We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Samizdata quote of the day

A brand new medRxiv pre-print study entitled: “The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses” has graced our world. This paper is so important and it provides evidence to support what many prominent immunologists and vaccinologists have been saying for a long time, including myself. These COVID-19 mRNA injectable products are causing, yes, causing, immune system dysregulation – and not just in the context of the adaptive system, but in the context of the innate system. Not only that, but these findings provide very good reasons as to why we are seeing resurgences of latent viral infections and other adverse events reported in VAERS (and other adverse event reporting systems) and perhaps more importantly, why we should under no circumstances inject this crap into our children.

Jessica Rose

48 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Sam Duncan

    I’ve said it before: this is odds-on to end up as the biggest medical scandal in history. It might almost be worth taking one of the jabs just to get in on the compensation.

  • APL

    Jessica Rose: “why we should under no circumstances inject this crap into our children.”

    This ^

  • Paul Marks

    Yet it is being injected into children.

    And people who have already had the disease (and thus have T.Cells to deal with the virus) are also being injected.

    And from the start EARLY TREATMENT has been deliberately smeared and discouraged – with many people dying who could have been saved.

    I do not know what else to say. I am torn between rage and grief.

  • Sigivald

    Did anyone but me even bother to look at the study?

    Because her – and the Commentariat’s – reaction to it doesn’t seem to be realted to the actual content.

    (The study notes that … traditional vaccines, like MMR, also “reprogram the immune system”. Kinda like that’s … part of being an effective vaccine sometime. AFAIK, “getting sick” also does that on occasion.

    Almost as if … that’s how immune systems often work.

    But she presents this as something utterly unprecedented and novel and scarybaddangerous.

    Stop falling for this. This is pseudoscience 101 argumentation.

    Whatever Real Problems the vaccine(s) might produce, this is not a smoking gun, and her reliance, in other posts, on raw VAERS reports as if they’re Actually Things A Vaccination Caused is also “pseudoscience 101” territory.

    Everyone should know better by now if they’ve paid any attention to vaccination-freaks for the past 20 years.)

  • bobby b

    “Did anyone but me even bother to look at the study?”

    This is precisely why “sciencism” is getting such a bad rap these days.

    Science is as good as it has always been. What’s gone downhill are the intermediaries. We qualify them in our own minds far too readily, and usually because they explain to us that things are exactly as bad as we thought.

    A study tells us this:

    “In conclusion, the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine induces complex functional reprogramming of innate immune responses, which should be considered in the development and use of this new class of vaccines.”

    I have only the dimmest of ideas what this means. I need intermediaries – explainers – to tell me. But the cohort of such people is confusing and contaminated.

    Unless we’re all going to become educated in everything, I think it’s less important what we listen to than to whom we listen. But how to choose?

  • Shlomo Maistre


    Interestingly, however, the BNT162b2 vaccine also modulated the production of inflammatory cytokines by innate immune cells upon stimulation with both specific (SARS-CoV-2) and non-specific (viral, fungal and bacterial) stimuli. The response of innate immune cells to TLR4 and TLR7/8 ligands was lower after BNT162b2 vaccination, while fungi-induced cytokine responses were stronger

    Is this something that the polio, mumps, hepatitis A, measles, hepatitis B, pneumococcal, varicella, tetanus, and tuberculosis vaccines do?

  • Shlomo Maistre

    I have only the dimmest of ideas what this means. I need intermediaries – explainers – to tell me.

    Or you can research many sources for yourself to figure out what is going on. But your approach of listening to explainers is far more common, hence our current problem: ignorance en masse and close minded naivete.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    The whitewashing of reality by people like Sigivald is all too common, and it’s primarily driven sub-consciously by the most common emotion of all: fear.

    Fear of the virus, fear of death, fear of relying on one’s self to judge the veracity of mutually incompatible stories, fear of being wrong, fear of uncovering the lies, fear of understanding the nature of the evil being perpetrated, and fear of being ostracized from the mainstream for pointing out even some small measure of what is actually happening.

    I’d be lying if I said that I don’t blame people like Sigivald, but this is why some people are born to be sheep dogs and others are born to be sheep. You can’t persuade someone out of an opinion that he was not persuaded into.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    We must repeat again and again that COVID-19 is treatable based on the scientific evidence. There are a wide range of treatments that are very safe and effective in treating COVID-19.


    These early treatments are particularly effective when used in combination. Combining multiple drugs into a layered treatment plan is standard procedure for treating a wide range of viruses and infections. But with COVID-19 suddenly such multi-drug treatment approaches are “dangerous misinformation” peddled by “conspiracy theorists”.

    Millions died. Millions died and most of those deaths could have been prevented with proper treatments: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, zinc, vitamin C, vitamin D, povidone iodine, nitazoxanide, favipiravir, colchicine, and many more.

    Instead after people were diagnosed as COVID-19 positive they were often sent home to wait it out without any outpatient treatment. Only to come to hospital when very sick – and by then treatments are not effective.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Instead after people were diagnosed as COVID-19 positive they were often sent home to wait it out without any outpatient treatment. Only to come to hospital when very sick – and by then treatments are not effective.

    Instead after people were diagnosed as COVID-19 positive they were almost always sent home to wait it out without hardly any outpatient treatment. Only to come to hospital when very sick – and by then treatments are not nearly as effective.**

    The early ambulatory phase is when treatment is quite effective. Diagnosis is when treatment should begin. As soon as someone tested positive they should have been given ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc. Immediately.

