That headline isn’t mine. Rather, it was the name of a paper written by my father Michael Young and his colleague Edward Shills in 1953 about the Coronation of HRH Elizabeth II and published in an academic journal called Sociological Review. You can download it here – it’s terrific. Drawing on the work of Emile Durkheim, they argue that the Coronation was an affirmation of the moral values by which our society lives – an act of national communion. They summarise their hypothesis as follows:
A society is held together by its internal agreement about the sacredness of certain fundamental moral standards. In an inchoate, dimply perceived, and seldom explicit manner, the central author of an orderly society, whether it be secular or ecclesiastical, is acknowledged to be the avenue of communication with the realm of the sacred values. Within its society, popular constitutional monarchy enjoys almost universal recognition in this capacity, and it is therefore enabled to heighten the moral and civil sensibility of the society and to permeate it with symbols of those values to which the sensitivity responds. Intermittent rituals bring the society or varying sectors of it repeatedly into contact with this vessel of the sacred values. The Coronation provided at one time and for practically the entire society such an intensive contact with the sacred that we believe we are justified in interpreting it as we have done in this essay, as a great act of national communion.
Is that also true of the Coronation we witnessed today? The sacred symbols were all there – the Coronation Chair, commissioned by Edward I; the orb; the imperial state crown that includes a ruby Henry V wore at the Battle of Agincourt. But for the people watching it on television, did it feel as if they were making contact with a realm of sacred values? Did the ceremony embody the fundamental moral standards that characterise British society? Was it an act of national communion?
It is tempting to answer ‘no’ because the whole affair was so deeply rooted in Christianity, from the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the blasts of choral music, and we are a post-Christian society. A lot of the the commentary – I flitted back and forth between the BBC and GB News – focused on the way in which this Coronation ceremony had been updated compared with the last one, with peers representing the different faiths, a female bishop taking part, the address by our Hindu Prime Minister, etc. But the most striking thing about it was how little had changed since 1953. I kept an eye out for the intrusion of ‘woke’ elements, but I was disappointed – or, rather, pleasantly surprised. In essence, Charles’s kingly authority was conferred on him by God, as was explicit in the most mystical part of the ceremony when he was anointed with holy water standing behind a screen in his shirtsleeves. What sacred meaning could that possibly have for people who don’t believe in God?
But I think that’s based on a superficial understanding of the meaning of the ceremony. Shills and Young also describe the Britain of 1953 as a ‘post-Christian’ society and while there were many more church-goers back then, how many of them understood all the Christian elements in the Coronation? Indeed, the fact that much of it was incomprehensible – then, as now, many parts of the ceremony seemed completely bizarre, like the placing of a rod into the hands of the monarch – is part of what makes it so quintessentially British. That dimension of it was captured nicely by the Australian rock star Nick Cave, who was in attendance today. In his blog a few days ago, he included his response to various tetchy emails he’d received asking him why he was bothering to go:
I once met the late Queen at an event at Buckingham Palace for ‘Aspirational Australians living in the U.K.’ (or something like that). It was a mostly awkward affair, but the Queen herself, dressed in a salmon coloured twin-set, seemed almost extraterrestrial and was the most charismatic woman I have ever met. Maybe it was the lighting, but she actually glowed. As I told my mother – who was the same age as the Queen and, like the Queen, died in her nineties – about that day, her old eyes filled with tears. When I watched the Queen’s funeral on the television last year I found, to my bafflement, that I was weeping myself as the coffin was stripped of the crown, orb and sceptre and lowered through the floor of St. George’s Chapel. I guess what I am trying to say is that, beyond the interminable but necessary debates about the abolition of the monarchy, I hold an inexplicable emotional attachment to the Royals – the strangeness of them, the deeply eccentric nature of the whole affair that so perfectly reflects the unique weirdness of Britain itself. I’m just drawn to that kind of thing – the bizarre, the uncanny, the stupefyingly spectacular, the awe-inspiring.
