The Covid Inquiry appears to be “fundamentally biased” and is failing to examine the costs of lockdown, 55 professors and academics have warned. The Telegraph has the story.
In a letter to Baroness Hallett, the inquiry Chairman, the group of 55 professors and academics express their concerns that the process is “not living up to its mission” to evaluate the mistakes made during the pandemic, assess whether Covid measures were appropriate, and to prepare the country for the next pandemic.
They warn that a “lack of neutrality” means the inquiry “gives the impression of being fundamentally biased” and appears to have led to “predetermined conclusions, for example, to lockdown faster next time”.
In the letter, published on Tuesday, the group states that the inquiry is neglecting to hear evidence from those who suffered from the “negative effects” of pandemic policy decisions, or scientists who disagree with choices made by the Government.
As the second module of the inquiry comes to a close, they call for this to be urgently addressed and greater focus to be placed on the “economic and social cost of Covid policies to British society”.
The letter was organised by Dr. Kevin Bardosh, an expert in infection medicine at Edinburgh University and Prof. Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at Oxford University.
It comes as Richard Hughes, Chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility, warned on Tuesday that worklessness had become a “worrying trend” in the economy since the pandemic.
Mr. Hughes told the Treasury Select Committee that the economy had been growing as a result of net migration but now the it was suffering from a reversal in its workforce amid “rising levels of inactivity and a falling participation rate”.
He said: “It looks as though persistently high levels of inactivity seem to be a feature of the post-pandemic environment and one which is worrying from the point of view of human welfare.”
Worth reading in full.
The full letter with all signatories is reprinted below.
An open letter to Baroness Hallett, Chair of the U.K. Covid Inquiry
The Inquiry must urgently address its apparent biases, assumptions, impartiality and lack of evidence-based approach
We, the undersigned, are a group of U.K. public health scholars and academics in related disciplines, widely published in our fields, deeply concerned that the Covid Inquiry is not living up to its mission to evaluate the mistakes made during the pandemic, whether Covid measures were appropriate and to prepare the country for the next pandemic.
First, the Inquiry gives the impression of being fundamentally biased. The Inquiry originated in legal petitions brought by bereaved family groups. Yet there has been little opportunity for petitions to be brought by those who have suffered from the negative effects of pandemic policy decisions. This is preventing a more holistic assessment of impacts on population health and wellbeing. This lack of neutrality appears to have led to biased reasoning and predetermined conclusions, for example, to lockdown faster next time.
Second, the Inquiry is taking key assumptions for granted instead of examining and critiquing them in light of the evidence. The consensus position in pre-2020 pandemic plans was that non-pharmaceutical interventions, including lockdown, had weak evidence of effectiveness, and were predicted to cause substantial harm to society, especially if used for prolonged periods. This informed the initial response to Covid in early 2020. Yet, the Inquiry assumes that these measures are effective and appropriate. As a result, it downplays the harms to society caused by two years of emergency infection control mandates.
Third, the Inquiry lacks impartiality in the selection and questioning of expert witnesses. It has given preferential treatment to scientific advisers on SAGE, who have a vested interest in maintaining the justification for their policy recommendations. Very few scientists with an alternative position have been asked to testify, and the Inquiry has been confrontational rather than inquisitorial in its questioning of these views. The Inquiry has not seriously questioned the hypotheses and assumptions offered to government, especially from government appointed modelers, which were used to justify Covid policies. Neither has it seriously examined the social and economic costs of lockdown. It has also stuck to an agenda of UK exceptionalism failing to recognise the experience elsewhere in the world.
Fourth, the format of the Inquiry is impeding investigation into the key scientific and policy questions. The Inquiry has adopted a legal format that prevents a systematic evaluation of the evidence by biomedical and social scientists on the harms of restrictions to the British public, the impact on Covid from policies such as mandatory NPIs, and the state of evidence for best practice. It is focused on who did or said what, rather than asking fundamental scientific questions. Yet investigating the interplay between harms, benefits, and best practice is critical to preparing for the next pandemic. The Inquiry, as currently functioning, appears unsuited to this task of national importance.
Fifth, the Inquiry risks reducing public trust in the impartiality and independence of government accountability and oversight. Its size and cost (by some estimates £300-500 million) will make it the largest public Inquiry ever undertaken to date, and yet its shortcomings, if not addressed, risk compromising the credibility of future public inquiries.
We believe the Inquiry has a significant and important mission and we would like to see it succeed. However, if it is to do so, these shortcomings need to be urgently addressed. The Inquiry must invite a much broader range of scientific experts with more critical viewpoints. It must also review the evidence on diverse topics so that it can be fully informed of relevant science and the economic and social cost of Covid policies to British society.
We, the undersigned, believe this is an urgent national priority and fundamental to ensuring that future pandemic response is evidence- based and maximizes the health and well-being of all.
Drafted by
Dr. Kevin Bardosh, Collateral Global; Division of Infection Medicine, University of Edinburgh.
Prof. Sunetra Gupta, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford.
Signatories, arranged alphabetically by surname:
Dr. Colin Alexander, Department of Journalism and Media, Nottingham Trent University.
Prof. David Betz, Department of War Studies, King’s College London.
Dr Carlton Brick, School of Education and Social Science, University of the West of Scotland.
Prof. Daniel Briggs, Department of Criminology and Sociology, Northumbria University.
Dr. Jennie Bristow, Department of Sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University.
Prof. Anthony J Brookes, Department of Genetics and Genome Biology, University of Leicester.
Prof. Garrett Wallace Brown, Chair in Global Health Policy, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Leeds.
Prof. David Campbell, Professor of Law, Lancaster University.
