Good grief. Will they never give up? A major new evidence review from the prestigious Royal Society has concluded that lockdowns, mask-wearing and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting COVID-19 transmission. Is such a confident conclusion warranted? Of course not. But then, much of the work was carried out in China and Professor Neil Ferguson was one of the peer-reviewers, so what would you expect?
Released this morning, the report had the desired impact in the media. ‘Lockdowns and the ‘Rule of Six’ did slow the spread of Covid‘ declares the Mail.
‘Lockdowns and masks helped reduce transmission,’ announces the BMJ. “Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were ‘unequivocally’ effective when rolled out in tandem during the Covid pandemic and led to ‘powerful, effective and prolonged reductions in viral transmission’, says a report by a team of experts brought together by the Royal Society,” it adds.
In the Times, Tom Whipple writes that the reduction from lockdowns was found to be “about 50%”:
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the ‘R number’ — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50%.
And what about the harms, now widely accepted to be exceptionally high? That’s for others to look at, the report says. Why is it always someone else’s job to consider the harms? That was the excuse of SAGE and the Government advisers in 2020 and it’s the same excuse now from the Royal Society. To Whipple’s credit, he goes to Kevin McConway, Emeritus Professor of Statistics at the Open University to make this point. “They seem to be saying, simply, that this kind of assessment is out of scope [for] this piece of work. If not the Royal Society, who is actually going to do it?”
Prof. McConway also criticises the lack of higher quality studies, which he says should lead to some soul searching among scientists as it “shows up the work of scientists on NPIs during the pandemic in a rather unfavourable light”.
Indeed it does. Three and a half years after the advent of lockdowns and mask mandates, where are the properly designed and controlled studies to test the effectiveness and safety of these extreme interventions? Few and far between. Instead we just keep being served up the same low quality observational and modelling studies, which now the Royal Society bizarrely claims demonstrate an “unequivocal” reduction in the infection rate – reported by the Times to be in the region of 50%. This is the kind of spin and misinformation that we’ve all become tiresomely accustomed to since 2020, but don’t imagine the Trusted News Initiative and BBC Verify will jump into action any time soon. Misinformation is only a problem when it contradicts the official narrative, as we know.
Here’s how the report summarises its own conclusions, which is what most of the media reports are quoting:
In summary, evidence about the effectiveness of NPIs applied to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 shows unequivocally that, when implemented in packages that combine a number of NPIs with complementary effects, these can provide powerful, effective and prolonged reductions in viral transmission.
The report draws on six peer-reviewed evidence reviews commissioned by the Royal Society and published in a special edition of its in-house journal Philosophical Transactions A, which cover:
- Masks and face coverings
- Social distancing and lockdowns
- Test, trace and isolate
- Travel restrictions and controls across international borders
- Environmental controls
- Communication of NPIs in the U.K.
A closer look at the claims about face masks in particular gives a taste of the deep problems that beset this absurdly over-confident report.
Dr. Gary Sidley in the Daily Sceptic earlier today gave a good summary of the real state of evidence on face masks: “It is a long-established conclusion from the scientific world that face masks achieve no appreciable reduction in viral transmission.”
We knew this in 2015-16 with regard to surgeons and their patients (here and here). We knew this in 2020 from a gold-standard Cochrane review, an analysis of 14 studies on influenza and a healthcare investigation that concluded that masks “may paradoxically lead to more transmissions”. We knew this in 2021 based on the Danish mask study and two comprehensive evidence reviews (here and here). We knew this in 2022 in relation to primary schools and universities, and a debunking of premature pro-mask conclusions drawn from the Bangladesh study. And – as if more evidence was needed – at the start of 2023 we had the latest Cochrane review, yet again concluding that covering our faces with cloth and plastic does not significantly reduce the likelihood of contracting respiratory viral infections.
