Lucy Letby has just been denied an appeal for her second trial on the attempted murder of Baby K. Appeal judges have now denied Letby appeal after she claimed that a fair second trial was impossible after her monstering by the media. This was somewhat unrealistically brushed aside by the appeal judges, though they added: “Some of the public comment has called into question whether Letby ought to have been convicted in 2023. Whether there are issues arising from the first trial… is not for us to say. That would be speculative.” David Davis MP has said he will raise the matter in Parliament and will also be seeking for the case to be referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. My guess is Letby will need to go to the European Court of Human Rights to get justice as the British system cannot cope with the case and is closing ranks against a quest for justice and truth.
Interestingly, it was Judge Goss who ruled in that trial that the jury could consider the conviction evidence from her first trial. Judge Goss, you will recall in the Chris Kaba trial ruled otherwise, decreeing that Kaba’s criminal record was not to be disclosed to the jury since supposedly irrelevant.
How has the British criminal legal system got into such a grotesque mess over the trials and appeal denials of Lucy Letby? This is now a global scandal and scientists from other common law jurisdictions are shocked – see for example this latest American scientist’s condemnation of the convictions. The latest insulin evidence has been ignored, allowing discredited immunoassay testing by the prosecution.
The adversarial trial system has been shown inadequate to deal with complex, and indeed developing, scientific data in Lucy Letby’s trials. Procedure has triumphed over the serious search for the truth. Yet there is also the question as to whether existing legal procedures were followed over testing expert witnesses.
We need to try to understand why and how this tangled case grew its hypothesis and used it in inquisitorial fashion. The case raises the issue of science in court and the law’s attitude to it. C.P. Snow’s famous analysis of the “two cultures”, science and liberal arts, seems to provide a useful background to help understand the controversy now growing over the conviction. Snow distinguished the scientific culture from the culture of those educated in, and at home in, the liberal arts – and by “science” he meant hard science, empirically based and testable, not soft sciences. The legal officials handling the case were of the non-scientific culture. The prosecution and defence barristers, the judge, and later judges considering and rejecting grounds for appeal, were non-scientists. Likewise the jury. They were led to believe that the newborns in question were healthy babies, whereas they were just surviving, in intensive care, on the edge, in a unit beset with serious problems and threats to the neonates. The jury may have been led to believe that the nursing staff were trained in medical science, whereas their training has very little of that.
It is very unlikely that Letby’s nursing training equipped her with enough knowledge of insulin to be able to answer the prosecutor’s leading question, that she agreed the higher level “must have been caused” by exogenous human insertion and could not have occurred naturally – which we now know is the case.
Is the paucity of scientific expertise and interest a factor in this controversial case? The reality, of course, is that certain ‘experts’ are relied on in court by everybody else who lacks such technical expertise. Here surely lies the root of how this case has been such a disaster. Even a lay person reading this trial notes that the key evidence presented by the prosecution about skin discolouration did not involve any photography taken at the time, surely essential to clinical evaluation: the science in the unit was hardly rigorous it seems and weakens the allegations deriving from ill-defined discolouration. This itself weakens the credibility of the prosecution scientific case, certainly “beyond reasonable doubt”. In fact all the confirmation bias incidents in this case are soaked in reasonable doubt: the case proceeded on the assumption that this nurse, earmarked by hostile senior doctors working with the police, “must have been” an assassin, despite the complete lack of evidence.
I am asking whether this divide between the two cultures played out in the legal dramatis personae of the trials and appeal requests, failing to understand and take seriously statistical and medical argumentation, and more than that to fiercely reject sincere attempts to get good scientific evidence into the trial.
Dr. Evans, the prosecution lead expert witness, conducted the investigation for the police in targeting Letby by his use of nursing rosters for the unit. This formed the basis of his hypothesis to account for the supposed difficulty. The police then set about gathering interpretative straw to make the nest of her guilt from these straws: classic confirmation bias. First identify your suspect, then hunt around for confirmatory evidence: senior doctors of the neonatal unit identified the suspect to the police, who just went with their suspect and worked to convict her. This offends basic statistical method, and from the very start of the proceedings against Letby the mode of use of nursing rosters in the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital was called into question by high level statistical experts. The Royal Society of Statisticians prepared a report on the danger of misuse of figures in such trials and sent it to the authorities so that they would be apprised of the problem. This report was ignored totally.