Prof. Karl Claxton, Department of Economics, University of York.
Dr. Robert Craig, School of Law, University of Bristol.
Prof. Charles Dennis, School of Business, Middlesex University.
Prof. Kevin Dowd, Durham University Business School.
Prof. Fionn Dunne, Department of Materials, Imperial College London.
Prof. Bill Durodie, Department of Politics, Languages and International Studies, University of Bath.
Dr. Ashley Frawley, Centre for Parenting Culture Studies, University of Kent.
Prof. Paul Frijters, Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics.
Dr. Alberto Giubilini, Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford.
Prof. Toby Green, Department of History, King’s College London.
Dr. Peter Grove, Former Chair UK Department of Health’s Senior Economic & Analytical Review Committee (IASRC).
Mr. Clive Hambler, Department of Biology, University of Oxford.
Prof. Philip Hammond, Department of Media & Communications, London South Bank University.
Dr Cheryl Hudson, History Department, University of Liverpool.
Prof Marilyn James, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham.
Prof. Lee Jones, School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of London.
Dr Nicholas Joseph, College of Arts, Humanities and Education, University of Derby.
Prof. David Livermore, Department of Medical Microbiology, University of East Anglia.
Dr. David McGrogan, Department of Law, Northumbria University.
Prof. Paul McKeigue, The Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh.
Prof. David Miles, Department of Economics, Imperial College London.
Dr. Jose Lingna Nafafe, Department of Hispanic, Portuguese and Latin American Studies, University of Bristol.
Prof. Yossi Nehushtan, School of Law, Keele University.
Prof. George Ogola, Department of Cultural, Media and Visual Studies, University of Nottingham.
Dr Jason L. Oke, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford.
Prof. Paul Ormerod, Alliance Business School, University of Manchester.
Dr. Matthew Owens, Department of Psychology, University of Exeter.
Prof. David Paton, Nottingham University Business School.
Prof. Allyson Pollock, Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University.
Prof. Peter Ramsay, Law School, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Prof. Matthew Ratcliffe, Department of Philosophy, University of York.
Prof. Mario Recker, Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter.
Dr. Andrew Shepherd, Chronic Poverty Advisory Network; Institute of Development Studies.
Prof. Karol Sikora, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Buckingham.
Sir Bernard Silverman, FRS, Emeritus Professor, Department of Statistics, University of Oxford.
Dr. Edward Skidelsky, Director, Committee for Academic Freedom; Department of Philosophy, University of Exeter.
Professor Michael Stewart, Department of Anthropology, University College London.
Dr Luke Telford, School of Business and Society, University of York.
Prof. James Tooley, Vice-Chancellor, The University of Buckingham.
Prof. Ellen Townsend, School of Psychology, University of Nottingham.
Prof. John Watkins, School of Medicine, Cardiff University.
Prof. Roger Watson, School of Nursing, University of Hull.
Dr. Stuart Waiton, Division of Sociology, Abertay University.
Dr. Meron Wondemaghen, School of Criminology, Sociology and Policing, University of Hull.
Prof. Simon Wood, School of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh.
Dr. Paul Yowell, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford.
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.
Sumption has been fighting against this since the beginning. Wouldnt expect any less and still gp back his podcast on hownit is our responsibility to reject morally unlawful rules. I just wish Scruton was alive
Lord Sumpton has been playing the role Lord Monkton in the Climate Change debate; each well and worthy but we are past the age when a title should add weight to the veracity of an argument one way or another.
Still it’s good to see his view aired in such a title as the Telegraph.
Hedging their bets probably unless they are sensing a change in the mood among their readership.
He’s not been fighting that hard, he advised one of only a few court attempts into absolute defeat, not to mention some of the many interviews quietly ignored where he advocates vax passes. He’s a shill & a phoney. And complicit in war crimes to boot.
Has he smashed up any bus stops recently?
What utter nonesense. He is absolutely against all of it and has been from the beginning.
Some dispute, it seems. Do you have sources on that?
I haven’t heard from Lord Sumption for ages
TODAY Tuesday 23rd November 2pm to 3pm Bracknell
Yellow Boards By the Road
A329 London Rd, Bracknell RG12 2UJ Near Running Horse/Lily Hill Park
Stand in the Park Sundays from 10am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham – Howard Palmer Gardens Wokingham RG40 2HD Where Sturges Rd/Denton Rd meet next to Cockpit Path car park
Bracknell South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, Bracknell RG12 7PA
(Also Wednesdays from 2pm – in terrace/café if cold)
Join our Telegram Group and have some fun http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Thank you Lord Sumption. Your intervention is most welcome.
It should have been consistent. He has hidden away. He should have been fighting with Anna Du Buisseret and Dr Fuellmich.
Mostly very sensible, apart from:
Actually, given the stats it’s those who are refusing the clotshots who are the wiser ones!
Agreed.
Actually, given the stats it’s those who are refusing the clotshots who are the wiser ones!
That’s now very clear and will likely soon get even clearer. Though governments and the media will make sure that the vaxxed masses stay blissfully uninformed, until they are being intubated, as a last gasp no hope measure.
That’s ironic given those who have been ‘vaccinated’ largely chose to do so for personal gain/pleasure in ‘getting their lives back’, rationality, morality and neighbour be damned!
Moreover, while it can not in good conscience be called ‘selfish’ in the common understanding of the term, an individual has a God given right and duty to look out for their personal safety when being asked to have/coerced into having a novel and experimental substance injected into their body!
Sumption has it backwards, abusing language in the process.
Estate Agents employ a word that escapes me to describe various but unspecified advantages of buying a particular property; good local schools, a nice view, communications etc.