So what do the Royal Society researchers present to counter this wealth of high quality evidence? A whole pile of poor quality observational studies – the same ones that keep being recycled over and over as though mere repetition can polish the turd. They write (emphasis added here and below):
The investigation included 35 studies in community settings (three RCTs and 32 observational studies) and 40 in healthcare settings (one RCT and 39 observational). …
Most observational studies relied on self-reported mask wearing among participants (n=42/46; 91%). …
Results are not presented as a meta-analysis owing to the great heterogeneity in study design and the variety of outcome measures across the included studies. For the same reason of study design heterogeneity, formal GRADE assessment to assess the certainty of evidence was not universally applied. …
Although most of the numerous studies included in this review found that masks reduce transmission, almost all were at critical risk of bias in at least one of the domains embodied in ROB tools. In addition, the size of measured effects was variable and typically of low precision. …
Most of the studies included in this rapid systematic review were observational rather than experimental. Study designs commonly suffered from a critical risk of bias. The effects measured in each study were variable in magnitude and generally of low precision. Nevertheless, the weight of evidence from all studies suggests that wearing masks, wearing higher quality masks (respirators) and mask mandates generally reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Here’s the summary diagram from the report. I have circled the two gold-standard RCTs that show zero or near-zero significant effect. Note that the Abaluck Bangladesh study which found a small (12%) reduction in infections has been heavily criticised for its methodology, and in any case it found the effectiveness of cloth masks to be around zero. The rest of the studies were observational and at “critical risk of bias”, and so can tell us little of value.
If this is what the Royal Society deems to be “unequivocal” evidence of benefit then it plainly doesn’t understand the meaning of the word.
What about lockdowns and social distancing? According to the report, these were “associated with considerable reductions in community-level transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the growth of the epidemic”.
Measures of greater stringency were typically associated with greater reductions in transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrating what epidemiologists call a biological gradient. Stay-at-home orders, physical distancing measures, and restrictions on gathering sizes were repeatedly found to be associated with substantial community-wide reductions in SARS-CoV-2 transmission and were frequently assessed using the time-varying reproduction number, Rt. …
The body of evidence consistently pointed to substantial community-level benefits of social distancing measures for reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, preventing large-scale outbreaks, and controlling rapid epidemic growth. Stringent social distancing measures, whether applied to particular settings or to the entire population, were identified to be the most effective means of reducing transmission.
Was the quality of the evidence any better here? Nope. The study states: “As most of the evidence identified in this review came from observational studies, the quality or certainty of the evidence was mainly rated as low or very low for most studies.”
Furthermore, many of the studies found no benefit anyway:
Three studies did not find a significant association between stay-at-home orders and COVID-19 cases. However, the effectiveness of stay-at-home measures on reducing mortality was mixed, with 16 studies reporting reductions, and nine studies reporting no significant associations.
There was, however, “a multi-national analysis that looked at 210 countries in early 2020 found that stay-at-home orders reduced the incidence of COVID-19 by 11.2%”. Even if we accept this finding at face value (and there are lots of reasons not to, not least that the study came from China), an 11% cut in incidence of a very low-mortality disease as a result of imprisoning the population in their homes should be no-one’s definition of success.
The report also claims to have strong evidence that school closures reduce infections. This is despite the report itself noting that a “study examining schools in North Carolina and Wisconsin, U.S., from 2020 to 2021 did not observe an increase in the secondary transmission rate in schools after distancing measures were relaxed, indicating they had no effect on transmission in these schools”. But not to worry, models to the rescue: “The remaining simulation studies found that school measures were associated with reductions in public health impacts of COVID-19, both in the schools and the community.”
A look at just the first two studies cited in support of the claim about school closures shows the centrality of modelling. From the first: “We estimate the average dynamic effect of each intervention on the incidence of COVID-19 and on people’s whereabouts by developing a statistical model that accounts for the contemporaneous adoption of multiple interventions.” From the second: “Our main counterfactual experiments suggest that nationally mandating face masks for employees early in the pandemic could have reduced the weekly growth rate of cases and deaths by more than 10 percentage points in late April.” It’s safe to assume most of the studies will continue in this vein.
But should we really be surprised that this evidence review came down firmly in favour of lockdowns when the team the Royal Society commissioned to look at lockdowns and social distancing was based mainly in China, the country that pioneered the Covid lockdown? Nine of the 13 listed study authors, including the lead author, are said to work at the “World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China”.
What’s more, one of the peer-reviewers for the project was said to be Professor Lockdown – Imperial’s Dr. Neil Ferguson himself – almost literally marking his own homework.
