We live in interesting times.
Orwell, Huxley, Bradbury: they saw it all coming.
I’ve attempted to parse post-March 2020 happenings in various scribblings (which I described elsewhere as “a (moderated) howl of despair at the state of things”). Reading this text means you have found some of them. You can find various essays in Reaction; I do not shy away from expressing myself in the public square. I also do some anonymous writing, and recently also provided some “comments and suggestions” to Dr Aseem Malhotra on his double paper in the Journal of Insulin Resistance, published in September 2022.
For the record, none of the above has been paid work (or been otherwise rewarded via any other means of barter or gift), nor do I intend to seek remuneration in the future (unless perhaps one day if my usual sources of income dry up). My hopes are twofold:
Short term, that the occasional reader is moved to think and critique the mainstream narrative prior to submitting to the not-so-tender ministrations of the nanny state, and I pray that it saves me from ever having to utter the dreaded phrase “I told You So”.
Long term, that a very small contribution can be made to an overall body of work that helps stave off such unfortunate episodes in future. My time-stamped writings might play a small part in frustrating the inevitable attempts to excuse and/or memory-hole the worst aspects of this sorry saga. I’ll also have a detailed answer to the future question: “Daddy, what did you do in the Great Coronapanic Debacle?”.
Still, there has been some rather astonishingly feeble feedback of late. To the pathetic ad hominem barbs from (paid) trolls: they are water off this songbird’s back. The snide “stay in your lane” comments - often from those still in the process of manoeuvering themselves out of cult cul-de-sac beliefs that are bereft of a shred of supporting evidence - are just laughable. More tragic are the non-scientific accusations that the peer-reviewed Malhotra paper is “not real science” from those that plan to have their young daughters injected anyway - tally ho! - regardless of the risks and other totally unnecessary adverse effects such as disrupting their youngsters’ menstrual cycles.
More painful to watch are the preachers with dimensional mote/plank issues who invite introspection yet have no remorse for denigrating those that are not ‘mainstream scientists’. And still they promote the bleatings of Covidean Cultists along with their panic-mongering calls for more and more restrictions. The spectacle of subsequently observing the furious backpedalling from one such preacher when gently challenged by a scientist in their field (who claimed to have had tears in her eyes when reading the exhortations to silence said ‘non-mainstreamers’) was particularly notable for the lack of self-awareness in subsequent foul-mouthed public tirades.
And the patronising tone! For their moment in the limelight, the clever mathematicians knew that their models needed the VirusOfDoom to be a novel pathogen for the “Everyone Is At Risk” lie to stick. So to be told it was a “10^{-big number}” chance it was in the UK prior to 2020 is a particularly egregious rubbishing of a hypothesis that - unlike the mainstream narrative that they cling to despite all the collateral damage - has stood the test of time. Awkward that it was easier for lay people - Team Amateur - to see the truth.
This is a pertinent extract from our family Christmas 2020 letter:
December 1983 (a premonition that 2021 might look like Orwell’s 1984)
Dear All,
It will come as no surprise that I have been a fierce critic of the approach taken by our dear leaders in response to the year’s developments. The inexplicable change of tack in mid-March has put us on a debauched path that is enriching the ‘healthy wealthy’ who fancy hiding behind their sofas, while punishing the poor, the vulnerable, the unwell and the young, as well as those that are not taking the gilt-edged government shilling. Thuggishly enforced draconian restrictions, destruction of the economy & ancient freedoms, non-sensical mask mandates and a continuous stream of banal and innumerate reporting from the media have poisoned what used to pass for rational discourse. The nonsense (or should I say ‘non-s(ci)ence’) peddled by people in authority who should know better has been – and continues to be – entirely depressing. The depravity of a government that can imprison children in their homes for a fortnight without medical diagnosis (based on a highly unsuitable non-clinical ‘test’ result) – but can at the same time exempt ‘high value business travellers’ from quarantine – plumbs hitherto unexplored depths. One of the most disheartening aspects has been the spineless response of established (and Established) organisations that could have made such a difference when the madness first set in back in March & April. And it is beyond me how a vaccine that has no demonstrable impact on transmission is going to ‘save’ us from this tank trap we have dug ourselves.
