Stamping on the ‘anti-vaxxers’ – a very stupid idea

17th November 2020

The COVID19 pandemic has thrown into sharp relief the concerns that a number of people have about vaccination. However, such is the eagerness to develop a vaccine, and get everyone to take it, that authorities are now looking to ban anyone who raises doubts. For example, the Labour Party in the UK is now calling for emergency ‘anti-vaccine’ laws:

‘Emergency laws to “stamp out dangerous” anti-vaccine content online should be introduced, Labour has said. The party is calling for financial and criminal penalties for social media firms that do not remove false scare stories about vaccines.

It follows news of progress on the first effective coronavirus vaccine. The government said it took the issue “extremely seriously” with “a major commitment” from Facebook, Twitter and Google to tackle anti-vaccine content.’ 1

There are so many things that could be said about this, that it is difficult to know where to start. Or to finish. I think in this blog I am just going to stick to focussing on a single issue. Which is that, if the intention of such laws is to ensure more people are keen to be vaccinated then I have news for the Labour party.

It will almost certainly backfire.

This is because state censorship does not change minds, never has. Whilst debate, at least superficially, has been silenced, the concerns do not disappear. Instead, the doubts are often redoubled. Once you start banning and censoring and fining and arresting, people start to wonder if you are just afraid to make your case. As Wendell Phillips said, and many people think:

‘He who stifles free discussion, secretly doubts whether what he professes to believe is really true.’

Once censorship starts, people are also reminded of the worst, most dreadful periods in history the world has even seen. It has always been one of the primary tools of totalitarian regimes:- Nazi Germany, Russia under Stalin, North Korea, China and Iran today.

One of the greatest books of the twentieth century is George Orwell’s 1984. It is a book mainly concerned with how facts, and truth, are tightly controlled by the party.

‘And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.’

Of course, Orwell was not the first to notice the critical importance of freedom of speech

‘Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence.’ Frederick Douglass

‘Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.’ Benjamin Franklin.

Deep down we all know this. We know that this essential freedom – to say what you really believe to be true – is the essential pillar of any free society. It carries a cost, of course it carries a cost. People say stupid things, people say wrong and misguided things. They can be damaging things, but the alternative will always be much worse in the end.

I say this because people also say things that, whilst angrily dismissed at the time as dangerous foolishness, are later found to have been correct all along. I have spent many years looking at the history of medical science (if that is not, at times, an oxymoron). I have seen many activities considered to be of inarguable benefit, turn out to be indefensible malpractice.

Bernard Lown is, I think, my number one medical hero. His motto ‘Do as much as possible for the patient, and as little as possible to the patient.’

As he also said:

‘From my earliest days in medicine, I have struggled against the prevailing model of health care. My opposition in part was provoked by the growing prevalence of overtreatment. Resorting to excessive interventions seemed to be the illegitimate child of technology in the age of market medicine.’ 2

He tells a tale from the 1950s where the orthodoxy of the time was to ensure strict bed rest following a heart attack. In the face of considerable hostility, he and his mentor, Dr Samuel Levine allowed patients to sit up in a comfortable chair at the end of the bed. Shock horror. In his own words:

‘The idea of moving critically ill patients into a chair was regarded as off‑the‑wall. Initially the house staff refused to cooperate and strenuously resisted getting patients out of bed. They accused me of planning to commit crimes not unlike those of the heinous Nazi experimentations in concentration camps. Arriving on the medical ward one morning I was greeted by interns and residents lined up with hands stretched out in a Nazi salute and a “Heil Hitler!” shouted in unison.’  3

Heil Hitler indeed. An almost perfect irony, I suppose.

It turns out that strict bed rest was absolutely and completely and totally the worst possible single thing you could do. I estimated, some years ago, that this action resulted in the premature death of around one hundred million people, worldwide. It could well have been more.

I imagine the ‘Heil Hitler’ shouting interns and residents would have happily endorsed censorship of any criticism of strict bed rest … for the good of society, no doubt.

Of course, had this happened, we would probably still be enforcing strict bed rest to this very day. Once a treatment becomes ‘standard practice’, there is no longer anything else against which to compare it, so you have no idea if it is beneficial, or harmful. That is what happens when you ban freedom of thought, and speech.

Leaving aside the principle that freedom of speech is our single most important freedom and must be handled with exquisite care. If we crush dissent, we also crush progress. Stupid ideas will, in the end, be shown to be stupid. Nonsense will be exposed as nonsense. However, if no criticism allowed, stupid ideas that are widely believed to be true, cannot be challenged and we will be stuck – forever.

I think most people recognise this truth. I also think most people, when they see things being banned and censored … wonder why. You immediately raise doubts. Why are they doing this, are they attempting to hide something? You will not convince anyone, ever, by censoring them, or shutting them up. You will, instead, make them more certain that you are hiding something, and that they are right.

Censorship always hardens attitudes; it does not change minds. Anti-vaxxers (whatever that stupid deliberately demeaning term means) will become more anti-vaxx. Discussion will be driven underground. Heroes and martyrs will be created. You will have done the exact oppositive of what you hoped to achieve.

You don’t win arguments by clubbing people into submission. All you do is silence them and redouble their determination.


2: 3:


422 thoughts on “Stamping on the ‘anti-vaxxers’ – a very stupid idea

  1. Frederica Huxley

    Thank you, freedom of speech is the bedrock of democracy. On another level, why are people told to shut up? Is because the powers that be are not able to debate their diktats?

    1. Harry de Boer

      We lost our right to ‘free speech’ the moment we accepted the first infringement: prohibition of hate speech and expression of doubts regarding any aspect of the holocaust. Of course more infringement will follow. See here the result.

      1. 005lesfrenes

        Disgusting. How dare you compare this situation with the Holocaust. If your grandparents and 80% of their relatives were murdered by the Nazis would you consider it acceptable for anyone to deny that this happened? They were innocent civilians, murdered for a cold blooded ideology in an organised and well documented process. Your claim that it is OK to question whether this did or did not happen is based on hatred, prejudice and a loss of contact with reality. Shame on you. How would you like it if the Blitz was questioned and denied? Your comment has no place on Dr. Kendrick’s wonderful blog.

        1. derektmcglynnyahoocom

          Agreed. I live in Connecticut, “The Constitution State” which the governor has seem to forget to read. Too many mandates. As someone astutely stated, we have instituted the Chinese method of handling the virus.

        2. ricksanchez769

          “Disgusting. How dare you compare this situation with the Holocaust. If your grandparents and 80% of their relatives were murdered by the Nazis would you consider it acceptable for anyone to deny that this happened?”

          Freedom of speech is supposed to permit this – Dr. Kendrick argued this position…is denying the holocaust abhorrent? Sure it is, but now I know this person’s position and I can ignore them and consider them coo-coo bananas. The freedom of speech police are going to be ever expanding their mandate on what to ‘shut down’. First is holocaust, next is man-made climate change folks, then vaccine safety deniers, then anti-statin folks…

          1. Mark Christopher Wilson

            People constantly say things that are abhorrent to me, and to deny that your grandparents were murdered is truly abhorrent, but note the comment said “any aspect of the holocaust”. Some of what is stated about it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny; if it is deemed sacrosanct and can never be tested, it surely undermines it?

        3. anna m


          I hope you are kidding.
          Freedom of speech has no exceptions. You either have it or you don’t. Period, full stop.

        4. sam

          I think he meant the idea that holocaust demiers should be silenced. That is a loss or free speech and then once that idea is accepted further encroachments into free speech occur until there is none left.

        5. Harry de Boer

          I have no intention to discuss the holocaust itself here, I’m just pointing out WHERE the infringement on our free speech started. And that was where I said it did, whether you like it or not.

          1. Harry de Boer

            And I am happy that at least @sam was able to notice the little nuance ‘any aspect of’ in my reply, because it was put there for a reason.

          2. Harry de Boer

            In the mean time, across the channel on the continent, the following happened live:

          3. shirley3349

            I don’t think such restrictions started then, at least not in the UK.

            Printing gossip about senior members of the royal family was most definitely not done in the 1960s.

            When, at the end of that decade, I lived in Germany, popular women’s magazines there were full of stories about Prince Philip’s latest affairs. My landlady, having an English tenant to pump for juicy information, was most disappointed when I said I had never heard of the women in question, because the English press did not print such things. I told her I did not think the editors would end up in the Tower, or worse, if they did, but they would be most unlikely to keep their jobs.

            She scoffed: So that’s what the English mean by freedom of the press!

        6. David Bailey

          The point is that we don’t know where we are going. Germany wasn’t enslaved by the Nazis overnight. The present situation feels like some sort of transition to a deeply undemocratic form of government – not just here but all over the world. Once democracy is set aside, anything is possible. We already have innocent civilians dying from this mess because of the near elimination of the health service. Worldwide it is reckoned that this disruption will kill many more due to starvation.

        7. huckebein

          I’d rather be discussing free speech in the context of this virus and the effects of the lockdowns but free speech is free speech…

          Free speech can get ugly, right? But sometimes you have to look at something that is ugly in order to stop believing a lie.
          You said: “If your grandparents and 80% of their relatives were murdered…” I’ll address that last.
          First this: “How would you like it if the Blitz was questioned and denied? ” But it is. The bombing of civilians that is. Didn’t you know that? Maybe not to a great extent in the UK but what happened to non-combatants during WWII as a result of bombs being dropped is often examined, challenged, and even officially revised at times. It’s the process of historical inquiry in order to get at the truth and free inquiry and free speech are necessary for that. There is a very strong case to be made for the death toll of Dresden to be 100,000 or even more given the circumstances, the number of refugees camped in the streets, the severity of the three-pronged attack and the resulting firestorm. Yet a British author, Frederick Taylor wrote a book saying that only about 25,000 died. Should Mr. Taylor be arrested and his books banned and incinerated? That’s what would happen to him if he were German and he had written a book denying 75,000 deaths alleged in some part of the Holocaust.
          Regarding the Holocaust, it too has been revised a number of times if only by the authorities who maintain control over how their citizens are to think about it. Up to about 1990 for example, and – confusingly still today- the total of the Holocaust has been the familiar “Six million” number while the official toll at Auschwitz was deemed to be “Four million”. But in 1989/90 it was revised downward to about 1.1 million.

          The question then arose why the overall number still remained at “Six million”. The short answer might be “politics”. This particular example of the numbers being changed with regard to the Holocaust is only to point out that it too has been revised – if rarely. Were you not aware of this?
          But as to the Holocaust narrative overall – because that’s really the issue – is it “beyond question”? Such that anyone who investigates it and then begins to doubt you support them being censored? Silenced? Jailed? If so, you must be awfully certain of the accuracy of the story. And very knowledgeable about this subject in order to be that certain. Are you?

          1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

            Free speech is free speech. However, this is primarily a healthcare blog, not a political blog. If you wish have a discussion on holocaust denial, or denial of holocaust denial, please feel free, but there are thousands of other places to go and do that. My own view is that the holocaust took place – this I think is beyond any doubt. How many people died, no-one will ever know. Discussion on accurate numbers is completely ridiculous. If it was one one million it was OK, but if it was six million is was a terrible atrocity? Anyway, I do not want to drag myself into this particular debate. I would just ask that we keep the discussion more closely allied to medical/vaccine issues here, thank you.

          2. theasdgamer

            Dr. Kendrick,

            Would discussions of lockdown be a medical issue or a political issue? And would attempts by some to use the pandemic to further political agendas be off limits for discussion?

            Thank you.

        8. Binra (@onemindinmany)

          Then; Banksters. IBM and IB Farben et al – to now; Banksters, Big Pharma and MS track and trace of persistent and pervasive surveillance and enforcement. We don’t have forced slave labour in what was formerly the UK – yet, nor the culling or delivering to destruction of large numbers of people – yet.
          But even if a regime change outed the madness now, we would be in significant financial and social challenges. However, if we could self-organise freely, we could open along the lines of inspiration and integrity.

          The mindset and the methods and pretexts of covid-REACTION are of a kind with Nazism – but no less with Stalinism or Maoism in their own way. Democracies do things more insidiously, through social engineering and mind-capture to generate a bubble of mainstreamed masking reality that is only as free as the script allows. There are global funding and support links behind the scenes that are airbrushed or downplayed. (As with WEF and innumerable NGO ‘fronts’ today). Plunder, possession and control respect no boundaries and use all and any identities to mask in to break in and manipulate their own people as a resource of support. (Not unlike a cell culture to grow ideas in).

          There is a psychopathological mind in the human experience, and the attempt to eradicate it becomes the thing it hates. Casting out onto scapegoats is a very old magic. Now covid-deniers and vaccine-deniers join climate deniers. In order to tick all the boxes leave your consciousness behind – you wont need to own anything – and you will be ‘happy’ by virtue of normalising to a new set of orders’.

          Using fear and grievance as a Big Stick does not win true support, though it may seem to enforce it. Without the coercive bullying the covid thing would not only evaporate – we would have been no more aware of it than a moderately bad flu year. As we don’t actually test for flu in the most part sense we use ‘flu’ as the catch-all for deaths associated with respiratory disease and complications.

        1. Binra (@onemindinmany)

          It never went away – but the capacity to override and mask out or block truth is our human ‘expertise’. That the illusion fades is the need to do a runner, or to re-prime the pump, with a circuit breaker that denies the possibility of communication to anything but Notional Security.

      1. jeanirvin

        I don’t know about Germany but, if you read down the article, it says that the Danish government were forced to repeal the law following a week of constant protesting. If necessary, that’s what we need to do!

  2. David Winter

    Hi…i wonder if e could have your thoughts on the current debate on statins regarding the recent placebo effects.

    Kind regards.

    David J Winter. [Author].

    ALL ON AMAZON Kindle :


    The Case of the Missing Left Feet.


    The Trip

    Sent from my iPad Website:

      1. Jennifer

        They never ask me about statins….I have told them over the years, but….However, it is freedom of speech we are concerned about today.

      2. JP

        I am curious what is the best case, from the pro-statin standpoint, for statins for secondary prevention (or secondary life-prolongation, if you prefer). What are the “jewel in the crown” studies in favor of taking them in such cases? Even statin skeptics sometimes say there is “some” benefit to taking them if one has already had a heart attack, but I haven’t seen any references to the studies that define this benefit.

      3. Christopher Palmer

        Yes, they are intent upon fanning the smoke in the hope of dispersing it, and all the while they are so stupid they do not realise that they are also gently and inadvertently fanning the flames that you and I know gives rise to the smoke they so want to disperse.

      4. giampaolominetti

        Dr Kendrick, I’ve suggested that among those that suffer the most severe consequences of infection by Sars-CoViD-2 there may be subjects that are on statins. The idea is that weakening of the immune system (both innate and non-specific) could be one of the many adverse effects of statins, perhaps not so well characterized as others.
        Of the papers that have come out during these months many give the co-morbidities affecting patients with Covid-19, some also the pre-existing therapies given to these patients. In only one article I’ve seen statins mentioned and they appeared not to be correlated with the severity of Covid-19. But no data on the compliance of those patients to statin therapy was reported.
        I’ve seen today another article relating obesity to adverse outcomes in Covid-19, but it does not mention at all the therapeutic regiments to which those obese patients might have been subjected to prior to the infection by Sars-CoViD-2.
        Since statins are one of the most prescribed drugs globally, I find it hard to believe that at least some of the obese patients included in the study were not on statins, and that this parameter was not considered for statistical analysis. Or maybe it was, and the results were not revealed because too scary?
        I think that the hypothesis would be worth testing, but this is almost impossible, as patients’ data are inaccessible.
        What would you suggest?

        1. Martin Back

          I did look at statins vs Covid-19 deaths and found no correlation, but it was a very casual look.

          My reasoning was, statins depress cholesterol, cholesterol is the precursor to vitamin D synthesis in the skin, so statin users would have lower vitamin D, and be more vulnerable to infection. As I say, no obvious link.

          The problem is the confounding variables. The older you are, the more likely you are to take statins, and the more likely to die of Covid. Is it the age or the statins that make you more vulnerable, or many other co-factors like diet and lifestyle? You would need a massive study to tease out all the linkages, probably in the hundreds of thousands, with lots of details on each participant. I doubt anyone would fund such a study.

          1. giampaolominetti

            I perfectly agree with you on one point, that no one would fund such a study, but not because of its complexity!
            May I ask what was your source of information for the statin-Covid-19 correlation?

      5. Harry de Boer

        Bottom line? Because of the bottom line. The same as with vaccines. All noses have to point in the same direction, no dissent. Because 7 billion world population * 2 covid-shots * US$ 100 = US$ 1.4 TRILLION
        People start 3 wars for such amounts. I think the Syrian proxy-war was about a pipeline from Qatar through Syria to Europe to transport 400 billion in gas or so.
        And when the virus mutates we’ll do it all over again.

        Plus all the rest that’s attempted to be piggy-backed on this (fabricated, I think) crisis: big corp takeover of small businesses, banks harvesting bankrupt assets that were collaterals to loans, houses on which the mortgage can’t be paid anymore, mail-order take-over of retail sector. Blood will flow through the streets and that’s where the Buffets and Sorosses will buy at the lowest possible price. Harvesting time, every 100 years now.
        WEF’s “You will own nothing but will be happy” => no more cars, you want to travel? Need vaccine-passport, then rent a Uber/Lyft trip, total population control because everything is being communicated, transacted, paid online.
        China’s omputerised AI governing of the masses through social score coupled to privileges (which will have replaced our basic human rights, as you already can see happening here and now) and go on and on.

        1. Binra (@onemindinmany)

          There’s another elephant in the room as the indication of a shift from ‘money’ (and the financial systems such as once directly represented something tangible), to a form of digital credit which can be electronically monitored and controlled globally and locally – right down to specific allocations for specific allowances.

          So before the controlled ‘demolition’ of ‘money’, its insane spend on Moonshine and other madness – effectively raids the public purse as a redistribution of credit before taking the patient off of life support – and bringing forth A Gobblerist technocracy (Pullmanism intended).

    1. Louise McElhill

      Have you read Too Many Pills by James Le Fanu ? It is sooooooo good. I honestly think it should be required reading for the over 60s. As a retired registered nurse, I have administered too many pills over a forty year period! That’s for sure.

    2. Jerome Savage

      Off them 6 years & never felt better. No need to go in to detail but coronary test few years ago showed no issues. I wish to thank Dr Kendrick for his research that provided the comfort zone within which I could minimise stress associated with not toeing the official line. I found encouragement to improve my diet etc through these pages. However, I cannot rule out the possibility that ststins left me with permanent scars.

