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.
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.
Sorry you’ve lost me can anyone clarify???
if the unvaccinated are less likely to die as shown in the statistics under discussion surely this is highly likely
I agree with you, I’m with the author entirely – apart from this key point?
It is quite staggering as to how and why the unjabbed are never separated into their two parts, never “infected” and “infected” recovered.
For the life of me I can never understand why this is not done – it’s almost as though they are afraid of the inevitable results….
Are the ‘unjabbed’ interested in playing any of their games ie testing?
I suspect not in many cases! I refuse to participate in any of the rituals – which includes spikings and testing. I’m sure that I’m not alone in this.
I’ve had nothing up my nose recently. But then, I was never invited to any of those No. 10 ‘work events’.
I think you answered your own question there!
Yes, I don’t follow his argument here either.
Thanks for your comment. The point here is that if people have been previously infected they are less likely to get symptoms later on and get tested for those, because previous infection has been shown to protect against reinfection.
Ah ok ;))
Yes, previously infected are less likely to show up as cases, hospitalisations and deaths. And the unvaccinated are more likely to have been previously infected. So the fact-checker has a point: this effect likely partly explains why vaccinated case, hospitalisation and death rates are higher.
However, this is not statistical error as the other points are (eg differential likelihood of getting tested) and actually demonstrates one way in which the injections don’t protect you as much as we were once told.
Fact-checking in its current form is simply a new form of public relations. It has nothing to do with verifying the truth or otherwise. People involved in it, ie those working on behalf of the pharma sector to provide a smokescreen for vaccine failure and injury – well, they are the lowest of the low, vermin, parasites. Absolute scum, basically.
A bit like whichever dingbat just cold-called my phone from a Manchester landline.
I feel genuinely sorry for people who have to do that sort of thing to scrape an existence. But not sorry enough ever to answer the call.
If you spoke to them your sympathy would probably vanish pretty rapidly.
Major social media/technology platforms must be forced by law to act as common carriers not publishers, not responsible for content and forbidden under the terms of their licenses to censor anything for any reason. The answer to speech anyone thinks is inaccurate/hateful is more speech advocating for the opposite position. Until we get to this, we do not have functional freedom of speech and we do not have functional democracy.
Totally agree. Its obvious, and its obvious why its not done, we don’t have a functioning democracy, anywhere.
An aside, and apologies for its French nature, but there are going to be elections soon in France for a new President, or more likely the return of the current one. After 2016 candidates had to obtain over a certain number of notices of support from local mayors to be allowed to run. THere are two potential candidates on the ‘right’, some would say ‘alt-right’. In polls they get between them about 30% of the votes. Neither will get the required number of ‘mayor’ backing to run, because the mayors have been strong armed to refuse their backing. threatened by the regional governments that their funding will suffer if they lend their support.
Irrespective of your political leanings this is anti-democracy at work. Up to 30% of the electorate will not have their views expressed by giving them their preferred candidates. Is it any wonder that under 50% of the population no longer bother to vote. Macron will get re-elected probably with less than 30% of the popular vote, and even less of the potential votes available.
And he goes and preaches freedom to Putin, give me a break!
wow really cheeky! It reminds one of authoritarian countries like Iran whereby the “candidates” are chosen for the voters.
Pretty much like safe seats in the UK then!
Arn’t Mayors voted in also? Maybe you need new mayors too.
They are , with a small minority of inhabitants bothering to vote.
That’s not what politicians want, at least a certain kind of them. They badly want to censor stuff. And as they’re usually prohibited from doing that openly, they strong-arm social media companies to do it for them.
Eg, in Germany, there’s a law (NetzwergDG) which forces social media companies to delete content which would be illegal in Germany. In theory, determining whether something is illegal requires a court decision: The federal censorship authority (BPJM/ Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien, roughly federal office for examinaton of content which might be dangerous to the youth) is just allowed to declare that something may be illegal. But not so, when it’s on Facebook. In this case, unaccountable Facebook moderators get to make this decision and FB must provide regular summary reports to (German) federal authorities to prove that it’s deleting enough stuff.
Is this double vaccinated issue a data artifact caused by the ramp up of boosters?
Norman Fenton has shown that lagged death reporting and defining “vaccinated” as taking effect only after 14 days creates a statistical anomaly. This is to deflate the reported death rate in the population sub group in the process of receiving a fresh round of “jabs” and increase it in the group who have not yet had the extra jab.