    There is typically a two week window between diagnosis and hospitalization (if hospitalization happens at all – in most covid positive cases hospitalization is exceptionally rare). But to prevent those two end points of hospitalization and death treatment should begin as soon as one tests positive for COVID. Instead, hospitals and government agencies and medical boards and doctors have overwhelmingly declined to give those life saving early treatments and instead advise people to just go home and wait it out until they are very sick – then come to hospital for treatment when its not very effective.

    In the USA, hundreds of thousands of people died because of this.

  • Shlomo Maistre


    Thousands of studies documenting evidence that there are many, many safe and effective treatments for COVID-19. Share this link. Use this information. Ignorance of the people is power of the oppressors.

  • APL

    Sigvald: “The study notes that … traditional vaccines, like MMR, also “reprogram the immune system”.”

    I would dispute that.

    The host immune system is ‘exercised’ by traditional vaccines. Would be nearer the truth.

    This vaccine, inserts its own code indiscriminately** into the cells of the host. Which the immune system then attack because they are expressing the ‘spike protein’ that is characteristic of the COVID-19 virus. In short, the ‘vaccine’ turns the immune system against itself.

    **Odd, that the ‘spike protein’ and how to encode it was patented back around 2010 or so, but let’s put aside COVID-19 is supposed to be a novel virus, for now.

    It is absolutely wrong to innoculate ( as if that were what this ‘vaccine’ does ) children who are at no significant risk of dying from COVID-19, with this vaccine.

    Especially given the rich variety of incurable autoimmune conditions that this mRNA therapy appears to introduce.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Legally, the CDC changed the definition of the vaccine over the last few years. So, technically, each COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is a vaccine under the current definition. According to the 2014 definition of a vaccine, though, the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna) are certainly not vaccines.

    Definitions from CDC as of October 2021:
    Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
    Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

    Definitions from CDC as of 2014:
    Vaccine: A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth and by aerosol.
    Vaccination: Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent the disease.

    The mRNA vaccines do not “produce immunity therefore protecting the body from disease”. The mRNA vaccines do “stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases”. The former would not require boosters every 5/6 months. The latter requires boosters (or top-offs as I think they are called in the UK) every 5/6 months.

    There is an important distinction between “producing immunity” and “producing protection” (the latter of which is included in the 2021 definition of vaccination, though not in the 2021 definition of vaccine).

    Artificially boosting immune system for a few months by stimulating the body’s immune system (this is what the mRNA vaccines do): does produce protection from a specific disease, but does not produce immunity from a specific disease.

    In contrast, teaching the immune system how to fight a specific disease (this is what most vaccines except for the magic COVID-19 jab) is a way of “producing immunity”.

  • jmc

    @ Sigivald

    Yeah. Just read the paper. And many others like it in the last two years for HCOV’s and related subjects going back almost five decades.

    Jessica Roses characterization is completely correct. The paper confirm effects that were noted with previous HCOV vaccine candidates going back more than 20 years. Including for SARs CoV 1 and MERS. Which is why none passed beyond Phase I clinical trials.

    As for mRNA vaccines and why they are so dangerous try a standard textbook like RNA Vaccines by Kremps and Elbers. Pay particular attention to research on long term effects on non target cells. Its all hand waving. They have not a clue. All you need to know is that all previous mRNA vaccines candidate abandoned the regulatory approval process due to such high adverse event rates and low actual efficacy beyond any initial response. The just dont work for very long and they have unacceptably high serious side effects.

    As for VAERS. That has been the standard post approval safety monitor system for more than 30 years. The big problem with the system have been a well documented gross under-recording of adverse events. But all you need to know is that 30 plus years of the annual flu shot around 2K deaths have been associated with the flu shot. With the SARs CoV 2 vaccines it is 20K in one year. That is about 250 times more dangerous. For a viral respiratory infection that has and IFR and CFR little different from endemic influenza and much lower At Risk population. In fact apart from those already at high risk of pneumonia (high PSI/PORT score) the health risk from a genuine SARs CoV 2 pneumonia is lower than from influenza.

    When you add in the huge spike in excess deaths in the general morality figures for the two most common VAERS recorded adverse events the actual vaccine related deaths in the US at the moment is at least 120K. Or a 1 in 1400 death rate for those vaccinated. For the flu shot its been around 1 in 2 million over the last 30 years. For the other public health vaccines like MMR and Tdap the numbers are just as good as for the flu shot. They are very safe.

    The actual death toll from SARs CoV 2 pneumonia (not WITH a “positive” test result) in the US looks like in the 120K to 140K range but as most to be substitute cause deaths not unique case deaths so that the actual annual mortality number for the last two year have not gone out side the 10 year range. This is the first pandemic in history where there has not been a large spike in general population mortality rates. Unlike 1957/58 or 1968/69. The last true pandemics. Or even 2008 to 2012 for that matter. With H1N1-09.

    Thats the actual science. Not the politically expedient propaganda from the public health bureaucracies. I’m old enough to remember when it was predicted that hundreds of thousands of people would die from Mad Cow Disease and AIDS would kill million of ordinary people in western countries. Never happened. Because it was never true. From the very beginning.

    So just the same sort of people telling the same kind of lies.

  • Shlomo Maistre


    Your problem is that you are using facts, evidence, science, and logic to try to persuade a psychologically weak person that his narrative and feelings are wrong.

    It just doesn’t work.

    People like Sigivald are unable to process new information that goes against their story in a reasonable, rational, balanced fashion, particularly when that story is bound up in great emotions and hysteria.

