Over the past 15 months we’ve had a barrage of statistics presented to us shouting about how great the vaccines are at preventing hospitalisation from (or with) Covid. However, these statistics have been light on detail on how they were calculated and we’ve not seen much sight at all of the raw data that the statistics were based upon.
Until now. In April, a paper was published by the UKHSA (currently in pre-print, which means that it hasn’t yet undergone the usual peer-review process) on its statistical analysis of a selection of hospitalisation data by vaccination status. The intent of this paper was to support its statements that the vaccines prevent hospitalisation. However, the paper also includes the raw data upon which the UKHSA statistics were derived, and these data tell a very different story to that presented by the UKHSA. The data show:
- Far higher accident and emergency admission rates for reasons other than Covid in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated.
- Much higher rates of hospitalisation due to non-Covid acute respiratory illness in the vaccinated.
- Even higher A&E admissions and hospitalisations in the double-vaccinated (not boosted).
- Even where the data suggest that the vaccines offer some protection (the risk of admission to intensive care resulting from Covid infection) the results look like they might be an artefact created by the assumptions used by the UKHSA.
In addition, the data strongly suggest that the UKHSA is using an inappropriate method in its statistical analysis of vaccine effectiveness – the test-negative case-control (TNCC) method. It is likely that it has been significantly overestimating the effectiveness of the vaccines at preventing hospitalisation.
The data released by the UKHSA and expounded below aren’t proof that the vaccines have caused a great deal of harm and injury to the population, but they do raise a huge red-flag that something is amiss. Urgent investigations need to be undertaken to clarify the situation regarding the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines.
A note on the Test-Negative Case-Control (TNCC) method
The basic concept of measuring vaccine efficacy (in a trial) or effectiveness (based on real-world results) is relatively straightforward – simply calculate the ratio of the proportion of the vaccinated that get infected (or hospitalised) with the proportion of the unvaccinated that get infected (or hospitalised). However, while this simple method can work well, it can be affected by differences in the types of people vaccinated and unvaccinated and more powerful methods are preferred.
The ‘gold standard’ for measurement of vaccine efficacy/effectiveness (VE) is the prospective matched cohort design. This is quite simple in concept – you simply divide the study into a number of groups of individuals with similar characteristics, based on the vulnerability to the disease and the typical effectiveness of vaccines. Matched cohort studies nearly always split into groups of similar age and sex, and will usually include many other factors thought to be related to risk of disease. For example, for Covid these might include race, BMI and whether the individual has diabetes – all factors identified in early data as being relevant risk factors.
The ‘prospective’ part means that the individuals are placed into their groups before they are given their doses of vaccine, but this isn’t the only way – it is possible to undertake a retrospective study where people are placed into their different groups after they are vaccinated (potentially some time after).
The problem with matched cohort trials is that they’re rather expensive and also require you to know what factors to control for when calculating vaccine efficacy/effectiveness. This led to the development of the test-negative case-control method. With this method you compare the ratio of positive (have the disease) to negative (don’t have the disease) tests results for a given condition (e.g. admission to hospital). This method, when applied correctly, automatically corrects for many biases, such as propensity to be tested or seek medical care, and is both accurate and removes much of the complexity and costs associated with matched-cohort studies. The important part is the ‘when applied correctly’ – if it is applied incorrectly then you end up with inaccurate and potentially misleading results.
The UKHSA data – Emergency admissions
Let’s apply the TNCC method to the data in the UKHSA paper on vaccine effectiveness at preventing hospitalisation. Fortunately, it offers raw data in its supplementary document. I’ll start with hospitalisations ‘with symptomatic Covid’ for those aged over 65 who presented to A&E for reasons other than accident/injury (Table S12 in the paper), and to keep things simple will look at ‘any vaccine’ (i.e., any number of doses) vs ‘no vaccine’ and only for the Omicron period (the data covers the period from 22nd November to 2nd February).
