I’m grateful to Will Jones and the Daily Sceptic for highlighting my article in Spiked on Dr. Ashley Croft’s report for the Scottish Covid Inquiry. You do, though, criticise me for saying that the vaccines had some benefit in 2021, suggesting that I’m being misled by a ‘Healthy Vaccinee Effect (i.e., that folk already near death are unlikely to be given a vaccine, creating the illusion that the vaccine has a survival benefit for those who did receive it).
I completely accept that a Healthy Vaccine Effect is a likely confounder of non-randomised vaccine cohort studies, particularly if the very elderly are included. I agree also with Prof Norman Fenton’s oft-made criticisms that cohort studies are distorted by counting the newly vaccinated and partially vaccinated among the unvaccinated and by the fact that the size of the UK’s unvaccinated population is grossly underestimated by the ONS. All these distortion lead to an over-estimation of vaccine efficacy.
However, my view of the vaccines’ benefit in 2021 is not based upon cohort studies. Rather, it is based on the changing death:case ratio, as illustrated below.
What I’ve done here is to take data for England and calculate a daily ratio of Deaths attributed at Day 20:Cases recorded on Day 1. Twenty days is a typical period from infection to death in a case that goes bad, and death peaks lag case peaks by around 20 days in epidemiological series. I have then smoothed the line by converting it to a 7-day moving average and, since I’m averaging ratios, I’ve preferred a geometric mean, not an arithmetic one. The dates on the X axis are the mid-point in each 7-day series: so ‘4/11/20’ is for Cases in the period 1-7/11/20 inclusive related to Deaths in the period 21-28/11/20 inclusive. I’ve kept case date rather than death date on the X axis because, obviously, cases drive deaths, not vice versa.
The graph shows a falling trend for the ratio from December 2020 to April 2021, indicating that – so long as case ascertainment and the attribution of death to Covid remained essentially unchanged – Covid became considerably less lethal through the tail of the Alpha wave, encompassing the period to April 2021.
This was precisely the period of major vaccine deployment; 2.3m doses had already been given by the data start date of Jan 10th 2021 and, by April, the vast majority of older citizens had been vaccinated (figure 2)
Notably, the Death:Case ratio remained low throughout the Delta wave of summer/early autumn 2021.
It is hard to think of a factor, other than vaccine deployment, that could cause the lowering of this ratio. There was no dramatic improvement in the care of severe cases that would have reduced the death rate; such changes, notably steroid use and avoiding ventilators where possible, came earlier. Delta, unlike later variants, was associated with substantial mortality so one can’t say that the ratio remained low because it was a mild strain.
Under-recording of cases would raise my ratio and may be a factor right at the start of the graph, so I’m not convinced that the drop is as large as 10-fold, but it is substantial. Moreover, the insanity that was mass testing was well underway by Jan/Feb 2021. I walked the two paths around London – the Capital Ring and London Loop – during that winter’s dismal third lockdown and vividly recall testing centres with snaking queues of people who looked perfectly well but had chosen to stand among the potentially infected. This testing madness really didn’t end until the omicron wave, which came after the period I’ve reviewed.
I suppose you might argue that all the most vulnerable had already succumbed by the late winter of 2020/21, so the ratio inevitably fell. This may be true to a degree; however, the majority of the population remained infection-naive until the later omicron waves, so I don’t think it can provide a substantial explanation.
So, I stand by my comments in Spiked on the vaccines’ achievements in 2021. But would add six further points, all underscoring vaccine limitations.
First, these are novel types of medicine, hurriedly developed. It was reckless to give them to groups, particularly healthy children, at zero risk of severe Covid. I consistently argued this case.
Secondly, the vaccines failed to stop infection and transmission. This weakness was apparent as early as the summer of 2021. That autumn’s coercion to be vaccinated ’to protect others’ was medically as well as morally unsound. This should have demolished the argument for vaccine passports, as I said in the Spiked article and many times previously. Yet vaccine passports were most extensively and severely imposed in that very autumn, both in Scotland and across much of the EU, where President Macron notably promised to “piss off the unvaccinated”.
Thirdly, by summer 2021 it also was clear that natural immunity confers more durable protection than vaccination. This further negated the case for vaccinating low-risk groups. It is particularly pertinent to healthcare workers. They’d better protect their patients by being infected and recovering rather than by being vaccinated. Yet care home workers in England were sacked for refusing vaccination and the same threat was held over NHS staff.
