As energy prices soar, what can be done to lessen the harm to families, businesses and an economy still reeling from the Covid pandemic?
It feels like the Government is fighting a rearguard action. Its energy price cap, its granting of licences for new oil and gas wells in the North Sea, and the announcement earlier this year of plans for eight new nuclear reactors, all feels like too little, too late.
It is a piecemeal and desperate response to a crisis largely of our own making, and only brought to a head by the Russian invasion.
Buoyed by politicians’ acceptance of green ideology, green billionaires have for years successfully lobbied our Governments and financial institutions to greatly restrict investment in fossil fuel exploration and extraction. They also persuaded ministers that nuclear energy is too dangerous and best avoided.
Now, when the wolf is at the door, rather than admitting their mistake, green fanatics not only want more of the same, but demand more of it sooner. At its annual conference last week, Labour – which looks increasingly likely to form the next Government – announced its intention to make the U.K. carbon-free by 2030.
Yet many have grave concerns about the reliability of renewables and whether they will be able to meet the nation’s needs. Even with the new nuclear reactors in the mix, things look far from secure – and those won’t be online for years.
So it is understandable that there is renewed interest in fracking. Liz Truss’s recent lifting of the moratorium on drilling for shale gas was applauded on the Right and by some on the Left. They believe that while fracking may not be the answer to all our energy woes, it would bring considerable benefits: cutting bills, improving our energy security and creating jobs.
But are they right? What is the evidence for these claims? Many supporters of fracking do not appear to have asked themselves that simple but vital question. Even when pressed, they seem uninterested in defending their position with facts, and are far more interested in endlessly urging that we should get fracking as soon as we can. But without considering all the facts, and without giving those with safety concerns a fair hearing instead of dismissing them all as misguided ideologues, it is not possible to come to a sensible and responsible decision.
There is no evidence that fracking would significantly reduce energy costs in the medium and long term. In the short term, while further exploration and initial drilling took place, fracking would not lower bills. Just because extraction companies are eager to drill does not mean the public and businesses will necessarily benefit.
Although it is estimated that there are large reserves of shale gas in the U.K., how much of it is cost-effective to extract is currently unknown. It is possible that considerable amounts of it will not be viable.
It is also hard to see the industry creating a significant number of jobs.
If supporters of fracking have evidence to the contrary, now is the time to provide it: about jobs, about lowering energy bills, and about reducing our dependence on gas imports. After all, it is them who support the construction of wells across the countryside, a very different proposition in the U.K. than in the far larger and less-densely populated U.S. It is them who support daily convoys of water tankers on already trashed roads. It is them who appear to claim there are only advantages, while disregarding doubts and public concern.
I often wonder, would they all be as keen if the drilling was right next to where they live, rather than hundreds of miles away?
And I am often reminded of climate change zealots when I challenge some fans of fracking, so intolerant of dissent many of them seem. It is hard to dispel the idea that part of them supports fracking simply because greens do not.
Looking at the bigger picture, the advantages which fracking enthusiasts assume are obvious seem much less certain. Cries of it is worth a try, and what is there to lose, become much less convincing when all things are considered.
Fracking in the U.K. must be viewed for what it is: part of a panicked response. The truth is, the benefits of fracking are highly questionable and its disadvantages not inconsiderable. And by the time it may bring any benefits, though that is not guaranteed, our needs could be more reliably met by ramping up nuclear power and investing in conventional offshore drilling, alongside the expansion in renewables which is coming whether we like it or not.
Supporters of fracking need to reflect on the wider issues and reconsider their unreserved support. It is particularly disappointing that those with inquiring minds who have challenged the orthodoxies and follies of our age, from the EU to lockdowns, and from Net Zero to identity politics, appear so incurious and accepting when it comes to fracking. It is good to have hopes and to believe in something, but that needs to be tempered with a healthy scepticism, something which in this case appears to have abandoned them.
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.
“And even though the viral load may peak at similar levels in the vaccinated and unvaccinated, scientists say it’s possible jabbed people clear the infection quicker.”
nice firm result from such a massive study. It’s also possible they don’t
If, but, maybe, perhaps, possibly………The world is full of Ferguson types, no doubt on vast screws of money, coming out with claptrap like this.
. . . and it’s my choice if I decide to risk getting the ‘Rona/Flu by not being vaccinated. I’ll take that and trust my immune system. So, now that they’re saying we’re all equal in spreading it – can we just move on and get along without this division and need for vaccine passports?
Or is that part of the plan as always – division?
Quicker than what?
I love these all-so-scientific terms “possible”, “could”, “may”, “might”. I always read them as meaning significantly less than 50%. In other words, they have no evidence or proof, so resort to unscientific scaremongering. After all, they need to ensure their next grant cheque arrives, don’t they?
This study was summarised on BBC five live news this morning.
Disclaimer. I use it as an alarm as it generally winds me up so much there’s no way I’ll nod off.
According to demented old Aunty Beeb the Pfizer ans Astra vaccines are 93% effective against the delta variant, but don’t stop transmission of the virus.
Sounded, in my cynical head anyway, ” you’ve had the jabs, they’re working really well, but we’ll have to lock you down come autumn”
‘I’m a vaxxoid, so I can cough and sneeze over you to my heart’s content.’
The govt are going to have a very hard time explaining/justifying that one, especially as they’ve repeatedly said that the vaccine was “our way out of lockdown”. No doubt the slimeb*lls will find some new weasley words to do it though.
This study is totally unclear.
No indication of how a control group was assessed. It simply talks about comparing different groups of people over different time periods.
Yet the newspapers just report the so called conclusions as facts.
I can glean zero from this article without further assessment of what exactly they tested to reach the assertions they seem to be making. It is not even clear what they mean by “effective”.
It is a bit like the “84k lives saved by vaccinations” claim of PHE, which seems to be based on comparing outcomes with some modelled prediction of what would have happened without vaccines. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Inneed. The only fact is the same viral load if infected.
The rest is basically just made up and the drawn conclusions are preconceived and totally wrong.
The correlation break between cases and hospitalizations and deaths could just as well be due to other factors, like dry tinder, high seroprevalence through natural immunity etc., that causation cannot be proven.
Not least because other lowly vaccinated countries like Bulgaria do not see excessive numbers in the other direction in those regards.
Omitted are the facts that the vaccinated are then and thereby the more dangerous, as their suppressed symptoms can turn them into asymptomatic superspreader, in conrast to anyone unvaccinated not drugged, and the one that the obese are the other main potential superspreader category.
The viral load test is nothing more than a proxy test using RT/PCR ct count. Not an actual viral load test. They actually dont measure actual virus counts in repository aerosols. Which is how you more real world viral loads.
If it test positive with low ct count it “high load”. If it test positive with high ct count it “low load”. If it test negative it “no load”.
Can these people be held to account for scientific misconduct. As someone else said, it all bollocks. Very expensive bollocks. These “researchers” cost millions of pounds a year of tax payers money.
“They actually don’t measure actual virus counts”
The basics like this need to be constantly emphasized, so that detail doesn’t overwhelm the argument. KISS.
exactly
Yep, always chunk up, otherwise one can get lost in the details.
Well why not read the paper? The BBC article does link to it – so it is not hard.
(They used the Office for National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey which is based on a random selection of households – so that it is how they got a control group.)
And yet PCR cannot detect live infectious SARS-COV-2 virus.
So it’s all bollocks!
I’ll read it properly later but, from what I’ve seen, they appear to have not taken into account waning immunity. If they are capturing data as far back as December then clearly the VE will be boosted by the earlier high protection.