To show the TNCC method in action we can use the figures in the table above to gain an estimate of VE using the TNCC methodology:
VE = 100 × (1 – (873÷140,931) ÷ (103÷1,705) ) = 90%
Thus even with this simplified case where we only consider the protection offered by the vaccines to the ‘vaccinated group’ (with any number of doses, though most are boosted in the over-65 age group), we can see that TNCC estimates that the vaccines offer significant protection from hospitalisation, around 90%.
But wait – those raw numbers for A&E presentation by vaccination status look more than a little suspicious. We know that during the study period approximately 10 million individuals aged over 65 had been vaccinated with at least one dose of vaccine, and around 600,000 remained unvaccinated. Thus we can present the raw figures above as a ‘per 100,000’ to remove the effect of the size of the vaccinated vs unvaccinated groups.
Wow. According to the raw data the vaccinated are presenting to A&E without having Covid at around five times the rate of the unvaccinated. Sure, there are more hospitalisations with symptomatic Covid in the unvaccinated, but only by eight per 100,000.
In Table 2 above I have also included an estimate of vaccine effectiveness based on these raw data. Now, I’m being a bit naughty here as the data aren’t meant to be used this way – this is why I’ve used the UKHSA trick of greying out the text in the hope that no-one will notice. Nevertheless, for population-wide data this shouldn’t be too far out.
Now, I’m sure that epidemiologists up and down the land are shouting that the data shouldn’t be used in this way – and they’re right. It certainly doesn’t prove that the vaccinated are getting ill because of the vaccine. There are a number of reasons why this result might be found:
- The vaccinated might be much more likely to be hypochondriacs/malingerers and thus be going to A&E even though they’re not ill at all. More realistically, the vaccinated might have a lower threshold for the severity of symptoms required to get medical assistance at A&E. If this was the case then there would be vaccinated individuals presenting themselves to A&E where the average unvaccinated person with similar symptoms wouldn’t.
- The vaccinated might be much more unhealthy in general than the unvaccinated.
However, the sheer scale of the differences between the A&E visits not-for-Covid is huge, and given that these are population-wide figures I’d suggest that it couldn’t all be explained either by health seeking behaviours or because of general health – but I’d accept they they could certainly contribute.
Nevertheless, the TNCC assumption would be that the vaccinated are simply the type of people that are five times more likely to go to A&E (whether because of differences in behaviour or health) and thus they’re also going to be five times more likely to attend A&E with symptomatic Covid. The researchers would therefore adjust the figures to allow for this difference between the groups, boosting VE. I’d suggest that this latter point isn’t necessarily the case – it is very often the case that behaviours aren’t proportional like this, for example, just because an individual chooses to drive at 40mph in a 60mph zone, doesn’t mean he or she will drive at 20mph in a 30mph zone.
The alternative explanation:
- Some of the visits to A&E might be due to a reaction / side-effect / complication of the vaccines.
- The vaccines might have an impact on the immune system for diseases other than Covid, resulting in increased illness and thus presentation to A&E.
Just to be clear – we don’t know whether the vaccinated are seeing much higher admissions rates to A&E due to a vaccine effect or simply because the vaccinated have different behaviours and general health to the unvaccinated. However, anecdotal data on pressures on A&E services and on the general health of the nation (‘worst cold ever’) suggest that the vaccines may be at least partially responsible.
More on the emergency admissions data
The UKHSA paper also includes incidence by vaccination status (Table S12 again). We have to be a bit careful here as we don’t know when the individuals were vaccinated, but we do know that the incidence of Covid varied substantially through the period. Without information on which individuals were vaccinated on which date we run the risk of introducing a bias. However, we do have information about some aspects of the vaccinated population:
- Around 600,000 individuals over the age of 65 remain unvaccinated, and this hasn’t changed much for over six months (this is why it was safe to use this assumption in the prior analysis).
