Study Concludes that Covid Sceptics are Smart, Sophisticated, Scientifically Literate and Very Dangerous!

This is probably one of the most amazing studies on Scepticism and Sceptics (Covid, in this case) I’ve ever read, which just blows away Lew’s clumsy and faltering attempts to mischaracterise and traduce climate sceptics. It really is a work of fine art which comes to all the ‘wrong’ conclusions about a group of people who formally question the official scientific narrative. Having done so it then proceeds to completely turn those conclusions (which are glowingly positive overall) upon their head to bizarrely argue for a negative interpretation of scepticism which is totally unjustified by their findings! I’ve never seen anything like it.

Before I give my own analysis of the study, here are some tweets from a person equally amazed by it:

Astounding! Nobody ever wrote such a glowing ‘critical’ report on climate sceptics! As far as our detractors are concerned we are a bunch of retarded, anti-science, know-nothing deniers who have the audacity to challenge the ‘experts’ using crude denialist talking points, moon landing type conspiracy theories and graphs and data which have long been debunked by researchers and by reality itself. Mind you, there doesn’t appear to be a great deal of natural crossover between climate scepticism and Covid scepticism, a fact which has caused me considerable personal distress over the last year.

These researchers however, really took a deep dive into the Covid scepticism universe, perhaps expecting it to be inhabited by tin-foil hat wearing, unsophisticated, ill informed, scientifically illiterate numbskulls (maybe after they read Lew and Cook’s outpourings on climate scepticism), only to discover that it was populated by people who valued science and empirical data rather more than their ideological opponents and what is more, were often better qualified to analyse that data than their opponents! BIG lol.

I will just add to Commie Lee Jones’ series of excellent tweets with a few choice quotes from the paper of my own. This is particularly revealing:

Far from ignoring scientific evidence to argue for individual freedom, antimaskers often engage deeply with public datasets and make what we call “counter-visualizations”—visualizations using orthodox methods to make unorthodox arguments—to challenge mainstream narratives that the pandemic is urgent and ongoing.

This is a bizarre argument. What they are saying in effect is that natural conclusions from the data are unorthodox, whereas the unsubstantiated and demonstrably illogical conclusions of policy makers and government science advisers, using the same data, is to be considered orthodox. You see what they did? Lockdowns and mass mask wearing, never before used to try to control a pandemic (with the exception of Spanish ‘flu patchily implemented mask mandates in 1918 – which demonstrably failed) are now orthodox. Natural, logical and scientific interpretations of the data are now unorthodox.

However, we find that anti-mask groups on Twitter often create polished counter-visualizations that would not be out of place in scientific papers, health department reports, and publications like the Financial Times.

While previous literature in visualization and science communication has emphasized the need for data and media literacy as a way to combat misinformation [43, 47, 89], this study finds that anti-mask groups practice a form of data literacy in spades. Within this constituency, unorthodox viewpoints do not result from a deficiency of data literacy; sophisticated practices of data literacy are a means of consolidating and promulgating views that fly in the face of scientific orthodoxy.

So, they find that “anti-mask groups practice a form of data literacy in spades”. Hilarious!

The following passage reveals that the authors do not in fact understand what science actually is, as they equate ‘mainstream science’ with the prevailing public narrative.

In media studies, the term “counterpublic” describes constituencies that organize themselves in opposition to mainstream civic discourse, often by agentively using communications media [37]. In approaching anti-maskers as a counterpublic (a group shaped by its hostile stance toward mainstream science), we focus particular attention on one form of agentive media production central to their movement: data visualization. We define this counterpublic’s visualization practices as “counter-visualizations” that use orthodox scientific methods to make unorthodox arguments, beyond the pale of the scientific establishment.

I think the authors must be media studies graduates by the sound of it. ‘Mainstream civic discourse’ is not mainstream science and conclusions based on the use of orthodox scientific methods are not, by definition, beyond the pale of the scientific establishment. What an utterly ridiculous thing to say.

Here they go again, mistaking a mythical Covid ‘scientific consensus’ for mainstream epidemilogical science when it is nothing of the sort. There is no consensus on Covid beyond an inflexible, rigidly enforced, medically unprecedented and globally homogeneous political response to the pandemic allegedly scientifically informed by a very few ‘expert’ modelers and even fewer epidemiologists. The authors do not understand this at all. Hence they equate rational, science-based questioning of the prevailing political and social narrative with a political counter culture.

As a subculture, anti-masking amplifies anti-establishment currents pervasive in U.S. political culture. Data literacy, for antimaskers, exemplifies distinctly American ideals of intellectual selfreliance, which historically takes the form of rejecting experts and other elites [53]. The counter-visualizations that they produce and circulate not only challenge scientific consensus, but they also assert the value of independence in a society that they believe promotes an overall de-skilling and dumbing-down of the population for the sake of more effective social control.

The authors double down on their confused idea of what science is and by so doing they increasingly mischaracterize so called ‘anti-maskers’ who rely upon science and data to question the alleged ‘scientific consensus’ on Covid, a consensus which does not exist and a dominant narrative which is most definitely not rooted firmly in established science.

While academic science is traditionally a system for producing knowledge within a laboratory, validating it through peer review, and sharing results within subsidiary communities, anti-maskers reject this hierarchical social model. They espouse a vision of science that is radically egalitarian and individualist. This study forces us to see that coronavirus skeptics champion science as a personal practice that prizes rationality and autonomy; for them, it is not a body of knowledge certified by an institution of experts.

Finally, what is most revealing is that these authors haven’t got a clue why the ‘antimaskers’ come to such divergent conclusions from the supposed ‘mainstream’ using exactly the same data. They just waffle some nonsense about cases and deaths in an attempt to explain it – and fail, miserably:

So how do these groups diverge from scientific orthodoxy if they are using the same data? We have identified a few sleights of hand that contribute to the broader epistemological crisis we identify between these groups and the majority of scientific researchers. For instance, they argue that there is an outsized emphasis on deaths versus cases: if the current datasets are fundamentally subjective and prone to manipulation (e.g., increased levels of faulty testing, asymptomatic vs. symptomatic cases), then deaths are the only reliable markers of the pandemic’s severity. Even then, these groups believe that deaths are an additionally problematic category because doctors are using a COVID diagnosis as the main cause of death (i.e., people who die because of COVID) when in reality there are other factors at play (i.e., dying with but not because of COVID). Since these categories are fundamentally subject to human interpretation, especially by those who have a vested interest in reporting as many COVID deaths as possible, these numbers are vastly over-reported, unreliable, and no more significant than the flu.

