A colleague of mine sent me a copy of a recent opinion piece published in Cell Host and Microbe entitled ‘Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenzaviruses, and other respiratory viruses’. This opinion piece by David M. Morens, Jeffery K. Taubenberger and Anthony S. Fauci is not only interesting because of its content but because the senior author is one Anthony Fauci.
I was not the only one to spot this publication and subsequently discovered that Alex Berenson had already pulled out the key findings from the paper and published them on his Substack.
I would recommend reading both the paper itself (which is written in something approaching plain English) and Alex’s excellent Substack, but here I thought I would go through this paper and bring out some of the key points.
So why is this paper so interesting? Given that the senior author is Anthony Fauci isn’t it just going to be a spin piece hailing the unbounded success of the ‘safe and effective’ COVID-19 vaccines? Well, as it turns out, not quite.
Let’s start with this quote from the introductory sections of the paper, which really sets the tone:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid development and deployment of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has saved innumerable lives and helped to achieve early partial pandemic control. However, as variant SARS-CoV-2 strains have emerged, deficiencies in these vaccines reminiscent of influenza vaccines have become apparent. The vaccines for these two very different viruses have common characteristics: they elicit incomplete and short-lived protection against evolving virus variants that escape population immunity. (My emphasis)
Once past the obligatory statement of lives saved in the COVID-19 pandemic, Fauci and his colleagues dive straight in with the admission that the vaccines are ‘deficient’ and only ever achieved ‘partial pandemic control’, which seems a slight oxymoronic statement as either you are controlling the pandemic, or you are not and partial controlled means (partially) uncontrolled. Putting this aside, the reason for this ‘partial control’ was because the vaccines were leaky, transient in their effect, and never produced effective levels of immunity in the population because of the evolution of escape variants. Simply put, these vaccines were not very good.
A point the authors kind of make in their next paragraph:
Considering that vaccine development and licensure is a long and complex process requiring years of preclinical and clinical safety and efficacy data, the limitations of influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines remind us that candidate vaccines for most other respiratory viruses have to date been insufficiently protective for consideration of licensure, including candidate vaccines against RSV, a major killer of infants and the elderly, parainfluenzaviruses, endemic coronaviruses, and many other ‘common cold’ viruses that cause significant morbidity and economic loss.
Here, of course, the implication is that the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines would have been sufficiently protective to achieve regulatory approval, but of course they did not go through the “complex process requiring years of preclinical and clinical safety and efficacy data” but were instead fast-tracked through a highly abbreviated development programme, so we’ll never know. Despite this, the authors acknowledge that these vaccines have limitations and highlight the fact that vaccines to other coronaviruses (amongst other things) have failed to satisfy the regulatory authorities that they are effective. The question of whether the COVID-19 vaccines would actually be deemed to be effective in more normal times is one I’ll come back to this at the end of this article.
The authors go further in explaining why vaccines like those developed to prevent diseases caused by respiratory viruses are scientifically unlikely to be effective at controlling these diseases:
Taking all of these factors into account, it is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines. This observation raises a question of fundamental importance: if natural mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit complete and long-term protective immunity against reinfection, how can we expect vaccines, especially systemically administered non-replicating vaccines, to do so?
In other words, it appears that we haven’t evolved to develop long-term immunity to pathogens like SARS-CoV-2 and so it was always extremely unlikely that the COVID-19 vaccines were ever going to produce effective long-term protection, especially as they are “systemically administered non-replicating vaccines”. Any transient immunity would wane and so were always going to get reinfected.
The reasons for this lack of “complete and long-term protective immunity against reinfection” are discussed in a section of the paper entitled: ‘Natural infections with mucosal respiratory viruses may not be fully controlled by human immune responses because the human immune system has evolved to tolerate them during very short intervals of mucosal viral replication.’
It turns out we’ve evolved to tolerate some level of respiratory infection (especially in the upper airways) rather than having our immune system going into over-drive all the time. Given the prevalence of respiratory viruses in the environment, it is easy to see why this might be the case because if our immune systems went into action at the first (literal) sniff of a viral infection, we’d be sick all the time.
This local tolerance of respiratory viruses is in contrast to systemic viral infections where we do generate a strong, long-lasting immune response and vaccination can be effective, e.g. measles.