- The vaccination data suggest that around 90,000 individuals over the age of 65 took the first dose of vaccine during spring 2021 but didn’t receive the second dose.
- The vaccination data suggest that around 440,000 individuals over the age of 65 took their first and second doses of vaccine according to the vaccination schedule (i.e., early/late spring 2021) but didn’t receive the booster/third dose.
Table S12 splits out hospitalisation data for those vaccinated with their first dose more than 28 days before their positive test, and vaccinated with their second dose more than 175 days before their positive test. Thus we can tentatively include these specific data in our analysis – individuals that had their first dose (only) or second dose (no booster) some time before the study period started.
Two points immediately stand out.
First, the hospitalisation rate with symptomatic confirmed Covid in those that had a single dose of vaccine ‘some time before’ the study period is similar to the hospitalisation rate in the unvaccinated but their A&E presentation rate for ‘not Covid’ is 2.5 times the rate of the unvaccinated. The TNCC assumption would be that the similarity in the symptomatic Covid rate is a fluke and what’s important is that on average they’re simply the type of individuals that would go to A&E more often and if that group of individuals hadn’t been vaccinated they’d have had 2.5 times more hospitalisation rates ‘with Covid’. I suggest that it is far more likely that the single-dose individuals have no vaccine induced protection against hospitalisation but that they are very much more likely to attend A&E.
Second, the A&E attendance rate of the double-vaccinated (only) without Covid is very similar to the A&E attendance rate of the vaccinated (any dose). However, their hospitalisation rate ‘with Covid’ is 2.5 times greater than that of the vaccinated (any dose) – the double-dosed that didn’t take their booster appear to have the ‘worst of both worlds’: increased A&E attendance (non-Covid) and increased admission rates ‘with Covid’.
Summary so far:
- The UKHSA has provided us with some raw data on hospitalisations by vaccination status.
- Examination of the data suggests that ‘with Covid’ hospitalisation rates in the unvaccinated aren’t too far from those in the vaccinated (any dose). However, non-Covid admission rates for A&E are much much higher in the vaccinated (any dose) than the unvaccinated.
- The TNCC approach would suggest that the vaccinated are simply ‘the type of people’ more likely to attend A&E and that the vaccines really do offer substantial protection against hospitalisation ‘with Covid’.
- Examination of other data suggests that the single dosed have ‘with Covid’ rates similar to the unvaccinated but 2.5 greater A&E attendance (without Covid) and that the double dosed (only) appear to have the worst situation of all – much higher Covid hospitalisation and much higher non-Covid admission to A&E.
Admission rates for acute respiratory illness
Table S7 in the UKHSA paper presents data on hospitalisations after an A&E visit where the individual had symptomatic Covid (again, Omicron, over 65). This sounds like the condition for the previous table, but in that table the ‘Covid negative’ column counted all non-accident or injury A&E visits, whereas the data in Table S7 only consider those that had symptoms similar to Covid.
I’ll present only the rates this time (feel free to look up the raw numbers yourself).
That’s perhaps even more interesting. In terms of the overall ratios it is a similar situation to the previous table – approximately 40% lower hospitalisations with symptomatic Covid in the vaccinated compared with the unvaccinated, but around four-fold higher rates for admission with symptoms that look like Covid, but aren’t Covid. But the interesting part is in the detail:
- Even though the absolute rates are very much lower, the unvaccinated still have the lowest admission rate to A&E. However, the difference for the data in the table above is that a doctor had assessed the individual and determined that he or she was ill enough to warrant hospitalisation. Thus the data in the table above are not influenced by the ‘symptom severity threshold’ that different individuals have before they’ll go to A&E. This is particularly of note because it suggests that the very high rates of presentation to A&E in the vaccinated in Table 1 and 2 are unlikely to be simply because of the vaccinated are more likely to go to A&E for ‘more trivial reasons’ than the unvaccinated – it looks like the vaccinated as a group really are more likely to be ill.
