thirdwave

So that must justify Bandera's collaboration with the Nazis in orchestrating some of the biggest pogroms of Jews and Poles during WWII then? Or the fact he is celebrated as a 'Hero of Ukraine' by the current regime?

Though I condemn Putin's actions in Ukraine, one has to be an absolute idiot not to recognise the deep influence of the far right on contemporary Ukrainian politics and society. In fact even the famous Ukrainian greeting 'Slava Ukraini', 'Geroyam Slava', which we have all learned recently to mindlessly parrot, has very distinct Nazi roots. Extract from the Wikipedia article on the origins of the greeting and the familiar salute that accompanied it Original text (Ukrainian) The organizational salute has the form of raising the outstretched right hand in a right-bevel above the height of the top of the head. Obligatory words of a full greeting: "Glory to Ukraine" - the answer is "Glory to the heroes." It is allowed to shorten the greeting - "Glory" - "Glory". — Resolutions II. large gathering of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. with. 34-35. (there is a link to a PDF of the original document at the bottom of the page) https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Слава_Украине! For the uninitiated, OUN was founded by none other than that great pacifist and Ukrainian patriot Stepan Bandera who as we all know heroically battled the Nazis during WWII https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Banderat Just bear this in mind next time you sign off your posts with 'Slava Ukraini'

And now the Russians are planning to fix the pipelines which, according to you, they blew up having spent tens of billions constructing them in the first place? How does that make any sense? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-02/russia-s-novak-says-possible-to-repair-nord-stream-pipelines I mean why would they blow up Nordstream when all they needed to do was keep the taps shut? If they did want to just blow something up, why not attack the Ukrainian transit lines as it serves the dual purpose of crippling Europe as well as further undermine Ukraine's energy security? Also, aren't you giving too much credit to the bumbling Rooskies by claiming they pulled off such a daring mission in the territorial waters of a NATO member state?

Great piece from the Spectator https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/europe-s-descent-into-deindustrialisation The attack on Nordstream may well turn out to be a spectacular own goal by Washington that ultimately damages its own interests

https://www.forexlive.com/news/there-are-some-serious-rumours-doing-the-rounds-about-a-major-bank-failure-20221002/ Attributed to ABC Australia but can't find the original source. Has been picked up by multiple outlets however. This piece from FT Alphaville, though less alarmist, corroborates CS's rising CDS and it's consequent difficulties in financing the proposed restructure. Interesting reference to staff spending all weekend on the phone reassuring clients so there must be some panic afoot https://www.ft.com/content/6104a699-fa7f-4a81-9c35-a9a2f8ff92d2 Fed has also called a closed door meeting tomorrow- could be a Lehmann moment coming Interesting start to the week anyway. 🍿 on the ready!

New York to introduce vaccine passports for 5-11 year olds from the 14th of December. Disgusting

Classic case of shifting goalposts. Don't get me wrong, I've taken my 3 jabs and don't regret getting them at all (though I do feel a tad disappointed that they didn't live up to their tall claims) Now cast your mind back to December 2020 and the original NEJM paper that reported the Pfizer results? What was the main finding? Was it that it they did little to stop infections but prevented serious illness and hospitalisation instead? Was this how the vaccine was sold to us initially? I recall a willy waving competition between AZ and Pfizer with figures ranging from 72-94% being bandied about- remind me did these figures relate to reduction in symptomatic infections or serious illness/death? Turing to early 2021, was the campaign extended to all healthy over 18s in early 2021 on the basis that the risks of morbidity/mortality across all age groups warranted vaccination as a mitigation against serious illness/death? I recall something about jabbing the young to protect the old, which would have required the vaccines to prevent infection and spread, not just reduce severity? Pfizer completed a supplementary trial in autumn to support the booster rollout. Once again a figure of 96.5% was mentioned- did that claim relate to protection against infection or serious illness/death? Ultimately our choice to accept or decline a medical intervention is reliant on the quality, veracity and comprehensiveness of the information that is presented to us and when it comes to the vaccination programme, what we have been told at every step fell far short of the standards expected in the medical profession. It's this form of gross medical paternalism that Montgomery v Lanarkshire cautions against. Now that 'they' have become caught up in an unsustainable web of semi truths, attempts are being made to remove the inconvenient notion of consent altogether by introducing vaccine mandates- nice! PS: For those claiming that the purpose of all vaccinations is to reduce illness severity/death, please check the real life effectiveness of the most common childhood vaccines, polio, smallpox vaccines etc.

