Harry de Quetteville has written an important piece in the Telegraph about the “end of the beginning” of the gender war. Here’s an excerpt:
Sport, so focused on winning and losing, on rules and competition, can bring a reductive clarity to the complexities of life. Perhaps that is why the judgement this week of the World Athletics Council was so momentous. Put simply, council president Sebastian Coe had to choose between conflicting “rights” and he decided that the right of those born women to compete fairly trumps the desire to be included in elite sport of those who have gone through male puberty but run or jump as women. “We felt,” he said, “that having transgender athletes competing at elite level would actually compromise the integrity of female competition.”
It can seem that there is no more sensitive an issue than trans rights. But sport, with that same reductive clarity, is not so concerned with sensitivities. It is concerned with the irrefutable reality of the stopwatch and winner’s podium. And they starkly reveal the distortions that testosterone and its consequences for muscle, stature, strength and speed wreak on the track and field. Indeed, so stark and inescapable is the judgement of Lord Coe and his organisation that it de-barbs what elsewhere remains one of society’s thorniest issues. All it took was leadership to act. “For the longest time we knew whether you were male or female mattered in sport,” says Fiona McAnena, director of sport at Fair Play for Women. “There is no science to say that changed. So we are in a strange position where they adopted policies that let certain male-born people into women’s sport without any evidence to say that was reasonable. I think this is now a game-changer.”
It may be elsewhere, too. For the transgender rights fissure that opened up in sport echoes that in politics and society more widely. There, faced with increasing public concern, other leaders are increasingly being forced to choose as well. Equivocation is no longer enough. It was oddly fitting, for example, that Lord Coe’s decision in athletics came on the very same day that SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon left office – a titanic, once unassailable figure finally, if not exclusively, propelled into the political void by her support for the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. A leader of long standing who had always seemed so in touch with public sentiment found herself jettisoned, more tone-deaf than deft. For Rishi Sunak in Westminster, the decision to block Sturgeon’s proposed reforms, which would have allowed gender self-identification in those as young as 16, was politically prudent.
That decision did not come in isolation. In fact, it came hard on the heels of the devastating Cass Review which led to the closure of the controversial Tavistock clinic, where children found themselves referred for assessment for puberty-blocking drugs and life-changing surgery without adequate safeguards. And the decision at the end of last year by the charities regulator to launch a statutory inquiry into Mermaids, the transgender campaign group found to be offering harmful breast-binders to girls as young as 13 without their parents’ knowledge. And the announcement a month ago, in the same week that Sturgeon revealed she was stepping down, that the Sandyford clinic – known as “Scotland’s Tavistock” – would be closing its doors to new patients.
For activists on either side of the debate, each of these has represented an ideological battle. Together, however, their outcomes point in one direction. That’s why, in years to come, there is every reason to believe that historians will look back on this week as one in which the battle lines of the trans rights war were redrawn.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: Read Michael Deacon on why J.K. Rowling, having brought down Nicola Sturgeon, will also bring down Humza Yousef.
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.
Genius. Fantastic work! Freaking brilliant!
Very many thanks.
No wonder the ammo was always top notch (except for the greek stuff, obvs!)
Same for all quackcines. Show me a PASS study for any quackcine? None exist. No control group-placebo testing before and after the launch of say MMR? None exist. There is not one single proper analysis of any quackcine ever – either pre or post rollout. No long term studies, not a single one for any of the ‘normal quackcines’ that everyone loves so much – after all without that shot of tetanus surely you would be dead? So why would the criminals be interested in mRNA poison proofs, pre or post or anything for that matter?
googled vaccine covid pass and got this:- https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/covid-19-services/nhs-covid-pass/
In fact it is the old vaccine passport, which is obviously still lying around for countries that still need a vaccine passport?
They’ve probably forgotten to delete it. Might be worth archiving it as a reminder of what went wrong.
I doubt they have forgotten to delete it!
A wider search has produced a BMJ article https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/375/bmj-2021-067570.full.pdf
ICON:-
https://www.iconplc.com/insights/therapeutics/infectious-diseases/covid-19-vaccines-pass/index.xml
EMA:-
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/post-authorisation/pharmacovigilance/post-authorisation-safety-studies-pass
NIH:-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9401377/
CPRD under the HMRA:-
https://cprd.com/protocol/post-authorisation-post-marketing-observational-study-using-existing-secondary-health-data
DSRU:-
https://www.dsru.org/blog/it-is-essential-to-monitor-the-post-authorisation-safety-and-efficacy-of-new-covid-19-vaccines/
etc etc
I haven’t read any yet, but they might provide something useful? Or useful in what they don’t say?
