You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I remain open to hearing exactly which of the data quoted in this speech is controversial
I literally clicked to a point at random in that video and got a load of bollocks about how there's a huge cover-up of the damage caused by mRNA vaccines. That's not controversial, it's straight out wrong.
Ironically if it wasn't for the vaccine denial aspect of this man I actually agree with most of what he says regarding junk food and sugar laden snacks in children. However, on the basis of his vaccine conspiracy theories he should not be practising medicine in this country in any form.
But it seems that some are concerned
Personally no, not in the slightest. I wouldn't pay anyone who speaks at a Reform event the slightest bit of attention. His capacity to influence others? That's a bit more concerning as a lot of the general public don't have the wherewithal to understand why a doctor pushing antivax issues on a political platform is problematic...
By rocking up & speaking at a Reform event you are immeadiately in my opinion showing yourself as a grifter &/or conspiracy theorist.
I am judging you by the company you keep.
Seems pretty convincing and well reasoned to me.
So do the likes of Jordan Peterson, climatic deniers, 9/11 commentators - because they have no-one up there to challenge and fact check as they speak.
New cancer diagnosis rates have been increasing for decades and projected to go on rising. They were rising before the Covid vaccines and after. I've seen nothing to suggest that the Covid vaccines created a spike other than the one caused by delays in diagnosis due to Covid restrictions. If you're looking for causes of increased cancer diagnosis then you also need to consider:
An increasingly overweight population
An increasingly unhealthy diet
An increasingly sedentary population
Air pollution, especially the rise of the diesel car
Microplastics
Synthetic fibre clothes
PIFAS - forevever chemicals
Increasing alcohol consumption
The sun tan generation
Air tight homes full of chemicals and in some areas radon gas
Nuclear testing and accidents
1970s polythene water supply pipes
Pesticide fungicide and herbicide use
HPV and hepatitis B/C
That's other factors off the top of my head in the time it took to type it and yet Dr Malotra has data (that he won't bore us with) and evidence tht he won't quote to prove it's the vaccines.
It's convincing and well-reasoned bollocks.
so I remain open to hearing exactly which of the data quoted in this speech is controversial?
Because its at a political rally. Malhotra isn't trying to convince a body of his peers that data is incorrect at a conference or through a peer-reviewed paper as he cannot get a hearing in those places, so he's reduced to making political speeches to reinforce a message about not trusting authority figures in this country. Its why Flat-Earthers choose YouTube and not MIT. That's the point.
It may contain defendable 'facts' but again, that's merely to lend it a hint of verisimilitude. The Leave campaign did exactly the same thing.
‘Dai Hard’ - joined us on 1st September 2025, and it looks like his only contributions are promoting anti-vax bollocks on this thread…
vax trolls have impressive commitment
vax trolls have impressive commitment
Or just 'issues'.
I started watching....and in the intro I heard that he's been advising RFK Jr
Unless the advice to RFK is to stop being such a ****, I lost faith there.
Unfortunately there are very real world consequences to legitimising the opinions of cranks by giving them a mainstream platform, as the recent spate of (totally unnecessary) child deaths from measles in Merseyside demonstrated.
Not that Farage gives a flying **** of course. And I suppose it is a certain form of Darwinism
So then, here's the speech from Dr Malhotra. It's not that long but I am glad I watched it for context, rather than default to the media spin.
Seems pretty convincing and well reasoned to me. But it seems that some are concerned, so I remain open to hearing exactly which of the data quoted in this speech is controversial? What exactly is it Dr Malhotra has got wrong with his 'facts'?
Jesus ****ing christ, perhaps you should change your name to "Dip shit" if you consider a video hosted by Dr John "the nurse" Campbell "king of grifters" to help your case,
No point in conversing any further with someone like yourself, go swallow bleach
So then, here's the speech from Dr Malhotra. It's not that long but I am glad I watched it for context, rather than default to the media spin scientific facts
FTFY
‘Dai Hard’ - joined us on 1st September 2025, and it looks like his only contributions are promoting anti-vax bollocks on this thread…
vax trolls have impressive commitment
They are a new member sure, but to be fair they have started a couple of bike related threads and made more posts on them than on here. I disagree with their apparent anti-vax stance, but instantly dismissing them as a troll because their views differ is a bit premature I think. There are lots of people who think like that and even if we might think they are misguided, it does not necessarily follow that voicing their views, if genuinely held equates to "trolling". Just my view, I realise it will not be a popular one.
