Fall is coming and the Covid propaganda machine, fuelled by manufacturers of Covid vaccines, is already here. Without a single trial of the effectiveness against death, lipid nanoparticles that contain mRNA and perhaps more (remnant DNA?) will likely be added to regular flu vaccination every winter. Perhaps as soon as this winter they will no longer be called booster doses.
It is therefore an appropriate time to revisit the claims of high effectiveness of the first booster, which was added to the two-shot protocol two winters ago. Using empirical data from three sources, I will examine here what is left after accounting for the healthy vaccinee bias (to be explained) and show peculiar features of the data that indicate even deeper estimation problems. Then, I will discuss another bias, called differential misclassification, which cannot be easily removed.
Considering these two biases (there may be others), the true effectiveness of the first booster was somewhere between mediocre and zero, and it is impossible to narrow that range. Therefore, all those observational studies of the booster effectiveness were useless.
Taking a new Covid shot every winter, whether called booster or not, has no empirical basis. The burden of proving effectiveness against death squarely rests on public health officials, and anything short of a randomised trial is unacceptable.
The healthy vaccinee bias
I devoted several articles to this topic, which may be summarised as follows:
A naïve comparison of Covid mortality in vaccinated people and unvaccinated people, even if age-adjusted, is grossly misleading because the former have a lower risk of death to begin with. At least part of their lower Covid mortality, if not all, has nothing to do with the vaccine. They are simply healthier people than their unvaccinated counterparts. That’s called the healthy vaccinee bias.
Or vice versa: unvaccinated people are, on average, sicker than their vaccinated counterparts, and therefore have higher mortality in general, including mortality from Covid.
Biases have been studied extensively by epidemiologists, biostatisticians and others. But if you run a search for “healthy vaccinee bias” on PubMed, a well-known website for biomedical articles, you will not find many publications. There are only 24 (August 31st), including recent correspondence in the New England Journal of Medicine on the booster effectiveness.
The healthy vaccinee bias, which many mistakenly call selection bias, is a type of confounding bias. Moreover, it is not restricted to a comparison of vaccinated with unvaccinated but is carried forward with additional doses. Those who took the third dose were healthier, on average, than those who took only two doses. We’ll see the evidence shortly. Shifting of healthier people along the sequence of doses has another peculiar effect. For instance, the ‘leftover’ cohort of two-dose recipients becomes relatively sicker than (more comparable to) the cohort of unvaccinated.
The healthy vaccinee bias can be removed, at least partly, but little has been written on the method. As far as I know, two research groups independently developed a correction method for biased risk ratios: one group from Hungary; another from the U.S. Unaware of that work until recently, I also proposed a method. Interestingly, it turns out that it’s the same trivial maths, expressed in two or three forms.
Regardless of the maths, the common underlying principle is simple. We know that vaccinated people are healthier, on average. Let’s use data on non-Covid mortality to estimate their Covid mortality, had they been as unhealthy as their unvaccinated counterparts. In other words, we estimate the risk in a counterfactual state, which is not observable. Indeed, one of several ways to define confounding and deconfounding is based on counterfactual reasoning. (There are other ways.)
To correct the bias, we need data on non-Covid mortality by vaccination status. That type of data has been consistently hidden. So far I am aware of three sources of data on non-Covid death of recipients of the third dose: England, Wisconsin and Israel.
Data from the Office of National Statistics (ONS), England
The ONS is the largest of the three sources. That agency periodically publishes an extensive dataset with many levels of stratification, from which I extracted monthly data for those who received the third dose versus those who received only two doses. In both cases, I chose only those people who received the last dose at least 21 days ago, avoiding sparse data for some other categories and ensuring comparability. The time period I examined was November 2021 through April 2022, shortly after the initiation of the booster campaign till the next (fourth dose) campaign.
The ONS data include age-standardised mortality rates for all ages, and also rates for 10-year age groups with additional age-standardisation within those age groups. I chose the latter rates. The results were nearly identical using non-standardised rates, which is not surprising given the narrow age bands.
The example below shows that the rate of non-Covid mortality in the oldest recipients of only two doses was 2.19 times that rate in their age-matched counterparts who received three doses. Those who continued to take the booster were healthier on average. That’s the healthy vaccinee bias, which was present in every age group in every month. The ratio 2.19 is called the bias factor. Its value ranged from 2 to 5 in most of the ONS data I extracted. The lowest value was 1.7 and the highest was 8.1.