- Over twice as many of the unvaccinated are hospitalised with symptomatic Covid than with a condition that looks like Covid but isn’t (17.5 vs 6.5 hospitalisations per 100,000). However, twice as many of the vaccinated are hospitalised with ‘looks like Covid but isn’t’ than ‘with Covid’ (23 vs 11 hospitalisations per 100,000).
This latter point is important – one of the potential problems with vaccines (in general) is viral interference, that is, that a vaccine changes the immune response to other infectious diseases. Is it the case that the vaccines are significantly increasing the incidence of other respiratory infections? I note that last autumn/winter we had a mini-epidemic of what was popularly called ‘the worst cold ever’ – is this related?
However, the hospitalisation rate for symptomatic Covid might be more complex than it looks. In the UKHSA paper it appeared to define hospitalisation ‘with’ Covid to 14 days after the first positive test; if the individual presented to A&E after this 14 day period his or her data was excluded. It is possible that vaccination delays (rather than prevents) disease progression, in which case some of the hospitalisations with a condition that ‘looks like Covid but isn’t’ might in fact be due to a Covid infection that took longer than 14 days to develop to the point where hospitalisation was necessary. In addition, if the vaccinated were more likely to test themselves earlier in the progression of the disease then they might also be more likely to ‘run out of time’ and present themselves after the 14 day period has finished.
There’s another interesting aspect of these data – overall, the unvaccinated appeared to get around 24 hospitalisations per 100,000 of an illness that ‘looked like Covid’ (whether it was Covid or not) whereas the vaccinated appeared to get around 34 hospitalisations per 100,000. By this measure, vaccination is associated with an increased risk of a serious respiratory illness (whether Covid or not).
Again, the single-dosed appear to have the same risk of Covid as the unvaccinated, but increased attendance with looks like Covid but isn’t, and the double-dosed appear to have the ‘worst of both worlds’ – increased rates of attendance both with Covid and with looks like Covid but isn’t.
One more point – comparing Table 4 with Table 3, there appear to be far fewer admissions to A&E with Covid than without Covid. This indicates the current pressures on NHS A&E services are not related to Covid infections but ‘other things’.
The UKHSA data – Secondary uses data
The UKHSA paper also offers data using the NHS ‘secondary uses dataset’ (Table S10). This covers all hospitalisations and offers more granularity on the reasons for the hospitalisation and the level of treatment offered. The authors use a selection of the full dataset, where the admission was for an acute respiratory illness, and for several levels of seriousness.
First up are the data on hospitalisations for admissions for an acute respiratory illness where the individual was discharged the same day.
Two aspects stand out:
- The rate of serious Covid infection that warranted admission into hospital but that was not serious enough for an overnight stay was higher in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated. This suggests that the vaccines increase the risk of being ‘somewhat unwell from Covid’. Note that this isn’t simply ‘infected’ – these individuals were deemed by experts to be sufficiently at risk of their illness to be admitted to hospital, even if they didn’t pass the threshold for an overnight observation/treatment.
- The hospitalisation rate of ‘somewhat serious but not Covid’ acute respiratory illness in the vaccinated was around twice as great as that in the unvaccinated, and even higher in those having only one or two doses of vaccine
This time we see that overall the risk of ‘somewhat serious’ acute respiratory illness (whether due to Covid or not) appears to be similar in the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and that those having taken one or two doses of vaccine (only) appear worst off.
What about a more serious symptomatic infection – perhaps acute respiratory illness requiring several days of hospitalisation and supplementary oxygen?
Here, at last, we appear to see some benefit from the vaccines – the unvaccinated appear to be rather more likely to be hospitalised for a few days following Covid infection (acute respiratory illness requiring supplementary oxygen), and even though they also appear to be less likely to be similarly hospitalised without Covid, this isn’t by so great a margin to remove the protective effect of vaccination.