So, that is part of its meaning – for many, the Coronation embodied the uniqueness of our country. Not an affirmation of our sacred values, perhaps, but a celebration of our eccentricity, our oddness. Some people dislike the Royal Family and point to its vast wealth, as well as the cost of staging events like this (£250 million). Couldn’t that money be better spent helping the disadvantaged? But most Britons have a strong attachment to the monarchy and I suspect that’s partly because no other country can put on a show like this. For better or worse, this is what we’re famous for, this is why millions of tourists come to Britain every year to see the Royal Palaces and hope to catch a glimpse of the occupants.
There’s also the fact that the Royals are a family, something that’s central to the institution’s meaning for many people. Shills and Young cite Bagehot’s explanation of how the actions of a retired widow and unemployed youth (Queen Victoria and the Prince of Wales) become of such importance: they are members of a family and, as such, they are relatable for the mass of ordinary Britons. To be sure, some members of the Firm in attendance today were conspicuous by their black sheep status, but it was the web of family relationships surrounding Charles that provided some of the most touching moments, such as when his son William helped dress him after he’d been anointed. What Shills and Young say about this aspect of the 1953 Coronation could equally have been said about today’s:
The family, despite the ravages of urban life and despite those who allege that it is in dissolution, remains one of the most sinewy of institutions. The family tie is regarded as sacred, even by those who would, or do, shirk the diffuse obligations it imposes. The Coronation, like any other great occasion which in some manner touches the sense of the sacred, brings vitality into family relationships. The Coronation, much like Christmas, was a time for drawing closer the bonds of the family, for reasserting its solidarity and for reemphasising the values of the family – generosity, loyalty, love – which are at the same time the fundamental values necessary for the well-being of the larger society. When listening to the radio, looking at the television, walking the streets to look at the decorations, the unit was the family, and neither mother nor father were far away when their children sat down for cakes and ice cream at one of the thousands of street and village parties held that week. Prominent in the crowds were parents holding small children on their shoulders and carrying even smaller ones in cradles. In all towns over the country, prams were pushed great distances to bring into contact with the symbols of the great event infants who could see or appreciate little. It was as if people recognised that the most elementary unit for entry into communion with the sacred was the family, not the individual.
So, yes, it was a deeply odd occasion and it probably meant a little less to today’s Britons than the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth did 70 years ago. But the revelation for me today was how meaningful it all was, how much of a connection there still is between the British people and their monarch, how little disenchantment there is with the symbols and rituals of a dying religion, as well as the great outpouring of affection from ordinary people, not just towards this jug-eared 74 year-old and his wife, his son, his daughter-in-law and his grandchildren, but towards each other. Britain did not feel like a country gradually succumbing to strife and division today, but a strong nation, still quietly patriotic, still with a high degree of social solidarity, still capable of renewal.
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.
They will continue to insist the “vaccines” are highly effective …. and at the same time insist that 6-monthly (and in due course) annual jabs are essential. And the sheeple will queue and get them, just as they do the ‘flu jab.
@RTSC – But don’t you fear they will want to capitalise more than they’ve done in the past on the passivity they’ve brought about among the sheeple?
Strange that the Lancet is now claiming the injections are LOSING efficacy when the Lancet previously showed that the injections had ZERO efficacy from the outset.
Agree. The original article is excellent too.
The claimed vaccine efficacy against severe illness seems increasingly to be an artifact of ignoring Days 1-14, diagnostic asymmetry and small sample bias.
Of course, the only acceptable answer in The Narrative is yet more vaccines, boosters and so forth.
This is like WW1. The Second Battle of Ypres or Fourth Battle of The Isonzo failed so let’s do it again. It may work this time.
Never in human history has so much data been analysed to so little benefit.
But people believe The Narrative. I was with a friend yesterday who just took it as axiomatic that the vaccines have “worked”. It’s like religion.
Anecdotes do seem to work better than the data analysis:
My next day neighbour just finished isolating from Covid. She did get ill. Double vaccinated. She failed to get it earlier in the year when she was unvaccinated but her partner had it. A colleague of mine also got Covid straight after being vaccinated himself and was incredibly ill.
I do increasingly wonder whether Germ / Contagion Theory even explains this. Viruses are the “go to” rationale for illness. Could there be other causes? Could viruses really be an outcome / by product of cell degradation from illness rather than the progenitor of anything.
The Settled Science is sheer garbage.
