A Daily Sceptic reader sent us the letter he received recently from the Office for National Statistics, a Government body, in which it states that “having had a COVID-19 infection before usually gives a stronger immune response than vaccination”.
Our bodies respond to infection and to vaccination in slightly different ways. Having had a COVID-19 infection before usually gives a stronger immune response than vaccination. To get a similar level of protection from vaccination alone, a higher level of antibodies is needed.
Given how often this has been denied by Government scientists and advisers keen to encourage those who’ve been previously infected to get vaccinated anyway, this is an important admission.
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.
“There’s also the small matter of the invasion itself being illegal and unjustified.” Can someone remind of a war that was deemed “legal” and according to whose laws? I wish writers would stop using the term “illegal” in relation to war when they really mean “I don’t agree with it”.
As to the idea that Ukraine has also committed atrocities and war crimes, I’m not surprised in the least. If this war had been reported for what it is: a bl00dy and avoidable mess, rather than a simple aggressor/victim Hollywood-style narrative, then there might have been greater pressure to bring the whole geo-political game to an end and allow Ukrainian people to return to some semblance of normality.
‘Can someone remind of a war that was deemed “legal”…’
Yes. Any war waged by the USA and its allies of the day.
Spot on. War is what happens when laws cease to be relevant. Basic stuff, huh, but apparently not commonly understood.
“There’s also the small matter of the invasion itself being illegal and unjustified.”
What do the words “illegal” and “unjustified” mean in this context?
Was JFK justified in 1962 in his use of force to prevent Cuba from basing nuclear weapons on its territory? If a state is threatened by the actions of a neighbouring state, what can it legally and justifiably do in the name of self defence?
As far as the history books are telling the story, the only use of force during the Cuban Missile Crisis was when the Soviet Union shot down a U-2 spy plane. Do your history books say something different?
The crisis ended with the secret agreement for the Soviet Union to remove the missiles from Cuba, and the USA to remove missiles from Turkey. The continued secrecy of that deal led to all kinds of misunderstandings and history-changing bad decisions.
For me the key point was that no-one questioned the USA’s right to threaten to use (and therefore to use, if necessary) force when it considered itself threatened by a sovereign action of an independent state.
But they did question the USSR’s right to threaten, so clearly ‘justified’ and ‘legal’ applies to some but not others.
A US naval blockade of Cuba was use of force.
There was nothing illegal about the missile installations on Cuba. Similar missiles were paced in Europe – Turkey specifically – aimed at the USSR.
‘… that trains Ukrainian soldiers and distributes humanitarian aid to civilians.’
Something not quite right about that juxtaposition of activities.
‘I don’t think Western countries should abandon Ukraine…’
Why not? What’s in it for us?
“What’s in it for us?” Possible world food shortages and further energy crises? Further rises in commodoity prices? Disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty can serve as a precedent for other powerful countries eyeing the territory of their neighbours. Victorious and empowered Russian/Putinian domino attacks on the Baltic nations would lead to inevitable NATO involvement. The potential actions of other rogue nations like China and Iran (should Putin be allowed free reign) could have global consequences. Like it or not, we need to care. What’s in it for us is a future bundle of negatives if we don’t care.
For some it is America that is the rogue nation not Russia.
Russia is doing exactly what the USA would do if any nation in North or South America allowed a foreign power to foster/allow military alliances on its soil. . The Monroe doctrine sets this principle out quite clearly I believe.
Sad as it is, America is using Ukraine to fight a proxy war for regime change in Russia. This is all about geo politics dressed up as a war for Ukraine sovereignty.
It can be both.
I agree with you. We need to make a stand when one country invades another country that may cause a domino effect – whether USA had it right with Vietnam is arguable but it was rightly perceived to be a dangerous trend by Communist forces. However, the problem, as I see it, lies in consistency by the USA. They support very unpleasant Right wing governments that have gained power by violent means but choose to vilify and attack Communist governments. My view is that it should be about the view and freedom of the people and supporting truly democratic elections to get a Government that the people want. Am I being naive?
No, it’s not naive: it’s an entirely laudible wish. What IS naive is the view of some folk that choosing to ignore Putin’s invasion and basically let him get on with it because “what’s in it for us.” We know what the track record of the USA, (and others) is but we must deal with the realities of today, not pontificate upon how we got here. Putin took Crimea and Obama chickened out. Putin’s invaded Ukraine and will likely take the Donbas region. He won’t stop there. I don’t wish to be disrespectful but support for the “what’s in it for us” question seems particularly dewy-eyed.
To describe Milburn’s comments as “testimony” is rather odd. These are just his views, and since he’s not in-country (he apparently employs 20-30 people who train Ukrainian soldiers) it’s almost certainly based on social media stories, etc., which have included a number of faked Russian videos (for instance). I’m not saying there haven’t been Ukrainian soldiers who’ve killed PWs, but you have to have evidence.
We should also be aware that no military has perfect discipline, especially in the heat of battle – remember Sergeant Blackman? The question is: given breaches can and likely will occur in a big conflict, what is the attitude of military commanders and their government? As far as we can tell, the Ukrainian government would prosecute any soldiers found to have committed war crimes. And they would do this for self-interested reasons, if nothing else. On the other hand, the Russians flagrantly go about committing war crimes all the time.
Milburn mentions filming of Russian PWs. The Ukrainian government got criticised for that earlier on, and as far as I know doesn’t do that anymore, but we still see videos of Russian PWs come out occasionally, from low-ranking troops as far as I can tell. I believe this is a contested legal issue, but it’s better to be on the safe side.