The reason is that the numerator for deaths is deflated for any given time period in the population getting jabbed and inflated for everyone else because of lagged death reporting and the 14 day window.
This effect then stabilizes once a roll out stops and might explain the apparent loss of efficacy of a single jab. The reality, of course, may just be that the vaccine is never effective against anything but all the early effect is a data mirage.
However, MSM report vaccine efficacy as a holy principle. It is similar to people in ancient times believing that God created the world in six days.
The “vaccines” are a bubble that is ready to burst though. But so many people are vested in them somehow being a miracle that the lie may continue for some time yet. When it does burst, I think many politicians and so-called health experts will have a lot to fear themselves.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for this bubble to burst. No powerful group has anything to gain from such an event.
I think the appropriate Freedom of Information Act requests, followed by litigation if denied, could be at least a little interesting.
I think it will take many years for this bubble to burst. I think vaccines will be quietly dropped except for perhaps a proffered annual one like the flu jab. (Although I am very confused about what’s going to happen if they let the coronavirus laws drop into extinction – if there is no longer an emergency they can no longer continue to use untested vaccines). Anyway, I am not holding my breath waiting for a big ‘reveal’ about the dangers they pose/have caused. Can you imagine the worldwide horror/law suits/bankruptcies/criminal trials that will happen? It’s going to be a mess like we’ve never seen before, but as I say, I’d give it years to occur, not months.
They do all but stop you testing positive for the original virus strain for a few weeks. That is the only proven effect. Everything after that is just statistical jousting, by both sides.
That Fenton study opened my eyes as well. If GB News hadn’t allowed him on I’d probably still be thinking the shots dug us out of the pandemic. Now I think it’s more likely they accelerated the progression of the disease.
The supposed ‘fact checkers’ should have their names, credentials and expertise revealed. Their counter-arguments should be verifiable and referenced. Otherwise it is just their opinion and should be treated as such.
Well, there is that eminent epidemiologist, Marianna Spring…
Indeed, a degree in French and Russian makes you an expert on medical matters apparently…
……And possibly a convenient home screen link to Wakopedia!
Leo Benedictus is an ex-wine journalist and “diversity correspondent” at the Graun. Perfect qualifications for being an omniscient disease expert at “Full Fact”, with those nice offices in St James just off The Mall. He’s also the brother of the ghastly fox batterer Jolyon Maugham, despite the differing surnames.
The one that shares it’s politically independent address with the cabinet office?
Along with The Privy Council and The Institute for Government? Handy having Rothschild Asset Management next door as well.
https://suite.endole.co.uk/explorer/postcode/sw1y-5aa
I’ve come to the conclusion that no one cares. We care, on these and other pages, but the general public don’t. Same with all the vaccine side effects that are being gently tucked under the carpet and the unannounced parking of AZ as a vaccine (presumably discontinued due to the high fatality rate?)
The Gov and MSM are steamrolling on (Russia! Parties! Energy crisis!) and I don’t think any of this will ever come out.
It already is – so long as we exist, talk and share. Trickles can become streams, then rivers.
This has to come out. There are too many that see the charade for what it is and we’re digging in for the long haul.
Can the DS stop calling them ‘fact checkers’ and call them what they really are: censors.
By using the term it simply indulges their Orwellian double-speak.
Words matter.
I’d have thought more obfuscators than censors.
You can’t blame them, really, given the level of flim-flam swallowed by the majority over the last two years.
Managing a Facebook group?…..
“This is a difficult task as we must always be very careful not to accept post’s that for some reason contain material that dosn’t comply with the world view of the fact checkers. We get a few strange conspiracy theories of cause, but mainly the material we reject is just inconvenient facts”….I stopped reading after that little pearl of crap. You are a facilitator and a shill, a smoke and mirrors practitioner, fek off!
I think you should finish the sentence. He’s saying he is forced to reject posts that contain facts that are inconvenient for the establishment narrative.
There is an immensely important article/piece of research actually proving why the jabbed are more likely to suffer more – and reinfection with covid is only the start :-
https://www.authorea.com/users/455597/articles/552937-innate-immune-suppression-by-sars-cov-2-mrna-vaccinations-the-role-of-g-quadruplexes-exosomes-and-micrornas
This is the most important and frightening thing I have ever read.