As you say, it’s anecdotes but a lot of people seem to have observed the same. I’ve come across four people in the past month or so who have recently had Covid. Three were ill in bed, and one just felt a bit rough for a couple of days but carried on working as he could work from home anyway – and of course he was the only one of the four who was unvaccinated!
My Mum has just been very ill after the booster and has heard of others being ill and/or testing positive immediately after the booster. The symptoms are very similar to covid so my view is they are being given a dose of actual covid.
Even weirder is the fact that while the vaxxoids mbelieve’ in the holy monkey gunk, they don’t trust it. They still cower behind their facepants and they still avoid other people and they still gibber and wet the bed.
Like the Dustbin Jellybaby type of pseudo-Christian, who preaches that Christ endured crucifixion so as to overcome death and offer us eternal life – then runs screaming away from a cough.
Yep, MIL has had her booster. Still pertains to be utterly terrified. Still wears a mask. Still hand sanitised. Now obsessed with keeping windows open to “let the covid out” – we were invited round and she had the back door open the whole time even when it got dark. I wouldn’t mind but despite constantly trying to get facts through to her (she keeps asking US) she still doesn’t comprehend anything but the brainwashing she’s allowed herself to absorb, by constantly watching the screen in the corner. And STILL she keeps saying she wished we would wear masks, get jabbed, keep away etc…but then the amazing thing is if SHE wants to do something or be somewhere which involves “breaking the rules” she’ll do it!
” vaccine effectiveness against infection has been declining significantly and after six months is basically zero”
It doesn’t stop declining when it gets to zero though!
THIS IS THE CRUCIAL POINT IT HARMS YOUR IMMUNE RESPONSE.
This audio interview with Dr Dan Stock explains his thinking on how the jabs damage the immune system. Makes a lot of sense of what we’re seeing with double jabees struggling to shake off mild infections of anything.
Interview with Dr. Dan Stock on Antibody Dependent Enhancement, Vitamin D
Thanks Will. Great article.
I’ll have a read of the paper before commenting specifically, but looks very interesting.
My hunch is that there is something seriously wrong with the raw efficacy against death and hospitalisation in the vaccine surveillance reports; I suspect there is no or little efficacy in reality.
In the absence of full data collection and disclosure and open-minded discussion it’s hard to get at that reality.
But it’s only by probing like this and subjecting the political narrative to scrutiny (and challenging the scientific concensus which through conflicts of interests attaches itself to the political narrative and not the evidence) that we get at the reality, that either the vaccines aren’t efficacious against symptomatic disease or they are.
I’d like to know what methods of data collection they’re using and exactly what they’re measuring e.g. T-cells or only B-cells, symptoms or only test results, admission to hospital for what, death due to what?
Yes, all things we need to know
I often quote this study
Changes in the hospital admission profile of COVID-19 positive patients at a Central London trust
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7377982/
which shows shortly after the beginning of April 2020, most positive hospital tests were not related to people being treated for covid.
So if you started with a hypothesis that the vaccines worked at stopping someone testing positive for SARS-C0V-2, you would see apparent efficacy against death in the vaccine surveillance reports. But the next question would be, ‘do the vaccines help at all with the conditions people were actually being treated for or did it just stop people testing positive?’ And given that trust study the answer must be that in most cases (and it might be all) it only stopped then testing positive.
And yet with positive test numbers being double in the double vaccinated in most adult age groups then even allowing for confounders you are struggling to see that the vaccines even have any effect in stopping you testing positive.
And so if we take the opposite hypothesis instead that the vaccines don’t stop you testing positive, then the efficacy against death in the death figures doesn’t look real because the vaccines can’t help against all those incidental deaths from the trust study.
So we might guess that the proportion of unvaccinated have been understated in the vaccine surveillance reports, or there is some serious selection going on in that those people who would most likely be treated for other conditions must be significantly and disproportionately represented in the unvaccinated cohort.
Of course the onus is on the scientists to show the vaccines work (not the other way round) and for the reasons implied above to show that they work at protecting against all cause death. There is no evidence at all that they do.
As we know when the vaccine trials were unblinded, there were about the same numbers of all cause deaths in the control group and vaccine group (marginally more in the vaccine group I believe) albeit numbers were small because the vaccines were tested in groups in which generally speaking the vaccines could never help at all.
all causes deaths in trials and in reality are higher in the vaccinated cohort. I think we’re starting to learn why.