It’s safe to say that this report offers nothing like “unequivocal” evidence of benefit from lockdowns, masks and other pandemic NPIs. As we have seen, in its more candid moments it admits that the results from studies vary considerably and the quality of the evidence from observational studies is low and typically at “critical risk of bias”.
Frankly, the Royal Society should be embarrassed to have put out such a skewed report that dresses up poor quality data as “unequivocally” supportive of the official stance on lockdowns and NPIs – a stance that is, not coincidentally, shared by the Chinese Government, which would have had a hand in the report via the Chinese researchers involved. It should be withdrawn and the misleading media reports corrected.
Stop Press: Professor Carl Heneghan came to much the same conclusion about this report in an interview with Julia Hartley-Brewer on TalkTV this morning.
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.
It was time to halt the vaccine rollout when it began, but failing that, yes, now would be a good time.
Before any more children suffer perhaps?
And now cellular mutations observed in triple vaxxed victims a long term cull, the whole idea all along.
Johnson refuses to rule out further lockdowns and states vaccine programs will continue and the return of vax passes “if neccessary”, or in other words any time they want.
Net Zero and coming food shortages, followed by digital ID and social credit, don’t be fooled, they will keep pushing for their Great Reset only we the people have the real power to stop this insanity.
The high vax mortality rates are no mistake, they were intended to be.
How about the theory that all of ‘the vaccines’ were ‘saline solution’ all along?!!
Some of it might be but I know to many people that have had adverse reactions.
Likewise, I dont know anyone hospitalised by ‘covid’ but know 2 people hoslitalised with severe reactions that have debilitated the rest of their lives and 2 people whose eyesight deteriorated so badly within weeks of having the booster they can no longer drive, one didn’t even require glasses prior to having the jab.
Interesting, Catee.
My wife had the first Astrazeneca shot, but suffered a bad reaction that impaired her vision for about 10 days afterwards. She likened it to the out-of-focus haze one sees coming off a dark coloured roof on a very hot day. She said everything looked like that! Needless to say, she didn’t have any more shots and, knowing what she knows about them now, she regrets having the one she did. And yes, in case you’re wondering, she did register her adverse reaction on the Yellow Card scheme.
Thats interesting, sounds very similar but in the case of the two I know one has improved slightly the other is getting worse.
I believe you and I live in the same area – on the SW coast?
It would be interesting to see if yellow card, vaers data followed a pattern with similar adverse reactions occurring in the same areas.
Sorry to hear about the person whose sight is deteriorating.
Yes, I live in the Torbay hinterland. At your suggestion, I attended a few stand-in-the-park Sunday morning events at the bandstand on Cockington beach before Christmas. I’ve been several times since to find no one there – so I’ve stopped going. (I felt a bit of a plonker standing there alone!)
Good idea about the Yellow Card data but, sadly, that’s not in my skill set.
I haven’t been to sitp for a while either, but I understand they now meet under the covered area to the side of the park just near the cafe.
Cheers Catee
Let me know if you’re going to any local event – not necessarily a sitp – and I’ll come too if I can. It would be good to put a face to the name as I’ve never met anyone in person who posts on DS!
https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org
UK Column have made it much more digestible
That is a shame about the SITP events and no one else being there – is there anyone you can contact?
That, too is my concern. There is a SITP event near me, at least there is supposed to be one, but I’m not sure it is currently meeting and wouldn’t want to go only to find no one else turn up.
Like people in the same area getting the same adverse reaction from their jab batch as if from a “bad” batch.
It is now well known that not all the batches are standardized, for some reason which I fail to appreciate, considering all this is part of “The Science”, and that some batches are of greater toxicity than others. It doesn’t sound at all scientific to me.
Knowing that would be enough to deter anyone from being jabbed, including those who have already had the first few shots and are wondering whether they should have any more.
A close friend of our’s dad has lost his sight following the jab. He is ‘immunocompromised’ (a term I trust less and less over time) and was therefore first in line; his doctor is still dismissing the idea that it’s vaccine related. His daughter, our friend, is extremely angry about it and about to go to war with the NHS. She has had severe pins and needles constantly since hers, which she only got in order to travel to Dubai for a holiday. She feels completely had, and envies my wife and I, who obviously avoided it like the plague.
