Hi Richard - not quite sure how to get in touch with you except to post a comment. I just let this comment on the newsletter of Eugyppuis and was wondering if you have any thoughts about this: Here is what I wrote:
"I am continually checking whether I am remaining objective and sort of playing devils advocate to see if there is actually data in favour of the vaccines. So in that spirit, I wonder: while it is clear when looking at the data for highly vaccinated countries that CASES are increasing not decreasing, it does seem that the death rates in those countries are now lower than in the earlier peaks. Thus - higher cases per million, but fewer deaths per million compared to peaks one and two. Looking at many of the highly vaccinated countries, this seems to be the case for most of them. Now, one could argue that the death rate is lower because the most vulnerable were taken away in the first and second waves. But at the same time one could also see that the link between high cases and high death rates appears to be broken in most highly vaccinated countries. I am just asking this to remain critical and objective. Any thoughts on this welcome!"
I am curious, with your watchful eye on the UK data, what you think about this?
Hello - thank you for your thoughtful comment and invitation to comment on turn. A few thoughts, all of which I'm sure you are aware of:
1. Confusion will persist for as long as they continue to refer to these experimental biological agents as "vaccines". Vaccines are distinguished from other classes of medicine by the property of conferring immunity - resistance to infection and infectiousness. These experimental substances are not described as "vaccines" by their manufacturers in their SEC declarations, were not tested in clinical trials for their capacity to confer immunity, and do not in fact confer immunity. They are therefore not "vaccines" but instead are functionally are the equivalent of pain killers. This observation fully explains the absence of any correlation between administration of the "vaccines" and the pattern of Covid "Cases", which is driven by infection not symptom reduction.
2. Confusion will persist for as long as they use "cases" as a proxy for "disease". "Cases" of infectious mononucleosis approach 100% in school-aged children. Glandular fever - the symptomatic disease that infection occasionally produces - is very low. Cases include the severely symptomatic, the mildly symptomatic, the asymptomatic, the never-infected, and the fully recovered. Cases rise when testing rises even when infection is falling. They, and any conclusion about disease derived from them, are utterly meaningless.
3. The experimental gene therapies are effective in reducing the probability of serious illness, hospitalisation, and death in those who are vulnerable. While even 100% reduction in the risk of illness, hospitalisation, and death is a matter of indifference to the vast majority of us for whom that risk is already negligible, if they are safe then they have a potentially useful role which might explain the pattern of death.
4. However, detecting the relationship between the experimental gene therapies and death is complicated by the current inability to distinguish between those who have died because of Covid, those who have died of other things and have been classified as having died of Covid, those who have died of the non-pharmaceutical interventions, and those who have died because of the gene therapy. This is aggravated by the practice of recording the cause of death as "Covid" for up to 14 days after administration of the experimental gene therapy. However, abundant direct (e.g. VAERS, non-Covid excess death registers) and indirect (e.g. ambulance call out records) evidence is accumulating that suggests that net deaths avoided by the experimental gene therapy is lower, and possibly considerably lower, than official narrative claims.
Many thanks for your extensive response Richard - you could just copy and paste your reply and voila! - you have another newsletter!
I get everything you are saying - the data is all messed up because of the bias they are introducing in it. I have no problem being highly sceptical about any data set. Still, the infection rate peaks are higher in wave 3 than in wave 2, yet the death rates in wave 3 (whatever that may mean) are lower than for waves 1 and 2. Overinflated Covid deaths would not explain that. In fact, it would create the opposite effect. But is is a complex picture so there could be lots of factors interacting.
I will continue to look into that. My guess is that this effect is due to (a) most of the highly vulnerable were taken off in the first two waves; and (b) there is more testing, hence an higher apparent infection rate in wave 3.
I fully agree with you about calling the mRNA injections "vaccines" - it was a piece of marketing cleverness, because in that way the injections automatically took on the halo of real vaccines (what doctor would not welcome a real vaccine?). Perhaps more important, they could label anyone who is sceptical about the injections as an anti-vaxxer, and therefore by implication a tin foil hat wearing simpleton.
Richard - I have been drawn here through your comments on Quillette articles.
I am here mainly to thank you!! I have a PhD in engineering and work in software and data science but as a small business owner I do not have time, and much less the talent, that you are able to invest to push back in a sane, rational way on the vaccine coercion. I am from New Zealand, and we have just locked down (19 Aug 2021) for the second time. I fear this is the first of a long march to reality for our government. How could they not have seen this coming? Since March 2020, do you think they have used the breathing space offered by our island isolation to build one extra hospital or train 10 extra nurses? Of course not - why do that if the experimental vaccines will save us?