What a surprise. By the standard definition of the term “fraud”, billions of people were victims of it, in effect. At least one organisation took the trouble of advertising how many cases (of fraud, in effect) took place on their property. The image here is on display in a public hall.
Wow. It would make me feel far better to explain these kinds of things by saying they’re part of the psyop – just more propaganda. But a lot of what we see and hear is far worse than that, and that public display makes visible the unmentioned social decay that sat as the rock-solid foundations that the whole thing was built on. Narcissism and nihilism. “Look at how fantastic I am. And I’m doing these fantastic things for no other reason than me being fantastic”. That display is Swindon Borough Council telling themselves how utterly fantastic they believe themselves to be. Controlling the masses becomes easy when the masses think as one while believing they are are unique. Basically, were f*cked.
Something else someone could do, if they’re bored, is to look up the census population levels for the areas shown on the plaque, and tot up the percentage of their “clients”. Note that Wyvern Health Partnership is an association of 5 GP surgeries that operate with Swindon Borough. No doubt they have acquired a certain amount of cash via that route. The geography of the other group and others might need a bit of digging to work it out.
Excellent work; thanks for this.
One wonders how many well stuffed brown envelopes were utilised in keeping our fearless Regulators happy with all this?
I wonder if the tax returns of Chinese blank brown envelope exporters, might tell a tale? I bet they have been working three shifts for the last four years.
Andrew Bridgen speaks in Parliament again..
Bill to prevent power grab..
https://youtu.be/QfdmYi5jH-M?si=t7L4DojA8OKc-aQM
Attempt two to post. Article “Evaluatingcovid-19vaccineefficacyandsafetyinthe post-authorisationphase” in BMJ -worth reading. You’ll have to search for it I’m afraid as I’m not posting the link again. Nothing too specific, but the first paragraph says it all:-
“Expedited approval pathways have been increasingly used over the past 30 years to bring new medicines to [the] market.The basic premise has been to give patients earlier access to medicines, often achieved by relying on less robust forms of evidence at the time of approval, such as showing efficacyagainst surrogate endpoints rather than patient outcomes.”
Surrogate endpoints are things like blood pressure, LDL Cholestol, covid antibodies. Not necesarily a bad things, but one should measure the final outcome, but surrogate endpoints are easier to measure.
Thanks for this.
I think the software they use for this site flags posts with more than a certain number of links in them for moderation, to prevent spam possibly. Though yours presumably only had one link in it.
Yes, i hadn’t realised. I wish there was a set uf rules somewhere- if there are I have missed it. Anyway one of the authors of this is Peter Doshi!
Nick – thank you for your assiduous “digging.” Do please carry on keeping us informed.
Well it is worth looking at some of this stuff:-
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/covid-19-public-health-emergency-international-concern-2020-23/covid-19-vaccines-studies-approval#what-types-of-studies-are-needed-to-approve-a-covid-19-vaccine?-section
It says:-
“Efficacy studies are large studies that evaluate the benefit of a medicine. For vaccines, these studies usually involve thousands of volunteers.
Developers first test the vaccine’s efficacy in people who have not previously come into contact with the virus that causes COVID-19 – the so-called ‘naive populations’.”
Then further down:-
“As it becomes less feasible to conduct an efficacy study, for example because more and more people have already been exposed to COVID-19 or have been vaccinated against the virus, the immunogenicity of the vaccine (e.g. levels of antibodies or other types of immune responses induced by the vaccine) can be used instead as a surrogate for efficacy.”
So they will look at the anti-body response, which does not fill me with confidence!
No links for me anymore.
I do need an explanation, assuming this site continues to want my support. It is not spam, nor offensive. MHRA site. Go and find it:-
It says:-
“Efficacy studies are large studies that evaluate the benefit of a medicine. For vaccines, these studies usually involve thousands of volunteers.
Developers first test the vaccine’s efficacy in people who have not previously come into contact with the virus that causes COVID-19 – the so-called ‘naive populations’.”
Then further down:-
“As it becomes less feasible to conduct an efficacy study, for example because more and more people have already been exposed to COVID-19 or have been vaccinated against the virus, the immunogenicity of the vaccine (e.g. levels of antibodies or other types of immune responses induced by the vaccine) can be used instead as a surrogate for efficacy.”
So they will look at the anti-body response, which does not fill me with confidence!
“No links for me anymore.
I do need an explanation, assuming this site continues to want my support. It is not spam, nor offensive. MHRA site. “
Well your post with links appears above. I am sure it’s an automated feature of the site software. It’s possible they could turn it off, but what we don’t know is how much actual spam there is that we don’t see because posts with lots of links are put into quarantine. It may take a while for the mod(s) to check posts – I doubt they have a team of people on this 24*7 – their budget is tiny.