Extremely angry. Bless. Pity she didn’t do the reading before dad took the death jab. Pity she didn’t listen to Mike Yeadon, Prof Bhakti and all the others. Pity she didn’t pore over the yellow card data when it first came out, and the VAERS reports. Pity she took all of her knowledge about the world from the thoroughly compromised mainstream media. And now she’s angry. With whom exactly? And what would she like to happen? Now she’s listening. That’s great. Oh what’s this, she had to have the jab to go to Dubai for holiday. Like holidays in Dubai are compulsory. Did you know Dubai is built by slave labour? How much fun can you have at a resort built by slaves? So had to have the shot to have a compulsory vacation at a slave-labour-built artificial ‘paradise’. Your friend needs to re-evaluate who she is angry with.
I don’t disagree and yes, I know all about Dubai. She feels utterly had, that’s for sure, but on our side of things we need to find sympathy for people who’ve succumbed; we need them to join our ranks. A ‘told you so’ (we did) attitude won’t help.
On a personal level, person to person, of course you are right. Compassion. Standing back on an impersonal level though, gosh, the vaxxers really threw a lot of shade at the ‘antis’ during those times, did they not. The newspapers full of ‘antivaxxer in hospital with COVID’ articles, rubbing their hands with glee at the I-told-you-so of it all. Family members so incensed at us, brimming with outrage that we were not running gleefully to be jabbed praising Gates. Tony Blair calling us idiots. The incandescent anger at our selfishness. I’m glad your friend has changed her mind, but my point remains: anger at the NHS is not the endpoint here. She needs to do the historical analysis, and not just lash out blindly at the poor sheep who insisted she and her father get jabbed.
Pity no-one bothered to spend just a few hours reading the mountains of evidence explaining exactly what was going on or listened to the pleas of concerned friends – scornfully dismissed as “Anti- Vaxxer Conspiracy Theorists ‘ saying please don’t do it it!
What can you say?
BBC and Johnson £££££ Propaganda Machine ruled! OK?
That’s a bit harsh.
Yes, one of my in-laws is now unable to see to drive, and has been in hospital with chest pain. But he “feels marvellous” after his jabs and will have all that are offered to him! I’m not mocking him. He was so hale and hearty, now he’s unable to do much at all, but is convincing himself that his jabs are pep pills! He’s refused point blank to talk about it. The denial is off the scale and what I actually now see is a very frightened man.
I, too, see a LOT of denial in those I know who are jabbed. Denial and a determination to roll up and have every further jab they are offered.
Lost!
My other half has diabetes and cells in his eyes are regenerating when they shouldn’t, so much so that he’s having laser surgery to remove the cells as if they’re left untreated the pressure in his eyes will build up and cause more damage. Weird. Oh and he can’t drink tap water now without having a bad reaction in the gut. Yes hes had three goes at Uncle Billybobs special arm brew.
See howbadismybatch.info, scary stuff.
Scientists in NZ when inspecting the contents of the poisons found nano-technology in both real and saline doses. To be, that is their main purpose – transhumanism.
“In both real and saline doses”.
Now that is interesting. 5 Eyes – UK, US, Canada, Aus and NZ ( pls Japan)
5G roll out -speeding up!
I’ve not heard that theory, can you give any links?
I have heard that possibly 60% are placebo and Dr Y has done some work on different batches being different strengths and causing more adverse reactions.
That would point to very bad quality control. Or was it just ‘tailored’?
My understanding is that those researching it believe it’s tailored and pharma are trying to find the most effective dosage, effective for what I’m not sure but I have my suspicions.
That is my understanding too from what I have read – all part of the big global experiment on the human guinea pigs.
Doesn’t look random as you would expect from poor QC, looks more like they were testing dose toxicity…
https://ach0000.wordpress.com/2021/12/10/vaccine-batches-vary-in-toxicity-and-are-distributed-to-unsuspecting-americans-in-coordination-by-three-companies-researcher/
Check out the web page “howbadismybatch.com”
It doesn’t hold up under microscopic analisys, vax introduced to blood under the scope strips Hemoglobin within seconds, cells become transparrent, at the boundary between the blood and the vax, the blood clots immediately, all samples tested (except sputnik) also contained unidentifiable junk/contamination – control with saline did not exhibit the effects on blood samples seen with the vax.