I fear soon small numbers here in NZ will die and then all hell will be unleashed on those unvaccinated, like me, who wish we can just be given more time to study, in an un-censored manner, the true long term efficacy and effectiveness of the injections.
From the start, my intuition and the track record of Big Pharma and governments told me the vaccines were at best useless, and at worst harmful. I see how the goal posts in terms of expectations for efficacy has moved over time. I see a trend here, and I think the direction is not in favour of the vaccines. I will look out for any posts from you to summarize data on this topic.
Your responses in Quillette to "Ella-B" and "S.Cheung" are brilliant and honorable. You keep to the facts and stay away from ad-hominums.
I'm very grateful for your comment, and for your kind words. My heart goes out to you in NZ, but not from any sense of superiority. As we correspond, the Scottish Government has announced -- exactly as we predicted they would -- that the "temporary" emergency powers under which they set aside our rights and freedoms are now to be formally incorporated into permanent Law.
I believe sense will prevail. But in believing that, we should not rely on the institutions that are currently perpetrating these atrocities spontaneously coming to their senses. It will prevail for as long as the little boy keeps pointing out that the Fat Emperor is naked, and that his bollocks are swinging in the wind.
Thank you again, and keep up in turn your good work in challenging this absurdity.
Another brilliant TRUTHFUL piece, I can see you are as passionate about this “flu” , (because that is all it is), as I am. I would ask you Richard, if possible, you could mention in your next post the Freedom Alliance Party. They will be contesting over 100 council seats, I myself was unfortunately to late to stand.
They like myself, are totally committed to ending this farce.
Many thanks again to your brilliant posts, keep the great work up.
Bob - thanks for reading this newsletter, and for your comments. I must be clear that, while a virus with a 99.98% survival rate for most people is not particularly dangerous in general, there is a small but significant minority for whom it is and I readily accept the need for focussed protection for them. But while the facts are objective, the range of legitimate opinions about how to respond to them amongst those who might read this newsletter might vary widely. I think I'd prefer not to advance any one cause, but rather to welcome and encourage all constructive action that opposes current arrangements while acknowledging the needs of the vulnerable.
Hi Richard - not quite sure how to get in touch with you except to post a comment. I just let this comment on the newsletter of Eugyppuis and was wondering if you have any thoughts about this: Here is what I wrote:
"I am continually checking whether I am remaining objective and sort of playing devils advocate to see if there is actually data in favour of the vaccines. So in that spirit, I wonder: while it is clear when looking at the data for highly vaccinated countries that CASES are increasing not decreasing, it does seem that the death rates in those countries are now lower than in the earlier peaks. Thus - higher cases per million, but fewer deaths per million compared to peaks one and two. Looking at many of the highly vaccinated countries, this seems to be the case for most of them. Now, one could argue that the death rate is lower because the most vulnerable were taken away in the first and second waves. But at the same time one could also see that the link between high cases and high death rates appears to be broken in most highly vaccinated countries. I am just asking this to remain critical and objective. Any thoughts on this welcome!"
I am curious, with your watchful eye on the UK data, what you think about this?
Hello - thank you for your thoughtful comment and invitation to comment on turn. A few thoughts, all of which I'm sure you are aware of:
1. Confusion will persist for as long as they continue to refer to these experimental biological agents as "vaccines". Vaccines are distinguished from other classes of medicine by the property of conferring immunity - resistance to infection and infectiousness. These experimental substances are not described as "vaccines" by their manufacturers in their SEC declarations, were not tested in clinical trials for their capacity to confer immunity, and do not in fact confer immunity. They are therefore not "vaccines" but instead are functionally are the equivalent of pain killers. This observation fully explains the absence of any correlation between administration of the "vaccines" and the pattern of Covid "Cases", which is driven by infection not symptom reduction.
2. Confusion will persist for as long as they use "cases" as a proxy for "disease". "Cases" of infectious mononucleosis approach 100% in school-aged children. Glandular fever - the symptomatic disease that infection occasionally produces - is very low. Cases include the severely symptomatic, the mildly symptomatic, the asymptomatic, the never-infected, and the fully recovered. Cases rise when testing rises even when infection is falling. They, and any conclusion about disease derived from them, are utterly meaningless.
3. The experimental gene therapies are effective in reducing the probability of serious illness, hospitalisation, and death in those who are vulnerable. While even 100% reduction in the risk of illness, hospitalisation, and death is a matter of indifference to the vast majority of us for whom that risk is already negligible, if they are safe then they have a potentially useful role which might explain the pattern of death.