An Israeli study found that those vaccinated in Jan & Feb had more than double the risk of infection than those vaccinated in Mar & Apr.
I haven’t read the paper so I could be wrong but the bi-weekly PHE surveillance reports do seem to support the Israel findings.
“Waning immunity”? Are you for real? There has never been any immunity from these experimental drugs waning or otherwise.
they appear to have not taken into account waning immunity.
The study specifically addressed this. From the discussion on page 7:
The dynamics of protection varied over time from second vaccination, and by vaccine type, with initially larger effectiveness with BNT162b2 than ChAdOx1, which then become more similar by ~4-5 months due to more rapid waning of effectiveness with BNT162b2, particularly against infections with Ct<30 or symptoms.
With more detail in the charts on page 20.
(This was even mentioned in the BBC report.)
But what they totally ignore is the considerably enhanced risk of infection in the first 2/3 weeks after injection. If you take that into account along with the increased risk after 4-6 months, you will find that overall there is NET ZERO improvement of risk of infection after injection. The ONLY possible benefit of the injection is a reduction in symptoms, which is also very much lower than the ‘relative reductions’ advertised after the initial trials. Remember the Absolute reductions were just about 1% , which given the prevalence today is still probably what we are seeing.
There is NO health justification for these injections given the risk of severe illness and death directly attributable them.
Ah!
“The ONLY possible benefit of the injection is a reduction in symptoms…..” And that’s all it actually says ‘on the tin’ for those who are offered it; nothing more than that. There is a lot of deliberate cognitive dissonance going on, to justify excessive bureaucratic opportunism re human behaviour etc, though.
I’m glad I’m one of those who said: no thanks, not yet, with no real evidence that any benefits warrant the risk to me.
Overall rate of death dropped significantly below average for several months (now it appears to be going up again).
I’m surprised they haven’t claimed this is due to the “vaccines”
“Covid deaths” are a tiny fraction of the total. Unless I am misremembering, covid deaths dropped like a stone last summer – more than this year – without the “vaccines”
Thank you. Just had a quick scan. Those are some very big confidence intervals with no actual N value. Big numbers become small number very quickly.
The actual “positive event” is a positive RT/PCR result. Not a valid clinical test in a low prevalence environment. Numbers mean nothing. Purely stochastic.
The “viral load” test is a RT/PCR ct count proxy test. WTF? They dont actually take real physical samples and test like in actual viral load research. Invalid proxy, see above.
So basically junk science.
What is interesting is that the only strong positive effect they could actually show is that the vaccines worked best for people who already had natural immunity through prior infection. Those Confidence Intervals for the old and sick are so wide its basically goes from no effect whatsoever to maybe kinda works, sometimes.
Those are some very big confidence intervals with no actual N value. Big numbers become small number very quickly.
Which confidence intervals are you referring to? The ones on vaccine effectiveness against Delta – which are probably the ones of most interest – on p 25 seem quite tight to me. N figures are in table S2 on page 36. But there are a lot of analyses in the paper – so maybe you are referring to some different estimates?
The trouble is, if your data is shot, then confidence intervals are irrelevant – you’re only confident of your data being crap.
All observational data is useless in this context, as it leaves out the essential ‘R’, ‘C’ and ‘T’ in the necessary concept of ‘RCT’ – the only way of conducting proper research into new drugs. All else is assumption, as Farr said re. death.
As a maths guy any CI greater than 3 to 5 in these kind of papers is deeply suspect. And after years of reading medical research papers (after decades of physics / maths research papers) and then digging though the raw data (when available) anything with a CI > 5 is basically, low probability / no probability correct in these papers.
Then you add in an invalid positive event test and ludicrous positive event type proxy test and its just a lot of pretty numbers. Very few medical research people seem to understand the whole Type I / Type II Error subject and why both the positive event and even type test used have not valid mathematically. In fact this indicate no actually understanding of the mathematics they are using. They are just sticking numbers into R scripts just like they always have.
I’m afraid that my experience is that a hell of a lot of researchers are just sticking data into computer programmes.
This means that they are short-circuiting the basic thought processes that are the essence of statistical understanding. I sometimes want to scream ‘Just f.ing LOOK at the data first. Forget the inferential stuff.’
I had an argument early on about basic Covid data denier with a guy who’s claim to expertise was that he ‘used principle component analysis regularly’.
AS I said to him, he’d best start again and read the opening chapter on basic analysis, and that process of ‘just looking’ – i.e. the use of descriptive analysis and essential scientific method and logic.
I think this is exactly what Clare Craig is saying on Twitter.
I don’t understand. CI greater than 3 to 5 what?
Well if a paper says 28% improvement in outcome (CI 25 – 31) that’s a meaningful result in my books. Now a 50% improvement (CI 25 – 75) then color me skeptical.
Then there is the whole problem of the “60% effect” quoted when its a (CI 30 – 90). The assumption that mid point is the most probable. Where the probability of 30%, 60% and 90% is exactly the same. Every point has the same probability. Thats why a narrow CI range is so important.
Most of the CI ranges in the paper are between 10 and 30, and a few are much higher. Not great numbers. If all CI in a paper are < 10 then now you might be on to something.
It is rather strange to express your concern in terms of the spread of percentage points. A CI of 5 percentage points is a lot more meaningful if the estimate is 90% than if it is 10%. A more logical way of looking at it is to ask how does the CI compare to the estimate. You find a span of 6 percentage points for an estimate of 28% to be acceptable. In this case the CI is 21.5% of the estimate (6 is 21.5% of 28).
The CIs I am looking at are on p25. Below is the top row (effectiveness against all infections) for various combinations of vaccine and duration. I have added the CI as a percentage of the estimate.
58% (51% – 63%) 21%
43% (31% – 52%) 49%
75% (64% – 83%) 25%
83% (76% – 88%) 14%
71% (63% – 77%) 20%
82% (79% – 85%) 7%
67% (62% – 71%) 13%
73% (59% – 82%) 32%
So five of the three sets of CIs meet your own standards. One other is very close (25%). The only one I would say is disappointing is the second one at 49% (effectiveness of Astrazeneca at least 21 days after the first dose but no second dose).
Then there is the whole problem of the “60% effect” quoted when its a (CI 30 – 90). The assumption that mid point is the most probable. Where the probability of 30%, 60% and 90% is exactly the same. Every point has the same probability.
I disagree. Depending on your philosophy of probability you might claim that CIs are not probabilities at all. However, they are something very similar. You will recall that the upper and lower 95% confidence limits are where the real value of the parameter will generate the observed result, or a more extreme result, 2.5% of the time. Assuming some kind of vaguely normal pdf, (which of course must be true for the mean of a sample by the central limit theorem), as the real value of the parameter gets closer to the observed result the probability of the observed result or something more extreme gets higher and higher. In other works the likelihood of the value of the parameter – (in the technical sense of likelihood) – peaks at the observed value.
You could think of it in Bayesian terms. If you assume a uniform prior pdf for the parameter than the posterior pdf will match the likelihood function.
Everything you have written is utter bollocks in terms of ‘rubbish in, rubbish out’.
But did you look at just which sub groups had the narrow spreads? Not impressive from what I would expect from vaccines where the claimed efficacy was 90%+.Plus they did not exclude those already with natural immunity due to prior infection. Very much looks like spiking the study to me.
You should compare that with some of the longitudinal studies for Influenza vaccines. Where at least the numbers are plausible.