Likewise, two scientists also sent in letters at the start of the first trial to the judge and barristers of each side giving information on the statistical and clinical aspects of the case. These communications were given to the police and the scientists were then threatened with contempt of court and arrest for their contumacious conduct in trying get significant data into the trial, foolishly assuming that the search for the truth was desired by the court. The defence lawyers, astonishingly, also rejected these two analyses helpful to its defence, as well as making some crucial damaging concessions to the prosecution, notably on the issue of insulin poisoning. The adversarial trial system completely failed in putting game-playing ahead of finding out the truth. The court attacked the scientific evidence and threatened the academics. C.P. Snow would have a field day.
But this problem of expertise in cases had been recognised. Dr. Phil Hammond in his MD Private Eye report on the case gives the history and rationale of expert witnesses in criminal trials and summarises the 2011 Law Commission report, ‘Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales‘. Among the problems, it identified “too much expert opinion evidence is admitted without adequate scrutiny because no clear test is being applied to determine whether the evidence is sufficiently reliable to be admitted”. Secondly, “in the absence of a clear legal test to ensure the reliability of expert evidence, advocates do not always cross-examine experts effectively to reveal potential flaws in the experts’ methodology, data and reasoning”. Finally, “juries may therefore be reaching conclusions on the basis of unreliable evidence. This conclusion is confirmed by a number of miscarriages of justice in recent years”. The report recommended:
- A new admissibility test for expert evidence;
- That expert opinion evidence would not be admitted unless it was adjudged to be sufficiently reliable;
- New guidance for judges for applying the test, setting out the key reasons why an expert’s opinion might be unreliable;
- A proper framework in criminal proceedings for screening expert evidence at the admissibility stage.
The Ministry of Justice responded on November 21st 2013, indicating it did not intend to act on the majority of the recommendations. This was clearly a major mistake by the Government of the day, on grounds of cost – the Letby case has been fraught with controversial science and in great need of all the recommendations of the Law Commission.
But later Lord Chief Justice Thomas (as explained by Joshua Rozenberg in his Guardian article ‘Are Juries being blinded by science?‘) said that by adjusting criminal procedure rules, these recommendations can be introduced by the Common Law. Lord Thomas lamented the closure of the Government’s Forensic Science Service in 2012, and worried about private companies touting for the trade – which might remind us of Dewi Evans, who runs a company Dewi Evans Paediatric Consulting Limited, company number 07341254, which has banked considerable sums over the last couple of years. The Chief Justice, said Rozenberg, “appeared concerned that juries were being blinded by science. Jurors should not be expected to understand and interpret complex scientific concepts, he said. Instead, their task should be to decide between opposing scientific views”.
In the Letby case there were no two scientific views in the witness box to evaluate. Dr. Hall, who was recruited for the defence, was never called but sat through the trial convinced it was unfair, as he wrote to the BMJ. The appeal judges who turned down the second application for an appeal said that counter-embolism evidence was not admissible as it might have been presented in the trial, so not new, so Letby should rot in prison. All rather medieval, the judiciary closes ranks.
If the Common Law procedures have, as Lord Thomas hoped, been adjusted to ensure that the Law Commission recommendations are adhered to, then the Letby case looks like an enormous breach. Dewi Evans had arguably been discredited as a reliable medical expert by Lord Justice Jackson, and no alternative expert was put in the witness box, as per the Law Commission recommendations. Should Judge Goss have pointed this out ? There was no screening of Evans at the admissibility stage. He has already admitted he was wrong over his diagnosis of Baby C as having had air injected into his stomach by the alleged assassin Letby. Judge Goss kept Evans’s testimonies going on the alleged murders and told the jury to make up their own minds about its reliability, notwithstanding the lack of a defence expert witness being put up to give a scientific second opinion. The Law Commission’s recommendations on expert witnesses are being vindicated as the prosecution’s assassin hypothesis falls away with the powerful critiques of Evans’s testimony and his subsequent changes of mind. Was Judge Goss unaware of Lord Thomas’s statement about the need for expert witnesses to be assessed and for each side to put up its expert?
