent the spread of COVID-19?”
The pertinent point here is that it’s not a false belief, it’s a lie. They know full well that the vaccines don’t prevent the spread because – aside from the numerous peer-reviewed studies proving that point – their paymasters Fauci and Gates, and the drug cartels they’re part of, have told them so.
Lets see the BBC fact check this then!
“The World Health Organisation (WHO) has warned against the repeat use of original Covid-19 vaccines as booster shots and said the strategy is “unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable” in the fight against emerging variants.
A vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable,” the WHO Technical Advisory Group on Covid-19 Vaccine Composition (TAG-Co-VAC) said in a statement on Tuesday.
The 18-member expert task force assessing the performance of Covid vaccines has also asked for new jabs that can provide better protection against the transmission of the virus.
See
https://palexander.substack.com/p/much-as-i-disdain-the-idiots-and
plus
https://news.yahoo.com/repeating-boosters-same-covid-vaccines-122643406.html
So lets just take this in.
Vaccines based on the original Wuhan variant dont work against Delta or Omicron, indeed cause harm.
We should be developing variant specific jabs, much as we do with flu, to keep filling the coffers of big pharma.
Gosh, who would have thought it! Apart from many eminently qualified people round the world who have been saying this for a long time!
So glad I remain jab free!
“The World Health Organisation (WHO) has warned against the repeat use of original Covid-19 vaccines as booster shots and said the strategy is “unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable” in the fight against emerging variants.
“A vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable,” the WHO Technical Advisory Group on Covid-19 Vaccine Composition (TAG-Co-VAC) said in a statement on Tuesday.
The 18-member expert task force assessing the performance of Covid vaccines has also asked for new jabs that can provide better protection against the transmission of the virus.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it BBC!
How on earth did we get to the situation where journalists are reviewing scientific medical literature and publishing conclusions and these are being reported. All scientists and clinicians should be shouting from the rooftops about this flagrant violation of scientific method.
The effectiveness,adverse reaction data would be easily derived had the Pfizer control group not been abandoned and normal scientific debate impossible. A full open debate between those who are convinced that vaccination is the only method of management and should be universal against those who believe they have evidence to show1)A lack of evidence 2)Vaccine harm3) Other modalities of treatment
Steve James should be awarded an honour- he has brought to public attention that not all of us accepted the vaccination as cure SINE QUA NON
Even having this discussion is utterly bizarre. Pfizer’s so-called ‘vaccines’ claimed 95% success – the reality is this is the difference between efficacy (of some sort but not immunity) in the (very small) trial cohort, ie the relative risk reduction (RRR) NOT the absolute risk reduction (ARR) which was 0.84% – that is how much ‘protection’ you get. This is clearly very low. Balance that against the millions of adverse events worldwide abd tell me that natural immunity whether antibodies or t-cell is not by far superior. Add to that the cheap, safe regimes which treat this flu/ cold. Is the world insane?
Schafer thrown under the bus? The sacrificial lamb, hoping to make a name for herself? Sadly it backfired. She will go down with all the others spreading misinformation.
The real question here is why do the meddling BBC need a “disinformation unit” in the first place, or at all.
Who do these people think they are.
When they get defunded I’ll be able to spend my 158 quid on something worthwile.
Nobody does disinformation better than the BBC’s ‘anti-disinformation’ Unit. I am no longer able to use Twitter at all after posting a tweet on the time line of Marianna Spring, the face of the BBC’s disinformation unit about the stifling of debate by labelling questioners as “conspiracy theorists”. They obviously are a nasty lot who are able to bully anybody who speaks the inconvenient truth…and get paid by us for doing it!
Typical of taxpayer funded employees. Never have to worry about honesty, truth or integrity as they assume that the money tap will always be turned on and that gives them the ‘right’ to say what they want. Defunding the BBC would be a great first step to disabuse them of their attitudes and consequent behaviours.
On government disinformation (and there’s an enormous amount of it), on masks, this is just in: https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/everything-you-need-to-know-about