In recent days, The Guardian has been on the warpath against the Garrick – one of the last remaining London gentlemen’s clubs that refuses to change its men-only membership policy. The newspaper’s coverage has already induced several prominent members to resign – though not before they tried to salvage their membership with the half-baked excuse that they wanted to reform the club from within.
This author can’t see anything wrong with the Garrick’s membership policy. In fact, it’s a positive good that men-only clubs exist. After all, the sexes are not indistinguishable and the dynamics of mixed-sex groups tend to differ from those of single-sex groups. Yes, it can be enjoyable to fraternise with men and women together. But it’s also pleasant to spend time in an all-male environment.
The Garrick’s critics, however, aren’t convinced. They make two main arguments against the club’s “antediluvian” membership policy (to quote former Garrick-member and aspiring gender activist Simon Case).
The first is that it’s unfair, unequal and downright non-inclusive for the club to bar women from membership. This is the weaker of the two arguments. Why? Well, if it’s “unfair” for the Garrick to bar women, then pretty much all single-sex associations have to go. That includes sports teams, lesbian bars and mosques (which are often segregated by sex). Some anti-Garrick campaigners might welcome this change, but many would not.
What’s more, even if the club did start admitting women, it’s membership policy would still be deeply “unfair”. Let’s be frank: 99.9% of the population are ineligible by virtue of being too poor and socially irrelevant. The quibble is over whether the female part of the remaining 0.1% should get to join. A move to allow women members would not be some grand victory for “equality” and “inclusiveness”, since the overwhelming majority of women (and men) would still be excluded.
Note that “0.1%” is surely generous on my part. The Garrick’s current roster has around 1,500 names – which amounts to just 0.002% of the population. And there’s apparently a ten year waiting list for new members. Whether a handful of high-powered women should get to join an ultra-exclusive dinner club is hardly the burning civil rights issue of our time.
The second anti-Garrick argument is slightly more compelling: women in professions like law and politics are disadvantaged with respect to their male peers, since they can’t mingle with senior judges and cabinet ministers in the Garrick’s hallowed halls. As the nominally Conservative MP Caroline Nokes opined, “It’s wrong in today’s society to have places that are still so pivotal to the establishment that exclude 51% of the population”.
There are several objections to this argument. In the words of one anonymous current member, the club is “very much not a networking venue”, with business meetings being specifically banned. While I’m sure the occasional favour gets exchanged across the dinner table, that’s explicitly not what the club is for.
Moreover, women aren’t actually barred from attending the Garrick but merely from becoming members. So the extent of their supposed disadvantage is rather limited (though they do have to be formally invited, which I suppose could be prohibitive for some).
Put all that to one side. There’s a stronger objection to the argument outlined above: The Guardian’s own reporting clearly demonstrates the club is not “pivotal” to any single profession let alone the entire establishment. Going by the numbers given here, Garrick members comprise: 8% of Supreme Court judges; 14% of Court of Appeal judges; 6% of High Court judges; 7% of KCs; and just 1.5% of MPs. The percentage of Lords who are members can’t be computed as the article simply refers to “dozens”. There are 792 Lords in total.
In other words, 86–94% of senior lawyers are not members and 98.5% of MPs are not members. To insist the fate of the nation is being decided at 15 Garrick Street is preposterous.
If membership were limited to senior male lawyers, say, and a large percentage of them were members, the argument that female lawyers are at a disadvantage might have some merit. But this plainly isn’t the case: the overwhelming majority of senior male lawyers are not members. Any professional advantage conferred by membership is enjoyed only by the few dozen men who happen to have been elected.
Now, you can claim it’s unfair that those specific men get to consort with one another at a swanky venue in Covent Garden, but that’s entirely different from claiming that women face a disadvantage compared to men. And then you’re just objecting to the fact of life that some people are more connected than others.
The Garrick isn’t some public body that is obligated to elect anyone who’s sufficiently “important” regardless of their personal characteristics. It’s a private members’ club whose purpose is to provide those members with merriment. And if maintaining the club’s long-standing traditions is what best achieves that purpose in the eyes of members, then it should keep on keeping on. The arguments against the Garrick don’t stack up.
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.