Were the appeal judges aware of Lord Thomas’s statement of Common Law procedures to filter out inferior and biased expert advice? They treated Evans’s mistake on the Baby C X-ray, and sudden switching of murder method when Letby was not present as if a minor issue, and one not affecting his general reliability. He was said to have other supporting evidence to rely on – by which they seem to have meant a hypothesis, not any witnessed actus reus or mens rea. Appeal judges say that if the evidence cited by the appellant was available at the time of the trial, it cannot be used for appeal – why not, if that evidence contains the truth?
Another new discovery, by the Guardian, is that the police investigation was indeed aware of the need to double check the statistical validity of Evans’s use of rosters, and had lined up Professor Jane Hutton of Warwick University to go over this evidence. Her contract was drawn up. As a top level statistician she had grave doubts about the police’s evidence as the basis for prosecution. She said of the shift chart and other elements of the case: “It’s a large pile of crockery, much of which is broken. Such a pile does not hold water, however big it is.” She told the Cheshire Police that no statistician would begin an investigation by identifying an individual and hunting for evidence against her, but by looking at all the evidence and seeing where it points. Here there were indeed more convincing explanations for the deaths and collapses than assassination. Cheshire Police was about to go with Hutton’s expert advice, but the CPS stopped it and instructed it to pursue Letby. The same expert statistical advice had been sent to the court at the start of the trial by Richard Gill, who was immediately threatened with arrest for contempt of court. The court deliberately turned its face away from seeking after the truth. The CPS bear an immense responsibility for directing the investigation in flagrant contradiction to the strong advice of genuine experts. Prosecutors should not direct the police or other investigators.
The Guardian quotes Peter Green, Emeritus Professor of Statistics at the University of Bristol, who said: “This is an extraordinary revelation. Statisticians have criticised the staff chart used in the trial of Letby as a classic misuse of statistics. Now we know that the prosecution decided not to proceed with a proper analysis by Prof Hutton, a distinguished statistician who has decades of extremely relevant experience.” One wonders whether the right people are in the dock.
Goss decided it was ‘for the jury “to determine, as with any witness, his [Dr. Evans’s] reliability, having regard to all the evidence in the case”. Does this decision observe the Criminal Procedure Rules cited above, rules to protect juries from misleading experts, the problem raised by the Law Commission and Lord Chief Justice Thomas?
Judge Andrew Goymer in 2014 set out the duties of the expert witness in an authoritative lecture. Judge Goymer said that the science expert must be of the highest quality.
A competent scientist approaches the task with an open mind and ensures that every line of enquiry is considered and every investigation thoroughly carried out. Integrity demands that the scientist does not overstate his or her conclusions and is ready to concede the limitations and drawbacks. All scientists have a heavy responsibility because their conclusions can make the difference between justice being done and some appalling miscarriage of it.
Evans’s dual role as helping the police investigation and as a ‘neutral’ expert witness in the court is an obvious contradiction offending Lord Thomas’s and Judge Goymer’s rules, a clear conflict of interests.
Goss leaving to the jury to believe the expert as if just any witness seems to have missed this key point. Judge Goss on day two of his summing up to the jury said that Letby had not been on duty when she was accused of harming baby C: “When I was reminding you of the evidence of Dr. Marnerides and Professor [sic] Evans relating to the massive gaseous dilatation of the stomach and bowel loops that. Dr Marnerides relied on, they related to X-rays and clinical notes on June 12th and not June 13th”. This surely should have quashed the case for her murdering baby C: Letby was not even there. But no, he just continued as if a clerical error. The words “beyond reasonable doubt” should have been pressed on the jury, then and often. The prosecuting expert was changing his tune and the judge was happy with that.
The hypothesis grows weaker by the day and in the absence of serious evidence, forensic or directly witnessed wrongdoing, Letby’s guilt really is just a theory, unjustified, and possibly rooted in professional hostility. Without a motive, without evidence, why is she denied an appeal? No actus reus, no mens rea. By way of a piece of advice to the Government: reverse the closure of the Forensic Science Service, shut down in 2012. It is clearly very much needed to avert future disasters such as the Letby case and low quality ‘expert’ witnesses. Had it remained open it might have saved the million pound cost, and served justice far better.