Channel 4 news did a vox pop on the street in Sunderland a few weeks back, where Reform are polling really well. They simply asked a load of professed Reform supporters ‘other than immigration, what other Reform policies do you support?’
Cue lots of confused looking people going “erm….. errrrrrrr……”
Isn't this exactly why trad politics and current Labour just isn't working? I mean, their lack of interest as well as the approach from some that it's their fault for not understanding more?
I trust responsible adults with experience in the relevant area to do the right thing. They don't always get it right but no company or organisation does. Yet here we all are, getting poorer and more disillusioned with the system while major shareholders in sh!te-spewing water companies or similarly grifty big business systems get very nice returns. The current govt isn't doing the damage that the Tories or Reform could, but they're doing nothing about diffusing the situation that will let that lot back in. They just don't get it.
So many people are less / not interested in the political detail BECAUSE IT DOESNT MATTER TO THEM and never did, they get screwed anyway. Labour, Tory, makes no odds. So they lash out and we all end up worse off including them. That was why Leave won and mainstream politics still hasn't learned. It doesn't matter how much anyone tries to tell them Farage is a con man, they're not listening to all that political BS. Politics had its chance and it messed it up, did nothing for so many. May as well just watch it all burn eh?
Then there's the people who recognise that in all the chaos that Reform can bring, they will have opportunities to grab more. Plenty of them about to add fuel to this fire.
One day Labour or others who may be or may have been good will understand this. It's like a stuck-in-his ways old man trying to argue with a teenager who's all attitude and spirit - no chance. America's democrats didn't know how to manage this and they let Trump in, now they're fked. Same will happen here if no-one but Reform listen to people who've been screwed over for so long.
Reform is the symptom, greed of the few and a lack of support of the majority is the cause. I realise Labour might once have been about addressing that but trad Labour values and the current Labour approach aren't the answer. We need some sort of socialist populism movement where good communicators who see where the problem really lies go in hard on all that. We might get it, but I think (unf.) it'll get worse for most of us before it can get better. The sooner we stop looking down and start listening the better.
Apologies if this has already been posted, but it's a most enjoyable evisceration of Farage by a democratic congressman in the House Judiciary Committee.
The current govt isn't doing the damage that the Tories or Reform could, but they're doing nothing about diffusing the situation that will let that lot back in. They just don't get it.
I think they get it very clearly. Unlike Reform they cannot promise the electorate that one left of centre administration in one country that's cut its-self off very deliberately from the largest commercial and political supra-national organisation on the planet can over-turn the effects of 40 years of globalised capitalism in one term. Well, I suppose they could, but that would make them just as bad. To get another term, Starmer (and not un-coincidentally, all the rest of us) need the votes of people who've voted Labour before, but who're currently considering a vote for Farage.
They are a new member sure, but to be fair they have started a couple of bike related threads and made more posts on them than on here. I disagree with their apparent anti-vax stance, but instantly dismissing them as a troll because their views differ is a bit premature I think.
With the disclaimer that I haven't read a single post of theirs and am taking this comment in isolation,
IME, the vast majority of time, the people fitting this description tend to be formerly banned users using a different name. Vanishingly few new accounts hit the ground verbosely running with contentious opinions, such an occurrence would be noteworthy in its own right.
There are outliers of course, they absolutely could be genuine as you suggest.
I think they get it very clearly.
They may do and I may be wrong, and I appreciate the can't get into the same game. I do see some treading with care on some topics too. But I'm not sure they grasp the importance of the equivalent of Boris's 3-word slogans or Farage's barefaced BS ability. Like a week is a long time in politics, 5 mins on a topic is a long speech. A complex truth is harder to communicate than an emotive idea, or a simple lie. And they're just not addressing the inequality in society which is the root cause.