To underline the fact that they haven’t got a clue, they say this, near the end of the paper:

Understanding how these groups skillfully manipulate data to undermine mainstream science requires us to adjust the theoretical assumptions in HCI research about how data can be leveraged in public discourse.

By not having the foggiest idea how Covid sceptics arrive at conclusions so very different from the alleged ‘consensus’, the authors simply revert to accusing them of ‘skillfully manipulating’ the data in order to ‘undermine mainstream science’. So actually, in conclusion, although this study gives credit where credit is due to Covid sceptics, their overall approach is not so very different from Lewandowsky et al after all.

Mike Yeadon in The Conservative Woman

I quote from the article here, advise you to read it in its entirety and make the following points along the lines of ‘I told you so’. I was saying much of what Mike says here last spring and summer, at the Cliscep website, and was being roundly criticised, condemned, “despised”, even humiliated for doing so.

To date, despite the brains, expertise and stature of those alarmed by the disproportionate and destructive response of agencies and governments around the world to Covid-19, as a group they have patently been ineffective. Unwittingly, dissenters have been playing the parts intended by those, including our own Government and their advisers, who control the global Covid narrative. 

They judged correctly that we polite Brits wouldn’t accuse them of outright lying, even though they often do exactly that. Boris Johnson’s recent piece to camera, telling us that it was lockdown and not vaccination which reduced cases and deaths, is a case in point. 

Yet it’s certain this isn’t true, and also certain he and his advisers know it isn’t true.

The government’s advisers are not fools. Some may be, but the upper echelons are very smart. They believe polite people won’t say ‘not only are you lying but you’re doing it in concert with other, non-democratic actors’, because that’s conspiracy theory stuff, right? Powerful people never use their influence to benefit their interests, do they? Hmm. The only thing that’s different is scale and the power their public positions give them. Other than that, they’re just another a bunch of grubby criminals, ripping off unsuspecting people.

Truth is our most powerful tool. And that truth is that we’re being lied to.  

The truth also, however hard it is to believe it, is that there is unequivocal and clear evidence of planning and co-ordination. Not to face this fact is to have your head in the sand. Where it’s leading is easy to discern, once people are willing to lift their internal censoring and look objectively at the evidence.

First, though, the lies. It’s abundantly clear now that pretty much everything that the public has been told and continues to be told is between untrue and downright lies.

So here are a few points which leap out from Dr Yeadon’s article, which I tried my best to convey many months ago, to no good effect:

/ There is clear evidence of malign intent

/ There is clear evidence of numerous, deliberate, calculated lies

/ There is clear evidence of planning

/ The ‘vaccines’ are demonstrably dangerous and not needed for the purpose for which they are being sold to a gullible public

/ Brits have been too ‘polite’ to question the evidence before their very eyes

/ Masks don’t work – they are merely a form of fear-based control

/ Lockdowns don’t work

/ The ‘Covid crisis’ scam has a clear connection to the ‘Climate crisis’ scam

/ We have already reached herd immunity in the UK, largely through natural infections

/ Herd immunity via mass vaccination with these vaccines is an absurd and unscientific concept and is evidence of another direct lie by the authorities

/ Governments and their advisers have actively conspired with Big Business and other actors in order to bring about what is now effectively a global medical tyranny, soon to morph into a total control tyranny via ‘vaccine passports’ if they are not strongly resisted by largely compliant populations. This is not a ‘theory’ anymore. The Great Reset and ‘Build Back Better’ is upon us. It is many things, but in essence, it is evil.

Daily Mail Promotes Highly Dubious Claim that the ‘Vaccines’ are Safe for Pregnant Women

Can the press get any lower? Promoting a dubious claim that the ‘vaccines’ are entirely safe, even beneficial for pregnant women. thereby inciting them to put their own health at risk and to risk the death of their unborn child? For what? To supposedly ‘protect’ themselves and their child against a disease which is virtually no threat to them at all? It hardly seems possible, but this is where we are today. The Covid mass vaccination campaign is palpably evil and so are the people promoting it.

I don’t need to be a ‘conspiracy theorist’ to say this, because the facts speak for themselves. Here is what the Fail says:

Premature birth more likely for pregnant women who catch Covid, studies show

But experts say around one in five pregnant patients are hesitant over getting jab

No evidence to suggest any Covid jab has any effect on pregnancy, say scientists

Early studies of the vaccine on animals also showed no issues around pregnancy 

The message from health chiefs is clear: Covid-19 vaccines are safe for pregnant women. While a question mark hung over this vital detail earlier on in jab trials, today there is clear data to show there is no risk to mothers-to-be or their unborn children.

It is a major step forwards in the battle against the virus.

And there is even evidence that vaccinating women now may have knock-on benefits for any children they have in the future, too. Since the immunity provided by a Covid vaccine is passed down to the foetus, wide take-up of the jab will eventually lead to a generation of children with in-built resistance.So what is the basis of these bold claims?

Jesus Christ, I can hardly believe I read that last paragraph. ‘Built in resistance’? Against a disease which babies are not vulnerable to? The evil, ugly head of eugenics rises once again.

What is the basis for the bold safety claims made by the Fail? Let us be in no doubt whatsoever. At their introduction, just a few months ago, these ‘vaccines’ had not been tested on pregnant women:

In November, Pfizer became the first company to announce that its vaccine was effective against Covid-19 – but the company also said it hadn’t yet been tested on pregnant women.

This is entirely normal for vaccine trials, says Dr O’Brien, adding: ‘Traditionally, pregnant women are excluded from these studies as a precaution.’

Early studies of the vaccine on animals also showed no issues around pregnancy. Nonetheless, due to a lack of data, the Government warned expectant women not to have the jab – NHS leaflets circulated at the start of the rollout reiterated this. The effect, experts say, was to entrench worries in a group already naturally cautious about what medicines they take.

Then, in April, suddenly, everything changed and Wanksock went public to advise pregnant women that the jab was safe and they should seriously consider getting it after the JCVI changed its advice to allow pregnant women to book the Pfizer or Moderna jabs following a trial in the US. Here is what the Fail reports about that trial, which allegedly demonstrates that the Pfizer and Moderna jabs are ‘safe’ for pregnant women:

“Instead, the JCVI decided to wait for data from America to filter through before making a call.