The consequence of driving a systemic immune response to what would normally be a contained, tolerated local infection is unclear, but this is something Alex Berenson discusses in his Substack article:
Many studies in humans and experimental animals, some before sIgA had been recognised, indicate that secretory mucosal immunity is generally more effective than systemic immunity in controlling mucosal respiratory viruses and that tissue-resident memory T cells can be effective in rapidly responding to mucosal infection.
Finally, the authors discuss the numerous pieces of scientific evidence showing that generating a local immune response is the best way of protecting oneself from respiratory infection and that this response can be driven through T-cell immunity. Again, this calls into doubt the effectiveness of systemic vaccination against such respiratory viruses whilst simultaneously acknowledging the role of T-cells in immunity to viruses like SARS-CoV-2… something that was consistently downplayed during the pandemic itself.
Overall, the authors are surprisingly critical of single vaccine approaches:
The implications for vaccinology are clear: preventing viral upper respiratory infection and limiting post-infection viral spread to contiguous respiratory compartments are both critical but may not be easily achieved with single vaccines.
Especially those using systemic administration of agents to induce immunity to respiratory viruses:
Attempting to control mucosal respiratory viruses with systemically administered non-replicating vaccines has thus far been largely unsuccessful, indicating that new approaches are needed.
Based on prior experience of vaccines against diseases like COVID-19, it would seem to be extremely unlikely that a single vaccine would achieve what is required to prevent severe disease. So, one is left with the impression that either we were extremely lucky with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, which bucked this trend, or a conclusion that these vaccinations are not actually very ‘effective’ at “controlling a mucosal respiratory virus”. Interestingly, there is no discussion of this point in the paper, and one might naively believe that it would have been a critical point of interest give the billions of doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines given to people worldwide. Why are these vaccines examples of success, given the fact that they appear to have many of the features of countless other vaccine failures?
Before finishing off with a few thoughts, I thought it worth highlighting this passage:
The observation that repeated infant exposures to RSV reduces severe disease upon subsequent infection, coupled with experimental data, suggest that respiratory vaccine timing and frequency can be important. Indeed, a recent controversial theory posits that the key determinant of immune/vaccine protection is not immune memory and recall but repeated antigenic exposures. This proposal seems to be contradicted by many observable phenomena but is at the same time consistent with the observation that maintenance of memory T cells in the lungs is associated with repeated antigenic exposures.
So, repeated exposure to some viral pathogens may actually be important in maintaining immunity to them and preventing them causing severe disease. This would be consistent with the observations discussed above about the limited form of immunity such exposure gives and speaks to the concept that “a challenged immune system, is a healthy immune system”. Therefore, locking everyone up in their houses for months on end would be predicted to result in a loss of immunity to common respiratory viruses that would normally circulate through the population causing mild disease while reinforcing our immunity to them. As a result, once people were allowed to mix again one would further predict a wave of things like RSV infection causing much more severe disease in what had essentially become a naïve population. Indeed, this is what was seen in places like New Zealand post-lockdown. Not only were the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines unlikely to do what we wanted them to, but lockdowns were always likely to produce predictable viral problems. Worst cold in the world anyone?
This is a very interesting article, not just because of what it has to say about vaccinations to viruses like SARS-CoV-2, but also because of who is saying it. There are many statements in here that I suspect would fall foul of the ‘fact checkers’, not least the discussion about the transient and incomplete immunity produced by the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and their various deficiencies and the fact that they would seem to be a far cry from what anyone might reasonably deem to be genuinely ‘effective’. One is certainly left with the impression that written by a different author the slant could easily have been something like “SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations are another example of our failure to develop effective vaccines against mucosal respiratory viruses”.
Overall, I’m left with the questions as to whether the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are really exceptions to the failures to produce suitably effective vaccines against such respiratory viruses or whether in other circumstances they would not be approved for use. Maybe in a pandemic it is necessary to accept vaccines that “elicit incomplete and short-lived protection against evolving virus variants that escape population immunity”? Perhaps one could argue something is better than nothing, but if this is the case why should we keep on taking them after the pandemic is passed, especially if “none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines”?
