• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

Why ‘the Science’ Doesn’t Dictate That You Should Vote For Kamala Harris

by Toby Young
19 September 2024 12:59 PM

In my Spectator column this week, I’ve taken issue with the editorial in the latest issue of Scientific American urging its readers to vote for Kamala Harris. This is how it begins:

The latest issue of Scientific American, a popular science monthly published by Springer Nature, contains an editorial endorsing Kamala Harris. She is the candidate that anyone who cares about science should vote for, apparently. Her positions on issues such as “the climate crisis”, “public health” and “reproductive rights” are “lit by rationality” and based on “reality”, “science” and “solid evidence”, while her opponent “rejects evidence” in favour of “nonsensical conspiracy fantasies”.

On the face of it, there’s something a bit odd about a storied science magazine getting embroiled in the grubby world of politics. Indeed, the editorial acknowledges how unusual this is, suggesting that’s all the more reason we should take the recommendation seriously. The editors have descended from Mount Olympus because the fate of America – nay, the world – is at stake: “That is why, for only the second time in our magazine’s 179-year history, the editors of Scientific American are endorsing a candidate for president.” True, the previous occasion was only four years ago when it endorsed Joe Biden, but the editors have a point. It is rather unorthodox.

So how can science tell us how to vote? My admittedly primitive understanding of the history of science is that it only really began to transform our understanding of the world when a firm distinction emerged between fact and value – between descriptive propositions, which depict the world as it is, and prescriptive ones, which tell us how it ought to be. That is, the Scientific Revolution occurred when students of nature eschewed politics and religion and embraced reason and empiricism. In that context, the editors of Scientific American, in seeking to muddy those waters again, seem to want to return to an era in which the evidence of our senses – “reality”, as they put it – tells us how to behave. In defiance of the naturalistic fallacy, they are smashing the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’ back together.

Worth reading in full.

Tags: Donald TrumpKamala HarrisScientific AmericanThe Scientific Revolution

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

Free Speech Group Kicked Out of Brighton Pub After Saying Children Shouldn’t Be Taught Trans Ideology

Next Post

David Lammy Sparks Diplomatic Row With Blog Post Calling Ethnic Cleansing a “Liberation”

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

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.

18 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
NeilofWatford
NeilofWatford
3 years ago

‘Judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Isaiah 59.14

28
-1
TheyLiveAndWeLockdown
TheyLiveAndWeLockdown
3 years ago
Reply to  NeilofWatford

Yes, it’s backward Suppression was the goal, everything else is just an excuse.

9
0
jingleballix
jingleballix
3 years ago

The government utilised the Public Health Act 1984 as the basis of its ability to respond.

The powers it had were set down simply in S.45C.

There was a rider though – S.45D imposed an obligation for the government’s measures to be ‘PROPORTIONATE’ to what they were aiming to achieve.

This joke of a report never once acknowledges this legal obligation – never mind examine whether or not the government’s response was proportionate.

p.s.

Noah – your recent Substack article on Japan refers. I think that you only briefly touch upon the issue of previously acquired natural immunity.

Japan, HK, Macau, Taiwan and many SE Asian countries – all on China’s doorstep – saw very, very few C-19 deaths in 2020……..similarly Australia and NZ.

The only explanation is prior immunity acquired after 2003.

You’ll note too that deaths have risen in some of these countries SINCE THEY STARTED JABBING…….be interesting to analyse in more detail – including which countries use which jab.

34
0
Proveritate
Proveritate
3 years ago
Reply to  jingleballix

Ah, yes, but it is a subjective rather than an objective test (my bold):

Regulations under section 45C may not include provision imposing a restriction or requirement by virtue of subsection (3)(c) of that section unless the appropriate Minister considers, when making the regulations, that the restriction or requirement is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by imposing it.

Matt Hancock issued a memorandum with all his regulations brazenly stating that he had not conducted an impact assessment, i.e. an assessment of all the adverse consequences that would likely ensue, his explanation for his omission sometimes being that he didn’t have time, or that the secondary legislation was only temporary so he couldn’t justify doing the work to find out.