Since early summer I have been asking why a “successful” vaccination programme has seen more deaths this year, with vaccines, than last year, without vaccines. It’s a fairly simply question that seems to anger a lot of people.
I think you are right, but I come at it from a different angle. If the “vaccines” do not prevent infection, or transmission, and we now know that infection once vaccinated typically incurs a higher viral load AND a lower antibody response, then… what would be the mechanism for preventing death? What ghostly aspect of the immune system might be at play? A t cell response? From the spike protein only? That doesn’t look to be feasible. What are the t cell counts in vaccinated but infected patients vs unvaccinated infected patients? What are we seeing regarding CD4 and CD8 counts? I have seen no research on this. If patients really are less likely to die, there must be a mechanism – so what is it?
The alternative is that there is no additional ghostly and hitherto undiscovered mechanism from the mRNA “vaccines”, and actually the trial figures are bullshit.
Correlation does not imply causation and it may well be that the experimental jab has no effect on Covid.
We will never know if natural herd immunity without any experimental jabs or lockdown measures would have had the same effect.
What we do know is that no-one would have suffered from “vaccine” injuries.
Viruses have a trajectory and cycle rate all of their own.
I’m just thankful that my family and I are unvaccinated and happy to be a control group if required.
We have Sweden and Florida* in the time before the vaccine rollout started as pretty good proof that whether natural herd immunity can fully stop the virus or not, it is certainly enough to make the viral situation tolerable and socially non-disruptive.
*although would have to ignore the initial couple of months before Florida snapped out of the lockdown delusion
“We will never know”
Well – perhaps not ‘never’. But we sometimes lose sight of the fact that the key to one’s stance is not back-and-forth arguments about effectiveness. It is the Jabberwocks’ job to actually show incontrovertible evidence of efficacy.
The key issue for sceptics is that, by definition, there is no such evidence following the abandonment of a structured and credible testing program.
Fascinating article.
The big overall question is whether there is a case for taking any of these ‘vaccines’ i.e. which people would actually benefit and for how long versus those who would disbenefit?
Many factors need to be considered and there is a limited amount of trustworthy unambiguous data available.
The evidence accumulating mostly points one way:
Waning then negative effectiveness against infection
No to negative impact on infectiousness
Waning then negative effectiveness against severe outcomes
Increasing evidence of short term safety issues
Emerging evidence of medium term safety issues
Early evidence of some apparent long term safety issues.
Has there been a single study yet of the effectiveness of any of the SARSCoV2 vaccines relative to the effectiveness of sensible non-pharmaceutical ways of strengthening the immune system? Even a single study?
I mean effectiveness against either a) suffering severe symptoms caused or facilitated by a SARSCoV2 infection, or b) spreading SARSCoV infection?
It’s as if … the rulers want to reduce the size of the population…
Interestingly the population of Russia is reported as falling by 1 million in the past year.
More importantly – is there a single study about the effectiveness of early, home-based pharmaceutical interventions?
Oh, I’m quite sure that the Settled Science will Resettle at the point where it is declared that the merely double-jabbed have become filthy anti-vaxxing spreaders of disease.
Given that the “boosters” are being inflicted on everyone over 50, it won’t be long. We may even see triple-vaxxports to Save Our Christmas.
The order will go out to stop calling the double-vaxxed “fully vaxxed”. The use of the word “fully” in this meaning will probably stop overnight. It will be as if it had never happened. It will be replaced by words meaning “up to date”.
Great stuff Will. I come on here for a little dose of skeptiscm and it is duly delivered whilst it seems the rest of the world (or at least the media, most institutions, people on the street) have gone mad.
The mainstream newspapers pump out taglines demonising the unvaccinated but this very article alone seems to pop their bubble.
Are these ‘vaccines’ in their current form even vaccines?
Judging them to other actual vaccines, they seem entirely uselesss if they only last 6 months or so. It just doesn’t seem like vaccinating the bulk of a population bi-annually for infinity is a realstic outcome.