I had noticed the very peculiar way of describing the risk which I thought was a disingenuous attempt to underplay it. If your interest had extended beyond merely confirming your preconceived beliefs, you'd noticed a list of references at the end of the document which include an article from Nature which quotes the risks in 16-24 year olds as between 1 in 3000 to 1 in 6000- bear in mind this is for symptomatic cases- incidence of asymptomatic cases is likely to be much higher. Does that sound high enough for you? Whilst the majority of cases reported till date have been mild, what is unknown is the pathophysiology and the potential for a dose effect relationship, especially now that successive 'variant proof' boosters are being mooted. Even under normal conditions, myocarditis may be prone to relapse and result in higher morbidity/mortality in the long run, even for those who make a full recovery, atleast according to this study https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14017431.2021.1900596?scroll=top&needAccess=true . Once made fully aware of these risks I doubt many young people, who run very low risks of death or serious illness from CoviD anyway, would be rushing to get jabbed- let alone children who should be kept well away from any mRNA vaccinations. Finally if all this is nothing to worry about, why is the CDC conducting a study into the long term outcomes of vaccine induced cardiac inflammation? https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myo-outcomes.html

I'm not saying the booster caused us to catch CoviD- that would be patently absurd- but that it spectacularly failed in its claim to provide 96.5% protection against symptomatic CoviD to me and my colleagues. There was nothing in the Pfizer's study that indicated that vaccine efficacy is contingent on the recipient's behaviour- the whole point of randomisation is to control for such confounders. (For reference, those affected in my example were all senior patient facing clinicians) As for the risk of cadiac complications, the figures are from the Canadian Paediatric Society Guidance https://cps.ca/en/documents/position/clinical-guidance-for-youth-with-myocarditis-and-pericarditis With respect to vaccination for children, the EU is planning to roll it out for 5-11 y.o. imminently with the UK expected to follow suit, as per JCVI, before Xmas. Meanwhile in the US, they are already introducing boosters for 16-18 y.o.

A 1:10000 risk of symptomatic peri or myocarditis (asymptomatic inflammation with unknown long term ramifications is likely to be much more common) with a standard 2 dose regime (incidence linked to boosters TBC) maybe a risk worth taking for those in their 40s or above being offered their first/second dose but the equation is much more complicated in the context of boosters which allegedly generate a transient increase in antibody titers of uncertain clinical significance- in my department, for instance, 50% have developed symptomatic CoviD since June despite being double jabbed, half of which were in the past month following the booster. Since the jab is evidently doing a bad job preventing infections or contagion, the purported aim for vaccinating young people and children as young as 5, surely a 1:10000 risk of symptomatic cardiac problems vs a super miniscule risk of death/serious illness should surely factor into the risk assessment of anyone younger than 35?

All cases of myo/pericariditis with mRNA vaccines till date have been reported following the second dose, suggesting a cumulative or autoimmune mechanism

Mendacious double speak that has come to characterise the MPC so not really news. Worth noting she is considered one of the 'arch doves' on the committee 🙄

That's what I thought but it's been a phenomenal success apparently. 6k appointments booked within hours of the announcement. No wonder considering the Greeks have form when it comes to maximising extortion of taxes and fines by adding them to utility bills etc

@slawek Take it from me, its the mRNA vaccines that don't work half as well as the manufacturers claim. Worse still, it is potentially causing harm to an unknown number of recipients- my sister, a consultant in Acute Medicine, just told me about a middle aged male, otherwise fit and well, who is under her care after suffering an MI 2 days after receiving the Pfizer booster. Though I firmly believe vaccines continue to have a role in the fight against CoviD, we need alternatives from more tested, proven platforms, like inactivated virus based ones for instance. I'm aware Sinovac is s***t but Covaxin, also WHO approved, has demonstrated better efficacy and safety profile. In any event, I've resolved to turn down any mRNA based boosters I may be offered in the future.

I do a lot of cardio

I'm not a CoviD denier by any means- it undoubtedly kills the elderly and infirm- but increasingly sceptical of the aggressive rollout of vaccines among the young as the efficacy claims by the likes of Pfizer are dubious and there is some emerging evidence of lasting harm from mRNA vaccines

Don't want to lapse into conspiracy theories about vaccines causing deaths in their thousands but IMO the whole issue of cardiac inflammation with mRNA vaccines should be studied further. In my case- a very fit male in my 40s- I've noticed a sustained 20% increase in my resting pulse from roughly 47-48 bpm to 57-58 bpm, according to my Garmin smart watch, ever since I received the booster in early September. I've used the Garmin for over 2 years and it's HRM is amongst the best in the industry. My resting pulse has been very stable in the 45-50 bpm range for as long as I can remember. I initially attributed it to some software glitch but reflecting on it in the context of recent reports of cadiac problems with mRNA vaccines, I wonder if the booster had something to do with it.