But yet, I keep returning to the matter of the 14 day limit after the positive test. Individuals typically get to the point where they require supplementary oxygen some time after infection. If the unvaccinated aren’t testing themselves at the point where symptoms start but the vaccinated are, then they’ll be relatively more likely to get to the stage where oxygen is required within that 14 day period. Any delay in symptomatic disease in the vaccinated would only make this effect worse. Is the supposed effectiveness of the vaccines at preventing severe disease simply an artefact arising due to the fact that it takes longer to get to the point where the symptoms are severe, or due to the unvaccinated being more test-averse?
The UKHSA doesn’t report on the basis for the use of a 14 day limit – I’d very much like to see supporting data, or a sensitivity analysis in its paper, comparing rates for 14, 21 and 28 days after the positive test.
Conclusions
The UKHSA has at long last published raw data on hospitalisation rates by vaccine status, for those infected with Covid as well as those that aren’t. The results are very concerning, showing significantly higher A&E admission rates in the vaccinated for reasons other than Covid, and much less difference in admission rates for symptomatic Covid in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated than suggested by the estimates of vaccine effectiveness published by the UKHSA.
What I’ve shown here isn’t proof that the vaccines are causing harm – but it is a huge red-flag that strongly suggests that there might be a serious problem, and certainly indicates that a proper analysis of illness after vaccination needs to be undertaken urgently.
Furthermore, the significant differences in the ‘negative test’ arm of the UKHSA data suggest that the test-negative case-control method is not appropriate, and that a full retrospective matched-cohort study into vaccine effectiveness and safety should be undertaken.
Amanuensis is an ex-academic and senior Government scientist. He blogs at Bartram’s Folly.
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.
An interesting observation by the author of this article, comparing the solidarity and tribalism of the Muslim communities worldwide and the lack thereof amongst Western nations, which is surely to our detriment, especially the way we keep on importing more and more of these people who’s objective is to dominate us, not live peacefully alongside us.
”Why are Muslims around the world — who come from different nations, speak different languages, and have different cultures — so moved by a distant, atrocious event that presumably does not affect or involve them? Simple: because they are Muslim; or rather, because Islam is so inherently tribal that its adherents, no matter how different or apart, maintain a sense of solidarity, one that especially exults when Islam “scores a victory” against infidels, especially those perceived as mistreating Muslims. (That’s why many Muslims also celebrated after 9/11.)
Not only is such survival-of-the fittest thinking instinctively appealing, but it stands in stark contrast with Christian virtues, such as humility, which requires cultivation.
In this sense, then, when one group of Muslims strike a victory in the name of Islam, including through bloodshed and massacres, Muslims the world over become elated, because it lifts them up, due, again, to Islam’s tribalistic nature.
On the other hand, the West fails to comprehend Muslim solidarity — which dangerously goes above and beyond “cheering” — precisely because it has no sense, whatsoever, of solidarity.
For example, Westerners are taught to disavow their own heritage and history while celebrating the cultures and customs of others — a thing that no Muslim, indeed, no healthy people could ever think of, let alone actually structuring their society around such artificial principles.
Because it specifically deals with the topic currently under discussion — religious solidarity — an even more apt example concerns the absolute indifference that the vast majority of Western Christians have concerning the global persecution of their coreligionists.”
https://stream.org/when-muslims-celebrate-terror-westerners-just-shrug/
Indeed. I would love to understand where and how this trend started.
Isn’t it easily explained by faith in God? Muslims not only speak words of faith, but manifest their thoughts and words into actions, which prove they truly believe there is a higher power. The West has either completely abandoned religion – replacing it for other faiths without meaning e.g. vaccines, climate change, LGBTQFUCKOFSIPX+ (more appropriately known a -H) – or held on to it in name only. They have an understanding of the meaning of life and a rulebook to follow. We don’t. The irony being that their pursuit of heaven means they can commit and applaud the most disgusting and inhumane acts. Because, you know, God.
