Eleftheros

Also, we've never seen a vaccination delivered to billions of people using the mRNA technology before. When you deploy globally for the first time a novel technology, under the glare of continuous scrutiny, you are likely to discover novel problems.

You prove my point about the circular argument magnificently. They disagree with the government narrative, ergo they must be peddling "misinformation". How do we know it is misinformation? Because it disagrees with the government narrative. And if you really don't know that governments were pushing a single lockstep Covid narrative, then you haven't been paying attention or you are so invested in that narrative and blind to anything else as to make your posts redundant. I can get all the government propaganda I want from Peter Hotez or the NIH.

There are also many independent researchers who have found exactly the opposite. So unless you apply the circular argument that "anyone who disagrees with the government narrative must be a bad scientist", then their work should be considered in any analysis of the situation. It won't be, of course, but for political reasons not scientific ones.

“There is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes [of lung cancer].” - Big Tobacco, 1954.

I never thought that Sultan Al Jaber would make it onto my personal list of heroes, but he made it after stating that there is “no science” indicating that a total phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to restrict global temperature rise to 1.5C. Al Jaber also said a phase-out of fossil fuels would not allow sustainable development “unless you want to take the world back into caves”. It could be argued that Al Jaber benefits enormously from the oil industry, which makes it even funnier that the dullards of the UN climate bodies would choose to hold their talk-fest in a Gulf oil state. Apart from saying out loud what everyone knows, it's rather delicious that Al Jaber would choose to make those statements in his role as president of COP28, in front of an audience of the world's leading climate hustlers, no doubt forcing them to retreat to their private jets for a swift brandy.

Meanwhile, in other planetary hypocrisy news, Prince Charles, Rishi Sunak and David Cameron all traveled from London to Dubai by private jet. Not the same private jet, you understand, but three separate private jets. Understandable, since they are all loathsome people and probably cannot stand one another, but not a very good look when ordering the peasants to cut down on their consumption. Too bad they didn't get iced in at Munich airport, like a bunch of the other "global boiling" hustlers.

Most tourists wait until they get to Bangkok before they start causing chaos, undressing in public and threatening people.

A media report, employing the phrase "scientists say", does not constitute a "fact", or anything close to it, except for people who are exceptionally gullible or willfully blind.

The UK's Covid inquiry is the embodiment of the phrase "throwing good money after bad." After the government p*ssed away countless billions of pounds on pointless measures and useless technology, they are now wasting hundreds of millions more on a Potemkin inquiry which is going to result in a 1000-page report which nobody reads but could be summed up as "Mistakes were made, lessons have been learned, nobody was to blame, and we need more money for bureaucratic structures to help us tackle this better." It's nothing more than a vast make-work project for bureaucrats glued onto an acquittal for all the public servants who perpetrated this ghastly damaging mess on the citizens.

The figure of 2,700 submarines for Indonesia seems a little bit high, given that China only has 78 and the US 68. Information from people who study this subject estimate that the number of submarines operated by the Indonesian Navy is not 2,700 but ..... 4.

Not to worry. The Thai Navy has a good history of turning frigates into submarines without warning.

Although the AZ vaccine does not use the mRNA technology, it is far from being a 'traditional' vaccine. It is a viral vector vaccine, which "..[u]nlike many other vaccines that contain an infectious pathogen or a part of it, viral vector vaccines use a harmless virus to deliver a piece of genetic code to our cells, allowing them to make a pathogen’s protein." So it is delivering genetic code (that encodes the SARS‑CoV‑2 spike protein) into human cells, just like Pfizer and Moderna, but it doesn't use mRNA to deliver it. If you want a traditional vaccine, you have to go for Sinovac, Sinopharm or Valneva. Stick to re-issuing government press releases.