      1. Jo Baetke (@jobaetke)

        I think reasoned debate has been difficult to achieve on all matters to do with vaccination for a very long time. Probably much more so since Andrew Wakefield. The people who use the term “anti-vaxxers” in the media are not prepared to listen to that group’s concerns and they constantly repeat the mantra that vaccines are safe. Everyone knows that all medical treatments carry risk, in varying quantities. It should be possible for a cost/benefit analysis to be made. eg that vaccinations have saved lives vs vaccine injury (some people don’t know that there is a fund to pay out for this); and looking at the severity of the disease eg yellow fever, most people travelling to affected areas are prepared to have this; whilst many people do not see the necessity of have a flu vaccination. The problems with acceptance, by some, of the Covid-19 vaccination are twofold – due to its expeditious roll-out, there are concerns for its safety; and secondly the view that only people who feel they are at significant risk of contracting Covid-19 and being seriously ill or dying really need a vaccination at all. Especially as there is yet to be evidence that it prevents reinfection.

        1. Harry de Boer

          If you don’t like the debate or how it is going, don’t engage in it or stop engaging.
          I think that the most active ‘anti-vaxxers’ are people who were actually avidly and obediently pro-vaccination but observed detreimental effects in the children under their care and feel guilty and the responibility to warn other parents about the dangers of vaccination.
          In a society that claims freedom of speech they should be allowed to.

        2. Patrick Healy

          Hold on there. The British and US governments have exempted the developers of any criminal liability of these vaccines. How does this impact your statement “some people do not know there is a fund to pay for this” Is this funded by the taxpayer?

          1. shirley3349

            I always used to take any vaccines on offer, provided there appeared, on superficial investigation, to be more benefit to me than risk. But the way the populations of the world are now being held to ransom, to coerce them into taking, or allowing their children to take, the new vaccines, has finally completely taken my trust in the entire health system away, though I retain trust in some individuals whom I can talk to and get sensible replies from.

            It will only be restored if drug company testing procedures are sufficiently rigorous to convince commercial insurance companies to fully cover drug companies against the tiny number of ideopathic reactions to the vaccines which cannot, with the best intentions in the world, be predicted. The companies would then have to face full liability before the law for any negligence including failure to abide by agreed and specified standards during manufacture.

            If this makes vaccine manufacture uneconomic, governments throughout the world should nationalise their drug industries, and to begin with, manufacture any tried and tested products, and distribute them at cost to patients, with heavy fines to anyone who attempts to profiteer from any shortages which may develop during the transition process. Research and development of new products, to answer perceived gaps in available drugs, will take longer to organise.

            Keir Starmer’s threat of censoring alternative sources of information is loony. Labour party policy has been worse than the Tories’ throughout the whole epidemic, ratchetting up the panic to gain political points while doing little to promote the kind of education which would protect people’s health.

            I have always voted Labour, albeit at times with a large clothes peg on my nose! But during this epidemic, the only people who have spoken any sense have been on the extreme right wing of the Tory party, who I would never vote for in a million years, because I disagree with them on almost every other issue.

    1. Jeremy May

      The majority are desperate to believe that the vaccines are the answer, to the exclusion of reason. The two sides are polarised because logic and rational thought are being censored. It’s like seeing being asked to accept the unexpected answer to a mathematical problem without being shown the working out.

      1. Mr Chris

        Yes, and if there are no open minds, how can you expect reasoned debate. Some of the positions taken are described in loaded terms, use of words like corrupt stupid etc. People on both sides need to see that the opposing positions are sincerely held and denigrating them for holding them does not get us very far
        Guess what’ when the other side starts by saying you are stupid and corrupt, that is not a good opening gambit

        1. Jerome Savage

          I agree. Human nature is not always pretty, frustrated kickbacks by persons who might feel powerless & hopeless are self defeating but sometimes we grit our teeth & realise the conditions that give rise to such.

      2. Harry de Boer

        I don’t know how to insert pictures in my reply, but I can show some data that aims at proving that most infectious diseases already where decreasing significantly in prevalence before vaccination started, and continued to do so. Irrespective whether a vaccination program had started against it or not.

    2. Graph Guy

      A vaccine for an illnesss that has over 98% recovery rate and that for all practical arguments only impacts the sick elderly? That alone should make everything suspect nefarious motivations.

      1. Harry de Boer

        Let me also insert some tweets: 🙂

        1. With respect to HCQ there’s lots of empirical evidence that it works fabulously well if the HCQ+ cocktail treatment following Raoult/Zelenko protocol is initiated at the onset of symptoms.
        No RCT has yet been done to study this particular protocol, let alone falsified the same.

        2. “Frontline doctor Brian Tyson said that he has cured over 1,900 [covid-19] patients, and has said that between 75 and 80 percent of the over 200,000 deaths thus far could have been prevented by using HCQ!”

        3. Just stop resisting the available cure. It’s inhumane, unscientific, stupid and goes against the hipocratic oath.
        Early HCQ+ cocktail following Raoult/Zelenko protocol works.
        Lots of empirical evidence, evidence to the contrary has never been shown.

      1. Mr Chris

        I think reasoned debate is what is needed, excesses of both anti-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers turn me off so I don’t bother to read them. This is a mistake on both my part and theirs. If you feel significantly engaged about a subject, but are unable to explain your ideas in a coherent and calm way, you lose the opportunity to convince.Failure to communicate.

  3. Tish

    Hear, hear, hear, hear, hear…..! Loss of freedom of speech is the most worrying thing. It matters far more than any virus.

    1. KJE

      I completely agree. If there’s no place for debate, there’s no society or civilisation. I’ll never vote Labour again as they’ve totally abandoned the rights of the workers and forgotten their roots.

      1. Jennifer

        KJE. and isn’t this a sad thing for us to admit. I am quite shocked. Mind you, I have felt for some years now that my voice has not been heard by politicians of any design. (last of my 3 comments today…could go on for hours.)

        1. KJE

          Very much for since my gran was a Labour supporter from the very early days of the party and got an OBE for her services to it before and during WWII. And my mum went to and helped Trevelyan at Wallington in the 30s

    1. VJ

      And some of us really doubt the safety and efficacy of this 💉 which apparently gives 90% protection when we have a 99.4% chance of surviving anyway.

      1. Jeremy May

        Spot on.
        To add, when the disease is in decline.
        Are they rushing it out because if they delay there won’t be anything to vaccinate against?

  4. Jeremy May

    The irony of this instance is that it’s the clueless censoring the experts.
    The other way round would make some sort of sense, but even that shouldn’t be allowed.

  5. Alan Turner

    Great words of wisdom, but I fear the die may already be cast. Social media has been quick to respond to establishment pressure with may “contra” arguments excised from posts, even from experts such as yourself. This could be a fight for our very democratic existence.

    1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

      State censorship, mandatory vaccination? People unable to hug their relatives when they are dying… I have always known that liberal democracy is under constant threat. I didn’t think I would see it falling apart quite so rapidly, and with the approval – it seems – of the majority of the population. Oh dear. I feel I am entering a dystopian novel. The problem is that novels have a happy ending.. usually. In real life the authorities win. It is very worrying indeed.

      1. Steve B

        It’s not always clear. In the USA nobody seems to know who the legitimate authority is, apart from the people who are absolutely sure it’s there own guy

        Maybe liberal democracy IS fragile and in America might already be on its way out.
        I have no proof of this. I was just speculating

        1. LA_Bob

          Liberal democracy has always been fragile and free speech the most fragile of freedoms. There is a reason why the American Founding Fathers created a system of tripartite checks and balances. It is imperfect, but it works. It prevents the crowning of a king.

          The 5th Congress in 1798, only 11 years after the US Constitution was ratified, passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. More than 20 Americans were prosecuted for “malicious slanders” against President John Adams and the Federalists.

          Even in the US, where free speech is nominally the most cherished of rights, this is an old struggle. Fortunately, free speech ultimately wins.

          But, “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”, so the drama repeats time and again.

      2. sam

        It seems mandatory vaccinations are part of the plan for the Great Reset. If we refuse then how can they force us to get the planned vaccine passports? Will they simply not allow us to travel or work without the vaccine? Our governemnt has sold out to Schwab, Gates and Soros, the unholy Trinity

          1. Binra (@onemindinmany)

            Perhaps you do not want to know.

            The WEF or World Economic Forum. A vast and complex detailed and integrated multi fronted global corporately planned agenda that appeared as if ready made for covid19 as a unique ‘opportunity’ to reset the world’s social, economic and politics (biological) system. And save us all (not!). But rather to save the ‘bankers and their chums – or so they hope, by a contraction of the Economy and a shift from money and capitalism, to technocratically enforced social, carbon and biological credit that will exact compliance – such as the ‘new green deal’ that Mark Carney states, must be complied with or face bankruptcy.

            The more that vast cartels of wealth is leveraged, the more is invested in prediction and control, and the predictive model becomes a means to actually generate or bias outcomes. Foot soldiers and middle managers don’t know they are merely being exploited under narratives that seem unarguably good – such as stamping out evils that ‘threaten world order’. There is no end to the appetite for another evil to war on – as long as they are setting the agenda and not on the receiving end of the boot.

            The template and action plan for this is in my view a multi generational project.
            They put most of their intent online but as newspeak’ that uses all the buzzwords or correctness that make it a corporate PR set over extremely serious and active agenda – that will not stop (to quote Terminator movie) until we are ‘made safe’.

            Politicians and any other opinion leaders that are not on board are not selected or are walled out and kept out.
            The gross extremity of wealth differential is the terrain in which pathogens thrive and life is under degradation and strain.

            If anyone has found any love of life in its 4th Industrial revolution (Reich?) of a global biosecurity state running locally and through the Internment of Things – let me know. I have found none.

            Machine intelligence operates in fellow human beings who see assets, data or systems – without any compassionate context.

          2. Penny

            Thank you for your replies about The Great Reset, I had not come across this before and find the whole agenda very worrying; I had thought that it was a ‘conspiracy theory’ but seem to be wrong.

      3. theasdgamer

        I have noticed that the people most likely to be aggressively pro-panic are mostly women, although there are a few men, too. Women tend to be more trusting of authorities than men are, although there are women who are distrustful. I think that women are more likely to surrender liberty than men are and any strategy to turn this around should take into account the need to deal with this feminine problem.

          1. KJE

            And generalisations are not often true. I think you are an agent provocateur, or a 77th brigade or whoever is trying to disrupt free speech this week – ah, a member of the Labour party, perhaps (or just a tw@t).

          2. Don

            I wanted to reply downthread but I didn’t have the option. I love your blog and the comment section just as much. I rarely comment but I appreciate that you do not censor much and I was glad to see your rules for censoring in print. They seem self evident and I don’t see why anyone would need to break them. All I can add is keep up the excellent workand thank you.

        1. KJE

          Ever actually met an educated woman? Sexism rules. My mother was far less compliant than my father, my gran eloped with a man from a different religion and was arrested for her political views, while my godmother was a lesbian before it was trendy. So obviously women are far more likely to go along with authority. I think it’s far more likely to be an educational or personality thing, not a gender trait.

          1. theasdgamer

            Maybe, but it’s the official health dept. groups for my county and state. I also see a few women pushing back, but they are definitely in the minority.

        2. Jennifer

          Hecky thump!!!!…. theasdagamer….you are joking, are you not? Is your head in the sand? I ought not even respond to you.
          But here goes.
          KJE has given you fine examples of strong women.
          As a Novocastrian, I love Wallington, and admire the history of KJE’s relatives, and various political women in the North East of England.
          But I can almost understand how there is a school of thought like yours. I once gave a rousing, intellectual, speech to southerners….you could hear a pin drop, before nice applause followed. However, an elderly gent popped over to speak to me. “well, I never thought I would experience such confidence from a woman. Fancy you being able to speak to a large crowd in that manner.”
          We Northern lasses know a thing or two….just ask the blokes!

          1. theasdgamer

            Lol, I have a wife who’s an RN, BSN and a daughter who’s a vascular surgeon. But you’re trying to tell me what I see with my own eyes? Maybe women are more likely to be on social media than men, Idk. Certainly, I don’t see a lot of women being very concerned about liberty–more about safety. Obviously, the number aren’t 100%, lol. If you are more concerned about liberty than “safety,” then more power to you!

        3. Louise Burns

          I dont think that’s anywhere near as true as you think it is. It’s not really my experience. Maybe there’s a 60/40 about it but not as polarised you think.

        4. Chancery Stone

          Really? And where have you “noticed” this? In your extensive polling history, or just from your back bedroom on the handful of websites you frequent? I, a mere woman, am a frequent commenter on AOL news and I can assure you it is exactly 50/50 when it comes to Covid hysteria. Loads of men yelling the odds about the ‘selfish’ who won’t wear masks, and how we all need to stay indoors, take the vaccine and drink the Kool-aid. What’s more, the men are markedly more aggressive about it, far more frequently calling for the troops to be brought in, armed police and shooting people on sight who break the rules. Oddly though, I haven’t surmised that men are more “aggressively pro-panic” or are “more trusting of authorities” – and this despite the fact that it is historically men who respond to any call to arms, rush off to war and are happy to shoot absolute strangers as long as another man in power says it’s the noble thing to do. If dying for some random politician’s ’cause’ is not “surrendering liberty” I don’t know what is. Perhaps you need to deal with that male problem before you think about imaginary “feminine” ones.

          1. Jennifer

            janetgrovesart. Don’t hold your breath…the rude man will need to organise the might of his educated females to prop him up. I reckon he is a troll anyway.

          2. janetgrovesart

            👍 I reckon you’re right, Jennifer. I’m shocked at the way the whole pandemic is bringing out a lot of rudeness/nastiness in some people, as if they’ve just been waiting for a reason. Instead of reaching out we’ve become enemies.
            Thank goodness for this site, where, with some exceptions, we all seem to be there for each other. 🌹🌹🌹

          3. theasdgamer


            I have discovered late in life much truth about men and women.

            Bottom line, women aren’t just men with breasts. There are major psychological differences between men and women. Biologically-speaking, men are more visually attracted while women are more attracted by strength/power/social finesse (which is a kind of power). This isn’t to say that a man’s visual attractiveness is never relevant, but that often a different feature may be weightier in a woman’s mind. For example, a boxer might have an ugly face, but have to run from the hordes of women chasing him. And rock musicians have a kind of cultural power and status, which puts them in demand.

            Anyway, vive la difference!

        5. LA_Bob

          Okay, so far, in a blogpost dedicated to the concept of free expression, we’ve had dust-ups over holocaust denial (“Your comment has no place on Dr. Kendrick’s wonderful blog.”) and generalization that women suck up to authority (“Would you care to step outside and say that to my face?”).

          Oh, the irony! Now do you folks understand why the British Labour Party wants ‘Emergency laws to “stamp out dangerous” anti-vaccine content online’?

          Free speech for thee but not for me? Really? Haven’t you proven the point?

          “I can see this going down well” I’m glad Dr Kendrick has a sense of irony.

          1. KJE

            Surely free speech means that you can disagree with someone’s point of view, and even tell them they’re cruisin’ for bruisin’ by expressing it, without denying them the right to express it. If Hitler didn’t have my relatives gassed, I’d like to know what happened to them; they didn’t emigrate or change their identities. So what’s the explanation (perhaps not here as it’s not really related to this thread)? I choose not to to believe we are living on a flat plate under a dome as it seems more convoluted than a round(-ish) earth, but I’ve read the arguments. I might hate your views and contradict them, but it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t express them

          2. janetgrovesart

            Hello Bob – well,I’m the one who wrote “would you are to…etc.” and I’m somewhat taken aback that you failed to see the humour intended. I don’t feel inclined to apologise for my post as I feel that a bit of lightheartedness is needed in these dire times. I am actually an old lady who wouldn’t actually say boo to a goose, but of course you’re not to know that. Just reading your response and writing this has sent my pulse from 60 to 91. Send a doctor!

          3. theasdgamer

            I took Dr. Kendrick facetiously, but the thread was an excellent example of how unpopular free speech can be with women (and some men). And he actually was a bit prescient with his comment in that regard.

          4. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

            Hmmm. Can we start toning things down a bit. I do have rules on my blog – which I do not believe constitutes censorship. One, the most important, is no personal insults, and we sailing vary close to that. Personal insults are a barrier to discussion, they are completely unnecessary to debate. Attack the ideas by all means, but not the person. For example. ‘I believe that is a stupid idea’ Fine. ‘I believe you are stupid for proposing that stupid idea…’ Not fine.

            My other rules are – no direct advertising. Which happens far more often than you would think. I do have ad-blocker (which is pay for) on this blog.

            Another rule is to try and keep one person’s posts to one (or two) long ones – per day. Or, three or four short ones. This is to give everyone a chance to have their say. [This rule is somewhat flexible, as there are often so many responses that I lose track of who has said what] It also why, after my original post, I tend to say very little. I have no wish to dominate the on-going discussions.

            My final rule is that a post should make sense. I have stopped some that I find utterly incomprehensible. Long-winded waffling does not constitute incomprehensible. Boring is not the same thing as incoherent. I have asked some people to try again.

          5. LA_Bob

            Basically, I agree with theasdgamer November 19, 2020 at 1:51 PM.

            My comment was intended to point out how easy it is to slip into a censorial mindset even as we object to others (the Labour Party in this instance) who want censorship. It is easy when the issue is very sensitive and important to us.

            COVID, vaccination, public health, climate change, social inequities, diet, and much, much more are life-and-death issues for many people (literally for the unlucky few). Obviously, the Holocaust is very sensitive as well. But, we must not deny free speech and a platform to those people (“COVID-deniers”, “anti-vaxxers”, “climate-change-deniers”, etc, including Holocaust-deniers and Bell Curve advocates) whose views we disdain.

            Freedom of speech is a very fragile flower!

            janetgrovesart, yes, I missed the humor you intended. I sort of pictured a youngish woman, living on a ranch, wearing a cowboy hat and blue jeans, popping a smart-aleck ranch hand in the mouth and filling his butt with birdshot as he runs off. I find it an amusing image, and I hope you do as well.

        6. sam

          well my son had a party when we were allowed 30 in the house. 27 boys came and only 3 girls. I assumed the girls were too scared and the boys didn’t care but at 22 that is probably common, obviously there are always exceptions. Women are more concerned about health generally (men never go the doctor!) and men more gung ho so you could be right. And yes I’ve been told off by women for not wearing a mask and not by men. We just have to explain to everyone that they have been lied to.

          1. Mark Christopher Wilson

            It’s more women than men, certainly, but there are certainly plenty of men being complete puffs about it.

          2. KJE

            Or is it just that here are more women out doing the shopping, so if anyone comment son your masks or lack of, it’s more likely to be a woman (as there as more of them out there). Beware of women on the autism scale and the slightly sociopathic ones – who don’t care so much about people they don’t know and aren’t the best person to put on the help desk or customer services, just because they are female (that’s probably every female IT and telecoms engineer and most of the developers BTW)

        7. anna m


          Women may indeed be more fearful as they are not risk takers. This is biology and across species.
          Whether they trust authorities more than men I am not sure. I think men are actually more obedient.
          Worth thinking about.

        8. Varanus Komodiensis

          Okay, I’ll bite!

          One of the greatest scientific discoveries of the XIX century was that females were people too. As with all other discoveries, it takes some time for people to catch up.