This case opens up the dysfunction of the NHS, it treads on holy ground, and in quasi-religious fashion cannot be allowed to find scapegoat Letby innocent with the actual killer on the wards being under-staffing, overstretched medics, infection, cots being too close, and so on. Which killer is the more likely, a dysfunctional NHS hospital unit caring for tiny neonates struggling for life, or a human assassin, with no motive ever established, and no criminal actions ever witnessed?
At the time of writing, Dr. Phil Hammond has just published his latest assessment (number six) in his MD column on Letby in Private Eye. He goes over Dewi Evans’s diagnoses and changes of mind, ironically amazed at how brilliant these are, having been completely missed by all the top neonatal experts MD has contacted. Evans confirms this effortless superiority in a Sun interview titled ‘Letby Debunked – I’m the expert who helped nail Lucy Letby… here’s why poundshop Poirots’ theories are all wrong and she did kill seven babies’. This hubris confirms surely the suspicion that Evans should never have been an expert witness, he just does not see both sides of an issue, he was out to “nail Lucy Letby”, not observe the conditions for expert witnesses in court.
Dr. Timothy Bradshaw is a retired Lecturer in Theology at the 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.
Sad.
When the Daily Telegraph publishes anonymously produced info-garbage from the same sources as the Washington Post (owned by that covid pandemic beneficiary, Jeff Bezos), the New York Times (America’s answer to the Grauniad), and… the Grauniad.
DT nicely exemplifying the problems that have contributed to the replacement of legacy media by less systematically establishment-biased sources such as Rogan.
Shame Rogan felt the need to apologise. Showing weakness is rarely a good thing in these situations, but he knows his business better than I do and perhaps he feels he is in a strong enough position not to need to worry about an appearance of weakness.
Having watched the original video, fwiw I would say that I don’t like his idea that he should have “balancing” “experts” pushing the Official Truth view. The whole point is that those Official Truth perspectives are everywhere in the mainstream media and social media -nobody can avoid them. And the idea that his viewers aren’t competent to form their own opinions is exactly the contempt that the censorship-pushing mainstream cancel culture left shows for people in general.
I do agree with his attitude to his “haters”. That’s the thick skin combined with humility that imo is required for the most useful public discussion.
Joe Rogan video
Joe had the CNN Doctor Sanjay Gupta on.
Gupta is a 100% hardcore covidian vaccine pusher.
Joe destroyed him just by asking simple straightforward questions and citing easily obtainable facts.
Without censorship the covid vax narrative collapses quickly.
Yep, I saw it. And I don’t have a problem with that kind of stuff. It’s the idea of a supposed necessity of getting “respectable” stuff in to “balance” that “wacky conspiracy theory misinformation” that I have a problem with.
I get your point.
I hope Joe gets some more narrative pushing ‘experts’ on and shreds them with simple, reasonable, honest questions + some mainstream facts that they don’t like to talk about.
I’m going to suggest Eric Topol and that Feigl Ding person.
Id love to see Walensky on there, but she’d probably pass out in panic
Yes. It is the official lies and disinformation, and the parroting of by the the uncritical masses …. which needs to be ‘balanced’.
Exactly.
I’m all for it, Rogan would not be a carbon copy of the scripted softball questions in MSM interviews, I’d be surprised if they can find a narrative pusher willing to go on in the first place!
By all means invite them on, if they’ll come. Just don’t describe it as “balance”.
‘Without censorship the covid vax narrative collapses quickly.’
Brilliantly put. Perfect!
I think his problem is going to be finding lockdown cultists of any status who are willing to go on the show, with them all having seen how he ripped Sanjay Gupta a new one. I can’t see Rogan being interested in doing the James O’Brien thing of selecting some vulnerable punter that doesn’t know what he’s talking about as a representative of the opposing viewpoint.
When have real world jab risks ever been mentioned on legacy media “news” providers?
Bang on.
“Say it ain’t so, Joe.”
Gates calling in his ‘investment’ in the Telegraph?
Gates gives £314 million to buy opinion in world media.
Oh, the shame of it! Fancy inviting highly credentialled and experienced guests who don’t hold the latest unscientific narrative! Fancy not censoring scientific opinion!