These results have been replicated >7 times by different researchers, here’s part 1 of Dr Flemmings 5 part video on this microscopic analisys.
https://rumble.com/vvw26f-an-investigation-into-the-effects-of-pfizer-moderna-and-janssen.html
(be wary of “nanotech” claims, every picture I’ve seen making those claims is a picture of salt crystals or RNA crystaline material, Dr Kevin McCairn has replicated these ‘nanotech’ type images with a control solution of saline/sugar/vit D dried on a slide)
Could you give us links to the other parts?
scroll down a bit they’re all in there…
https://rumble.com/user/DrRichardMFleming
What disturbs me is that some of the imagery of ‘debris’ found in the vaccines – and incidentally the saline placebos – is straight-sided and contains right-angles. Where in nature are such things seen?
That would have nobbled those with salt allergy. (Not large numbers, perhaps?)
That’s the first I’ve heard of it. You must have made it up!
Only for the elites!
Only politicians, Royalty, and the mega-rich got saline. The plebs got doses of variable toxicity.
Nobody in their right mind thinks they would risk giving The Queen or Climate-Change-Charlie the clot shot, do they?
No surprise here for the awake!
In six months time people will be distancing themselves from ever having pushed the clotshot just as they are now distancing themselves from having advocated lockdowns. Their problem will be that the ‘conspiracy theory’ of vacc injury and deaths becoming fact will not, in my view, be met with the same apathy and complacency as that of Lockdown damage.
They’ll need to have wiped most of their online stuff from the last 24 months, then.
What we really need is to be able to look at the present and future health of the refuseniks as set against the health outcomes of the jabbed.
It would be very easy to do this, everyone’s vax status is on their digitalised NHS record.
We already have an unjabbed control group – which no doubt they are desperate to eliminate.
Sadly, as it seems this will never be done there will be no chance of being able to prove, with reference to health statistics, any deaths/injuries attributable to mrna jabs.
There is though, plenty of evidence, on a bio molecular level, of mrna causing damage to the immune system. GVB.
Whats 23,000 when you have drugs to push
I’d love to understand how the Swedish study in the BMJ a couple of days ago affects informed views on vaccine safety. I’m too ignorant myself to grasp it well.
Do you have a link for this please?
Yes, a bit more context please.
Is this the study?
https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj-2021-069590
“Risks of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and bleeding after covid-19: nationwide self-controlled cases series and matched cohort study”
Yes, that is the one!
The study doesn’t appear to consider vaccination status as a factor for the heart problems as no mention of it at all! Would be easy to conclude that all heart-related issues are due to Covid and not the jabs especially as people tend to test positive after injection for a time.
Was just about to say the same. Always look at the limitations of a study. Covid 19 is considered by some to be a vascular disease and can cause clotting. Just the spike protien from the vaccine has been shown to cause clotting, hence some of the problems it can cause. But the point is you need a severe case of covid for those kind of problems, which will only develop in those particularly vulnerable. Whereas the vaccine can cause problems regardless of prior health status and covid risk factor.
Thank you both
And yet, where same symptom can be caused by both jab and covid, MSM always present covid as being the greater risk and the jab as the saviour (stopping you getting covid, and therefore a worse and more serious case of whatever the symptom in question is – for example, the myocarditis).
Young lad I know, told him I had not been vaccinated. He jokingly calls me anti vax and I play along. He was in hospital last week, Bels Palsy (sp). Only 27 ffs, all for a vaccine he no way in a million years needed. How many more like this? Answer is we will never know because the highly paid consultants and public servants running the NHS are all guardian reading, self serving, lying, hyporcitical, amoral pieces of shit.
In hospital for Bells Palsy!!!!!
What the flip??
A short course of steroids at home should sort it
I’ve been recording and analysing the ONS all cause mortality figures since April 2020. The ONS gives weekly mortality figures broken down by age and separately by region week by week since 2010. I take five week window around each week/age range and week/region combination for the period 2010-9. I then take the mean and S.D. of this. Nothing fancy here, just what Excel provides me with. I then compare this with the equivalent weeks in 2020, 2021 and 2022, I use these comparisons to establish anomolies in the all cause mortality.