That word describes my decision to take jabs 1&2, not out of fear of Covid or belief in the efficacy of vaxxes, still less from a need to conform.
Rather the need to get it out of the way while still of sound mind rather than wait until compelled to do so in less favourable circumstances.
Unnecessary as it turns out but there y’go.
Fair play to you.
‘Utility’ ?
He’s has the clot shot. He doesn’t want to admit it was a mistake.
Funnily enough, I suspected that too.
I think this is just throwing a bone to the public in the attempt to reel them in. To build some credibility by giving in in one area, in the hope that this then convinces the public to keep listening. It is fool-hardy and never works.
(what’s with the @ symbols after our handles?)
Agree. There is no logic for healthy, non-vulnerable people to be vaccinated. All the data, even obfuscated, points to this. In fact there is a strong argument to suggest development of natural immunity amongst the healthy would help the vulnerable. This through less driving of mutation and better natural immunity to variants when they do occur.
This chart from UKHSA data shows clearly where the vulnerable are although I’m surprised so many over 50s are unvaccinated. Doesn’t fit with my peers who all seem to be vaccinated.
Once you drop below 50, the risk from the vaccines just don’t seem to be worth it.
Isn’t anyone who dies within 21 days of the second jab classed as unvaccinated? That makes a mockery of the data.
Very possibly – don’t know the exact criteria.
This is a debatable calculation method anyway.
An article about Swiss data delved into this further recently.
It should be /100k population, not per 100k/vaxxed or per 100k/unvaxxed.
That alone skews the numbers in favour of the vaxxed!
I’ll add the link later if I can find it. Stuff for Noah/Will….
Please do but there is still validity in the chart in showing clearly the vulnerable age ranges – despite possible inaccuracies of the underlying data (probably goes both ways). But we all knew that already.
>It should be /100k population, not per 100k/vaxxed or per 100k/unvaxxed
Is that to make it regional?
https://sciencefiles.org/2021/11/21/covid-zahlen-betrug-wie-in-der-schweiz-manipuliert-wird/
Here it is.
FFS.
For reasonably healthy people the death rate is approx 0.15%.
Get a grip.
The death rate for all of us is 100% in case anyone has forgotten – the figure of 0.15% for this illness is the number who would have died anyway. Elderly people in care homes whose resistance to all other likely deaths has been exemplary, whose life is being protected by the staff to the extent that they avoid accidental deaths, have one way in which they usually die – respiratory illnesses. So if flu was put on furlough it had to be covid. That’s the 0.15%. We all have to die of something unless immortality is what people are now expecting of their health care systems. Most people who died of covid (aka midazalam overdoses) had exceeded their life expectancy. My 99 year old mother was offered a vaccine several times on her death bed. She said ‘No thank you. I’ve lived long enough.’ She also asked me how she could catch it. My mother had more sense than the rest of the world put together apparently. Mad times.
Couldn’t agree more.
N.Ireland “vaccine passport” has 3 elements – vaxx status, negative LFT or recovery from covid – but within a VERY limited period of time – something like 180 days.
ALL of the science around natural immunity I have studied describes it as both robust and long lasting – many years not the couple of months the passports are prepared to countenance.
I would love DS to do a leading article on the issue of natural immunity as it would drive a BIG wedge into the key debate which surrounds the vaxxed/unvaxxed argument and, in particular, the demonising and scapegoating of the unvaxxed.
Why should people who have the best immunity currently on offer – those who have recovered – be demonised, scapegoated, marginalised and excluded from participation in normal life in the way that is currently the case?
If anything they should be REWARDED because it means they won’t be a burden on the “over-stretched NHS” as they won’t need to be treated in ICU’s etc and they also won’t go on to develop the complications from the clot shots [which they are likely doing their best to avoid] which will also require NHS treatment, and a lot of it, to try to tamp down all those unpleasant symptoms which accompany a cardiac or autoimmune condition.
He says that because to not do so would mean his article isn’t published and that he’s labeled an anti-vaxxer and thus loses his ability to influence. There is enough evidence to argue the net benefit of vaccines (also enough to argue the opposite). But even if they worked as advertised the freedom issue would remain, and that is his core issue.
When did COVID become the equivalent of smallpox for children? I just did some research on previous childhood mortality and saw that smallpox once killed about 5 million people/year world-wide (most children I assume).
In America, the CDC says COVID had killed 595 children through November 10th. But this is over 21 months (not 12 months) and surely 60 percent of the “official” deaths didn’t really die “from” COVID. So the real annual death number might be 100 or so.
And it’s arguable that the “vaccines” would prevent any of these 100 deaths among children.
They will surely cause a lot more deaths and serious conditions than they prevent.
Anyway, one vaccine demonstrably saves millions of children every year. The COVID vaccine maybe saves 100. And it’s mandatory on the punishment of no job and no freedom. What would our ancestors think?
595 seems a high figure compared to UK. I thought it was only six under 18s without any other health problems had died (in the UK)? Published here?? But maybe that’s just this year and the USA figure is with other health issues.
That’s in the UK according to “the most comprehensive study of its kind done to date.” I actually wrote an article about this study which showed that only six (6) “healthy” children in the UK died FROM Covid in the first year of the pandemic.
I was being very conservative with my U.S. estimates of deaths “From” COVID.
First you have to get the number who really died “from” COVID and then you need to get the number who had no severe underlying conditions. And then you need to figure the mortality rates for 12 months not for 21.
IN the UK in the first year of the pandemic, only six “healthy” children died FROM Covid. The population of the US is about six times larger than the population of the UK (if memory serves).
Assuming the same findings would apply to the U.S., that would mean that approximately 36 U.S. “healthy” children (0 to 17) died from COVID in the first year of the pandemic. Maybe 36 more have died in the ensuing nine months.