Because of exceptional circumstances, the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines did not go through the usual “complex process requiring years of preclinical and clinical safety and efficacy data” and were fast-tracked to approval. Many of the missing studies were the long-term safety studies usually required of vaccines before approval and we need to always remember that it is the balance of benefit AND risk that is important in a pharmaceutical treatment, not just whether they have some level of efficacy… something that is especially true for vaccines that will be given to healthy individuals who may never gain any benefit. Unfortunately, vaccine safety and the risks to the patient are one area that Fauci and his colleagues are strangely silent on in this piece.
Finally, having comprehensively highlighted the issues and deficiencies with both the current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the challenges of making better ones, what do the authors suggest is the answer to this problem?
With regard to public health usefulness and acceptance, it will be important to consider roles for high dose or frequently boosted vaccine antigens, mixed-sequential vaccines (e.g. prime-boost with different vaccines), and whether these approaches will be accepted by providers, regulators, and the public.
We also need to ask whether there are other vaccine approaches that should be considered, such as sequential seasonal vaccinations and supplemental mucosal vaccines to stimulate specific upper respiratory immunity, or non-specific innate immunity. Such approaches might include prime-boost approaches, for example, mixing elicitation of systemic and mucosal immunity, perhaps with prime systemic vaccination followed by a boost with intranasal vaccination or vice versa.
Their answer is, perhaps unsurprisingly, a lot more vaccinations. I would certainly agree that there need to be more effective vaccinations, and I am not underplaying the seriousness of some of the diseases caused by these viruses. But if we accept that immunity against respiratory viruses is somehow ‘hardwired’ to be transient, then the imagined approach here seems to be one in which we could spend our lives injecting, taking, and sniffing a stream of pharmaceutical products ad nauseam and ad infinitum. No wonder it is right to ask, “whether these approaches will be accepted by providers, regulators, and the public”?
George Santayana is the pseudonym of a senior executive at a British pharmaceutical company.
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.
“Rude, dismissive interview.”
Then goes on to rudely dismiss David Icke for being beyond the pale, even though Icke has been bang on point throughout this whole mess. The mainstream plebs refuse to acknowledge this pandemic is agenda driven because they can’t handle the truth. How many times are people like Mr Young going to rationalise what’s happening as just idiot politicians bumbling their way through a crisis? It’s embarrassing at this point.
Lockdown sceptics is just a cover for people who are too afraid to get off the damn fence.
While I respect Icke’s scepticism he presents theories thinly veiled as facts far too often for my liking. So while I agree that smearing Icke is a step too far in this instance I can’t agree that anything else is just fence sitting.
I hear what you are saying…. it is hard stuff to digest… but doesnt mean Icke is right about everything… he is too extreme… everything about that guy is a conspiracy amd nothing is what it seems… a bit too much
fair comment.
Icke is a conspiracy theorist, he is a complete and utter tube.
I see that Mike Yeadon got the fact check treatment here, trying to trash things he has said:
Lockdown sceptic Mike Yeadon: Fact checked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJl5Ip4Egls
These Fact Checkers who come straight out of Orwell’s nightmares are shameless. They actually make themselves and their rotten agenda look super-weak in this. It’s much to Mike’s credit that they have produced this.
On the page they link to they print this regarding MIke’s warning about the vaccine:
Mr Yeadon then says: “You don’t need to be vaccinated by inadequately tested and somewhat dangerous gene-based spike protein-inducing proteins [sic].”
Three Covid-19 vaccines have been approved by the UK regulator for use at the time of writing: the Moderna vaccine, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
Multiple stages of trials have proved that these three vaccines are safe and effective. Although a possible link between the AstraZeneca vaccine and an incredibly rare kind of blood clot is still being investigated, the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the risks for most people.
The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines both use mRNA “gene” technology which, once inside the body, provides the instructions on how to produce spike proteins like those found on the surface of the Covid-19 virus, prompting the body to generate antibodies. This is not dangerous.
The last bit is priceless. It’s completely dishonest to say that. The deceit, the brazen lies, it’s all they have in their fast-disintegrating attempt to con the world with this dangerous nonsense
This fact checker won’t be thrilled to see 16👍upvotes for his hardly viewed video against 203👎downvotes for him, the prick. Monday 3rd May 13.30.
I scrolled down the first 30 or so comments and upticked all of them since they are uniformally in support of Mike Yeadon.