In early April, that data arrived in the form of a major study published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It had tracked the condition of more than 90,000 pregnant women who had received a vaccine, the majority of them in their third trimester.

The CDC was able to report that there were no safety concerns.

Since then, the number of pregnant American women who have had a vaccine has risen to more than 105,000. However, finer data released from within that study set off fresh anxieties.

The CDC closely monitored more than 800 participants. Of that group, 712 had a live birth, while 115 suffered a loss of pregnancy.

This means that roughly one in eight woman who’d been jabbed had lost their baby.

It is a scary thought but, in fact, this is identical to the average rate of pregnancy loss in the population, according to NHS figures.

Armed with this knowledge, on April 16 the JCVI made the recommendation to the Government that pregnant women, along with any planning pregnancy or currently breastfeeding, should be invited for vaccination along with their age and clinical risk group.

However, the recommendation extended only to the Pfizer and Moderna jabs. It did not include the UK’s Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.”

Pay particular attention to the bold. 90,000 women were tracked but only 900 or so were monitored closely and of those, one in eight lost their unborn child. But it’s all OK according to the Fail (and presumably also the NHS, the JCVI and the British government) because this is the same as the rate of spontaneous abortion in the population at large. Right. So, silly me, I went and checked, didn’t I and this is what I found:

Miscarriage accounts for 42,000 hospital admissions  in the UK annually[1].

Miscarriage occurs in 12-24% of recognised pregnancies; the true rate is probably higher as many may occur before a woman has realised she is pregnant[1].

85% of spontaneous miscarriages occur in the first trimester.

The risk falls rapidly with advancing gestation[2]:

9.4% at 6 complete weeks of gestation.

4.2% at 7 weeks.

1.5% at 8 weeks.

0.5% at 9 weeks.

0.7 % at 10 weeks.

85% of miscarriages occur in the First Trimester. As the pregnancy term progresses the risk of miscarriage diminishes rapidly. The First Trimester covers weeks 0-13, the Second Trimester 14-26 and the Third Trimester 27-40. Miscarriages don’t even technically occur in the Third Trimester; they are known as stillbirths.

I don’t know where the Fail gets the figure of 90,000 from because I have read the study in question and it only mentions a total of 35,691 participants. It is obvious where their figures of 712 and 115 come from though:

A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant. Injection-site pain was reported more frequently among pregnant persons than among nonpregnant women, whereas headache, myalgia, chills, and fever were reported less frequently. Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester). 

A ‘completed pregnancy’, contrary to what it suggests, is not a completed pregnancy as such, resulting in a live or tragic still birth, it is a pregnancy which goes either full term or is aborted at an earlier stage. Hence:

For analysis of pregnancy outcomes in the v-safe pregnancy registry, data were restricted to completed pregnancies (i.e., live-born infant, spontaneous abortion, induced abortion, or stillbirth)

Before we go any further though, let’s take a look at what this CDC-run ‘v-safe pregnancy register’ actually is:

V-safe Surveillance System and Pregnancy Registry

V-safe is a new CDC smartphone-based active-surveillance system developed for the Covid-19 vaccination program; enrollment is voluntary. V-safe sends text messages to participants with weblinks to online surveys that assess for adverse reactions and health status during a postvaccination follow-up period. Follow-up continues 12 months after the final dose of a Covid-19 vaccine. During the first week after vaccination with any dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, participants are prompted to report local and systemic signs and symptoms during daily surveys and rank them as mild, moderate, or severe; surveys at all time points assess for events of adverse health effects. If participants indicate that they required medical care at any time point, they are asked to complete a report to the VAERS through active telephone outreach.

In other words, it’s a smartphone app which links to the VAERS reporting system if participants require medical attention for adverse reactions.

To give you an idea of the type of people running this study, they are keen to emphasise ‘pregnant persons’ and people who ‘identify as pregnant’ over the politically incorrect ‘pregnant women’:

Many pregnant persons in the United States are receiving messenger RNA (mRNA) coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccines, but data are limited on their safety in pregnancy.

A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant. Injection-site pain was reported more frequently among pregnant persons . . . . .

But if you think this sounds pretyy absurd, look at what they say later in the study:

To identify persons who received one or both Covid-19 vaccine doses while pregnant or who became pregnant after Covid-19 vaccination, v-safe surveys include pregnancy questions for persons who do not report their sex as male. Persons who identify as pregnant are then contacted by telephone and, if they meet inclusion criteria, are offered enrollment in the v-safe pregnancy registry.

So at pains are they to avoid using the term women that they resort to describing “persons who do not report their sex as male”! Bloody hell! Who enrols themself in a pregnancy study and puts on the form “I am not male”? If you are pregnant, you are a woman – biological fact. There shouldn’t even be a place on the form for stating whether you are male, female or ‘other’. But there you are. This is a supposedly ‘scientific’ study carried out via a smartphone survey and obviously monitored and analysed by the obsessively woke.

It doesn’t get a lot better when we start examining the actual figures either. “From December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, a total of 35,691 v-safe participants identified as pregnant.” Of those, only 86.5% actually reported themselves as being pregnant at the time of vaccination! I kid you not:

Pregnant at time of vaccination16,522 (85.8)14,365 (87.4)30,887 (86.5)

So nearly 5000 ‘persons’ who identified as preggers didn’t actually say they were pregnant at the time of vaccination! Presumably, these were the ones who also said “I am not male”.

Anyway, it’s not this larger survey that we’re interested in; it’s the smaller V-safe pregnancy register – and a smaller subset of people within that. This is where the figures come from to make the claim that the ‘vaccines’ are ‘safe’ to administer to pregnant women.