Looking at anomalies in 2020, there are four distinct periods. 1) Normality before the first wave. 2) The carnnage that was the 1st wave. 3) Low mortality before the 2nd wave 4) The 2nd wave up to the end of 2020.
As a model of whether vaccines are safe and effective I then have looked at periods 3 and 4.
Period 3, weeks 25 to 41 was a time when Covid was circulating in 2020 but there was no surge in deaths. So my reasoing is that if the vaccines are safe the mortality in the equivalent period should be a bit less than 2020 and hopefully, roughly the same as the ten year average give or take.
Period 4 weeks 42 to 52 was a time when Covid was causing many excess deaths in 2020. This the end of the year, so you would also expect a repiratory virus to be causing problems during this period whatever the year, but particularly in 2021 when delta was still about. So if the vaccines are effective I’d expect to see a considerably lower than 2020 and again hopefully, much the same as the 10 year average, indicating the vaccines have solved the problem.
Here are the two tables. These are not week by week figures, but statistics for the entire mortality over the weeks given.
Period 3
If you look at the table [weeks 25-41] you can see there is a huge increaese in the excess deaths in 2021 compared to 2020. This comparision iwth the 10 year S.D. for the increase between 2021 to 2020 is extremely alarming. We’re looking at increaess of 15% for the 45-64 years old and 10% + up to the post 84s. These figures scream a warning at me that the vaccines may not be safe.
Period 4
If you look at the table for weeks 42-52 you can see that 2021 is better than 2020, but only just. The maximum effect that the vaccines could have had, if there were no other factors and all excess mortality was produced by Covid was to reduce the excess death toll from 18,000 to 15,000. It’s not exactly a glowing endorsement of the vaccines effectiveness.
Do these tables prove anyting? Of course they don’t. They just suggest there might be a problem; in the same way that flashing red lights and ear splitting claxons in a nuclear reactor might suggest that there just might be a problem.
So why are the authorities not investigating? It’s not as if they don’t have the information. This is their information.
Yes, I have done similar………I have tabulated monthly ‘all-cause’ mortality since 2012.
They began jabbing on 8-DEC-20.
The four-month period DEC-20 to MAR-21 saw 234,016 deaths…….
…….this more than 229,249 deaths in the four-month period of the ‘killer first wave’ in MAR-20 to JUN-20.
Note too that JUL-21 after the second jabs kicked-in, saw all-cause mortality of 48,136, much higher than the 10yr average for July of 38,900.
OCT-21 saw 54,789 which was 27.5% higher than the 10yr av.
Someone needs to study in detail the mortality rates within a few weeks of jabbing.
The maximum effect that the vaccines could have had, if there were no other factors and all excess mortality was produced by Covid was to reduce the excess death toll from 18,000 to 15,000. It’s not exactly a glowing endorsement of the vaccines effectiveness.
Or 370 billion of taxpayer’s money,
“Their information “- it might as well be on the moon for all they are concerned.
It will never be halted. They are in too deep and, assuming the wealth of evidence that supports the observation is correct, the shots have damaged the immune systems of the vaxxed, so they’ll have to keep getting shot every few months – or go cold turkey and hope for the best (I’d plumb for the latter). There are too many complicit, in too many places of high office, for these crimes to ever be publicly exposed. A disgusting state of affairs.
Missing table for my previous comment weeks 25-41 comparison of all cause mortality in 2020, 2021 and the 10 years before.
The only way to get these serial liars to admit that they were wrong would be to face them with unequivocal evidence of mortality due to vaccines.
The most obvious way to do this should be to mandate continual booster injections for children of the the youngest ages, who appear quite susceptible to heart damage.
If we kill off about 25% of the next generation, that should be sufficient to overcome the biased fact checkers and demand an investigation. I suspect that anything less will not work…
Personally I would prefer to replace the government or at least 25%, start at the top and begin tomorrow.
By wrong, do you really mean “lying”?
Just take a moment to reflect on how many people in your extended network and beyond who were fully jabbed and suddenly and unexpectedly have passed away. I try to pretend it’s incompetence as opposed to premeditated depopulation.
I tried to calculate a percentage to express my anecdotal evidence of deaths shortly after vaccination to deaths from Covid-19, but my calculator says something about “error dividing by zero”???
