The midnight scene is rewarding, if you have the strength to stay up and and look at it, which I may not after my exertion of yesterday.
(Remember that summer Daylight-Shifted clocks call midnight 1 AM.)
Yesterday we took part in a protest march through Isleworth, our London neighborhood. Several hundred marched, though it was not anti-war like major demonstrations of our past, or crazy anti-vaxxer or anti-lockdown, but anti-apartment-blocks. Anti-greedy-development.
Isleworth was once a hamlet beside the Thames. Much or all of the district was owned by the Dukes of Northumberland. Much was sold off, the surrounding fields becoming suburb. The large green area remaining is Syon Park. A slice of it is public space, more is profitable space: a sprawling hotel, garden center, restaurants, fishing lake, cattle herd, meadow leased for events, and you can pay to enter Syon House, the duke’s castle-like residence, and its gardens.
A green area, supposedly protected, still separates the river bank and village from the suburban hinterland: the churchyard, and, behind it, allotments. These started during World War I, on ground leased from the then duke. If you hope for an allotment on which to grow vegetables, you will be on the waiting list for years.
Now the duke (estimated wealth £315 million) has a planning application for blocks of apartments on two-thirds of the allotment area. Many objections and petition signatures have been submitted to the council. Ducal lawyers say he needs the money for upkeep of his properties; and that some of the allotment area is unused. That’s because he has refused permission.
I probably shouldn’t mention this, and I’m sure it’s unfair, but conversations sometimes allude to Toad of Toad Hall. And calling our resistance a “Peasants’ Revolt” is a bit of an insult to real pesants.
The march took a long winding route through the village and into Syon Park until it confronted the House across its great lawn, and back to a pleasant space in the village for speeches. Since our next-door neighbor Tom the Drummer was giving us a beat, I as is my instinct danced rather than walked the whole way. Some of the placards (some of which were taken up as chants):
“Duke Percy / Show us mercy”
“Build community / Not apartments”
“When is enough not enough? / When you’re the Duke of Northumberland”
And, carried by one of a pair of five-year-old twin sisters: “Hedgehogs need homes too.” (I wish I’d noted the other twin’s.)
Ralph Percy is the 12th Duke of Northumberland, and they were earls before becoming dukes. Their residence is south of London, butNorthumberland is the northernmost English county, residue of the Anglian kingdom of Northumbria, which was everything north of the Humber. I think I remember from the history of the age-long wars between England and Scotland that the hereditary enemies were the Percys of Northumberland on one side of the border and the earls Douglas on the other.
When the all-powerful Cardinal Thomas Wolsey fell from Henry VIII’s favor – because of disapproving his divorce and break with the Catholic church – and in 1529 had not only Christchurch in Oxford but Hampton Court and other possessions stripped from him, he fled to the north, where he was still archbishop of York. Accused of treason, he was arrested by Henry Percy, 6th earl of Northumberland, who ordered him back toward London. He died on the way, otherwise he might have lost his head like other fallen almost-princes of those times.
Coincidentally there is a “percy-cution” scandal. According to satirical magazine Private Eye, “The governors of Christ Church, Oxford, are nothing if not persistent in their efforts to force out their dean, Martyn Percy.” Another source: “The story of injustice being inflicted by the Church of England upon Prof Martyn Percy, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, has been grinding on…” When other charges against him were dismissed, he was accused of briefly touching a woman’s hair. She had not complained, nor had the students to whom he was said to have been inattentive.
__________
ILLUSTRATIONS in these posts are made with precision but have to be inserted in another format. You may be able to enlarge them on your monitor. One way: right-click, and choose “View image”, then enlarge. Or choose “Copy image”, then put it on your desktop, then open it. On an iPad or phone, use the finger gesture that enlarges (spreading with two fingers, or tapping and dragging with three fingers). Other methods have been suggested, such as dragging the image to the desktop and opening it in other ways.
Sometimes I make improvements or corrections to a post after publishing it. If you click on the title, rather than on ‘Read more’, I think you are sure to see the latest version.
This weblog maintains its right to be about astronomy or anything under the sun.
Thanks for your response and also for these good wishes Guy.
You believe people are endangering each others’ health simply by associating with each other (which incidentally is another human right).
In the absence of direct knowledge, is your trust in the business that is called science sufficient reason to actively support house arrest or personal assault (which is in effect the alternative, as normal life is likely to become impossible) for those who, having read more evidence than you have, disagree with you?
It sounds very dictatorial, and I know you are an Amnesty man!
The demonization of opposing viewpoints has racked up from the beginning; yesterday a top Australian politician ominously used the word ‘filthy’ to describe protestors. People who have about zero knowledge of the issues (as you admit yourself) have nevertheless been whipped up into fearing the people around them. Historically is this not a recipe for disaster?