Except the figure of 10% has emerged previously in this kind of situation - at least that percentage of money earmarked for climate change mitigation is lost due to fraud. Organized crime groups sold billions of dollars' worth of fake 'carbon credits' and corporations and even private individuals get in on the act. It makes sense. When governments throw ludicrous sums of money around on vague and ill-defined schemes which do no good but make them personally feel better, it is like a veritable smörgåsbord laid out for opportunistic criminals. It's like strewing dollar bills all over the pavement and asking people not to pick them up.

The VAERS system is only valuable to people who are interested in protecting the public's health. When they are focused only on protecting their own status and careers, then VAERS is a positive danger to them. At this point, I would be amazed if VAERS was being kept in good shape to be used in the service of medical science.

To militant woke activists, there seems to be no limit to the collateral harms that were accepted as mere roadkills on the highway to social justice heaven. Warnings of collateral harm of Covid interventions were dismissed as exaggerated, speculative, without evidence, etc. Now that we know that the interventions were a colossal blunder causing generational damage, everyone is flailing around and pointing the finger at everyone else.

I don't care if someone uses an abacus, or their toes, or a dartboard to come up with the figures. To estimate the global effect, we extrapolate our findings from the main regression model to a broader set of 141 countries It is clearly nonsense to extrapolate the findings from one computer model to a full set of 141 countries, which have wildly different demographic profiles, health systems, and means of data collection. This single statement undermines the entire effort. Here we see again the low-resolution, one-size-fits-all kind of thinking which proved so disastrous throughout the pandemic. This is just publication for publication's sake, to justify a research grant.

More computer modelling, more unwarranted assumptions, more fodder for the gullible.

"Countless" lives is about right, in that there is no firm way to know how many lives were saved, if indeed any were, or even if the count was negative. Given that, it is foolish to simply hand out "respect" whenever we see a white coat who was involved in this matter.

That would be the computer models used to estimate the amount of lives saved by inoculation, for a start. Of course it's a computer model. You can tell that by the wording of "3.5 million to 5 million lives". They didn't count them, they estimated them using various input parameters, and that range is their best estimate. The same goes for the CDC study from 2015 estimating lives saved by flu vaccines. The "facts" in the citations and links, those that I've looked at, are simply more computer model estimations. It's computer modelling all the way down. And to repeat, you can get computer models to say anything you want. If you know the desired result, it is trivial to have a computer model generate it, as the wretched Neil Ferguson of Imperial College proved with his estimate of how many Brits would die from Covid, a disastrous exaggeration which informed much of the UK government's catastrophic response to the virus.

The whole point about racism and misogyny, according to the activists, is that it is fundamentally subjective. If you feel offended by some remark addressed to you, then it is by definition an offensive remark - in law. As the UK's Crown Prosecution Service states to be the definition of a racist offence: ""Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race." No objectivity is required, even if it were possible to decided what 'objectively racist' means.

Right. So it wasn't the pandemic which ruined these people's lives, it was the incompetent, blundering, arrogant, heavy-handed response to the pandemic. We knew this already, but for The Guardian to admit it is some sort of a belated step in the right direction.

Collectivist types love these computer models and their projections and estimates. First, they love the thought of some authority figure making decisions on their behalf. Second, they much prefer these low-resolution, one-stop-shop kind of 'answers'. And third, they are entirely comfortable with the fact that you can prove anything you want with computer models, simply by altering the inputs and assumptions. On the other hand, the idea of thinking for themselves terrifies them.

Everything fine and dandy with vaccines and vaccine trials ... ... says 'analytic' company whose clients "include the Top 25 global pharma companies". Another triumph for self-exculpation.

As your gender is male according to your profile, I am not surprised that you and your boyfriend have been "trying for some 11 years" without success to have children. Perhaps you should reread "Bertie the Bunny and Rosie the Rabbit" to better understand your lack of success.

Are you serious? Pfizer's stock price has dropped 40% this year, from $50 to $30 per share, so of course they are going to try to cram in as many sales as possible while there are still gullible nitwits around. If they don't do that to the best of their ability then the shareholders will have plenty to say.