The bottom line is, Russia invaded Ukraine, the entirety of which is a crime under international law.
And the Minsk agreement?
“The bottom line is, Russia invaded Ukraine, the entirety of which is a crime under international law.” Presumably the Western invasions of Iraq, Libya, Grenada, etc.. all without any direct threat to Wester nations, are also crimes under International law. Again, who is the arbiter of International law? Is it perhaps the same nations who violate it.
“Testimony” can refer to “any type of statement or account given by a person about a matter of personal knowledge or experience” (from Chat GPT).
He may not be in Ukraine right now, but he certainly was there. From the New York Times:
I already stated that the Russians have committed atrocities and the invasion was illegal.
So, “testimony” can be any kind of hogwash. Thanks for the clarification.
Tell us, Ian, if your view is based on anything but media stories?
Maybe I’m a victim of Russian propaganda but I believe Russia went out of its way to avoid war. Merkel has admitted that western support for Minsk 1& 2 was in bad faith and just a way to buy time. Then in the early weeks of the war peace negotiations were scuppered by our very own BJ in return for a never ending flood of weapons and cash. I don’t think it’s a wild claim to say the US and EU were heavily involved in a regime change operation in 2014 ie the Maidan coup/colour revolution (it’s not like it would be the first and only time) and that NATO was using ukraine as a ‘bulwark’ on Russia’s western border in order to destabilise the Kremlin, which the Russians saw as an existential threat (imagine China militarily involved in Mexico). An existential threat is justification for war ie as an act of self defence. And let us not forget the 8 years of bombing of Donbas by the Ukrainian regime. When Donbas declared independence from ukraine and Russia recognized this, there was legal justification to enter as an act of ‘collective self-defence’. You might not agree with the legality but there is a legal case to be made and ultimately the judgement should fall to the people of Donbas imo.
Maybe I’m a victim of Russian propaganda but I believe Russia went out of its way to avoid war.
Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991 the Russian Federation has engaged in a near non-stop campaign of destabilisation, economic sabotage, poisoning of disliked politicians, a failed violent anti-democratic coup in 2014 (the one that saw the Russian-leaning President Yanukovich removed from office by a vote of 328 to 0 in the Ukrainian Parliament), the subsequent instigation and direct military support for an armed uprising in the eastern Donbas region, the armed invasion of Crimea, and all this culminating in the massing of armed forces round Ukraine’s borders in 2021 followed by an all out invasion on 24 February this year.
Yes, Russia really went out of its way to avoid war (sorry, ‘Special Military Operation’, don’t want 15 years in a Moscow prison) with Ukraine…
Merkel has admitted that western support for Minsk 1& 2 was in bad faith and just a way to buy time.
No, Angela Merkel and others believed (accurately) that it was Russia that was acting in bad faith and that Minsk might allow Ukraine time to build up its defences against the expected all out Russian assault. The one that happened.
The Kiev regime still did is best to live up to the Minsk agreements, far more so than the Kremlin.
Then in the early weeks of the war peace negotiations were scuppered by our very own BJ in return for a never ending flood of weapons and cash.
Yes, clearly the cause of continuing military violence in Ukraine was the visit of an all-powerful British Prime Minister to Kiev in April strong-arming the easily cowed President Zelensky and his government into rejecting a fair peace deal being offered by the dove-like Putin regime…
And not the ongoing presence of hundreds of thousands of Russian military personnel carrying out acts of extreme violence in another sovereign state.
I don’t think it’s a wild claim to say the US and EU were heavily involved in a regime change operation in 2014 ie the Maidan coup/colour revolution (it’s not like it would be the first and only time)
Please see above, quite the opposite was the case. In fact the US and West in general offered moral support to the Ukrainian people and their democratic structures courageously resisting an attempted Russian-backed violent tyrannical coup designed to prevent the democratically mandated signing of an EU Association Agreement.
and that NATO was using ukraine as a ‘bulwark’ on Russia’s western border in order to destabilise the Kremlin,
Ukraine had not joined NATO and the only destabilisation going on was from, not to, the Kremlin.
which the Russians saw as an existential threat
No they didn’t.
The idea that anyone – from Ukraine to the US or whole of NATO – was planning to invade the largest country in the world in possession of over 6000 nuclear weapons is beyond preposterous.
(imagine China militarily involved in Mexico).
Why?
An existential threat is justification for war ie as an act of self defence.
Please see the above.
Incidentally morally there is no justification for war and we should be working toward universal disarmament as quickly as possible. However it is still important to recognise the more aggressive and culpable parties and ideologies involved in any conflict, and in this case it is self-evidently and overwhelmingly the Russian Federation.
And let us not forget the 8 years of bombing of Donbas by the Ukrainian regime.
There was no indiscriminate bombardment during Kiev’s resistance to the Russian-backed insurrection in Donbas – indeed by 2021, as President Putin was building up his invasion force using this conflict as one of his main excuses, civilian casualties from direct military action (ie inflicted by both sides) had declined to 6.
When Donbas declared independence from ukraine and Russia recognized this, there was legal justification to enter as an act of ‘collective self-defence’.
The Donbas regions’ declarations of independence were illegal, as was the Russian Federation’s recognition of them. Using this whole blatant fabrication as a pseudo-legal excuse for the invasion of a sovereign member of the United Nations is blackly comical.
You might not agree with the legality but there is a legal case to be made
See above
and ultimately the judgement should fall to the people of Donbas imo.
All states decide the circumstances and legality of separatist movements and independence referendums.
No state has the right to use military force to invade, occupy and annex chunks of other states.
As the Russian Federation is currently attempting to do in Ukraine.