Ever since I realised the devastating effects lockdowns would have all over the world, I have actively fought them. My first task, in October 2020, was hosting an interview with world-renowned epidemologist Martin Kulldorff, one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which argues for focused protection instead of blanket lockdowns.
Incidentally, Kulldorff was involved also in my first really memorable encounter with the so-called fact-checkers. Last summer the Icelandic Chief Epidemiologist said in an interview he believed herd immunity would never be reached by vaccination, only through infections. I posted a link to the interview on LinkedIn. Kulldorff shared my post, and the next thing he knew his reshare had been removed. Clearly a fact-checker hadn‘t liked what our Chief Epidemiologist said, and decided the public shouldn‘t know.
Part of my activities as an active lockdown sceptic has been managing a large and fast-growing local Facebook group, dedicated to providing a broad view of the Covid situation, including negative effects of lockdowns, and later on, growing concerns with the effectiveness and safety of mass-vaccination. This is a difficult task as we must always be very careful not to accept posts that for some reason contain material that doesn‘t comply with the worldview of the fact-checkers. We get a few strange conspiracy theories of course, but mostly the material we have to reject is simply inconvenient facts or well-argued opinions, even by respected scientists, that just happen to go against the official narrative.
Fact-checking is nothing new, and until recently it was just that, checking for facts. But since very early in the pandemic, fact-checkers have become less concerned with facts, but more, and in some cases exclusively, with censoring anything that goes against their own opinions. Every day, hundreds of such articles are published and then used to justify censorship. The following example is a typical one.
Recently, official Scottish data has shown COVID-19 infections, hospitalisations and deaths are becoming more frequent among the double-vaccinated than the unvaccinated. The latest report shows the infection rate among the double-jabbed is now double the rate for the unjabbed, and 50% higher for the triple-jabbed. Hospitalisations are higher among the double-jabbed than the unjabbed and the death rate is double. This is a concerning development and has garnered some attention from those who follow such statistics. I wrote a short Facebook post on this the other day, quoting an article discussing this development. A few days later the familiar warning of ‘false information’ had been slapped on my post.
I decided to follow up on the ‘fact check’ referred to in the warning, an article by Mr. Dean Miller, managing editor at Lead Stories, one of the agencies that frequently publish articles used to justify censorship. Mr. Miller holds an undergraduate degree in English and seems to have no science training whatsoever.
Mr. Miller begins by claiming there is a consensus among health statisticians “working independently” that vaccination reduces the probability of hospitalisation and death, and that as the vaccinated tend to be older than the unvaccinated, “amateur statisticians” often reach false conclusions based on official data. Mr. Miller then quotes an epidemiologist who suggests various factors that “may” affect the numbers. First, that the vaccinated are more likely to get tested, quoting test and trace data but providing no reference. Second, that the vaccinated tend to be older than the unvaccinated and therefore more vulnerable in general. Third, that the vaccinated may behave differently from the unvaccinated when it comes to social interactions. Fourth, that the unvaccinated are more likely to have been previously infected by the virus.
None of this is necessarily untrue. But the article provides no references showing that vaccinated people behave differently from unvaccinated people, which would make them more likely to come into contact with infected persons. We also have no way of determining if the opposite is true. In other words, this is pure speculation, for which no evidence is provided. Whether vaccinated people are more likely to get tested is speculative also and there is no data provided to back up this claim. The same goes for the claim that the unvaccinated are more likely to have been previously infected. In fact, as numerous studies have already demonstrated that infection provides strong and lasting protection, this suggestion seems highly unlikely.
So, three of Mr. Miller‘s arguments are pure speculation, unquantified and not supported by any evidence. But what about the last argument, that the vaccinated tend to be older and therefore more likely to be hospitalised or to die? This certainly looks like a valid point, since we know it is primarily the elderly who become seriously ill with COVID-19. But how valid, or relevant is this really?
To start with, being vulnerable to serious illness or death if infected has nothing to do with the probability of infection. Rather than increasing it, it might rather decrease it, as a vulnerable person might be more likely to avoid situations where they are likely to get infected. As for hospitalisation and death, the data presented in the Public Health Scotland reports is in fact age-standardised. This means the age-related probability of death is already accounted for in the statistics. Mr. Miller‘s key argument, and the only one that isn‘t purely speculative, is therefore simply invalid. It seems he either failed to familiarise himself with the methodology used, or did not understand what it entails.
The weakness of Mr. Miller‘s argumentation does not however stop him from categorically denying that comparison of infection rates is a valid indicator of vaccine effectiveness. And of course it does not prevent the media and social media using his claim, based on speculation and lack of basic understanding of the data, to censor the discussion of a disturbing development that most certainly calls for thorough investigation.
When I showed the data to a Scottish friend recently, he suggested it was of no relevance for other nations, as the Scots were genetically different from other people due to a long-standing diet of nothing but chips, Marlboros and Irn-Bru. I can only say his explanation makes just as much sense as Mr. Miller‘s do.
But Scotland is not the only country experiencing this disturbing trend. A couple of weeks ago I published an article in the Daily Sceptic discussing a similar trend in Iceland: early January data showed the double-vaccinated to be twice as likely to get infected as the unvaccinated. This undermines the aforementioned dietary explanation, as in Iceland we boil our potatoes, smoke Camels rather than Marlboros and Irn-Bru has never been available. No ‘fact check’ has yet been published trying to invalidate this data. However the already published infection rate for the unvaccinated suddenly rose by 20%, without explanation, soon after this development was pointed out.