Another thing I’ve learned from my research is that about 25 percent of all “COVID” deaths happen among infants who have not reached age 1. This is not surprising as mortality rates for infants are many fold higher than for children 2 to 17 due to any and all causes.
Take out deaths 0 to 1 and the “children’s” death numbers shrink by 25 percent.
Nobody – at least yet – is seriously proposing vaccinating newborns. In the children’s vaccine “debate,” one should really look at deaths among “healthy” children ages 5 to 11.
This percentage is 0.0001.
Here’s my article, which links to the UK study.
https://uncoverdc.com/2021/07/30/for-majority-of-uk-children-covid-mortality-is-0-000/
800,000 children go missing in the US every year. Maybe that should be a figure of more concern than the few who die from / with covid.
Thanks for the comprehensive reply. Bookmarked to read when I have a moment.
I have to say that Lord Sumption is usually spot on with most of what he says but I completely agree with you when he then goes and spoils it all with that part which is complete nonsense – I have done my research and risks far outweigh the benefits of having the vaccine for me personally so I therefore refused to have it. Sumption did a similar thing a few months ago in an interview he did with Julia Hartley-Brewer (I think it was her) – anyway, he comdemned the introduction of vaccine passports in France (where he lives) as being completely unacceptable, unethical, tyrannical etc and then he went on to say that he himself had a vaccine passport and would be using it when he visits the supermarket etc he justified this by saying that it was pointless fighting a battle that had already been lost.
So Sumption falls.
Did you really think a ‘Lord’ would want to represent you?
I also know a lot of people who fit into the category you describe who got jabbed because it was “pointless fighting a battle that had already been lost.”
Arguably the same could be said for the UK – and any other country in the rest of the world where this will become the norm.
Those refusing the vaccine may be unwise. Or those having the vaccine may be unwise. That’s not really the point at issue so let’s not get distracted. The point is that people who want the jab should be free to have it while those who wish not to have a jab should be free not to have one.
Lord Sumption should perhaps read this regarding the ‘wisdom’ of not having the (mRNA) vaccine: https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/09/24/thermodynamics-101-socrates-debunks-climate-alarm-science/#comment-95114
This is precisely where I depart from the noble lord; there is no study, trial – extended or short – he can point to to bolster the “unwise, perhaps selfish” statement. I have just re-read the article and one part reaches a conclusion that seems non sequitor.
“Opposition to vaccines is foolish. They are highly effective at preventing serious illness and death*. But they are not as effective against infection or transmission as was once thought.
Lord Sumption, a former Supreme Court Judge, cannot be unaware it is the case that these gene editing therapies (EDTs) – please can we all call them exactly what the manufacturers call them – do not prevent infection by a variant of SARS COV2; swathes of ONS/UKHSA/UK government data show that people who have received EDTs are being infected. This appears to be principally because the only approved EDTs address the S1 spike protein of the Alpha variant, making it totally ineffective for the Delta variant because its S1 spike protein is sufficiently genetically different to swerve past the EDT. If they do not prevent infection, SARS COV2 can be lethal to certain age groups and people with certain co-morbidities (just like influenza); that does not wholly sit with the second sentence above*. It may be “largely” true by reference to the likelihood of being exposed to SARS COV2 but he makes no reference to that; the statement is unequivocal. The likelihood of being exposed is low; the risk of dying or suffering serious ill health if you are exposed is not small or inconsequential.
Being not as effective against infection or transmission “as was once thought” cannot and does not, perforce, result in effectiveness in preventing serious illness and death instigated by…infection.
His article does not (sadly and I reckon he will come to regret that) address the early treatment regimes which have been successfully employed in the US and elsewhere, or the lack of official approval for drug treatments that are inherently and provably safer, have a safety record (WHO records confirm) that is so demonstrably better than these mRNA EDTs. Why support EDTs that are not preventing death post jab, and do nothing to stop transmission? Why not highlight the crass nature of the massive expenditure on useless T&T, PPE, Nightingale Hospitals and experimental EDTs with evidently high numbers of deaths and adverse reactions, but not on the total lack of expenditure on vitamins and mineral supplements for vulnerable groups, monoclonal antibody infusion treatments, HCQ and Ivermectin – all of which are being recommended and used by physicians around the world – but not in the UK – why?
He lambast lockdowns; I agree with those statements. It is inescapable that lockdowns – in winter!!!! – invigorate the SARS COV2 variant – and that can goes bouncing down the road.
I think the statement “Those who refuse to be vaccinated may be unwise, perhaps selfish.” is misread – it appears that he is playing Devil’s Advocate to then demolish the idea that the – potential – withdrawal of choice over deciding what you put into your body is acceptable – he calls it for what it is – despotic and enduringly socially disruptive. How right he is imho.
Off topic: Professor Norman Fenton talks with Philip Davies, discussing all things Cultvid. They talk about the problem of testing, ‘vaccine’ effectiveness/the uselessness of determining effectiveness by looking at ‘infections’ in the ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated’ given the problem of testing, and Ivermectin, the concerted effort to discredit it, and looking at its effectiveness from a Bayesian perspective, and more:
https://youtu.be/RU_ik8ePgwI
Hear hear. Apart from his comment on the ‘foolish unvaxxed’.
We need more champions like this to speak out, loudly.
For those who have no voice, mass non-compliance.
…his comment on the ‘foolish unvaxxed’
That is a monumental failure by Lord Sumption and as such his intervention may do more harm than good.