As of March 30, 2021, the v-safe pregnancy registry call center attempted to contact 5230 persons who were vaccinated through February 28, 2021, and who identified during a v-safe survey as pregnant at or shortly after Covid-19 vaccination. Of these, 912 were unreachable, 86 declined to participate, and 274 did not meet inclusion criteria (e.g., were never pregnant, were pregnant but received vaccination more than 30 days before the last menstrual period, or did not provide enough information to determine eligibility). The registry enrolled 3958 participants with vaccination from December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, of whom 3719 (94.0%) identified as health care personnel. Among enrolled participants, most were 25 to 44 years of age (98.8%), non-Hispanic White (79.0%), and, at the time of interview, did not report a Covid-19 diagnosis during pregnancy (97.6%) (Table 3). Receipt of a first dose of vaccine meeting registry-eligibility criteria was reported by 92 participants (2.3%) during the periconception period, by 1132 (28.6%) in the first trimester of pregnancy, by 1714 (43.3%) in the second trimester, and by 1019 (25.7%) in the third trimester (1 participant was missing information to determine the timing of vaccination) (Table 3). Among 1040 participants (91.9%) who received a vaccine in the first trimester and 1700 (99.2%) who received a vaccine in the second trimester, initial data had been collected and follow-up scheduled at designated time points approximately 10 to 12 weeks apart; limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis.

So that’s 3958 people who were enrolled, 94% of whom declared themselves as health personnel, 79% of whom were white. Sounds really representative doesn’t it? But this hardly representative small sample shrinks even more when only ‘completed pregnancies’ are considered. There were 827 in total.

Among 827 participants who had a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a live birth in 712 (86.1%), in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%), in stillbirth in 1 (0.1%), and in other outcomes (induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy) in 10 (1.2%). A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation (Table 4), and 700 of 712 pregnancies that resulted in a live birth (98.3%) were among persons who received their first eligible vaccine dose in the third trimester.

This last paragraph is basically what the Fail relies upon to claim that the ‘vaccines’ are safe on account of the fact that the rate of spontaneous abortions in this small sample of health care workers is approximately the same as that in the unvaxxed population as a whole, before Covid-19. But what it actually says is that in a small sample of vaccinated mainly Caucasian healthcare workers, 12.6% experienced spontaneous abortions and 92.3% of those occurred earlier than 13 weeks into gestation. But if we go back to the the figures above referencing the risk of spontaneous abortion, we see immediately that the majority occur in the period 0-8 weeks into gestation. So without more specific information of just when these spontaneous abortions occurred in the vaccinated women, we can’t say for sure that there is absolutely nothing to worry about, because it may be the case for instance, that most of those spontaneous abortions occurred between 8-13 weeks, in which case they would not reflect the situation in the wider populace.

What we are left with, is a very small sample of highly unrepresentative individuals surveyed over the phone being used to make the sweeping claim that the ‘vaccines’ are safe to use in all pregnant women. A study survey which ran only for 2 months and 2 weeks when a full term pregnancy is 9 months. If you’re not white, and you’re not a healthcare worker and you have half a brain, you might be forgiven for thinking that this is not sufficient ‘evidence’ to risk your own health and the life of your unborn child. Even if you fail to qualify for either of the first two categories, but still have at least half a brain, you should also think very carefully before you take the plunge and get unnecessarily ‘vaccinated’ with child on the mere say so of the media, Big Pharma and government ministers and ‘experts’.

Update: ‘The Vaccines Work’ – except when they are associated with major outbreaks, lockdowns and huge numbers of adverse reactions

Let’s start at home. This was reported in the Times:

More than 500 people who had been vaccinated against Covid-19 have been admitted to hospital with the infection, a UK study has found.

The patients had all received one dose of the vaccine at least three weeks before they were admitted.

Researchers said the patients were largely frail and elderly and the number represented around 1 per cent of the 52,000 people involved in the research.

So, 1% of people ‘vaccinated’ against Covid were subsequently admitted to hospital with Covid. Of those, 113 died. That’s a ‘vaccine-related infection fatality rate’ of 0.2%, which is about the same as the overall IFR of Covid, which suggests to me that, if we’re charitable, we can conclude that the ‘vaccines’ do sod all to stop infections and deaths, but as we have seen previously, the reality is that getting ‘vaccinated’ appears to actually increase one’s risk of becoming infected, at least in the two to three weeks after the first dose. So what’s going on? ‘Not unexpected’ vaccine failure according to the ‘experts’. What? Don’t they mean ‘not unexpected complete failure to prevent infection, serious illness and death ‘at least 3 weeks’ after the first dose? What kind of vackseen is that then?

They also noted the level of “vaccine failure” detected was not unexpected based on the results of trials that took place before vaccines were rolled out.

Colin Semple, professor of outbreak medicine at Liverpool University and one of the leaders of the study, warned: “People should not be surprised about some vaccine failure. It is what was predicted. It does result in tragedy. We are all talking about the statistics, but if it is your granny it is a tragedy for your family.”

The findings were released by the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. The study showed one in 14 of the participating patients admitted to hospital since early December with Covid had had at least one dose.

Oh, so that’s all OK then. Entirely expected ‘vaccine failure’ but obviously if granny got vaxxed and died, it’s not so OK. Actually, it’s not OK whichever way you look at it. So what’s causing this ‘expected vaccine failure’, according to the experts?

Most of these patients were infected “shortly before or around the time of vaccination”, the report says and goes on to warn: “Elderly and vulnerable people who had been shielding, may have inadvertently been exposed and infected either through the end-to-end process of vaccination, or shortly after vaccination through behavioural changes where they wrongly assume they are immune.”

That supposedly accounts for the period immediately after vaccination but we’re talking about 526 people here who were admitted to hospital 3 weeks or more after the first jab, when they should have been protected. ‘Experts’ can’t explain it:

The NHS advises patients they are likely to have good protection from the virus three or four weeks after their first jab. However, 526 people received their injection at least 21 days before they were admitted to hospital. Among these patients 113 people died. The research team regarded these cases as vaccine failures.

Dr Annemarie Docherty, a critical care consultant and researcher at Edinburgh University, said the reasons why the vaccines had failed in these patients were not clear. She said it was possible the lack of immunity in these individuals would not have been rectified by a second dose.

‘Experts’ are investigating whether the scariants are involved in these unexplained failures. But despite the ‘vaccines’ apparently not offering any extra protection at all, based on a comparison of IFR before and after ‘vaccination (see above), ‘experts’ say that it is still good news on the jab’s effectiveness. How ‘experts’ come to that conclusion is way beyond my amateurish understanding, I must admit.

Experts are investigating whether those immunised who caught Covid-19 were more likely to get specific variants of the disease.

The researchers stressed their findings largely represented good news about the effectiveness of vaccination.