But as I said the “viral load” proxy test they used is ludicrous. They obviously just used RT/PCR because it was cheap and available with out the huge cost of an actual proper clinical tests for active infections. Not because it was a valid test in the context of this study.
As for CI, etc and probability. I’m not only old school but I have a very sensitive nose for hand waving. Which a lot of modern statistical analysis is once you get away from the basics. Most statistics in bio-science is used not because it is firmly grounded in the systems it is used for, based on underlying physical mechanisms, but because it produces result that are “good enough” and relatively cheap to achieve.
Once you realize it is just “good enough” maths then general claims can be treated on their merits of plausibility. But when they start making very specific hard claims on what is usually very dodgy maths, well, they should be given the short shrift they deserve.
Because one of the probability curves I am mentally forming while reading these papers is the probability the paper is just BS. Most fail on the first quick read through. As you see yet again some very basis errors of maths, study structure, or basic logical flaw in the conclusion section and my BS probably curve converges on 1.0
But did you look at just which sub groups had the narrow spreads?
No I just took the first row because I wasn’t prepared to type them all out.
Not impressive from what I would expect from vaccines where the claimed efficacy was 90%+
I don’t see the efficacy has to with the narrowness of the CI.
But as I said the “viral load” proxy test they used is ludicrous.
Well obviously that is open to dispute – it seems to have been good enough for Michael Curzon to deduce the vaccinated are just as likely to spread the virus as the unvaccinated (although he seems to ignore the lower probability of getting infected in the first place)
I can’t make head or tail of what you right about CI and probability. Is my argument right or wrong? If it is wrong, then why is it wrong? I am more than happy to be corrected.
Problem. The Oxford University study uses the ONS as its control group. Who actually does the ONS Study, Oxford University.
I call it, B.S.!
I don’t understand what are you saying. Oxford University uses the ONS survey data. The ONS data includes both vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The unvaccinated are a control for the vaccinated. Where’s the problem?
Oxford University PRODUCES the ONS data and results; a lot of the so-called raw data has had to be modelled for months now because the human panels reduced in numbers, plus they apply that ‘data’ to their own models to produce ‘ONS branded’ results. They are now using that to justify their own seperate analysis. Do you see the problem now?
You obviously know a lot about the way the ONS survey processes its data. Perhaps you could give an example of the modelling?
As you can see, credibility is as virginity. You have it only once.
The ONS survey appears random, but it has a risk of bias.
They invited a large number of households to take part (random), but only around 10% actually take part.
Beyond that, there’s an inherent bias in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated anyway, particularly in older age groups — a 55 year old person who has decided to remain unvaccinated is very much in a different behavioural group to those that choose the vaccine.
The impact of these two biases on the results is not easy to work out.
But an estimate of the effect of this bias could be identified by considering those ‘about to have the vaccine’ vs those ‘who had the vaccine >21 but <60 (say) days before’. That way there would be a residual risk of bias in the differential enthusiasm for the vaccine, however, it would be far more controlled than the data as shown.
But that’s not been done, so who knows…?
Well, there is a hint of it in the data for disease incidence in the three weeks before scheduled vaccination, which is given in a subset of the tables in the paper. These data suggest that covid incidence before planned vaccination is fairly low, and if this is used as the baseline it suggests that the vaccines have very little impact.
Perhaps the safest approach to be is to continuously intend to have the vaccine within the 21 days, but never actually get round to having the jab…
I accept your point about a risk of selection bias. Are people who respond to the survey going to have different responses to the vaccine from people who don’t respond to the survey? It is hard to see why – but it is possible – which drives home the need to consider multiple studies with different approaches.
They did allow for quite a lot of demographic variables which should limit the bias in different types of people being vaccinated from non-vaccinated. But sure it is a risk.
Your proposal around – intend to get vaccinated – is a good one although I don’t know anyone ever collected that data. But using the actual three weeks before vaccination data is not going to work because if you present yourself for vaccination they ask if you have had Covid recently and refuse to vaccinate if you have – so the number of Covid cases just prior to vaccination is going to be artificially low.
First question. Where is the actual paper / data? I cannot find any evidence online so far. So just some journo’s story. Totally worthless.
The story sounds like. We have a large number of non clinical test results from a non random sample (but it sounds impressive because its a big number) that show that the SARs CoV 2 vaccines has pretty much the same effect as influenza vaccines. Wears off quickly and can reduce severity of symptoms for those with a health immune system, but thats all.
Plus the study lead obviously had not read the research on viral load and infectiousness or severity of infection. They have been looking for many decades for any statistically significant correlation in viral respiratory infections but found none.
So the key study metric was wrong. Because it sounds they were actually not familiar with the relevant published literature. So another Charlatan Study.
So just what those of us who read the literature were saying back in March 2020 about any future SARs CoV 2 vaccine. Wont work very well and wont work for long. And wont pass any normal vaccine risk / benefit metric.
Because as we all know almost 50 years of annual flu shots has completely wiped out influenza..
First question. Where is the actual paper / data? I cannot find any evidence online so far.
The paper is here. There was a link to it from the BBC news story.
The story sounds like. We have a large number of non clinical test results from a non random sample (but it sounds impressive because its a big number)
If you read the paper you will see it uses data from the Office for National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey which is a random selection of households. There may possibly be some selection bias but response rates for this survey are in the 90s so it cannot be large.
Thanks again. Read it. The problem with longitudinal studies is that asking lots of people from a representational population to join the study is not the same as actually getting valid data over the study time frame from a representational population.
First thing I look for is comparing who was asked versus who actually provided the data used. The final data recovered is always skewed towards a non representational population. If the study has that vital data included then I know I am dealing with people who at least have a basic understanding of the sampling problem with longitudinal studies.
Problems is too many high profile studies dont provide this data or you have to really dig to work it out. Then the headline “study results” tend to be far less impressive. Often non existent. Which is usually the case.
“The problem with longitudinal studies is that asking lots of people from a representational population to join the study is not the same as actually getting valid data over the study time frame from a representational population.”
Precisely. But in this instance, it’s even worse, because of the vulnerability to uncontrolled variables – one of the key problems in any investigation, but particularly anything that requires strict RCT methodology, such as medicine trials.
Sure there is a risk of selection bias. You can’t force people to respond. Every study has its strengths and limitations – this is one is strong in the sheer numbers involved, limited because it is possible that those who responded to the survey for some reason reacted differently to the vaccines from those who did not – although it is not obvious why this would be so. Ideally you would compliment this with a necessarily smaller scale survey that limited the selection bias. That doesn’t mean this survey is useless.
It’s bollocks
That paper hasn’t been accepted by a journal / gone through the peer review process yet. And given the rife conflicts of interest throughout academia these days, I don’t trust the peer review process surrounding COVID data-babble very much. Peer review used to be relatively robust but that was in the good old days before every professor of note got signed up to Big Pharma grants and referees started the ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine’ favours. I work in medical publishing developing clinical trial papers on behalf of doctors, so I know a thing or two about what goes on.
Indeed. The peer review process has taking a massive pasting in recent times.
If you don’t trust the peer review process then it doesn’t really matter whether the paper has been through the process or not, does it?
“ it uses data from the Office for National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey which is a random selection of households.”
If you’re data is flawed, getting your sampling right makes no difference.
The ONS Infection Survey is based on PCR testing. ‘Nuff said. The key variable is irretrievably flawed – aka ‘invalid’.
Correction – response rates for ONS survey are about 13% – I misread the data.
And other coronaviruses all fled screaming.