          The new fact of peoplehood of women is very important. It explains a lot of things in a neat fashion. In general, people have biases. Sometimes, these biases get people in trouble. Sometimes, they help people to save their lives. Biases are not necessarily bad. Because the human female is now known to belong too to the category of “people”, we can easily deduce that women have biases too, and we don’t need to formulate any kind of special theory to explain the errors in women’s thinking processes. They are, obviously now, the same kind of errors to be found in men’s thinking processes.

          One of such errors is the pro-authority bias. In this ever so entertaining year, all thinking people (again, that includes females too) have seen clearly that the authorities have no clue and are showing clear signs of the most dangerous varieties of “magical thinking”. Which means that all those who suffer the pro-authority bias are being very ridiculous and getting themselves, and many others, into deep trouble. One should be wary of following the lead of a fraudster. Conversely, when the authorities are right, those who happen to suffer the anti-authority bias are the ones who get in trouble and look stupid.

          It is always good to stop and think. Fraudsters always say there is no time to think, you must decide now, now, now. Fraudsters also speak very fast and willfully commit formal fallacies, which involve the negation of the three laws of thought: non-contradiction, identity and excluded third. Most people have never been taught the trickery involving formal fallacies. In general, people have a shallow acquaintance with informal fallacies only.

          Which is more prevalent: pro-authority bias or anti-authority bias? I have no data on that. I have a hunch that the former would be a good bet for most people.

          A further question would be the sexual distribution of these pair of biases. Are women statistically more of the pro-authority bias variant and men of the anti-authority bias? I think it is important to mention that the adverb “statistically” implies that someone, somewhere has well curated numbers (also known as “data”, “figures” and “information”) on the matter, which must have been gathered in the context of a reasonably well designed anthropological study. (To wit, anthropology is a science that studies men understood as both female and male, not just the males).

          I do not have such data. Perhaps someone has it. I should not speak about it, but since we are online and not in real life (IRL) I can be as safely stupid as anyone else. Speaking not from data but from the empty chamber of my skull, it seems to me that we, males, tend to be overprotective of females, because we think that females are seeking protection. One way to create the impression that we can protect is “to be in control”. This would imply males tend to exhibit more frequently the anti-authority bias. Except on those occasions in which females seem to demand from us submission and obedience, in which case we gravitate toward the pro-authority bias. We males tend to be obsessed with females wishes, or whatever we reckon they might be. This is also a bias and we often get in trouble for it. Which is very comical if you think about it. This may come as a surprise, but human males are often wrong.

          As for females, it seems that they tend to be very worried that something bad might happen, any time, anywhere, to someone. They need to take care of that worry somehow. Showing their stupidity, females often seek the advice of males, who clearly know nothing about such a generic fears, hilarity being the result. But it is not that females want to be ordered what to do, or thought of as weak or neurotic, as is often said these days. Rather, they also want to be in control, but hedging themselves from the many problems that people who want to be in control must face. It is because of this wise reluctance that they seek to involve others in their strategies. In my very uninformed opinion, the seeking of an external authority in females is motivated by an overdeveloped sense of survival which males lack. We just have the regular version of the sense of survival. But younger males seem to be slow in developing this much useful sense, which is why they are tagged as reckless. Females are very motivated by this lack of good sense in males, and now we are in a cute little feedback loop. Which is very comical too. This may come as a surprise, but human females are often wrong.

          Politicians know all this and tend to use it to their advantage, as much as comedy writers use this and many other idiocies in their craft. I would recommend the now ancient film “Wag the dog”. Very good watching to understand 2020.

          Females who exhibit an anti-authority bias are often though of as masculine, which is a derogatory term, but I do not know why. Also, males who show a pro-authority bias are often called feminine, which is a derogatory term, but I do not know why. I do not know many things. I am not neurotypical. I’m working on that. Be patient, please.

          For example, Margaret Thatcher was, and still is, being described as having the worst biases of males. In stark contrast, Justin Trudeau would be described as having the worst biases of females if females had any bad biases at all, which is impossible, because, unlike males, they never make a mistake.

          This is why it is a wise advise for males to never seek to show themselves calm and measured in the presence of a female, as they do not like at all the natural apollonian stoicism that males radiate. Rather, we males should act as just another female friend, and this is a winning strategy because, as it is well known, females are always nice to other females, and never conspire against their sisters.

          For sure, effeminate males is what they like and what they deserve. Paradoxically, it is still very masculine to follow along on everything. Actual female friends are a bit contentious. So a male impersonating a female friend should be a bit contentious, whenever our female master want us to be…

          These unrequested musings are all in jest, of course. In all seriousness I proclaim that the only reasonable recommendation is to “be yourself”, whomever you are. That attitude will create a lot of problems and everyone will have a good laugh at them.

          If you do not want to be laughed at, then I recommend changing your Species. Eagles are rarely ridiculed. Beetles are in high regard. Also consider being a starfish, as they are admired by their regenerative capabilities. My spirit animal has always been the Komodo Dragon.

          Regardless of our biases, liberty must be personal. Liberty, like property, exists only when humans live together. Liberty is fragile and is best defended by limited governments, which are nowhere to be found. We are losing liberty not because of our biases but because we have been hypnotized. We are now very afraid of death.

          It makes no sense to be afraid of death, because when she is present I am not present, and when I am present, she is not present, as that Greek thinker would say. People are now completely drunk with this fear of death. But all drunkenness disappears. Then the drunks gain clarity and become angry. That I fear: the anger of the Fooled, the ire of the Deaf, the thirst for revenge of the downtrodden. Homo Homini Lupus.

          My professional opinion as a knucklehead bastard is that there is no difference in the violent acts of females and males from the point of view of those who are condemned to endure it. But even the violence fit will fade. Then, the offspring shall inherit the ruins, which are the best place to play and laugh.

          Thanks for reading this far, I hope you enjoyed it.

          1. Don

            I enjoyed it. Thanks. My wife of 33 years always laughs when she hears someone say if women we’re in charge there would be no war. Her retort? We’d be going to war over whether it is permissible to wear white after Labor Day! (You non-Americans will have to look that reference up for it to make sense, I’m afraid.)

        9. Nigella P

          In the spirit of Dr K’s post, I support your right to write your piece but absolutely disagree with it. I suspect from other posts where you mention your state, you are not from the UK. I think you will find that a country that’s had two Queens and a female Prime Minister is not lacking women who have authority and don’t surrender their liberty to anyone. I really don’t think that this current crisis has anything to do with feminine problems!

      4. Patrick Healy

        Thank you so much Doctor for using the thinking part of your brain.
        All too often we are part of the flock (sheep) being hoodwinked by our so called betters.
        For instance over 10 years ago I discovered a book by Dr’s Mary and Michael Eades called Protein Power which went against the medical orthodoxy and I have never looked back.
        On the question of censorship it is rife in academia, science and politics.
        Just today the long suppressed study on mask wearing from Denmark has been published and of course it finds they are of limited use.
        Then look at the total and successful censoring of the activities of Biden Crime Family by international media and especially by internet social media. Then the censorship of any inquiry into the dubious outcome of t h e Presidential vote counting.
        Finally we have the suppression of any scientific discussion of global warming – its proponents say the “science is settled” which must be the most anti science stance since Galelio.
        So it is nothing new for those on top of the dung heap to pour scorn on any countervailing opinions.
        One of my favourite expressions is “you must be over the target when the flack is thickest”

  6. jeanirvin

    I am so grateful to see this argument put so well. I have such concerns about the future, with the people in power blindly following such a single minded course – ‘Fight the virus’, ‘Control the virus’, ‘Test, test, test’ and ‘Vaccinate the whole world’. Do any of them ever stop to think whether any of this is necessary?

    1. Binra (@onemindinmany)

      Necessary for what end?
      I recommend to stop what passes as ‘thinking’ so as to open a perspective in which to evaluate what is in fact happening.
      Mind-capture is another term for market share.
      Very few can really think, because their conditioned ‘thinking’ rules it out.
      All the things you list are simply the leveraging of consent to a technocratic system of surveillance and control under ‘medical’ pretext – along with saving the Planet from CO2 (carbon units). IE We will get the Climate under control if we all piss against the wind to order, and of course those who do not caused the clever scheme to fail – and so are destroying not just Granny – but Life on Earth!.
      Narratives that ‘take’ run as if fact.
      The debt and control spiral breeds a manipulative and deceitful attempt to con anyone out of anything while selling moonshot. Its a feeding frenzy as a result of breaking open our institutions in such a way as no one can yet hold in check. The pathogen I see is a human hijacking of the mind.

  7. Martin Back

    Why do they even bother with anti-vaxxers? I estimate that most people are pro-vaccine, say 60%. About 20% might have reservations but they’ll get vaccinated anyway. That leaves 20%, of whom most would be rebellious youngsters who are unlikely to get infected. The rest will be concerned parents who don’t want their children harmed. Since they are also the most likely to raise a huge fuss if they suspect any adverse effects from the vaccine, it’s better that they don’t get vaccinated. Less trouble for everyone.

    1. Chancery Stone

      I’m pro-vaccine – in general, but I will NOT be taking the Covid vaccine this winter, simply because it isn’t a tried-and-tested vaccine, it’s a quickly rushed-out desperation vaccine. So, technically, I’m an anti-vaxxer, as far as the govt (and social media) is concerned. I’m neither a rebellious teenager (I’m 63) nor am I a parent. I wouldn’t assume, or presume, to know who is doubting the validity of taking the Covid vaccine. I think you’ll find more people are not keen to take it than you think.

    2. Jon Lawrence

      So there are only two groups, pro-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers? Surely if vaccines are always safe and effective we would all be pro-vax. When in excess of $4billion dollars are paid in compensation in the US to the vaccine damaged you can rest assured that not all vaccines are safe all the time. What does that make me for pointing this out? Pro-vax or anti-vax. Nope just pro safe vax.

      Until the conflicts of interest underpinning the protection of the vast pharmaceutical corporations are resolved we cannot trust them to provide us with truly safe products.

      That is unlikely to happen soon. A huge shift in culture is required. Not likely anytime soon.

      1. Martin Back

        There will never be a “truly safe product”. As someone pointed out, if a substance is powerful enough to do you good, it’s powerful enough to do you harm. The best you can hope for is “acceptable risk”.

        “Acceptable risk” is a subject worthy of a post on its own. Every time I cross the street I think, this is the most dangerous thing I will do all day. Fortunately, the danger only lasts a few seconds.

        Conclusion: Acceptable risk = Danger Level x Time

        For a plane trip or an operation lasting a few hours, Danger Level can be high-ish.

        For a vaccine which will stay inside you for the rest of your life, Danger Level has to be very, very small.

        1. Steve B

          “Acceptable Risk = Danger Level X Time”

          What does that mean? Riding a tiger for a few seconds is probably more dangerous than a 5 hour plane trip

        2. Eggs 'n beer

          For a vaccine, together with associated neurotoxic adjuvants, which will stay in you for the rest of your life, accumulating more toxins with each injection, the danger level increases continually resulting in autism, Parkinsons, MS, dementia/Alzheimers and various other auto-immune diseases. See Dr Matthew Mold’s papers on accumulation of aluminium in every brains of those with such conditions, vs. the absence of aluminium in the brains of healthy >66y/o’s. Danger level High.

          As for the danger level of a vaccine that self replicates in your own cells the danger level is unknown, and cannot be for ten to twenty years.

    3. Simon

      Good point. It should of course be a freedom of choice, but the (big) media, governments, authorities seem hell-bent on making it anything but.

      Daring to question the “V” word these days is just as bad if not worse than questioning a certain something beginning with “H”.

      Until beginning of 2020 I was clearly in your first 60% group. Now easily in the last 20%. And yes censorship does backfire. The more I see censored, the more I investigate, the more I find.

      What’s been interesting and worrying to see in 2020, is how wearing a face-mask, taking a vaccine, etc. has become all about ‘protecting’ other people rather than an individual choice. For me, if someone wants to wear a face-mask, or take a new vaccine, then that is and should be their free choice. If it doesn’t directly impact on my life then why should I care, which is why I believe the narrative has changed.

    4. Louise Burns

      Im anti-vaccine (for me) and I’m 58. Why would I want a load of Mercury with God knows what pumped into my veins. People should get their immune systems sorted out naturally and stop looking at drugs & chemicals to stop disease.

    5. Joyce

      You think most people are pro-vaccine? Here’s my opinion, for what it’s worth. Most people are so worn out and dispirited by months and months of severe disruption in their lives, they are ready, willing, and waiting in the queue, with their sleeve rolled up, just wanting it all to end! Personally, I won’t be at the front of the queue (even though my G.P. proudly tells me I’ll be one of the first in line!) Lucky me eh?

  8. Steve

    The Labour party under Keir staliner is the undoubted enemy of free speech. Jeremy Corbyn, the Palestinians, Julian Assange and now anti-vaxxers.
    Socialist opposition in the UK is dead.

  9. Linda Binns

    Myself, a retired Physiological Measurement Technician my friend, an Anaesthetist and a group of friends had our thread removed by Facebook on Sunday. We were discussing the vaccine and the way Pfizer had conducted the study, not scaremongering just commenting on facts that are available. What is going on? What is being covered up? As you say, this will make people suspicious.

  10. Dr Rob Panka

    I recognize the need for free speech and laud this post. I am a great supporter of this blog and share it with colleagues and friends. We will, not even in retrospect, ever know the full story and that makes current decisions difficult.
    It is unlikely that Facebook or twitter, using the WHO as a standard, will know which posts constitute a real contribution to open debate.
    But the other concern (clearly outlined in the Netflix documentary “the social dilemma” is that AI in social media teases people with videos they are like to watch to keep them on their screens. And people will generally (6 times more likely) watch false information rather than true. And believe it. The propaganda out there is well crafted to make the gullible and ignorant swallow it.
    That is why JB Peterson for one, in response to censureship has created “thinkspot” for his posts.
    Let’s promote good science on good sites

  11. Arnold Slater

    I am not an anti-vaxxer,I am a child of the NHS I have had all childhood vaccines including late last year vaccine against pneumonia.But I am not convinced I need vaccination from a corona virus that has a mortality survival rate of 99.956%. I am in good health, eat and prepare and cook my food, am not overweight and take zinc and vitamin D supplements and enjoy an outside lifestyle.I will take my chances.Man has survived for thousands of years without vaccines,if you keep yourself fit and healthy your natural immune system should protect you.I am not apposed to other people having vaccines,their choice, my choice is to be left alone to live what ever time I have left free from state interference.

  12. Gome

    Agree the term “Anti Vax” is horrible and derrogotary. Do people who use this term think that some people just wake up one day and irrationally decide to reject all medical intervention. No, what actually happens is that most people who become “Anti Vax” or as I prefer to say pro vaccine safety are in fact “ex vaxxers” who have themselves or a loved one been injured by vaccines. And contrary to what the establishment would have us believe vaccine injury is real. The UK government have paid out over £74m to claimants who have been able to prove they have been disabled by vaccines. This however probably only represents a tiny fraction of actual injuries. In the USA the payouts for vaccine injuries past the $4 billion mark in 2018. Using their government’s own conclusion that only 1% of all vaccine injuries are reported, the $4 billion is just the tip of the iceberg.
    Big pharma now controls huge swathes of the media, social media, medical establishment and government through advertising revenue, funding and lobbying. Their prize from day one of this ‘pandemic has been the possibility of global vaccination. Nothing is being allowed to detract from that.

    1. kalochorio

      Well said. The term ‘anti-vax’ is almost always used in a pejorative way, In my view, it’s intended to denigrate and demonise anyone asking legitimate questions. It’s another effort to shut down debate. Many of the so-called ‘anti-vaxxers’ I’ve met are worried parents, some with disabled children. They deserve care and compassion, not insults, and threats.

  13. Marlene Jenkin

    Thank you for your thoughts and reminders …. I had the BCG at around 14 and went on to have Ileo-caecal TB at 27. Umm ! It was the beginning of a long and complicated health history – many surgeries – and Hashimotos diagnosed late. I am now 74 – have managed to escape the flu vaccine – take only T3 thyroid meds and rattle with supplements.

    However I am very concerned about mandatory vaccination – especially since a certain Billy Boy said it would have to be ramped up for the elderly. Not sure if that was to make it effective or to kill us off more quickly !!

    I am a little weary of being thought of as anti-vax – surely we just want a safe vaccine. Am also concerned about being carried off to one of those specialist facilities for dissenters I have read about !!. So yes we must struggle for our freedoms and look at the bigger picture of intent of those behind the scenes.

    Love reading and learning here – from Dr K’s blogs and informed responses … long may it remain 🌻

  14. Miss A

    Brilliant, as a Practice Nurse who is anti-lockdown, anti-statins and, not an anti-vaxxer (I administer them after all), but just someone who has started to question big pharma, these posts keep me sane, looking forward to the next one. As requested earlier can you unpick the recent statin nocebo trial data so I can debate with GP’s
    Thanks 🙏

    1. Jean Humphreys

      Talking of the statin nocebo effect – I stopped taking them because of the muscle pain and weakness. However, the thing that I had been suffering which gradually disappeared when I was clean, was not something I had realised to be a statin effect. That is to say, the brain fog and inability to finish sentences that contained more than three . . . (Sorry, that is how it took me) I lost silly everyday words – and was unable to do the simplest of crosswords.
      Is there a word for a nocebo effect if you don’t know that it is might happen? Or is it just a plain old side effect?
      There again, my Mother was getting a bit wandery and slow, but I didn’t know that she had been put on a statin until after her death – at 86. She trusted the doctor – her early career was as a dispenser, and medicine was by definition good. I should have HIT that pompous young man – he who refused to allow me to talk to him about my Father’s blatant dementia, on the grounds of patient confidentiality. I had just said that there were some things I wanted to tell him that he would not find out any other way.

      1. Jerome Savage

        Jean – Your comments could be mine – re the brain fog. When I listen to Joe Biden struggling for words – I immediately think – statin !

      2. Jennifer

        Oh, Jean, you have opened up several cans of worms regarding statins.
        1) The dreadful weakness, pain and general feeling of being unwell…but no-one listened. Now I can see why….it was all ‘in my head’.
        2) The brain fog….I have never regained full word-memory, 7 years after stopping statins. I fully expect to be classified into the ‘just old age’ category.
        3) The concept of ‘patient confidentiality’. Yes, it was drummed into us from the start of any NHS training. Now it is almost compulsory to share personal details with all and sundry (test and trace). Yet… still unable to discuss the seriously pertinent care of a beloved relative.

        Added to these 3 points, we now have the threat of being denied freedom of speech…..and that coming from the political party I have loved and supported since I could think for myself.

