• 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

Try as They Might, Facebook ‘Fact-Checkers’ Cannot Refute the Dire Scottish Vaccine Data

by Thorsteinn Siglaugsson
10 February 2022 7:00 AM

Ever since I realised the devastating effects lockdowns would have all over the world, I have actively fought them. My first task, in October 2020, was hosting an interview with world-renowned epidemologist Martin Kulldorff, one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which argues for focused protection instead of blanket lockdowns.

Incidentally, Kulldorff was involved also in my first really memorable encounter with the so-called fact-checkers. Last summer the Icelandic Chief Epidemiologist said in an interview he believed herd immunity would never be reached by vaccination, only through infections. I posted a link to the interview on LinkedIn. Kulldorff shared my post, and the next thing he knew his reshare had been removed. Clearly a fact-checker hadn‘t liked what our Chief Epidemiologist said, and decided the public shouldn‘t know.

Part of my activities as an active lockdown sceptic has been managing a large and fast-growing local Facebook group, dedicated to providing a broad view of the Covid situation, including negative effects of lockdowns, and later on, growing concerns with the effectiveness and safety of mass-vaccination. This is a difficult task as we must always be very careful not to accept posts that for some reason contain material that doesn‘t comply with the worldview of the fact-checkers. We get a few strange conspiracy theories of course, but mostly the material we have to reject is simply inconvenient facts or well-argued opinions, even by respected scientists, that just happen to go against the official narrative.

Fact-checking is nothing new, and until recently it was just that, checking for facts. But since very early in the pandemic, fact-checkers have become less concerned with facts, but more, and in some cases exclusively, with censoring anything that goes against their own opinions. Every day, hundreds of such articles are published and then used to justify censorship. The following example is a typical one.

Recently, official Scottish data has shown COVID-19 infections, hospitalisations and deaths are becoming more frequent among the double-vaccinated than the unvaccinated. The latest report shows the infection rate among the double-jabbed is now double the rate for the unjabbed, and 50% higher for the triple-jabbed. Hospitalisations are higher among the double-jabbed than the unjabbed and the death rate is double. This is a concerning development and has garnered some attention from those who follow such statistics. I wrote a short Facebook post on this the other day, quoting an article discussing this development. A few days later the familiar warning of ‘false information’ had been slapped on my post.

I decided to follow up on the ‘fact check’ referred to in the warning, an article by Mr. Dean Miller, managing editor at Lead Stories, one of the agencies that frequently publish articles used to justify censorship. Mr. Miller holds an undergraduate degree in English and seems to have no science training whatsoever.

Mr. Miller begins by claiming there is a consensus among health statisticians “working independently” that vaccination reduces the probability of hospitalisation and death, and that as the vaccinated tend to be older than the unvaccinated, “amateur statisticians” often reach false conclusions based on official data. Mr. Miller then quotes an epidemiologist who suggests various factors that “may” affect the numbers. First, that the vaccinated are more likely to get tested, quoting test and trace data but providing no reference. Second, that the vaccinated tend to be older than the unvaccinated and therefore more vulnerable in general. Third, that the vaccinated may behave differently from the unvaccinated when it comes to social interactions. Fourth, that the unvaccinated are more likely to have been previously infected by the virus.

None of this is necessarily untrue. But the article provides no references showing that vaccinated people behave differently from unvaccinated people, which would make them more likely to come into contact with infected persons. We also have no way of determining if the opposite is true. In other words, this is pure speculation, for which no evidence is provided. Whether vaccinated people are more likely to get tested is speculative also and there is no data provided to back up this claim. The same goes for the claim that the unvaccinated are more likely to have been previously infected. In fact, as numerous studies have already demonstrated that infection provides strong and lasting protection, this suggestion seems highly unlikely.

So, three of Mr. Miller‘s arguments are pure speculation, unquantified and not supported by any evidence. But what about the last argument, that the vaccinated tend to be older and therefore more likely to be hospitalised or to die? This certainly looks like a valid point, since we know it is primarily the elderly who become seriously ill with COVID-19. But how valid, or relevant is this really?

To start with, being vulnerable to serious illness or death if infected has nothing to do with the probability of infection. Rather than increasing it, it might rather decrease it, as a vulnerable person might be more likely to avoid situations where they are likely to get infected. As for hospitalisation and death, the data presented in the Public Health Scotland reports is in fact age-standardised. This means the age-related probability of death is already accounted for in the statistics. Mr. Miller‘s key argument, and the only one that isn‘t purely speculative, is therefore simply invalid. It seems he either failed to familiarise himself with the methodology used, or did not understand what it entails.

The weakness of Mr. Miller‘s argumentation does not however stop him from categorically denying that comparison of infection rates is a valid indicator of vaccine effectiveness. And of course it does not prevent the media and social media using his claim, based on speculation and lack of basic understanding of the data, to censor the discussion of a disturbing development that most certainly calls for thorough investigation.

When I showed the data to a Scottish friend recently, he suggested it was of no relevance for other nations, as the Scots were genetically different from other people due to a long-standing diet of nothing but chips, Marlboros and Irn-Bru. I can only say his explanation makes just as much sense as Mr. Miller‘s do.