A friend, triple jabbed, recently got Covid for the second time and casually remarked that it was much worse this time than the last, which was pre-jab. And STILL neither she nor the others around the table worked it out.
I’ve left my local bowling club because so many of them have this conversation endlessly and I just couldn’t stand listening to their stupidity any longer.
My fanatical sister is angry at the government because she claims they’re in denial that covid is coming back. Meanwhile her nine year old son is openly scared that he will catch covid because he’s only been jabbed once and wants his second.
Back in the office, every colleague around me has the app. Apparently someone tested positive the other day and they were scrambling to find out who it was.
The covid scammers have successfully trained a sizeable section of the population to uphold the scam, while they sit back, aloof and appearing like they want to ‘live with covid’.
Criminals, the lot of them.
People are still using the flawed contract tracing app? Surely not, I thought that thoroughly died off last summer. What part of the country are you from, just so that I can avoid it?
Fanatical friend of mine and their offspring were so keen for the jabbing to take place that they would likely have had a party to celebrate the event of the second jab “he’s fully protected now” – this was the FB post.
I am convinced there is something in these jabs which damages people’s brains, if not takes them over in some form of mind control.
How otherwise can a formerly rational and scientifically trained person become like this? We have all been subject to the same brainwashing and I, unjabbed, not only haven’t succumbed to it but have actively resisted it and seen through the scam for what it was. The only difference is the jab.
I have relative in similar position – triple jabbed (after recovering from covid) and then succumbing to it again – now suffering from seemingly long covid with excessive sweating and problems with memory and concentration.
Said relative was very pro jab.
So what did you say to them?
Why should it be acceptable to inject vulnerable people?
Covid is a scam – there was never a need to inject the population with gene therapy but they continue to do so and people of all levels of fitness are dropping down dead without inquiry.
The most vulnerable should be subject to the focussed protection of the Great Barrington Declaration and everyone else should be allowed to get on with their life (or not as the case may be) according to their own personal choice.
I would re-phrase that slightly: “The most vulnerable should be offered the focussed protection”.
If I were classed as vulnerable, I would still want my right to choice.
But…. I thought we had established that the vax does not protect people from anything but definitely causes very serious and even life threatening side effects in many more people than any other mass vaccination programme in our history including children?
Am I missing something?
The GBD was talking about people staying at home and being helped to do so, if they were “vulnerable” – rather than imposing lockdowns on the entire community.
The vax certainly doesn’t protect people from anything!
“Getting on with their lives” is exactly what they do not intend to allow people to do!
It’s getting closer!
As the authorities keep insisting:
Excellent summary.
However, if we showed this to anyone the first question they would ask is who is Nick Bowler and what are his qualifications?
Universal Basic Income: Canada /Ireland / Palm Springs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM7Tiwm0L40
Katie Hopkins OFFICIAL
Stand for freedom with our Yellow Boards By The Road next events
Saturday 9th April 2pm to 3pm
Yellow Boards
Loddon Bridge, A329 Reading Rd,
Winnersh (Outside Showcase)
Wokingham RG41 5HG
Tuesday 12th April 5.30pm to 6.30pm
Yellow Boards By the Road
Junction Broad Lane/
A3095 Bagshot Lane
Bracknell RG12 9NW
Stand in the Park Sundays from 10am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens
(Cockpit Path car park free on Sunday)
Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
And again, VERY different countries, all doing basically the same thing, and calling it by the same name, UBI, and UBI of course features in the WEF Great Reset handbook, and people don’t see what is going on??
Wake up! Wake up before it is too bleeping late!!!
What grates about the KH presentation, which was otherwise good and informative, is the end where she says we will have to work together to oppose the propaganda. BUT SHE DOESN’T SAY HOW.
How Katie? How do we work together?
Choir needs some instructions. Better and more effective to all act in concert as opposed to all try our own thing and get nowhere.
This doesnt include the vaccine deaths from jab one at the end of 2020/2021, miscatergorised as non covid deaths in the unvaccinated group.
That part of the jab fraud is particularly cunning.
Considering the felling of the vulnerable as well as the young by this junk shot, I wouldn’t recommend it to them either.
And this thing is going to have a long tail of unusual and sudden deaths, not to mention a rise in cancer rates which will be blamed on our near destroyed health systems….