Go on fellow Sceptics, click the video link and make the fact checkers day worse.
209 now! Fullfact is an absolute joke. I say it’s true, they say it’s not!
Someone should tell them that’s not “fact checking”.
or as I label them -foolfuct
Did it!
Did the same.
Also done.
So sorry Karenovirus but I do not do anything Google as I will not facilitate a company who limits freedom of speech the ability to make money.
It’s a free country Mike.
LOL.
379 when I last looked at 08:20
429 now!
“trials have proved that these three vaccines are safe”
Trials can never prove safety. They can, at best, suggest bounds on the risks.
If it’s only a “possible link” with the “incredibly rare [amongst non-injected people]” blood clots, then it’s only a possible link with any reduction in CoViD-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths. He can’t have it both ways.
“Trials can never prove safety”
Yes – Even if the trials are ‘complete’ in conventional terms,that’s a massive giveaway. What you are at best left with is a reasonable probability of little or no harm thus far. Which is the way risk is always properly judged.
Clearly these ‘fact checkers’ haven’t even checked their facts about basic scientific principles.
People paid by Bill Gates beliieve other people paid by Bill Gates. Quel surprise
‘That the BBC does not know these facts indicates how narrow a set of scientific advisors they rely on’
The BBC relies on the very same socialist fascist advisers responsible for government health policy.
This appalling state of affairs, state socialist health advisers, state socialist broadcasting propagandists, will continue until both the NHS and the BBC are reformed, root and branch.
The groundwork has been done. All that is required is some political backbone; leadership:
https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Niemietz-NHS-Interactive.pdf
https://iea.org.uk/themencode-pdf-viewer-sc/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/CC71_BBC-licence_web.pdf&settings=111111011&lang=en-GB#page=&zoom=75&pagemode=
I always wonder how they find contributors for example for the Today program so quickly. Probably a quick shout in the open plan office, “does anybody have a friend who can pretend to know anything about … and wants to be interviewed?”
“The interviewer, Annita McVeigh, treated the distinguished Oxford scholar as if she was a David Icke figure….”
Atrocious grammar aside, Toby (it’s “as if she were…”, surely?) do you really not get the sense that you are shooting yourself and “Lockdown Sceptics” in the foot with this sort of remark? After all, can’t we all imagine, in the present climate of rampant lies and insanity, people on “the other side” coming out with precisely analogous statements, i.e. upbraiding critics of Patrick Vallance or Chris Whitty in such terms as “the government’s Chief Scientist cannot be treated as if he was (sic) a Sunetra Gupta / Carl Henegan / insert name of any other non-officially-approved physician or scientist here”?
At a time when circular, question-begging (non-)argument totally dominates public discourse I’m afraid that “our side” owes it to ourselves, even if to no one else, to resist applying this “but it goes without saying…” anti-reason even to David Icke. In other words, the line “David Icke is wrong about everything because….he’s David Icke” just won’t do at this present juncture. Unless you want to become the very mirror image of those you are denouncing here, Toby, whose “reasoning” runs “Whoever signed the Great Barrington Declaration is a crackpot ergo Sunetra Gupta / Carl Henegan / insert name are crackpots and need not be listened to”, you need, difficult as it may be, to set aside all the old extraneous ad hominems from the 1990s about “lizard people” and “tinfoil hats” and ask yourself the simple concrete question: “what exactly has David Icke gotten wrong about the massive suppression of civil liberties and rapid relentless imposition of an entirely new type of human co-existence that has been going on these past fifteen months?” I would submit: “very little; far less than almost anyone else”. Give the man his due, Toby. “Crazy” as the world was that he warned us was coming all through the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s, this crazy world is, quite evidently and undeniably, the world we are living in in 2021. If anyone has ever been vindicated, Icke has.
If you deny this, I’m afraid you’re not one whit better than Anita McVeigh, for whom “Sunetra Gupta is a crackpot and not to be listened to because….well, because she’s a ‘Sunetra Gupta figure’…”
The BBC is the real deadly virus …
Ah yes, as originally posted a couple of days ago; when Professor Gupta offered to discuss models that show lockdowns do not work the pig ignorant Annita McVeigh sneeringly retorts with a snorted
“A a a ‘model’ you say ?”
As though mere models count for nought when compared to the real world.