But Scotland is not the only country experiencing this disturbing trend. A couple of weeks ago I published an article in the Daily Sceptic discussing a similar trend in Iceland: early January data showed the double-vaccinated to be twice as likely to get infected as the unvaccinated. This undermines the aforementioned dietary explanation, as in Iceland we boil our potatoes, smoke Camels rather than Marlboros and Irn-Bru has never been available. No ‘fact check’ has yet been published trying to invalidate this data. However the already published infection rate for the unvaccinated suddenly rose by 20%, without explanation, soon after this development was pointed out.

Unfortunately Mr. Miller‘s article is not the only example of a ‘fact check’ that ignores or distorts the facts, or counters hard data with pure speculation. This sloppy kind of reporting seems to be the fact-checkers’ standard way of working when it comes to the pandemic. Some have even admitted their fact-check labels are nothing but opinion. And the general press is no exception. For example, the Scottish Herald recently published an article on this subject, also failing to acknowledge the fact that the data is age-standardised.

It is a noble endeavour to try to make sure facts rather than fiction influence public opinion. But unfortunately, it looks as if the champions of ‘fact-checking’ have little respect for facts. Most of the material they produce consists of low quality, highly opinionated articles, lacking not only references, but more importantly the clarity of thinking that must be required of anyone who takes upon themselves the important and difficult task of deciding what is true and what isn‘t.

Thorsteinn Siglaugsson is an economist who lives in Iceland. Find him on his blog.

Tags: FacebookFact checkScotlandVaccine efficacyVaccines

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

News Round-Up

Next Post

How it Feels to Be Unvaccinated in Austria as the Government Turns the Screws

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.

74 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JohnK
JohnK
2 years ago

What a surprise. A few years ago, the British Standards Institution more or less said that, but were a bit mealy mouthed about the fact that many products on sale to the general public were junk.

85
0
JohnK
JohnK
2 years ago

And endorsement by Ivor Cummins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7WGm7keN1s&list=WL&index=3

21
0
RW
RW
2 years ago

It’s completely besides the point if masks work. Public health authorities (etc) must not have the power to force Chinese mummery onto people just because someone claims to be terribly afraid of usually harmless everyday diseases and claims to believe this might improve something. People believe in all kinds of weird shit and that’s usually their prerogative. But they are not entitled to force their beliefs onto others. Not even if they happen to hold an office.

66
0
welshsceptic
welshsceptic
2 years ago
Reply to  RW

“People believe in all kinds of weird shit and that’s usually their prerogative. But they are not entitled to force their beliefs onto others. Not even if they happen to hold an office.”

Excellent way of putting it!

32
0
stewart
stewart
2 years ago

Sadly, the conclusion seems to be not that masks don’t work but that the evidence of the studies is insufficient to conclude whether or not they work.

This leaves the door wide open for mask advocates to claim that they might work and therefore impose them, just in case. Basically the rationale for the entire COVID response. Just in case.

Last edited 2 years ago by stewart
32
0
RW
RW
2 years ago
Reply to  stewart

With our present level of knowledge and technology, whether or not mask work, whatever this is supposed to mean, cannot be established. But that’s really immaterial. Culling people with positive test results, as done with chicken to combat so-called chicken flu, would work. That doesn’t mean it’s legitimate.

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

Masks don’t work. In other news, water is wet and the sun rises in the east.

16
0
RTSC
RTSC
2 years ago

This was obvious to anyone who engaged their brain: you need an electronic microscope to see virus particles. A mask which gaps at the sides and is made of a material which has holes 100 times the size of the virus was never going to stop anything. As for those ridiculous face shields ….

I’m constantly amazed at how stupid so many people are.

27
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

News Round-Up

25 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

White Britons Are Right to Resist Becoming a Minority

24 July 2025
by Charlie Cole

Britain Could Be Sued Over Climate Change, Says UN Court

24 July 2025
by Will Jones

Corbyn Launches Hard-Left ‘Your Party’ to Challenge Starmer

24 July 2025
by Will Jones

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

44

Corbyn Launches Hard-Left ‘Your Party’ to Challenge Starmer

26

Report on Black Maternity Experiences Blames “Racism” Without Evidence

24

Britain Could Be Sued Over Climate Change, Says UN Court

24

News Round-Up

14

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

February 2022
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28  
« Jan   Mar »

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

February 2022
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28  
« Jan   Mar »

DONATE

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

News Round-Up

25 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

White Britons Are Right to Resist Becoming a Minority

24 July 2025
by Charlie Cole

Britain Could Be Sued Over Climate Change, Says UN Court

24 July 2025
by Will Jones

Corbyn Launches Hard-Left ‘Your Party’ to Challenge Starmer

24 July 2025
by Will Jones

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

44

Corbyn Launches Hard-Left ‘Your Party’ to Challenge Starmer

26

Report on Black Maternity Experiences Blames “Racism” Without Evidence

24

Britain Could Be Sued Over Climate Change, Says UN Court

24

News Round-Up

14

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