Please publicise it.
ATTENTION this also sent to the good people running this site. It’s up to you to send it to people of influence.
Agreed – this paper is not for the faint hearted.
companion papers to the above:
The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.03.21256520v1
A Dr shows bloodwork prior to and after the vax that shows the effects on the immune system highlighted in the above paper here:
https://rumble.com/vnbrwx-my-jaw-dropped-when-i-tested-someones-immune-system-after-the-2nd-jab..html
Differences in Vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 Replication Derived mRNA Implications for Cell Biology and Future Disease (Kevin McKernan is a legend in the genetics world, R&D lead Human Genome Project at MIT/WIBR, McCullough, the most published working cardiologist in the world is co-author)
The paper highlights Codon optimisation, which increases protein production from the mRNA, and increases misfolding of proteins. Misfolded protiens are basically prions, so prion disease, MS, alzheimer’s, basically neurological conditions etc.
https://osf.io/bcsa6/
For greater understanding of this condon paper, Kevin McKernan is interviewed by JC Couey (PhD neuro biologist) before the paper was published here:
https://gigaohmbiological.com/archives
Thank you. I was aware of the medrxiv paper and the rumble video but not the article by Kevin McKernan.
This has to be publicised.
I’m sending it to the BBC and fully expect it to be on every news channel shortly.
I love the smell of optimism in the morning 🙂
Snort!
The fact censors have an agenda: to spread pro-lockdown disinformation. In the UK, often funded by facebook and google, these attack dogs enjoy charitable status. The qualifications of the people doing the “fact checking” is a bit of mystery. We still have much to learn about Covid and they represent an obstacle to the gathering of that knowledge. I suspect though that a lot of the censorship is down to stupidity rather than mendacity but who can tell.
The leaders/village idiots of many first world economies aren’t here by accident, the establishments in these countries haven’t allowed the infiltration of Common Purpose by accident either.. ‘Don’t kill granny’, I’m wearing my mask to protect you’, I’m taking my jab to protect you’, etc, are all part of the ‘Collective Movement’ to take away individual autonomy and leave only group think which is easier to manipulate.
The UK HSA weekly reports show exactly the same, week 6 report will be out later today.
The Week 5 report showed triple jabbed people over 18 were 88% more likely to test positive than not vaccinated people.
I see the author is reading the comments. Just want to point you in the direction of some further UK data. From Northern Ireland.
https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/publications/vaccination-status-deaths-and-hospitalisations-3-january-30-january-2022
Previous reports and further Covid related data can also be found here:
https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiODJjOGE3ZDUtM2ViNy00YjBlLTllMjktOTNjZjlkODJhODU4IiwidCI6ImU3YTEzYWVhLTk0MzctNGRiNy1hMjJiLWNmYWE0Y2UzM2I2ZSJ9
In January 80% of hospitalisations are in those who have had at least one dose, 60% in those with two or more.
Deaths are at 85% having had at least one dose with 80% two or more.
Thank you very much. I will certainly add those to my repository and analyse them.
Stop using Twitter and Facebook?
This will continue while you give companies like Facebook the power.
There are alternatives, Minds can replace FB, Signal can replace messenger. DDG can replace Google search, Protonmail can replace Gmail.
The sooner people make anti-democratic “big tech” irrelevant, switch to privacy focused companies, the sooner we can move on.
While you remain on their platforms, you are aiding the enemy.
In some ways I agree, on the other hand by withdrawing from such platforms, people who think like us lose our ability to try and spread our ideas among the undecided, and end up in an echo chamber. I believe the true answer lies in forcing Big Tech to stop censoring anything, but sadly we’re moving in the opposite direction.
This is the same argument Off-G uses, it’s defeatist IMO, big tech is all in already.
Use the privacy focused platforms, and put placeholders with links on the anti-freedom platforms, this will speed the transition.
I don’t know about defeatist. You could say it’s defeatist to flee to privacy focused platforms. I guess it’s better to have some platforms than none, but long term I don’t think it’s helpful for people to be in silos.
It sounds like you’re saying: I’ll stay in this Authoritarian country so people can see how abusive it is and hear my voice when it’s not censored.
Instead of moving to a free country and sending postcards (or putting a huge poster on my old house every time I say something in the new country) with my new country adress to people in the Authoritarian country.
Yep, that’s defeatist, and lazy IMO.