It’s OK, then, to trash the economy,destroy lives and livelihoods, terrorize the population by not considering the impact of the measures you are introducing. So long as you are ‘the appropriate minister’ and you ‘consider’ that to be satisfactory.

Hancock’s continual hubris was an admission that he didn’t consider objectively what was proportionate, and could always fall back on the refuge of scoundrels that he was ‘the appropriate minister’ and it was his opinion alone that counted, which could therefore never be challenged in court.

They are very clever those lawyers who draft these bills always to ensure that ministers will be kept off the hook, and to deflect judicial review by making the test subjective.

21
0
Rogerborg
Rogerborg
3 years ago
Reply to  jingleballix

Sadly, in the several failed legal challenged to the despotism, their Lordships have decreed that the regime’s response has been both necessary and proportionate.

It has of course been neither, but those living high off of State largesse aren’t going to give the hand that feeds them more than a token toothless gumming every so often.

Last edited 3 years ago by Rogerborg
18
0
Proveritate
Proveritate
3 years ago
Reply to  Rogerborg

Australians have been well and truly sold down the river by their Lordships.

Justice Robert Beech-Jones of the NSW Supreme Court has ruled that it is perfectly OK for the unvaccinated to get heavily discriminated against on the orders of a government minister:

…it is not the Court’s function to determine the merits of the exercise of the power by the Minister to make the impugned orders, much less for the Court to choose between plausible responses to the risks to the public health posed by the Delta variant…These are all matters of merits, policy and fact for the decision maker and not the Court…

…one of the main grounds of challenge in both cases concerns the effect of the impugned orders on the rights and freedoms of those persons who chose not be vaccinated especially their “freedom” or “right” to their own bodily integrity.

it is presumed [by the plaintiffs] that statutes are not intended to modify or abrogate fundamental rights…However, this country does not have a bill of rights, and thus, important as the principle of legality is, it is only a rule of construction…At least so far as the abrogation of particular rights are concerned, the presumption is of little assistance in construing a statutory scheme when abrogation is the “very thing which the legislation sets out to achieve”.

So far as the right to bodily integrity is concerned, it is not violated as the impugned orders do not authorise the involuntary vaccination of anyone. So far as the impairment of freedom of movement is concerned, the degree of impairment differs depending on whether a person is vaccinated or unvaccinated. Curtailing the free movement of persons including their movement to and at work are the very type of restrictions that the PHA clearly authorises.

Orders and directions under the PHA that interfere with freedom of movement but differentiate between individuals on arbitrary grounds unrelated to the relevant risk to public health, such as on the basis of race, gender or the mere holding of a political opinion… However, the differential treatment of people according to their vaccination status is not arbitrary. Instead, it applies a discrimen, namely vaccination status, that on the evidence and the approach taken by the Minister is very much consistent with the objects of the PHA. Accordingly, for this reason and the reasons set out below this aspect of both challenges fails.

It was not demonstrated that the making of Order (No 2) was not a genuine exercise of power by the Minister…The Minister was not obliged to afford the plaintiffs or anyone else procedural fairness in making the impugned orders;

As I mentioned earlier, this is how Matt Hancock and the government will play it: it is no business of the courts to determine what ministers do when the law gives them a completely free hand to do whatever they want, provided their own personal opinion is that it is reasonable or proportionate.

One important take away from this court ruling, though, is that if the plaintiffs had framed their arguments as political (and presumably also religious) instead of practical then they might have got somewhere. So it was in the judicial review in Scotland about the closure of churches – the moment the Scottish government couldn’t justify the closures wholly on health grounds, without any mitigations, and admitted that there was a political element it was game over, because discrimination on political grounds is the very thing outlawed, without any possible derogations, under the ECHR.

9
0
itoldyouiwasill
itoldyouiwasill
3 years ago

We will never know for sure as there are so many variables. What we DO know with 100 pc certainty is that the collateral damage of lockdowns is off the scale and shock waves from it will be felt for years to come.