Here’s the argument for the virus ‘not existing’…
https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
Dr Tom Cowan on the subject…
https://www.peteyvid.com/dr-thomas-cowan-explains-the-difference-of-a-virus-653005638.php
I have always been clear in my mind that PCR testing at high cycle thresholds is a waste of time. The other problem I would point out is that due to the pressures to ramp up the number of daily tests performed, i’m not convinced that protocols where always followed either at testing centres or diagnostic labs.
Conducting a highly sensitive test on someone leaning out of a car window, by a barely trained student in a car park, then thrown in boxes in a shipping container, to be picked up by a courier and chucked in the back of a van, delivered to a lab that was running at 200% intended capacity, by trainees working 12 hour shifts, under pressure to hit targets – doesn’t exactly strike me as a recipe for sound clinical control.
Sound clinical control is not what they’re after. Numbers to ramp up the fear to stop folk from using their critical thinking skills & just use the primitive brain, the amygdala, to make an emotional decision based on fear. The fear & primitive brain thinking is what got the bioweapon injections into so many arms. They’re trying to ramp up the fear again for the booster bioweapon injections currently.
I concur!
PCR is pretty much useless as a diagnostic tool, thanks to high thresholds all it proves is the presence of a molecule, that the immune system may or may not have dealt with. Given that the immune system is not a protective bubble this makes PCR a pretty hopeless tool without reference to symptoms consistent with illness. This was of course all known by the con artists profiteering from convid, so the nonsense of asymptomatic respiratory disease was pushed by the fear mongering MSM. Of course if you test positive AND have severe symptoms you have COVID, if not you dont.
The Author is a scientist (I guess). I’m a medic. Unfortunately the scientists don’t understand a simple fact and that is Medicine is 50% science and 50% human Psychology. That’s why medicine, unlike the other sciences, has the bizarre Placebo effect and Psychosomatic illness and symptoms.
The mistake being made by all is to assume that Covid is from the scientific side of medicine when it actually, I believe, belongs firmly within the human psychology side of medicine.
It’s not a ‘new’ virus because, despite PCR, it is not an illness that exists in reality.
Yes, the clever PCR can detect some genetic sequence but that, by no means, makes it a physical virus its detecting.
Let someone take a PCR test, tell them they have a deadly virus in them, tell them what the symptoms are and, guess what?. They start to exhibit those symptoms! That’s the psychosomatic bit.
“but what if they’ve got a physical symptom, like a high temperature?’ That’s can be explained by misdiagnosis of an existing illness (usually a cold) which is then distorted by the mind (aided by PCR) to confirm that it is a ‘different’ illness. Funnily enough, even though the symptoms are identical, it always seems to be “way worse” than a cold or the “worst thing ever”.
The only symptom different is the loss of taste and smell but this is actually a common symptom of a cold and is a subjective symptom, it depends upon what someone tells us, it’s not observable and can’t be tested for. It’s meaningless in diagnosis.
What the PCR test has achieved is activate another far, far deadlier illness to humans and that’s Mass Psychosis.
That illness killed 200,000 in the Medieval Witch trials and, arguably, the extermination of 6 million Jews in WW2.
It’s a collective belief in a delusion or a group insanity that has its basis in irrational fear.
A microcosm of what happened with Covid can be seen in the 2006 Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Centre Whooping Cough outbreak. That was a mini medical hysteria over what turned out to be an imaginary illness. It was one of the earliest incidences where PCR was used to confirm the diagnosis and that PCR testing turned out to be….. 0% accurate.
It’s not a ‘new’ virus, it’s a very, very old human illness.
Covid does exist, but unfortunately, it only exists in our minds.
and then there’s Dr Andrew Kaufman showing how the codes being tested for can be sourced through BLAST to match a pantload of other bodily sources…
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MEzC8eu1W3fj/
The primers are quite short, so indeed on their own they will match any number of other sequences, that is trivially true. However PCR uses two primers, a forward and a reverse, and it will only exponentially amplify a sequence whose ends match both, which those other instances will not. There is a tendency in some quarters to quote Andrew Kaufman the way conformist medics quote the MHRA and the CDC, as an infallible authority whose word alone is sufficient to make something true, but here he just makes it look like he doesn’t understand PCR.