Fourth, the multi-dose boosters regimens deployed from autumn 2021 were never trialled, and ‘variant-updated’ vaccines have only been subjected to the most cursory human trials. The Cleveland Clinic’s study of its own staff suggests that repeated vaccination is associated with increased vulnerability to infection, and original antigenic sin makes it doubtful whether SARS-CoV2 vaccines can be repeatedly adapted to each emerging variant. In autumn 2021 the vaccine strategy’ departed from the last threads of evidence-based medicine.
Fifthly, there was and is a real and justifiable concern that use of vaccines targeting one highly variable part of SARS-CoV2 – its Spike protein – might become a major driver of variant evolution favouring ever-more-vaccine-evasive mutants. Natural immunity, involving a response to multiple virus proteins, should be harder to evade.
Sixth, and last, there is no justification for continuing extensive vaccination, given that circulating strains are associated with mild disease and that the great majority of us are now survivors of Covid infection, unlikely to succumb to a second attack. The JCVI seems to comprehend this, and is steadily rowing back on who should be boosted – now just the over-65s. This is in contrast to the U.S., which still advocates vaccination for anyone aged over six months.
The tragedy is that, had these vaccines been used narrowly and briefly in high-risk groups – as Kate Bingham argued – they’d be remembered well, for the achievement in 2021 that I’ve illustrated here.
Instead, for reasons that no one will yet admit the vaccination programme morphed into something very different. My expectation is it will come to be remembered badly, as the vaccine-harmed pile up for no discernible further benefit.
And my fear is that this will have a knock-on effect, leading people to eschew other and far better vaccines against more dangerous diseases.
Dr. David Livermore is a retired Professor of Medical Microbiology at the University of East Anglia.
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.
A little good for WHO?
I would argue that the data point at 04/02/2021 refutes his conclusion. It is a mere one month after ‘vaccines’ were introduced and the ONS have been classing people within this timeframe as unvaccinated as they became aware that the muck actually made people more prone to infection during this period. The death:case ratio has already significantly dropped at this point, so that cannot be explained by the ‘vaccines’. There is no proof whatsoever that the graph would not look identical if we hadn’t ‘vaccinated’ a single person. The conclusion drawn is flawed.
Yes. And a key assumption in the analysis is that Delta was just as lethal as the original Wuhan strain. The author asserts that it was, but is that true? The trend was for variants to be successively milder. The question is complicated because the apparently less harmful nature of Delta is commonly interpreted as due to the vaccines reducing mortality, but again the author does not address the question. Does anyone know of an authoritative study that nailed the question down?
It’s anecdotal but I work in the Ambulance Service. In 2020, prior to vaccines, I am still not aware of a single colleague who has died or even been seriously unwell. I also did not hear of a single Doctor or nurse, with whom we work with in our area, dying or being seriously ill.
The numbers of frontline staff I’m aware of must be at least >1000 people.
They are all still very much alive to this day.
If THESE (unvaccinated and high risk) medical staff were unaffected what does that suggest about the seriousness of this disease and how effective vaccines are?
The timing of the vaccine roll out is crucial for determining whether the ‘vaccines’ did anything or it was all natural immunity. According to Hope Simpson most cold and flu type viruses fade away in the northern hemisphere as the sun gets higher during Spring and Summer and return as the sun gets lower. I found it underhand to apply lockdowns, masks and vaccine roll outs during the Spring as it would be possible for a dishonest person (or poorly educated) to claim that all of the ‘measures’ worked. This year the NHS ran a flu vaccine programme in the Spring, which made no medical sense as the flu vaccines were normally administered before the flu season in the Autumn, but would make sense if you wanted to give the impression that vaccines work. And then I have to regularly drive over the rainbow and ‘thank you NHS’ that has been carefully painted onto the public highway.
Good points – in RFK Jrs book on Fauci and Gates he makes the valid point that to ‘prove vaccine efficacy’ you need to stabbinate the entire pop – to erase any control groups.
95% of UK deaths post stabs were stabbinated. Case closed. The unstabbed did not die, the jabbed did.
And I do still remember being threatened as an unjabbed, in Dec 2021, that 5000 of us would die every day in the coming winter….