But it all might have some justification if it really is as you say a ‘plague’ with no alternative to vaccination. Neither are true, however. It’s not a plague of course, with a case fatality rate of around 1 in 100 (though estimates vary considerably). If you believe the vaccine claims then even 80% effectiveness would reduce this to 1 in 500. That puts it well below influenza, for which no obligatory measures are taken. Australia, incidentally, has recorded about 16 covid deaths in the last 9 months.
Every death is a tragedy though, and the essential strategy is treatment. Early treatments for covid have been shown, on any rational examination of the many studies, to be effective – provided they are done early, i.e. at the viral stage. Such studies aren’t hard to read as the outcomes are statistical.
Hydroxychloroquine (probably along with zinc) is one of these. Unfortunately it became known as the Trump drug, and there was a lot of concern that Trump might win the 2020 election.
Ivermectin has emerged as possibly even more effective, but both these anti-viral treatments record about 65% plus reduction in bad covid outcomes. There are several others. Vitamin D level is a key factor in bad covid outcomes and most people are short (especially in bonnie Scotland. Though lots to be had at the moment!) yet governments have resisted even topping up the population to sufficient levels.
A good place to look is the study collection at c19study.com where they maintain an automatic study count and, where appropriate, meta-analysis.
According to your view (which admittedly is the way science should be) this would have been quickly picked up by unbiased peer review trials and appropriate response made. In reality, opposition has been vehement, even vicious.
The stated reason for the US/UK authorities opposing hydroxychloroquine was lack of randomized trials, which they then refused to do; except for late treatment, when it has become a different disease.
But Ivermectin has nearly 20 randomized trials, the strategy has been simply to ignore it.
Incidentally a friend playing bridge online encountered two GPs he knew, a married couple and he asked them what they thought of Ivermectin. Neither had heard of it. They would, of course, be advising patients to take the vaccine. You may be aware that this can not possibly be called getting patients’ informed consent – patients must be advised of alternatives! This is technically illegal. In practice most busy GPs don’t know much about vaccines other than what they are given by higher powers.
Consent may only be obtained by balancing risks and benefits. It may not be obtainied by coercion, anyone in power selling the vaccine on the basis of freedom from their own coercions are breaking Nuremberg and present medical laws.
The problem that commercial medical realpolitik had was that the emergency authorisation of the experimental vaccines requires there to be no alternative effective treatment, but the vaccine was the only solution of interest to them. As soon as covid was announced I was reading ‘there is no treatment’, alongside ‘we need a vaccine’. Suddenly those with a commitment to commercial gene therapy would have us believe that after millions of years of evolution the human race could barely survive without gene therapy.
Scientists (more usually, dispensible bureaucrats) telling the public the vaccine is not experimental and has been shown safe are not telling the truth. The phase 3 trial will run at least until 2022. There is no information on long term side effects.
Are you aware that there has never been a successful coronavirus vaccination, and the reason was that previous attempts didn’t get past the safety stage, the animal trials – the animals showed immune reactivity to the virus, but later died on exposure to the live virus. This was due to something called antibody-dependent enhancement. No study or trial has resolved this issue. For the present coronavirus, the animal testing was essentially skipped.
In reality, practically no-one has been able to give informed consent.
There are much more specific concerns about the vaccine than general ‘side effects’. A significant body of research says the way it works is the problem. It seems to be emerging that the covid spike protein, a much loved target for vaccinologists, is the problematic part of the Sars-cov2 virus. This has not led to the robust scientific debate that you imagine – doctors raising concerns are being suppressed. None of them could be said to be ‘anti-vaccination’. They are in the minority, but they tend to be speaking from positions of expertise.
Can believing one set of medical people over another really be called ‘crazy’.
From a human rights viewpoint, what is the difference between the President of N Korea believing that (for example) democracy and freedom of association are ‘dangerous’, and your own belief that – despite your faith in the vaccine – ordinary people associating are ‘dangerous’, and acting on that belief to suppress basic human rights?
I’m not expecting a detailed reply but I’d love to know your opinion on that point!
Cheers
Walter, I appreciate the time you’ve put into all this research, and I think you for saying “I’m not expecting a detailed reply but I’d love to know your opinion”.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by saying “there has never been a successful coronavirus vaccination”. Tilly and I have had our two jabs and have been lucky to receive tests weekly and get their negative reports.
Normally a new drug, after being found effective, does not get approved for use till it has been proved safe, which can mean waiting several years for effects to show up. When the several vaccines were announced, and shown to have effective rates of, I think, between 65 and 100 percent, they were emergency-approved rather than waiting for years. I don’t think you have pointed out actual injuries they have caused.