A naïve analysis produces a risk ratio for Covid death of 0.27 (vaccine effectiveness of 73%) attributed to taking a third dose versus taking only two doses. Both are biased estimates. To compute a corrected risk ratio we should multiply the biased risk ratio (0.27) by the bias factor (2.19), as explained elsewhere.
Rounding at the end of the computation, we get a corrected risk ratio of 0.60 (corrected vaccine effectiveness of only 40%).
A few methodological points:
First, as I noted earlier, the use of actual rates rather than standardised rates has made no material difference. The age groups were narrow enough. In the example above, we get exactly the same result whichever type of rate we use because the standardised rates were almost identical to the actual rates.
Second, when using actual rates, population denominators cancel out. Simple maths shows that we can get the corrected risk ratio by using only counts of deaths. I will skip the technical derivation and just show the computation for the example above:
Odds of Covid death (vs. non-Covid death) in third-dose recipients: 606 ÷ 6,912 = 0.088
Odds of Covid death (vs. non-Covid death) in two-dose recipients: 88 ÷ 598 = 0.147
Corrected risk ratio: 0.088 ÷ 0.147 = 0.60
Third, serious questions have been raised on the ONS denominators. However, this method of correction for the healthy vaccinee bias relies only on counts of deaths (which do matter a lot.) We will return to this topic at the end when I discuss another important bias: differential misclassification of the cause of death.
Fourth, sparse data (few deaths) is a common problem in estimation of vaccine effectiveness, especially when the sample is stratified. In the interval I analysed for the booster effect (November 2021-April 2022), it was not an issue. The ONS dataset is large enough to produce stable results at those levels of stratification.
Fifth, I restricted the computation to age 60 and above for two reasons: 1) the unbrainwashed reader knows that Covid has never been a public health issue for younger populations; 2) The number of Covid deaths in younger age groups was small.
The graph below shows a naïve analysis of the ONS data. The estimates of high effectiveness are useless for at least one reason: the healthy vaccinee bias. The ONS acknowledges the point, without using the word “bias.” It writes:
The ASMRs [age-standardised mortality rates] are not equivalent to measures of vaccine effectiveness; they account for differences in age structure and population size, but there may be other differences between the groups (particularly underlying health) that affect mortality rates.
Corrected estimates of effectiveness are shown in the graph below. Comparing the second graph to the first, it is apparent that the magnitude of the healthy vaccinee bias was large, and in April 2022, biased estimates of 54% to 70% were essentially nullified. We also observe rapid and complete waning of effectiveness, which was not seen in the biased results.
Nonetheless, new questions arise after the correction:
- Why does effectiveness appear to increase with aging in many pairwise comparisons? For instance, why is it twice as high in the oldest than the youngest in November 2021? We expect to observe the opposite, given well-established knowledge from immunology.
- Why does effectiveness increase in the youngest age group between November 2021 and January 2022, and then rapidly decrease? Is there any biological explanation?
- Why is the linear, downward trend most consistent and sharp only in the oldest age group?
- Why are the estimates for the four age groups largely equalised by January 2022, and then diverge again?
Some features of the data simply don’t make sense. Why?
I offer the following answer to all these questions: either we did not remove the healthy vaccinee bias completely and uniformly, or some other bias-related processes have operated. Although we should confidently reject the original, biased estimates, we cannot endorse the new estimates as valid, final substitutes. They do not even qualify as upper boundaries of effectiveness. True effectiveness, if meaningful at all, should be much lower.
Data from Wisconsin
Data from Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is presented in a study by Yuan et al. (preprint) or Atanasov et al. (peer-reviewed version). Their article is among the best manuscripts I have read in my professional career, which does not mean that I agree with a statement such as “COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives”. They did not. Nor do I agree with their claims about the benefits of the booster, as you will shortly see.
That article is exceptional on several counts: 1) independent discovery of the method to remove the healthy vaccinee bias; 2) thorough analyses at a level I have rarely seen (if you bother to read a lengthy appendix); 3) thoughtful discussions of almost every issue I could think about; 4) full exposition of the data. To my surprise, however, the phrase “healthy vaccinee bias” is never mentioned, nor is there any citation of previous work on the topic.