If it was one jab, with life long immunity, or even two, or even one every 10 years, then fine…but every six months? I can’t even begin to fathom how dangerous that will be with regard to additional side effects either..
It does seem we’re living in a post-truth age now and questioning the official narrative is becoming increasingly hard to do without repercussions..
Let’s hope that a sense of..common sense..re-emerges eventually. Surely anyone can see this farce for what it is now?
Your penultimate paragraph would be better without the word ‘now’.
Been this way for ages, redefining words started with ‘Pandemic’. They greatly lowered the bar that defines ‘Pandemic, the key word used by the WHO to authorise, or indeed mandate, member governments to start procuring vast stocks of vaccines from Big Pharma.
Then, of course, they changed the definition of ‘vaccine’ 12 months ago to fit the experimental serums that were churned out.
There have been many many more.
My favourite was changing the weight that should be given to positive PCR tests in the asymptomatic during Biden’s innaurgartion speech. Pretty clear agenda.
then redefined “herd immunity”
And decided that healthy people were asymptomatic carriers!
If they just became useless after 6 months then this could be put down to experience as a horrifically expensive white elephant. But the efficacies of the various brands don’t just fade asymptotically to zero, they turn negative sooner or later (and within only a few months), as numerous studies show, and it’s anyone’s guess how deeply negative they will end up as the months clock up. They are doing medium to long term damage to immune systems, never mind the harms in other ways.
The ‘solution’ to administer another dose of something that is causing real harm is a catastrophic error and morally indefensible.
“Are these ‘vaccines’ in their current form even vaccines?”
They are clearly not vaccines in the traditional, familiar sense of the word, because vaccines always worked by exposing the patient’s immune system to something like the pathogen, and thus triggering a response that provides ongoing protection.
These novel therapies work differently, by manipulating the patient’s own cells at the genetic level to produce something that the body then produces antibodies to.
They are dishonestly called vaccines because that is a familiar term to people, who are thus less reluctant to have it tested on them. Charitably we can call this marketing or a “noble lie”, objectively it is manipulation by dishonest misrepresentation.
The fact that it does not provide much protection long term does not itself make it not a vaccine, it makes it a “leaky” vaccine (if it were a vaccine).
That, of course, has its own problems (as well as rendering the whole idea of discrimination between injected and uninjected futile (from a population health pov), as well as evil).
I caught covid from a double jabbed guy at the end of September. 6 of us got it, 3 unjabbed and 3 jabbed. I sailed through it using the Zelenko protocol. Most people I know are double jabbed and getting covid. What bugs me the most is that in this scam natural immunity counts for nothing as they make up crap like “it only last 6 months!”. After 6 months traces of antibodies in the blood may seem to be insignificant but that’s because they have moved into the bone marrow (B cells) , not to mention my T Cells which essentially have taken pictures of this virus and stored them for recall should it try and attack me again. Imagine getting measles or chicken pox and then being told you need those vaccines as your immunity only last 6 months!! Such a load of crap and something has to give soon as this scam is now starting to cost children dearly.
all the double vaxxed people I know suffered badly from covid. all the unvaxxed sailed through with barely a sore throat.
I got covid pretty bad (from a hospital waiting room I think) and I’m unvaccinated, my 20 year old daughter got it bad (from me!) and she’d had one jab. It just seems to affect different people differently, and I suppose there are different strains which could partially explain that.
However we both made a full recovery and are pretty much back to normal. I’ve never had a bad case of flu, but I imagine it’s not too dissimilar to what I experienced.
My son (mid 20’s) got a bit of a cough for a week – I think he probably had it mild. My wife who I would class as vulnerable didn’t get it at all. Both had been AZ jabbed months ago.
So there’s a lot of variation out there in response to the bug.
“I’ve never had a bad case of flu”
I have – I copped a bad dose of the 1958 version, and I wouldn’t wish it on anybody. So I’m not naive about what viruses can do.
But this doesn’t alter my stance one iota.
“There appear to be two parallel realities currently existing side-by-side in Covid world.”
Well, strictly speaking one is Reality and one is a Big Lie.