” Researchers concluded two doses reduce the chance of getting the Covid by about 82% for Pfizer and 67% for AstraZeneca.”
How long before they backtrack on this too! The data published by Israel government clearly shows that the efficacy against getting covid is near zero or even negative. For the older age groups (above 70) it shows slightly better efficacy, which could very well be because the % vaccinated are too high in those groups and the remaining are only the frail. The Israel govt data shows a positive effect in reducing hospitalisations and deaths though, but nearly none against catching it.
Sources:
https://data.gov.il/dataset/covid-19/resource/9b623a64-f7df-4d0c-9f57-09bd99a88880
https://data.gov.il/dataset/covid-19/resource/8a51c65b-f95a-4fb8-bd97-65f47109f41f
I think the brief of that ‘study’ was to find and reverse engineer a model or correlation that would then result in exactly those 2 numbers.
Almost immediately?
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-08-pfizer-covid-jab-declines-faster.html
Pfizer Covid jab declines faster than AstraZeneca: study
Unfortunately the very first line of the quote could be used/twisted to justify vaccine passports, as, even though infected vaccinated individuals are as likely to spread the virus as unvaccinated infected individuals, the study asserts that the former are less likely to exist in the first place, as they have greater protection against infection.
However, given that such a vast proportion of the population has now been vaccinated, the marginal impact on absolute risk reduction from the imposition of vaccination passports must be incredibly slim.
E.g. assume 90 vaccinated people are let into a nightclub. Of these 10 are infected and transmitting. If you let in a further 10 people, of whom 50% are infected and transmitting, then you’ve increased the number of “vectors” from 10 to 15%. Given how transmission works (the first infected person let in leads to a jump in the risk, subsequent infected people let in add increasingly less to the risk – this I assume is especially true in crowded venues with a lot of moving about, like night clubs), that extra 5% probably won’t add much to the risk of the 90 uninfected people getting infected.
Also, note how the paper concedes that ‘herd immunity’ isn’t possible, so it’s extra important that you get vaccinated to protect yourself. Basically, it’s either get the jab to protect yourself, or to protect others, depending on which day of the week it is.
You can change “the solution” to “the final solution”. Still applies pretty much.
The numbers are worse than that. And the extent of their lies.
Either the vaccine works as they claim then the base vaccination rate for SAR2 2 (R0 < 1.2) is around 45%. This means for epidemic infectious disease control a vaccination rate of 45% has exactly the same effect as 80%. Or 99%. So all those adverse response deaths and serious injuries of all those vaccinated over the 45% rate are very deliberate malfeasance for purely political purposes.
Or the vaccines really dont work very well (very likely) and the public health officials and government are straight lying for pure political expediency. They need to make the media headlines go away.
Meanwhile many thousands of people will die and tens of thousands suffer serious long term health consequences for totally pointless vaccinations.
“vaccinated individuals have….greater protection against infection”
This is how the disingenuous or ignorant media want people to interpret such studies. It’s all in the words used. In fact the claims are that the ‘vaccines’ reduce Covid in recipients by [82%/67%…whatever]. The point to bear in mind is that ‘Covid’ refers to the clinical symptoms of infection with the SARS CoV2 virus. Vaccinated people are still at the same risk of acquiring the virus as unvaccinated. The officially claimed difference is that the vaccinated will have reduced symptoms and may even be asymptomatic [but could still carry infection even if asymptomatic].
This being so, the government may be hoisted by their own petard. The fundamental basis of lockdowns, masking, social distancing etc is that asymptomatic transmission is a reality and the asymptomatic are just as dangerous as the symptomatic. On this basis the government and their advisers cannot claim that complete removal of Covid symptoms in vaccinated people means a reduction in the risk of infection or transmission. In fact they may be more of a risk of spreading the infection as mild symptoms, or none at all, may lead to them mixing with other people, whereas someone suffering worse symptoms would be unlikely to be out and about.
My comments are based purely on what we are told by the government or mainstream media. I personally have serious doubts that the ‘vaccines’ serve any useful purpose in any cohort but present a disproportionate risk to anyone who is jabbed. And claims of asymptomatic transmission are simply fear-generating rhetoric.
Of course – even a 90% relative risk reduction in a situation of 1% absolute risk reduction isn’t very impressive!
… and we still have the fatal flaw of attributing differences to the impact of a vaccine, when the decreasing virulence of the agent over time is staring you in the face as a confounding variable.
What happened to the hundreds of thousands of years of learned natural immunity? Herd immunity can only be obtained from vaccination? Jesus, I’ve seen more intellectual rigour on Love Island. Not that I have.
… in the vaccinated and unvaccinated… And, as usual, the implication that “unvaccinated” is synonymous with “susceptible”. I guess including people with immunity from having had Covid19 would be just too embarasing.
In a saner world, all this investigation and analysis would take place BEFORE millions of people are given the treatment.
When the results of such studies become public, the first question any decent journalist should ask is “who funded the research?” to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. I’m sure the £98 million from this chap came in handy…
Committed Grants | Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation – Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Although fully vaccinated people are significantly less likely to be infected,
No, they’re merely MORE likely to transmit it as they are Asymptomatic…
If you think asymptomatic transmission is a factor.
It appears to be in the 2 weeks following the jab – those people are apparently shedding the virus.
Not in the unvaccinated who haven’t taken a pain killer.
Plenty in the vaccinated, some in the unvaccinated who were so dumb to take a pain killer and then run around.
It seems to be that spreading is not correlated with viral load as measured with CT
Mildly symptomatic. But then why we are trying to slow transmission at the moment I don’t really understand. We should be having covid parties!!!
Getting Covid is the best way to actually immunise.
Good idea!
Any numbers on those who got properly immunised by having COVID?
Even if true, I don’t think it rubbishes the idea of vaccine passports.
It goes some way towards that but not completely. The argument could be made that vaxxed people clear it more quickly and not hospitalised so are more ‘deserving’.
But it’s a start.
What idiots people are, though.
Be anti lockdown because you are ideologically opposed to them.
But don’t start getting back to normal because of this vaccine.
People organising parties on the back of vaccine effectiveness are just fools. OK even if it does reduce hospitalisations even a mild case is pretty grim but, hey, it’s all right now cause of vaccines.
It isn ‘t.
Also, because people think they’re now immune, because vaccine implies immunity in most people’s minds, they’re just going to mix again! Guaranteed lockdown soon.
I’m opposed to lockdowns but I’m not going to get back to normal because of the vaccine.
If anyone goes down the “deserving” route, they can ram it. How about the overweight? they’ve had 18 months to lessen their risk and lose the lbs. It is a slippery slope.
I hope it’s clear that I disagree with the concept of deserving as opposed to undeserving, sophie, I’m just pointing out what I think might happen.
I’m not saying that normality should not resume, I’m saying it should not resume because of the vaccines.
I hope that comes across in my post.
Ever? The only way we will get back to normal is by people picking up an infection and developing a level of natural immunity to the virus. It looks like the “vaccine” is still protecting the most vulnerable so they should get on with their lives, expose themselves to the pathogen and develop natural immunity. We should all be partying like it is 1999 to be exposed to the virus before vitamin D levels drop and those who have been “vaccinated” run the gauntlet of ADE.
Will, I am NOT saying that we should not get back to normal I am saying normality shouldn’t be resumed on the back of the vaccine.
If people are returning to normality SOLELY because of the vaccine, I think it’s foolish.
I hear you, apologies for any misunderstanding.
Thanks.
“ even a mild case is pretty grim”
No. Or it’s not ‘mild’. Or colds are ‘pretty grim’.