4. However, detecting the relationship between the experimental gene therapies and death is complicated by the current inability to distinguish between those who have died because of Covid, those who have died of other things and have been classified as having died of Covid, those who have died of the non-pharmaceutical interventions, and those who have died because of the gene therapy. This is aggravated by the practice of recording the cause of death as "Covid" for up to 14 days after administration of the experimental gene therapy. However, abundant direct (e.g. VAERS, non-Covid excess death registers) and indirect (e.g. ambulance call out records) evidence is accumulating that suggests that net deaths avoided by the experimental gene therapy is lower, and possibly considerably lower, than official narrative claims.
Many thanks for your extensive response Richard - you could just copy and paste your reply and voila! - you have another newsletter!
I get everything you are saying - the data is all messed up because of the bias they are introducing in it. I have no problem being highly sceptical about any data set. Still, the infection rate peaks are higher in wave 3 than in wave 2, yet the death rates in wave 3 (whatever that may mean) are lower than for waves 1 and 2. Overinflated Covid deaths would not explain that. In fact, it would create the opposite effect. But is is a complex picture so there could be lots of factors interacting.
I will continue to look into that. My guess is that this effect is due to (a) most of the highly vulnerable were taken off in the first two waves; and (b) there is more testing, hence an higher apparent infection rate in wave 3.
I fully agree with you about calling the mRNA injections "vaccines" - it was a piece of marketing cleverness, because in that way the injections automatically took on the halo of real vaccines (what doctor would not welcome a real vaccine?). Perhaps more important, they could label anyone who is sceptical about the injections as an anti-vaxxer, and therefore by implication a tin foil hat wearing simpleton.
Thanks again for your reply.
Richard - I have been drawn here through your comments on Quillette articles.
I am here mainly to thank you!! I have a PhD in engineering and work in software and data science but as a small business owner I do not have time, and much less the talent, that you are able to invest to push back in a sane, rational way on the vaccine coercion. I am from New Zealand, and we have just locked down (19 Aug 2021) for the second time. I fear this is the first of a long march to reality for our government. How could they not have seen this coming? Since March 2020, do you think they have used the breathing space offered by our island isolation to build one extra hospital or train 10 extra nurses? Of course not - why do that if the experimental vaccines will save us?
I fear soon small numbers here in NZ will die and then all hell will be unleashed on those unvaccinated, like me, who wish we can just be given more time to study, in an un-censored manner, the true long term efficacy and effectiveness of the injections.
From the start, my intuition and the track record of Big Pharma and governments told me the vaccines were at best useless, and at worst harmful. I see how the goal posts in terms of expectations for efficacy has moved over time. I see a trend here, and I think the direction is not in favour of the vaccines. I will look out for any posts from you to summarize data on this topic.
Your responses in Quillette to "Ella-B" and "S.Cheung" are brilliant and honorable. You keep to the facts and stay away from ad-hominums.
Great work, please keep it up.
I'm very grateful for your comment, and for your kind words. My heart goes out to you in NZ, but not from any sense of superiority. As we correspond, the Scottish Government has announced -- exactly as we predicted they would -- that the "temporary" emergency powers under which they set aside our rights and freedoms are now to be formally incorporated into permanent Law.
I believe sense will prevail. But in believing that, we should not rely on the institutions that are currently perpetrating these atrocities spontaneously coming to their senses. It will prevail for as long as the little boy keeps pointing out that the Fat Emperor is naked, and that his bollocks are swinging in the wind.
Thank you again, and keep up in turn your good work in challenging this absurdity.
Another brilliant TRUTHFUL piece, I can see you are as passionate about this “flu” , (because that is all it is), as I am. I would ask you Richard, if possible, you could mention in your next post the Freedom Alliance Party. They will be contesting over 100 council seats, I myself was unfortunately to late to stand.
They like myself, are totally committed to ending this farce.
Many thanks again to your brilliant posts, keep the great work up.
Bob - thanks for reading this newsletter, and for your comments. I must be clear that, while a virus with a 99.98% survival rate for most people is not particularly dangerous in general, there is a small but significant minority for whom it is and I readily accept the need for focussed protection for them. But while the facts are objective, the range of legitimate opinions about how to respond to them amongst those who might read this newsletter might vary widely. I think I'd prefer not to advance any one cause, but rather to welcome and encourage all constructive action that opposes current arrangements while acknowledging the needs of the vulnerable.