EU e-Privacy Directive

This website uses cookies to manage authentication, navigation, and other functions. By using our website, you agree that we can place these types of cookies on your device.

You have declined cookies. This decision can be reversed.


Is it a bird? Is it a 'plane? Is it a weird tennis ball with knobs on?

No it's a virus! Or so we are assured by those who claim to know. Indeed also by those who demand our subservience to their many and ever-changing diktats.

The same people incidentally that assure us equally firmly that vaccines were the undoubted cause of the health improvements in the general population observed during the 20th century just gone. Since this is the overwhelming consensus of all the official health bodies world-wide, we are to believe them, and yet . . .  science does not normally advance through consensus (ask Albert Einstein).

In fact, consensus can be thought to be a block to scientific advance. Because so many of those who need to be convinced of a different and better understanding have made significant personal investments in that consensus, they are understandably reluctant to challenge it. Bearing in mind the many $billions (more probably $trillions or even $gadzillions) already invested in viruses and vaccines by the pharmaceutical industry, unpicking this particular consensus is going to be problematic.

This puts the free-thinking free citizen in a bind - how to take on the massed ranks of consensual certainty?

Well, the first point is that consensus only "advances" the status quo. To advance science we need to think outside the box of consensus, formulate the alternate hypotheses, and rigorously test them against the known and the new observed evidence. Then when the results line up, they must be published so that others may check, repeat, confirm or deny. This is of course an iterative process dependent upon funding (another problem, since many will not wish to devote funds to projects which may render their existing investments less valuable).

Bearing all the above in mind, those incorrigible people over at UK Column have published a thought-provoking article with the not at all contentious title "Is Covid-19 a Hoax?", to which my own response is "it depends at what level you are working". That the politicians are hoaxing it up like billyoh seems undeniable, but does that mean that there is no SARS-CoV-2 virus? or that the virus is unrelated to the sickness? or that the vaccine(s) are suspect?

Iain Davis takes the drains up on Covid-19 for UK Column. Whatever your viewpoint, I suspect that you will learn something you didn't already know.