What I mean is that when medics say it’s mild they mean you’re not needing to be put in hospital. That doesn’t mean to say it’s a pleasant thing to have.
We can argue about the definition, but what I really mean is that it can be a nasty thing to have even if you don’t need to go to hospital and that people who think they’re not going to be ill BECAUSE of the vaccine are in for a shock.
Does this mean I am for lockdowns? No but anyone who was FOR lockdowns previously but are not now because of vaccines will be in for a nasty surprise when they are still hit with a nasty flu-type illness.
I really think people don’t realise this. So many people organising parties because they think they won’t be at all sick.
I got your point. But what I’m saying is that you will not necessarily develop ‘a nasty flu-type illness’.
‘….even a mild case is pretty grim.’
Man Flu lives!
“Although fully vaccinated people are significantly less likely to be infected,”
I’m willing to bet this isn’t true.
I bet they are just as likely to get infected but perhaps less likely to show symptoms and therefore become asymptomatic spreaders. The way that the delta infections are spreading in highly vaccinated countries like Israel and Iceland suggests that is the case.
I’d also be interested to know how many PCR cycles are being used to test the vaccinated and whether this is the same as the unvaccinated. We know that in the US different numbers of cycles are used for the “clean” and the “unclean”.
Same. Might conceivably be true for around 8-10 weeks post vaccination. Not so sure after that.
Yep. And it’s practically only the unvaccinated who are still mass tested and thereby many more of their positive results are caught. Multiples of asymptomatic infected and infectious untested vaccinated are running around than them.
I haven’t seen the paper, but from the charts in the Daily Mail, the patients were only followed for just over 2 months post second dose kicking in. SO before significant drop off in efficacy was seen.
We all know IgG levels are sky high post second dose. But they drop off rapidly. And then you are back to square one (with maybe added ADE, tbc)
“Researchers concluded two doses reduce the chance of getting the Covid by about 82% for Pfizer and 67% for AstraZeneca.”
82% and 67% of what level of absolute risk (even accepting the figures)?
“ two doses remain remarkably effective at preventing death and hospitalisation”
Nothing to do with the relative mildness of the dominant variant, then?
All irrelevant anyway, since there is no good RCT data upon which to base any conclusions.
The absolute risk will depend on the prevalence at the time and also the duration of the period under consideration – that is why you typically quite vaccine effectiveness which should not vary in these ways.
“The absolute risk will depend on the prevalence at the time “
That excuse pops out of the woodwork every time the fact of ARR is stated. Of course – communal viral load may make some difference to all RR calculations. But not that much, if the base data is sound in terms of a properly sampled RCT.
I always know I’ve won the argument when that one pops its head out.
The absolute risk is going to be pretty much proportional to the prevalence. The more people there are currently infected, the greater your chances of being infected. The daily case rate has varied from 2,000 to 50,000 this year. I know that is not quite the same thing as prevalence but it gives you some idea of how much it has changed.
Sorry – but you are wanting cake and eating it. ARR can change, but RRR will remain the same outside the trial framework? That’s scientific nonsense, and defeats the whole logic of an RCT.
RRR might change – but there has to be a reason for it other than simply a change in the base line risk. This is completely standard medical statistics. See for example: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/toolkit/learn-ebm/how-to-calculate-risk/
RRR is usually constant across a range of absolute risks. But the ARR is higher and the NNT lower in people with higher absolute risks
“The daily case rate has varied from 2,000 to 50,000 this year”
By what measure is the “daily case rate” number derived?
Oh God – the testing thing again. I don’t want to fight that battle yet again right now. Consider it hypothetical if you like – my only point was that prevalence makes a very big difference to absolute risk.
It is not a battle; you might have a different point of view when you read what I have recommended – but then again, Oh God, not the blind refusal again to take on board that “the testing thing” is critical, that even the WHO don’t reckon their original “bright idea” is really that. But at the risk of repeating myself, don’t take my word for it as I am not a scientist; but I am very capable of discerning that the Cormen-Drosten RT-PCR process for mass testing…is decidedly not “The Gold Standard” and public health strategies and Government decrees which use it as the “raison d’être” are tainted and equally dubious.
they aren’t vaccines
None of these studies and data about the vaccine really matter.
We are witnessing once again the manufacture of an accepted truth. The conclusion has already been written: covid vaccines save lives and the more people take them the more lives are saved.
Studies will be produced that show the right results. Data will be twisted if it has to. And ultimately neither of these things will be that important, because what matter is the size of the megaphone and who is behind it.
The propaganda machine which is unstoppable will produce that “truth”. In much the same way that it produced the “truth” that covid is an unusual and unprecedented killer and that everyone should be terrified of it.
But it’s even worse than that. With vaccine passports, they haven’t really presented any evidence of their usefulness – not that I have seen anyway. In fact the evidence presented makes it obvious they are useless, and the governments own policy that you need to take a test when coming back from abroad makes it obvious they know the passports are useless from a practical point of view. Yet no-one in the mainstream seems to have called them out on it.
Vaccine passports are the sole point of all this, unless eugenics and genocide are the other one.
Thales has confirmed this yesterday.
https://norberthaering.de/die-regenten-der-welt/thales/
They want you to use a digital ID to do ANYthing.
The EU has already issued a tender for studying the implementation of a centralized register of every person’s assets!
And this news, aka another conspiracy theory having become true, has been totally ignored by the MSM, of course.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Ooyt_6KVo
Almost everyone in the MSM is a Ministry of Truth employee – that much is quite clear.
If vaxports are brought in for big gatherings, we’ll soon see how fast the vaxxoids can pass the bug on, won’t we?
They’ll blame it on the self-exempted….
I still prefer my own healthy immune system and untainted blood – thanks.
Yes that’s where the emphasis should have been all along. And in emergency the likes of Ivermectin.
Did any of us actually need a new study to figure this out? I simply read what each company intended to achieve and nowhere did anything say “immunity”.
If the so-called vaccines work against the original strain but not the variants then they are not stimulating a proper immune response, that is the only conclusion I can draw from this.
Worse than that, they are probably responsible for creating the variants, or at least creating the environment in which the variants can prosper.
It’s notable that all of the variants seen to date originated in places where there were early trials of the vaccines.
100% agree! the 3 countries where the clotshots were tested produced variants, Brazil, Kent, South Africa, and so it continues but now theyve changed the names to the Greek Aphabet.
Interesting observation by Dr Clare Craig on this study:
Even a lot of the ONS ‘raw data’ is actually modelled now, they have run out of willing guinee pigs.
“Experts said the findings strengthened the argument for a ‘booster’ Covid jab programme this autumn.”
And there it is.
Another worthless study based on fraudulent PCR data.
Bonus: PCR test CCP style!
Here is a Florence Nightingale chart of all cause mortality (based on ONS weekly data) in the age 45-64 age group for the years 2015 to 2021. I’ve adjusted this based on ONS population estimates to weekly deaths per million in that age group. I’ve only applied the population adjustment based on the ONS mid year population for each year applied to all the weeks in that year but that’s probably more than good enough.
You can see that there is now a very abnormal level of high mortality (perhaps 20% more than we might expect) going on currently in that age group which given respiratory deaths are at relatively low fairly normal levels (we will get another check on this in the ONS monthly mortality publication on 23rd August) may be due to lack of access to healthcare or to vaccine adverse affects or perhaps something else.