Neil Young “The Needle and the Damage Done”.
Joni Mitchell “Both Sides Now”.
Oh the irony.
What’s with the ‘sleeve tattoos’ – looks like some gangster in a Columbian prison.
Anyone who mutilates their body in this way is someone not to be taken seriously.
Next time I see the words ‘Joe Rogan’ I shall think “Oh, that tattooed twat.”
Fashion victim. Not unusual in his social group.
People in the conflicted, confused post-revolutionary cultures of the modern US sphere display their rebellious, individualist, edgy natures by desperately following whatever the cool kids are doing.
Human nature.
Careful, that sounds like abuse aimed at the the sleeve tattoo community, you’ll get yourself banned.
I’d pay good money to watch you say that to his face.
Rogan would back down… he has form now.
That’s… actually a fair point.
Kneel once before a mob and you’ll never get up again.
Dr. Gregory House : Nonconformity. Right. I can’t remember the last time saw a twenty-something kid with a tattoo of an Asian letter on his wrist. You are one wicked free thinker! You want to be a rebel? Stop being cool. Wear a pocket protector like he does, and get a haircut like the Asian kids that don’t leave the library for 24 hour stretches. They’re the ones who don’t care what you think.
[pauses]
Dr. Gregory House : Sayonara!
Some self reflection may be in order here. Consider your dislike for skin art produces such a negative emotional response, that it shuts down your ability to critically assess information presented by someone who likes skin art, purely on that choice, rather than anything they may have to say.
Such emotional programming is usually a parental influence, I had the same affliction, I also dislike skin art generally, but when my wife deceided to get a tattoo, I used mindfulness techniques to find the source, and overcome it.
Learning to recognise emotional triggers is a powerful skill for self improvement.
It also helps break psychological programming from the likes of government/globalists.
When somebody gets their arms tattooed all over – I’m thinking “There’s another one that wants to be David Beckham – another sheep just following the crowd.”
Now, what’s this about sheep wearing face masks because everyone else is?
I’m probably just ‘old-fashioned’. Alliances in times of crises make strange bedfellows, I suppose.
Forget Rogan. I don’t like his blasphemies either. But it is not about Rogan: this is about 11 million followers being exposed to counter-narrative evidence from Malone and McCullough. The bullies pushing the Covid and vaccine narrative simply cannot stand their bullying lies being exposed, because it weakens them, and they lose control.
In a nutshell!
You should listen to his interview with Dr Robert Malone.
Malone pioneered mRNA technology and is making it clear that he thinks these covid vaccines are dangerous.
This might be a good thing.
If Rogan encourages open discussion between scientists and experts on both sides then the fanatics will be exposed – if they are prepared to accept the challenge of a debate.
Steve Kirsch has been offering $1 million dollars to anyone from the CDC, FDA, … wherever who will have a public debate with him on vaccine injuries. So far – no takers.
Perhaps he could invite either Neil Young or Joni Mitchell to debate Dr. Robert Malone or Dr. Peter McCullough. Or maybe Prince Harry could take on Mike Yeadon?
There’ll be no takers for that. Young, Mitchell, Ginger and Whinger and the rest of the Cringers are too afraid to be exposed as airheads. They know that they cannot defend their views when properly scrutinized.
Any form of backing down to the mob is a very bad idea.
Comment of the day… week… year.
I prefer to think of them as a pack. Hyenas, jackals or rats, it all fits.
For a more accurate story on what Rogan really said in this video, see this.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/thank-you-haters-joe-rogan-breaks-silence-spotify-controversy-rejects-disinformation
Excellent balancing perspective thanks.
I say “balancing” because zero hedge obviously have their own position as everyone does. But I’m not remotely saying the truth was anything like mid-way between the two. The Zero Hedge piece includes a link to the original video and it appears their report is pretty honest and accurate.
What matters is what goes in the MSM which is what most people pay attention to.
They need him to say something kind of in the ball park of an apology so that they can twist it into a submissive apology without being sued. But once he gives and inch they’ll turn it into whatever they want.
Regarding the urgent need for young people to take the vax:
UK FOIA request
The request was:
Please supply deaths caused solely by covid 19, where covid is the only cause of death listed on the death certificate, broken down by age group and gender between feb 2020 up to and including dec 2021.