        1. Jean Humphreys

          Sympathy to you Jennifer. My brain is still going well, but I have never regained the physical strength and stamina that I had then. And I can no longer sing. So what? one might say – but I had always sung – all the school choirs including the one that was by invitation only. Church choir. A local choir one summer, which led to taking part in the Leith Hill music festival. I have sung for Vaugham-Williams’ widow. I sang to all my babies, and we made up special bath songs. “Hark hark the aardvark . .”. Now I open my mouth and all that comes out is a random croak.
          I was so glad to be put on a statin, since the alternative I had been on had nasty side effects. I really believed that I need to do something about my cholesterol. Thank heaven for the day when I said “Sod this for a game of soldiers, I will just take my chances.” I took the damned things for two years and it has been eighteen years since I gave them the heave-ho. Did I make the right call? I know what I think!

          1. janetgrovesart

            Jean- I too was a singer all my life and then lost my voice. Statins? Who knows. I had enough other side effects some of which persist to this day, after 7 years off. Persuaded by a friend, I joined a local (no audition necessary, thank goodness) and found that my voice gradually came back, never to the same extent, but enough. Now though after months without choir it’s gone again and I’m not sure I can get it back again when normality returns. Singing is such a joy, being in a choir is such a joy. Don’t give up.
            Janet 🌹

    2. Jennifer

      Miss A. you are a bright light in this dismal fog of a pandemic. A Nurse wanting to discuss an important topic, rather than mindlessly accepting the status quo. Keep up your enquiring mind, and always remember that your patients deserve an educated advocate.

  15. johnplatinumgoss

    I have been clinging on to my Labour Party membership and every day some “news” story appears nudging me into asking what I am doing in such a totalitarian party. Were it not for the fact that a good number of Momentum members were this week elected to the executive that has kept me in – I suspect not for much longer.

    A medical doctor friend sent me this. I urge everybody to watch it. It is more urgent to watch this than it is to read my blog. Now that’s urgent! At least watch it before taking a COVID-19 vaccine.

  16. Peter Ford

    Spot on as usual. Labour must now be targeted in the May mayoral elections. Farage will hoover up ex-Labour like me disgusted with Labour authoritarianism and job killing.

  17. Leifur

    Dear Dr Kendrick ! This text of yours leaves a very lot of thinking, not only to earlier times, but also for the future. Brilljant! Thank you !

  18. Louise Burns

    It’s my body and I’ll decide what goes into it. It’s my mind and I’ll decide what I listen to/read/watch and, in the end, believe after my own analysis. I don’t need big government forcing vaccines in me or limiting the information I have access to. This is nothing short of the Church wanting to keep mass in Latin and book burning. They just want ultimate control over us, they literally are dictators.

  19. Carole

    Thank you Dr K for writing this and all your past blogs.
    I started this year with a mild concern about our withdrawal from Europe and the lack of fore thought despite several years to plan. I started the pandemic with a sense that our leaders were trying to do the best for everyone – consideration for health workers, financial assistance where needed, advice from knowledgeable people and transparency to the general public…..
    I am ending the year with little concern about health issues, rarely a passing thought about trade deals or European borders but full of foreboding about mass manipulation of information, public brain washing, the removal of freedom of speech and inappropriate censorship.
    What an unexpected end to a very strange year. I never expected to be a participant in a novel or a film set but that is how it feels. Will we be forced to return to communicating by letter to enable the continuation of debate and discussion without censorship and deletion? If so, I’d better start compiling an address book as I run a paperless system, relying on the efficiency of the cloud and my sim!

  20. Cheezilla

    You might want to respond to some of these questions. Deadline is midnight tomorrow (Wednesday 18th Nov)

    The House of Lords Constitution Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the constitutional issues raised by the Covid-19 pandemic. It is exploring the impact of the pandemic on: (a) the operation of the courts, (b) Parliament’s ability to function effectively, and (c) the use and scrutiny of emergency powers.

    Calls for written evidence on the courts and Parliament strands of the inquiry have closed, and the Committee is in the process of reviewing that evidence.

    The Committee now calls for evidence on the use and scrutiny of emergency powers during the Covid-19 pandemic.

    The Committee welcomes written submissions on any aspect of this topic, and particularly on the issues and questions set out below. You need not address all the questions in your submission. We welcome contributions from all interested individuals and organisations. The deadline for submissions is Wednesday 18 November at 11.59pm.

    1. Steve-R

      The cynic in me expects certain ‘usual suspects’ will do all they can to block the successful implementation of this data gathering tool.
      It is to be hoped that other EU countries who may have more genuine concern for their voters take the trouble to collect this data.

    2. Binra (@onemindinmany)

      I understand the contract is already awarded but law requires that the tender (sic) be published – which it was in the EU – otherwise they can be litigated against by other companies??
      Crony capitalism is breaking into whatever is left to plunder while Gate and co seek to break into our cells and hack our code.
      Otherwise quite a good day – put a some shelves in the new shed. Wrote a few missives.
      Sitting here by the stove – smell of cooking from the kitchen, and the door hasn’t been broken down by the marshals, or mercenaries. Ah – the good old days!

  21. kalochorio

    Thank you again. One of the most important things you have written. I really fear the direction we are headed in. In a democracy, I have the right to think and say what I want, and you have the right not to listen….or at least I thought that was the case.

  22. Jennifer

    Brilliant! I must thank you for putting the case for polite (if possible) freedom of speech so well. As lifelong Labour (as though it doesn’t show) I am most dismayed at what the Party is proposing. With a working life time in NHS, with politics in tow, I don’t take well to being prevented from saying my piece about anything.

  23. Louise McElhill

    I really like the sentiment of Do as much as possible FOR the patient and as little as possible TO the patient. The growing prevalence of overtreatment and excessive interventions is disturbing. As soon as I hear the word Overdiagnosis, my hackles rise! I’ve seen so much unnecessary harm done during my forty years as an RN working in acute care facilities on general medical wards and in oncology.
    Sorry for going a bit off topic but Overdiagnosis sends me a bit loopy!
    As for the vaccine : we should indeed have open debate and the drug companies need to explain their findings clearly. As for the recent news from Pfizer and Moderna…..if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. I am not an anti vaxer, I made sure my son got all his childhood vaccinations.

    1. Graph Guy

      The 2020 election cycle in USA demonstrates how high tech is forming the mindset of the populace. No need to be educated, endeavor in critical thinking, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft will form your views and thoughts for you….

      1. theasdgamer

        I was pleased and surprised to learn that 30% of democrats believe that the national opposition democratic party attempted to steal the US presidential election from Trump. This is hopeful for the US as a nation because it shows the difficulty of maintaining public malleability. In my county, women are fighting the mask mandates by speaking publicly at public hearings. Maybe some men, too, but I suspect that the men are busy doing other disobedient and nefarious things. We have various search and rescue militia groups that are active in my area, which I would expect would form the basis of a second American Revolution should the democrats succeed in stealing the election. The thinking is that if the democrats should succeed, they would likely repeat that theft ad nauseam, ending the American Republic and replacing it with a perpetual democrat oligarchy. I don’t look forward to bombings nor to the end of the Republic.

        Let’s hope that the theft is prevented.

  24. 005lesfrenes

    Yes, completely agree with you.
    Two examples of “standard practice” are the TSH test and administration of Thyroxine for hypothyroidism; and the “low fat diet”. Both of these are based on what has turned out to be false research and its false outcomes, mainly supported and promoted by the food and pharmaceutical industries. And now I read that the UK Labour Party are pushing for a law to ban any criticism of vaccinations. Oh dear, poor Britain. What has happened to the Great in Great Britain? And the Labour Party – has it lost its mind? It would seem so. Is this what fear does to people?

    1. Jennifer

      005. your last point….has the Labour Party lost its mind?…maybe too many taking statins.
      The out-dated, standard practices in the NHS, and the false research data used to direct our pharmaceutical and food industries, have been discussed on this blog over several years. I have learned so much from its generous contributors, but fear we are all to be silenced, and at the instigation of The Labour Party.
      Please, Kier, GET A GRIP.

      n.b….must get on now…binging on The Crown during lockdown.

  25. Mike smith

    You are seeing this everywhere now. Boris stands up in parliament and suggests we need another lockdown. The opposition is straight out of his chair and shouts no, we need to lock down even harder. Opposition my arse.
    I am starting to wonder if the whole point of lockdown was to stop people gaining herd immunity especially considering the number of vaccine shareholders on sage.

    1. Martin Back

      Exactly. You have to keep the pandemic going until the vaccine is rolled out. Otherwise no one will want it. What an awful prospect for pharma investors!

  26. SD Cook

    Dr. M-
    Once again an always look forwarded to post from your pen. And for the most part agree with your thoughts. My exception…do ALL those being censored know that they are being censored? I think not, and that is worrisome.

    As an example, I just looked at NBC, ABC, MSNBC and CNN for any mention of Sidney Powell joining Trump’s legal team, or of her statements over the past few days on possible large scale election fraud. What did I find? Not even crickets, just radio silence. I don’t subscribe to Twit’s or Facebook, but I would suspect the same treatment. Forget about which side of the aisle you prefer, that is censorship.

    But a large percentage of folks that get their nightly pap from the main stream media, are not even aware that they are missing out on potentially damaging facts and, being fed other false narratives too boot.

    I believe it is the same around the C-19 narratives. A media (won’t use the word press, because they aren’t) that has obscured or hidden information that a vast percentage of people don’t even know they are missing. And, that same majority of people also getting a one sided, censored view of available information.

    As you noted about Orwell, the record has been so obscured, that the false narrative has become the “truth”.

  27. brainunwashed

    “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

    ― Thomas Jefferson

  28. SD Cook

    As a side note to my previous comment…

    I too came across Dr. Lown in my research leading up to and after my unexpected heart surgery…and where I found your blog also.

    Since I am in proximity to Boston and thinking the organization he created would mostly mirror his/my thoughts, I have been to the Lown Clinic. Friendly enough people and probably a bit more progressive than most, especially with the blood work analyses.

    But alas, I feel a part of Dr. Lown’s philosophy has been lost. For me at least, a statin, ezetimibe and aspirin was prescribed, with little acknowledgement of alternative therapies. About the same as I got/get from any other cardio related doctor.

  29. Studs Ramrod

    I love vaccines. And to visit some places for my job, I have had to have vaccines for Hep B, Yellow Fever and probably many others.
    My son had to be immunised against chicken pox in California before he could attend nursery.
    But these are all fully tested – there are risks of course – but in these cases I was prepared to take the risk, even on someone else’s behalf.
    But looking at the previous links provided by Dr. Kendrick, NONE of these “vaccine” trials are due to finish before end of 2022 at earliest.
    And none are designed to prevent hospitalization, infection and death.
    Plus COVID19 has a higher survival rate than probably vaccines themselves.
    But I’ve seen how people’s eyes just glaze over when they hear the word “vaccine” like its some miracle cure that cannot be questioned.
    And when you ask them exactly what it does and what does the 90% and 94.5% effective mean, they literally haven’t a clue preferring to leave it to experts or come out with the wrong answer.
    But I’ve had the anti-Vaxxer comment a few times – I just retort that they must therefore be immune system deniers.

  30. debdahvibez

    Hi –

    The info & links are of immense importance – too many people remain unaware – we got 6 WEEKS!

    Please share wherever you can.

    Strength & Light ☀💕🐝

    On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 5:22 PM Dr. Malcolm Kendrick wrote:

    > Dr. Malcolm Kendrick posted: ” 17th November 2020 The COVID19 pandemic has > thrown into sharp relief the concerns that a number of people have about > vaccination. However, such is the eagerness to develop a vaccine, and get > everyone to take it, that authorities are now looking t” >

  31. sergeykushchenko

    Dear author, I hope you have some plan in case you will be prosecuted for your speech. You are my hero. I am happy to live at the same time with you. I promote some of your ideas among the Russian speaking people.

  32. spell100

    A couple of questions, I don’t know where to find the answers.
    1. How long does a covid vaccine last? (I read that a flu vaccine can last as little as 90 days.)

    2. What enables people to be infected with a “vaccine-derived” disease, as is happening now in Africa amongst polio vaccinated populations.

    Vaccine-derived polio spreads in Africa after defeat of wild virus | Global development | The Guardian › sep › vaccine-d…
    Thank you.

  33. Elaine Gallaher

    I am more afraid of the news management, both the messages and withheld information, than this virus. Worse still, watching footage of our police breaking up anti-lockdown demonstrations has chilled me to the marrow – the same officers who “took the knee” for anarchist BLM, allowed Extinction Rebellion to deface and damage property, and even the Cenotaph. We are already in Orwell’s dystopian world.

    1. DevonshireDozer

      I feel the same.

      The only journos & reporters worth listening to are freelancers and informed, specialist or expert bloggers such as the excellent Dr Kendrick, Dr No and so forth.

      There is an ex MSM presenter called Anna Brees on this YouTube describing how FB & the others are censoring her pages. She only posted it a few days ago. It suggests you are right. .

      I’ve always tended towards the ‘cock-up’ rather than ‘conspiracy’ school of thought, but looking at the way in which this whole racket is being pushed in the same way around the world makes me look again at the Davos crowd, WEF etc. & to see them in a different light. It’s not secret at all –

  34. Jane Ainsworth

    I think there’s a difference between preventing the free speech of someone who is expressing sincerely-held beliefs that are nevertheless erroneous, and stopping people deliberately spreading information on social media that they know to be false.

      1. Cheryl Hayward

        Precisely. Who indeed gets to decide. We either have the freedom to speak our mind, on social media or anywhere else, or we do not have that freedom.

      2. JDPatten

        It’s the instantaneous knee-jerk reaction that gets to dominate social media. There’s no time to thoughtfully evaluate . . . anything.
        Then, of course, once it’s out in the world, it’s an established “decision”. Right or wrong.

        1. JDPatten

          “And who gets to decide . . .?”
          Why, it’s the one(s) who get the most votes that get to decide.
          Of course, ultimately, ordinary people get to decide for whom to vote. But, as I suggested above, that decision is corrupted by instantaneous social media messaging.

          So, it’s the one(s) most adept at manipulating the media who get to decide.

          Eliminate the social media as a platform for campaigning!
          (Who thinks that’d happen??)

    1. KJE

      But how can you tell the difference? You might think that you know the info is false, so therefore the person writing it should know, but yo might be wrong. We discovered that the earth does indeed go round the sun, but that was false news in the past. Best idea would be to stop children from using the internet (and make them read books) and let adults make up their own minds about what they read

    2. David Garmont (@DavidGarmont)

      Thank you. Just what I said when I first heard about this. We are in a new social media era and malicious people are using this platform. My only problem with censoring this disinformation is collateral damage to those who have truly reasoned beliefs and arguments. A fine line being controlled by ignorant and heavy hands.

  35. Jane Claber

    I’m 71 reasonably fit and had a negative Covid test (not something I want to be repeated) in order to get in to Madeira just before the current restrictions. I may decide to have a vaccine but would probably resist very strongly if it were to become compulsory. Bloody minded perhaps but maybe it’s my Granny’s Scots blood…..

  36. Jerry Alatalo

    People might become physically sick after listening closely to a recent bombshell discussion between David E. Martin & Robert Kennedy Jr. at Children’s Health Defense channel on You Tube.. It becomes blindingly apparent Anthony Fauci & Moderna colluded, conspired and most certainly committed major crimes against humanity.. Please share with everyone – everywhere.


  37. Barney Gumball

    Dr Kendrick,. I’ve been reading your blog for several years now, and I’ve bought and read (devoured actually) several of your books (great cholesterol con, doctoring data). This is the first time I’ve felt compelled to comment on a post though. You are a very brave man in today’s world of censorship and cancel culture. If you were not a physician clearly true to your Hippocratic oath I believe you would have been cancelled a long time ago. I salute your resolve, never stop doing what you’re doing. It is more important than ever.

  38. stuartacairns

    Leaders only outlaw debate and comment when they are scared by what it will do to them. If Labour are really promoting this then they are either malicious or badly informed and either way they have not considered what they are promoting – the slippery slope to dictatorship. I cannot come up with a reason leaders would do this that isn’t very bleak for our future. Thanks again to Dr K for spotting this. I will pass this to my MP & MSPs and demand they attempt to block it.

  39. con

    I am sick of being slandered by bullying elites and their puppets. Few things in life are black and white. Dirty tactics like accusing people who have sensible reservations about an apparent goal of 100 per cent vaccination of the population with a new type and rushed vaccine, against an illness approximate to flu – that is the insane idea, not the people who question the sense. Looks like the elite are using the population as Guinea pigs. Also if the vaccine is safe why has pharma induced govt to release them from damages where injuries occur? They expect people to swallow their brazen lies?

  40. Bev

    Excellent post. Shared on Facebook and will be interested to see if it gets taken down. Oh, and I like Bernard Lown, too.

  41. JDPatten

    Pro-vaxxers are just as nuts as anti-vaxxers in that their beliefs are just that – beliefs.
    A fellow in the thick of it with some confidence:

    1. JDPatten

      Hm. Four to one against as of today. I wonder what the objection is.
      In the face of overwhelming “information” chugged out in medical journals, news media, and social media every hour of every day – it’s not possible to evaluate every little nuance.
      So, one has to pick and choose what to believe.
      It so, so often happens that one chooses, quickly, to believe what fits one’s already chosen and consolidated beliefs.
      The more one relies on “believing” as opposed to studying and deeply sounding out ideas new and recycled, the closer one gets to the sort of lazy magical thinking that leads to fear of Poseidon, everlasting Hell, the Spanish Inquisition, burning at the stake, anything any politician declares unilaterally, anything Fox or Kos have to say about that, stents for angina, statins for heart disease, etc, etc . . .
      Of course, some notions are easier to discard, some more difficult to discern and discard. I think we could all do better at discerning. I think all of us need to do better at discarding.

      To rely on believing when one should be thinking is nuts.

  42. crisscross767

    Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine: Interim Data Show 94.5% Efficacy

    “…”It’s fantastic, like the Pfizer vaccine being 90% effective,” Betty Diamond, MD, director of the Institute of Molecular Medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, told Medscape Medical News……”

    Efficacy, effectiveness, efficiency – What’s the difference?

    “……….Efficacy is not the same as effectiveness.2 A treatment is effective if it works in real life in non-ideal circumstances. In real life, medications will be used in doses and frequencies never studied and in patient groups never assessed in the trials. Drugs will be used in combination with other medications that have not been tested for interactions, and by people other than the patient – the ?over the garden fence? syndrome. Effectiveness cannot be measured in controlled trials, because the act of inclusion into a study is a distortion of usual practice…………….”

  43. huckebein

    What’s the big deal about banning free speech on certain subjects? I mean, if it’s for “the good of society”, right?
    For example, a well-qualified chemist in a certain country was asked for his professional opinion about the presence of a certain chemical compound. He investigated and delivered his report. The findings in his technical report however contradicted the established views of the State. So the State issued a warrant for his arrest. Not wanting to spend time in jail the chemist fled to the UK, then to the USA. He was eventually arrested in the United States and sent back to the country where he had committed his original crime – that of expressing a view which differed from that of the State.. What’s wrong with this?
    This is from “A Lawyer’s Introduction to the Rudolf Case”
    Look at it this way: Let it go on like this and eventually you’ll have nothing to think about, so then nothing to worry about because the State decides everything for you and then where’s the need to speak?