    To say that such people are sheep is a great insult to sheep who at least know when they are being physically abused by their masters.

  • Flubber

    Absolutely spot on.

    TPTB needed people to die in large numbers to kick start the vax – passports – credit system – digital money – totalitarianism journey.

    Its just so utterly evil and cynical

  • Flubber

    Yup there are plenty of bedwetters.

    What has come as a great surprise to most of us is just how fascistic their neurotic demands on the rest of us would be.

  • Mr Ecks

    This is all a powergrab aiming to put the world under CCP-style social credit tyranny. All the worlds political scum have the same idea at the same time? Bullshit.

    Stop whinging about what is a bad winter flu lied to the skies and see our political scum for the traitors and agents of tyranny they now are. That is why we must win. Once under their thumb they have shiteloads of Marxist green misery to put on us all. Time to resist.

  • Paul Marks

    The American Heart Association is not a “fringe” organisation engaged in “misinformation” – although Twitter and Facebook (and Google) treat them as if they are. Look up the dangers they have found in the American “vaccines” (for want of a better term). The medications have harmed many people – that is a fact. The medications may have saved more people they have killed (that is indeed possible), but they have killed some people. I repeat – they may have saved more people (far more people) than they have killed, it is still early days (we do not know yet).

    As for the British vaccine (Astra Zeneca – which I have had, twice) the House of Commons has debated the harm that is sometimes done by the British vaccine, there is a government fund to compensate people harmed by it, and to compensate relatives when someone is killed (yes KILLED) by one of the vaccines.

    Anyone who tells you that the Covid vaccines do not carry risks (including the risk of death) is not telling you the truth. What you must do, is go to a doctor you trust and discuss the matter in your individual case – what is the greater risk to YOU, one of these medications – or the increased risk from Covid if you do not take these “vaccines” (for want of a better word).

    It may be, that in your individual case, the balance of argument is for you to take one of these “vaccines” – or it may not. You must discuss the matter with your medical doctor. This is not something that can only be decided in INDIVIDUAL CASES – not by a Collectivist “Public Health” approach. Discuss the matter with your own medical doctor – someone who knowns you and who you trust.

    “By the way…”

    There has been EARLY TREATMENT for Covid 19 from the start – but establishment medical officials, especially in the United States, have DENIED that.

    Now think about that – think about the basic fact that most of the people who died COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED.

    The officials who could have saved these people made a choice not to save them – to allow them to die, saying (repeatedly) there was no Early Treatment for Covid 19. In the United States these people did everything they could to SMEAR Early Treatment (to discourage it – they even put regulations in place against it) – in order to increase (increase) the number of people who died of Covid 19.

    Please think about that.

    Please think about that.

    Please think about that.

    Please, everyone, stop writing comments (for or against the “vaccines”) till you have understood that most of the people who have died from the virus could have been saved, and that officials (in many countries) made a choice NOT to save them – that these officials did everything they could to smear and discredit effective Early Treatment, even imposing regulations against it.

  • Skeptical Libertarian

    The comment posted on the page of the actual paper itself from Miles Babbage sums it up: “OK, authors, there are problems here. You don’t have the sample numbers to make the claims you do, and your data do not bear it.” The paper doesn’t make a strong case for anything other than confirming a known problem with researchers pushing claims they don’t have the data to truly support and a public that doesn’t grasp that there is a replication crisis in science in part due to poor quality statistics. It also makes the case for “confirmation bias” among the myriad folks that latched onto this and think they found some sort of “smoking gun”.

    There are statistical problems in many published papers: and this paper hasn’t even passed peer review. At the very most the paper merely suggests further study to confirm if there is an issue or if the concern doesn’t replicate. I’d tend to suspect that there is also p-hacking going on, that they tested other antigens and only included those that actually showed something “interesting”.

  • APL

    Paul Marks: “Please, everyone, stop writing comments (for or against the “vaccines”) till you have understood that most of the people who have died from the virus could have been saved, and that officials (in many countries) made a choice NOT to save them – that these officials did everything they could to smear and discredit effective Early Treatment, even imposing regulations against it.”

    Checks memory ….. I think I know that, Paul.

    For the benefit of those of us who think we know that, what is the next step?

  • Paul Marks

    Skeptical Libertarian – I refer you to my remarks concerning the American Heart Association and to the House of Commons. No one in the House of Commons contested the basic fact that the vaccines kill some people (because they do kill some people), the argument is about whether they save more people than they harm.

    APL the next step is to get a different Prime Minister in the United Kingdom – and for that new Prime Minister to get in outside experts to investigate what has happened.

    In the United States – hopefully Senator Ron Johnson will be the Chairman of the relevant Senate Committee after the 2022 midterm elections, and will be able to launch a proper investigation into the Federal bureaucracy and the relevant Corporations.

    Will all this happen APL? I do not know – as the establishment will do terrible things to try and prevent the truth being wildly known. But we must try and counter the “flood” (“flood” is a specific tactic – talked about in conferences in 2019 i.e. BEFORE Covid) of establishment disinformation and propaganda, designed to “drown out” or “wash away” the truth.

  • Paul Marks

    APL – more broadly it is time for a cool head (although that is a bit hypocritical coming from a bad tempered person such as me), loosing one’s temper and and suggesting violence (as Mr Piers Corbyn just did) plays-into-the-hands of the establishment – it is exactly what they want. An excuse for a crackdown on dissent – the dissent being presented as “conspiracy theories that lead to violence”.