That case rate v. death graph. Are the case rates inflated by the vaccines subsequently causing a +ve test result?
Correlation is not causation has become almost a cliche. Nevertheless, correlation is not causation.
That December-January peak in deaths could merely be a respiratory virus taking off the latest batch of low-hanging fruit (I know, another cliche). Others on here can add their own examples.
In my view, before the author can even begin to entertain the conclusions he is proposing he needs to rework these graphs for actual vulnerable people (e.g. >70s) and see how they turn out. And then he needs to analyse testing effectiveness, and particularly the number of tests and number of PCR cycles, to ensure that these test results actually mean anything (they probably don’t).
Sorry to be a bit patronising, but my view on marking this thesis is ‘needs more work’.
You are generous. My view is that it is bullshit and bafflegab. The unstabbed died en masse post the jags, not the unjabbed. Case closed.
The last paragraph is a reasonable conclusion, even though there is almost nothing regarding the damages actually caused by the product on offer. Ignoring the number of injury cases must have skewed the calculations.
One of the major problems could be that some parts of the medical trade have lost their reputation so much that they are not trusted as much as they might have been in the past. Same for many politicians as well.
Mmmmm, up to a point Lord Copper. The elephants in the room trumpeting loudly are the unvaccinated. UKHSA vaccine surveillance data through this period and later, though it’s compromised by all the failures so elegantly pointed out by Fenton & others, demonstrates no disproportionate rate of fatalities amongst the unvaccinated.
When the good professor can demonstrate that the unvaccinated, shorn of the recently vaccinated & the unhealthy unvaccinated, died at a significantly higher rate than the vaccinated I’ll be more interested in his findings.
Can’t and won’t.
“Death:Case ratio”…
“Case”… another nonsensical parameter in your analysis.
The truth is the vaccine was like being sold a pig in a poke, it might as well have been salt water (the doses leaders where filmed taking likely was!)
Some might say that it’s more like Russian Roulette.
Yeah but do you think that if people knew there were 1300 adverse side effects ( and counting ) associated with these injections they would have thought twice about getting them? Then there’s all the other things that people were not informed about… Seriously though, does anyone know of another medication or vaccine with this many side effects?? No wonder they wanted to hide this info for 75 years!
https://rumble.com/v36trjj-dr.-thomas-binder-md-pfizers-list-from-their-website-1300-known-vax-side-ef.html
Not just that. No other medication has been introduced with zero contraindications. Everyone was to be given it.
For heaven’s sake,even water has contraindications at times!
For goodness sake, let’s move away from this bogus ‘attributed to covid’ narrative! We only need to look at all-cause mortality to show the increase in deaths immediately the jabs were introduced. And that was in the elderly in care homes in January-February 2021. It did not protect the vulnerable one iota – it killed them! The attached chart and notes explain.
The more you try and assert that the jabs saved people from covid, the more you have to explain why deaths from other causes increased at the same time. In a slap-dash attempt to assert effectiveness, you increasingly undermine the safety. You cannot have it both ways!
Where we are at the moment is 63,000 excess deaths over the last complete year – nearly 12% increase. This is more than the previous two complete years. And the effects in the young are increasing. Averaged over the last three weeks, deaths in the 10-19 age group are up 37.4% above average. That percentage is increasing all the time. It is suggested that it is late onset effects – such as myocarditis.
There is absolutely no justification for these jabs in any way whatsoever. They are toxic. Full stop!
The gene therapy (they’re not vaccines) abuse and the appalling consequences will have another knock-on effect – not just a refusal to take other vaccines.
It has already led to a complete distrust of Big Pharma, Public Health Bureaucrats, the Government and the Medical Establishment amongst a sizeable minority of the population ….. and that will only grow as the excess deaths, heart attacks, strokes and aggressive cancers persist.
The definition of the term “vaccine” has been adjusted within the last decade or so, without clearly explaining to the general public why that has been done. A cynic might observe that this was done to exploit the common understanding of it, so as to encourage it’s use. That has led to fake marketing by politicians, and their agents.
More importantly, it’s been “adjusted” more recently during the scamdemic by the WHO, so that the mrna gene therapies could be included.
The definitions of ‘pandemic’ and ‘immunity’ were “adjusted too, for similar reasons – to suit the agenda.