  44. elizabethhart

    South Australia, where I live, is going into an extreme lockdown for six days from midnight tonight. Masks will be required in all areas outside of the home.

    People will be essentially locked up for six days, including being barred from outdoor exercise. Obviously people are being denied freedom of movement and association. A very shocking political development.

    This extreme lockdown has been deemed necessary because there are 22 ‘cases’ directly linked to a cluster, and a further seven suspected cases. According to an ABC news report “The Chief Public Health Officer Nicola Spurrier says the particular strain of the virus is breeding “very, very rapidly” with a short incubation period of about 24 hours, and with infected people showing only minimal symptoms. Professor Spurrier says authorities have acted to shut down the community, because waiting any longer would see South Australians incur similar lockdowns to Victoria”. (My emphasis.)

    Basically nearly everything is closing down for the next six days. Schools, universities, pubs, cafes, elective surgery, all outdoor sport or physical activity (no outdoor exercise allowed), construction industry and factories other than food and medical products.

    Aged care and disability residential facilities will be in lockdown. Weddings and funerals will be banned for six days. Regional travel is not approved. Holiday homes will not be available for lease or rental.

    Only essential services will remain open. Supermarkets, with limited terms of access. Medical services. Public transport (who can use it?). Airport and freight services. Childcare, but only for families of essential workers. Veterinary services. See this reference:

    All of this was only advised late this morning, so now there is panic-buying across the state. People are scrambling around to find masks, queuing outside shopping centres and petrol stations. There are likely to be shortages with the great fear being created, toilet rolls are already gone of course…

    People are turning out in droves to be tested. They’ll probably all rush off to the shops afterwards to try and stock up for the lockdown, so if any of these people do have the virus, it could be spread via the shops etc.

    It will be interesting to discover what facilities have been allocated to deal with this infectious disease after all these months. Do people already have natural defences against this virus? We’re aware around the world most people under 70 aren’t generally adversely affected by this virus, and most over 70 aren’t necessarily going to die from/with it either.

    What is the way ahead with this drastic action?

    No information has been provided on the definition of ‘cases’, i.e. whether they’re a positive test with no symptoms…ranging to ICU care. We still don’t know the definition of a case.

    Something that does concern me is the number of people who have flu vaccination now, every year, with children increasingly being pressed to have flu vaccination. Is there a potential for flu vaccination to make people vulnerable to other viruses, such as the coronavirus? Consider for example Allan Cunningham’s rapid response on The BMJ: Covid-19 immunity, covid vaccines, and influenza vaccines:

    1. elizabethhart

      According to a report in The Australian, the “dramatic six-day lockdown to break the back of what is feared to be a super-virulent strain of coronavirus that has already replicated five times since its discovery last weekend”.

      Ref: Emergency lockdown in South Australia to avert months of pain. The Australian, 18 November 2020.

    2. Jennifer

      Elizabethhart. Heavens above. Physically being cut off from all local society. (Then maybe the prospect of being cut off from the wider society enjoyed via the Internet, as per UK politicians).
      What’s going on here?
      Frightening stuff. The influence, rather than the physical damage of this virus, is mighty dangerous.
      Tell me I am in a nightmare dream.

    3. elizabethhart

      They’re describing the virus strain in South Australia as ‘super-virulent’, which sounds alarming, but then saying ‘cases’ have had minimal symptoms, and sometimes no symptoms.[1] It sounds like confusing fear-mongering to me.
      There are currently two people in hospital in South Australia with the virus[2] – are they admitting people with minimal symptoms? We still don’t have a clear definition of a ‘case’.
      There have been four deaths attributed to the coronavirus in South Australia in the past nine months, likely elderly people with comorbidities. There have been 907 deaths in the entire country during that time, with 819 deaths being in the state of Victoria[3], again elderly people, likely with comorbidities. I’m very suspicious about the way these deaths in mainly elderly people are being attributed to the coronavirus, because the deaths in Victoria in particular were used to justify lockdown.
      General mortality statistics in Australia for the period 1 January 2020 to 28 July 2020 indicate there have been 79,878 doctor certified deaths during that time across Australia[4], so the deaths attributed to Covid-19, i.e. 682 in that timeframe, are a tiny fraction of all deaths in Australia.
      SA’s Chief Public Health Officer Nicola Spurrier says “We need to stop the virus right at this point”.[5]
      If the virus produces minimal symptoms or no symptoms, why do “we need to stop the virus right at this point”?
      Are they deliberately trying to impede the spread of the coronavirus to inhibit people’s natural defences responding to the virus, and facilitate implementation of coronavirus vaccine products? Is the plan to try and make people dependent on coronavirus vaccination, potentially every year? Is it ethical to inhibit the development of natural immunity?
      Consider my rapid response published on The BMJ: Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2. 25 March 2020.
      1. Emergency lockdown in South Australia to avert months of pain. The Australian, 19 November 2020.
      2. Government of South Australia. Dashboard and daily update (as at 19/11/2020)
      3. Coronavirus (COVID-19) current situation and case numbers (as at 19/11/2020)
      4. Provisional Mortality Statistics – Jan-Jul 2020. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Released 28/10/2020
      5. Emergency lockdown in South Australia to avert months of pain. The Australian, 19 November 2020.

      1. sam

        They are scaring people into accepting the vaccine and also destroying all private enterprise so there will only be the state left under the ‘Great Reset’ aka marxism

      2. Janet Love

        Elizabeth, the really ‘nasty’ question to ask is… “What is the cycle-number (CT) of the PCR testing?” Over 30 = many false positives, and 35+ is making something out of nothing, Totally unreliable yet the US CDC suggests up to 40. Some credible sources are now suggesting around 20 would limit false positives.
        Ivor Cummins has been very active on social media, providing lots of interesting graphics. Also on YouTube. for his comments back in May. – He’s more, ‘assertive’ in his latest offerings.

        This link will give a wide selection of his recent musings…

        1. theasdgamer

          I think that if you want to minimize false negatives for the purpose of contagion control in hospital, then you have to run the PCR at max sensitivity. Even then, the best case is 20% false negatives on day 3 post symptom onset. Earlier, or later, the false negative rate gets worse.

          Using PCR to decide whether to treat outpatients seems dilatory.

          Using overcycled PCR (i.e., at max sensitivity) for public health policy seems very dodgy because of an overabundance of false positives. You might be able to establish a working false positive rate (and hence get a fairly accurate estimate of the number of infectious cases) by sampling the swabs and culturing virus from the samples.

      3. elizabethhart

        Interesting times in South Australia…

        The state premier Steven Marshall has been forced into a humiliating reversal of his total lockdown of two million South Australians after it emerged the government’s contact tracers had been duped by a part-time pizza worker.

        Business groups said the lockdown set a dangerous precedent where state governments, police and health officials unilaterally closed the economy on the basis of questionable evidence.

        A leading infectious diseases expert also warned the government had placed the state’s entire population into quarantine based on uncorroborated information that led health officials to incorrectly believe they had a unique and extremely virulent strain of the virus.*

        It’s bloody diabolical…

        The Premier, Health Officer and Police Commissioner here were all geared up to incarcerate the entire state population in their homes, only to be let out with government permission, not even allowed out to exercise. And ‘moving forward’ to make sure we were masked up to boot.

        It was ostensibly going to be for six days, but the writing was on the wall it could be extended, a la Victoria where the lockdown went on for months.

        I am sick of this coronavirus dominating our lives this year. It is such a beat-up. Ok, there’s a virus. Deal with it. But it’s not really about the virus is it? The virus is merely a means to putting in place surveillance and testing and mandated vaccinations, i.e. the ‘Great Reset’.

        Waiting to see where this goes. Needless to say I’m complaining…

        * Coronavirus: Steven Marshall’s South Australia lockdown clanger … with the lot. The Australian, 20 November 2020.

  45. Lindsay Allison

    Great article, thank you. I hope Kier Starmer reads it! It’s a very sad situation when people ‘label’ others, just because they disagree with their viewpoint or indeed because they lack the “experiences” of the others. Wars never end until there is discussion and therefore understanding. How can we ever have understanding without free speech?

    Sent from my iPhone


  46. Derek Reynolds

    Dear Dr. Kendrick,
    Thank you for your frank and factual comments.

    I fear there are many people who are simply not well served by either their governments or the media at large, which makes your voice all the more refreshing – you are not alone. I thought you might like to see what has happened in Denmark (according to this report) though you may already be aware. NINE DAYS of protest and not a word in the press?


    Derek Reynolds

    1. Jeremy May

      Good on you. Your choice. To paraphrase Voltaire;
      ‘I do not agree with your choice but you, I, indeed everyone should defend your right to make it.’

  47. Monstroso

    I just read an interesting article on the origins of the phrase ‘anti-vaxxer’. This is a sample quote from it. “The term “anti-vaccinationist” emerged later in the 19th century. The oldest example we’ve found is from an 1876 issue of the Lancet, the British medical journal:

    “This gentleman confessed himself an anti-vaccinationist, but as the law required vaccination, he submitted to the law in his own family, and would have others also submit to it.”

    This is in reference to the smallpox vaccine and the implication is that people were required to have it by law. That policy seems to have worked quite well. I for one am glad that the anti-vaccinationists weren’t listened to and a terrible disease has been eradicated. Am I wrong?

    1. christinepike

      You’re wrong in so far as compulsory vaccination being a success – laws passed in Britain to compel people to have the vaccine were directly responsible for creating anti-vaccine leagues. People thrown in prison for failing to comply were hailed as heroes and martyrs. The law was amended in 1898 saying that people could object to having their children vaccinated on grounds of conscience – hence ‘conscientious objector’.

    2. Jean Humphreys

      I believe the following to be true:
      In Britain the smallpox vaccine was mandatory in 1913 when my father was born. His father was against, and had to sign something to prevent having to have his children vaccinated. When Dad joined the RAF at the outbreak of WWII he had to have every vaccine going in one shot, and was ill enough to be in hospital for a brief while. When I was born he cited this as reason to not have me done, but saw reason when Mum pointed out that he had been so ill because he had had the assault at an advanced age.

      1. Jennifer

        Some salient points that you make. At least your grandfather had the option, right or wrong.
        On joining WWII I suspect your father actually had no option but to take the multiple jab, ( as my Dad told me was the case when he was called up). As you say, he was hospitalised as a result, and that is what concerns me about babies being treated by that method these days. The little ones are being given multiple vaccines over their pre-school years. I am in favour of vaccinations generally, but not multiple types in one jab. One at a time please….give the little poppits a chance to cope!
        As to your father being of ‘advanced age’, as your mother suggested, I don’t think he fell into that category as he would be under 30. However, it now conspires that the ‘flu jab for the over 70’s is not very effective..perhaps because our immune mechanism is a bit sluggish….it has taken a long time to advise us of this information. So….how do we trust the Covid vaccine?
        On another note…I will get the minimally tested vaccine for free. BUT, I am now denied meds on prescription that I take to counteract the unwanted side effect of an essential POM I use…..just because it is deemed cheaper to buy over the counter. What? .. at my age I am entitled to free scripts, and I know my sums……never mind £9 for a script….get it for £3 from Asda….NO…get it FREE from my pharmacy please.

        1. Jean Humphreys

          You are right on a lot of it – my Grandfather was actually what was referred to as a “conscientious objector” in the matter of vaccination – not in military service – but the signing of the paper to get out of vaccinating the children was referred to as that. My Father was about 26 which I would maintain was an advanced age to have multiple vaccinations (I don’t know what they all were) into a body that had never had such an assault before.
          I have to buy off-scrip paracetemol to save the surgery’s pharmacy money – have you seen how cheap it is in Tesco? If I am saving them money, they are surely being ripped off somewhere!
          Am about to write another essay re vaccinations since I had a letter today.

    3. Laurel Sutherland

      From a homeopathic perspective no disease has been eradicated, it is only suppressed, to show up later along ancestral lines in one form or another. These are known as miasms. If only it were that simple to eradicate a disease. The truth is we cannot – diseases simply lie ‘dormant’ in our systems, effecting our energy fields, our dna, our gut, our nervous system. Bcz the disease itself can’t now manifest due to suppression, it begins to show itself in other ways: MS, Parkinson’s, Cancers etc Viruses tend not to be indiscriminate. Not everyone ‘catches’ them. It depends on our own energy fields, immune health, all round well being. It depends on if we are a frequency match for the virus or not. Pollutants, toxins, poor quality nutrition, stress etc – all these things make us more of a match for viruses. The answer is not to eradicate the virus. It is to heal thyself! Homeopathy is excellent for this with plenty of data to back it.
      Thank you for your willingness to consider another way of understanding health – a ‘new’ paradigm. Warmly 🙏🏽

    4. Binra (@onemindinmany)

      “That policy seems to have worked quite well. I for one am glad that the anti-vaccinationists weren’t listened to and a terrible disease has been eradicated. Am I wrong?”

      ‘Seems’ is the truth of what you wrote.
      Are you wrong to believe as you do?
      No – you have been told by trusted authorities what seems easy to accept.

      History as a justification for an ongoing set of belief that supports a current directive, is more than hindsight by which to exonerate or validate the victors.

      It is evident to me that many will accept anything to mask out their fears even when such devices become the very agency of what they fear. You can follow your own question and evaluate your findings for yourself. But if you will only look at the mainstreamed account, you will only look for reassurance of what you do not want to really look at yet.

      The history of Leicester’s successful revolt against mandatory smallpox vaccines is a very relevant and unsung example of courage for our own times.
      Everything is backwards.

    5. fairweather

      Yes, Monstroso, you are wrong. I suggest you read a book by Dr Suzanne Humphries, ‘Dissolving Illusions’, which covers this very subject.

  48. Nigella P

    Some people in the world have gone properly bonkers during this Covid19 experience. I think this will be seen in the future as an excellent study into the psychology of individual and collective fear.

    I was horrified by the call to try and criminalise social media outlets who permit freedom of speech with regards to vaccines. Good heavens what kind of nonsense is this? Do the Labour Party really think that individuals are so weak minded and simple that they cannot consider points of view and take a position themselves? What a slippery path to go down, first it will be silencing those who question vaccines, then those who question democracy itself.

    I do not understand why we can’t clearly and simply inform people about risks associated with Covid19. We have such clear evidence now of the groups who are most vulnerable should they catch it, so inform them and let them consider how they want to manage their risk. Inform everyone else too and let them think about how they want to interact with potentially vulnerable people. Of course that will not be 100% safe BUT LIFE ISN’T!!!!!! All we are doing at the moment is ‘protecting’ the chronically underfunded NHS from the usual onslaught of admissions from seasonal viruses. Most years hospitals are nearly brought to their knees, but we don’t shut down society. Absolute madness!!!!!!

  49. christinepike

    Tim Harford is running a series of programmes on Radio 4 called “How to Vaccinate the World” – it purports to be an open debate on the subject of coronavirus vaccines. He tweeted a request for listener questions to be submitted:
    We’ll see how fair and open it actually is…

  50. Steve

    In the dim, distant past, before a software product was issued it would undergo rigorous testing and trials. When it hit the streets it would work and be used unchanged for years. Then along came Microsoft. We then got software issued full of bugs and holes and continuous updates, sometimes to fix the errors introduced in the last update.
    In the past, vaccine development took years and underwent huge test regimes, and it would deliver a relatively safe product that provided some protection for the population. Then along came Covid and all the safeguards were abandoned because of the ’emergency’.
    It’s interesting that Bill Gates is involved in the new vaccine regime.

  51. crisscross767

    Canadian government publishes bid request for “Programmable Hydraulic Guillotines” needed “in support of Canada’s response to COVID-19”

    November 15, 2020 — The Canadian government, on its official acquisition website ( is requesting bids for “Programmable Hydraulic Guillotines” as part of, “products and services in support of Canada’s response to COVID-19.” The listing number is 45045-190091/A, and it is found at this link.

    Comment: French-speaking Canadians in the proposed Covid detainment camps will be vaccinated, English speakers will receive the ‘final solution’.

    Full story:

    1. Steve B

      Can these machines be programmed to make a nice pot of tea while we’re waiting for the chop ?
      It would be a very humane way to send us to wherever

        1. Steve B

          Steve-R Maybe those Hydroponic Guillotines will be programmed to hunt us down – Anti-Vaccinator Terminators ?

          “Eat ze cucumper sandviches vile i trim some paper to size. I’ll be back”

  52. jeanirvin

    Any thoughts: Are our governments complicit in the Great Reset, locking us down and forcibly vaccinating us for the ‘greater good’, or are they being fooled by the Bill and Melinda’s of the world and are naive enough to carry on with the lockdowns. Are we being governed by sinister tyrants or fools? And which is worse?

    1. sam

      By now surely the MP’s must know if we all do?
      Boris etc have flipped to the dark side, promised $$$ no doubt just like the Bliar.
      The rest of the MP’s need to decide who’s side they are on and act accordingly. It will not end well for them if they choose the dark side.

      1. KJE

        I suspect that most MPs just want to keep their very generous salaries while doing nothing and making no independent decisions – “just doing what I was told”. Keeping their salaries depends on obeying the party leader, so …

  53. Laurel Sutherland

    Dear Malcolm – thank you for being a voice of sanity at a time when insanity seems rife. You’ll be aware there are various petitions now – one by SumOfUs – asking the government to make it illegal to speak out about vaccine concerns. Would you be willing to start a counter petition to the government requesting that the topic be fully opened up for fair and well represented debate from a broad panel of speakers including homeopaths and other natural medicine practitioners? I feel this is greatly needed at this time. With heartfelt thanks

  54. Binra (@onemindinmany)

    Well said Malcolm.
    If you should be defrocked, or retire from doing as much and as little as possible for the patient, you could do worse than “A History of Medical Beliefs and Practices – perhaps subtitled ‘Toward the Discovery of Medicine’.

    The evil that knows not what it does brings about what it does not expect.
    So at another level altogether from the Fat Controllers, I see a reset from a society of suppressed symptoms to a realignment within life from a fresh appreciation of who and what we are.

    I rightly or wrongly sense a desperation in the collapse into last resort.
    But the nature of the beast is to accuse its very act in others.
    The boil comes to the surface to burst, but more importantly to release its underlying conflict of hurt and hate set in rage, masked under suppression, that feeds the thing it purports to protect from.

    There are opportunistic manipulations associated with destructive processes, but there is also a blind irrational and self-destructive hatred, that is like an iceberg, pre-verbal, masked over and deeply inhibited from open expression, because it is itself hellishly hateful to feel directly, and elicits the reaction to suppress and cast out by all and any means as an overriding priority.