Tax the richest.. there's a 3 words slogan 95% or more of us could get behind. Companies and individuals. "oh but they'd all leave, and the wealth generation engine / trickle down economics / whatever is lost"? OK, bye. We need to rebuild a broken model anyway. Iceland did it. I'm not an economist so I'm sure that is no simple answer but the concept and the aim is just an example that may land better than austerity lite or whatever Labour are doing .. I genuinely don't know what they do stand for. Problem is that people with votes know what Farage stands for.
And now having caught up on the previous page at least,
She has also send me a podcast from Senior Oncologist Angus Dalgleish (worth a Google),
First hit, Wikipedia,
Covid controversies
In October 2023, following a joint investigation analysing emails leaked in 2022 by Russian hacking group working for the Russian FSB, an article was published by Computer Weekly[27] and Byline Times[28] containing several controversial claims about Angus Dalgleish.
- That Dalgleish was a member of a secret group led by Richard Dearlove (former head of MI6), Gwythian Prins (a historian academic), and John Constable (of the Global Warming Policy Foundation) - who called themselves the "Covid Hunters".[28]
- That in March 2020 the group prepared an 'Urgent Briefing for the Prime Minister and his Advisers' which advised that COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology[28] (see COVID-19 lab leak ).
- That the group had briefed Boris Johnson that the man-made nature of the virus meant that the best candidate for vaccine development was the Norwegian Biovacc-19.[29] Also that Dalgleish had been given stock options in the company Immunor which held the patents for this vaccine due to his significant involvement in the research behind its development.
- That when the scientific journal Nature Medicine published an article contradicting them on the origin of COVID-19,[30] the group considered this to be COVID-19 misinformation by China.[28]
- That following these suspicions the group had advised Michael Gove to secretly start electronic surveillance on the journal using MI5 resources to uncover them as part of a “China Persons of Influence Network” of senior officials, politicians and academics allegedly under the influence of the communist state.[28] (For examples, see Chinese information operations and information warfare and Chinese espionage in the United States.)
- That the group had then contacted a range of other Western intelligence agencies to brief them on the supposed Chinese activity in a briefing titled 'The Three Interlocking Arms of The Intelligence Case against PRC' which claimed China was “attempting to control the terms of the origin of COVID-19 debate with active help from non-Chinese agents of influence, notably at the scientific journal Nature.[28]
- That the group had worked together previously to replace Theresa May with Boris Johnson and had previously attempted to replace the National Security Council.[28]
In November 2024, Dalgleish was interviewed in Australia on 2GB and repeated his views on the COVID-19 pandemic. He believed the lockdowns and mask mandates in many countries had been "total madness" and that the "vaccines" were wrongly named and had been "largely ineffective at saving lives" while causing many adverse reactions. Australia's pandemic response had been "absolutely appalling". Only Sweden had got it right, with no lockdown mandates, and with vaccines only for people over 70. He said the result had been "the lowest excess death rate in the entire western world."[31] However this claim has been invalidated by multiple data sources that show Sweden was not exceptional in its covid death rates and had a similar outcome to many other EU countries including Ireland and Finland, both which had lockdowns and vaccines. "[32]
In a speech to the Reform Party Conference in September 2025 Aseem Malholtra, an adviser to US health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, said: "One of Britain's most eminent oncologists Professor Angus Dalgleish said to me to share with you today that he thinks it's highly likely that the Covid vaccines have been a significant factor in the cancers in the royal family." [33]
he thinks it's highly likely that the Covid vaccines have been a significant factor in the cancers in the royal family
LOL. OK Dr Dangly-leash, whatever.
Problem is that people with votes know what Farage stands for.
I know people who vote for Farage. They really don't know what he stands for. One votes for him to "save the NHS". Another for a protection of their rights. Beyond making things harder for foreigners if they come here, and I suspect few people who have voted UKIP/Brexit/Reform really know what Farage stands for.
Problem is that people with votes know what Farage stands for.
I know people who vote for Farage. They really don't know what he stands for. One votes for him to "save the NHS". Another for a protection of their rights. Beyond making things harder for foreigners if they come here, and I suspect few people who have voted UKIP/Brexit/Reform really know what Farage stands for.
I'm sure it's YouTube selective editing but there seem to be a lot of Reform voters who seem genuinely amazed at Reforms stance on NHS, tax etc. Successive government's have followed them down the immigration rabbit hole instead of calling out the bullshit.