The problem with not doing RCTs is that you end up comparing cohorts where you assume the only difference is vaccination status. But it isn’t true – vaccination status – as its voluntary – has other confounding variables. Unvaxxed correlates with poverty and deprivation (to some extent) – the poorest areas are the most unvaxxed. They are also likely to die 20 years earlier than the most vaxxed richest areas. Unvaxxed people will tend to have been working through the pandemic rather than lounging about behind the sofa. They are more likely to already have got covid – they have a different risk assessment criteria.
To find whether the vaccines work you would need to compare 2 cohorts that have been perfectly aligned for confounding variables.
I am sceptical as to how well they work because a) covid is only a danger to the mortally ill b) the mortally ill may not respond well to a vaccine (or it might kill them). For everyone else the vaccine is just an added risk of long term effects – unknown as yet because the vaccine was rushed out in a panic.
Yes, these are real vaccines – they protect the income for the pharmaceutical giants 100%.
Is the penny dropping now? 5 year olds to be injected next (another source of income!), and ‘booster’ jabs to be rolled out forever.
If your ‘vaccine pass’ is kept up-to-date and valid then you will have ‘privileges’ that the “filthy diseased super-spreading Unvaccinated” won’t have – as is the situation right now where the ‘fully vaxxed’ are not required to quarantine for 10 days upon entering the UK whilst the ‘unvaxxed’ are.
Probably those who refuse to take the ‘Covid vaccines’ won’t be forced to, but also they’ll not be leaving the country – which is OK for most, as there are lots of nice things to see and do in the UK. But these old fogies will eventually die out and be replaced by their children who will be compliant face-mask-wearing-vaccine-taking members of ‘The New Society’.
Kids have already been brainwashed for 20 months.
There has been resistance of sorts, but has it been enough? I can see the Christmas presents of this year – face masks embroidered with your name, and bottles of Aloe Vera hand sanitiser. And adverts for ‘Only Santas who are fully vaccinated’.
My hope is that 10% are unvaxxed.
Another 10% are actual friends of the unvaxxed
10% are vaxxed but think the idea of vax passports are wrong
An increasing % will start getting tired of their boosters and will become ‘unvaxxed’
Eventually the penny will drop
See the Roundup below which includes a, flakey and badly written, piece from the Daily Express.
Sad sob story about a girl ‘bullied’ at school for taking the ‘vaccine’.
I’d rather celebrate that she was the only one who took it.
I particularly liked the bit where her mother said she was mature enough to make her own decision having done the research. Pity she wasn’t also mature enough to stand up to her classmates and defend her position which brings her mature decision into question somewhat but few people can see inconsistencies.
As with much else in this farce it doesn’t matter what is wrong or right but to simply convince the majority that we are living in dangerous times. From that viewpoint it has worked beautifully. Governments know full well there are completely valid counter arguments but they confidently know they won’t get much (if any) traction so arrogantly continue with the doom-laden rhetoric completely unflustered.
Even Pfizer admitted to the FDA on September 17 that their review of Israeli data (in line with their own findings from the trials subjects they vaccinated last year) found that after a few months the effectiveness of their vaccine against infection was ‘not statistically significantly different from zero’.
Analysis of the data from everywhere else tells the same story.
It really is long overdue for the vaccine drug pushers to face up to reality and stop persecuting and demonizing those who will not join them on their crazed drugs fantasy.
The two weeks worry window.
Seems to be quite a common trick in almost all data coming from governments on this topic.
A paper is needed to focus specifically on that two week window, analysing just how robust it is calling someome unvaccinated. For, if that is tbe correct definition, there should be no difference between infection rates pre and post vaccine. We know there appears to be but some statistical robustness is required.
All with the caveat that PCR is underlying all of this data and so we scrambling around in the dark for the most part.
That they know the Sweden study to be more representative of reality is indicated by the booster campaigns being carried out across the world and the rise in their hectoring of folks to get their boosters. It was my gut feeling it would be as the Swedish study finds. I imagine the study will come in for attack, perhaps with the attackers saying the third dose will make the vaccine course long lasting ( I doubt that but time will tell).
When younger friends have said they got the 2 shots this year so they can travel freely next year and I asked them gently if they thought this year’s vaccine would still be viable next year they looked at me with incredulity, they have been convinced these vaccines are a one off course and they are done.