The authors have studied vaccine effectiveness of various doses against Covid death in residents of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. From their overwhelming amount of data, I was able to extract and compute the numbers in the table below, which is essentially the same kind of data as the ONS data and the same kind of analysis — in two age groups rather than four, over three months (combined). Even after grouping, the data are sparse (a small number of Covid deaths).
As you can see, the results are peculiar. There was only moderate healthy vaccinee bias in ages 60-79 and no bias at all in ages 80-plus. What kind of healthy vaccinee bias was accounted for? Why do we observe a bias factor of 1? Following correction, the booster effectiveness in ages 80-plus was somewhat higher, not lower, than in ages 60-79. Are these the expected results?
The authors write that “…selection effects, unless controlled for (through our CEMP measure or in another way), can produce large biases in VE estimates”. That’s correct, and we just saw it in the ONS analysis. But for some reason these effects did not seem to operate in their data for elderly booster recipients versus two-dose recipients.
I commend the authors for creative explanations of anomalous results (Appendix, pages 13-14). Apparently, no explanations were needed for the ONS data. The healthy vaccinee bias never vanished in any age group.
An excellent analysis cannot remedy problems that are inherent in the sample. It may be a sparse data problem alone or a lot more. Either way, we should have no trust in the new estimates.
Data from Israel
A letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine has recently generated considerable interest in the healthy vaccinee bias. Høeg and colleagues astutely used data on non-Covid mortality from a study of booster recipients in Israel. In those data, biased vaccine effectiveness of 95% has turned into null after correction for the healthy vaccinee bias. The data are summarised below.
When a new method is introduced, new questions often arise, which are highly technical. Rather than correcting the bias using counts, rates or age-adjusted rates, it is also possible to correct the bias by a two-step procedure. First, we fit a multivariable regression model to remove as much confounding as we can, for both Covid death and non-Covid death. Then, we apply the counterfactual-based correction for the ‘leftover’ bias. The results may differ. For instance, in the study from Israel, the second method generated vaccine effectiveness of 57% rather than 0%.
- Are both methods valid, in the statistical sense of ‘unbiased results’?
- If so, which is preferred from a statistical perspective (say, smaller variance)?
The discussion is far too complicated to be included here. I will just say — for those with advanced statistical knowledge — that the two-step method is a hybrid of two approaches to deconfounding: classical conditioning and counterfactual reasoning. Whether that hybrid is justified, even if valid, is questionable. On the other hand, I am not aware yet of any overt pitfall of the single counterfactual approach, namely, the approach of Høeg et al., and mine.
Differential misclassification bias
Imagine two people who died in a hospital. Patient A received only two doses of a Covid vaccine; patient B received three doses (‘up to date’). Suppose Covid was the cause of death in both patients. Nonetheless, in our imperfect world there is misclassification, and one of the two deaths, or both, might be recorded as a non-Covid death. What kind of misclassification might be expected?
It depends on vaccination status.
We may assume that physicians are more reluctant to attribute death to Covid in a vaccinated patient than in an unvaccinated patient “because the vaccines are highly effective”. Still, they do record Covid as a cause of death in vaccinated patients, but they might do so differently for patient A (two doses) versus patient B (three doses). The Covid death of patient B, who is ‘up to date’ on vaccination status, is more likely to be mistakenly recorded as non-Covid than the Covid death of patient A who is not. By analogy, think about patient A as ‘unvaccinated’ and about patient B as vaccinated. Which Covid death is more likely to be missed? The latter.
The phenomenon is called differential misclassification bias, and I have no doubt that it was operating universally for various reasons: the mindset of physicians, PCR testing protocols, and so on. Nonetheless, it is difficult to quantify and remove the bias. When differential misclassification is added to the healthy vaccinee phenomenon, the bias is compounded. To illustrate the point, hypothetically, I used the sparse data from Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.
Suppose 5% of 491 non-Covid deaths in ages 60-79 were actually Covid deaths, which were misclassified (because physicians were convinced that the vaccines were highly effective and for other reasons). Nonetheless, there was differential misclassification as explained above: 6% of 239 non-Covid deaths in three-dose recipients (‘up to date’ vaccinated) were Covid deaths, whereas only 4% of 252 non-Covid deaths in two-dose recipients (‘unvaccinated’) were Covid deaths.