47
0
Dave Angel Eco Warrier
Dave Angel Eco Warrier
3 years ago
Reply to  itoldyouiwasill

Not only that but we will never know how many of those deaths were directly caused by Covid. My personal guess (backed up by personal experiences) is that it is nowhere near as high as the ‘official’ figure.

8
0
Hopeless
Hopeless
3 years ago

Almost every Government or Parliamentary report on anything of major importance is usually:-

  • a whitewash of Government, people or failed policies
  • completely lacking in any objectivity, mainly because of the views of the authors or commissioners reflected in it i.e. biased
  • made to fit a preset or preconceived narrative, set of “requirements”
  • shallow, and because of its tramline thinking, unable to be of much use in determining future policy or actions that are different to those failures being reported upon

In other words, the usual hot-air stuff from interested parties, eventually expressed in verbiage.

35
0
karenovirus
karenovirus
3 years ago
Reply to  Hopeless

They must re-watch Yes Minister/Prime Minister now and the to remind them how it’s done.

10
0
PhantomOfLiberty
PhantomOfLiberty
3 years ago
Reply to  karenovirus

Hunt merges into Hacker so perfectly, the ultimate superficial opportunist. The shallowness of his pitch in the Tory leadership contest was dismaying – barely got beyond “I’m an entrepreneur”.

6
0
Rogerborg
Rogerborg
3 years ago
Reply to  Hopeless

Don’t forget that it has to demand that the government do more governing.

5
0
Hugh
Hugh
3 years ago
Reply to  Rogerborg

Yes – and people think that MPs shouldn’t have concurrent jobs outside politics!

0
0
Hugh
Hugh
3 years ago
Reply to  Hopeless

I hope there will be some sort of independent inquiry, if such a thing is possible.

0
0
Sandra Barwick
Sandra Barwick
3 years ago
Reply to  Hugh

That can only be held without the Government’s consent.

0
0
Annie
Annie
3 years ago

We knew from the very start that any ‘inquiry’ would come up with this result.

33
0
Hester
Hester
3 years ago

What were the terms of reference for the report?
What was the brief?
Who briefed it?

3
0
GlassHalfFull
GlassHalfFull
3 years ago

“only about 10% of the population had antibodies by December of 2020, and that’s nowhere near herd immunity.  “
As antibodies start to wane after about 3 months and are gone by 5 to 6 months far greater numbers would have had Memory B and T Cell natural immunity so we actually were nearer to herd immunity.

20
0
mwhite
mwhite
3 years ago

Monopoly – a Fascinating Documentary on How the World Works – YouTube

The conspiracy?

2
0
thinkcriticall
thinkcriticall
3 years ago

Off topic, but::

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSZMtSPX3iE

2
0
Rogerborg
Rogerborg
3 years ago

tl;dr version – the government investigated the government’s governance and determined that the government should do more governing.

10
0
186NO
186NO
3 years ago
Reply to  Rogerborg

Straight out of “Yes Minister”

0
0
Julian
Julian
3 years ago

“We can only hope that the official inquiry next year takes a less tendentious approach. But I wouldn’t bet on it.”

I would bet on the opposite. Why on earth would any inquiry anywhere in the world come to a conclusion other than that we broadly did the right thing? Can anyone name a powerful institution on this planet that did not embrace the coronamadness or embraced it but then repudiated it? I think we need to start to accept that for now this war is lost, and expecting any letup is not realistic, and prepare ourselves for a lifelong campaign to slowly chip away at the madness.

14
0
RickH
RickH
3 years ago
Reply to  Julian

I guess that’s why I feel as I do about Noah pissing about on the fringes of the report’s nonsense. It’s not treating it with the analytical contempt that it deserves.

7
0
PatrickF
PatrickF
3 years ago

Ignore the report. Smoke and mirrors. This is not about health. It’s about executing a plan: Agenda 30.
Create a crisis: climate change. Add another crisis: Covid-19. Add propoganda. Add Nudge Units. Add a compliant MSM and parliament. It all equals what the technocrats want: Chaos. The path to digital IDs.
Hi downtick. Do your thing…

Last edited 3 years ago by PatrickF
28
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  PatrickF

Yes.