You might research for us the total of deaths from Covid-19 in the two years it has run; I believe it is more than 4 million, and articles mention that figures from some countries are probably gross under-estimates. And the number of those who had been vaccinated.
You may have seen today’s Guardian article. There are calls to investigate the leader of the anti-vaxxer campaign because her speeches could incite assassinations of nurses and, doctors. Her own family pleads with her to desist. You should perhaps be careful about citing the Nuremberg trials and executions.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/26/met-police-investigate-anti-vaxxer-as-speech-sparks-fears-for-safety-of-medics
Hi again Guy and thank you for your reply. I’m beginning to think that like me you like a good argument! I won’t keep replying as I don’t want to clutter up your blog, which I do appreciate is generally about more positive subjects.
Just to respond to some of your points, I’m very glad the jab was OK for you and Tilly! Previous attempts to launch coronavirus vaccines failed at the first stage because of the problem I mentioned of antibody-dependent enhancement. This problem was not resolved. The vaccines fail the existing safety standards because the testing does – it should take years. Emergency authorisation of a medicine requires there to be no alternative but as noted (again I would invite you to check out the link at c19study.com) alternatives were suppressed. These antivirals I mentioned have comparable efficacy to that claimed for the vaccines but with practically zero risk.
“I don’t think you have pointed out actual injuries they have caused”
An understandable reaction; however to adhere to the original point, everyone has the right to refuse them, especially with them being experimental. That was my Nuremberg reference – to the law and legal processes, not executions! This right is being removed for reasons of politics and commerce. Hence the marches, which should be supported by all who respect human rights irrespective of their view on vaccinations.
Incidentally the marches have no leader; people mainly oppose the policy which may include the lockdowns. Many will know about the antiviral covid-19 treatments – that alone is an excellent reason to protest.
There are indications of grave vaccine risks, though. A useful summary is provided by Dr Tess Lawrie, a senior medical consultant to the government, who has analysed the patterns of reported vaccine injuries in medical terms and has told the government that in her view, due to the number and variety of injuries and their distribution in the body, the vaccine rollout should be halted while the safety is analysed independently. Her open letter is here: http://medisolve.org/yellowcard_urgentprelimreport.pdf
In the last 18 months I have observed that none of the mainstream media ever give space to any opposing medical view or, indeed, evidence that questions the wisdom of the coronavirus vaccine. This is bound to affect readers’ perceptions. For example, the popular idea that you expressed that only ‘anti-vaxxers’ have any problem with being coerced into having unknown experimental substances injected into them is a media triumph – hundreds of doctors have formed into groups expressing alarm, and none of them are opposed to vaccination generally.
Anyone who hasn’t ‘smelt a rat’ after 18 months of suppression, censorship and spin simply hasn’t been paying attention!
Best wishes
Walter
Walter, I have to admit to a sigh when I see another long reply from you; but then I become grateful for your entirely reasonable and friendly tone. Better than calling disagreers “crazy” as I did.
Yes, a medical intervention should get emergency-approval only if there is no alternative. Vaccination is preventive. Treatments are curative. There is no preventive alternative, except masking and social distancing. They, relying on compliance, are not halting the spread of the virus.
Prevention is better than cure. If there is no prevention but only treatment, that means large numbers of people sick at home and requiring care, or hospitalized and gasping for life through ventilators. Enormous suffering and enormous expense and pressure for the National Health Service.
Though the vaccines have not been proved safe by waiting years, I’d guess they are safe. Prevention being vastly better than cure, the weight of justification is on the side of using them.
You have the right to decline vaccination. But those who run companies, government department, armies, football clubs, or any other institution that gathers numbers of people into enclosed spaces, have the right to direct that all the people so gathering must be vaccinated, for each other’s safety. If they wish to decline, they can leave.
If we still disagree, we must agree to!
The descendants of Shakespeare’s Northumberland and Hotspur are still arousing ire! Hopefully this dispute can be settled without anybody losing their head.
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area there is much controversy and conflict between homeowners who want to protect the character (and property value) of their spread-out single-family homes, and those who want to build multi-family housing in among them, in part to increase the supply of decent affordable housing closer to where people work, and to reduce the shamefully high numbers of people living without homes, or in overcrowded, overpriced, substandard housing. When I read about the controversy over building apartment blocks on Northumberland’s Allotments, the first question that comes to my mind is, what proportion of the apartments would be provided as below-market-rate affordable housing? If a significant proportion would be affordable to poor and working people, that would complicate my opinion.
And regarding the sanity of antivaxxers, I would be more inclined to support their right to refuse vaccines if they didn’t come to my hospital when they get sick with COVID-19.