His exact words where “Those who refuse to be vaccinated may be unwise, perhaps selfish”. Looking at the current deaths per 100k for vaccinated vs unvaccinated over 50s, then it does look like the vaccine helps (not magically, just a bit). Under 50 – no argument, not needed and probably doing more harm than good.
I’m wondering, but have you fallen for the government set trap of “unvaccinated” when ‘unvaccinated’ can mean those with jabs but who died within a set number of weeks after being jabbed – which completely skews the figures
Behind the paywall (again) but Lord Sumption has been pretty much spot on from day one. Even in regards to the illegitimate lockdown that started all this mess.
There are paywalls and there are paywalls.
This particular one is not insurmountable: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2021%2F11%2F22%2Feuropes-new-wave-covid-authoritarianism-has-set-dangerous-new%2F
And for future, simply plug the URL in here: https://12ft.io/
Wow that’s real magic
Oddly I thought they were doing a promotional free month enticement, I haven’t had the pop up at all in November, must be a dodgy add-in for Chrome that’s started working again, result!
No, it’s a proxy.
When he advocated for vaccine mandates he must have known this is where it would lead.
Glad to have him speak up here regardless. We need loud booming voices and in the streets, not just in the broadsheets
Sumption has been silenced for some while. Is there some reason for the Telegraph suddenly giving him a voice?
Euro bashing.
I don’t think he has. He just writes when he feels the need to.
Extract from a letter sent to the NZ Medical Council from a retired Doctor in Tauranga.
“… the still birth rate has rocketed. Usually there are 114 still births per year for the entire country but in just two weeks Hastings alone had 9 still births in vaccinated mothers who were following your advice to get the vaccine. You are responsible for the death of those babies. You have blood on your hands. I suppose you are also in denial regarding the deaths of teenagers.
We have 2 siblings dead after the vaxathon in Christchurch – a girl aged 15 and a boy aged 17. Plus a 17 year old boy in Northland and a 13 year old in the South Island – both dead the day after their vaccination -and a 14 year old boy in South Auckland who died 2 hours after his vaccination. Also the 17 year old girl whose death should have stopped the roll out but was instead blamed, prior to any autopsy report, on the pill – which she had been prescribed some time prior so therefore the GP would have checked for clotting risk factors at that point in time.
I know a lot more about this case then you do as I know close family friends. I am also aware that the government has asked families involved with severe adverse reactions and deaths to sign waivers that come with financial settlements. This blatant attempt to further cover up vaccine failures is abhorrent, as is the gagging of the media at the cost of millions of dollars of tax payer money.
Why don’t you speak up against this propaganda ? Why do you sit quietly and do nothing while the government promotes a drug that should never have passed Medsafe? And to add insult to injury, in promoting the vaccine you have violated the Nuremberg Code in its entirety. You might like to look that up and familiarise yourself with your offences. You are all guilty of crimes against humanity. And if you think I am exaggerating, you are wrong.
I have all of your names and I have forwarded them – except for Dr Goodman, who I know is in her heart a very decent person – along with the names of Dr Bryan Betty and Dr Samantha Murton and the NZ board of the RANZCOG, to Dr Reiner Fuelmich. Dr Fuelmich is an international trial lawyer who has successfully sued large fraudulent corporations eg Volkswagen and Deutsche Bank. His worldwide network of lawyers has listened to over a hundred experts from every field of science and medicine relating to the current PCR / Covid fraud. In due course he intends to put a Nuremberg 2 trial through the International Criminal Court.
Finally, I do not wish to be associated with a scientifically ignorant organisation that has lost its ability to practice evidence based medicine, has banned open debate, censors its doctors, allows politicians to decide how best to treat patients, has abandoned the principal of informed consent and, worst of all, has broken its promise to first do no harm. I hold you in the utmost contempt as do many New Zealanders. I shall see you on the other side of history. My conscience will be clear but may God have mercy on you”.
Alanna Ratna, Retired GP, Tauranga
Article written here
Waikanae Watch
‘NZ Medical Council has blood on their hands’
Extract from a letter sent to the NZ Medical Council from a retired Doctor in Tauranga. “… the still birth rate has rocketed. Usually there are 114 still births per year for the entire …
t.me/FrontlineWorkersSpeakOut
/552
‘We have 2 dead siblings . . .’
I am wary of reports about rare deaths occurring more than once in a single family.
Jeremy Vine ludicrously presented us with someone who had three Covid deaths within her ‘close family’, a statistical nonsense.
However, Hugotalks.com has a video bluntly titled 2,620 Dead Babies. It is on the Odessy platform which I have no idea how to link to (also on brandnewtube and bitchute if you can find them).
He does not place more contentious material on YouTube for obvious reasons.
I think being wary about any anecdotal unproven reports is always wise.
However the “siblings” thing itself doesn’t ring alarm bells for me.
In fact I think this should be called out more often as a risk factor – if your sibling has had a strong adverse reaction, the chances you will too are far higher than the average.
The reaction to these “vaccines” will be governed to a large extent by your genes, and (to state the obvious) your sibling is fairly likely to have similar genes.
In July 2020 the Radboud University in Nijmegen discovered that there was a genetic defect in the TLR7 gene in some cases of covid. The researchers already suspected that there could be a genetic element in some cases. They studied the case of 2 brothers in the first wave who both ended up in ICU on ventilators. If I remember correctly they were 26 and 29, under 30 in any event. 1 died. A while after that 2 more brothers under 35 ended up in ICU. The researchers found defects in that particular gene in all 4 patients (the defects were the same in the siblings, but different defects between the different sets of siblings).
Apparently TLR7 plays a role in detecting the virus and activating the immune system.
I have long though that in younger people with no underlying conditions that genetics might play a role and in some cases it would appear they do.