The Seychelles is the most Covid-vaccinated country in the world, even pipping Israel to the post, with 60% of residents having had two jabs, so they should be virtually Covid-free, right? Wrong. They’ve just gone into a two week lockdown because ‘cases’ are soaring. So, when we say ‘the wonder jab’, what that actually means is, you wonder what the hell the point of it is.

The country began vaccinations in January using a donation of Chinese vaccines from the United Arab Emirates. According to Bloomberg, by April 12th, “59% of the doses administered were Sinopharm vaccines and the rest were Covishield, a version of AstraZeneca’s shot made under licence in India.”

The Government put the surge down to people being less careful, particularly over Easter. However, setting aside whether population behaviour is a plausible explanation, this doesn’t explain why the vaccines are not preventing transmission or infection.

People being ‘less careful’? You’ve got to be kidding me. The whole point of getting ‘vaccinated’ is you are protected; you don’t need to be careful. The excuses being rolled out for the failures of the vackseens to actually do what they say on the tin are becoming more and more absurd: ‘You’re old, you got infected ‘just before’ being jabbed, it’s a new scariant and facts aside, it’s still ‘good news’ because the ‘vaccines’ are ‘effective’ simply because we say they are.’

Lastly, there’s the ‘small’ matter of the huge number of adverse reactions (including death) to the ‘vaccines’ being recorded on the VAERS and Yellow Card reporting systems. Conspiracy theorists in the media are claiming that these reporting sites have been indundated with fake claims by anti-vaxxers intent on discrediting the ultra-safe and effective Covid vaccines. I mean, I’m sure they’re correct. The main stream media have never knowingly reported untruths. It’s definitely an organised anti-science campaign. But just in case it’s not, and the media have innocently got something wrong on one of those extremely rare occasions, here are the latest horrifying figures:

US Quackcines Kill Kids

The risk of a child under 15 dying from SARS-CoV-2 is virtually zero, but 4000 children have so far been jabbed in the US according to VAERS data. Of those, 9 have died within 28 days, equating to a ‘vaccine fatality rate’ of 0.22%. So the risk of death from vaccinating children (according to VAERS reports) is much higher than the risk of death from Covid itself. This is just the beginning. This does not include unreported fatalities and it does not include any long term ill health or death resulting from vaccination of children. Why are they doing this? There is no convincing medical or public health reason. It is certainly not to protect children from a disease which they are not vulnerable to.

In September, the UK government is going to start vaccinating children in order to supposedly make schools ‘safe’. The choice will be: you either wear a useless mask for 8 hours a day or you get jabbed with a lethal ‘vaccine’ which you don’t need in order to return to class. Do you see now how blind compliance ends up? The innocent pay the price. Those without a voice pay the price because you chose to obey, with not a murmur of dissent.

April 2021 – Coldest Average Minimum CET Since Records Began

If you live in Central England and you thought the nights were exceptionally chilly last month, for April, the second month of Spring, then you would be right. There were numerous frosts throughout the month. I woke up to a hard ground frost on the east coast on St George’s Day and the grass was still frosted in the shade even hours after sun up. The days were cold too, but the nights were something special. So special in fact that April 2021 earns first place by a considerable margin for the coldest average April min CET since records began in 1878. April 2021 min CET = 1.0C. The next coldest April is 1917 at 1.4C, nearly half a degree warmer! That is really quite remarkable. April 1986, in terms of mean diurnal CET, was colder than April 2021 (5.8C vs. 6.4C) but the nights in 1986 were a lot warmer (2.2C vs. 1.0C), even though the days were colder. This undoubtedly comes down to the fact that April 2021 was also very sunny throughout the UK, raising daytime tempertures, but allowing them to plummet in the relentless northerly airflow, which brought cold air from the Arctic over the British Isles throught the entire month.

For the UK as a whole, the Met Office says that April 2021 saw the coldest average minmum temperatures for nearly 100 years:

April 2021 had the lowest average minimum temperatures for April in the UK since 1922, as air frost and clear conditions combined for a frost-laden, chilly month, despite long hours of sunshine.

It was very sunny:

Despite the low minimum temperatures and frosts, much of the UK has been basked in sunshine through April, with all UK countries currently reporting sunshine hours for the month in their top five ever recorded since 1919. This has provisionally seen Scotland and Wales break their existing records for sunshine hours in the month, with the two countries seeing 57% and 45% more sunshine than their long term averages. For Scotland, this would represent the second year running that April’s sunshine hours have broken the existing record, with 2021’s current figure of 211.5 topping 2020’s 204.6 to top the standings.  

The final figures for 2021 don’t appear to be in yet, but April 2021 is definitely challenging 2020 as the sunniest month on record.

Currently the UK is experiencing its second sunniest April on record, with 218.8 hours. As the figures won’t include today’s sunshine totals, there is scope for this figure to rise further, potentially challenging the April record set last year with 224.5 hours. The UK saw 48% more sunshine hours than April’s average figure, and every country in the UK saw at least 40% more sunshine than the long-term average. 

The irony here is that last year’s very sunny April – when the murderous sociopath Matt Hancock banned sunbathing and was threatening to ban all outdoor exercise for everyone because of a nasty bug going round – was also very warm, unlike this year of course. That was inevitably linked to climate change. Dr. Mark McCarthy, for example, wasted no time identifying a trend of warm Aprils due to the UK’s changing climate:

Dr Mark McCarthy is the head of the Met Office’s National Climate Information Centre. He said: “Although April 2020 will be remembered for being the sunniest April on record in England and the UK, along with the sunshine, the month was largely dry with mean temperatures well above average for most parts of the UK. The UK climate is warming, and it is notable that in a Met Office series from 1884 the Aprils of 2003, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014 and 2020 are all in the top ten warmest.”

Strangely though, he hasn’t done the same this year! Global warming in the UK works in mysterious ways. It makes April sunnier and sunnier, and warmer and warmer, until suddenly it doesn’t and instead it makes April nights the coldest ever recorded going back to 1878, with the days not much better. Of course, real meteorologists know that the clue to this apparently bizarre weather is the changing spring jet stream configuration over the British Isles (and possible decadal trends in that configuration); atmospheric dynamics rather than simple thermodynamics. However, the all-singing, all dancing climate models don’t have much to say about that.

Ellwood: “It all comes down to the hole in the Ozone layer which is allowing the planet to heat up.”