The computation is shown in the table below. After correcting for both differential misclassification bias and the healthy vaccinee bias, we get only 28% effectiveness of the third dose.
The authors of that study acknowledged that estimated effects would be biased if “the degree of undercounting differed systematically between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons”, but they “have no reason to expect that condition (ii) holds”.
As I wrote above, I do not share their belief. There are plenty of reasons to expect differential misclassification, and those of us who followed PCR testing practices in Israel, for example, have ample evidence.
I believe that some day, observational data on the effectiveness of Covid vaccines will be taught in epidemiology courses as prime examples of the healthy vaccinee bias, misclassification bias, other biases and other distortions.
To summarise:
The true effectiveness of the first booster was short-lived, if meaningful at all. Peak protection was somewhere between mediocre and zero, and it is impossible to narrow that range. Therefore, all those observational studies of the booster effectiveness were useless.
Taking a new Covid shot every winter has no empirical basis. The burden of proving effectiveness against death squarely rests on public health officials and anything short of a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial is unacceptable. And that applies to the flu shot as well.
Dr. Eyal Shahar is Professor Emeritus of Public Health at the University of Arizona. This article first appeared on Medium.
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.
The U.K.-based consultancy
Inclusive MindsThe Twits contracts with dozens of‘inclusion ambassadors’Twits to shape the next generation of children’s books, reports National Review.This assault on Roald Dahl’s books is absurd on so many levels. I’m wondering how many complaints Puffin books received over the decades, about the ”offensive” language Dahl wrote…Compare this with the many graphic thrillers and horror books, which any kid/teen can get hold of and I think the latter would be far more traumatizing than referring to an Oompa Loompa as ”he”. The silliness goes on and on. Kids say a lot of nasty stuff to each other, name-calling and such, in the playground, so I’m predicting editing out the word ”fat” when applied to Augustus Gloop is hardly going to change any kind of kids’ behaviour or vocabulary. If their motives weren’t so sinister it’d be laughable what they’re doing.
The whole point of Gloop was his gluttony.
Puffin owned by Penguin Random House, owned by Bertelsmann Media Group, one of the world’s largest media groups, privately owned and controlled by a billionaire family and closely connected to a charitable trust, also heavily involved in education. Nothing to worry about…
I can’t think of any new expletives to register my total disgust at this assault on children’s books. I have no words…
If you did, they’d rewrite them!
It’s pathetic, pointless and petty isn’t it? As if kids don’t call each other ”fat” or ”ugly” ( or worse! ) in real life. And they sure as hell know the difference between a male and a female. I’m thinking things won’t be quite so ridiculously woke here in the NL as the Dutch culture has a very relaxed attitude towards swearing and they’re a very blunt lot, for instance. Apparently even my daughter’s teacher loses his shit and swears in class. They’re only 10 and 11 years! lol
In our classrooms, I’m told by family members in the profession, kids routinely chant the Childline number at teachers who try to enforce any discipline.
Meanwhile, in a region fought over for millennia, and still being fought over, no end in sight:
‘A leaked internal strategy document from Vladimir Putin’s executive office…….lays out a detailed plan on how Russia plans to take full control over neighboring Belarus in the next decade under the pretext of a merger between the two countries.’
‘The authorship of the strategy document, according to one Western official with direct knowledge of its construction, belongs to the Presidential Directorate for Cross-Border Cooperation, a subdivision of Putin’s Presidential Administration, which was established five years ago. The rather innocuously named directorate’s actual task is to exert control over neighboring countries that Russia sees as in its sphere of influence: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova.’
https://news.yahoo.com/russia-belarus-strategy-document-230035184.html
‘The 2021 Russian presidential administration paper spells out Minsk’s political, military, defense, humanitarian, trade and economic integration with Moscow as part of a so-called ‘Union State’
Moscow Times 21 Feb 2023
A casual glance at the map indicates Putin’s grand plan to subsume Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, the Baltic states and, once more, join Kaliningrad geographically with the rest of the ‘Russian Federation’ in a new ‘Union State’
It could almost be said that his ultimate aim might very well be:
“From Stettin in the Baltic, to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent,’
Winston Churchill
It it could be clumsy Western propaganda that you’d have to be particularly gullible to fall for
Exactly. Oh hang on what’s this secret map with these red blocks all over the previous Eastern Bloc and models of warships everywhere….oh it’s a Risk board…stand down Number One…
Good to know that the Moscow Times is ‘Western’
The information in the document, regarding Moldova, at least, is corroborated by other sources.