    We are not far from WINNING – Mr Johnson will be out soon, and the new Prime Minister will be able to look into who has been giving Mr Johnson “advice” and what their motives really were. And in the United States the Democrats (those tools of the international establishment) are now so hated, that it will be hard even to rig a “victory” for them in the 2022 midterm elections. Republican candidates in the midterms will not be establishment people – they will be people who have repudiated the establishment.

    Now is the time that tries the soul – we must keep our nerve, and not lose our tempers.

  • SteveD

    ‘the argument is about whether they save more people than they harm’

    So, the trolley car problem then? Let’s assume that the vaccine saves more people than it kills. Is it permissible to murder 20 to save 100? I would suggest that it is not and that murder for a ‘good’ purpose is still murder.

  • SteveD

    ‘Which the immune system then attack because they are expressing the ‘spike protein’ that is characteristic of the COVID-19 virus.’

    This seems odd. Is there any evidence? My understanding is that the spike protein is first expressed inside the cell where the immune system cannot see it and then exported such it would not be associated with the cell. Unless of course it remains associated with the outside of the cell.

    There are many issues from mass vaccination campaign though. Vaccines are great tools but (more so than most drugs) lead to an extreme biological response. They need to be employed with wisdom.

  • Skeptical Libertarian

    re: “Skeptical Libertarian – I refer you to my remarks concerning the American Heart Association and to the House of Commons. No one in the House of Commons contested the basic fact that the vaccines kill some people (because they do kill some people), the argument is about whether they save more people than they harm.”

    I commented on the specifics of this particular study that was the topic of this page: your comment doesn’t refer to that at all. The study related to this page is poor quality data that doesn’t support the claims (likely why its still just a preprint several months after posting): and therefore the site commenting on the supposed biological mechanisms is irrelevant if there isn’t any credible evidence of the issue. I’d label that site technobabble meant to bamboozle the unwary that don’t realize thats all irrelevant without credible evidence supporting it. The page the quote is from seems to try to use overblown loaded terms that scare people like talk about reprogramming the immune system that mislead people: when there isn’t even anything to explain yet. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: and there isn’t even enough data to support an ordinary claim.

    In terms of whether vaccines cause harms: yes there are risks that need to be considered and weighed. Unfortunately most people aren’t practiced at analyzing statistics or weighting evidence and they let confirmation bias cloud their views. Unfortunately things like the vaccine adverse effects database, in the US the VAERS system, confuse people since its meant to include reports of any problems within the weeks after someone has a vaccine: regardless of whether the vaccine caused the issue. The intent is to then look to decide whether the vaccine may be responsible for the issue. The problem is: people get sick from other causes by chance during that time or have nocebo reactions (fear induced symptoms, the opposite of the placebo effect).

    People are concerned that the covid deaths are exaggerated due to the issue of people that don’t die *because* of covid-19 but merely happened to test positive for the virus and then die *with* covid rather than *from* covid. By analogy: the VAERS database is explicitly *intended* to be people that get symptoms or die *with* the vaccine: *without* filtering out at first whether its *from* the vaccine. So a comparison needs to be weighted against the base rate of numbers of people that statistically would have had symptoms or die during that period of time even if they hadn’t had the vaccine. Overall if anything the VAERs data suggests too few are dying: so either the vaccine is magically preventing other types of disease or there are too few reports.

    Also: confounding factors need to be studied since those taking a vaccine might be more likely than the general public to have health concerns and so they were more likely to get the vaccine than others. The nocebo effect is a big potential issue that is difficult to control for. Also: there is an issue similar to p-hacking: just by chance if you look at dozens of symptoms in a sample set: some of them may be larger just by chance than the usual statistics.

    Unfortunately too many people on each side of an issue can engage in confirmation bias when they look at hard to assess statistics and only see what they want to see. Analyzing data isn’t easy. The issue then is: comparing the risk of the vaccine vs. the risk of the disease since unfortunately both have risks.

  • Paul Marks

    “Skeptical Libertarian” – there is no good reason to spend any more time on you.

    SteveD – I agree that it not right to lie (for example to claim that the vaccines do not kill some people) for the supposed “greater good” of encouraging (or “nudging”) people to take the vaccines – yes indeed it should be strictly a matter of personal choice whether a person takes the vaccines or not, with no pressure (such as the despicable “vaccine passports”) on anyone – even if it does turn out that the vaccines save far more people than they kill. And we will not know that for years.

    I hope I have never implied otherwise Sir. If I have implied otherwise – then I apologise.

  • Skeptical Libertarian

    re: ““Skeptical Libertarian” – there is no good reason to spend any more time on you.”

    Its fortunate that you grasp you don’t have the background knowledge to offer evidence & logic on the topic to someone that asks for it. Unfortunately many these days that rail against government officials are cynics rather than scientific skeptics. Unfortunately these days some people assume that anyone who critiques the government is apriori right: rather than that perhaps the critic and the government are wrong, or that the government is accidentally right (ala broken clocks being right twice a day). Unfortunately even many scientists don’t have the background knowledge to assess statistical evidence very well: which is one of the reason’s there is a replication crisis in science. However: the answer is to focus on people that understand both the science and how to assess data rather than turning to poorly informed cynics that engage in “telephone game” like passing around of poorly evaluated theories.

    Isaac Asimov wrote a few decades ago about an issue that plagues the UK as well as the US: “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

  • bobby b

    “However: the answer is to focus on people that understand both the science and how to assess data rather than turning to poorly informed cynics that engage in “telephone game” like passing around of poorly evaluated theories.”