I once had a dog called Ellwood. He’d been horribly abused. He was a lot smarter than Tobias.

Conservative Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East and Chair of the House of Commons Select Defence Committee, Tobias Ellwood, was invited onto the James Whale Show on Talk Radio to talk about the threat of climate change. Here he is from 11′ 40″ onwards. You have to watch it to believe it.

Here are a few juicy quotes taken from that erudite explanation by Ellwood of what climate change is and why we need to be concerned about it:

“So when we come to saying how can we change this, it all comes down to this hole in the ozone layer which is allowing the planet to heat up and we can actually close back this ozone layer if we’re a little bit more careful about CO2 emissions.”

Eh? Hole in the ozone layer? CO2 emissions? What’s that all about then? Well, according to science genius Ellwood:

“A lot of the stuff that we are burning today has been accumulated over millions of years, and coal and so forth and that is causing such a jump in CO2 emissions, it’s causing to burn a hole in the ozone layer.”

Ah, right, so CO2 from fossil fuels has ‘burnt’ a hole in the ozone layer and this is causing the planet to heat up. If you compare the Ellwood explanation of man-made climate change with Johnson’s explanation, this actually makes Johnson, who likens CO2 to a “great tea cosy in the sky”, seem like a Cambridge physics don.

Presenter: “It’s not burning holes in the ozone layer though is it, that was CFC’s, this is about greenhouse gases.”

Ellwood: “It’s the same thing, it’s the same thing, it’s causing our planet to heat up because the sun is able to have too much of an impact.”

Yep, Ellwoodian Fizzics basically states that if you burn a hole in the ozone layer with fossil fuel carbon dioxide, then the Sun is able to sneak through that hole and heat up the planet even more, so you’ve got to close the hole up in order to stop deserts growing, ice caps melting, crops failing and sea levels rising. Simples.

This is the man who is presumably highly influential in the UK’s defence policy folks. Sleep well. We’ve got a safe pair of hands there – minus the brain, of course.

‘Climate Emergency’: They’re Coming For Your Pets

‘Environmentalists’ have had their beady green eyes on your pet dogs and cats for years but they’re stepping up the assault now ahead of COP26 and also as they joyously surf the wave of economic and social destruction created by the fake ‘Covid crisis’, insisting that we must #buildbackbetter and #buildbackgreener. That process of ‘building back’ is to include dispensing with pets apparently, because their carbon pawprint is way too high and unacceptable to the High Priests of the Climate Action movement. This is very much an issue close to my heart, having currently two rescue German Shepherds and having spent more than half a lifetime in the company of animals, mainly rescue dogs, so I’ll try not to descend into incoherent ranting and keep to the facts, difficult as it is to resist the urge to verbally abuse these misanthropic, dog-hating, cat-hating freaks. You see, there I go already!

On GMB this morning, they invited Donnachadh McCarthy on to talk about the need to eradicate pets from the face of the planet in order to save wild animals from extinction and the environment from degradation:

‘Donna’, you may – or may not – recall is, according to his Twitter profile:

“Co-founder Stop Killing Cyclists. Author “The Prostitute State – How Britain’s Democracy Was Bought”. Eco-auditor. Eco-columnist for Independent.”

He’s also followed by Richard Betts, senior ‘climate scientist’ at the UK Meteorological Office, now a prominent advocate of Extinction Rebellion activists’ tactics and an apologist for the mythical ‘climate crisis’. I have no idea if Betts supports the gradual eradication of pets and dogs in order to ‘save the planet’ but the company kept by ‘climate scientists’ in their effort to convince us all that there is in fact a scientifically demonstrable ‘climate emergency’ is increasingly dubious of late.

In the video here, reproduced in The Sun newspaper, credit must be given to Susannah Reid who calls out ‘Donna’ on this issue, rightly pointing out that we, as human beings, also have a carbon footprint and, if we’re going to start getting rid of our pets by ‘not replacing them’ as loved family members, then when do we start getting rid of our kids – and ourselves? It’s one thing giving up an inanimate object like a car – as adored and as absolutely necessary as affordable personal transport is for millions of people – but it’s quite another thing to give up what most people consider a loved family member, albeit that they have four paws and a waggy tail. When Susannah points out that she ‘puts her kids and her pets before the planet’, Donna finds this ‘shocking’. He actually thinks that addressing the so called ‘extinction crisis’ is more important than our allegiance to our companion animals and our own children – who, in his eyes, are just useless, superfluous creators of excess carbon and thus shoud be gradually eliminated, i.e don’t breed and don’t have pets. This is a cold, callous, deeply misanthropic and cruel perspective which is sadly more and more typical of these neo Malthusian climate crisis freaks who think that the final solution to imminent man-made Thermageddon is drastic depopulation, not just of human beings, but their ‘useless eater’ companion animals as well.

Donna says that a Biosciences Journal study published in 2019 demonstrates that “the state of the carbon emissions from the average dog is equivalent to two household’s electricity emissions for a year”. What does this even mean? The study he mentions is probably this one: ‘The Ecological Paw Print of Companion Dogs and Cats’. As far as I can see, it mentions nothing about household electricity emissions. It compares the GHG emissions and “ecological paw print” (EPP) of cats and dogs in Japan, the Netherlands and China. This is what it says:

Meat-based diets require more energy and water and, therefore, have far greater environmental impacts than plant-based diets (Pimentel and Pimentel 2003, Reijnders and Soret 2003, Wirsenius et al. 2010, Okin 2017). For example, in China, commercial pet dry food has higher percentages of animal meat products than human foods. Therefore, the dietary EPP and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of companion dogs relying on commercial dry food was found to be much higher than the dogs relying on human leftover foods (Su et al. 2018b). If we look at differences between countries—assuming all companion dogs and cats eat commercial dry food—then the dietary EPP of all companion dogs and cats in China equals the dietary EF of between 70 million and 245 million Chinese people, in terms of homemade food (Su et al. 2018b). The carbon emissions resulting from the food consumption of these animals are equivalent to the emissions generated by the food consumption of between 34 million and 107 million Chinese people (Su et al. 2018b). Meanwhile, in Japan, companion dogs and cats may consume between 3.6% and 15.6% of the food eaten by Japanese people, and through their consumption, Japanese companions release between 2.5 million and 10.7 million tons of GHG per year (Su and Martens 2018).