Results for COVID deaths ages 0-24?
Eight (8) in nearly 2 years.
Who knows if these people who weren’t ill with any other disease may nevertheless have been “unhealthy” e.g. very overweight?
Have the injections had any negative impact on this age group?
(Yes)
Who is it that’s spreading misinformation again?
Having shown weakness the pack of curs will attack him all the harder. This was a very poorly judged reaction.
Being magnanimous crushes the left, they have only one view and that’s all that matters
What is Spotify?
Wikipoop says it’s “a Swedish audio streaming and media services provider”.
So it’s basically an audio and video rental company that turns a microwave tracker into a computer terminal and persuades young people to pay for access to what they could easily get for free, and store forever on their own equipment, if they had the sense. Is that it?
And that bloke with the tattoos – is he famous?
Yes, he is famous.
More people listen to his interviews than people listen to all the American MSM news progrmmes in the USA combined.
That is why they need to shut him up, his reach is massive and he has committed numerous speech crimes including asking questions about the sense of lockdown and about the wisdom of injecting everyone with a rushed vaccine for a disease that isn’t a threat to 99% of the population.
There was a good comment on Reddit Lockdownsceptics yesterday, which I cannot recall properly and am too lazy to find, it went like this:
Under 30 – who is Neil Young?
30-60 who is Joe Rogan?
60 and older – what is Spotify?
“And that bloke with the tattoos – is he famous?”
I’ve seen his name many times on here but have only just looked him up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Rogan
Make of it what you will.
I’ll agree with him here: “Rogan has stated “Biden, to me, is like having a flashlight with a dying battery and going for a long hike in the woods, it is not going to work out. It’s not going to make it.””
Seems to me to be ‘generally OK’ with his views.
I have never listened to or read anything he has said – looks like I accidentally made the right choice – turncoat.
About as funny as Miranda Hart.
“Joe Rogan Live 2006 Stand-up”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUl4EenGSO8
Preventing open discussion about these new gene therapy vaccines and the traditional types of vaccines is vital.
Over recent years more and more people have been listening to those that are critical/sceptical of vaccinology and coming to the conclusion that the critics/sceptics are correct.
If the average person knew how shoddy vaccine safety testing is in general, how many known toxins are found in a great many vaccines and how many injuries and deaths are caused by vaccines people wouldn’t go anywhere near them.
I’m coming to this point of view. I think some vaccines *might* be good & worthwhile, but the shoddy studies undertaken make it very difficult to tell.
What do these sad sacks think is “Covid misinformation”? Anything they choose not to believe? Anything that goes against the truth they chose? One thing has been blindingly clear over the last two years: some people choose their truth like they choose a pair of trainers or a bling bracelet. It doesn’t have to be true, it has to be shiny, acceptable to them and plausible in a non-factual way.
Exellent.
“Your standards as a legacy news provider are slipping”
Slipped a long time ago hence why I didn’t renew my subscription in January. Still waiting for a response from the editor as to why when I corrected some misinformation in an article (reproduced press release by Zoe) my response was marked as misinformation.
He has nothing to apologise for.
But in apologising, he effectively ‘confirms’ his ‘guilt’, and the accusers feel even more ‘right’.
Why, oh why, is it that we must constantly be made to be sorry for nothing?
The media just do as they are told. The repeated phrases smack of a coordinated messaging campaign – and we know there is exactly that. The “Trusted news Initiative” decides what the media should say and how they should say it. Those who our outside the cabal naturally hate anyone who says differently.
I’ll be accused of spreading conspiracy theories, I do not care, these are facts. Once you see the patterns you cannot unsee them. Note, for example, three days ago the media stopped naming Robert Malone as the offending guest, they now say it was an individual who was banned by Twitter for disinformation. The Telegraph, above, follows the same line with this wheedling smears by association written in such a way they probably think they cannot be sued. But WHO is pulling all these strings?
The Craven Media are being re-grouped by their minders for a counter offensive against the “Vaccine Horror Truth” now spilling out all over the world.
Easy solution – just don’t, read look or listen and they die. All it requires is just a little will-power.