Who’d a thunk it ?
You can’t lock down a country such as India or indeed South Africa which I know well. The politely known informal or more accurately put subsistence economy is depended upon by huge numbers of people. Prevent them working and they starve to death. Some choice eh?
Hi Carrie, how’s it hanging?
I wish there were emoji buttons on this thing. 😀
As regards fact checkers:
Breaking News
BBC Fact Checkers investigate London march
Fact Checkers from the BBC have investigated the march in London yesterday and have established the following
1 The march was a pro lockdown march
2 The march was infiltrated by a small number of far right anti vaxxers carrying anti lockdown banners
3 The march was a spontaneous event triggered by the threat of the new super triple Indian scariant.
4. The March was encouraged by a combination of the Russians, believers in realworld evidence and Drumpf- Wah!
One of the marchers said ‘I just pray to god that they do not open the pubs or allow people to go on holiday, we might as well get it over with and all kill ourselves’
Some of marchers had less positive views one saying ‘Everyone should have been annihilated well before Christmas, this is putting our leaders to an awful lot of trouble’
It’s important to remember your TV licence costs you less than a bag of mung beans a day.
Given the choice, I’ll have the beans.
Same here!
The BBC would embarass the Chinese.
It sums up how far down Orwell’s 1984 Road we have travelled.
I wished I could find the whole interview. Annia Mcveigh behaved disgracefully. We have to get the BB defunded. Many tory MPs are in favour of defunding the bbc, we might gewt it done, with a bit of luck.
They threatened Galileo.
They mocked at Darwin.
Prof.Gupta is in good company.
The same treatment is being given to articles and comments made on TCW. Whenever an article is based around vaccines; lockdowns or health passports, there arise a team of abusers and contrarians to mock and make personal unpleasant comments. Any that purport to supply ‘evidence’ neither completely understand what they are showing, when questioned, take umbrage, change tack avoiding the question or demand peer reviewed proof of a comment made. Yet on articles around the spat of who pays for what decorating in No.10 – nothing.
When over the target – expect flack.
Annita McVeigh and the BBC made lockdown happen (several times). They probably know about the harms but think it is for the greater good. Anything that threatens that will make them defensive.
Imagine thinking you are a ‘good person’ and then it turns out you have been a core part of the greatest and most murderous fraud ever committed against humans by humans.
You’d expect McVeigh to be tetchy.
Hoess thought he was a good person. The commandant of Auschwitz.
They hanged him.
Exactly. They can’t back down now. They can’t actually say, “Well, never mind.” Or, “It looks like our side might have been wrong about that.”
Or, I guess they could … if they were big and honest people.
Studies on “human nature” probably show that once you are wedded to a big idea – where your self-identify is at stake – you won’t change views.
Richard Sharp (BBC chairman)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sharp_(BBC_chairman)
Richard Simon Sharp (born 8 February 1956) is the current Chairman of the BBC, a role he has held since February 2021. A former banker, he worked at JP Morgan for eight years, and then for 23 years at Goldman Sachs. Sharp was an advisor to Boris Johnson during his tenure as London Mayor, and to Rishi Sunak as Chancellor. He has donated more than £400,000 to the Conservative Party.
The BBC is currently in the hands of Tory Party placemen and funders – even tho’ I saw some comments on the DM site claiming it was all a ‘left-wing’ plot! Such is the crassness of the political dinosaurs who try to apply decaying political definitions. 🙂
Our chance to do something about it: Select Committee taking evidence until May 3rd on vaccine passports. Charlie Ward Telegram reposted this:
Forwarded from Jaclyn Dunne (Jaclyn Dunne) and CW
“COVID PASSPORTS ALERT
Last time they got 50,000 responses. Because of the massive response they launched another call for evidence hoping this one will go unnoticed !
How many will they get this time? Please do not underestimate this action. Send your response as soon as possible. Link to the call below. We have hours to respond.
Let’s amplify our voice.
ParlIament call for evidence on COVID passports! Deadline 3rd of May
https://committees.parliame…
Call for evidence – Committees – UK Parliament
Written Evidence – Covid 19 Vaccine Certification
I’m furious about this as I spent an entire evening on my submission the first time. When I tried to do another one yesterday (Monday) a m, they had made it more difficult e.g, not understanding that I’m self-employed and don’t work for a ‘company’.