This unusually high mortality did not happen in Summer 2020 and Summer mortality as you can see normally runs within tight bands. A similarly trend of current higher Summer mortality can be seen in other age groups (I won’t post up the charts at the moment) although it’s not quite as pronounced in those other adult age groups.
The only real difference between 2020 and 2021 is the experimental vaccination programme. So a starting hypothesis might be that either the vaccines are causing deaths or it might be due to a lack of access to healthcare that is really impacting now to an extent not seen in 2020 or a mix of things.
This all cause mortality (rather than PCR +ves etc) is something that should be urgently looked at.
Is it possible that deaths such as the one below are part of that 20%?
https://twitter.com/ridgeisback/status/1427884305263497221
I think you may be starting to see the result of deferred health care and diagnosis from lats year. The CDC data is starting to show that effect. Especially in pulmonary disease.
The other thing to bear in mind is that mass screening testing using RT/PCR will give rise to a very large number of misdiagnosis of respiratory illness. When the RT/PCR test is done first, rather than a late stage part of the diagnosis of pneumonia, because almost all the symptoms are non specific that will mean a lot of the hospital admissions with serious respiratory symptoms would be mis-diagnosed. Less of a problem with viral or bacterial infections but with a lot of other respiratory diseases with early stage symptoms in common that would cause serious problem with early diagnosis and treatment.
Unfortunately the real uptick in lockdown related mortality has yet to happen. Next year is when it will start really kicking in.
ADE
That would require high numbers of Covid deaths currently – I don’t think we’re seeing those.
“either the vaccines are causing deaths or it might be due to a lack of access to healthcare that is really impacting now to an extent not seen in 2020.”
It’s difficult to say, isn’t it? Although the ‘bump’ is relatively small. The age-group is probably the one most affected by delayed and insufficient diagnosis and health care after eighteen months, and certainly vaccination could be a factor, with the growth of double jabbing.
Re ‘vaccination’, the comparison of the ’20 and ’21 major spikes is fascinating. It is noticeable that there is an unexpected rise in mortality after the introduction of the vaccines in December – and the decrease is much slower than it was in April 2020.
The December spike is the planned euthanasia of elderly in care homes with the vaccine. There is no other way of saying it, murder.
Excellent work, thank you.
This isn’t news
‘And that’s exactly what’s seen in viral load data’
But that is NOT what has been seen. The viral load is the same.
As far as symptoms are concerned, we actually have no evidence its better or worse in injected people. Its highly likely the Delta variant is mild compared to Alpha etc, so the reduction in hospitalisation and deaths are to be expected irrespective of injection status. What data there is, from Iceland and Israel appears to show similar percentages of injected and non-injected.
Exactly.
Isn’t this just the same press release rehashed once more? Eg, how can someone do a large-scale comparison of vaccinated vs unvaccineted starting from December last year? By that time, no one was vaccinated as the vaccination program just started. It is still absolutely impossible that vaccination prevents infection. That’s sort of like claiming that a door could stop people walking past it in the street. Lastly, why on earth is vaccination worked as advertised a justification for another round of vaccinations?
So are the jib jabbed asymptomatic ?
No. I’m surprised you don’t already know someone coughing away who has recently had the stabs.
Excellent interview, great to see someone taking this kind of action in the UK. Anna is a shining light :
Anna De Buisseret Serves Notice Of Criminal Liability On UK Covid Vaccinators Under Nuremberg Code
https://www.bitchute.com/video/RVcI7oT6YaOp/
Slightly off topic, but is anyone else worried about how the world of blood donation is going to look in a year or two? If the spike protein is as dangerous as some experts believe, and is in the bloodstream, will a market be created for the blood of those of us who have not had the poison?
The idea of selling one’s blood to the NHS will seem tasteless and objectionable to many, but if the blood of the vaxxed can’t be used the NHS will be in serious trouble and I can see a situation in which incentives will have to be offered (social credits perhaps!).
Bears, Woods, Popes, Catholics, fictional detectives and excrement… really?
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” (Albert Einstein)
Useful information, resources and links: https://www.LCAHub.org/
It’s shocking and extremely irritating how the daily sceptic keeps posting gibberish stuff…like ‘variants’. Epidemiologist professors Dolores Cahill and Sucharit Bhakdi already instructed us that ‘variants’ are NEVER dangerous; they are more infectious but NEVER dangerous!
So explain this to me, how can a fragment of a virus that doesn’t exist [C19 fails koch postulates] inside a jab that isn’t a conventional vaccine, produce dangerous ‘variants’?
1) C19 doesn’t exist because ti fails Koch Postulate
2) Kary Mullis, the scientists who invented the pcr test, stated that this test cannot diagnose diseases
3) this C19 jab isn’t a conventional vaccine, but mRNA gene therapy which among other things alters our DNA.
So do you want to correct the article and start calling things by their proper names, instea of spreading disinformation?
Luis
Epidemiologist professors Dolores Cahill and Sucharit Bhakdi already instructed us that ‘variants’ are NEVER dangerous;
I very much doubt they said that – do you have a link? There is always the possibility that a variant will be more lethal as well as being more infectious – although that has not been true so far.
C19 doesn’t exist because it fails Koch Postulate
No virus can meet the Koch postulates because postulate two requires the organism be grown in a pure culture and viruses can only grow in other cells. Are you saying that no viruses exist?
Kary Mullis, the scientists who invented the pcr test, stated that this test cannot diagnose diseases
Not exactly – he said you can use it to find almost anything – but this was in the context of an informal group talking about AIDS patients and may well have just been a figure of speech.
this C19 jab isn’t a conventional vaccine, but mRNA gene therapy which among other things alters our DNA.
The Astrazeneca vaccine does not use mRNA. The mRNA vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna) do not alter our DNA. The AZ vaccine adds some DNA to a limited number of cells for a short time to generate the protein.
“…that herd immunity is “unachievable” ”
“…that jab induced herd immunity is “unachievable”. Fixed it. Or I could précis…’the jabs do no good.’
Just a thought: if jabs reduce sympoms but have same viral load (in their own clownworld) aren’t the jabbed more of an asymptomatic spreader risk than the unjabbed who will have more prompts that they are bugged and that they should isolate? By causing symptom suppression they are stimulating spread (in their world)?
They are symptomatic.
The PCR test tell you virus particles (DNA) are present or not present. They tell you nothing about the viability of those particles to cause infection. This has been clearly stated by quite a number of scientists who study viruses. The only way to determine viability of the virus to infect is to undertake cell cultures. Looking at the paper this appears not to have been done. The so-called viral load has been determined by the number of cycles that have been run on the sample.
PCR is regularly used to test for a wide range of viruses e.g. flu, chickenpox, HIV ….
Are you saying that all these tests that have been used all round the world for years are rubbish?
There is a world of difference between “PCR” and “RT-PCR”. Katy Mullis stated unequivocally that PCR is not a test of infectiousness. Even Drosten stated that a RT-PCR derived “positive” test has to be backed up by a lab culture test – do you think every instance of a “positive” test derived from a RT-PCR test is so backed up – how many have been done since this virus was foisted on the world in late 2019?
You do not seem to place credence to the multitude of scientists who know that the RT-PCR testing regime, as mandated around the world but very tellingly rowed back from by the WHO at least once to my knowledge, is fraudulent – it does not detect infectiousness and its stringency ( as mandated by the WHO ) is 100% compromised byits design , eg, the adoption of a CT rate that produces very high false positive outcomes, that it does not test the whole strand of a section of this RNA virus (very deliberately so – as you will read below ) and has to convert the RNA sample to DNA because the RT-PCR test does not test …..RNA samples. But “don’t take my word for it” – please get a copy of ILLA The PCR Disaster Genesis and Evolution
of the »Drosten Test« and I respectfully suggest you pay particular attention to pages 57 – 70. The fraud perpetrated by Cormen-Drosten is laid out in very stark detail in this document – if you were CMO UK, knowing what is in this report, would you still use it as the “Gold Standard” for mass testing?.