I fail to see the point in discussing this so called report unless the intention is to point out what it really reports.

The report takes as a starting point the notion that the country was facing a national emergency a la WWII when of course the reality was that this was BS. There was not and never has been a medical emergency still less a “pandemic.” We have had a Govt funded fear campign and psychological manipulation of the population on an industrial scale the like of which is unprecedented.

The conclusions if the real starting points – depopulation and control – were considered would of course be much darker; Govt and it’s officials would be guilty of crimes against humanity, mass murder and treason.

Accept the pandemic lie and it is very easy to reach the conclusions that the numpties on the various committees arrived at.

The real purpose of this report is to condition people into accepting that we are living through another plague. In other words this exercise is a con. Gas-lighting, smoke and mirrors, however you choose to view it.

5
0
Cecil B
Cecil B
3 years ago

I don’t know about you but I’m starting to enjoy all of this

I have developed a quiet sense of fulfilment from watching really really stupid people being fucked about by cunts

The highlight this week was the MP’s who committed genocide and crimes against humanity publishing a report that awarded themselves a clean bill of health. The Covidians who responded to the report in the MSM were of the opinion that they were not punished enough and if they had been punished more it would have been oh so much better

During the past twenty months The Pig Dictator has used every resource available to him to whip up the hysteria and fear. Now the hysterics are starting to turn on the cult leader and blame him for the deaths that occurred because ‘lock down’ didn’t arrive sooner

It would be somewhat ironic if this winter the cultists dragged their leader into the street and did unto him because of something he cynically invented in the first place

How do you unhysteric the hysterics? (Yes I know it’s not a proper word)

Anyway, whilst conducting my research I have discovered that during our last civil war the fish and chip shops closed early at 6pm each evening. It is not clear what the situation was with Indian Takeaways so I have ordered copies of the VAT returns from Kew and will report back

13
0
RickH
RickH
3 years ago
Reply to  Cecil B

“Now the hysterics are starting to turn on the cult leader and blame him for the deaths that occurred because ‘lock down’ didn’t arrive sooner”

You’re really not cynical enough, Cecil.

This is part of the planned process :

  • the Labour Party gets the establishment shill, Starmer – engineered into place with total collaboration from the MSM. He is the medium-term fall back for the Tories getting the boot.
  • the Tories start the process of lining up their own new shill as successor to Mr Toad, now he has outlived his bumbling useless usefulness. Mr *unt as a starter for 10?

Meanwhile the GBP (Great British Public) at large carries on regardless and heedless of the hand up their collective arse.

9
0
Jon Garvey
Jon Garvey
3 years ago

The horse had already bolted by the time anyone knew what was going on, so this discussion is mostly academic anyway.

The Chinese government knew, but declined to tell the rest of us, quite deliberately (for whatever motive). When they finally advocated lockdowns, and pressured the WHO and the Italians to recommend them, they knew that the virus would have been circulating around the world for at least 3 months, and that economies and societies would be suffering to nobody’s advantage but theirs.

7
0
RickH
RickH
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Garvey

Yes. The point is not that China is run by the communist party. It’s that they have a much more controlled and clever governance that is better at playing Monopoly.

They really have stuffed the West in alliance with global capital.

10
-1
Hugh
Hugh
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Garvey

Oh, like when other countries spend billions trying to change the climate whilst the CCP go on with building coal fired power stations?

3
0
sobers
sobers
3 years ago

“As a side note, suppressing the first wave would have probably required us to act in January, and we’d have needed to completely seal the borders,”

And of course those of us with memories can recall that in January the very same people who are now screaming that we should have locked down earlier were busy screaming that closing borders was racist…………hug a Chinaman anyone?

9
0
RickH
RickH
3 years ago

Noah is still jerked around by the official narrative, even when critiquing it.

“even if you only consider COVID deaths”

… which you can’t do – because nobody knows what they are!

“whether the official COVID-19 death rate reached 5 per 100,000 before 1st September, 2020. Those where it did reach this level were deemed to have been hit in the first wave.

That’s a ‘wave’ ?????!!!!!! Give me strength!