Imagine the scenario where you were made to eat lobster everyday
Imagine the scenario where something as simple as dietary choices killed people. I'm a lifelong vegetarian, but I might reconsider that lobster if the alternative was that immunocompromised Glyn next door would die if I didn't.
This was the unfortunate situation my wife found herself in when she refused her Covid vaccine because she had seen her best friend become seriously ill after taking it.
I don't know what to say here, you married a ****ing idiot? Sorry?
Unfortunately the right leaning press at present seem the only ones to entertain any sort of alternative scientific opinion (of which there seems lots). And it seems to be the right leaning press that have been raising concerns about the incredibly shady business practices of the pharmaceutical industry.
We-ell, no.
Point the first, there is science and then there is opinion. Science has a mechanism for dealing with "alternative" ideas, the credulous ones get examined further and the lunatic ones get dismissed.
The "incredibly shady business practices of the pharmaceutical industry" are well documented - I recommend Ben Goldacre's book 'Bad Pharma' as a jumping-off point here, it's excellent - but that doesn't mean you get to backfill with whatever random crap takes your fancy. I wouldn't trust 99% of politicians with an open mouth, that doesn't make them all lizards from the planet Xerxes.
I know people who vote for Farage. They really don't know what he stands for.
I doubt they care. When the only viable alternative is an upper middle class former public schoolboy in a suit, they're going to vote for the bloke with a pint in one hand and a fag in the other who doesn't like foreigners.
A party policy of forcing Walkers to switch green / blue crisp packet colours would almost certainly lead to a landslide victory for Reform. Coming up next, EU-shackle-free brexit bonus Marathons and bringing back Pacers and Spangles, yours for one shilling and tuppence.
They really don't know what he stands for. One votes for him to "save the NHS". Another for a protection of their rights.
I know what you mean, he's flaky on everything but nationalist talk. But it sounds like they believe they know what he's about? Or, they're coming up with something to support a more emotive reason. Works either way for Reform, they got a vote.
They may be wrong but that's partly about my point on saying people are wrong/daft/etc. They hear something that Farage offers that the rest don't (perception not reality) and I expect that's down to a different way of communicating, and dare I say it, Farage/Reform appearing to be listening. Although listening there goes with the ability to BS the answers and probably not actually care about those they are listening to in order to gain support. Edit, yes, this -
When the only viable alternative is an upper middle class former public schoolboy in a suit, they're going to vote for the bloke with a pint in one hand and a fag in the other who doesn't like foreigners.
And it seems to be the right leaning press that have been raising concerns about the incredibly shady business practices of the pharmaceutical industry.
Wait till you hear about the incredibly shady business practices of the right leaning press grift industry.
Farage/Reform appearing to be listening.
"appearing to be listening"
Read that again. Really. Nail, head.
Telling people what they want to hear is hellishly compelling. Telling people what you want them to hear leverages that self same compulsion. Homeopathy works because people 'don't feel heard' by doctors; because, we all fundamentally want to be heard. (He said, on social media.)
"Propaganda is a modern Latin word... From the 1790s, the term began being used also to refer to propaganda in secular activities."
that doesn't make them all lizards from the planet Xerxes
I think you'll find they come from the constellation of Draco...How was your holiday? Good I hope?
Farage/Reform appearing to be listening.
But nodding along to what frog-man is saying doesn't necessarily man anything so solid as voting for him. A quick scan of the polling on You Gov Just 32% of people think that Reform would improve how Britain is run, just 24% of people think that Reform would be competent, when people are asked to chose between Labour and Reform; 43% would prefer a second Starmer term, Starmer's also more popular as PM (35% to 28%)and most damning of all 60% of voters don't trust Reform on public finances, very few political parties get far without persuading the public on this (vis: The Greens). Reform may have a polling lead, but it's incredibly brittle
I predict many people will vote Reform without expecting they will "improve how Britain is run", or caring if they'll be competent. "Being heard" will be a big part of that vote turn out... and that doesn't need have to mean improving the country, or having it run well... being part of a "revolution" isn't always about such prosaic things.
And a theoretical straight run off between Labour and Reform is irrelevant. We are not France. That's not how our system works.