    Which leads directly back to what I said above:

    “Unless we’re all going to become educated in everything, I think it’s less important what we listen to than to whom we listen. But how to choose?”

    Most of us aren’t virologists. Most of us have shown that one year of half-assed study of the subject leaves us just knowledgeable/ignorant enough to be dangerous.

    So, how to choose? How to find the agenda-less explainer?

  • Ambrose B

    How I laughed at “…and this paper hasn’t even passed peer review.”

    Peer review is no guarantee of a “gold standard” when it confirms the biases or not of those reviewing.
    It is now (even more) common for papers going against the narrative to remain unreviewed. Look at the risk research from Queen Mary, University of London. It blows a hole vaccine efficacy narrative. Multiple requests for reviews from long time respected researcher .. oh look tumbleweed. So I am sorry, is utter fooey to say non review removes credibility. Peer review has become politics not science.

    Non reproducibility has plagued corporate science (included much university grant funded science in there too) for well over 20 years. This has long been highlighted by people such as John Ioannidis.

    Both of these criticisms (there were far more), can be made at the utter crap the “vaccine” manufacturers have presented as evidence of efficacy and safety, that limited amount we have been able to see in the public domain.

    Is it the fact that spurious crap from Pfizer et al is fine, they have $$$ after all so must be correct but as soon as it goes against the narrative – it is poor quality? A weak argument.

  • APL

    Paul Marks: “more broadly it is time for a cool head (although that is a bit hypocritical coming from a bad tempered person such as me), loosing one’s temper and and suggesting violence (as Mr Piers Corbyn just did) plays-into-the-hands of the establishment – it is exactly what they want.”

    1) Peirs Corbyn is the establishment, or as close to it as makes no difference.

    2) I will continue to correct people who make incorrect, misleading or deceptive assertions.

    3) I don’t know where you get the idea that anyone on Samizdata is advocating violence.

    Paul Marks: “An excuse for a crackdown on dissent – the dissent being presented as “conspiracy theories that lead to violence”.”

    This horrible administration needs no excuse to “crackdown” on dissent!! Have you seen the ‘Online harms bill”?? Or either of the two other bills currently passing through ‘Parliament’ right now?

    The nominally Tory government has already, or is already in the process of cracking down on dissent. In point of fact, cracking down on the truth.

    Paul, I really can’t imagine where you’ve been living for the last two years?

  • Paul Marks

    “Sceptical Libertarian” – you are neither sceptical (as you follow the official line – whatever it happens to be) or a libertarian. A libertarian is someone who supports liberty – not someone who tries to undermine liberty. As for your patronising tone – it is designed to provoke. Congratulations, you are provoking – your aim is achieved.

    APL – “Peirs Corbyn is the establishment”, because his brother used to be leader of the Labour Party?

    “I will continue to correct people who make incorrect, misleading or deceptive assertions” – and I SUPPORT you doing that. What I do not support is threats of violence – such as burning offices. I think we AGREE on that APL.

    I repeat we are close to victory – if we keep a cool head (and that might harder for me than for you APL) we can defeat people such as “Sceptical Libertarian” and Mr Johnson.

    Yes I have seen such things as the lockdowns and the (despicable) “Online Harms Bill” – but threats of violence are not the way to deal with all this (and you know that APL), indeed such threats PLAY INTO THE HANDS of people such as “Sceptical Libertarian” or Mr Johnson.

    We just had the largest backbench Conservative revolt in history – and a lot more is being done.

    I repeat, it may be HARDER for me than for you (APL) to keep anger under control – but we must try. If we keep anger under control we can win this – we can defeat the Collectivists.

    If we are to get this “horrible administration” of Mr Johnson out, then we must control ourselves – no matter how severe the provocation from vile creatures is. Liberty depends on our ability to do so – we are closer to VICTORY than you think APL.

  • Paul Marks

    Even the authorities in New Zealand now admit that the vaccines (I know that the word “vaccine” has been redefined – but I am using the word for these medications that is commonly used, if using the word “vaccines” offends some people then I apologise) kill some people. The question is do they save more than they kill – and we will not know the answer to that for years.

    Certainly mass Covid vaccination of healthy children, or of people who have already had the virus (and thus have T. Cell “memory”) would be utterly insane. It would be subjecting these people, such as healthy children, or people who have already had Covid, to the risks of the vaccines – without any real benefit from the vaccines – a horrible, wicked, thing to do.

    We can all agree on these things – regardless of other disagreements.

  • Alex

    Paul, I am curious why you think it is a good thing Boris will be out soon. While Boris has been a sore disappointment for many (not me, I never had any faith he was anything other than a careerist) he will be replaced with someone worse. Gove is a vile little troll who took his shot and failed, I can’t seem him succeeding but if he does perhaps you might explain how he will be better? Perhaps Sunak will continue his rapid ascension of the political ladder, a man who has bribed the majority of the country several times (to widespread acclaim, at least initially) but who is antithetical to a small government, libertarian position. We might get “Liz” Truss, who is about to sell our country down the river in repeatedly yielding to the French. As failing upwards seems to be endemic in Britain today, I can well imagine her becoming a repeat performance of Treason May. What benefit arises from displacing “Boris” the buffoon?

  • Paul Marks

    All people of good will can also agree on other basic facts.

    The virus came from the institute in Wuhan, whether it escaped or was deliberately released we do NOT know – but we do know that it came from the institute.