“I then calculated average excess mortality”

Doh! – A modeller’s variable variable!

‘Concede the language and you concede the argument’

I know the conclusion is that the Committees’ report is a load of bollocks – true. But you don’t have to travel this particular fictional road to get to the bleedin’ obvious. I mean – that’s like taking Fergie seriously – the man who has made a career of getting it wrong. Not least in the immediately irrelevant autumn projections of deaths. It’s not even a career best.

This ‘Report’ is compiled by an assemblage of the trembling complicit who have collectively failed to do their job at every stage of this shit-show.

Last edited 3 years ago by RickH
10
0
RickH
RickH
3 years ago
Reply to  RickH

BTW – I don’t think these non-representatives are, in the main, devious or lying. From experience I think the majority will actually believe the crap that their meagre intellects are fed.

5
0
Proveritate
Proveritate
3 years ago

The Parliamentary report is all part of the plan to derail the inquiry next year.

Sir Patrick Vallance has stated this week that his take away is that we should have locked down faster, harder and longer, thus echoing both the Leader of the Opposition and the Dear Leaders of North Britain and the Western Principality. (He is also pushing for government to be more technocratic, which is the complete opposite of what we need.)

There was always a possibility that the inquiry might have looked at the massive harms that the lockdown has done, and done a fair assessment that it did far more harm than good.

However, having adopted the same position of the government’s political detractors they have raised expectations that any inquiry will look to find a position somewhere between the government’s position and the ‘faster, harder, longer’ nonsense. And this will be a common position that MPs will be able to sign off on, thereby excluding ay consideration of whether lockdown was a bad thing of itself.

In respect of the vaccines of course, the report raises expectations that there will be no fault found, and thus all the vaccine harms, coercion etc will not even get a hearing.

I think, then, that the government must be very pleased with this report. They can say that they generally did the right thing but were reluctant to deprive of of our liberties, and did not want to induce social tension.

This report is thus all part of the plan to justify the general narrative and forever disown any need to consider the real impacts.

13
0
RickH
RickH
3 years ago
Reply to  Proveritate

This is classic ‘controlled opposition’ – actually normalising the egregious behaviour of government.

The lock-up issue is typical. No examination of the fundamentals – just a further bout of modeller’s speculation.

5
0
Julian
Julian
3 years ago
Reply to  Proveritate

“There was always a possibility that the inquiry might have looked at the massive harms that the lockdown has done, and done a fair assessment that it did far more harm than good.” Why on earth would they have done that? They are all up to their necks in it. They will fight to the death to cover up the Big Lie. Who will pressure them into telling the truth? There’s no force anywhere that will do that. We have virtually no powerful allies. A handful of sceptics in public and business life and in the media, a couple of TV and radio stations, some minor journals, and some US Republican Party Governors. That’s it.

7
0
PhantomOfLiberty
PhantomOfLiberty
3 years ago

Apart from anything else Hunt was superintending an inquiry into a system he’d been in charge of for several years until only a few months before – it’s unpreparedness was a reflection of his own failure.

Last edited 3 years ago by PhantomOfLiberty
16
0
DanClarke
DanClarke
3 years ago

One of the most fascinating bits of covid is that the models presented by Ferguson were ever taken seriously.

3
0
Brett_McS
Brett_McS
3 years ago

If only we had listened to the Amish:

https://fullmeasure.news/news/shows/amish-covid

4
0
DanClarke
DanClarke
3 years ago
Reply to  Brett_McS

We are all Amish now

1
0
Moist Von Lipwig
Moist Von Lipwig
3 years ago

There are no risks in a ‘suppression strategy’, disaster is ensured by such a mediaeval superstition as policy.

2
0
Think Harder
Think Harder
3 years ago

We should’ve hermetically sealed the government and SAGE in their houses for 3 months, that would’ve got rid of it completely.
FFS

Last edited 3 years ago by Think Harder
4
0
Martin Frost
Martin Frost
3 years ago

The absence of reason and logic at an official level is one of the most worrying aspects of the response to the pandemic. Prof Ferguson’s claim that locking down sooner would have saved thousands of lives has become part of the accepted wisdom despite it being totally unsupported by objective evidence..Lockdowns and their supposed effectiveness is part of a quasi religious dogma practised by MPs, civil servants and journalists who clearly do not know what they are talking about. Are most other country’s leadership elites spouting the same guff? If so we are in deep trouble. The end of the world is nigh.