    Instead of mandating the hating of designated ‘haters’ (the new cancel culture underlying narrative dictatorship that includes and extends beyond covidity), we would do well to own that we are not only loving caring and compassionate, but carry pain that is encapsulated but nonetheless active in our frame of thought, perception and response.
    —- SNIP—– … full post is on:

    I also note that there is the politics of outrageous demands that operates a kind of terrorism of the mind, so as to unsettle the ‘rival’ or ‘target’ and enable the ‘deal’ that is eventually consented to – within the framing fear of terrible loss, to an outcome set by the bully, than would never have been arrived at by open and honouring negotiation. This ‘post truth politic’ is increasingly the signature characteristic of the bollocks being purveyed under pain of stick or lust for carrots (that may simply defer or mitigate the stick and offer no carrot at all).

    … full post is on:

    If we fight our own defences – they become auto-immune disease in the body politic.
    The attempt to stamp out, seeds another cycle. The idea of stamping out from a template is a Newtonian version of creation, and hacking DNA is the attempt to mess with our own source code AS IF a separate leverage set apart from and over an unworthy life that does not meet our conditions. Who will ‘win’ such a war but a reset to persist the same futility over and over until something truly moves us to be recognised, accepted and lived, rather than being stamped on.

  55. southwaite

    Thank you Dr Kendrick….the voice of reason in a world gone mad……love receiving your emails…. keeps me sane!


    Carol R.

    Sent from my iPad


  56. Kevin O'Connell

    For anyone with an open mind (and a fairly high level reading ability in French, but mostly ‘normal’ rather than ‘technical’), I highly recommend the series of books (now up to 7) on vaccines by Dr Michel de Lorgeril (he of the famous Lyon Diet Heart Study 1969). I especially recommend vol 1 (Introduction générale) & vol 7 (Les vaccins contre la grippe).

  57. Jerome Burne

    Sane and pursuasive, as usual. Thought it was worth pointing out the irony of using censorship to support science when its basic principle is that, rather than establishing permanent truths, you are testing hypotheses. The result is that many scientific “truths” are accepted as provisional. That’s why replication is (in theory) vital.
    As well as authoritarian political regimes, the other domain that relies on censorship and unchallengeable truths is of course religion. And, more irony, all histories of science celebrate the brave free thinkers who braved not just burned books but burned bodies to challenge official dogma and esbablished science as a result.
    Truths about the material world were no longer handed down from above but the result of collaborating on the ground and passing the truth up. .
    You can’t disentangle commercial from more high-minded motives for suppressing critics of dogma.Drugs, including vaccines are huge money spinners . The same was also true for religious dogma. When the Catholic church was intimidating its critics with torture it was also protecting the revenue stream from the likes of pardons chantries, tithes and payment for baptism.
    Science certainly has a dark side but for the Labour party to be indignantly hacking at its roots seems a serious mistake.

    (Apologies if this a duplicate posting but had log on problems)

  58. Mike C

    Have the powers that be forgotten the lesson of the thalidomide scandal? I do recognise that a vaccine is rather different to an anti-nausea drug but are we to be silenced for raising concerns about rushing these clinical trials?

    1. Steve-R

      Pity we don’t have a Frances Kathleen Oldham Kelsey. She was a Canadian-born American pharmacologist and physician. As a reviewer for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, she refused to authorize thalidomide for market because she had concerns about the lack of evidence regarding the drug’s safety.

        1. Steve-R

          Just another piece of information that is ‘out there’ but has not been picked up by the MSM – Covid has been correlated with male infertility, no further research in case it is found to be permanent – the obvious thought is ‘does the immune response to the virus damage the testes ability to produce sperm?’ Because if it does then that is likely exactly what will happen when it reacts to the spike section.

          Something else popped up yesterday from researchers trying to find a reason why children are less susceptible to the virus, but the elderly are more susceptible. They suggest that it is due to the underproduction of TMPRSS2 in children and its overproduction in the elderly. This serine protease cuts the spike protein after it attaches the virus to the ACE2 receptor thus turning the key in the lock and enabling entry of the virus to the cell. I did raise this on here months ago because there are TMPRSS2 inhibitors, such as Camostat, that might be protective. The virus might utilise the endosomal cysteine protease Cathepsin B and L, but these can be inhibited by E-64d.

  59. Jane in France

    Another famous victim of stubborn medical orthodoxy is Semmelweis, hounded out of his hospital and driven insane because of his revolutionary suggestion that doctors who had been dissecting the dead in a morgue should wash their hands before delivering babies in the maternity hospital next door. None other than Louis Ferdinand Céline wrote his doctoral thesis on that very subject. A modern, so far less unfortunate, version of Semmelweis is Didier Raoult in Marseilles. He does not agree with the consensual view that we should all stay at home and wait for a vaccine. Instead, he uses the combination of hydroxychloroquine/azithromycine to treat patients with great success. Heaven forbid. It is virtually impossible these days to find HCQ, which until recently was available without prescription, in France. The Health Minister, Olivier Véran, who could give Matt Hancock a run for his money any day, has even put pressure on Sanofi not to sell it to Raoult. It’s heart-warming to see how deeply these people care about saving lives. The “Ordre des médecins,” something like the GMC, is even trying to sue poor Raoult for giving advice that isn’t in agreement with the data and with scientific results! Raoult also suggests that rather than ruining the economy while we wait for a vaccine a more cost effective option would be to provide everyone with an oxygen monitor. The thing about covid after all, if I’ve understood correctly, is that your oxygen levels and your carbon dioxide levels both drop at the same time so that by the time you actually feel breathless it’s too late to save you. No sign of this suggestion being adopted.

  60. Donna Black

    Has everyone seen this government tender from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency yet?
    “II.2.4) Description of the procurement:
    The MHRA urgently seeks an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs) and ensure that no details from the ADRs’ reaction text are missed.”
    EXPECTED high volume of vaccine adverse reactions…

    1. Louise Burns

      Wow. Thanks. I work in IT so this is right up my street. I’m emailing the them to ask why they’re expecting such high numbers of adverse reactions.

    2. Ray

      Subsequent to the government’s offer to grant UK residence to (all) Hong Kong residents in response to the oppressive Chinese regime perhaps this is an attempt to make them “feel at home” and easily integrate into our “Democracy” when they arrive?

      1. Dan Anderson

        The post is about censorship & free speech. The conversation becomes gaseous and fills the pages. Let me add my little hot air to agree censorship is lurking ever more about east, west, north & south and inside the best of us.

        Is there a trend for the west to emulate authoritarian governments? 
        President Obama said this weekend we  live in a “conspiracy culture.”
        I’d say he’s right about that, wouldn’t you? He’s been a victim. He knows.Yet, how easy it is to paint any skeptical question as a conspiracy, thus dismissing it!

        Obama went on and labeled all this as “truth decay” which didn’t ring well with me due to it’s toothpaste commercial appeal and implication there was a time of truth in the near past. Don’t use slogans as if we in the public are children to be sold something. 

        Mr. Obama implied social media, the internet, is the villain and must be fixed to stop that decay. Fixed as ‘taking control, I assume.’ No one is talking about book burning — yet. Now, here we are with UK’s labor & US’s Obama introducing the idea of limiting free speech by choking the net.

        I differ with Obama on that being the evil and the necessary fix, for my experience in this changing world is that the internet has brought me more truth than I got from Walter Cronkite or Huntley-Brinkley nightly news (if you’ve heard of them) BBC or from the NYTimes/Wapo/local rags and TV.
        MORE is the key word, for I get more of everything, the good, bad and ugly now than ever before in my life from the internet. Exchanging ideas is a good thing.

        I’m for the truth. I’m against lies. I like skepticism and the discussion it brings. Look at this page.

        We have seen whistleblowers squashed as rapists. Snowden & Assange have been made examples of for other would be truth tellers, and yes, they told the truth, but it did not set them free. Just jailed for rape, charged with treason, living in exile for telling the public the truth that we are were spied on and lied to. The ties that bind will keep tightening to the little people.

        That’s what we risk with government regulation of the internet.
        Plain ole censorship, no drawings of the holy one, no free speech ever more ratcheting up control. 

        Politicians, rich and powerful people & corporations have secrets to hide from those too ignorant to decide for themselves what is real or fake. The poor and powerless have nothing to hide. 

        Consider this, after all that, that an unnamed doctor, author, well known skeptic is not shown on Wikipedia, the people’s quick referral for information. How long will this blog last? 

        Let’s choose freedom over repression.

  61. crisscross767

    What is in AstraZeneca’s covid-19 vaccine?

    The label says it contains MRC-5, which, if you look it up, says it is human DNA, specifically using “lung tissue of a 14-week old aborted Caucasian male fetus.”

    In my opinion it is not biblical lawful to inject such things into our bodies. Sorcery (pharmakeia) is being used to trick us all into participating in their murderous and cannibalistic rituals. This is deliberate. They know what they are doing.

    1. Ruth Baills

      Apparently, the website she has posted this to:
      allows for anyone to post anything with minimal vetting and is rife with conspiracy theories.

      The woman on the video clearly has no background in science of any kind and is scared of what she doesn’t understand. She doesn’t know what CHaD0x1 is (chimpanzee adenovirus oxford 1 which are vectors representing exceptional priming agents for disease-specific cellular and humoral immune responses, as is ideal for a single or two dose prophylactic vaccine. Nor does she know what recombinant DNA is. Neither of these things are bad! Recombinant DNA are molecules of DNA from two different species that are inserted into a host organism to produce new genetic combinations that are of value to science, medicine, agriculture, and industry. It’s used in plenty of drugs and health treatment.

      MRC 5 is the next thing she’s decided to take issue with. Again, this is commonly used and while I understand there may be ethical issues around this for some, it is not a scientifically scary thing. But, it’s in the vaccine for MMR, rabies, Hep A, polio, chickenpox and smallpox to name a few.

      Getting in a AI tool to monitor for adverse drug reactions is actually really responsible and yes, while there may be reactions expected that’s the case for every single drug and vaccine and treatment in the world!

      The woman on the video is totally nuts. She’s not got a clue what she’s talking about. According to my Brice.

      1. crisscross767

        What Is Coming Through That Needle?

        The Problem of Pathogenic Vaccine Contamination

        Benjamin McRearden

        “……….There is an even stronger statement dating back to 1990. A scientist in the field writes, “The present concern is for safety of vaccines made using transformed or neoplastic mammalian cells that may contain endogenous contaminating viruses or integrated gene sequences from oncogenic viruses. There is also concern for use of plasmid vectors employing promoter elements from oncogenic viruses. The principal concern for safety lies with retention of residual DNA in the vaccine, especially since induction of cancer is a single-cell phenomenon, and a single functional unit of foreign DNA integrated into the host cell genome might serve to induce cell transformation as a single event or part of a series of multifactorial events. Current proposed standards for vaccines would permit contamination with up to 100 pg [picograms] of heterologous DNA per dose. This is equivalent to about 10(8) ‘functional lengths’ of DNA. Total safety would seem to require complete absence of DNA from the product.”(31)
        Please note that 10(8) means 10 to the power of 8, or 100,000,000 “functional lengths” of DNA are allowed per dose of vaccine. Is there something wrong with this picture? How long will the general public be subjected to these vaccine products that according to this information, are nowhere near safe?…………….”

        Even the primitive Fore people in PNG had the sense to give up cannibalism (mostly brain-matter) when it was explained to them that it the cause of the fatal degenerative disease Kuru a.k.a. ‘laughing death”. The lesson had to be reinforced when it was realised that BSE or mad-cow disease was the result of animals being fed parts of other animals, particularly brain and spinal cells.

        Humans eating BSE infected animals become infected with Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease and exhibit mad-cow symptoms. And “scientists” use fetuses in preparation of vaccines. When will they learn?

        1. Steve-R

          Einstein reputedly said the there were only two things that were infinite, human stupidity and the universe, but he wasn’t certain about the latter.

      2. sam

        Possibly but to inject recombinant DNa is to inject genetically modified organisms into our bodies!
        To compare with other vaccines doesn’t help as they all have side effects including death. The rise in autism in the world is especially telling and all those parents with vaccine damaged children believed in the good fo vaccines as they got their children vaccinated but then wished they hadn’t when the children fell into autism. The Amish community doesn’t vaccinate their children and has no autism to speak of in their population.

      3. KJE

        Most TV presenters and Matt Hancock have no idea what they are talking about, but it doesn’t stop them getting in a sound bite. We are adults and can do our own research and make up own minds. Of course many videos are ending up on different platforms as the censorship on Facebook and Youtube is getting out of hand. Many TV channels have adverts for alcohol – I disapprove of it but that doesn’t mean that everything else on the channel is useless. Sounds like another 77th brigade-type input, Don’t view an uncensored channel as there are some nutters there. Not as many as in government, I suspect.

        1. KJE

          Filtration/purification or whatever doesn’t change their origin, so if one is opposed to use of human and animal “parts” it makes no difference. But it seems that the longer these cell lines have been around, the more likely they are to cause problems

        1. crisscross767

          What Is Coming Through That Needle?

          The Problem of Pathogenic Vaccine Contamination

          Benjamin McRearden

          “……….There is an even stronger statement dating back to 1990. A scientist in the field writes, “The present concern is for safety of vaccines made using transformed or neoplastic mammalian cells that may contain endogenous contaminating viruses or integrated gene sequences from oncogenic viruses. There is also concern for use of plasmid vectors employing promoter elements from oncogenic viruses. The principal concern for safety lies with retention of residual DNA in the vaccine, especially since induction of cancer is a single-cell phenomenon, and a single functional unit of foreign DNA integrated into the host cell genome might serve to induce cell transformation as a single event or part of a series of multifactorial events. Current proposed standards for vaccines would permit contamination with up to 100 pg [picograms] of heterologous DNA per dose. This is equivalent to about 10(8) ‘functional lengths’ of DNA. Total safety would seem to require complete absence of DNA from the product.”(31)
          Please note that 10(8) means 10 to the power of 8, or 100,000,000 “functional lengths” of DNA are allowed per dose of vaccine. Is there something wrong with this picture? How long will the general public be subjected to these vaccine products that according to this information, are nowhere near safe?…………….”

          Even the primitive Fore people in PNG had the sense to give up cannibalism (mostly brain-matter) when it was explained to them that it the cause of the fatal degenerative disease Kuru a.k.a. ‘laughing death”. The lesson had to be reinforced when it was realised that BSE or mad-cow disease was the result of animals being fed parts of other animals, particularly brain and spinal cells.

          Humans eating BSE infected animals become infected with Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease and exhibit mad-cow symptoms. And “scientists” use fetuses in preparation of vaccines. When will they learn?

      1. KJE

        I though it was just tested on those cell lines. Or is the AZ one the one that uses monkey kidney cells? Anything that has the word “fact checker” in it immediately rings alarm bells, whether what they say is factual or not. fact checker = censor

  62. Dr. John H

    This very interesting Danish Mask Study was just published today!

    This is the first ever randomized controlled trial for masks in the general population specifically for COVID-19. There were 6K participants, of which 5K completed the study.

    RESULT: “the difference observed was not statistically significant”, In other words, masks don’t work.

  63. theasdgamer

    Off topic, but interesting…

    Several British agents were involved in the Russiagate plot against President Trump’s 2016 campaign. Not really Russiagate. More like MI-6Gate.

    Now we learn that Lord Malloch-Brown is involved with SMARTMATIC and the election fraud in swing states in the 2020 US Presidential election.

    I find it interesting hearing so many “little” people around the world speaking approvingly of President Trump–they see President Trump as speaking and fighting for them. British, Canadians, Australians, Nigerians, French, Germans. Not all of course. Amazing.

    1. sam

      because all their political leaders have signed up to Schwab’s Great Reset and Trump hasn’t. That is why ‘they’ wan tto get rid of him so badly. He’s not a career politican and seems to have guts and a moral compass where he can draw the line between right and wrong, unlike the rest of the swamp

    2. Jennifer

      theasdgamer. Yes…well off topic. Why don’t you transfer your thoughts to a more appropriate site? You are not adding much of interest here.

      1. anna m


        Perhaps it is interesting to look at the correlation between the worldwide covid scam and its oppression of people with the odd fact that the very same forces pushing all this on us are also the ones desperate to get rid of Trump by any means necessary? Is he in their way?

  64. Varanus Komodiensis

    Forced vaccination is a big mistake. There is really no need for artificial immunisation as the survival rate is very, very high, and the disease is very, very mild in most people who develop it. Also, the few people who arguably would get very ill have already a deficient immune system, and vaccinating them would be ineffectual at best. This is not for them, and there is no evidence yet that vaccinating healthy people will protect them from being infected. The is nothing to be won.
    If the fatality rate was very high, there would be no need to forcefully vaccinate anyone, as everyone would demand it. And the very few who would not demand an immunisation against a very deadly disease would hold a huge grudge against the law makers and the enforcers. Why would anyone want to save someone who explicitly does not want to be saved? I do not understandd why people act as if the purpose of Government was to save anyone from anything all the time.
    On the other hand, if this charade is only meant to save face and earn some money under the table, then we can just pretend that saline has magical properties and pay the ransom fee to be free again. It is not like this is the first time in history that humans try to extort money from other humans under false pretense.
    There are too many lies. Lies are mating with each other and we have now even more lies. It stinks here. Who put so many lies together in such a small room? We are going to have to eat all those lies for a long time.

  65. Lorraine

    Wonderfully written. I couldn’t agree more. It appears we are running out of time to raise awareness. How can I help?

    1. Tish

      It’s become so difficult for concerned people to weigh up pros and cons now. If they do an online search on an establishment person they get the pros. If they do the same for anyone with a different view they get the cons.

      1. Dave W

        Please listen to this man if you need to understand about what is going on

        Dr. Roger Hodkinson, Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons committee in Ottawa, CEO of a large private medical laboratory in Edmonton, Alberta and Chairman of a Medical Biotechnology company SELLING THE COVID-19 TEST:
        18th Nov 2020

        “The greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public”: Dr. Roger Hodkinson, Cambridge-trained pathologist, blasts COVID measures as “outrageous,” in a private meeting with Canadian officials.

  66. elizabethhart

    Sebastian Friebel address – ‘The Future Shape of Things’
    Former parliamentary adviser to the German Bundestag

    Dear fellow citizens,

    I am addressing you as a non-partisan former employee of the German Bundestag with the function of a parliamentary adviser. As a result of my work in parliament and in a parliamentary group, I have become aware that the people in our country are being deliberately deprived of information on the corona crisis which is of crucial importance for assessing the situation. In view of the enormous significance of recent events, I consider it my duty to my fellow citizens to raise these issues publicly. So as to be able to express myself as freely as possible on these issues, I have resigned from my position in the Bundestag.

    See more at this link:

  67. Steve

    Reading between the lines.
    It is your ‘human right’ to not have a vaccine (be an anti-vaxxer) but you will have to publicly identify yourselves so that sensible (compliant) people can avoid (abuse) you. Wristbands and Apps (Yellow Stars) will be used to enable identification (to the authorities).

    1. theasdgamer

      How does SAGE bear on the vax question? Is their PsyOps group (Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours)–h/t Dr. Michael Yeadon–involved in the vax question?

      How is it that SAGE has so much influence worldwide?