I expected DS to be all over this…
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/pandemic-treaty
and yet, not a mention ATL, and yet those BTL mention it regularly.
Send it to them via the link at the bottom of the News Roundup section suggesting it is important that they cover it.
The was a message left in 2002, (supposedly by aliens) in binary code in a crop circle at Crabwood Farm House, Wiltshire, England. Of course it may be an elaborate hoax. Message read:- Beware the bearers of FALSE gifts & their BROKEN PROMISES. Much PAIN but still time. BELIEVE. There is GOOD out there. We OPpose DECEPTION. Conduit CLOSING.
Yes it was a hoax. It was made by Disney to promote their movie Signs. All fully revealed now. By the way all crop circles are made by humans. Yes, some are very nice. Yes, I know, you want them to be made by ‘aliens’. But what you want to be true and what is true are two different things. In any case, the Crabwood Farm circle was not just made by humans, but was actual advertising for an actual Hollywood movie.
“if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything”
‘the fact that non-Covid deaths have been lower than average during 80% of the period, should be a cause for some celebratory relief.’
Given that iastrogenic death (medics killing people with the intended treatment being given to the intended person not because of incompetence) is the third biggest cause of death this shouldn’t surprise us.
The glorious NHS had far fewer opportunities to kill off the many thousands if not millions that steered clear of them, even as they did all they could to kill of the supposed covid patients with ventilators and midazolam they just couldn’t make up the numbers.
I would re-tweet this, but I’ll only get suspended by Twitter again
The vaccine lies far exceed any of the other Big Lies that I am aware of. We’ll never know how many people died as a result, possibly millions. And as with all the Big Lies, they will have to tell more lies and play more dirty tricks to stop the truth ever coming out. Will they ultimately get away with it? Unfortunately, they probably will, because somewhere around 80% of people don’t seem to be capable of basic reasoning.
But the good news is, 20% is enough. The great changes, the breakthroughs, the dawning lights have always come from a minority.
I bloody hope so.
And when you consider that there is no virus … doesn’t this point to even higher vaccine deaths ?
23,000 …interesting figure .
That is just about ten times the Official ‘Yellow Card’ statistic of deaths by vax. ( 2075)..widely accepted by the authorities as representing around 10% of actual fatalities – so 20,750.
Pure coincidence of course.
Not really – the MHRA have publicly stated that they believe only 10% of fatalities are reported.
Ergo, c20k killed by the Johnson Jab.
A friend of mine in England has seen 8 of his 60-70-ish friends die from stroke/heart attack over the last 12 months. All were jabbed. All were unexpected, sudden deaths and were previously healthy.
The most recent happened on April 1st, a guy who, as he put it, “Told me I was an idiot for being unjabbed.”
A simple way to test this would be to stratify by age. Nothing fancy – just under 65s and 65+ should do it. You need to choose a cut-off where there will be a reasonable number of deaths in the younger cohort. If the peak shifts in the two age groups, earlier for older and later for younger, then it would be strongly suggestive of vaccination as an underlying cause.
“If the hypothesis is correct, each new booster risks further degrading the future health of all who receive them.”
Well done DS finally caught up. Just need the other 90% of the population to do the same. But of course nobody wants to admit they’ve been conned.
Everyone in the medical research world, data analyst world and scientists, medics and nurses are acutely aware that these experimental biologicals are causing serious adverse events and deaths. Unfortunately the Uk health authorities and the unintelligent gov’t officials
are in denial despite ALL the data available for everyone to see. Even Pfizer has had to publish their first to data dumps. Warning******these vaccines cause seriou adverse events and deaths.
How fortunate that none of these ‘serious questions of vaccine safety’ were put to our Prime Minister , Boris Johnson, when he was allowed to coast through a chummy, easy time in his GBNews interview this morning.
So easy that he did not rule out more lockdowns and promised us more virus and jabs on the way!
Where are Jeremy Paxman and Robin Day – even Marr and Snow might have had a few useful points to score?
Mrs Merton would have made a better job of it:
“Tell me Boris , what first attracted you to the easy life, Champagne parties chauffeured cars, attractive young ladies and “Emergency”autocratic powers that now go with the Job of being Prime Minister?”
Shhhh…. whist the continue to INJECT our innocent children….. CRIMINALS