To my mind there was something going on with covid and vaccines that goes beyond whether or not you can discern any benefit. The general public were whipped up into a fervour to believe that vaccination was the answer, indeed the only answer, TPTB terrified people over this ‘virus’ and then offered them a Harry Potter type magic potion to make it all right again. Any discussion of alternative treatments, vitamins etc were stamped on with an authoritarian jackboot. That same jackboot was then used to stamp out any possible alternative vaccine. You may well argue as to whether ‘covid’ needs a vaccine at all? but nonetheless alternatives like Valneva were developed, trialled and approved but they were viciously stamped on and kicked into the long grass. Why? what was going on?
It seems to me that this whole covid vaccine business became a massive insidious, authoritarian campaign to try and prove that this mRNA technology could deliver a new digital approach to healthcare and that big pharma could take over much of healthcare and make shed-loads of money. There was talk of being able to digitally dial up an mRNA answer to every medical ailment. Whilst the very clear adverse effects of the mRNA covid vaccines have dented that dream I do not think that the potential horror of an mRNA digital medical future has completely gone away, The potential to make lots of money and exert control over people is far to alluring; mRNA technology may have had a set back but I fear it will return to haunt us at some stage.
And remember, the ”emergency” had to be manufactured and existing repurposed drugs made off-limits, their proven efficacy and safety trashed, so as to allow these injections to sail through farcical clinical trials and gain EUA by the captured non-regulators in order to be deployed to billions of people who were told they needed it because their immune systems were inadequate to cope with this ‘super-deadly novel virus’. The demand had to be created by hook or by crook, and just the fact this experiment was literally forced on people the world over, all choice or rights to bodily autonomy be damned, should have raised massive red flags very early on. We, the unjabbed, are testament to the fact the world was scammed and it was always a load of bollocks from the get-go.
On the grounds that “Emergency Use Authorisation” for a new product that had not been through the normal standard assessment processes could only be valid if there was no alternative. If there was one EUA would not be valid. They were gambling on the basis that if it resulted in a novel technique that could be used for other infections as well. E.g. anti-flu ones are notoriously variable in their effectiveness from year to year, but if a new methodology accelerated the production annually and reduced the cost, they would be quids in.
Agreed – mRNA technology is being used I understand in many products especially jabs for farm animals and domestic pets. They are usually suggested on an annual basis. Antibiotics were developed in the late 1940s, by 1952 they were being put into animal feed, a huge market.
I’m not really up on stats/graphs so don’t feel able to comment on the gist of the article.
Statistics, even those produced by the ONS seem unduly influenced by bigpharma etc. See Prof. Fenton on that.
I’m more interested in the science behind the cunningly so called vaccines although the definition change is certainly working in favour of the long term antivaxxers, thankfully. A very favourable unintended consequence methinks.
The vaccines are in reality gene therapies. They are not new, bigpharma have been itching to use them for decades. The theory behind them may well be elegant but the problem is that nobody, especially the genetic engineers, has a clue as to the short term harms ie death, and long term harms, auto immune disease, their products will inevitably cause.
Many experts in the field of immunology warned us of this at the very beginning.
As to the science behind these warnings look at my old favourite –
https://www.authorea.com/users/455597/articles/552937-innate-immune-suppression-by-sars-cov-2-mrna-vaccinations-the-role-of-g-quadruplexes-exosomes-and-micrornas
And for an incredibly detailed analysis of the harms –
https://doorlesscarp953.substack.com/p/megathread-33-sars-cov-2-infectivity?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=650045&post_id=135861704&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
And, for the lesser experts in the field-
https://hatchardreport.media/pdf-files/twenty-reasons-biotechnology-experimentation-should-be-outlawed.pdf
I would very much like to hear Dr Livermore’s views on the above papers and also thank him for at least speaking out and urguing caution against the jabs – especially kids. If only more were like him then those behind Clown World would have found life more difficult.
Thanks for the links, but I disagree with your comment that ‘nobody, especially the genetic engineers, has a clue as to the short term harms ie death, and long term harms, auto immune disease, their products will inevitably cause’. My issue was and remains this. If Dr David Martin is correct that patents for the viruses and various adjuncts like the lipid nanoparticles and toxic adjuvants like PEG have been knocking around since the late 1990s and ramped up during the early to mid naughties, the bods making those applications will have done studies revealing the multiplicity of side effects (gosh, even the early Pfizer documentation listed more than 20 of the most severe) because otherwise what’s the point in developing, manipulating and adjusting them in the first place? To argue that ‘they didn’t know’ about the deadly outcomes is, to my mind, absolute b*ll*cks. They knew, they always knew, govts around the world knew and they still decided to bludgeon world’s population into submitting to this treatment with lies, propaganda and psychological warfare. There was never an upside to this no matter how you might fiddle with the data.