In November 2020, the FSB’s strategic objective in Moldova was to bring about ‘The full restoration of the strategic partnership between Moldova and the Russian Federation’.
FSB Outline of Operational Aims and Means, 21 November 2021.
And alluded to by Putin himself in various speeches:
‘It is now that radicals and nationalists, including and primarily those in Ukraine, are taking credit for having gained independence. As we can see, this is absolutely wrong. The disintegration of our united country was brought about by the historic, strategic mistakes on the part of the Bolshevik leaders and the CPSU leadership, mistakes committed at different times in state-building and in economic and ethnic policies’
‘Address by the President of the Russian Federation’, transcript, 21 February 2022
Basically, Putin wants to re-establish Kievan Rus to protect Eastern Europe and Eurasia from the perverted, collapsed civilisation of the West. Putin’s not a good guy on any level, but compared with the lying filth ruling us that have happily been using Ukraine as a battlefield for a proxy war since orchestrating a coup in 2014, he’s positively transparent.
China is the real enemy and has its tentacles throughout our society, having schmoozed and bribed its way into controlling academia, politicians and businessmen who are gaming the exchange rate to provide cheap goods made by slave labour in conditions it would be illegal to operate in the West.
Russia is a distraction along the lines of making Klingons the bad guys in Star Trek again, because viewing figures are down!! This is a smokescreen, allowing the strange cultists who’ve colonised our institutions to create scarcity to push everything from eating bugs to making people turn off their heating and lights, while rewriting our books and history.
The thing is that if Putin takes over Ukraine and Belarus, as he clearly intends, Moldova, the Baltic States, are next. And that means war with NATO, us. Given that we have about a couple of thousand deployable infantry and probably fifty or so tanks that work, his behaviour begins to become relevant to your way of life, in fact threatens your very existence on this planet.
…and it just so happens that there have been massive pro-Russian protests in Moldova? I don’t suppose that fact has got anything to do with it?
I’m not really sure what your point is…this Rand document isn’t secret, but it contains
advice to the US Government on how to ‘Unbalance and Overextend Russia…
including…separating it from Germany, and offer gas ‘from other sources’ (LOL!)
Degrading the Russian economy with sanctions…..encouraging emigration of skilled youth….providing lethal aid to Ukraine…..increasing support to Syrian rebels….
’flip’ Transnistria….(in other words stick your oar in/foment regime change in Moldova)….promote liberalisation in Belarus (again stick your oar in/foment regime change)….diminish faith in the election process….undermine Russia’s image abroad..
on and on it goes….
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/RB10000/RB10014/RAND_RB10014.pdf
This is just one document, amongst many…Is any of this better or worse?
And it doesn’t even make you wonder, not one tiny bit, that the countries you mention are all friendly towards Russia, and not so much towards the US?
It doesn’t strike you as odd at all, that Hungary, the only country to say it won’t send weapons to Ukraine, is being targeted by the EU, and the USA and USAID, who are giving money to supposed pro-democracy groups…and media? And basically trying to foment unrest?
Hungary….a sovereign country with a democratically elected Government?
I don’t suppose it does…..
Is Americas illegal occupation of Syria and its oil fields better/different?
Is Americas interference in Taiwan better/different?
Is Americas interference in Ukraine (for many years) better/different?
…and unlike Russia and China that list goes on and on….
I have no idea nor do I think it at all relevant.
The fact remains that we now have clear evidence of Putin’s intentions to restore the USSR and iron curtain in Europe.
That is why Poland will shortly possess the most powerful land forces in Europe after, let me see, oh yes, that would be Russia…..
This immediately becomes a very real problem for us once the Baltic States, NATO members, come under threat.
And we now know that they will come under threat, sooner if Ukraine is defeated, or later…..