And how could governments get away with mandating a new vaccine for workers, our care home workers, without having the studies of effectiveness?
Like playing the lottery once and expecting to win.
“I asked them gently if they thought this year’s vaccine would still be viable next year they looked at me with incredulity, they have been convinced these vaccines are a one off course and they are done.”
The EU ‘Covid Pass’ gives you 12 months after the 2nd jab. I think it’s pretty obvious that the ‘boosters’ will be required to keep the ‘Vaxx Pass’ valid.
Question now is …. what’s to be done? Another peaceful demo? Another on-line petition? Another e-mail to your local MP?
Well, you can still go abroad if you want to pay for two PCR tests on your return and have 10 days ‘quarantine’ – and wear a face mask in the airports and on the plane. Can anyone guess at how many more years this is going to go on for? Very tough virus to get rid of, isn’t it? 20 months of Government-imposed misery behind us. But Boris and chums are having a mighty fine time, and that’s really all that counts.
I had to laugh when 2 colleagues were arguing over vaccine effectiveness the other day. One was slagging off a female colleague as “she hasn’t had both jabs”. It turns out she had at least 1 jab, so my other colleague said “yes but studies show that 1 jab has 80% effectiveness”. Both of these colleagues are thick as sh*t, but they suddenly think they’re ‘experts’ after watching the BBC.
They are all doing this, it really is outrageous. We KNOW from january carehome vaccination that this first 14 days typically sees a huge blow to individual immunity, and a high rate of infection, but these people are vaccinated! it is a dishonest and obviously false claim to say they are not vaccinated.
The medical and scientific establishment, along with the media, have totally discredited themselves. This is simple fraud.
“The medical and scientific establishment, along with the media, have totally discredited themselves. This is simple fraud.”
Yet they have got away with it.
EU vax pass system private key may have leaked:
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/eu-investigating-leak-of-private-key-used-to-forge-covid-passes/
I’m quite surprised to see the effectiveness against serious disease dropping, and that s a little concerning, because if the vaccines don’t stop serious disease they are completely worthless. We could be all the way back to 2020, where if we’d just held our nerve covid could have been coped with like a bad, and out of season, winter flu season. Ineffectivness against transmission is no new news at all though, but good to see yet another reason why vax passes must be destroyed.
I’ll tell you what though, however ineffective this vaccine is, I would have probably just gone ahead and got it before now had I not been put off by all the vaccine passport threats and other discriminatory measures.
The sheer, mind-bending hellscape of horror that these injections are creating has not even begun to make itself known. We must remember who was responsible for them.
Great article and very important to debunk that line of argumentation.
In light of all their previous narratives (pandemic of the unvaccinated, unvacvinated only in hospital) being destroyed by reality, it seems that they are now mainly clinging onto this one, that you might infect fewer people as a vaccinated person, however flimsy the evidence for and dubious the way of establishing just that is.
And: The most recent data from Scotland confirms the Swedish study with regard to the negative effectiveness against severe disease too!
https://theexpose.uk/2021/10/28/85-percent-of-covid-19-deaths-among-the-fully-vaccinated/
So does the Weimar data.
That district made headlines recently when it stopped publishing data on how many vaxxed and unvaxxed are hospitalised, ‘because this would only help the anti-vaxxers’.
It had to reverse course, and the data just released confirms the ridiculousness in veneral AND the vaccine failure in particular:
2 people are on an ICU for Covid, 1 of them is vaxxed, 1 unvaxxed.
5 others are in hospital ‘with Covid’.
They didn’t disclose the vaxxed/unvaxxed numbers here, which indicates by itself that it will likely be heavily skewed to the vaxxed, if not all vaxxed.
https://norberthaering.de/news/weimar-2/
https://www.deconstructingconventional.com/post/17-more-reasons-i-won-t-be-getting-a-covid-vaccine
Worth reading and filing, together with the initial 18 reasons.
To my mind the reason for waning “efficiency” is completely straightforward and logical. Just look at the “science”.
Synthetic/foreign and dangerous mrna is normally recognised by the innate immune system and destroyed before it can invade your cells.
This was always the fundamental problem with any mrna/gene therapy vax.