      1. sam

        Its not SAGE that have influence, its SAGE who are influenced by the same people who are influencing everyone on this issue, ie The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

        1. Steve

          My understanding of how Sage ‘works’ is that the Government tells Sage it wants advice on something, a number of specialists then give advice on topics outside their field of expertise but guided by Government advisors to ensure they get it right. The Government then locks down areas of the country that don’t support its agenda, and says it’s ‘following the Science’. If there is too much push back the Government blames SAGE for getting it wrong.
          I believe the technical term for SAGE’s role is ‘Patsy’.

  68. theasdgamer

    If Trump doesn’t pull out a win, then the short term chance of free speech will be slim and none. (Likely not only in the US.) The American Constitution will have been overthrown and the American Republic as well. The Biden administration would clamp down vigorously and hard on dissent. Those who voted for Trump aren’t likely to take the election theft lying down either. And the succeeding violence likely wouldn’t be limited to the US, as the British and Italian and Australian governments have had a nasty hand in undermining the popular US government–Trump is more popular now than ever, getting 71 million votes–a record for a sitting president. I don’t like it, but that’s what I see as a potential outcome. Assassinations and bombings, like occurred in banana republics. P

    (I’m not influential or prone to violence, lol. More of a lover than a fighter.)

  69. Jennifer

    Dr Kendrick. As happens from time to time, standards are dropping on your blog. I suspect some are trying our patience to see just how much free speech we actually want, or you allow.. I want free speech., so long as it is polite. It is no longer a pleasure having to dodge through the unpleasantness.

    1. Jerome Savage

      There is a not unlikely scenario that a labelling of this site would suit prevailing camp splitting ideologues.

  70. theasdgamer

    Dr. Kendrick, while I value free speech to some degree, there is such a thing as too much freedom. Much harm can be done by speech, like yelling “Fire” in a crowded auditorium or giving incorrect medical advice or criticizing government public health entities whom I believe. Maybe recommending the wrong shade of makeup or home schooling could be classified as “harmful speech”.

    So, I’m all for free speech as long as it isn’t too free.

  71. shirley3349

    When people’s personal welfare and livelihoods, and those of their families, are at stake, politeness is a little much to expect. I’m sure Dr Kendrick is well aware of this and tempers his editorial interventions accordingly.

      1. Jerome Savage

        The blog feed does not come to me via email, for whatever reason. So I used to Google it but switched to dd go some months ago, following suggestions that it was more random on searches. Serching for “Dr Malcolm Kendrick” gave me RLWiki on at least 2 occasions in last week or more. Another blogger indicated concerns too, for what reason I dont know.

  72. Joe Dopelle

    I’d like to recommend in the very strongest terms a new book, “Corona False Alarm? Facts and Figures” by Dr Karina Reiss and Dr Sucharit Bhakdi. It is quite short – about 130 pages – and I have just read it in less than three hours.

    Many readers of Dr Kendrick’s blog will recognise Dr Bhakdi as one of the “(very) good guys”, and may have seen one of his superb video interviews on the Web. He is mild, polite, well-informed, understated, and devastating. He reminds me of the old saying, “Beware the anger of a patient man”.

    It’s no exaggeration to say that this book deals with every aspect of the Covid-19 “affair” and ties up the loose ends with a bow. (There are 85 references and a short bibliography).

    The short version: if no testing had been done, no one would consider 2020 to be particularly unusual as far as respiratory infections are concerned. About the only actions required were to protect the sick and elderly (or preferably to give them resources to protect themselves) and to provide the necessary medical resources (beds, suitable drugs, oxygen, etc. – as explained by Dr Kendrick in earlier blog articles).

    The authors observe that everything governments have done has been calculated to make matters (much) worse, and speculate briefly on the combination of political and financial motives that have interoperated to bring about one of the greatest self-inflicted disasters in history.

    1. Aileen

      This was the book that was seized by the police when Dr Heiko Schoning was arrested (and subsequently held for many hours), having just begun to speak in Hyde Park during the protest against the extension of the coronavirus restrictions at the end of September.

  73. Alan

    Dr K
    I would like to know if the plan is to vaccinate those who have already had the virus, it’s not clear and the general feeling is that everyone will require to be vaccinated.

    If this is the case could you explain what the vaccine will induce in our immune systems that the actual virus doesn’t

  74. Eggs 'n beer

    The video in the second link is only 5 minutes.

    Someone commented that we should appreciate that the ‘other’ side are sincere in their position. I find that 95% of the pro-vaccinators do not have a clue what they are talking about. They implicitly and blindly believe what they’ve been told by people on facebook, twitter, TV, neighbours and friends, the health service or their doctor. If they had ever looked at the safety sheet that comes with every phial of vaccine and read the disclosed side effects, such as for Sanofi Pasteur’s quad meningococcal vaccine:

    “——————————————— ADVERSE REACTIONS ———————————————
    • Common (≥10%) solicited adverse events in infants and toddlers 9 and 12 months of age were
    injection site tenderness, erythema, and swelling; irritability, abnormal crying, drowsiness,
    appetite loss, vomiting, and fever. (6)
    • Common (≥10%) solicited adverse events in individuals 2 through 55 years of age who
    received a single dose were injection site pain, redness, induration, and swelling; anorexia and
    diarrhea. Other common solicited adverse events were irritability and drowsiness (2-10 years
    of age), headache, fatigue, malaise, and arthralgia (11-55 years of age).”

    then it might be possible to have a sensible conversation with them. Otherwise, I don’t think that people who spout opinions founded on pure ignorance can be considered to be sincere.

    The other 5% are conflicted.

    1. Jerome Savage

      RWKi popped up on dd go search engine which makes me suspicious. The fact that it resorts to swear words, on Zoe Harcombe says lots.

  75. Tish

    I find it hard, and don’t want to believe, that all the people at the helms are evil and self-interested. Perhaps at least some genuinely believe that there should be more equality among the masses, a cleaner environment and better control of populations. Or something else.
    What I really object to is the way they are going about it. Ordinary people are being treated like idiots, and indeed acting like them, as their freedom is eroded and lives are made miserable.
    What do others think about it all? We seem to be short on motives.

    1. Joe Dopelle

      “I find it hard, and don’t want to believe, that all the people at the helms are evil and self-interested”.

      That does you credit, Tish. It is the typical reaction of decent normal people who, for whatever reason, suddenly start to notice what is going on in politics and business.

      First of all, let me dismiss your word “evil”. It’s not really very useful or constructive. It’s originally a religious term for those who refuse to believe the required dogma.

      “Evil”, operationally, means something like “someone who does things that I don’t like”. That is going to apply to anyone ruthless whose interests differ from mine.

      It’s with “self-interested” that you have hit the nail on the head. There is a strange belief that politicians and other “leaders”, on attaining power, are suddenly transformed into altruistic angels who care only for the good of others.

      That is not true. People who become leaders spend years climbing the greasy pole, and stabbing in the back anyone who looks like a serious rival. It is a process that might have been designed specifically to weed out everyone with scruples, morals or decency.

      The saying attributed to John Maynard Keynes sums things up very well. ‘Capitalism is “the astonishing belief that the nastiest motives of the nastiest men somehow or other work for the best results in the best of all possible worlds”’.

      Bear in mind that Keynes was one of the greatest economists who ever lived, a man so clever that Bertrand Russell felt inferior when talking to him, who supervised Britain’s economy and finances throughout WW2, and who spent much of his life dealing intimately with world leaders such as Churchill and FDR. He knew whereof he spoke.

      1. sam

        Well Keynes at the end of his life said he finds himself hoping for Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ to help out.
        Keynes was following the socialist tradition which is what we have been following since WW11 and is why the economy is destroyed. Government is the biggest problem and always spends beyond its budget, promising people free stuff that it cannot afford and eventually goes bankrupt and at the end becomes authoritarian
        Capitalism is about freedom to go about one’s business without interference from government.
        We have corruption now which is what is destroying everything.

    2. theasdgamer

      When I encounter what seems to me to be incompetence, I prefer the straightforward assumption of incompetence until that assumption seems extremely improbable, whereupon I switch to the assumption of corruption. Fauxi is a case in point.

  76. Tish

    Be sure to scroll to the bottom of my P.S. link if you want to see all the 17 goals – and the envisaged number 18.

  77. Steve

    The other facet of mass Covid vaccinations is that you will be required to provide personal information. So mass vaccinations will facilitate mass data collection by the state and their agents. You will not be offered an option, or permitted, to not provide personal data.

    Recall we were told that Track and Trace data wouldn’t be passed on, but it was, to the Police and to third parties.

  78. Tish

    Me again but I’ll shut up after this! Just a question. If our government is acting as part of a global hub, wouldn’t we the people end up under the jurisdiction of this global hub? Might it all dilute or even pretty well swallow up the EU and make Brexit pretty irrelevant? Has it always been pretty irrelevant but we didn’t know?

    (The one thing they won’t control is my temper 😡 I’m normally quite placid😇)

    1. theasdgamer

      Those who want to make Big Brother a global reality are now openly discussing The Great Reset. It’s not a conspiracy theory any longer.

      When rounds are landing on target, the target will start yelling, “Conspiracy Theory! Conspiracy Theory!”

  79. Gill Graham

    On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 12:21 PM, Dr. Malcolm Kendrick wrote:

    > Dr. Malcolm Kendrick posted: ” 17th November 2020 The COVID19 pandemic has > thrown into sharp relief the concerns that a number of people have about > vaccination. However, such is the eagerness to develop a vaccine, and get > everyone to take it, that authorities are now looking t” >

  80. Jean Humphreys

    Last week I had, for the first time ever, a call from a nice lady at the surgery to offer a flu jab. I declined in a friendly way and told her I had not had one since 2013 and didn’t really see the need.
    Today I get a letter from “NHS England and NHS Improvement” giving lots of “there there dear” reasons why I should have their lovely flu jab.
    Since I haven’t had flu or anything like it since 1968 I am still of the same mind.
    Included with this letter was another one saying how much these letters cost the NHS and would I just zap the code thingy with my phone to get electronic messages and save them money and save lives. I would like to see them put an app on my phone! It is about 14 years old, and definitely a Dumb-Phone. It works, so why change it? Some say they want to microchip us all – but the smart phone is just as effective for keeping track.

    1. fairweather

      Jean, I have also have hung on to my dumb-phone, which works fine for the few occasions I really need to call someone when I’m out of the house. I still have a landline phone. I also have a laptop, and (to prove I’m not a technophobe) I’ll shortly be investing in a top-spec PC and monitor for my work. Can’t see why I need a smartphone as well as all that! Added bonus: no tracking when I’m not at home.

    2. Ruth Baills

      Good on you for not having the flu jab. As for tracking of cause the authorities would love to micro chip use all, scary. Our difficulty was if we didn’t get the flu jab and provide proof we couldn’t visit my husband’s brother in the nursing home. I predict the same will occur soon for the COVID-19 jab. We live in South-east Queensland Australia.

      1. Eggs ‘n beer

        I live here too. Fortunately we don’t know anyone in a nursing home. With her dementia my mother in law should be in one, but we’re all working to keep her out. Not that many people go voluntarily, but do you think that the media emphasis of deaths from covid-1984 in nursing homes and retirement villages, and the requirement for vaccines that lead to reduced visits from rellies, might lead to an overall drop in admissions? I know two people who’ve foregone visitation rights as they won’t get the vaccine.

    3. David Bailey

      I prefer dumb phones for lots of reasons.

      The batteries last longer.

      They can’t use any apps.

      They are far more convenient to put in a pocket.

      Their shape makes them much less likely to break.

      They are easier to use.

      They can’t track and trace!

      You can use them as pay as you go.

      They only cost about £30, and they still make phone calls and text, and can take pictures. That is plenty smart enough for me.

      My computer is another matter!

    4. Jennifer

      Jean. Hang on to your present phone. In this 2nd wave…my husband received a long email (on all his devises) reminding him he is still classified as ”clinically extremely vulnerable’ and ‘at highest risk of becoming very unwell’ should he catch Covid19. A week later it was followed up with a SIX page letter via Royal Mail, saying more or less the same thing as back in April, with a note at the end saying to contact his Local Authority if needing urgent assistance due to restrictions. And emphasising that The NHS is open for access for his present condition and any new condition. ( do they know how difficult it is to access our GPs….only available via a receptionist who passes messages to and fro, with the messages being distorted as in Chinese Whispers….now there’s a pun).A week later, the Local Authority wrote, (another stamp) saying the same thing, but to be sure to register on the Government’s Shielding Support Service, in order to access urgent help if the need arises. So, each passing the buck to the other.
      I received a letter from Imperial College asking me to participate in research. Hubby then got the same. Then a week later the same again. Then a week later a text message reminding him of the request. So…all these departments, institutions, major supermarkets, pharmacies know our home address, email addresses, mobile numbers.
      We have both received texts from GP surgery to attend for ‘flu vaccine. We have both received texts from a National Pharmacy urging to attend for ‘flu vaccine. My 85 year old relative responded to the message, only to find out that stocks had run out both at the surgery and 2 local national pharmacies. A bit like shop sales adverts…’Only available whilst stocks last’.
      No doubt it will start up again when the Covid 19 vaccine comes on line.
      Anyway, just finished bingeing on The Crown….hubby calls it ‘death by Crownona-virus’, but I have survived after a few late nights!

      1. Jean Humphreys

        Gosh, that was what one might call a fulsome reply!!
        Both OH and I are hanging on to our respective P.A.Y.G. pnones quite deliberately – mine because it is old but still works, and his because his old one wore out and he purposely replaced it with a £20 dumbphone.
        I have had 24 years of difficulties with heart disease, various operations and a fancy pace maker but I have had absolutely nothing verbally or in writing about how to approach life in these times. My OH, 5 years older, has had two letters from the local authority ( different area to the GP) saying they had found him to be vulnerable, and was there anything he needed from them – food, transport etc. He has not seen a doctor in this area for several years. He has had nothing about flu jabs.
        I had been on six-monthly pacemaker checks, and have had a letter from Glenfield (out of our area) saying they regarded me as safe to be missed for the September appointment. Remains to be seen what they will do by next March.
        I am rather glad I declined the distant method of getting the pace maker checks – they can supply a little doobry that does it online – but our “online” is so pathetic that it would be unlikely to work for that – be more likely to send me an ambulance because it couldn’t get a reading.
        So I continue in my preferred way – sailing just below the surface with my periscope peeping up, and just as antisocial as I ever was.

  81. Steve-R

    I was wondering about this.
    I’ll take the placebo please, it is hardly any different to the vaccine!

    1. theasdgamer

      Pfizer claimed that 90% of the cases were placebo and only 10% vaccine. But critical data is missing. What was the test used to detect positives? That bogus PCR test set at Ct of 42? Were there any symptoms in those who were allegedly positive? Was any viral culturing done of those allegedly infected?

      If we begin with a population that is 40% asymptomatic when infected, a lot of benefit from a vaccine will have to be proved because that is a HUGE obstacle to overcome.

  82. jmcakismet

    If you look hard enough you will find answers. Here is a video presentation by Dr Rodger Hodgkinson who as a pathologist and virologist has impeccable credentials… MA, MB, FRCPC, FCAP. (Cambridge graduate)

    The video presentation is 5 minutes and 8 seconds long and can be found on Brand New Tube. It needs wide audience viewing and dissemination. It has been banned on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.

    “Utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians”
    “It’s outrageous. This is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public”
    “Masks are utterly useless, there is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever”

      1. jmcakismet

        Indeed! I like to think that this particular area of medicine is, at the very least, his specialist area of expertise; as opposed to the Dominic Cummings type of expert.

      1. jmcakismet

        Yes, BrandNewTube is not run by MSM bodies who preach ‘The Narrative’. You take the rough with the smooth and some of the published material is of doubtful value. That is the way it must be if we are to permit everyone to have a voice. I have no truck with censorship to please any specific point of view.

  83. anna m

    It is not only by fostering fear that they will induce people to accept vaccination, but also through emotional and psychological deprivation. What they are doing to kids in universities is awful – near complete isolation. If these teens understand that if they want a social life they must take the vaccine, most will do so.

    1. theasdgamer

      In my county there is a disobedience group against masking–lawyers and money are available for disobedience. Maybe that same concept could be applied to student disobedience?

  84. Colum Mackle

    ‘No evidence’ that asymptomatic Covid-19 cases were infectious, analysis of post-lockdown Wuhan concludes

    On Tue, 17 Nov 2020, 17:21 Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, wrote:

    > Dr. Malcolm Kendrick posted: ” 17th November 2020 The COVID19 pandemic has > thrown into sharp relief the concerns that a number of people have about > vaccination. However, such is the eagerness to develop a vaccine, and get > everyone to take it, that authorities are now looking t” >

  85. Steve-R

    I noticed this morning that Professor Heneghan is being attacked for his view of what the Danish mask study means, with the same article condemning the group who published the Great Barrington Declaration. This scurrilous journalism is what we have come to expect from the Guardian Group, but it is none the less worrying that there is now no mainstream news outlet putting the real evidence of this infection into the public domain.
    As has been noted on the blog already the weekly NOID reports seldom report more than 100 cases of Covid-19 while the MSM trumpets the Government’s “thousands every day”. This is a huge fraud being perpetrated on the public as the NOID reports show that, in the absence of the corrupt manipulation of rtPCR testing and loud broadcasting of the ‘results’ there would be no widespread alarm. If there was ever a case of shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theatre then the Observer and the rest are guilty of deliberately forming a mob to chant “FIRE” loudly and often.

    1. Steve-R

      Slight correction. NOID reports give 3 weeks of over 1000 cases, 7 weeks under 1000 but over 500, 19 weeks under 500 but over 100, and 6 under 100. Since w/e 15th March the notifications were 1,85,116,210,460,736,753,664,977,1301,1080,421,381,326,164,169,189,259,161,115,98,74,100,129,164,126,412,227,523,729,1090,500,105,91,117,87. Not sure if I did the sums right but that makes 13,140 but the Guardian says 1,500,000

  86. elizabethhart

    I’ve been posting comments on the UK Telegraph, most recently on this article: The infantilising of the population over Covid is both medieval and immoral, 21 November 2020.

    I’ve just left this comment, and suggest it’s time to revisit Neil Ferguson et al’s modelling report and its impact around the world…

    The UK has had a devastating impact on global societies and economies via its latest export…LOCKDOWN.

    The current lockdown concept has emanated from Imperial College London, via Neil Ferguson et al’s infamous modelling Report 9, published in March 2020.*

    Ferguson et al’s report recommends suppression of the virus via social distancing interventions which “will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more)”.

    Ferguson et al say “We show that intermittent social distancing – triggered by trends in disease surveillance – may allow interventions to be relaxed temporarily in relative short time windows, but measures will need to be reintroduced if or when case numbers rebound”.