I’ve never been religious, but I am now pondering the possibility that the Bible is a book of moral code that presents meaning, and has historically enforced order in society – often without us understanding the roots of that order. Now, in the West, that has been abandoned. But not elsewhere.
Yes, all good points. I am not and have never been religious, but it has seemed to me for a while now that the fading of religious belief and adherence has left a void that we’ve struggled to fill.
Just as in the bible, the Koran speaks of being good and caring to your fellow man, the problem, as in most religions, is who and how it is interpretated!
When a society that has belief takes on one that has no belief, there can only by one winner.
Especially if the west gives that winner a leg up! They must think we are such an easy touch, grief, they’re laughing at the west out loud and we still protect them!
“Prepare for a fresh wave of Covid, health chiefs say”
What.?? Colds are trending upwards as we come into winter.? Why did no-one mention this before.?
Not much profit from typical over-the-counter drugs often used against common colds?
I now know of three people who say they have had covid following a recent booster. Well, more fool them for getting boosted, (and they completely fail to connect the two things!) but how do they know it’s covid? Are people really still testing themselves, and why? I didn’t even know testing was still a thing, having never tested myself (or had covid, as far as I’m aware.)
Something of a victory in my tiny little world – a colleague of mine who has always been a bit covidian mentioned he “had a cold”.
Hoorray! Have also just heard of a multi-jabbed devotee (who had Bell’s palsy after the second one) deciding that they are not going to have any more boosters or the flu jab, ‘because [they] have heard there are lots of side effects’ (deliberately anonymised, not woke!).
Turning the tide, one jabbee at a time.
Good news worth celebrating!
More good news: –
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/13/pfizer-cuts-earnings-revenue-guidance-as-covid-sales-slump.html
The injections are being rejected on a large scale.
Nice one WW. I’ve had a couple of similar small victories recently at work. From my own observations, it seems the ones who were most afraid of Covid are now becoming afraid of the vaccines.
Probably he’d tested himself to rule out covid before downgrading it to a cold.
Yeah maybe. I think he’d have mentioned it if he had, but perhaps he has got wind of my views and decided to leave the subject alone in my presence. I joined some call a few months ago and my team were chatting bollocks about vaccines etc and mentioned I’d not had any and I was fine. Silence. Then “you must be one of those conspiracy people”.
No doubt disappointed with the result.
I read a bunch of letters I sent to my parents in the 1970s from school and they frequently mentioned colds and flu. We’re being played big time to believe that normal seasonal ailments possibly due to a lack of Vits C and D are some big threat. Well, I know you know that but it’s interesting none-the-less. Friends (who were jabbed) and people I know have recently said they had another bout of covid but all it is, is a case of the sniffles, sore throat, feeling awful etc. Amazing that no one remembers how colder wetter weather used to affect us.
Yes…it’s amazing isn’t it?
Cold and flu cases always increase in the autumn and winter –
except…of course….in 2020/21, when flu disappeared and was miraculously replaced with COVID.
COVID, a master of disguise and duplicity…! LOL!!
I know – it was a shock last year, and the year before, and I’m sure it will be next year too. I for one miss the old days before covid when no one ever got ill during the winter and the NHS was never in crisis.
“Teacher tells Jewish students to stand in a corner, just as ‘Israel does to the Palestinians”
And some on here still say there will be no bias from Palistinian doctors towards Jewish patients? Pull the other one
…that was me Dinger..and I’ve still to see you show any evidence that any doctor has done so……other than in your head…
Plus I’d rather not jump straight into because A happened B must be true, about a whole race of people….
I will also wait to hear a little more about the above story….rather than ‘some children said…’
I can’t help what you think, and you have your opinion, but please don’t tar me or anyone else with the ‘If the paper says it, it’s true’ brush..thanks….
I’m not saying that at all so f off!
I’m afraid ‘eby’ that the world is not as cute and fair as you seem to be making yourself believe!