Unfortunately Mr. Miller‘s article is not the only example of a ‘fact check’ that ignores or distorts the facts, or counters hard data with pure speculation. This sloppy kind of reporting seems to be the fact-checkers’ standard way of working when it comes to the pandemic. Some have even admitted their fact-check labels are nothing but opinion. And the general press is no exception. For example, the Scottish Herald recently published an article on this subject, also failing to acknowledge the fact that the data is age-standardised.
It is a noble endeavour to try to make sure facts rather than fiction influence public opinion. But unfortunately, it looks as if the champions of ‘fact-checking’ have little respect for facts. Most of the material they produce consists of low quality, highly opinionated articles, lacking not only references, but more importantly the clarity of thinking that must be required of anyone who takes upon themselves the important and difficult task of deciding what is true and what isn‘t.
Thorsteinn Siglaugsson is an economist who lives in Iceland. Find him on his blog.
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.
£££s
Exactly; and € & $ into the future. It’s a long term investment in the trade, quite likely. Not only that, were the recorded deaths caused by Covid-19, or “with” it, in tandem with other illnesses?
Indeed- a new business model of rapid development and rollout based on the same dodgy basic platform
I also think we cannot trust any statistic on “Covid deaths”
Was the bigger motivation not something to do with vaccine passes, digital ID and CBDCs – ie a step on the road towards a social credit system and the ability to control people’s travel, expenditure and behaviour? And possibly also getting universal acceptance of the mRNA platform, maybe with a view to depopulation and transhumanism agendas? Or maybe trying to eliminate control groups for the vaccines by minimising the number of people unvaccinated?
Probably played a part
Different groups with varied agendas all had something to gain
And perhaps the avoidance of traditional assessment methods for brand new drugs. Originally on the basis that we were in an Emergency (Emergency Use Authorization), along with “vaccines” having an easier ride than anything else. Then, when minor alterations were developed on a new “platform” they might make a better profit on each occasion when a new demand occurs.
I wonder how many of those 162 had multiple comorbidities? My guess would be 162.
What’s the definition of a comorbidity? If it is a compromised immune system, then vaccination will soon become a comorbidity.
does anyone have an article i could share about the danger of the ‘vaccine’ for those with autoimmune diseases ? no one will listen to me and they are going downhill with every shot . thank you.
The key point here is the with COVID. This means it uses the usual definition of COVID death, someone died within X days of having a positive test result. This probably includes suicides, car accidents, mobsters discussing business issues with rivals and people getting mauled by lions.
Why, you ask? Altogether now…. Because-because-because-because-becaaaaaaause…. Because of the wonderful profits it makes!
Go ask the man behind the curtain.
Example- a man mending his roof, slips and falls and breaks his neck! It was found he had tested positive for covid a week ago, so, Death caused by covid!
‘Vaccine’ from drowning in a swimming pool, ‘vaccine’ from dying in a road traffic accident, ‘vaccine’ from being killed by an accidental injury… I can see huge business opportunity. Sheeple will unquestionably follow ‘the science’ unable to see the BS as proven by the recent events.
And the best ‘vaccine’ of all , is the ultimate protection – simply obey every single instruction uttered by Your Government and you will be safe, happy and healthy 4eva
Yes, the Government, in the famous words of Assange, exists to move public money into the private hands.
It is interesting to compare these figures with ONS figures for England & Wales.
We are obliged to use the ‘death with covid’ category – within 28 days of a positive PCR test. These include deaths with pre-existing conditions (e.g. heart failure) and co-morbidities (e.g. fatal accident)
The figures corresponding to Italy’s 162/72,422 (0.2%) are 436/80,830 (0.5%).
The ONS figures have been publicly available since January 2022!
Does this mean we carried out far more tests than Italy meaning that over twice the number of people dying from something else had a positive test result prior to their death?
I don’t know – but that could be an answer. After all, without PCR tests, what would have evidenced a ‘pandemic’?
I have written before that a simple comparison of 2020 all-cause mortality charts against earlier years shows significant increases in deaths around March/April 2020 in certain European countries (e.g. France, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, UK), whereas in others there was no such increase at all (e.g. Austria, Germany, Romania, Slovenia).
I therefore conclude there was neither a global pandemic at the time, nor was a novel, deadly disease circulating in Europe: a novel, deadly disease would, after all, cause excess deaths in all neighbouring countries.
I can only assume that the excess deaths in those countries with increased mortality were purely iatrogenic, caused by the strict adhesion to WHO-prescribed treatments, which were not so strictly adhered to in other countries. Or does someone have a better explanation for the discrepancies between neighbouring countries?
I quote again Denis Rancourt (https://denisrancourt.ca/), whose team performed in-depth analyses of all-cause mortality data spanning many countries of the world:
Why? Italy was the control country in the west in order for the Western RPTB to see how much control they could exert through fear. Absolutely nothing to do with a deadly pathogen at all.
History shows 20% of us can think critically but sadly the rest can be controlled, “nudged” is I believe the new term, for simply being lied to. Bravo to those controlling the MSM.
Control of every human being on the planet is what they’re after, because they’ve known for 20 years that the capitalist/USA/banking system is finished – hence we have Climate/wokeism/deadly new virus etc.
Putin knows this full well – and China is pissing itself laughing at us all.
Just as an aside, read up on the real reasons WW 2 began – and it ain’t Germany invading Poland…
I do not agree that it reasonable for national statistics to take so long to publish. Data should be monitored continuously and it should normally be right in the first place.
private businesses have to produce accurate date promptly for tge tax man, shareholders and Companies House. Financial services businesses also have to file quarterly data to FCA and PRU.
as usual the public sector is not on top of the roles they are generously paid to do.
Why the pic of the motorbike helmet? As a rider I find that suggestive, distracting and, dare I, offensive.