Thanks Gruffydd. The figures you cite however are for the original 2 dose regime. Pfizer subsequently claimed in late October that a booster shot increased protection against symptomatic infection with Delta to 95.6%. I suspect it's far lower. If I'm right, there is very little justification to jab under 18s with a vaccine that is more likely, based on preliminary evidence, to cause enduring harm to prevent some rare and speculative risk from CoviD itself. Just to add, I recall checking the ONS spreadsheet on CoviD deaths back in the summer to determine how many under 30s of either gender were among the 135k who had died at that point. The figure, IIRC, was 350 in total including those with co-morbidities. Maybe it has gone up a little bit since but this underlines the fact that the whole rationale for jabbing young people until now has not been to reduce the severity of illness- it's accepted that CoviD is a relatively benign condition in the young- but to stop infection and transmission. If this expensive and potentially harmful vaccine does neither, it seriously undermines the purpose of giving it to <35 y.o. at all. Perhaps some under 30s would judge a 0.000025% mortality risk from CoviD sufficient to warrant vaccination but there may be many others who disagree- the state should respect individual choices in this regard instead of resorting to coercion through vaccine mandates.

Still suffering 3 days in despite copious amounts of Paracetamol but I suppose the fact I'm still able to type this may have me down as a 'mild case'😆. Pfizer is supposed to confer 94% protection against symptomatic infection with the booster but this is clearly a lie since I know of 3 other colleagues from a cohort of 12 (30%) who've developed symptomatic CoviD and spread it to family members post booster just in the last month. As for omicron, it looks even less susceptible to the vaccine given the number of fully jabbed individuals who have tested positive for it.

For what it's worth, I'm triple jabbed with Pfizer (3rd dose received in early September) yet suffering from a nasty bout of CoviD currently. All typical symptoms for the past 3 days so hardly 'mild'. Several colleagues I know of in a similar situation so I'm deeply sceptical of claims that mRNA vaccines confer 90% + protection against symptomatic infection with Delta. I could be regarded as belonging to 'the other' 10% or that I would have fared a lot worse had I not been vaccinated, but neither of these suppositions can be empirically tested. Given the vaccine appears to be useless in terms of preventing Omicron infections, the choice to be vaccinated becomes a very marginal call the younger you are, mostly definitely the risk/benefits are very finely balanced in anyone younger than 35 IMO

How else would you describe conducting 20% of all SM external border checks on goods moving into a province with a population of 1.8 m or rejecting entire consignments of perishable items due minor admin errors such as the use of the wrong ink colour? The chairman of M&S, no fan of Brexit himself, is also clear where much of the blame lay.. "It is not the overall purposes of the customs union that are the problem," Mr Norman added. "It is the pointless and byzantine way in which the regime is enforced that is so business destructive." https://news.sky.com/story/m-s-warns-of-political-running-sore-in-northern-ireland-over-sausage-wars-12360402

Except there is a fundamental difference- the decision to leave was an expression of people's will that the government of the day had to give effect to whereas the decision to deny the city equivalence, along the lines of that granted to the likes of the US, Brazil and Australia, was taken by a bunch of bureaucrats and failed ex politicians 'appointed' to the EU commission.

These are all well rehearsed EU/ rejoiner arguments. For the City, the UK was seeking equivalence and not passporting and there is no rational reason for the EU not to grant it. As for the current problems with the NIP,the document authored by David Frost, which can be found on the gov.uk website, offers a comprehensive rebuttal of all EU/rejoiner claims.

+1 I think the rejoiner line of reasoning, which essentially mirrors that of the EU, reveals a fundamental lack of strategic thinking. I'm frankly baffled by what the EU is seeking to achieve by non engagement with the UK (there are plenty of instances, 2 of which I have cited in my previous post)- the EU sees it's current relationship with the UK as a series of tactical moves with little sense of where this course of action ultimately leads. I suppose some of this may be driven by existential concerns- the familiar Brexiter line about punishing the UK to dissuade other leavers- but as in the case of NIP, it's obvious that the bloc digging itself into a hole by pursuing hollow short term tactical victories. Ultimately this may all be linked to the lack of democratic accountability at the heart of EU institutions- to use the NIP example, the fate of the protocol or the hardship it causes to the NI population is of little electoral consequence to those in positions of power in the EU. As for the EU being a 'rules based' organisation, brazen flouting of the rule of law and ECJ judgements by the likes of Hungary and Poland has revealed that to be a farce too.

The EU was not party to the GFA so it's contribution to the peace process was marginal at best. If, as you state in a previous post, the NI issue was only of peripheral interest to 26 member states (with the exception of Ireland presumably) and viewed only as a minor distraction then is it not conceivable that the protocol as it exists today does not fully reflect the ground realities in NI or account for the grievance and suffering it could potentially engender? Would you concede that the EU, if not cynical, was being slightly ignorant in the way it went about negotiating the protocol? BTW, I don't believe the EU is trying to break up the UK but its actions in the past 12 months- for instance it's refusal to grant similar terms to the City that it offers to the US and even Brazil or, as in the case of NI, equivalence in food standards that's included in FTAs with Canada and NZ- do reveal a degree of unfriendliness if not frank hostility.