Also, you appeared to have to write the submission and upload the file, which I couldn’t easily do on a phone, so decided to do it later. And then I forgot.
Bloody Gove had this well worked out.
First, it’s amazing they even booked her as a guest in the first place. But it is not surprising she was treated like she was once on the show. As far as I can tell, there is not ONE journalist in the “mainstream media” who does not agree with the COVID “narrative.” That is, there is not one who possesses an “open mind” and would allow that these dissenting scientists might be making valid points. This in itself is a chilling commentary on the diversity of thought that exists in our press corps today.
The situation has been developing for a long time. As I’ve mentioned before – if you’re interested, Flat Earth News by Nick Davies (a genuine investigative journalist) is a really good history of this decline from journalism to what he names ‘churnalism‘.
The other term is “pack journalism.” They all follow the pack.
The BBC, in line with other MSM outlets and major social media platforms, has signed up to the global Trusted News Initiative (I know, don’t say it!!). It commits them to uphold their Govts’ narrative in respect of C-19. No dissent, no challenge, no doubt to be expressed. For me, it means that no news outlet signatory who has signed up is to be in any way trusted. The global agenda to control the narrative is clear. It is a Goliath but David is fighting back. Let’s hope David wins this one.
The BBC, along with the majority of its staff, if not all, is “not fit for purpose”. This also applies to most of the rest of the print and broadcast media, who are incapable of understanding and analysing any facts or arguments which do not fit their Government-defined narrative. The fact that they rely on strawman argument and ad hominem abuse and attack instantly reveals the weakness and dishonesty of all they say or produce.
It’s not that they incapable I believe, it’s that they have a very different agenda. That agenda is to dismiss alternative points of view (often supported by hard facts) and to publicly denigrate them. Whilst they serve the needs of their puppeteers, they do not serve the needs of the general public to whom they are doing a great and harmful disservice. People are walking away from them. They are the architects of their own demise.
Mike made dozens of claims throughout that interview yet fact checker only disagreed with three, especially the 3% differences in the variants which means no need for top up vaccines and the last one, their malign intent, oops!
Annita McVeigh has a degree in English and Politics from Belfast. No scientific credentials of any kind. Sunetra Gupta is Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at Oxford, and one of the world’s most eminent scientists in the relevant discipline. Had I been the good Professor, I would have pointed this out, adding that McVeigh’s venturing an opinion on the matter is as ridiculous as a child telling a Grandmaster how to play chess.
Full interview anyone?
Sorry to all the people who are defending David Icke. I don’t know much about Icke but I know he is no authority on the science. Gupta is an academic authority on mathematical epidemiology and she is being dismissed and downgraded by someone who wouldn’t knows much more about sonnets than statistics. The fact is had it been the science correspondent it would have been even worse . The BBC and all the other broadcasters are hating the end of Covid aware the self important non scientists like Michie and Bauld who have been making hay while the sun doesn’t shine. The shocking lack of context of all reports is the real issue. Nothing about false positive, underlying conditions, zilch about modelling assumptions. This whole debacle will ruin the communication of science and expose us to unwarranted scepticism about real issues of threat like climate change.
The BBC are disgusting. I hope to live long enough on this earth to see the total demise of this dinosaur.
When unchained information is confused with fact, transferred to scientifically ignorant journalists who are incapable of critical analysis: the public is exposed to propaganda not knowledge. The greatest casualty of the pandemic is not health but “the scientific method “.
It shows the poor level of understanding of Anita McViegh and the total lack of respect for such a brilliant person who, has been prepared to come forward and speak about what she knows is scientifically and morally wrong. I applaud Sunetra Gupta for have the courage to speak out on the BBC who are clearly following the government mantra because of all the funding and want the gravy train to continue. I hope many more find the integrity and courage to do the same
Clearly racism from the BBC
Time to defund and privatize the BBC?
I’ve been searching for this Annita McVeigh and Professor Gupta interview on YouTube, it doesn’t seem to be there.
For what it’s worth I did complain to the BBC over McVeigh’s appalling behaviour. She constantly interrupted Professor Gupta spouting the Government narrative. As McVeigh is incapable of carrying out a competent interview I would suggest she seek out a new career – perhaps a government spin doctor!