I am not a scientist but even I can work out that public health strategies based on positive cases derived from a single gene RT-PCR test with a cycle rate of over 35 are “not efficacious to the population”; and these so called mRNA “vaccines” are not vaccines as admitted by the Big Pharma cartel.
Thanks for the reference. I will have a look at it sometime over the next few days.
In the meantime:
Real-Time PCR has been used extensively for some years for diagnosing a range of viruses. Are you claiming that these diagnoses were all based on a giant error?
The UK RT-PCR tests for Covid-19 were returning about 2,000 positive results a day back in May. They now return over 30,000 positive results a day with much the same level of testing. This dramatic increase can be explained by a lot of people getting infected with the virus as that is capable of exponential growth. Do you have a better or even an alternative explanation?
Why this fixation on whether the mRNA inoculations are correctly called vaccines? They are prophylactic injections that reduce your chances of infection and serious illness by priming your immune system. You can call them what you like, but “vaccine” seems like a useful word. I can’t see that is particularly deceptive. What are they are not is “treatments” or “therapies” as treatments and therapies are given after you have contracted a disease to cure it or reduce the symptoms.
(In any case the majority of Covid “vaccines” worldwide and in the UK do not use mRNA)
Real-Time PCR has been used extensively for some years for diagnosing a range of viruses. Are you claiming that these diagnoses were all based on a giant error?
No I am not; are you claiming that the tests which have been used “for some years” have all been done to identical design protocols, with identical post swab regimes of storage, assessment etc? The document I recommend is one of several I have read which drives the proverbial coach and horses through the WHO instigated, Corment-Drosten designed version – as I say “don’t take my word for it”; Ulrike Kammerer and a stack of other medics across the world, including Robert Malone ( please take his word for it ), have risked their careers to state what they know from decades of relevant study, knowledge, clinical experience.. and they state that the Cormen-Drosten RT-PCR test is a fraud and they state exactly why that is with the smoking gun part the downgrading of the number of genes examined ( page 57 onwards: “The evolution of the »Drosten Test«towards a one-gene PCR”) – that does not mean to say that other versions are likewise. Kary Mullis did say “you can pretty much find anything you want” – he was referring to PCR only – and then went on in the same video to state that does not test for infectiousness which Cormen/Drosten agree with!!!
Why this fixation on whether the mRNA inoculations are correctly called vaccines. They are prophylactic injections that reduce your chances of infection and serious illness by priming your immune system. You can call them what you like, but “vaccine” seems like a useful word. I can’t see that is particularly deceptive. What are they are not is “treatments” or “therapies” as treatments and therapies are given after you have contracted a disease to cure it or reduce the symptoms.
Because if you want to be accurate about something that is allegedly “good for you”, is it not important to know what “it” is and “what it does”? A “prophylactic” medication is designed to prevent disease as I understand the term; however, very inconveniently, not even the manufacturers of mRNA claim “it” does this ( how can they when you are not injected with a dormant virus which your immune system then recognises, but only RNA nucleic acid ); as I understand it, these jabs are intended to reduce symptoms but cannot prevent infection. You can look up any definition but the consensus seems to say a vaccine is: “a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies (check) and provide immunity against one or several diseases” (Oh dear) . May I infer that you agree with Boris’s statement that immunity is best gained by the jab and not exposure to the virus – with respect that is utter tripe.
Ergo, a mRNA jab that does not provide immunity cannot be a vaccine; I also understand that such medications do not meet the legal definition of a vaccine in the US? UK Lawyers have determined, after examining the relevant legislation, that because of the structure of mRNA jabs they do not meet the legal definition of a medicine but are “medical devices”…
It appears that the pharmaceutical companies have not done the pharmakinetic tests to analyse what happens to the injection site and how the jab contents react from there. How is it that a so called mRNA vaccine – never before successfully trialed – is injected to “treat” a respiratory virus – and therefore should target the nose throat and lungs (?), when the spike protein is then found in the major organs post autopsy and in every chromosome ( German pathologist and US Microbiology study) – and that the tide of side effects, principally inflammation in many parts of the body, are now very very evident and that post jab deaths are at a scale which should send alarm bells ringing? Apparently the FDA in the US must “pull” any experimental jab if it induces > 25 deaths – please look up VAERS and a host of US medics who despair that these jabs are now being mandated for children – why on earth have they not done so? Do you support the UK government introducing mandating vaccines in any age group/profession at some point? If you have been jabbed, please scan the – redacted – Informed Consent form you signed?
Never mind the statements made by clinicians worldwide that these jabs are not sterilising, inject a toxic substance ( the spike protein), suppress the bodies wider spectrum antibodies and is therefore deemed a “leaky” jab which results in greater morbid exposure to mutating variants – and hence why the vaccinated are just as prone as unvaccinated to “lockdown” inspired variants, much more infectious but far less lethal.
I have no handle on the mass testing case numbers – I leave that to the statisticians and other experts who have consistently pulled apart the ONS figures. I am sceptical for highly personal reasons about politicians and the medical profession – I have damn good reason to be so; I am no conspiracy theorist and have rejected a lot of what I have read/heard – but very little of these SARS COV 2 causation/effects add up – mass testing by a fraudulently designed RT- PCR process is just one of those very inconvenient truths as you will read.
I only have a few minutes so I will respond to just one item now and pick up the rest later.
however, very inconveniently, not even the manufacturers of mRNA claim “it” does this ( how can they when you are not injected with a dormant virus which your immune system then recognises, but only RNA nucleic acid ); as I understand it, these jabs are intended to reduce symptoms but cannot prevent infection
Where did this idea come from that not even the manufacturers claim the mRNA vaccines claim it reduces the chances of infection? I have seen it a number of times but with no source – but when Pfizer and Moderna announced the results of the RCTs the efficacy was efficacy against infection. The vaccines are intended to reduce the chances of infection and reduce symptoms.
They work by getting your cells to produce proteins which are found on the virus spike. Your body learns to produce antibodies (and maybe T cell responses) to these proteins – so when they appear as part of the virus, the virus gets attacked. But surely you and pretty much everyone on this forum knows this?
Perhaps another inconvenient issue is that the UK EUO authorisation only is given when no other treatment is available, just as in the US; there are, patently, other prophylactic treatments ….I wonder why this was ignored by the MHRA panel? And please don’t forget that MHRA and one JCVI member (who is publicly recommending these experimental less than adequately tested jabs be given to children ) are totally compromised by their undeclared conflicts of interest – or does medical ethics occupy the same space as ” the testing thing”?
Now returned – to address some of your other points.
are you claiming that the tests which have been used “for some years” have all been done to identical design protocols, with identical post swab regimes of storage, assessment etc?
Of course not. So I am glad you don’t have an objection to RT-PCR in general. I don’t know enough about the world of PCR testing to comment any further but I am pretty sure the UK (and other governments) use a variety of RT-PCR tests and not just the Cormen-Drosten RT-PCR.
As a matter of interest, why should Robert Malone be relevant to this. He is the self-professed inventor of mRNA vaccines (he wasn’t – but that is another matter) – that is nothing to do with RT-PCR.