    Also – Early Treatment with a combination of long existing medications could have saved the majority of people who died of the virus. In some countries (not all) Early Treatment was systematically smeared – and that was a terrible thing to do, condemning a vast number of people to death in order to justify “lockdowns” and other restrictions (supposedly leading to a vastly better society – “Build Back Better” “Great Reset”). As for the defence of “we did not actually kill people – we allowed them to die” – duly noted. I also fully accept that many of the people who used such slogans as “Build Back Better” had no idea what the Collectivist agenda actually was – they were just using what had been made fashionable slogans (fair enough).

    It is useful (yes useful) when someone denies these basic facts – for by doing so such a person identifies themselves as part of the enemy, the enemy of liberty and of reason.

    To defeat the enemy one must first identify the enemy – and, therefore, for the enemy to clearly identify themselves is useful (highly useful). The good side of the last two years (the silver lining to all this terrible horror) is that we now know who the enemy are – they have clearly identified themselves.

    Devising and putting into practice tactics to defeat the enemy requires a cool head – and that means keeping one’s temper. Although, in the circumstances, it is incredibly difficult not to lose one’s temper in the face of such evil.

  • Paul Marks

    Alex – I think the revolt in the House of Commons is one factor. But so is the by election defeat in North Shropshire.

    And the resignation of Lord Frost – finally giving up hope that the Prime Minister could be convinced to stop following the “advice” of international officials and “experts”.

    I think we have gone beyond the “we must save the King from his evil councillors” stage, to understanding that Mr Johnson himself is part of the problem.

    Of course it is possible that we will FAIL – that Mr Johnson will remain leader, but we must TRY.

    As for who the new leader will be – the personality does not really interest me, what is needed is a new direction of POLICY.

    Limited – not unlimited, government.

    In the leadership election we will find out who is prepared to embark upon a new direction – the direction of limited, rather than unlimited, government.

    But first there much be a leadership election – we have to get Mr Johnson out.

  • Alex

    As for who the new leader will be – the personality does not really interest me, what is needed is a new direction of POLICY. — Paul Marks

    The question of who the new leader will be is quite interesting, I think. All the senior candidates are likely to be as, or more, easily led as Mr. Johnson. To be a real leader in contemporary politics requires several qualities such as a tendency to resist the group think, an openness to other ideas i.e. not falling victim to fallacious thinking by being capable of arguing both sides of a debate, superb indifference to the personal attacks that will be made upon any little indiscretion or, preferably, a person who is unassailable on such fronts by virtue of being free of such indiscretions, someone with exceptional moral standards. Failing the existence of such a paragon, we must settle for someone who is at least relatively morally good and who has a good grounding in moral decency, with the moral courage to stand up for what is right not just when it is expedient but when it is necessary and particularly when it is expensive. I can’t see the modern Conservative party (or Labour party, for that matter) having someone of that calibre, let alone someone who is capable of rising to seniority to the point of winning the leadership.

    As this is the case, “we” (I’m not a member of the Conservative party) are choosing between various soiled goods. I prefer to see someone in office who is least harmful. Boris might not be that person but I fear that someone like Sunak will be worse, more “progressive”, less inclined to small government. I appreciate that having seen a period in which the state has swollen up to new, record-setting largeness, with hypocritical lockdowns for thee and me but not for them, etc that it might seem that Boris is the problem. I suggest that is idealistic, that Boris might have resisted more than “Liz” or Sunak would have done, that while Sunak has developed a reputation in some quarters as a mild lockdown sceptic in Whitehall that his behaviour as CoE will almost certainly differ to what he would do as Prime Minister. As for “Liz” Truss, she is on record as having been fearful of the effect of so-called “Brexit” and surprised that all the negative consequences failed to materialise. She would, I suggest, be very easily controlled by the cadre of experts and bed-wetting sociologists that make up the upper echelons of the civil service.

    As to limited, not unlimited, government: that is wishful thinking at this point in this time and place, I fear. The population of this country has become so used to an excessively large government, paternalistic social and economic policy that we will have to endure a very difficult period in our history before the lesson is learned again. Those of us who know that large, unlimited governments become despotic, malevolent, joyful in their own contradictions, spiteful of their populace and that the paternalism not-that-slowly morphs into Kronus-like filicide will have to weather the coming period of time as best we can.

    For myself, I don’t see that a brighter future will be found in the Conservative party, regardless of the leader. They are just as corrupted as Labour, full of avaricious individuals who will sell out at the first opportunity. They are, and have been for decades, hopelessly stained by the various scandals that the deep state can hold over their heads. That, I believe, is why they are allowed to rise so far in the first place. The deep state hates no one as much as a person they can’t control, someone who has no dirty linen that can be revealed when they need to be forced to go against their better nature. The reason we’re seeing all this stuff in the press about Boris’ various social events during lockdowns is, I believe, because he is currently resisting their demands to impose a lockdown over Christmas and people like yourself are adding to the pressure for him to resign. It’s amusing, in a dark sort of way. I’m no fan of Boris, but there’s something quite funny (in both senses) in the idea that a new leader will be an improvement.

  • Skeptical Libertarian

    re: “you are neither sceptical (as you follow the official line – whatever it happens to be)”

    I never said that I follow the “official line” merely because its the official line: but I don’t dismiss it out of hand merely because its the “official line” either. I evaluate evidence: unlike those that blindly either follow authority or mindlessly believe anything that runs counter to authorities they don’t wish to believe. Also in terms of being a libertarian: I oppose vaccine mandates and have opposed all the restrictions from the start which by default shouldn’t be done in countries claiming to be free. They didn’t even try to offer any analysis of costs vs. benefits or explain why prior plans didn’t involve lockdowns or these restrictions. Those that battle restrictions should be careful to consider that it doesn’t matter whether people agree with you regarding claims about vaccines or treatments: what matters are views on policies.