Apparently there is also a problem with the MTFHR gene and the vaccine so that those with mutations in that gene would be advised not to have it.
VERY few Gp’s would even be aware of the MTFHR gene or its mutations so wouldn’t be well placed to advise whether some one should be jabbed or exempted for that reason, thus exposing a massive weakness in the “one size fits all” jabbing policy being adopted worldwide.
Doesn’t it also call into question this idea of forcing families to isolate together when one person tests positive? Surely, it would be better for them to keep well away!
Covid will get the people who it’s going to get eventually.
That is why once we had spent two weeks ‘flattening the curve’ to save the NHS from being immediately overwhelmed every single measure taken to curb Covid has been utterly pointless unless individuals want to spend the rest of their lives as an isolated hermit on the top of a rock pinnacle.
No, no, no, Lord Sumption! It’s neither panic, nor folly, nor fright, nor illogic that moves the politicians. It is totalitarian control: an evil lust for power and blood.
Yes, it’s about total control and depopulation, not much else.
We have politicians in this country that are capable of saying ‘not only women have cervixes’. I have no problem whatsoever believing that we are living in a time of mass delusion and panic.
Does this play into the hands of Tony Blair type creatures who just can’t wait for a new world order of global government to be ushered in? Absolutely. But it isn’t a conspiracy. Doesn’t matter though. Still evil.
As I said at TU, if this BJ can now legitimaty considered to be the lesser evil, our societies are proven to be f*cked.
Politicians the world over acting in lock step, governments and media employing the identical language, world health bodies simultaneously altering scientific definitions (case, infection, herd immunity, vaccine, safe and effective), universal suppression of effective early treatments, universal adoption of counterproductive measures, universal vaccine mandates and passports…. Come on! You can’t see this has been planned?
It’s international groupthink
A few dozen or hundred might tick that way and be in charge, or not.
Many tens of thousands are just useful, corrupted, biased, ideological idiots, now trying to achieve (misunderstood) herd immunity by ‘vaccination’ only.
They should of course be sent to a Gulag for that stupidity, zeal and neglect of treatments instead alone and already.
The really frightening, and as a German with prior interest and knowledge of mass psychology I may say still surprising, or rather shocking, thing is, that the vast majority of the public went and goes along with the dictates and now outright hatred.
And that everywhere.
From the reddit group
https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSceptics/comments/qz96gf/todays_comments_20211122/
Peter McCullough on Telegram:
Pushback Against Unnecessary, Ill-Advised, and Unlawful Mandates of Investigational Vaccines
Since the wave of public and private entity COVID-19 vaccine mandates this summer, there has been progressively stiffer resistance from a public that knows the mandates are unethical, immoral, and from a civil perspective—illegal. Because none of the COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, JNJ) are FDA approved or commercially sold by vaccine manufacturers to the public, Americans know the consent forms indicate vaccination can only be voluntary and that the vaccine products do not have proven safety or efficacy.
Thus, the consent forms by themselves are a clear indicator that no entity can “mandate” participation in a clinical investigation or research. Rates of COVID-19 vaccination plummeted in April of 2021 when word got out that Americans were dying and becoming injured after the injection in large numbers. Analyses from Rose and McLachlan using the CDC VAERS system indicated that 50% of the deaths occurred within 48 hours, 80% within a week, and 86% of the time, there was no other explanation other than the vaccine must have triggered the death.
From that point forward, there was a series of perverted efforts to seduce vaccination, including free donuts, beer, million-dollar raffles, college scholarships, and most recently, a free fling in a European brothel. But sadly, for the purveyors of vaccines, reasonable people felt no tasty donut or even a quickie was worth their life at the end of a needle loaded with mRNA or adenoviral DNA coding for the Wuhan Spike protein.
The vaccine stakeholders became impatient over the summer as vaccine hesitancy appropriately grew with reports of vaccine failures in large numbers of patients resulting in hospitalization and death and clear signals that the vaccines lost their protection after a short six months.The result of these events was vaccine mandates.
Students bore the brunt of the first wave of mandates after a few semesters of online classes; students were ready to return to campus but not at the risk of organ system injury or worse after unnecessary COVID-19 vaccination.There was pushback and even embarrassing outbreaks of COVID-19 among vaccinated students at Duke University that reminded the public again that the vaccines don’t work well enough to mandate.
But the continued coercion picked up steam with employment. At first, they came from private companies such as health systems which had profited richly from COVID-19 hospitalizations over 2020 and 2021. There were no major US hospital outbreaks of COVID-19 due to good airflow standards and the use of reasonable contagion control methods. Yet, health systems proudly announced COVID-19 vaccine mandates and had no concerns about firing the same workers who risked their lives as frontline workers caring for patients with COVID-19, many of whom who could not benefit from a vaccine since they were naturally immune after COVID-19 recovery.
Finally, with President Biden, OSHA, an entire wave of mandates came together that indeed pleased the vaccine stakeholders thirsting to achieve their lofty goal of “a needle in every arm” no matter how unwanted, unsafe, or ineffective the vaccines had become. The COVID-19 public vaccine program had become the epitome of forcing a failure on failure to its complete end on a public who had no desire to have repeated injections that were clearly not up to acceptable standards. Thus court filings, appeals, overturns, more filings have challenged a legal system that has become vaccine-corrupt under its own pressures to become vaccinated. With the suspension of jury trials, a hearing before a group of peers is no longer part of our legal process, and as a result, “fairness” has been lost.
On this week’s Report, we will update the status of vaccine mandates and hear from pediatrician Steve Kebe, MD, who weighs in on COVID-19 in children and the dangers of ill-advised vaccination of this group, which is now largely immune, not proven to be any public health threat, and in whom the risks far outweigh the benefits of participating in vaccine research.