It appears that the pharmaceutical companies have not done the pharmakinetic tests to analyse what happens to the injection site and how the jab contents react from there.
They did it on animals but not people as that is not generally required for vaccines against respiratory viruses. Since then there have been studies which show that only tiny quantities of the vaccine and protein leave the injection site. See https://www.deplatformdisease.com/blog/spike-protein-circulating-in-the-vaccinated-what-does-it-mean
How is it that a so called mRNA vaccine – never before successfully trialed – is injected to “treat” a respiratory virus – and therefore should target the nose throat and lungs (?)
No. The vaccine stays at the injection site. This is enough to prime the immune system.
, when the spike protein is then found in the major organs post autopsy and in every chromosome ( German pathologist and US Microbiology study) –
Please can you provide a link to this study. I think it may have been misinterpreted. There is no way that that mRNA gets into any chromosome – much less every one!
and that the tide of side effects, principally inflammation in many parts of the body, are now very very evident and that post jab deaths are at a scale which should send alarm bells ringing?
I have addressed this many times. People get ill and die shortly after being vaccinated but that is not because they are vaccinated. They would have got ill or died anyway. There are no more than usual serious illnesses and deaths among the vaccinated except for a couple of rare effects (blood clots and heart inflammation in the young) which have been identified.
Apparently the FDA in the US must “pull” any experimental jab if it induces > 25 deaths –
I think that’s a myth. Can you provide a link?
please look up VAERS and a host of US medics who despair that these jabs are now being mandated for children – why on earth have they not done so?
I am familiar with VAERS. It is a self-reporting mechanism which makes it OK for warning of a potential problem but useless for determining if there really is a problem.
I am, on the whole, against vaccinating children.
Do you support the UK government introducing mandating vaccines in any age group/profession at some point?
No.
If you have been jabbed, please scan the – redacted – Informed Consent form you signed?
You know there is no consent form for these vaccines or any others in my experience. However, I certainly was not forced and I was given this leaflet.
Never mind the statements made by clinicians worldwide that these jabs are not sterilising,
No vaccines are sterilising! That would be tragic indeed.
inject a toxic substance ( the spike protein),
No. They get your own cells to create the spike protein (which is a small part of the virus). It mostly stays at the injection site and is soon metabolised.
suppress the bodies wider spectrum antibodies and is therefore deemed a “leaky” jab which results in greater morbid exposure to mutating variants
This is almost meaningless. Can you provide a link?
– and hence why the vaccinated are just as prone as unvaccinated to “lockdown” inspired variants, much more infectious but far less lethal.
That’s false. The vaccinated are less prone although that fades with time.
“Now returned,” you say. I think you drank a lot of Kool-aid on your break!
Experimental use only authorisation requires informed consent or is that another myth?
Are you completely comfortable that you know and understand the long term implications of the contents of the jab (s) you willingly gave verbal assent to?
FDA >25: Google Dr Ryan Cole Stop the Mandate or is that another myth?
If you are trying to suggest that the evident side effects of mRNA jabs are rare, try telling that to the thousands of people who have died very soon after a jab was administered or is that another myth.
EUO authorisation has been granted with grossly inadequate testing, and in contravention of the availability of other treatments in the US and UK; how many recored deaths have there been from , say, Ivermectin over the 40 years or so it has been produced.Or are you a subscriber to the “Fact check” that has rubbished its efficacy, as demonstrated by Dr Peter McCullough and others or are these medics clinical experience with real patients another myth. You have no doubt satisfied yourself that there is a logical and legal reason why other available treatments have been ignored by the FDA and MHRA or is that another myth that there is no such clause in the EOU approval documentation for these jabs?
Please let us all read your myth busting analysis of what the Israelis are experiencing with new infections right now, among the highest percentage of “vaccinated” population in the world, where there appears to be no distinction between the prevalence of a mutated variant in “vaccinated” or “unvaccinated” individuals. Perhaps you were convinced that lockdowns during a winter period proved beneficial, where the natural virus cycle of infection/transmission/mutation/transmission but with reduced pathogenic effect appears to have been interrupted – but I am only part of the PBI who has to read what highly qualified scientists state from their decades of experience with all aspects of viruses
Perhaps you view the strategy of protecting the elderly and comorbidity affected section of the population and allowing the rest of the population to experience the virus, seek treatment to prevent hospitilisation, and gain a greater depth of immunity is “inappropriate” or is the mass testing of otherwise healthy unaffected people – never adopted in any other pandemic ( or is it a casedemic because of the sheer weight of false positives )? Are you aware that HMG refuse to disclose, in answer to a FoI request, collated information on the cycle threshold rate for all “positive” RT-PCR cases – do you think that is helpful or does it not bother you that CT rates were mandated by the WHO at 40+ and FoI request have revealed this rate to be in use in the UK; are CT Rates of 40+ “good science”
And finally , how do you know the jab material stays at the injection site – please cite your references to this – it appears that the Pharma companies did not do the pharmakinetic etc testing as I understand is the case with all vaccines in the longer term trials?
People like me have to make judgments because the government and medical quangos have proved to be less than 100% honest, used very dubious modelling ( shown to be massively wrong in construction and output ) refused to accept dissenting scientists knowledge , extremely disingenuous charts and selective use of statistics – again demonstrated to be have been wrong at the point of presentation. As a result and because of my personal experiences I do not trust these proven liars; but perhaps you do and therefore swallow the statement made by the PM that “immunity is best achieved by the jabs”, when non politically aligned scientists from across the world state the exact opposite.
Another myth perhaps?
You are arguing about whether the shots are rightly called “vaccines,” “treatments,” or “therapies.”
Any number of highly credentialed, expertly qualified scientists make a very compelling argument for calling them “bio-weapons.”
They were used for years to confirm diagnoses based on symptoms. Not in a massive fishing expedition.
Tell us something that we don’t already know…
But stop using the word vaccine. Its a medical treatment
Why not call it a vaccine? See my comment. replying to 186NO.
The latest report from PHE shows the vaccinated account for 21% of Covid infections and 58% of all Covid deaths.
In April, the CDC issued new guidance to laboratories in the US recommending reducing the RT-PCR CT value to 28 cycles — but only for those fully vaccinated individuals being tested for Covid. Any unvaccinated individuals would still have their tests done at 35-40 cycles.
The CDC made no secret of this, announcing the policy changes on their website in late April/early May, (though naturally without admitting the fairly obvious motivation behind the change). They stated reason for the 28 CT maximum is to avoid false positives on people who have been vaccinated, which would discourage acceptance of the vaccines.
I have no doubt they are doing the same thing here in the UK, but were wise enough not to publicise the fact. It would certainly explain why there are far more Covid cases amongst the unvaccinated but many more deaths amonst the vaccinated.
From what I can gather from the different research published –
Even the WHO acknowledges that measured immunity levels drop in measles and rubella vaccines etc but that people still have immunity because of those memory cells which is why immunity is far better from coming across the virus (ideally at low viral load levels as you do in summer) when you will not be as sick and preferably without a vaccine beforehand as that means that you natural immune system won’t be compromised when dealing with the virus naturally.
Of course because we are still in summer, we do not know if the vaccinated are having an enhanced response to the virus because the claims that more unvaccinated are in hospital certainly in the USA are based on figures taken from January to the present date when the virus was in greater circulation because of the season and few people were fully vaccinated. Data from Israel would suggest that the proportion of people in hospital with covid mirrors the proportion of people who have been vaccinated.
Am I missing something other than why are we doing what we are doing?