Other Christmas book club topics I can suggest: the Emperor’s New Clothes, the Salem Witch Trials and Copernican Heliocentricity. I think Orwell also had a couple of relevant tomes.
A fervent wish for a ‘prosperous’ New Year for the country has never been more apt, yet also unlikely; let us hope that in 2021 the nation at least chooses more carefully how to set its moral compass. There are plenty of lessons in 20th century history to remind us that we must continuously cherish thoughtful dissent and hold our democratically elected leaders to account. Consider Niemöller (who lived to regret) vs Bonhoeffer (who died with none); or whether, in breaking the twisted law of her occupied land, Miep Gies made the right call (reader: she did). I fear a slippery descent into tyranny ‘for thine especial safety’. This need not be inevitable – the fragile construct we call society is worth fighting for. There is hope.
PS. If you would like this Truth Bomb to be a one-off, I will not take woke offence if you cancel / unsubscribe or invoke the fashionable no-platform option. If there is demand, an anodyne version could be made available that sticks to safe topics such as the
climate, sorry, I mean weather. Brrr – chilly all of a sudden!
The line above in bold re transmission is particularly relevant to subsequent (and more recent) efforts by various tub-thumping Narrative Ninnies to distance themselves from their participation in the coercion of minorities:
Unfortunately my premonition about 2021 proved to be correct, and hope for the future was in short supply during those dark days. The policies of 2020 and 2021 were implemented with sadistic enthusiasm by many who - it subsequently transpires - were paid to indulge their authoritarian fantasies. The writhing attempts to exculpate themselves from this erroneous (and over-enthusiastic) support for unconscionable mandates - and the social ‘othering’ of conscienteous objectors - is put into stark relief by the extremely courageous, humbling and heart-warming admissions from others:
Accepted. A heartfelt thank you, James. This is the future. Here lies the hope.
So what else did those ‘experts’ get wrong?
What other bits of TheScience™ might not be as settled as they make out?
Hi Alex,
Given that a large fraction (all?) of this article is an attack specifically on me, I feel I have the right to reply.
Before I get into the meat of it, let me say it's simultaneously stunning audacity and cowardice to bring my young daughters into your public attacks against me. Also, I'm sure you're aware that your entire writing style is what's called "begging the question". It's vacuous. You make a factual claim e.g., "bereft of a shred of supporting evidence", but don't actually justify it. I'm not sure if that's because you think your audience can't handle a logical argument or if it's because you can't back it up (I suspect the latter, not the former, but not sure). But given that there are places where you’ve advised other anti-vac people to be careful about what facts they discuss it’s clear you can be selective with the truth. Additionally it’s remarkable that some of your claims contradict one another. And oh, the irony of claiming you’re a victim of ad hominem attacks in the same place you use words like “bleating”, “ninnies”, and “sadistic”. The speed with which you jump to colorful but personal insults has been very frustrating over the last few years. My friend never did that. It's genuinely heartbreaking to see what's become of you. You often say to people who treat you in a similar way “it’s unfortunate you do that. It says a lot about you. Why do you do that?” Why do you?
So let's get to it. Much of this article was clearly stimulated by my recent request that you engage in some introspection - I should address that.
First: when you follow me on twitter under a fake name it's fair for me to lay down some ground rules for you. In this case I asked you to prove you were capable of thinking critically about your behavior rather than just insulting others - that "introspection".
Second, it is fair for me to ask you to engage in some introspection when you "quote" me, attack me for what I "said", refuse to tell me exactly where that "quote" originated, and then when I finally hunt it down I discover your entire line of attack is predicated on the absence of a word that was in the original quote but disappeared when you copied it over (receipts in this thread: https://twitter.com/joel_c_miller/status/1447904852105854978?s=20&t=T-y2ZERMpgnnHCnT-oeNsA). Even worse, the context was that you were responding to my request that you check your claims before tweeting since you had made some very false claims. I valued your opinion, but not if it's based on falsehoods. Instead of agreeing to stop spreading falsehoods, you simply misquoted me and falsely accused me of making an inaccurate statement. You should engage in introspection when you make a false accusation in your attempt to deflect from my request that you stop making false claims.