Unfortunately geneticists found a way around this problem – they simply tweak the mrna (the uridine is altered) so that it turns off the parts of the innate immune system which would otherwise destroy it.
Even more unfortunately the bits tuned off include the p53 – guardian of the genome/cancer suppressor gene and certain Toll receptor cells which otherwise spot infections and mark cancerous cells for destruction.
The way the dam things work is by antibody production only. There is little or no memory response.-no T or B cell involvement nor the production of long life plasma cells such as natural recovery gives you.
So we have “breakthrough infections” – aka and more accurately, “vaccine failures” to use old terminology. Not to mention OAS an ADE.
No problem with waning antibody levels though, just keep boosting your immunity with more of the same poison.
This is insanity personified.
“This is insanity personified.”
It’s a good business model. “Take the vaccines and make our friends rich or you will be punished.”
good simplified summary. Also explains why the Valneva jab is not being supported by anyone. It works in a conventional sense, it aims at stimulating T-cells. Can’t have that can they, it destroys their business model.
So, really what the vaccinated should be saying is, “Thank goodness I’ve had hundreds of regular jabs”.
I see (COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report – week 43) that the UKHSA has bowed to the pressure and stopped charting the rates of infection by age group between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Nevertheless, they have tabulated the results, albeit with even more caveats and the label ‘unadjusted’. See below.
Still the rate is more than double in the vaccinated for ages 40 – 79, and also significantly higher in the 30 – 39 and 80+ age groups.
The ‘negative efficacy’ continues to increase in most age groups (rate now 232% higher in the age 40s vaccinated), and the small positive vaccine efficacy in the 18-29 age group continues to be eroded.
When I see this table, I’m seeing another instance of cherry-picking data about a miniscule number of people (less than 5000) to do a one-off analysis of observable correlations.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/swedish-study-shows-covid-vaccines
The cat’s take on the Swedish study.
The numbers of contacts are too small to support anything other than a “it seems that” conclusion. Now add in the requirement that the un-jabbed were forced into close contact, due to quarantine, whilst the jabbed were not- then you cant take seriously any conclusion from this study as the two populations were operating under very different conditions. A pathetic exercise in “clutching at straws”
What do they claim is the mechanism of infection? The jab targets the spike protein, not the virus capsule.
Still no idea how they measure “vaccine effectiveness”. Unless they have an isolated pathogen (which they don’t) and can somehow prove (all) people get ill from the pathogen (which they can’t) and that vaccinated people don’t get ill from the pathogen, the whole thing about vaccine effectiveness is a load of garbage.
A buddy of mine contracted covid right around the 6 month mark after his 2nd vax. He was quite ill too – in bed for a week. I did reassure him that he now has ‘proper’ immunity after recovering from the real deal
“Individuals who have had two vaccine doses can be just as infectious as those who have not been jabbed.”
That is from the BBC, no less, quoting the Lancet! (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59077036)
To quote further:
Since households are where most Covid transmission occurs, making sure every member who is eligible for a vaccine has had one and is up to date with their doses makes sense, say experts.
According to the study, which ran from September 2020 to September 2021 and included 440 households in London and Bolton doing PCR Covid tests:
Does this mean that the sceptic view is now official: telling people to stay at home as much as possible increases infection rates, and vaccination does not reduce transmission, only hospitalisation?
How can a jab that isn’t a conventional vaccine be any ‘effective’?
1) we are dealing with a virus that doesn’t exist.
20 we are dealing with a jab that isn’t a vaccine.3) so everything else, including ‘variants’, are lies!!
A study of 52,238 workers of an American healthcare system system found,”… the reinfection rate among individuals who had recovered from Covid-19, even if they had gone on to get the vaccine after recovering, was “almost zero.”
“Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study. Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination…”
A study out of Israel… which has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, found “… vaccinated individuals are 13x more likely to have a breakthrough infection and more likely to be hospitalized when compared to those who had already recovered from the virus.”
Will the FDA, CDC, NIH, or any healthcare official for that matter, that is dictating Covid policies in the US, ever acknowledge that natural immunity even exists? Did the WHO memory-hole the existence natural immunity too?
96 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and QuotedBY PAUL ELIAS ALEXANDER OCTOBER 17, 2021
https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/