It isn’t clear evidence of anything. No one in NATO has been threatened..and quite frankly, as usual, the only people threatening anyone and escalating the conflict is the USA and its partners….
Of course you don’t think America’s actions in agitating for regime change, and making war all over the globe are relevant..
…but I would remind you that 80% of the world has not sanctioned Russia, and doesn’t support the West’s continued provocations and escalation in respect of either Russia or China…
They have now. Why do you think Poland is spending dillions on 1250 tanks and the rest……?
The first duty of Britain’s useless government is defence of the realm. What the rest of the world may think is of no consequence in that context
The point is that, now, plain as a pike staff, war in Western Europe beckons if Putin wins in Ukraine.
And that probably doesn’t work out too well for us.
Excellent. Thanks ebg.
Meanwhile the EU seeks to ensnare any damned country they can and refuses to accept the democratic vote of a country which chose to leave its clutches.
And Bourkina Faso, capital Ouagadougou, translated, means ‘The land of the incorruptible’.
I don’t know the details of the “four day week” experiment/trial, but I did read a headline saying that productivity was unaffected. One can’t help wondering if some of the people involved were exactly working flat out 5 days a week.
I also wonder whether rolling this out more widely would just elongate a lot of processes that are already frustratingly slow, by adding a day or two’s delay to every step in various chain because person X or firm Y happen to be having their extra day off on different days.
Cambridge vegan totalitarians happy to impose their beliefs on everyone. Sound familiar?
Including on the students – I remember back in 1970 how the press was full of articles about how “Cambridge students” (ie the students union) supported this or that radical cause, when CSU membership was compulsory (fees deducted from grant), and it was run entirely by Agitprop types.
The local restaurants, burger bars, fish’n’chip shops and kebab trucks must be hugging themselves with glee…
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/news-opinion/best-places-eat-cambridge-restaurant-13992839
Cambridge Chop Shop – ‘where every night is steak night‘
I hope the Uni places go out of business!
I wonder if mums will descend with burgers and chicken nuggets to pass through the railings like they did when Jamie Oliver tried to pep up school dinners?!
Steve Kirsch with a summary of several sceptics criticism and interpretations of the ONS data.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-latest-uk-data-is-still-deeply?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
“It’s okay for somebody who’s a Marxist to bring what they’ve learned from Das Kapital into the room, but not to take what you believe from the Bible. That’s nonsense, isn’t it?” I can’t stand watching politicians making political capital out of whatever new horror emerges, especially spineless people like Farron, but he touches on a point that Putin referred to in his address. This is the assault on our religion. Now I’m not a religious man myself but I like to know it’s there and, probably like you, I’ve been to many weddings, christenings and funerals and there are some hymns that are OK. I got married in a church and signed the registry and I’ve found some services especially moving. What I’m trying to say is that it’s there, in the background mainly, but there all the same. It’s a constant. Or rather it was until Archbish Wetby decided to go against the traditionalists and introduce some wokery. This was an unwise move. He’s basically caused a schism. He’s breaking the church and as such he breaking that constant. As far as I’m concerned he can F Off and start his own woke church and they can all dress in tinsel and lycra and pray to their trans saints and genderless god. Just vacate the actual church buildings and do it somewhere else. And this nonsense above is just part of that. Break the foundations of our society, render it meaningless, allow anything and everything, destroy belief and faith and create new versions so that the people are lost and confused. How much longer before C of E schools become something else and before morning prayers are some ghastly litany of diversity, inclusivity and equity and before they go through the entire host of saints and bring every one of them down? And what is the hope of a godless land? Reminds me of that Yuval Harari creature from Schwab’s dominions who said something along the lines of: ‘God is dead’ and if he didn’t actually say those words, he implied it. It’s chilling because this seems like the beginning of a greater darkness descending and we must be on our guard and defend our church wherever we stand with it. And that goes for our weak King too!
The more I’ve learned these past 3 years has convinced me that this is not just a physical war being waged but a spiritual one. Think of the push to neutralise gender, promote an alphabet lifestyle, indoctrinate children with the trans agenda, normalise & decriminalise “minor attracted people” & destroy family & community. Spain has just passed legislation to decriminalise bestiality so long as there is no physical harm to the animal!