“To argue that ‘they didn’t know’ about the deadly outcomes is, to my mind, absolute b*ll*cks. They knew, they always knew, govts around the world knew and they still decided to bludgeon world’s population into submitting to this treatment with lies, propaganda and psychological warfare.”
Absolutely.
As I usually put it – these so-called ‘vaccines’ were brewed to a recipe and the results of the brew were known before rollout which is exactly why they decided to bludgeon the world’s population in to taking them.
Totally, huxter. And of course they were well aware and knew what to expect ahead of roll-out, as that now infamous screen shot of the slide at the FDA presentation from Oct 2020 illustrated, and what was on there was but a titchy fraction when you view the 1300 adverse effects. They must have been made up to have f*cked so many people’s lives up so royally by orders of magnitude!
Another example from the excellent Senator Rennick in the Aussie hearings. The rate of adverse effects for the Covid jabs is 24x higher *per dose* than any other vaccine, and most people had more than one dose. This clip reminds me of the series, Painkiller, on Netflix. If people haven’t watched it I highly recommend it. It’s about Oxycontin but Big Pharma are exactly the same in that series as what we’re witnessing now. It’s not Big Pharma’s fault that people became addicts, destroyed lives of families and died from their highly addictive, narcotic product doctors were doling out like vitamins just like it’s not their fault countless people have been damaged and died from this latest novel injectable that they were convinced via brainwashing was ”safe and effective”. Shit happens. Anyway, great series but it’s over to Gerard;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEd-KIu7ClY&ab_channel=SenatorGerardRennick
Thanks Mogs
Thanks. From the comments section there was a link to Senator Ron Johnson pulling no punches regarding censorship of information regarding COVID injections and alternative treatments: –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuRV1ZsakDI
The infamous Slide 16…
What ticks me off is that we seem to be going round and round in circles with this – there is so much evidence that they knew from very early on, yet there’s still a tendency to give the benefit of the doubt. Is it because most people simply cannot – or will not – comprehend the depths of inhuman depravity involved, or the sinister weaponisation of health care, or the absolute supremacy of power and profit over life?
Exactly.
As far as I am concerned everything faults to Depopulation.
Yes..I agree, had they stuck to and only given these novel, experimental gene therapies to the very elderly..I don’t think there would be such a backlash..but they didn’t….and they have never really explained why….
Very simplistically it seems to me that If 99%+ of people were NEVER going to die of something..you can’t claim victory when 99%+ don’t….
Without studies of vaccinated and unvaccinated comparisons, it will always be just a guess, and of course they won’t release those figures..which immediately says to the vast majority, they won’t because it disproves the lie of any efficacy.
I fail to understand any claims for efficacy when faced with countries like Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Singapore to name a few, (plus pretty much the who
e continent of Africa)….who during the supposed height of ‘naive’ contact with the original strain of Convid, were vaccine free and recorded low amounts of deaths…only recording high deaths AFTER vaccination started…how is this clear signal still being totally ignored…?
Thalidomide was quite effective at treating morning sickness. That was its intended purpose and the reason for its widespread use. So what? Should we start using using it again just because it wasn’t a 100% failure? Or do we say that on balance it’s too dangerous and leave it alone? In the case of the covid jabs the problem is not just their lack of safety and effectiveness but also the weaponisation of a medical procedure by immoral and authoritarian politicians for the purposes of control. Frankly, even if they had been genuinely safe and effective, the way they were enforced would still be a matter of great concern.
‘Secondly, the vaccines failed to stop infection and transmission’ – the doctor states this as his second point. I agree, and this being the case how could they do any good?
Only if they actually mitigated the symptoms for the recipient, and perhaps reduced the workload for others. But there are plenty of normal off the shelf drugs that do just that for many common infections.
“And my fear is that this will have a knock-on effect, leading people to eschew other and far better vaccines against more dangerous diseases.”