Not personally saying Kaufman is an infallible authority…just pointing out alternative viewpoints. Also, it’s not necessarily ‘the ends’ of sequences that are being matched by primer pairs either. Who does understand PCR in regards to it’s present dubious application? There’s serious challenge to it’s use as a diagnostic tool for ‘virology’ from Kary Mullis himself all the way to …
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346483715_External_peer_review_of_the_RTPCR_test_to_detect_SARS-CoV-2_reveals_10_major_scientific_flaws_at_the_molecular_and_methodological_level_consequences_for_false_positive_results
Toxicology could be a good be better approach to all these mysteries in terms of that potentially exosomes originating from a universal toxin are being detected and being mistaken for viral material.
https://exosome-rna.com/is-covid-19-virus-an-exosome/
If the RNA content of an EV(exosome) induced from a known toxin has been sequenced, you don’t need to actually have an ‘external’ viral source…everybody is simultaneously producing them as we have been since forever…and the toxin might be emf’s whether natural or man-made. Electrosensitivity is an individual and highly variable human quality that would preclude illness or simply detox as exosomes are purported to be the harbingers of anyways. Protein synthesis is a subtle and sensitive chain of electron transfer between large molecules based on the evolution/creation of the biological system within the terrestrial emf.
PCR can be a great diagnostic tool when used on symptomatic people, particularly for differential diagnosis. For example it can tell you which strain of TB you have so that doctors won’t waste time with antibiotics that the strain is resistant to, with a result in about an hour rather than the several days which a lab culture would take. But even then, it would be normal to diagnose TB with a chest X-ray first. Using PCR as an initial screen, particularly on asymptomatic people, is certainly much more dodgy because the technique is so sensitive.
So the test is reliable when used in an appropriate way, is conducted correctly at all stages and is interpreted intelligently.
It is a shame about the last couple of years.
It could be argued that the only time a PCR could be justified would be if the person had symptoms and the sample was run with a cut off point ( I think 24 Cts is the sweet spot for detecting infection ) so that it wasn’t picking up meaningless fragments of RNA that the body had cleared. Also culturing the samples in a lab would provide further confirmation, but there’s bound to be cost and time constraints with doing that en masse.
But the counter argument for that approach, now that we are in Omicron times, is that a person could be just as symptomatic, if not more severely so, with one of the other 199 viruses floating around at this time of year, so what exactly is to be gained from singling out this one specific, now very inconsequential and less dangerous to everyone, virus? It is no longer a threat no matter how much disproportionate attention is paid to it. People need to move on.
It’s interesting when you start inserting pcr test primers from (for example) here…
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsinfecdis.0c00464
into here…
https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PAGE_TYPE=BlastSearch&BLAST_SPEC=OGP__9606__9558&LINK_LOC=blasthome
“In 2020, public health bureaucrats decided it would be more fun to exterminate a virus, regardless of what this project meant for anybody’s health.”
Which basically means we are back to cock-up theory. Every national public health body in the Western world abandoned years of learning for a bit of jolly experimental covid elimination.
I have never bought this theory and without concrete evidence I never will.
In other words this has nothing to do with the WEF and the Davos Deviants although suspiciously three African presidents died (murdered more like) for failing to get with the programme.
The rest of the article has some valid points but as Mogs has posted earlier it is time to move on from the start of their Reset and focus on the next set of horrors waiting to be unleashed eg CBDC, Social Credit and downright poverty as in cold and hunger and no health service.
It’s not just the deliberate manipulation via high CTs, or lower ones but for the vaxxed only as once ridiculously put in place in the USA, it is the total lack of standardization with regard to CTs, target gene snippets, solutions used, confirmation cycle yes/no etc., which always was and still is the main problem with their ab-use.
For individuals, that means that there was and still is a huge lottery-like element when submitting to one.
With the submitting being an illegal assault on ones bodily autonomy in any case anyway.
An interesting article but I think the evidence for this being about virus elimination is shaky. It might have been about that for some, at some stage, and it’s a good story, but I don’t buy it. It’s just too far fetched. Too many people knew it was insanity. We will probably never know all of everyone’s reasons and they may not know all of them themselves but to ascribe anything constructive or noble to what was done is far too generous.