Similarly it is fair for me to suggest you engage in some introspection after this sequence of events:
Jan 2021 - you directly and publicly ask for my comment on a UK policy. I tell you I don't want to comment on it. You ask again. I privately request that you stop asking. Finally after you keep badgering me I *privately* tell you my opinion out of the false assumption you are acting in good faith. Nine months later you accuse me of "wading into other countries' decisions", using my private answer as your example. Of course you were aware that I lived in the UK for 5 years, that my wife grew up in the UK, and that my in-laws still had their residence there. The amount of hypocrisy in attacking me for having the temerity to “wade into other countries’ decisions” by privately answering your repeated direct question about a country I had a close connection to is stunning. Even more so when your own history is full of publicly wading into decisions of countries you have zero knowledge of.
Also it's fair for me to ask you to engage in introspection when you promote protest marches organized by neo-nazi groups, or where gallows appear and speakers discuss executing political opponents... Or protests where crowds are “raging” (the word chosen in the tweet promoting the marchers) at night while carrying burning torches and signs attacking immigrants. A bit brownshirty. Especially after you've directly stated that you're inspired by a desire to not repeat the mistakes of your nazi grandfather and repeatedly suggest that I'm similar to him. Where is the red line that separates you from your grandfather because I kind of think he’d support you on this.
Now let’s talk about some contradictions coming from team amateur.
You claim that you were infected by COVID in mid-2019 and that it had been widespread worldwide throughout 2019 (you've even promoted claims the mid 2019 influenza epidemic in Australia was COVID). You also claim that China was aware of this the entire time. Simultaneously you suggest that it came from the lab in Wuhan. If that were all true, It seems quite odd then that China didn't report discovering COVID in incoming passengers (they would have been able to deflect blame to other countries). Then they compounded that error by choosing to first report cases in Wuhan of all places (there would have been many other places to "discover" it that would have kept the scent off of the Wuhan lab). China is not so amateurish.
It's also odd that you tweet things like this: https://twitter.com/AlexStarling77/status/1453333793734074368?s=20&t=Xu5yQLKknDHANBpLhun3cA about how COVID must have started in the Wuhan lab since the first cases were observed nearby and local seroprevalence was low. (ie it was novel to Wuhan in December 2019). Do you really believe that it originated in Wuhan, was still novel to Wuhan in Dec 2019, and yet up above you argue it was already widespread in the UK? Are trying to trick your audience, or are you genuinely able to hold multiple contradictory conspiracies in your mind at the same time? Either way, some introspection is in order. If falsehoods are needed to make your argument that would explain why you rely on rhetorical tricks like begging the question to give the appearance of having facts.
Now your headline claims to have "receipts". Speaking of receipts:
- on 13 April 2020, you said that COVID was finished in South West London.
- on 19 July 2020, you demanded I explain why I didn't believe COVID was over.
- on 20 July 2020, you referred to COVID as "a respiratory disease that has fizzled out".
- on 23 July 2020, you said that the data from around the world will show it has burned out.
- in November 2020 you said the pandemic was "demonstrably over" and suggested that anyone who questioned that was delusional.
- basically throughout mid-late 2020, even as late as Jan 2021 you mocked the idea of a second wave.
I think it's fair to say there was a second wave (and third, and ...) and COVID was not done in April 2020. Team amateur did not do well on this.
As an aside, the vaccine was incredibly effective against infection by and onwards transmission of the ancestral strain and subsequent strains including Delta. It was only when Omicron appeared that this changed (though even with Omicron it remains partly effective against infection/transmission and it is still highly effective against severe outcomes). That's well-established, and borne out for example in the fact that vaccination was able to stop the Delta wave in Australia, almost exactly at the levels the modelers predicted.
Finally - you don't know the full professional relationship between myself and the researcher you claim I insulted. But there's enough discussion between us in public forums that you likely know you are misrepresenting our interactions. I have made active efforts to promote her and her research during the pandemic (you can ask). It wouldn’t be the first time you’ve knowingly misrepresented something about me. If you must make the accusation then rather than using her as a rhetorical tool (like you used my daughters), treat her as a person and first check with her whether she's okay with you using her to attack me.