Join https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/13.1.0/svg/1f449.svg https://t.me/PeterMcCullough
FFS – these excellent messages need to get directly to the point – fast
just watching a film called 7500 on prime – yes i know..
a hijacked plane, the pilot, secure in the cockpit, tells the passengers that the two hijackers have no guns and only glass – yet the passengers sit wobbling like jelly inactive in their seats…
its so now…. i recommend the film, the desire to live requires,
Sumption is such a high-profile figure, so this is great (but sad that he still seems to be deluded about the ‘vaccines’).
It’s a shame he fell behind on the vaccine science.
He’s utterly brilliant and has contributed a lot to our side of the argument very eloquently over the course of the pandemic. However his misplaced belief in high vaccine efficacy hamstrings him to a large extent when it comes to the current debate.
See my comment below. He isn’t a scientist and the government has authorized its use. He is arguing whether it’s ever okay to demand compliance with a medical procedure period. That is the issue because it will arise in the future on another disease and another treatment.
Sure, but he makes statements like this that are flat out false, or at least warrant a heavy disclaimer:
What are the death outcomes for vaccinated vs unvaccinated at the two year mark? And if he can’t answer this, why make the claim so boldly?
Is it justifiable to spread this potential misinformation with the justification that “well, it wouldn’t have been printed otherwise, and it was worth it to get the rest printed”? In my view we’re on dodgy ground here, though I do of course appreciate the point you’re highlighting.
Since when did taking experimental drugs that have no long-term safety record become “wise”?
I’m with you. I don’t see the evidence that they are “highly effective at preventing serious illness and death.” The evidence I see is that all the other expert pronouncements were bunk … which leads me to conclude the comments they are still making are probably bunk too.
I asked here yesterday if the recent spike in cases from supervaxxed Gibraltar had produced much in the way of Covid deaths.
Someone used a reliable source (Worldmetre?) to respond, 1 in August.
As Robert Mone stated and Mike Yeadon agreed with: if you accept such mandatory vaccination, you might as well accept and expect forced castration.
Hear! Hear! I can’t read the whole piece since I’m not a subscriber, but I like what I could read.
Of course, he’s outnumbered at least 2 to 1. The mob rules and the sheeple are still terrified and clamoring for protection from their shepherds.
If Orwell has any living grandchildren, I want to buy them a pint and thank them for their granddad’s clairvoyance. Not that his warning did any good, but he WAS right.
Just hit the “escape” key repeatedly as the page loads, you should then be able to read it all
Not any biological ones.
The absence of moral scruple in pursuit of what is thought to be a public good, is the first symptom of totalitarianism. The reduction of human beings to mere instruments of state policy is the next.
This is exactly why we are protesting – we are not protesting against vaccinations which should be down to the individual – a free choice – but we are protesting because we fear where this is all heading – lockdowns for the unvaccinated, no jobs for the unvaccinated, no access to shops, restauranst and theatres etc and now mandatory vaccinations – state sanctioned mandatory medical procedures that cannot be reversed … this is tyranny – so a better description for the protests would be anti-totalitarian.
No matter if you are vaccinated or unvaccinated … you should be very afraid at what we are witnessing in Europe – we are witnessing a pandemic of tyrannical governments spreading across Europe once again.
Supremacy of inalienable individual rights, above all bodily autonomy (therefore incl. no masks, no such invasive tests), by definition meaning zero discrimination for doing so.
Pretty simple.
Sadly, too simple for the utilitarian monsters to understand, let alone accept. Ever.
….and calls the vaccines a racing success and those that refuse them selfish.
We can do better.
Hate to say it but he’s twin for Rowley Birkin
The people I know who have taken the vaccine have taken it either so that they can travel or because they were too cowardly or ignorant to disobey the government.
I didn’t take it because I did my research on the virus and the vaccines, and because I want to be alive to see my two young children (and who knows how many other children in my family) reach adulthood.
Who are the selfish ones?
He’s part of the problem. Like every other establishment stooge.
And the exact reason most of vaccinated people are vile against unvaccinated because now when their coercion start to be more and more clear they would be upset if they have to admit their gullibility. So they want to punish the unvaccinated.
And exactly the same logic why governments can’t accept vaccine failure. If they would vaccinated mass would turn against them. So at the moment unvaccinated are the perfect target.
Joe Rogan said his doctor, Pierre Kory, is part of a group that has used Ivermectin to quietly treat 200 Members of U.S. Congress for COVID19. Dr Simone Gold, from America’s Frontline Doctors, told that she has prescribed treatments for Congress. She still believes in her oath, but she is vocal saying she has been contacted by many in DC. Can you believe these demons? Healing for them are OK but not for us. Get your Ivermectin while you still can! https://ivmpharmacy.com
Well, what do you expect? Rules for us but not for them is the order of the day.
“Perhaps the ugliest feature of the crisis is the politicians’ habit of blaming others for the bankruptcy of their own policies.”
Well said. Our so-called leaders have dug themselves a very deep hole; if they stop digging now, it’s The Emperor’s New Clothes, covid edition.
Pride demands they keep going.
(Off topic, but that Sumption hair could do with a good brush…)
That’s genetic now with the English though: the ‘wrong kind of leaves syndrome’.
This is a new comment by an Austrian mainstream doctor in an Austrian MSM.
https://www.diepresse.com/6062872/osterreichs-coronamanagement-ein-totalversagen
Politicians and public health officials have blown it, not the unvaxxed.
Treatments should have been investigated, administered and promoted much more instead of going all-in on vaccines, let alone now confirmed to be leaky ones.