A blast rom the past:
At Dartmouth, when the first suspect pertussis cases emerged and the P.C.R. test showed
pertussis, doctors believed it. The results seem completely consistent with the patients’
symptoms.
https://www.bleadon.org.uk/media/other/24400/FaithinQuickTestLeadstoEpidemicThatWasnt-TheNewYorkTimes.pdf
What about finally getting some basics right?
Assuming a certain property P is randomly and statically distributed among the members of a population X, the averaged outcomes of a testing a series of random selected subgroups of X for P will eventually converge to the true relative frequency of property P among members of population X. As Sars-CoV2 infections (or those of any other communicable pathogen) are neither randomly nor statically distributed among the members of the examined population, a series of tests for this propery conducted on random subsets of the population will yield a meaningless series of random numbers (meaningless and random in this respect).
Simple, contrived example showing this: Let’s assume all people in London are carrying Sars-CoV2 RNA and no people in Manchester do that. Randomly selecting a group of people from both London and Manchester for PCR testing will thus not communicate anything about the rate of Sars-CoV2 infections in the combined population of London and Manchester but will instead be the random rate of Londoners in the randomly selected group.
Correction of the example: This should have been will not communicate anything about the rate of infection in the population of Manchester.
Here’s a gentleman with a positive PCR test. The strain of Coronavirus it detected, we usually know as the “common cold”. However, as far as the NHS and the government were concerned, he had Covid-19.
An interesting article, but with not enough weight given to the deliberately over-inflated cycle count that was used by Governments everywhere. We know that a high cycle count will result in finding fragments of the thing you’re looking for, but what we don’t know is the origin of that thing you’ve found, or it’s relevance with respect a pandemic. I could have some dead virus stuck up my nose somewhere that’s never been anywhere else other than my nose i.e. it’s a meaningless finding. We have millions of these meaningless findings, pretend that they are meaningful, and, hey presto, we have a ‘pandemic’ and a way to control society. It’s the high cycle count that allowed governments control, and is one of many major indicators that it wasn’t all some, unfortunate, unplanned, global mistake.
The claim in the article is that the PCR tests were good at detecting the SARS 1 or SARS 2 virus or traces of it.
Two questions that I would hope the author might answer:
Perhaps dumb questions from a neophyte, but if this is all about educating the public, then perhaps the author or someone who knows could indulge me.
I think the authors of the plandemic wanted something like a virus economy, for which a moving statistic – the prevalence of an alleged pathogen – was needed. That’s what the disgusting criminal Drosten gave us – a genetic sequence that exists in the human population, circulating constantly amongst the population, that could be tracked by authorities as though it were important. Eugyppius is right that the scam wouldn’t work if it was entirely fictional; the labs operating the PCR tests, the health services, and government officials are not in on the scam. Rather, the foundational notions of the covid-19 exercise are the lie – that the disease is dangerous enough to be worth tracking or taking unusual measures to mitigate. We see the sane thing happening with ‘Climate Change’ where the same forces wish to create a climate economy where changes in temperature can somehow be tracked to determine the level of threat and ultimately curtail our freedoms. They’re just successful capitalists whose fortunes have been decided on the graphs of stock exchanges; it’s all they know.
“Critics of PCR Have three fundamental complaints…..”
Actually mine isn’t any of those..it’s 4…that a test that detected various iffy ‘results’, that then led to being told there was no treatment…(so what’s the point?)…that mainly led to people in Government making shed loads of money both for themselves and their cronies…..
the author is engaging in intellectual sophistry. the author fails to understand we’re dealing with a worldwide crime scene. the crime is a genocidal assault against humanity, predicated on egregious data frauds. two areas of science are central to these data frauds – ‘covid’ science and ‘climate’ science. data falsification degrades the quality of many attempts at rational conversation about so-called ‘covid’. this accords with Lord Denning’s 1956 judgement that fraud vitiates everything it touches. the author’s motives in wanting to rehabilitate use of a diagnostic test which is central to a genocidal agenda are at best confused.
I agree..there is no ‘good’ here, no matter how you twist it….