And I hope that at least some people who were previously completely trusting of “authority” become much more cynical and look into things for themselves.
Tell it to the young, otherwise healthy local plumber who died riddled with AZ blood clots or my friend, who’s father died of a heart attack shortly after his booster.
You can keep your poison.
…I forgot Rachel at work who nearly died twice, first clots then a year later with a brain bleed, coinciding with jabs and boosters, Emily who lost sensation in her leg and Adam who lost sensation in and use of his arm randomly for a few months post shots.
All working age, all otherwise healthy.
I work at a small company and most people don’t like to talk about it, god knows what else has gone on…
Not in the least convinced. We know that once the stabbing started, the infections spiralled – with such a high climb, a steep decline should not be unexpected. In the ‘first’ wave in March 2020, with no vaxxes, no treatments, infections/deaths rose and then declined – how different was this wave overall? I suspect not nearly as much as is being claimed. The above article also does not take account of the fact that not only does any so-called immunity wane, for a certain period of time from the last shot (I think around 5 – 6 months), one seems to be at greater risk, the negative efficacy. This fact must be added to the calculation. If all the vaxx did was postpone illness for a few months, only to make one even more susceptible and at risk of greater illness plus adverse effects, what exactly was it’s benefit overall?
Another reason to question the efficacy is how well it worked, if at all, in the group most at risk – the over-80s. I remember reading in the Jerusalem Post how they had started stabbing the elderly a 3rd time (before waning efficacy had become a thing), because their antibodies remained low, and they increased significantly with the 3rd stab – albeit still not up to the levels in younger cohorts. I’ve mentioned before when my mum got the pneumoccocal shot in autumn 2020, they said they did not give it to people over 80 as their immune system did not mount a sufficient response. I’ve found some studies (pre-2020) discussing vaccination in the elderly and its lack of efficacy. Just recently I saw an ad on UK telly for the shingles vaxx, saying what ages can get it and when – those 70 to 79 can get it now. Why not everyone over 70? One can only assume they’re not offering it to over-80s because it won’t be of use. There is no reason to assume the covid poison was any better for this age group – which in NL accounted for 65% of all deaths.
At this point, I suggest the only way of knowing whether it did anything of any use, is taking the age group of 60/65 to 79 and comparing the death rate in early 2021 to that of March 2020. In addition, one can look at the infection/death rate in NL following the vaxx rollout – it does not show the sharp spike in infections/deaths seen in the UK and Israel starting end of December 2020 (vaxx rollout), but rather an extremely prolonged, elevated infection/death rate going into May – following the very methodical vaxx rollout that went from mid-January 2021 to May 2021 for the age groups most at risk. As far as I’m concerned, it shows that infection and deaths followed the vaxx, rather than being brought down by the vaxx.
Clinging to the idea that these injections initially had some merit is wilful ignorance. Show some repentance man and admit you as a doctor should have known better. The injections were and are poisons, they were developed as such and have reacted as designed.
An insulting riposte to Dr Will Jones.
Although it goes against the consensus in the comments below. I generally agree with David Livermore that the “vaccines” perhaps helped a little in the beginning but the counter effects are still making themselves known. The thing is though, due to all the points made around testing, data collection & analysis, healthy vaccine effect etc we will never really know how much or how little that effect was. It is possible to make a case either way.
What is not considered is what would have happened if the vaccines had been restricted in the ways suggested. By the time they were introduced the UK (and much of the world) had been wound up into such a state of fear that vaccines were seen as the only salvation. Would there have been pro-vaccine riots on the streets? Arguments made that human rights were being violated through the restrictions on the vaccines to a small part of the population. Conspiracy theories that the vaccines were being restricted on purpose for some other nefarious reason etc.
It would have only taken one country to fall before everyone else was handing out vaccines like sweets (which is of course what happened anyway).
To my mind this goes back to the way the whole “pandemic” was managed. It would have needed a totally different approach – calm, reasoned and measured instead of the hysterical panic garnered by our erstwhile institutions and experts who should have known better. So yes, vaccines may have made a difference at first but only due to the manufactured social fear which made mass vaccination appear to be the only way out.
I’ve made the argument before that vaccines helped persuade people to come out from behind the sofa, though we’d have been better off with a placebo. Having said that, the counter argument is that by promising vaccines as the only path to salvation, many people refused to emerge from the shelter of the sofa until they’d been jabbed.