    So we can understand the emphasis on generating ‘case numbers’, with these being used to justify lockdowns “until a vaccine becomes available”…

    Ferguson et al conclude: “Results in this paper have informed policymaking in the UK and other countries in the last weeks. However, we emphasise that is not at all certain that suppression will succeed long term; no public health intervention with such disruptive effects on society has been previously attempted for such a long duration of time. How populations and societies will respond remains unclear”.

    So this is one helluva a global experiment, being undertaken at the behest of Neil Ferguson et al, Imperial College London…

    * Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand:

    1. sam

      and were you able to mention who funds Imperial College and Ferguson? Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $79m this year alone. Did you mention that Ferguson’s models have been wrong for all his predicted crises for the last 10 years, including over the swine flu when he was also at that time receiving funding from GSK?

        1. Joe Dopelle

          “I think the people commenting on the Telegraph will be aware of Ferguson’s record with foot and mouth…”

          You mean that his foot and his mouth so often seem to occupy the same position?

      1. elizabethhart

        Re the Telegraph, they’re on the Gates gravy train too…surprise…
        The Telegraph received a $3.4m grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in 2017 “to support content production to raise awareness in the UK around global health security and engage audiences in solutions, greater research and cooperation”.

        Gates is buying everyone! No wonder we’re struggling in a sea of bias…

        1. sam

          yes but The Guardian and BBC are receiving contributions this year!
          Gates has been funding The Guardian’s global pages since 2010

    1. Joe Dopelle

      All hospitals (with very few exceptions) are always “inundated” in winter, because of governments and corporate owners desperate to save every possible penny. (“A penny saved is a penny earned”). Thus wards and ICUs tend to be quite full in winter.

      Of course there is no slack or reserve for epidemics.

      1. elizabethhart

        Yes Joe, that’s what’s frustrating, this apparently happens routinely in winter, but they’re beating it up now. And why don’t they develop a health service responsive to need, eg these infectious diseases. Instead they’re wasting untold buckets of money by ruining the economy.
        Back to Sweden, has this outlier been pulled back into line, has Anders Tegnell bottled it.
        What’s really going on?

    2. Jerome Savage

      The number of recorded cases is now increasing at a % rate higher than anything since April and highest all in increase recorded so far, 58,233 for first 15 days of November compared with 29,207 for all of June.
      Covid recorded deaths per day at around 19 is still well below April at 82 per day and June at 27 per day but significantly ahead of September which averaged at 2. So something is happening. Still the overall fatalaties to 13th November at 79,268 is not remarkable. Simple math, divide by 318 X 365 = 90,984 – estimate for the year. That has crept up since a similar exercise on 6th November, but 3 years in last 10 still shows higher & another 2 years are practically identical. At 2.44% lower, 2019 has lowest death rate since 2010. (No pre 2010 death rates available) Might add that the % fatality rate for cases has been dropping consistently since April at 15%, down to half a percent this month. (2,544/16,768 V. 293/58,233)
      Meanwhile, Sweden’s mortality rate was unusually high in April. But it was not higher than in December 1993. And in terms of population, it was not higher than, for example, January 1996 or 2000.
      View at
      It’s not easy to get figures for flu in 2020 but 2 months ago the swedish chief epidemiologist noted that “countries that have a fairly low mortality for influenza in last 2 or 3 years, such as Sweden, also have a very high excess mortality in CV19”

      1. elizabethhart

        Thanks Jerome.
        I’ve been posting this comment on a few websites…

        ‘Cases’ of SARS-CoV-2 and deaths attributed to COVID-19 have been used to implement drastic limitations on people’s freedom of movement and association around the world, i.e. lockdowns which interfere with people’s right to earn their own living, to freely associate with others, to simply live their lives freely. It’s notable too that masks have been pressed upon populations, based on very questionable evidence.

        It’s way past time for a thorough and independent assessment of the coronavirus statistics which are being used to control society and the economy.

  87. theasdgamer

    Great reset nonsense being pushed…

    ““This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset. This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change,” Trudeau said.”

    “That’s why Joe Biden used ‘Build Back Better’ as his campaign slogan. It’s why the UK Conservatives feature the website on their Twitter page. And why UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson inserts the phrase into his speeches.”

    1. elizabethhart

      Re the ‘Great Reset’…

      What is going on with ‘our elected representatives’?

      Are they now doing the bidding of Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates and co?

      Are they selling is down the river? Is this treason against the people? Are their governments legitimate?

      Do we have any protection against rogue governments?

      Are there no checks and balances to protect us from politicians who turn into tyrants.

      What is the situation re Prince Charles, who is also involved in the Great Reset?

      Is Prince Charles also betraying the people of the UK and the Commonwealth?

      How does this sit with his role as heir to the throne?

      Have financial markets been manipulated during this coronavirus situation?

      Posing these questions here as they’re relevant to the ‘COVID-19’/vaccine situation, and looming medical tyranny.

      1. elizabethhart

        My colleague John Stone sent the email below to Prime Minister Boris Johnson last night:
        Subject: The Great Reset
        Dear Prime Minister
        What is the position of the government on the policies of the WEF, the politics of its director Klaus Schwab and the Great Reset?
        According to this WEF video “8 predictions for 2030” “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy”.
        As our wealth as a nation and as individuals has drained away in the present crisis, the WEF Utopian vision in which propertyless ordinary citizens are subject to a global super-wealthy technocratic class (techno-Feudalism?) is perturbing, anti-libertarian, and not something anyone voted for less than a year ago.
        Can you please clarify the government’s position on this, which is causing widespread unhappiness and speculation?

  88. Steve

    Vaccinations are based on ‘evidence’ of testing.
    > PCR testing is very dubious, at best. The strategy appears to be: keep running the amplification cycles until you get a positive result. No science involved in the use of this method.
    > Now we find that “.. leaked emails show the health department blocked a study that raised questions about the accuracy of the Coronavirus (Covid-19) antibody kit. The kit – known as AbC-19”. Ref.

    One must ask, “is there any evidence or data used by the authorities that is trustworthy ?”

    1. Steve

      The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine “suggests 70% protection, but … may be as high as 90%”
      the Oxford jab is “far cheaper” than Pfizer/Moderna.
      The UK government has pre-ordered 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, and AstraZeneca says it will make three billion doses for the world next year.

      Time to buy shares in these companies ?

  89. marymcdowell5

    Dr. Kendrick, I read your blog post about the possible Covid vaccines and the primary endpoints laid out by the four major players in the game. Therefore, I am quite sure that this recent article claiming 94% efficacy for a vaccine is misleading. But how would anyone reading this know it doesn’t mean what it seems to be saying? I’ve read it several times and can’t spot anything that would tell me what I know must be true–that it ain’t so!

    1. Eggs ‘n beer

      My expectation that something being 94% effective is that it works 94% of the time. In the case of this vaccine that would mean that it would grant immunity to 94% of the 20,000 people who took it. Which they haven’t even tested for, nor will they. And even if they did test for it, it wouldn’t mean anything as they never tested to see if the cohort had immunity before the injections.

      An utterly meaningless number if related to “efficiency”.

  90. Eggs ‘n beer

    They can’t even get the dose right in the trials! If they get it wrong when administering it in a rigorously controlled environment, how can we rely on them to get it right en masse? One little mistake and a billion doses will be wrong, not just a few dozen.

    Note the throwaway line at the end: “ As for those trial halts, AstraZeneca has insisted that all seriously sickened patients received the placebo, not the vaccine.”

    No mention that for the UK and Brazilian trials the placebo was the meningitis vaccine.

      1. Eggs ‘n beer

        Definition of nocebo:

        “ A substance that causes undesirable side effects as a result of a patient’s perception that it is harmful rather than as a result of a causative ingredient.
        n. A substance which a patient experiences as harmful due to previous negative perception, but which is in fact pharmacologically (medicinally) inactive.”

        So no, not really. But even saline solution can have side effects,

        so, what is a true placebo?

        I experienced the nocebo effect as a student when I was invited to take part in a test of alcohol tolerance. Drink a vodka and orange, or plain orange, and do a reaction test. I came away three sheets to the wind – but later found out I’d been on straight juice! If the juice is tart enough, it disguises the lack of vodka.

        1. sam

          In vaccine trials, the control group is never given a saline solution, they are always given a different vaccine. In this case, the meningitis vaccine

  91. Ken MacKillop

    P.S. Viruses, by their very nature as non-cellular non-organisms, but rather as naturally selected/evolved collections of cellular refuse or debris (as I see it, anyway), cannot be significantly targeted by most pharmaceutical means (excepting amplified products of human immunology such as the Regeneron and similar products, which are exceptionally potent and effective). unlike true living cellular organisms like bacteria, fungi and larger parasites like worms. Antivirals inhibit normal cellular metabolism in very broad and unselective ways, and have very little efficacy, especially when it is most important — i.e. in cases with greater complications. This is no coincidence, and will never be improved upon IMO for fundamental biologic reasons.
    Much of the basic host defenses against viruses or virions are intracellular and innate — i.e. programmed into the cellular genome. E.g. detection of double RNA strands, which almost all viruses employ for replication but which do not otherwise occur endogenously.
    And similarly, from the beginning the most striking feature of CoVID-19, to me, has been the relative unimportance or even irrelevance of adaptive vs. innate immune response with this particular virus. There is an outsize importance of, and dependency upon, robustness of innate immune response in case outcome and recovery.
    Factors such as the unique error-correction (coded into genome) of CoVs, the inexplicably (except by manipulaton/breeding in the Wuhan lab) strong binding to HUMAN ACE-2 receptors in particular, vs. those of other mammals including horseshoe bats, and probably more yet-to-be-discovered molecular properties of SARS-CoV-2, evidently have combined to make susceptibility to this virus a measure of basic cellular health and efficiency or vitality.
    The reliance and faith of most of modern society in institutional medical intervention(s) is naive and foolhardy. And not only will there be ultimate disappointment (or even anger) as a result, but also this attitude fuels the lack of understanding of the overwhelming power of, in addition to reliance upon, robust human immunology to determine (almost exclusively) the course of the epidemic. Lockdowns are demonstrably counterproductive, prolonging this course, and causing more death inevitably by delaying progress toward, and achievement of, endemic equilibrium. All government interventions are guaranteed to be counterproductive, and this has been well understood by those truly knowledgeable for ages now.
    In regions such as northeast of US (where I am), Sweden, Lombardy in Italy, and others there is now endemic equilibrium or something very close to it. In most of Europe there is not so much, and that is clearly due to inadequate free/natural spread of infeciton amongst the adequatley healthy due to lockdowns. I have not even heard of a single person I know getting sick since winter — epidemic/pandemic levels of spread are long past here. Lots of positive PCR test results, although still much less than in other regions which have less international travel and are less populous and which locked down inappropriatley. But not much else except politicians and bureaucrats fanning fear, grossly irresponsibly and incompetently. These clowns are despicable, selfish and self-interested and opportunistic and spineless.
    It is pretty remarkable, also, how little mention of Hope-Simpson (excepting Dr. Kendrick of course) seems to have been made during this mildest of pandemics. Only due to Hope-Simpson’s observations and conclusions was I led to investigate or learn how recent the discovery of cutaneous production of vit D was, and this was pretty much after all of Hope-Simpson’s work and career were complete. His conclusions regarding latitude and position of sun in sky (i.e. latitude of locality/region) could not therefore have been biased by the probable biological underpinning.

  92. JohnC

    Apparently the AstraZeneca vaccine with two full doses has 60-70% effectiveness
    Whereas a half dose followed by a full dose has 90% effectiveness (this appears to have been a serendipitous accidental drug error, I know what the NMC would say if I made a 50% drug error!)
    The FDA have already hinted that it won’t be licensed in the USA.

      1. JohnC

        I have another hypothesis.
        When two full doses resulted in adverse effects the second dose was replaced by a placebo
        but was found to be only 70% effective.
        By administering a reduced dose first followed by a full dose the adverse effects were significantly reduced and the effectiveness increased to 90%.
        No one accidentally gives a reduced dose, certainly not without reporting it; at the very least it is unethical.

        1. crisscross767

          Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine: Interim Data Show 94.5% Efficacy

          “…”It’s fantastic, like the Pfizer vaccine being 90% effective,” Betty Diamond, MD, director of the Institute of Molecular Medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, told Medscape Medical News……”

          Efficacy, effectiveness, efficiency – What’s the difference?

          “……….Efficacy is not the same as effectiveness.2 A treatment is effective if it works in real life in non-ideal circumstances. In real life, medications will be used in doses and frequencies never studied and in patient groups never assessed in the trials. Drugs will be used in combination with other medications that have not been tested for interactions, and by people other than the patient – the over the garden fence syndrome. Effectiveness cannot be measured in controlled trials, because the act of inclusion into a study is a distortion of usual practice…………….”

      2. Eggs ‘n beer

        Well no, it’s not. Kerala, an Indian state, issued the homeopathic remedy for the virus to over a third of their population as a prophylactic. They’ve done pretty well. But in India it’s well accepted. They even have a Ministry of Homeopathy (AYUSH). However in most western countries the prospect of promoting the remedy meets several marketing obstacles. Persuading anyone unfamiliar with homeopathy to take arsenic would be an uphill battle!

        1. sam

          the Cuban’s had a study on a prophalactic for leptospirosis given to 12 million people instead of vaccianting them. THat eyar they had very few deaths and sickenss was reduced when compared with years for which a conventional vaccine was used

  93. The Dim Appear

    What is the point of vaccines to be given to a whole population for a pandemic that has possibly now ended? Offer it to those who want it, fine, no force.

    They must be having a bubble if they think I’m taking it – not to be confused with a covid-19 bubble formed to keep you safe.

    It will be interesting to see what they do to convince everyone to take it. If ‘experts’ decide everyone must have it maybe the international community will come together and suspend the international laws forbidding testing of medicines on people through force or coersion, you know if they think it will be for a good cause? I wonder if they are already working on it?

    1. Steve

      As the good doctor has highlighted, forcing people to have a vaccine ‘for their own good’ is directly analogous to censoring free speech ‘for our own good’.
      History shows that this is how extremists start to control the state. Today the anti-vaxxers, tomorrow …

      1. Eggs ‘n beer

        Ah, but you don’t have the vaccine solely for your own good. It’s for the good of others. You don’t get the whooping cough vaccine because you are at risk from whooping cough – it’s to protect babies who are too young to be vaccinated.

        Likewise you won’t be COVID-1984 vaccinated for your protection, but to prevent you catching it and infecting elderly, immune-compromised people who can’t take the vaccine.

        That’s why leave-me-aloners are so vilified. With pertussis and measles we’re baby killers. For HPV we’re teen killers, and with covid we’ll be granny killers. Nice to think we’ve finally got the full age range covered.

  94. theasdgamer

    Ken MacKillop,

    “Antivirals inhibit normal cellular metabolism in very broad and unselective ways, and have very little efficacy, especially when it is most important — i.e. in cases with greater complications.”

    So treating outpatients with antivirals in order to prevent progression to greater complication is comparatively unimportant?

    Wouldn’t people be better served by reducing hospitalization by 80% by treating early with antivirals?

    As regards “very little efficacy”, the evidence shows otherwise. 100% of studies either show significant benefit or are too small to adequately test the hypothesis. Small studies of high risk patients may test the hypothesis adequately, but small studies of low risk patients will not.

    (Please don’t bring any RCT fundamentalism to the conversation.)

  95. crisscross767

    Immunity certificates and health-passes are a hoax
    by Jon Rappoport

    What’s in your wallet? A virtue signal?

    “………..And remember, every fake problem breeds a multitude of fake solutions. I predict the rise of a new industry based on forging immunity certificates.

    A few of these criminal groups of forgers will be sponsored by intelligence agencies. They’ll help spread media stories about “phony certificates” as opposed to “real ones”—thus cementing the notion that there ARE real and meaningful ones, when in fact ALL immunity certificates, no matter their origin, are useless frauds.

  96. crisscross767

    Government Leaders Indicted for Crimes Against Humanity in the International Court

    November 24, 2020 By Judy Wilyman PhD

    On 17 November tribunal judges in the International Court for Common Law and Natural Justice indicted defendants who distribute COVID-19 vaccines and roll out 5G installations that allegedly cause DNA damage and EMF/genocide. The defendants in this indictment include the heads of many governments including Donald Trump, Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison and UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson.

    A list of all the defendants can be found in this 108 page indictment document. Here is the link to the Tribunal Order and Summons to Virtual Trial to be heard 29 November 2020.

    Here is a video – Warning for Humanity: the COVID-19 Vaccine – that describes the new technology that is in the COVID-19 vaccine (fast-tracked and untested for safety) that will enable governments to collect our biometric data (personal identification) after vaccination.

    It is also a crime that healthy people are being tested with a PCR test that does not diagnose disease and then these healthy people are being labelled as a ‘case’ of COVID19 that is reported in the media or they are quarantined if the test is positive; yet there are many false positives with this non-standardised test.

    This fraudulent use of the PCR test has now been confirmed in the Portuguese Courts – The Portuguese Court Rules PCR tests as Unreliable and Unlawful to Quarantine People.

    Any government that uses coercive measures to enforce the use of a medical drug on the population is committing a crime against humanity. This is due to the diversity of our genetic-makeup yet governments are ignoring this science (epigenetics) to force the COVID19 vaccine on all international travelers who wish to fly on Qantas airlines. A policy that is expected to be adopted by other airlines soon.

    This is for a vaccine that has been fast-tracked onto the market and it includes new technology that will remove our privacy and for which we do not have any long-term safety data. There is no independent analysis of the claims of safety or efficacy of this vaccine prior to being mandated for travelers’ in December 2020. This is critical information to have before coercing people with a medication that has known risks for many people.

    A senior research scientist with extensive knowledge in the regulation of drugs, Dr. Saeed Qureshi, made the following comment about the many COVID19 vaccines being developed, in his article titled ‘Should FDA and other authorities approve the SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 vaccines? – A scientific perspective.’:

    ‘Arguably, there appears to be no need, at least on an urgent basis, for developing a vaccine or any other new therapies for the illness showing mild flu-like symptoms, which could be handled with already developed and available medications. Clinical trials have been conducted without scientifically valid study designs based on vague endpoints, and invalid analytical (PCR) tests that ought to produce useless conclusions and products.’

    In Australia, this COVID-19 vaccine will be one of many vaccines that are now used coercively to deprive Australians of their right to participate fully in society. There are 12+ vaccines that have already been mandated in coercive policies for children as well as for adult employment and welfare benefits from government programs. These can be expected to be added to the adult e-health card for mandatory use in the near future.

    These coercive policies are a crime against the population due to the known serious adverse health outcomes (and death) that occur after many people are vaccinated. Our genetics pre-dispose us to many chronic illnesses and these illnesses have been increasing significantly in the population in direct correlation to the increased use of vaccines for decades.

    Whilst the government claims ‘correlation does not prove causation’ it is still incumbent on the government to use evidence-based medicine in the design of health policies. Dismissing this evidence as ‘a coincidence’ is not evidence-based medicine, and it is a crime against the people because it will result in significant harm/death to an unknown number of people.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s