They also didn’t mention (by name) ivermectin, only ‘an anti-parasitic drug’. The US NIH meanwhile are stating that ivermectin has no anti-viral properties. What utter lies! The Journal of Antibiotics in a paper entitled Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen states
Several studies reported antiviral effects of ivermectin on RNA viruses such as Zika, dengue, yellow fever, West Nile, Hendra, Newcastle, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, chikungunya, Semliki Forest, Sindbis, Avian influenza A, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome, Human immunodeficiency virus type 1, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Furthermore, there are some studies showing antiviral effects of ivermectin against DNA viruses such as Equine herpes type 1, BK polyomavirus, pseudorabies, porcine circovirus 2, and bovine herpesvirus 1. Ivermectin plays a role in several biological mechanisms, therefore it could serve as a potential candidate in the treatment of a wide range of viruses including COVID-19 as well as other types of positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses. In vivo studies of animal models revealed a broad range of antiviral effects of ivermectin.
An I would add, in silico studies (using powerful modelling of drugs now used to discover and refine suitable candidate drugs against diseases). The same journal carries another paper: The mechanisms of action of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2—an extensive review, which looks at the anti-viral mechanisms of ivermectin, including that “Ivermectin binds to the viral Rdrp and disrupts it. The highly efficient binding of ivermectin to nsp14 confirms its role in inhibiting viral replication and assembly.”
Nah, that’s all just misinformation…it’s nothing more than a horse de-wormer according to the MSM and their acolytes.
Brilliant find. Although I had to look up the illness ‘Newcastle’ as I’ve never heard of it.
Never apologise to these people Joe, you owe them nothing. Now that you have, they smell blood in the water and they will be relentless. You shouldn’t have done it and most certainly shouldn’t have blown smoke up the arse of Neil Young & Joni Mitchell at the end of your Instagram video.
Exactly. To think that pricking your finger will keep the sharks at bay is …. somewhat optimistic?
Slightly off topic…
Boris Johnson gets report about lockdown-breaking parties
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/boris-johnson-gets-report-about-lockdown-breaking-parties-01643632945?mod=bnbh
So …has he finally found out why he went to the party(ies) he didn’t know were parties and ate the cake he didn’t know was a cake while drinking the booze that wasn’t there in the fridge he didn’t know was bought by him for the very purpose by people he didn’t know, who worked for him!
All this taking place during the Lockdowns he didn’t know about which imposed rules on people socialising he hadn’t heard of, even though he approved them all.
“Off with his head! ” ( said the Queen of Hearts).
She has a point!
Give the guy a break – he’s had a lot on his plate lately.
Cake.
And we have a winner folks.
And probably more of his favourite cheese. That’s why he’s still a Bunter.
Maybe it’s me but I quite like this. Not the article of course which is the usual standard of journalism ie none we have all had to suffer recently
But the idea of the JRE podcast offering air time to the other side of the argument is fabulous as it hasn’t been done before as those who aren’t fully onboard with the nonsense have been deplatformed
Get both sides on at the same time and let the fireworks commence. Have a proper 3 hour debate and watch the pro Covid bunch crumble when every point they make is torn apart point by point by someone who knows what they are talking about
I’d say it would rival Rohan’s beloved MMA but I think it would be like watching Mike Tyson vs Barry McGuigan.
id pay to watch it though and think of the headlines
Mike Tyson v Barry Davies surely?
Barry “Beijing” Gardiner, surely?
He should just publicly invite the other side -we all know who they are – and when they decline (run scared) then publicly announce they have declined his invitation.
He can’t force people into the show and people would wonder why the most popular podcast in the world was turned down by the ‘experts’….
He should invite them, ridicule them and crush them to pulp!
JRE has always done this. But the pro-vaxxers aren’t going to come on and debate with Malone of the like. They know full well the science is not with them.
Whinge and Ginge are already on the Spotify payroll; I am sure they would be happy to debate misinformation with Mike Yeadon and Peter McCullough (leave Robert Malone to deal with the old drug taking folk/rocker in a separate episode).
I’d love him to have some of the ‘other side’ on – c’mon Fauci, Whitty, Collins, et al. Rogan would make them squirm and his readiness to say that he’ll have others on is, I think, based on his confidence that they, too, by being shown up for the frauds / liars they are, would advance the case of the sceptics.