The whole point of the Scamdemic was to get the injections in to people because the Scamdemic was intended to lead to depopulation and on figures currently being released that is precisely what is occurring. My suspicion is that we are only seeing the start of a rise in excess mortality with much worse to follow.
Would it be too far-fetched to also think it possible that’s another reason the relentless immigration will never cease, especially from inappropriate Muslim countries? For instance, the crime stats are already skewed and it’s very easy to fudge the data for live births vs deaths in a population when the migrants come over here and even before they start having babies they are granted British ( or whatever European country ) citizenship. Then they go down on records as being ‘British’, the press 9/10 times just reports them as such if they’re running a story about a crime, basically covering up the fact they’re migrants. It’s happening everywhere. So I think the jabs are killing and causing serious harm to health but lots of the damage is being covered up in the data reporting due to large numbers of immigrants arriving in Europe and boosting the numbers.
I think there is a substantial amount of accuracy in your appraisal Mogs. And it’s a near certainty that the immigrants will not be jabbed thus allowing for further tinkering with the data.
Based on the latest screw up on the intended accommodation at Portland, there are worse illnesses for the workers and inmates than a mild respiratory infection! https://www.gbnews.com/news/bibby-stockholm-legionella-asylum-seekers
It was politically manipulated right from the start in the UK, ostensibly as a convenient way of getting out of jail, given what had been done during the “lockdown” phase. The other side of the coin could have been that if it was restricted to certain groups for whatever reason (lets say to keep a lid on the expenditure), the opposition could have campaigned against it, along the lines of “vote Labour, get a jab”; perhaps without mentioning that you’d have to pay more tax.
The real anti human rights problem was the emergence of bureaucratic opportunism with the concept of passports, or licensing schemes, without any real value for most taxpayers.
This response, like Will’s original article, falls into the category of keeping the narrative going, whether that is by accident or design & enables the fear to continue to be ramped up because of the threat of gain of function, a new deadly virus & a deadly pandemic etc etc.
This was elegantly explained & discussed at our meeting yesterday by JJ Couey. He looked into a number of prominent individuals who have been speaking about covid & compared their original position in 2020 with where they are now. Looked at what topics they will or won’t comment on or consider & how that fits into refuting, promoting or unwittingly supporting the official narrative. He explores how the population has been manipulated by the use of a simple x vs y narrative of things being extremely complicated or unfailingly simple, depending upon how they wish to manipulate the narrative.
A very useful insight into who is truly on the side of truth, who is most definitely not & who is being a useful idiot whether by accident or design & how to spot when the narrative is being manipulated even by someone who is purportedly on the side of truth.
Having watched this, thought about it, I’m coming to the conclusion that DS is fulfilling the role of keeping the narrative going by continuing to only challenge the narrative within in a defined parameter. This is most likely why there have been questions raised about ATL articles & Toby’s resistance to moving outside of that proscribed dichotomy.
Well worth a watch. Not yet uploaded to the Rumble site but will be available to view soon at: https://rumble.com/user/cbkovess
JJ livestreamed it via Twitch & you can watch the recording here: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1897920178?t=00h10m52s
“I don’t believe there’s a single study claiming covid vaxx safety/efficacy that is without some kind of systemic bias, flaw or fraud. Many – including the Pfizer RCT – have all these attributes.”
https://twitter.com/profnfenton/status/1684237959782969345
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-latest-ons-data-on-deaths-by-covid-vaccination-status/
If this contention is hanging on deaths vs ‘cases’, then it’s inherently unsound.
We all know that ‘cases’ could be manipulated depending on political requirements though PCR cycle thresholds – just another strand of fraud in the complex web of fraud that was the so-called pandemic.
And arguing, the injections did some good before we started murdering people with them just seems ridiculous. There was nothing, nothing at all, good about these injections.
‘And my fear is that this will have a knock-on effect, leading people to eschew other and far better vaccines against more dangerous diseases.‘ –
I’d argue that this was the only ‘good’ thing about the last three years.