The vaxx makes sense for some, but not for the majority of people.
The mandate and the societal destruction is a/the huge catastrophe.
The point of my posting this here, which Lord Sumption describes well “We are witnessing the ultimate folly of frightened politicians who cannot accept that they are impotent in the face of some natural phenomena.” but doesn’t seem to fully understand is: politicians and health officials are totally and solely pot-committed to achieving herd immunity via ever higher vaxx rates only.
That ‘strategy’ is now blowing up in their faces, due to the ‘vaccines’ underperforming, righteously being seen more critical by many efficiency, necessity and side effects-wise, variants created by the misguided mass vaccination with higher Rs, and now negative VE, resulting necessarily in more rather than fewer cases- see Bartram for explanation and what it means.
The second worst point is that business leaders, unions and the media are so complicit in this.
The by far worst one though is, that the vast majority of the vaccinated people have now completely lost their moral compass and are already and about to prove Orwell, Lebon and Voltaire&co right again.
Yeah, no, just another stooge in the political theatre, zero credibility from a supporter of war crimes! Sorry, it just doesn’t cut it, ma Lord.
To think you made me waste valuable time tapping the escape key for this erroneous drivel.
Sorry Sumption, but your attitude to those who concerned about this vaccine or object to it for religious or moral reasons is disgusting. You are part of the problem, eff off.
Erm… it’s never been about your health. If only the sheep listened at the start!
Thanks, Lord. Who came first, the DS chicken or the establishment egg?
8/10 from me. Shame he had to mis-speak about the safety of the jabs and take the usual pop at those who don’t want to participate in a coerced, mass medical experiment …. as many pointed out in the comments, including me.
Never mind Europe, just look at Wales. Comrade Drakeford has kept the citizens there muzzled with mandatory face masks, introduced vaccine passports to large events and now cinemas and theatres. What next? His creeping authoritarianism will see passports introduced in pubs, and cafés next and then shops. Mark my words, this hard left Labour government will rule by diktat over a two tier system where, if you don’t have a passport, you can’t go anywhere.
The Welsh have accepted this, so presumably most of them like Drakeford and his minions. The Indians seemed more than happy to have Drakeford bop along at their Diwali Disco, without a face mask and endangering their lives – how many of those have now ‘tested positive’?
Perhaps this will just go on and on until the Vaxx Pass is really mandated for everything, it is beginning to look like this is what people really want.
It’s a pity the intelligent are being dragged down by the thickies, but it’s a ‘Democracy’, and when 80% of the population are of the ‘thinking-is-hard’ variety, what do you expect?
Same in Northern Ireland Jack. The health minister subscribes to some kind of strange belief, not supported by any science I have read, that this would be all over if only people would wear a face mask 100% of the time and if the unvaccinated are on almost permanent house arrest (but still able to access public services
It seems to me that we should stop calling these injections vaccines and start calling them what they really are. President Trump called them GENE THERAPIES. Gene therapies change RNA which means they make you very sick and even kill you. This socialist/communist World Order know exactly what they are doing and as all controlling regimes do, they have changed the language to give people the impression that their Governments are looking after them.
If people in the media spotlight started to talk about genocidal gene therapies there would be an immediate recognition of the real agenda. This would reunite the citizens of the world and the Great Reset would stop in its tracks.
However, our voices in the frontline seem to be too scared to face the real truth and speak the real language.
here’s a thought:-
combine the recent decision of the NYC Rabbinical Court with Sumption’s opinion of people who choose to remain “unvaccinated”.
could it be said that such an opinion might conceivably be seen as somehow “anti-semitic”?
Lord Sumption points out that restrictions only kick the can further down the road. Before the UK’s first lockdown SAGE said much the same thing except that they argued lockdowns were necessary to stop the NHS from being “overwhelmed”. But how effective have these measures been in achieving even that limited goal? Not very in my view. Covid has surged and dropped back again without human intervention. If we understood its cycle better we would be better equipped to manage the surges. What is it that prevents the modern politician and fringe scientists ftom being able to think out of the box?
Never mind trying to understand its surges, if the doctors offering the treatments which WORK SUCCESSFULLY (see Peter McCullough’s letter above) were not supressed, threatened and victimised, then covid WOULD become endemic and NONE of the draconian restrictions and mandates subverting bodily autonomy would even be required never mind justified.
Whoever downticked you Milo must be from the planet Zog.
He loves all this. He doesn’t counter argue against it just pointing things out.
He’s all for vaxx passes for travel fully knowing where they would lead.
Also he pushes the vaxx narrative. Like other places haven’t already shown by letting the young and strong get on with it and gain natural immunity leading to better protection for others and not wreck the economy.
The simple fact they keep repeating processes that didn’t work before just shows you they are having fun and know we, collectively, won’t make a fuss.
All this leads to programmable money.
“frightened politicians who cannot accept that they are impotent in the face of some natural phenomena”. How true. And when frightened, as a rabbit in car headlights, logic goes out of the window. The moral dimension that Lord Sumtion is actually maintained by cool rational logic, as he identified, that humans need to be social.
Unfortunately DS users who see anything positive in having this person as ‘an ally’ are deluded, clearly he is still an establishment figure and fatally tainted if he sees merit in either the ‘vax’ or the ‘vaxpass’. That will remain my opinion so please don’t try to point out why I am wrong as I simply won’t change my view.
Lord Sumption, I hope you have access to Steve Kirsch’s daily newspaper, The Hart Group’s regular updates, Robert Kennedy’s daily newsletter and Del Bigtree’s the Highwire on Thursday evenings 7pm UK time. So many others as well, bringing truth, honesty, integrity and decorum to the Covid table.