    It seems unfortunately some anti-mandate ant-restriction folks require “virtue signaling” of people to indicate they do so for the “right” reasons like fearing the vaccines or claiming certainty regarding alternative treatments. Some of us are concerned about those that fear the covid virus and act based on that: but also those that mindlessly fear science they don’t understand. There are risks regarding vaccines and treatments *and* the disease that need to be carefully evaluated. Fear is interfering with many: the covid-paranoid and vaccine-paranoid.

    There is unfortunately a lot of bad data and arguments on all sides of various debates at the moment. Someone above asked the important but difficult to answer question: ““Unless we’re all going to become educated in everything, I think it’s less important what we listen to than to whom we listen. But how to choose?”. Unfortunately there is no simple answer: but many people look for simple answers and just grab at whatever they wish to believe too easily. Unfortunately it seems to require many different approximate heuristics like seeking those that seem to rigorously evaluate evidence historically and are willing to revise views based on updated information since science is constantly evolving and in some situations there is a lack of data and poor quality data. Its not easy since sometimes you need to wade through lots of plausible sounding rhetoric (like the topic of this page) to focus in on the data and see they don’t have credible evidence supporting the claim and so all that rhetoric is irrelevant. (which is why those with strong math and logic backgrounds can find flaws in studies: even without having a deep background in the relevant science. Unfortunately validating studies is harder: checking the math isn’t enough, the science and alternative explanations need to be considered that may require domain knowledge but it often goes a lot of the way).

    Incentives do play a part in assessing credibility: but some people take that too far, e.g. those that assume that apriori anything from “Big Pharma” is necessarily wrong merely because they wish to make money. Many of them then fall for claims “so treatment X they denounce that I heard on the net must work apriori!”. er, what about little pharma that hopes to make money off those, since even those are products? Even big pharma companies compete with each other and presumably attempt to undermine each other’s claims of product efficacy to push their competitive product. There is also the issue of lawsuits for fraud if people had actual credible evidence against the vaccine companies rather than merely anecdotal claims poorly considered. There is some limitation of liabilities for vaccines: but fraud and other issues could get around those: but that requires actual evidence rather than the poorly sourced fears.

    Yes: its an issue, but then if you want rigorous evidence of big pharma products you should also want it for those claimed cures: including safety assessments. Many of those claimed cures also haven’t been given to vast populations or studied well: and there is a lack of evidence. Yes: its a shame there isn’t more incentive to study certain treatments: but that doesn’t somehow mean they work just because you wish to believe it.

  • So, how to choose? How to find the agenda-less explainer? (bobby b, December 19, 2021 at 8:54 pm)

    Signs of a source’s interest in the scientific method – or of their lack of that; signs of a source’s awareness of the need to hear other views – or their will to silence dissent; these are useful indicators that do not need science training to spot. Do they present their results with some caution, some suggestion there are things not yet known, some awareness they may change their view in future? Or do they present as “Believe in me, er, in science!”?

    One should not seek a single ‘agenda-less’ explainer but a range of sources who value “standing by the basic moral and foundational principles of public statistics”. I’ve learnt plenty from people I do not in all things agree with – but (taking my own advice) do not know I will disagree with in future.

  • As for who the new leader will be – the personality does not really interest me, what is needed is a new direction of POLICY. (Paul Marks, December 20, 2021 at 12:39 pm)

    Personnel is policy. Imagine Theresa May replacing Boris – then feel relieved to wake up and realise that that nightmare, at least, is in our past and cannot be our future.

    The strategy of treating the rebellion as a boot up Boris’ backside – a hint to him to return to the policy of doing what he was elected to do – is inevitably the one in place at the moment and is the one indicated by Steve Baker’s remarks, etc., so

    – nothing is lost by seeing what happens;

    – for it to fail explicitly is probably necessary to pursuing any other strategy (that and some time, as always in politics).

    Any alternative is precisely an alternative choice of leader whose policy would be better, not worse – not just expressed as that, the next strategy tried would simply be that. Personnel is policy.

  • Paul Marks

    APL and others.

    The Cabinet rejecting the Collectivist “options” presented by Mr Johnson (although not invented by him – he was acting as a glorified messenger for the Collectivist establishment) is a good sign.

    We have most certainly not won yet – but the tide does seem to be turning.

    I agree with Niall that (to some extent) personal is policy – someone like Mr Johnson is too compromised now to be an effective leader for a pro liberty policy. Even if Mr Johnson claimed to have had a Road to Damascus experience and was now in support of lower government spending, an end to “SAGE”, and so on – he would not be believed.

    Mr Johnson must go – and all the “Nudge” types must go with him.

    As for the Covid “vaccines” (for want of a better term) we just do not know yet if they will save more people than they kill (or the other way round). Certainly anyone who suggests that the Covid vaccines should be given to people who have already had Covid (and thus have T Cell “memory”) or to healthy children, is either mad or bad (or both).

    These are risky medications – in some cases they may (may – perhaps) be justified. But not for healthy children, or people who have already had Covid.

    And, of course, the vicious campaign of LIES against Early Treatment of Covid 19 with a combination of long standing medications, must be exposed.