Disagree with Dr. Livermore, vaccines were NOT responsible for the drop in COVID infections, even during the Delta phase of the virus. Boris let the cat out of the bag in April 2021, he said it was the 2nd lockdown that caused infections to drop and NOT the “vaccines”. https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-lockdown-is-main-reason-for-drop-in-coronavirus-cases-and-deaths-not-vaccinations-says-boris-johnson-12274266
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-johnson-warns-lockdown-not-vaccines-behind-drop-covid-deaths-2021-04-13/
This suggests that Johnson already had inside information that the “vaccines” were total bo ll o cks.
That said, there is clear evidence that just prior to Lockdown Two, infections had plateaued and started to drop before said lockdown. It’s all but certain the arm jabs had NOTHING to do with lowered infections and deaths.
After November 2021 the mild and gentle Omicron became the main strain and serious illness and death became almost non-existent, again, nothing to do with the snake oil upper arm pricks, we know this because infections remained high, the COVID vaccine, had, uniquely in the entire history of vaccines, the “ability” to completely fail to stop the infection rate of the virus it was purported to protect against.
Thank goodness for Mother Nature and her proven tendency to make respiratory viruses milder with time otherwise we’d still be locked down because the crappie vaccie would have done NOTHING to protect us.
It could be that neither the so-called “vaccine”, nor the output from Johnson, had much to do with it. In the early days, there were some half sane ideas about what could be done to reduce the risks to the most vulnerable, but then they lost it and fell down the “something must be done” hole, and couldn’t get out of it. Even by handing over cash to the Pharma trade.
David Livermore has always been a voice of reason, and think th8s article sums that up.
Thank you for this article.
But I am still not sure about any vaccine efficacy.
There are some factors which make data murky:
My main question is still who ordered the roll-out of these experimental vaccines to the whole population?
The wider impact of all of this is for an increasing number of people to question the principle of vaccination per se. It secreted its way into our collective consciousness under an irresistible, almost irrefutable umbrella of ‘truth’, i.e. that prevention is better than cure. It piggybacked on the undoubted truth that public health markedly improved from better hygiene – the habit of washing your hands regularly with soap, flushing toilets connected to efficient underground sewage systems, are preventative measures that need no brainpower to comprehend and appreciate.
And so it seemed all too logical to sell the same prevention idea with concoctions that would make Shakespeare’s witches’ brew look tame, while at the same time deliberately rubbishing centuries of curative wisdom (nunneries, traditionally the mediaeval hospitals of old, inevitably had a herb garden attached).
There was a singular reason for this deliberate and promoted shift in mindset – money. You cannot patent natural cures. Effectively, you cannot patent cure and make money. In Groucho Marx’s words, ‘when a doctor cures his patient, he loses a customer’.
This more clearly explains the ‘assumed wisdom’ of getting jabs into the arms of perfectly healthy children and babies – it’s the mantra of prevention being better than cure. Those doing it and those receiving it utterly believe the lie, with the unshakeable conviction of any religious zealot. Except that there are some now who are, for the first time, questioning the efficacy of the golden calf.
This is an interesting case in favour of the mortality benefits of vaccination. Perhaps it should be superimposed with actual deaths and excess mortality? My analysis tells a more concerning picture;
https://open.substack.com/pub/sandrews/p/mortality-analysis-during-the-pandemic?r=16e1vo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Of course the case identity is the problem. Presumably “cases” are those with a positive PCR. The problem is that a positive PCR (particularly at the ridiculous 40 cycles) does not indicate active infection in any way, it simply indicates that the body has probably come into contact with an absoloutely minute quantity of the “virus”. This quantity may be far too small to avoid the normal immune response (which the body is rather good at) and nothing happens. The data would be realistic if the PCR was 20 cycles only, requiring 250,000 times the amount of whatever the PCR detected at 40 cycles. The PCR test was and is the biggest con in the whole Covid scam, and it is the only reason that the Public accepted the jab. Perhaps the Professor would like to apply his brain to the problem looming large, the huge and increasing number of excess deaths amongst the jabbed? The Myo and Pericarditis, the spike protein damage to heart muscles, and the long term risk to a large proportion of the population, that somehow needs to be eliminated. Altering the DNA is a lethal thing to do as this Global experiment has proved completely. The problem is that no one knows how the harm can be undone. And we did know before hand, animal experiments had alresdy shown this danger, and those in charge should be executed as a result. It was all in no way any kind of accident, it was utterly delibrate genocide by Governments and some of the medical profession! Never trust them again.
Well said.