The authors estimate the annual EPP in hectares (first column) and annual GHG emission in tons (second column) for the average sized dog (10-20kg), for dogs fed exclusively on dry kibble, as follows:

Per capita average-size dog The Netherlands 0.90–3.66 0.349–1.424 
 Japan 0.33–2.19 0.127–0.831 
 China 0.82–4.19 0.313–1.592 

According to the Independent the average middle class family of four emits about 0.75 tons annually from electricity usage. Two families therefore emit 1.5 tons, which is indeed the same as the upper estimate of GHG emissions for a dog in China or Holland, but nearly twice the upper estimate for dogs in Japan. If we take the lower estimate, then the average dog uses less than half of just one family’s electricity in China and Holland and one sixth of a family’s average electricity emissions in Japan, therefore one twelth of two families’ emissions. So Donna’s assertion that your average pooch is the carbon criminal equivalent of two average families using electricity is stretching the truth somewhat, especially as your ‘average dog’ is probably not fed exclusively on a diet of industrially manufactured kibble.

But of course it stands to reason that dogs, being mainly carnivores, will be fed largely on a diet of animal protein and will therefore have an annual carbon footprint if that meat is produced commercially. Just as human beings eating meat (or even vegans) have a non negligible carbon footprint. Is this a valid excuse to abolish the age old human practice of keeping companion animals, especially canine companion animals? Because, you can be sure, it will never be enough. Once all the cats and dogs are gone, they’ll be coming for your children, demanding that you only have two, then one, then stop breeding. They’ll demand that you never eat meat again, then they’ll demand that you remove yourself completely from the gene pool in order to reduce your personal carbon footprint to zero. It will be the only way to prevent the ‘climate emergency’.

But back to dogs. What did dogs ever do for the human race? In response, it’ll be like the Monty Python sketch ‘What have the Romans ever done for us?’

The answers will be, throughout 40,000 years of co-evolving with domesticated wolves:

/ They helped us hunt wild prey

/ They gave us protection.

/ They gave us unconditional love

/ They protected our houses and our herd animals

/ They boosted our natural immunity via exposure to pathogens and by raising our oxytocin levels

/ By demanding walkies, they made us fitter and healthier, in mind and in body

/ Working in law enforcement and the military, they have apprehended criminals, kept us all safer and saved countless human lives

/ They have been the eyes and ears of disabled people and safe-guarded ill people by warning of e.g. imminent epileptic seizures

I could go on. The environmentalists want ‘rid of them’. The new breed of ‘environmentalists’ actually want rid of humanity as well. They are the ultimate misanthropists who would love to see the ‘virus’ that is humanity wiped out, along with every single one of their domesticated agricultural and companion animals. Net Zero = Net Zero human race. Only when ‘we’ are all gone will the planet be happy again. Of course, ‘they’ (the neo-Malthusian Greens) will be the last to vacate, because they have to oversee the cull, naturally.

UK Government ‘Summer Resurgence’ Covid Modelling Predicts the Fully Vaccinated Will Be Dropping Like Flies

Here is what the government’s SPI-M modelling group says about the next step to ending lockdown:

It is highly likely that there will be a further resurgence in hospitalisations and
deaths after the later steps of the Roadmap. The scale, shape, and timing of any
resurgence remain highly uncertain; in most scenarios modelled, any peak is smaller
than the wave seen in January 2021, however, scenarios with little transmission reduction
after Step 4 or with pessimistic but plausible vaccine efficacy assumptions can result in
resurgences in hospitalisations of a similar scale to January 2021.

Maintaining baseline measures to reduce transmission once restrictions are lifted
is almost certain to save many lives and minimise the threat to hospital capacity.

Even accounting for some seasonal variation in transmission, the peak could occur in
either summer or late summer/autumn. It is possible that seasonality could delay or
flatten the resurgence but is highly unlikely to prevent it altogether.

So, a third resurgence, according to the government’s modellers, is almost certain to occur, if not in summer, then in autumn, and it will be bad, unless we all behave ourselves by complying with ongoing restrictions.

So, what was the point of the ‘vaccines’ you ask. Well, Pol Pot Belly has already informed us that it is the lockdowns which are mainly responsible for the observed decline in deaths, hospitalisations and infections, not the vackseens. So there. You got jabbed for nothing. Naturally, there has been a huge outcry and the terminally stupid have been very effectively ‘nudged’ into defending the mass vaccination program on the basis that it has demonstrably reduced deaths and hospitalisations. Those who got the ‘vaccine’ in order to return to normal just can’t believe they were suckered into getting the jab for nowt and that it had nothing to do with the observed decline in deaths and hospitalisations, so they’ve angrily reacted to the suggestion on Twitter:

It’s science, innit. The ‘vaccines’ must have caused the decline. Even the Telegraph says so. They’ve identified the ‘vaccine effect’:

Let’s just forget about the fact that the ‘vaccines’ caused ‘Covid outbreaks’ in the over 80s shall we and let’s just forget about seasonality and the very high possibility that herd immunity has been achieved in the UK, even before the rollout of the ‘vaccines’. Let’s just conveniently forget that they are not demonstrated to reduce the severity of symptoms in the over 80s or reduce the rates of transmission or infection. Let’s forget all that and just say ‘the vaccines worked; they must have worked otherwise I am going to look like a complete idiot for having been conned into getting jabbed when I’m not personally at risk’.

But the bad news is Johnson was right; they don’t work, or at least they don’t work very well. SPI-M-O confirms it:

The resurgence in both hospitalisations and deaths is dominated by those that have
received two doses of the vaccine, comprising around 60% and 70% of the wave
respectively. This can be attributed to the high levels of uptake in the most at-risk age
groups, such that immunisation failures account for more serious illness than unvaccinated individuals.

This is discussed further in paragraphs 55 and 56.

‘Immunisation failures’ leading to the vulnerable getting infected, hospitalised and dying. Just like the 1st and second waves then, without the life saving ‘vaccines’. That’s a lot of ‘immunisation failures’ for 95% effective ‘vaccines’.

Who becomes seriously ill in a resurgence?

Figure 11 illustrates the age and vaccination status of those hospitalised (left) and dying
(right) over time in Warwick ’s central scenario for the whole Roadmap (equivalent to Figure
4). The top plots are absolute numbers and the bottom plots are as a proportion of those
admitted or dying.