Out of order Dinger. No need for such obnoxious rudeness to a venerable DS member.
The clique just gets stronger doesn’t it?
Dinger..let’s not fall out…
We can have a difference of opinion..
I know there are evil people..you know nothing about me, so I assure you I have probably seen more of that than you know….
The point is, I don’t have to join them..that’s the important bit to me.
I wonder if Kevin Bass had not suffered myo-pericarditis he would still be recommending the vaccine for all? Try spotting the sentence that triggered me this morning and appears to have triggered quite a few commenters … as one says, “he still doesn’t get it” although fair play to him for writing the article – it’s a start.
Even the emergency services are becoming part of the big ev cover up! There is no one left we can trust!
No one in authority, that’s true. They’re all co-opted into the big lie with ‘orders’ coming from up high to down low.
Seems like there isn’t. Geoff Buys Cars has done a pretty thorough ‘citizen science’ analysis, funny too. Some of the comments are worth a read for further detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-zKTqe19ss
“Israel shouldn’t have had to prove that Hamas slaughtered babies”
Sorry, but I don’t do blind faith no matter who states it! The pictures ive managed to find show body bags with blood on them,they could be dead dogs for all i know! Show people the images, show the truth no matter who it may offend, the human race needs some basic realities to confront not more mollycoddling!
In some ways we could argue that it doesn’t really matter. Why should there be a spectrum of depravity? Do evil psychopaths have a limit or an off-switch? I think going by what we’ve all witnessed by now that we can safely say these Hamas barbarians are capable of anything and are a danger even to their own people, therefore should be blasted from all existence. A captured terrorist in this clip tells us what they get up to. This is how much they value human life;
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2023/10/hamas-jihadi-admits-that-he-and-his-cohorts-raped-tortured-and-beheaded-israeli-civilians-including-children
Has Soviet Self Censorship come to Britain?
Fat Pig News Investigates!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIO3fJpnXLE
“‘Blade Runners’ vow to destroy ULEZ cameras to bring it ’to its knees”
Throwing eggs at them isn’t going to make much difference, slashing it’s tyres might? Not that I condone any form of criminal action!
” that showed em, ugh!”
A bit one-sided reporting on the responsibilities for Hamas&co.
For a reality check, read these pieces: https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/netanyahu-is-finished
https://www.unz.com/proberts/perhaps-my-speculation-was-on-the-mark/
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2020-02-24/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-israel-mossad-chief-doha-qatar-continue-hamas-gaza-money-transfer/0000017f-ded8-d856-a37f-ffd88a960000
https://starkrealities.substack.com/p/israel-fostered-the-rise-of-hamas?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Adding to the list: Alistair Crooke was on The Duran the other day, very enlightening. Also attached an article of his from 8th October.
https://rumble.com/v3okn3w-extremist-politics-in-israel-and-ukraine-alastair-crooke-alexander-mercouri.html
https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/al-aqsa-flood:-the-surprise-is-that-some-are-surprised
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/BpRDSiQtqSs
Machiavellian Tactics..
“because the two sides seemed to be offering too much of the same thing, says David Frost in the Telegraph.”
No!, you don’t say!
Kevin Bass strikes me as ‘particularly dim’, for pretty obvious reasons.
“Lloyds Bank offers 30,000 staff paid BUPA counselling if triggered By Conservative Party conference trans rhetoric ‘fuelling hate’” and
“Nigel Farage to bank with Lloyds after Coutts account closure”
Is that stupid HR woman going to write to all 30K staff again to offer counselling for taking on Farage?
https://twitter.com/TheRustler83/status/1712861242992239082
Since the roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccine on 14th December 2020, the USA has had:
675 Million vaccine doses
1.4 Million Excess Deaths
850,000 ‘COVID’ Deaths
Vaccines V Excess Deaths
2020 USA
480,000 excess deaths
360,000 COVID deaths
2021
670,000 excess deaths
480,000 COVID deaths
510M
2022
590,000 excess deaths
245,000 COVID deaths
150M
2023
150,000 excess deaths
50,000 COVID deaths
10M
16 Million COVID ‘Cases’ before the vaccine roll-out
90 Million COVID ‘Cases’ after the vaccine roll-out
If the vaccines worked, why didn’t they work?