With a $100 million investment in Joe the Toe no way will he have free speech and free association it’s scripted and controlled.
In which case he wouldn’t have been allowed to have McCulloch and Malone on in the first place.
Arghhhhh! Why apologise?
The Soros-Gates-Schwab Blob has reached out and fingered him!
I’ve not listened to his latest yet, but if he did apologize I’m disappointed… It’s clear too anybody with a functioning brain cell, that ALL media, legacy or new, is fundamentally bought and paid for by bad actors with nefarious intentions. The platforms that can be used by REAL scientists to posit an alternative narrative have been limited to say the least in the last two year’s. Any way, we can a least thank Rogan for bringing to the attention of potentially billions of people, the views of McCullough and Malone, two world renowned scientists who should be given a global platform as a matter of cause!
and some of them are, literally, actors. In a way it’s funny
The hypocrisy of brand covidians demanding airtime because their views are not being heard enough!
Rogan should just invite the likes of Fauci or Ferguson or Whitty to debate with Malone or McCullough or Kory and then empty chair them when they don’t show up (which they won’t).
A critical remark: It’s perfectly ok to condemn Young (and presumably, Mitchell as well) for the view that (precautionary) beneficial censorship (by people of his/ her own age, presumably) is called for to prevent young people from being misled into forming wrong opinions. But making snide remarks about their age (wrinklies) is equally uncalled for.
This is part of the war.
They took a hit on one of ours. And to be fair, he didn’t take the hit well.
In fact his apology makes it the hit. The authoritarians can hold his comments up as a scalp.
To their own, it reassures them that the authority still rules.
To us, it serves to intimidate. The message: ‘Look at what we did to your precious podcast host. The most powerful independent media personality. We can take anyone we want down.’
It’s a war and it goes on. Hopefully Rogan can pick himself up and continue being independent. Perhaps he’s irredeemably ‘wounded’. We shall see.
Down on his knees for the usual suspects. Can you imagine a covid authoritarian making the same concession? all a scam to promote conformity and self censorship. What a complete fraud.
Just listened to the Joe Rogan video talking about this, but haven’t read the telegraph article.
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CZYQ_nDJi6G/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading
Thought he spoke very well and with a lot of humility.
Yep.
Rogan has sold out, as there nothing to apologise for.
I wonder how many subscribers he will lose as a result of that decision.
I’m thinking of cancelling my subscription to Spotify. Not because of Joe Rogan but because of their weak, money is everything stance. I don’t care if they have pro vax, pro lockdown, pro fear brigade shows. I do care that they are trying to appease fascists that want to stop free speech & opinion of experts.
I am disappointed if Rogan is apologetic though.
Bad move. Maybe he’s trying to look conciliatory, but it looks like weakness.
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.
Follow the money. . .
How do you balance out the evidence of increased death and illness from the jabs without being a lying, scumbag shill?
It’s not called the alternative media for nothing. We can get the official line on everything from the mainstream propagandists. We look to independent news sources to restore the balance – which in the case of COVID is mission impossible even with a hundred Joe Rogan shows, so biased and comprehensive is the corporate-controlled legacy media’s global coverage.
Alternative media proprietors, and their dissident ‘stars’ such as said Joe, need to stand together against censorship – not buckle and wave the white flag at the first whiff of shot and shell.
Once the freedom to broadcast the truth has been surrendered, the slide into totalitarianism will be unstoppable.
The only mistake Joe made was to apologise! He has been open-minded on most subjects from the start, including “vaccination”. Ironic that old hippies have had a hissy fit and demanded censorship, shutdowns and bans. Keep on truckin’, Joe. And truck Fudeau!
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
I suspect that the attack on Rogan, the infamous letter and the old folks like Young, Mitchel and Nash falling for it, has been orchestrated behind the scenes by the pharmaceutical industry. The lead letter author worked for pharma PR. Among the others, Dr Eric Burnett has pushed the Pfizer vaccine on Twitter, Prof. Glen Pyle has dismissed vaccine caused myocarditis concerns, and Harvard’s Prof John Brownstein has been all over the media pushing the Pfizer vaccine.