Of course they’re not to be found anywhere, we all know that the results are too dreadful for them to publish.
Another study that hasn’t appeared is in some ways more interesting, as it was ordered after the rollout and in direct relation to a flagged AE.
After spending several months of ignoring notifications of myocarditis in young men (in particular) by such bodies as the Israeli and US army, the CDC decided to hold an ’emergency’ meeting on the ‘rare’ cases of myocarditis being reported. They promptly postponed what they themselves called an emergency meeting for the at that time non-existent holiday of juneteenth. When they did finally hold the meeting, if my memory serves me correctly, they ordered pfisser to conduct a study on reports of myocarditis, to be finalised around January 2022. A report on this study was to be published around August 2022. To the best of my knowledge, as of November 2023 such report still has not been published. This goes beyond just giving a head-nod to post-authorisation studies – this study was specifically ordered in relation to a clear risk.
I haven’t looked at the FDA site in some time, but the last time I looked (spring 2023) the data on which it based its ongoing claim of safe and effective was data gathered to 13 March 2021. Why has no one ever questioned why they have not updated the claims regarding the vaxx to data to March 2022, or March 2023? It was one thing to claim they had to make haste due to the most deadly, deadliest lurgy ever, and so sufficed with barely 2 months’ worth of data – but why was it never updated? It was, supposedly, being rigorously monitored at all times.
Slightly off topic, about the Covid Inquiry. Good letter in the DT today from a KC. Lady Hallett should be sacked:
Covid inquiry concernSIR – It is becoming harder to disagree with the growing chorus of well-reasoned concern about the Covid inquiry, and to avoid the impression that its chair and counsel are proceeding, as Lord Frost suggests (Comment, October 27), on the preconceived basis that lockdowns were the correct solution, and the only real issue is the timing of them.
The treatment of Professor Carl Heneghan may be indicative. Professor John Edmunds, a lockdown proponent, had earlier that day gone effectively unchallenged. Professor Heneghan was subjected to sustained – if softly spoken – denigration. Lady Hallett’s only intervention was to ask about the emergence of evidence of long Covid. When Professor Heneghan began to answer, “Well, yes, so everything exists as evidence, even my opinion exists as evidence within –”, she interrupted to contradict him: “Not in my world it doesn’t, I’m afraid. Well, not in a court of law it doesn’t.”
What could she possibly mean? Evidence of expert opinion is routinely received by civil and criminal courts and the inquiry has already heard a great deal of it. Why should Professor Heneghan’s opinion fall into some different, inadmissible category? Most worryingly, where does this leave the authority of the inquiry’s final conclusions?
His Honour Charles Wide KC
Peterborough
Encouraging that a senior judge is happy to sign his name to this view, publicly.
I submitted a letter to the DT 2 days previously saying the same thing, but without the initials KC after my name. It wasn’t published!! Glad to see that one of my learned friends has the courage to put their head above the parapet. The DT must have taken the decision to publish on the strength of feeling in their BTL online comments.
What we need is a crowd-funded private prosecution of Witty for genocide, murder, whatever. There is loads of proof, so it shouldn’t be difficult. His Honour Charles Wide KC would be the lead, in fact if this were his personal opinion he might be prepared to do it pro bono.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/where-are-sages-scientists-now-priming-us-for-un-agenda-2030-part-4/
Part 4 from Karen Harradine over at TCW looking at two more Nuremberg code violators – Edmunds and McLean. Another couple of Oxygen thieves.
“not disabled enough”…. The disgusting attritional so called vaccine damage payment scheme…
https://youtu.be/gdeYzaTZsOA?si=BPXoRJQcuGRCDpNl
A friend of mine from Denmark suffered a massive urticaria following his 2nd vaccine. It was confirmed by biosy that he had the spike protein in his skin. At the same time he suffered from tinnitus which is still ongoing.
He remains in full time work, however because his urticria/tinnitus was attributable to the jabs he can apply for a vaccine damage payment.
But that is Denmark not the UK where I doubt he would get anything.
Applying and receiving the payment are two different things.
I hope his claim in successful.
Here in the UK it’s historic that successful vaccine damage payouts are extremely hard to achieve, anyway what’s 120k (max payout) if you need care for the rest of one’s life..
Giving these big pharma companies exemption from litigation in the event of vaccine injuries and death was the most abhorrent aspect of this whole affair, and I’d like to know exactly how this came about and exactly who agreed and authorised it.
P
Presumably because the PASS will show the experimental gene therapy treatments to be ineffective and darn right dangerous they will hope the whole operation will be forgotten about and left to rot in the weeds.Just a guess.