Whether one believes or not, all of the above subverts the teachings of the Bible & faith on what is moral behaviour supportive of a healthy community where children are fully protected. Think Sam Smith & his/it/whatever performance revering the devil. It’s now becoming blatant. Mary Whitehouse would rightly be having an apoplectic fit.
There have always been, & always will be, a small minority of folk who don’t fit into the nuclear family model but who are equally horrified at the subversion & destruction of our historical culture as all they wish to do is to live their lives in peace within a healthy functioning society.
Agree, Bertie, it’s a spiritual war or, to put it another way, a battle for our very souls.
Seconded BB.
“And that goes for our weak King too!”
Excellent post Aethelred but “our weak King” is actually an out and out traitor.
“Cambridge University students vote for completely vegan menus”
And there’s me thinking that these people are the brightest in the land. It’s coercion and virtue signalling and watching your back and above all cowardly:
“Look at us, we’re so virtuous, no we don’t care about our farmers, we care about our planet and the animals and we’re all scared that we are going to die of extreme heat and no we haven’t really bothered to do our own critical thinking about this because we believe what we’re told and anyone who disagrees is a conspiracy theorist and anyway if we had that label on us we’d never get a decent job in the media, advertising or banking and earn lots and lots of money…blahblahblah…and we’re only here because we had good memories for facts and daddy went here and we have the right ‘attitude’…blahblahblah.”
Well, good luck with your plant-based diets with insect options. I can see you all getting weaker and paler over time but you know best clearly…
More accurately, ‘Cambridge University student activists vote for completely vegan menus’ and the rest of the students will go elsewhere for breakfast and lunch! Personally, I hate the stink of quinoa!!
Idiots the lot of them.
Augusto Roux presented to MD4CE recently, a recording of his presentation can be found here: https://rumble.com/v29lfa0-augusto-roux.html
So, the people who were ‘consultants’ on ruining Roald Dahl’s books are, as expected, a bunch weirdos and sexual deviants: exactly the sort of people you’d expect to be hired by the tiresome postmodern cult ruining the world.
In essence, they’re the sort of people who walk into an office party, where everyone’s having a good time, and turn off the music.
Not unlike the old puritan sects that banned music and dancing as works of the Devil!
“Will Tony Blair ever give up on ID cards?”
In a word, no. Blair will never give up on this and you have to wonder why. He is no longer part of government or even a politician. What has he got to gain from such a move? If any doughty investigative journalist is reading this (are there any of these people left?) then it would make for compulsive reading.
One of his mates is in the news again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64740128
https://www.trustnodes.com/2022/04/29/tony-blair-and-bill-clinton-talk-crypto
The New York Times ‘mask mandates’ article. Surely this is huge! Could this warrant an article in its own right on The Daily Sceptic? Especially as husband and I have commented, quoted from and shared on Facebook and…it’s not appearing on people’s feeds!!
Sorry, does that mean Facebook are censoring The New York Times?
Well, that or just censoring Deborah T (from sharing a NYT article, which basically amounts to the same thing I guess! Perhaps I’m mistaken…) Good to see Will’s just put up a piece about the efficacy (or NOT) of masks.
I’d try sharing the article myself except I’m not on Facebook. I pity the social media platform that upsets Mr T!
The corrupt media like to call us fascists and yet after going to many anti lockdown, jab and 15 min city events across the country I’ve yet to see a picture of Mussolini.
Ironically “antifascist” Antifa are always wearing their Black Shirts.
*****
Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near Everyman Cinema & play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
A doctor speaking out about injection harms: –
I apologise if this has been posted before: –
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6320743167112
If you listen to the Bezmenov interviews it is quite clear that once demoralisation has set in you can’t really do anything about it. It goes deep and its permanent. The idea of shutting yourself off and joining an enclave is also verty difficult. If a country has surrendered to the extent that our country has then there isn;t really any way back. There is no force with which we can align ourselves.
We kept up a good yarn for a long time and we still do but make no mistake. You need to understand when you are defeated as a culture and a civilisation. It isn’t a personal affront it is just the way of things. As a country we are certaibnly defeated. As a culture perhaps some of us will move back into enclaves and monasteries. Bur please understand that your life is over and the culture is over there is nothing coming to redeem this.