Last edited 3 years ago by Martin Frost
4
0
tom171uk
tom171uk
3 years ago

As with much of public life, the groupthinkers have decided on a narrative. Now it is established, no amount of examination or analysis will be allowed to change it. The promised inquiry into the pandemic will change nothing.

3
0
BillyWiz
BillyWiz
3 years ago

Ferguson has never been right on anything – we may as well quote the neighbours dog!

2
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

The Sceptic | Episode 45: Jack Hadfield on the Anti-Asylum Protests, Alan Miller on the Tyranny of Digital ID and James Graham on the Net Zero Pension Threat

by Richard Eldred
25 July 2025
0

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

The False Promises of Electric Vehicles Are Being Exposed

29 July 2025
by Tilak Doshi

Is the Tide Turning Against Woke Comedy?

29 July 2025
by C.J. Strachan

Leaked Email Blows Apart BBC’s Impartiality Claims Over Gaza

29 July 2025
by Will Jones

News Round-Up

30 July 2025
by Toby Young

The NHS ‘Non-Jobs’ Bonanza

29 July 2025
by David Craig

Starmer to Recognise a Palestinian State

44

Farage Demands Apology After Labour Minister Says He is on the Side of Predators like Jimmy Savile for Wanting to Scrap Online Safety Act Over Free Speech Concerns

29

The False Promises of Electric Vehicles Are Being Exposed

43

Is the Tide Turning Against Woke Comedy?

22

Leaked Email Blows Apart BBC’s Impartiality Claims Over Gaza

20

Edinburgh University’s Decolonisation Report is Pure Left-Wing Politics

30 July 2025
by James Alexander

Trump Was Right to Skewer Starmer Over Britain’s “Windmills Scam”

30 July 2025
by Ben Pile

The NHS ‘Non-Jobs’ Bonanza

29 July 2025
by David Craig

Is the Tide Turning Against Woke Comedy?

29 July 2025
by C.J. Strachan

The Claim that the Epping Protest is Really a ‘Nazi Pogrom’ is a Classic Left-Wing Conspiracy Theory

29 July 2025
by Steven Tucker

POSTS BY DATE

September 2024
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  
« Aug   Oct »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

POSTS BY DATE

September 2024
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  
« Aug   Oct »

DONATE

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

The False Promises of Electric Vehicles Are Being Exposed

29 July 2025
by Tilak Doshi

Is the Tide Turning Against Woke Comedy?

29 July 2025
by C.J. Strachan

Leaked Email Blows Apart BBC’s Impartiality Claims Over Gaza

29 July 2025
by Will Jones

News Round-Up

30 July 2025
by Toby Young

The NHS ‘Non-Jobs’ Bonanza

29 July 2025
by David Craig

Starmer to Recognise a Palestinian State

44

Farage Demands Apology After Labour Minister Says He is on the Side of Predators like Jimmy Savile for Wanting to Scrap Online Safety Act Over Free Speech Concerns

29

The False Promises of Electric Vehicles Are Being Exposed

43

Is the Tide Turning Against Woke Comedy?

22

Leaked Email Blows Apart BBC’s Impartiality Claims Over Gaza

20

Edinburgh University’s Decolonisation Report is Pure Left-Wing Politics

30 July 2025
by James Alexander

Trump Was Right to Skewer Starmer Over Britain’s “Windmills Scam”

30 July 2025
by Ben Pile

The NHS ‘Non-Jobs’ Bonanza

29 July 2025
by David Craig

Is the Tide Turning Against Woke Comedy?

29 July 2025
by C.J. Strachan

The Claim that the Epping Protest is Really a ‘Nazi Pogrom’ is a Classic Left-Wing Conspiracy Theory

29 July 2025
by Steven Tucker

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences