...to be permitted without being labelled false? All vaccine efficacy estimates have limitations arising from the limitations of the data, including those produced by PHE. I was careful to acknowledge...
...false.” (p.35.) And: “Scientific consensus is the gold standard for rational belief.” (p.137.) It’s laudable, of course, to be humble, skeptical, and willing to change one’s mind, but I don’t...
...started the vaccination process. “And to make matters worse, there are elected officials actively working to undermine with false information the fight against Covid. This is totally unacceptable.” Economists have...
...in which the first sentence was a factually false claim about public statistics. Evidence is now accruing that it’s indeed possible for “peer reviewed” scientific papers to be published which...
...take into account the chance of false positives. It also contradicts recent data from Israel which suggests that natural immunity provides much stronger protection against Delta than the vaccines. Readers...
...should be on opening up the primary health system rather than closing it down again, argues the Telegraph. “Ministers have now confirmed the infection fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.096%,...
...finally allowed again, reports Sky News. “Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid ‘miracle’ drug” – Thousands worldwide have taken ivermectin to fight Covid. But what’s the evidence? Here’s the...
...false impression of the contents of the meeting”. The decision is being appealed. On September 3rd the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) said that it would not be...
...instituted even a week earlier ‘we would have reduced the final death toll by at least a half'” (the report quoting Professor Neil Ferguson here) – is demonstrably false on...
...said “partially”, “mostly” or “fully”. Regardless of the exact number of experts who support focused protection, claiming there is a “scientific consensus” against it is simply false. Long before...