There can be a dilemma, because accommodating more people in apartments can conserve green land besides mitigating the housing shortage. But I believe these apartments are being marketed as luxury flats. The Guardian article doesn’t mention that any of them are “affordable”.
And affordable being a relative term can mean anything.What’s affordable to oligarch Richard Branson isn’t affordable to me!It will probably have a few ‘affordable’homes as a sop towards planning permission they all do that and promise the usual,a playground,a school,etc but never any mention of the loss of whatever the land was before nor the fact that whatever they are building will be designed around cars and not people.
Thanks for following up, Guy, in the midst of all your travels to Oxford, the Mediterranean, and the Olympian heights!
I just took another look at the map. Initially I thought the allotments were the huge green area across the river from Syon Park. But now it looks like the allotments are the little red triangle between Syon Park and Isleworth. That changes the picture. Surely this little patch of green can be preserved for the enjoyment of the local community.
If His Lordship is in need of money, he could subdivide Syon House and rent out flats.
I’m a Northumbrian and can confirm that our domain is north of the Humber and definitely wouldn’t seem to include Isleworth! Northumbria is often confused with Northumberland but it was much larger and included Co Durham and Yorkshire and even had a bit in Lancashire where Liverpool now is.In the modern sense it’s confusing as Northumbria Police cover Northumberland and the modern pseudo county of Tyne and Wear, Northumbrian Water all of Northumberland,Co Durham and the top corner of the North Riding of Yorkshire.The Percy family have a huge castle in Alnwick and I believe that in it’s grounds is the biggest tree house on Earth! There’s also the Northumbrian accent, actually a group of similar accents, sometimes called Geordie which is incorrect as Geordie is a type of Northumbrian accent but Northumbrian isn’t a type of Geordie!
Hi Guy. Nice historical detail, as ever, to back up your viewpoint.
Just a comment on your swipe at other marchers. If they were merely ‘anti-vaxxers’ they would have been marching from December of last year. It is compulsory vaccination that they are marching against, a huge human rights issue.
Am I right in thinking that you don’t know much about the science – the genuine, non-corporatized science – of the covid and vaccination disputes? You might believe it reasonable accept what ‘scientists’ say about science. But there is far from a settled consensus and I would wager that the highly medical views of opponents of the policy are not reaching you, as they are not reaching most people.
Indeed, and I think this point will arouse your interest, you have to go back to Galileo to find a time when there was as little freedom for scientists disagreeing with the prevailing orthodoxy to express their disagreement publicly. We are now in a situation where non-scientists ‘fact-check’ and censor professors by citing government policy and other orthodoxies, usually wrongly or out of context. Doctors who express concern about vaccine injuries are being censored and some even have had their licenses revoked.
In short, suppression is the game and intimidation and censorship is rife.
The censorship extends to covid generally. Immediately covid appeared, anti-viral (early) treatments were ruled out with no scientific basis. Since then, as they have emerged they have been systematically oppressed.
Many of the people marching would know this. They are upholding our human rights arising from the era of Nuremberg. Citizens have the right to refuse even established treatment, because ‘established’ is subjective and the vaccines are, in the prospectuses shown to vaccine shareholders, experimental gene therapy. The marches could be said to reprsent to also represent anti-greedy development.
I don’t mean to spoil an otherwise lovely post! I think the fact that I need to use so many words to counter a single, solitary word of yours (‘crazy’) shows how successful the last year and a half of propaganda has been.
Everyone knows what is meant by ‘crazy anti-vaxxers’ but few know anything about the true issues underpinning their concerns.
Walter
Great to hear from you, Walter, and all good wishes to you and Ruth and bonnie Scotland!
You are right that I know next to nothing about molecular biology. When I grope through articles about it, I gain only cloudy mental pictures.
But you are not talking about the details of the science, except for one point: the possibility that there are side effects (“injuries”) from vaccination. Just about every medical intervention seems to have side effects – they make long lists on the bit of paper that comes with anry prescription. For each vaccine, possible side effects and their percentage likelihoods have surely been determined. You are presumably saying that they have been suppressed.
What you talk about it is a general conspiracy of suppression – affecting not just Covid science but all science.
My amateur opinion, derived from quite a lot of reading of scientific articles though without a background in science education, is that this is unlikely. Amazing advances are being made in our time, in both pure and applied science. They could not happen without skeptical peer review. Every published study has to be reproducible and disprovable.
Individuals have the right to refuse any treatment, such as vaccination. They do not endanger other people’s health in the direct way that people do who flout the London mayor’s continued advice (not command) to wear masks. If they are wrong (if the percentage risk of being injured by being vaccinated is small enough to justify being vaccinated), they do endanger us all, because the Covid plague may spread even wider and last longer.