It’s not an “echo chamber” if everybody can see inside the silo, and many of them join you in the protest.
This run and hide in some obscure place strategy is self-defeating: Either the place remains obscure. Then, this amounts to self-censorship. Or it becomes popular enough to draw political attention. And then, it’ll be pressured into censoring in the exact same way.
As the article says, the explanations given for this don’t really stand up to scrutiny and some of them may actually make the picture for the vaccinated even worse (the idea that the behaviour of the vaccinated might make them more likely to expose themselves to COVID than the unvaccinated is for the birds surely?)
But even if the explanations are true, they must only have a marginal impact on the numbers and we should step back and have a look at the big picture. If the vaccines really did work, the numbers would show that the vaccinated had nowhere near the same risk of infection, hospitalisation and death than the unvaccinated. The risk should be approaching zero.
The numbers shouldn’t even be close.
Slightly off topic, but talking of fact checkers, the British establishment fact checkers in chief, the BBC, have just emailed me to tell me that there will be a delay in responding to the complaint I made (prompted by The Daily Sceptic I have to say) about the BBC article fact checking Joe Rogan and his interview with Dr Robert Malone. Apparently they are “currently dealing with a higher than normal volume of cases.” More complaints than usual. Hard to believe.
They have said that in almost all of their replies to my complaints going back several years, well before covid. They are contemptible.
It’s a standard call centre tactic too – “due to a higher than usual volume of calls…”. If you have cause to phone them often it becomes clear that this message is permanent – so the “higher volume” of calls is evidently now the “usual” situation, so they need more staff!
Must be quite time-consuming for them to respond with the standard copy-and-paste effort which confirms that everything they have published is correct and anyone who disagrees is spreading ‘misinformation’…
I’m awaiting a response to my complaint that nowhere on the BBC website is there A\NY mention of the unprecedented number of deaths and ADRs from the clot shots. First time round they sent me FIVE links to articles, none of which mentioned any harm, and the fifth an article about how safe they are. FFS
So they got, in response, four or five links to government stats, here, the USA and EU.
Still no response to that one.
Previous complaint was that they refuse to call Hamas “terrorists”. It’s always “militants”. First response was that they “don’t use other people’s language”. Oh dear, read rag to a bull 🙂 My request to them to state WHOSE language they meant, resulted in endless stonewalling and in essence, an FU.
The BBC is long lost.
Imagine my surprise that this type of thing is happening in today’s MSM/government propaganda world.
The so-called ‘fact-checkers’ need to be investigated thoroughly to expose both their incompetence, deliberate lies/onfuscation AND especially for whom they are siding with and working for / funded by.
The findings need to be made publci worldwide, so they can be thoroughly discredited and their backers too, which likely include social media giants, big tech and many on the WEF / UN 2030 / globalist coterie side of things.
“Recently, official Scottish data has shown COVID-19 infections, hospitalisations and deaths are becoming more frequent among the double-vaccinated than the unvaccinated.”
Sounds interesting. Any chance of the correct link for this?
The link https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/11404/22-02-02-covid19-winter_publication_report.pdf does not work…
Thanks in advance
https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/11619/22-02-09-covid19-winter_publication_report.pdf
Why should I pay any attention to a bloke from a nation of cod-thieves, eh? Except that what he says seems perfectly rational.
Very glad someone still remembers the good old times when we stole the cod. Now the cod has been stolen from us, and we allowed it.
As the author suggests, ‘fact-checking’ by means of speculation does seem to be stretching it.
Think about it, the evidence is there. Lockdowns and mandates do not work. Why then would any country leader (sturgeon) continue to force people to follow these mandates? What leader would intentionally ruin the lives of her citizens. What leader would ruin the economy of her country. Did money have anything to do with her decisions? No, that would be illegal.
[ 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. ] Yes, even after the explanation I still don’t understand, Well, I am from Teesside
Those are people tested positive. If previous infection provides immunity the previously infected should be less likely to have a reason to get tested rather than more likely.
Please excuse me if this is a stupid question, just trying to understand; more people are vaccinated than unvaccinated so cases will inevitably be higher in vaccinated as they represent a larger proportion of the population? Or do the stats take into account % vacc’d vs unvacc’d?
The statistics show rates per 100k in each group so the size of each group does not matter. The statistics are also age-standardised, so the general probability of death or hospitalisation based on age is corrected for also.