    The people responsible for this campaign of lies against Early Treatment, a campaign of lies which caused so many deaths, must be held accountable for their despicable actions – for example the fraudulent “study” in the Lancet.

    But exposure is not enough – the world needs to know WHY they did what they did, what the agenda (the political agenda) behind their lies was.

  • Paul Marks

    “How do we know which scientists to trust?”

    This is actually a lot less difficult question than it seems.

    There are some pure scientists left – people who are interested in finding out the truth, for the sake of finding out the truth. People with no political agenda – good or bad. BUT one is never likely to come upon such people – as they will be too interested in their research to make the effort to be known to the government or to the public (doing that will just not interest them).

    So what of the scientists who DO make themselves known?

    They will have a political agenda – their science (including their medical science) will be part of their general “world view”. Good or bad.

    So the task becomes to find out what that “world view” (that agenda) is. Make sure it is not a hostile one.

    Is this person a friend or an enemy. Do not take advice from enemies – do not take advice from people who want you dead or enslaved.

    “Paul you are saying that pure unbiased science does not exist” – NO I am NOT saying that, I have already said that are still some “pure” scientists left (with no agenda at all – just a passion for their subject for its own sake), but you are never going to hear from them (they, most likely, do not even know a public debate is occurring – they are certainly not going to be on government bodies or anything like that). The scientists you will hear from will have an agenda. So make sure that agenda is not to enslave you – look up what their political (yes POLITICAL) world view is.

    “Would I trust this man or woman in battle?” if the answer to that question is “NO – they would be on the other side, trying to kill or enslave me” then do not take their scientific advice – including their medical science advice.

    Take scientific advice (including medical science advice) from equally well qualified (or better qualified) people who are on-your-own-side, people who do NOT want to kill or enslave you.

  • Paul Marks

    This does not just cover the physical sciences – do not take advice on say, economic policy or military matters, from people (such as officials or academics) whose agenda is to destroy you. Officials and “experts” who would be filled with joy by you being destroyed.

    It is so obvious it should not need to be said – but it does need to be said. Politicians and others are taking “advice” from officials and “experts” who want to destroy them.

    It does not take much effort to find out what the political world view of an official or “expert” is – make the effort to find out.

    “Does this person, who is giving me advice, want me dead or enslaved?” is an important question. If the answer is “yes” – then please do not take their advice.

  • Paul Marks

    Even as far back as the 1970s the British Home Office was taking advice from academic Marxists – yes from Marxists, people whose very reason for being alive was to destroy “capitalist” Britain and enslave its population.

    Indeed more than a century ago the British Foreign Office sent to Arabia a man by the name of Philby (father of “Kim” Philby) – who was quite open about both his socialism, and his hatred for the United Kingdom. Why did it come as a shock when he acted against the interests of the United Kingdom? Or, later, when his son “Kim” (who was on excellent terms with his father – visiting him in Beirut where Philby Senior was busy weaving various anti “capitalist west” plots) also acted against the United Kingdom.

    “They are experts” – yes, but they are “experts” who want you dead or enslaved. And it is NOT different in the physical sciences – go for experts (well qualified people) who do NOT want you dead or enslaved.

    “But Paul – that is a POLITICAL test” – yes it is, and a very sensible one. For example, if someone (Peter Daszak) is head of something called the “Eco Health Alliance” he (just in that name) has told you everything you need to know about him (although, yes, I know lot more about Peter Daszak than that. Unless you have a Death Wish – please do not follow the advice of someone like that.

  • APL

    This horrible administration needs no excuse to “crackdown” on dissent!! Have you seen the ‘Online harms bill”?? Or either of the two other bills currently passing through ‘Parliament’ right now?

    For instance:-

    Covert Human Intelligence ( Criminal Conduct ) Act. – Among other things permits agents of the State to break the law.

    Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

    Online Safety Bill

    Counter State Threats Bill

  • Paul Marks

    APL – I am AGAINST much of what you mention. We agree.

    I am also against undermining opposition to such things by (for example) threatening to burn down the offices of Members of Parliament.

    “We are not terrorists – let us prove that by committing acts of terrorism”.

    I think we AGREE that such a response is profoundly stupid – and gives a perfect excuse for violent crackdown.

  • Paul Marks

    What interests me about “SAGE” and other governmental and establishment groups in this and other countries is NOT that a few members of such groups are members of the Communist Party.

    What is of interest is that the people in such bodies who are NOT members of the Communist Party are still in support of using the ideology of “Public Health” to achieve “Social Justice” “Equity” – we know that because they say so (they make no effort to hide the fact).

    I think that when I complain about such bodies such people as “Sceptical Libertarian” think I am claiming that they are all Communist Party members – I am NOT claiming that. What is clear is that the people in such bodies as “SAGE” who are NOT members of the Communist Party still support the Collectivist “Public Health” approach (as opposed to the view that medicine is about an individual patient and their doctor) – and using the Collectivist “Public Health” doctrine as a way of pushing “Social Justice” – they are very clear on this.

    Again – I am NOT claiming that these officials and “experts” are members of any particular political party, what I am saying (correctly) is that they are using “science” for a political objective – the objective of Collectivism – “Social Justice”, “Equity” as they call Collectivism.

    They are not neutral scientists interested only in seeking scientific truth for its own sake – such people (who DO exist) would never get to positions of power in such bodies, indeed they would not even try to do so. They would not be interested in such groups such as SAGE.

    Around the world these bodies jumped on the “success” of the Chinese lockdown approach – because that is the sort of thing they want to do anyway (regardless of Covid).