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home
Ben
@USMortality
98% of Americans have refused to take the new boosters. That’s a win, because they don’t work!
“they don’t work”
That depends on who defines “work.”
….Yes..it reminds me of an old meme….”mummy does the vaccines provide immunity….only to the Pharma companies darling….”
LOL!
LOL..…..the Pharma Companies must be spending billions propping up ‘awards’…(not only the Nobel)…to keep their ‘product’ in play…?
Robert W Malone, MD
@RWMaloneMD
You can’t make this stuff up.
This is a sick, sick world we live in.
The Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) has awarded Peter Hotez the ANTHONY FAUCI COURAGE IN LEADERSHIP AWARD.
LOL!! And ALL true!!!
Five Times August
@FiveTimesAugust
Guys. Seriously, stop being ridiculous. There’s no weird global agenda attempting to keep us all fearful slaves you conspiracy nuts.
So what if inside of three years we went from a pre-planned pandemic that attempted to lock down, mask up, and jab up every single man, woman, and child …. to murder hornets…. to racial justice riots… to monkey pox ….to an aids comeback ….to drag queens profiting off perverting children ….to an astronomical spike in overly medicated and confused transgender kids …..to a whole bunch of “unexpected” heart attacks in young healthy people after a miraculous warp-speed vaccine…. to a test run of social credit vax pass compliance apps …..to a brand new war ….. to global warming to global boiling ….to alien sightings …..to another brand new war ….into another plandemic…
THIS STUFF HAPPENS ALL THE TIME AND IS PERFECTLY NORMAL…..
It’s Just life y’all, geez, settle down.
Another day, another nine stories at the top of Daily Sceptic’s News Roundup all from a pro-Israel/anti-Hamas perspective, conveniently ignoring the fact that there are very clear, practical, long-standing reasons why two million people trapped in an open-air prison called the Gaza Strip might wish to attack, kill, and take hostages among the people they identify as their jailers. An entire generation of young Palestinians have grown up under a brutal, de-humanizing occupation, and they are ready to risk their lives in this struggle. I expect nothing more than one-sided propaganda from the mainstream media, but I had hoped, perhaps naively, that a web site that prides itself on “questioning everything”, might at least stand up for the rights of those in different countries to express different opinions on this topic, and possibly even allow some of those opinions to be heard here. If Glenn Greenwald can do it, why can’t The Daily Sceptic?
The lack of nuanced coverage is depressing. It’s should not be a question of taking sides but understanding what’s behind all this. I’d like references to discussions such as the one I’m just listening to between Bret Weinstein and Efrat Fenigson at
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F_IAH7PnS_E
She was in Israeli intelligence force so knows a thing or two.
Well here’s a turn up for the books..brilliant, good luck to them…
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/14/new-zealand-election-2023-results-national-party-labour-
New Zealand voters have delivered a forceful rejection of the Labour government as a surge in support for the National party delivered what analysts described as a “bloodbath” for the government and a new right-leaning era for politics in the country.
The result marked a dramatic change in fortunes for the Labour party, which three years earlier – led by Jacinda Ardern – secured a historic mandate, but saw its support dwindle in the face of rising living costs and the Covid pandemic.
Speaking to a large crowd of party-faithful at his election night event in Auckland, National party leader Christopher Luxon said his party was on course to form the next government with libertarian party Act. “All over this country you have reached for hope and you have voted for change,” Luxon said.
“…you have voted for change,” Luxon said.”
I would say we are at the wait and see point.
Agree. The Weffers are good at clinging on to power and not changing one bit.