THE Daily Telegraph, once identifiable as a conservative newspaper concerned with individual freedoms and freedom of speech, was as captured as any of the mainstream and leftstream media during the covid era. Like every other newspaper, it spread fear, promoted lockdowns and extolled the virtues of the covid vaccines.
Dissenting voices were dropped, such as Toby Young after a column castigating the lockdown policy, and cartoonist Bob Moran after an outburst against a doctor who pressed for lockdowns afflicting his disabled daughter (but probably also because of his increasingly excoriating cartoons about the restrictions).
Allison Pearson provided some criticism of lockdown, too little too late, but did not dare to stray into vaccine territory, not until well after the real covid vaccine scandal had emerged, (as reported in these pages from March 2021 onwards). She survived and Toby, now Lord Young, has been rehabilitated but presumably only if he stays in his free speech lane.
However, the Telegraph showed its true colours this week as a link in Global Health Now to one of its articles showed. Their Global Health Security Reporter (a title that speaks volumes) Maeve Cullinan wrote a piece titled: All in one ‘super’ Covid vaccines could slow next pandemic, study finds. A sub-deck read: Modelling suggests the strategy would ‘buy time’ by reducing deaths in a large-scale outbreak.
The headlines are loaded to capacity with trigger terms: ‘pandemic’, ‘deaths’, ‘outbreak’. The fact that ‘pandemic’ is preceded by ‘next’ suggests that there was a first one, something hotly contested by Dr Jonathan Engler, MB ChB LLB (Hons) DipPharmMed of HART, who concluded on his Substack of April 2024 that: ‘Every single aspect of the “covid” narrative is fake. There was no pandemic.’ This is an inconvenient truth with which those in the global health community refuse to engage.
Data for the Telegraph piece come from an article in Nature Communications published by a multinational team of 20 authors from the US, UK, Singapore and Australia. The article is titled: Quantifying the impact of a broadly protective sarbecovirus vaccine in a future SARS-X pandemic. This is not, in fact, about covid. It is about an as yet unidentified and so far non-existent virus.
The data are not real, they are modelled. Given the success of modelling by the inept team of bunglers at Imperial College London, this should give us all cause for concern. At the start of covid that team was led by Professor Neil Ferguson, a man with much to be humble about when it comes to modelling pandemics (BSE and foot and mouth disease come to mind). While Ferguson is not an author of the present article, four others from Imperial are. What could possibly go wrong?
Presumably they did not factor into their modelling just how ineffective the covid vaccines were. This seems obvious when, for different scenarios they used either 75 per cent efficacy against severe disease and 35 per cent against infection, or 95 per cent efficacy against severe disease and 55 per cent against infection. Any one of these figures resides in the realm of fantasy as, without even asking, it is obvious they are referring to relative as opposed to absolute risk reduction.
The relative versus absolute risk reduction argument has been well rehearsed in these pages following Neville Hodgkinson’s explanation. It is absolute risk reduction which is important but, as the value is often an order of magnitude smaller than the relative risk reduction, it is rarely quoted. This is especially the case for infections which spread only with difficulty and which have low severity, which describes covid perfectly.
The attraction in having an all-in-one broad spectrum vaccine is not that it would reduce the spread of the virus, apparently. Nevertheless, it would undoubtedly be sold to the public as the best thing since peanut butter. According to the Telegraph article it would prevent deaths and ‘buy time’. Thus, ‘less pressure on health care systems would in turn reduce the need for lockdowns, masks and other non-pharmaceutical interventions’.
It is notable that, while the authors of the Nature article did refer to ‘non-pharmaceutical interventions’, they did not specify lockdowns and masks. The Global Health Security Reporter made that bit up, in the process exposing the mindset of those in the global health community. They clearly see lockdowns and masks, two of the worst things that ever happened to the population of the world, as the gold standard for managing ‘pandemics’ and that vaccines are a viable alternative.
The authors of the modelling study claim that an all-in-one vaccine ‘could have reduced mortality during the first wave from 1,360 daily deaths at its peak to 750 deaths and total Covid-19 mortality over the first year from 124,500 to 59,900 deaths, a 52 per cent reduction’. Clearly, they are unaware that covid mortality was grossly exaggerated and that the myth of vaccine effectiveness has been comprehensively demolished. They also did not factor in harms and deaths from the covid vaccines. The evidence for this accumulates daily.
But there is no doubt what the driver is behind the work reported in Nature when the authors say, if their dreams are realised and an all-in-one vaccine is effective (which I am sure can be arranged), this will ‘require investment in manufacturing, delivery capacity and equitable access’. All sweet music to the ears of the Big Pharma bosses.