This shows that most deaths and admissions in a post-Roadmap resurgence are in
people who have received two vaccine doses, even without vaccine protection
waning or a variant emerging that escapes vaccines. This is because vaccine uptake
has been so high in the oldest age groups (modelled here at 95% in the over 50-year olds).
There are therefore 5% of over 50-year olds who have not been vaccinated, and 95% x
10% = 9.5% of over 50-year olds who are vaccinated but, nevertheless, not protected
against death. This is not the result of vaccines being ineffective, merely uptake
being so high.

Oh right, so because so many vulnerable people got jabbed, this means that a resurgence of deaths and hospitalisations will inevitably involve mainly the ‘vaccinated’, but this doesn’t mean that the ‘vaccines’ are not effective, just not perfect. We must therefore presume that lots more people would otherwise get sick and die in a third (Or is it fourth? I’m losing count) wave if they hadn’t been ‘vaccinated’. This is bullshit because it assumes that vaccination is far more effective than infection-acquired or prior natural immunity, not just in the vulnerable, but in those people getting infected and thus transmitting the virus to others in a new resurgence.

An alternative, deeply unsettling explanation for why the government considers a resurgence of hospitalisations and deaths among the ‘vaccinated’ to be likely is that the ‘vaccines’ may indeed make the ‘vaccinated’ more susceptible to infection and serious disease than had they not been ‘vaccinated’ at all. It’s not like this is beyond the realms of possibility. ‘Vaccine’ trials for SARS-CoV-1 (which is 80% genetically the same as SARS-CoV-2) were halted because all the ferrets injected with the ‘vaccine’ died when they were subsequently exposed to the wild type virus. This is called antibody dependent enhancement. It’s also a matter of fact that those recently jabbed are more likely to get infected than those who are not ‘vaccinated’ (see my previous posts). Even after two doses, an Israeli study found that the ‘vaccinated’ were eight times more likely to get infected with the South African variant B.1.351. So, if this variant starts spreading in the UK this summer, what do you think is going to happen?


Here’s an interesting article with lots of graphs showing Covid ‘outbreaks’ in many countries worldwide, alongside vaccine rollouts. Here is what the author says (my bold):

But what is very clear looking at data worldwide, is that vaccinations are certainly not associated with a reliable fall in covid cases in any predictable timeframe. This, alongside the observations in the trial, surely must be addressed. What is happening here? Is it just that vaccinations are coincidentally being rolled out at the same time as outbreaks are due? In very many places?

Or is the vaccine not working immediately? If not, why not? How long does it take to see an effect of infection reduction at a population and individual level?

Or is the vaccine making people more susceptible to infection? If this is the case (which is biologically plausible according to many we are in touch with), is this a temporary effect? What causes it? Should we mitigate against it? Should we ensure people are vaccinated in a low covid environment? Do vaccinated people need extra protection immediately following vaccination?

How long does it take for any increased susceptibility to diminish?

We must know the answers to these questions. Vaccinations are intended to be offered to every man, woman and child in the country, even though many people simply are not susceptible to covid, or have seen off an infection easily. We must understand what the benefit to the community is before we can assess the risk of vaccination properly to the individual if most individuals are only to be vaccinated for the benefit of the community.

We are told that everyone must be vaccinated. But then that restrictions still can’t end even after that has happened. Why is that? Is it because the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission? How can free informed consent be given under these conditions?

Vaccinated People are Eight Times more likely to be infected with the South African Variant

Yes, you read that correctly. People in Israel who have been given two doses of the Pfizer mRNA ‘vaccine’ are eight times more likely to become infected with the B.1.351 variant of SARS-CoV-2 than unvaccinated individuals according to a study published just a few days ago.

Here, we performed a case-control study that examined whether BNT162b2 vaccinees with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to become infected with B.1.1.7 or B.1.351 compared with unvaccinated individuals. Vaccinees infected at least a week after the second dose were disproportionally infected with B.1.351 (odds ratio of 8:1)

But that’s not all. The dominant variant of SARS-CoV-2 in Israel is B.1.1.7, the so called ‘Kent variant’, alleged to be more transmissible and more deadly than the previous dominant variants of the virus. Vaccinees were also disproportionately likely to become infected with B.1.1.7 for a week or two after the first dose and even a week after the second, so they were actually more vulnerable to Covid during that period than those who received no vaccine. This might explain the sharp rise in ‘Covid deaths’ very soon after vaccination, observed in many countries throughout the world.

So, the pro-vaxx fanatics might say ‘Well, yeah, a few people die and stuff after getting the vaccine, but those who don’t die get protected, so it’s all OK in the end’. Er, no. Because, in Israel, those people who made it through two doses without getting seriously sick or dying ‘with Covid’, were still as likely to get infected with the dominant variant of SARS-CoV-2 as the unvaccinated!

No statistically significant difference was observed in the rates of B.1.1.7 infection in FE [fully vaccinated, more than a week after second dose] cases versus unvaccinated controls (odds ratio [OR] of 6:4, one-sided exact McNemar test p=0.38), but a significantly higher proportion of B.1.351 was observed in FE cases vs. unvaccinated controls (OR of 8:1, one-sided exact McNemar test, p=0.02).”

So what the flying f**k is the point in a healthy, non vulnerable person (who is highly unlikely to get severe symtoms from a SARS-CoV-2 infection) getting ‘vaccinated’ against Covid if it makes no bloody difference at all as regards their likelihood of becoming infected with the dominant circulating strain? Also, if, by getting ‘vaccinated’, it makes them initially more vulnerable to the dominant circulating variant and a lot more vulnerable, even after two full doses, to getting infected with a rare variant which might in future become more prevalent, then what, pray to God, is the point? I can’t see it. You’re putting yourself at greater risk by getting an experimental ‘vaccine’ than you are by relying upon your own natural healthy immune system. Not only that, you are signalling to your government that they can push you around and tell you what to put inside your own body. That is an extremely dangerous thing to do, as we are about to find out, as the Israelis have already found out.

Would you believe it though, one of the authors of this study has gone on Twitter to promote her work, saying that it is actually justification for mass vaccination? What? In which Universe? Down which rabbit hole? On the other side of which hyper-dimensional Wormhole?

That last tweet just really kills me. It’s basically saying ‘Follow the science (our science) – get vaccinated!’ I expected a lot better from Israeli scientists. A lot better.