Oh, and speaking of our system... 60% of voters not trusting a party is also irrelevant, if they can poll higher than 30% and that support has the right geographic spread.
Reform may have a polling lead, but it's incredibly brittle
Exactly. Polls at this stage of a parliament - 4 years out from an election - are utterly pointless
I expect that if it ever became an even slightly realistic possibility that frog face could end up in number 10, then the ‘anyone but Farage’ tactical vote would be absolutely huge!
30% say (for now) that they’d vote for him, but a massive chunk of that other 70% think he’s an utter and complete ****! Not least the 48% (and growing) who voted for remain
A quick scan of the polling on You Gov
I suspect a lot will change over the next couple of years and polls won't reflect the votes in that area (the protest or watch-it-burn vote) well. I hope I'm wrong and Reform implode but I hoped common sense would prevail over Brexit and Trump. Nope, politics is no longer about common sense. More people vote on hope and emotion than policy and reason now.
30% say (for now) that they’d vote for him
If there's 5 parties to vote for that's plenty enough for a win. With 6 parties to vote for it only needs 17-25%.
Unf I would expect their support to go up rather than down over the coming years.
Now was roughly the point where Starmer, having stabilised things a bit, should have been making the case for the UK to stop acting ****ishly and start moving towards EU alignment with an end point of (re)joining.
Instead he's in a doom spiral of legitimising Farage's bigotry by trying to out-nasty Reform. History will judge his Island of Strangers speech as one of the worst miscalculations in UK politics. As well as utterly cowardly.
What do we reckon the truth is in the allegations that Farage is a tax dodger?
So I asked for someone, (anyone)? to clarify what data Mr Malhotra got incorrect in his speech. But as yet nothing substantial apart from some character assassination an deferral to authority type stuff. Are we to take from this that he has indeed got all his facts correct? Perhaps it is the case that the flak is indeed heaviest when directly over the target?
Of note is people claiming that 'millions' of lives were saved by the Covid vaccines. But the vaccines were never ever tested for mortality, and nor was they ever tested for transmission. The Pfizer vaccine was tested against the prevention of mild to moderate Covid 19 symptoms. For this, the Actual Risk Reduction (ARR) of the Pfizer Covid vaccine was approximately 0.84% as reported in the Pfizer clinical trials. This means that for every 119 people who received the vaccine instead of placebo, one additional symptomatic COVID-19 case was prevented. So hardly that effective then?
Interesting too that there are more and more studies coming out that compare excess deaths in vaccinated v's unvaccinated cohorts, finding that excess deaths in the vaccinated cohort are always higher. One such study out of many shows that death rate from Covid was actually higher in more heavily vaccinated countries, and increased after vaccination. How can this be?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09246479251336610
Again, I ask for a critique of the data presented by Dr Malhotra, because character assassination, or blaming the wrong politics, or deferral to industry funded or media hit-pieces, just don't cut the mustard I'm afraid, and if this is all people have then I am inclined to believe that Mr Malhotra is indeed telling some inconvenient truths.
Never mind that Dai, how many millions of tax dollars you reckon Our Nige has swindled the country out of?
Given how much (by his actions, not GBN appearances, conference speeches etc) he seems to hate Britain it’s hot to be a good old lump don’t you think?
🤔 😉
@Dai Hard
Probably best to resurrect the covid thread mate?
Now was roughly the point where Starmer, having stabilised things a bit, should have been making the case for the UK to stop acting ****ishly and start moving towards EU alignment with an end point of (re)joining.
As much as I'd love is to rejoin the EU as soon as possible I can't but wonder what the EU think of us rejoining anytime soon. We could easily have a party in power in a few short years that will tear up any agreement we've made with them over the last year, let alone what's they would do if we rejoined.
I'm not sure we are stable enough to rejoin them from their point of view. They would be importing a hell of a lot of needless trouble.
Never mind that Dai, how many millions of tax dollars you reckon Our Nige has swindled the country out of?
Given how much (by his actions, not GBN appearances, conference speeches etc) he seems to hate Britain it’s hot to be a good old lump don’t you think?
No idea, but do we recon it is more or less than Angie Three Houses? How exactly is it in your opinion that he seem to hate Britain?
Oh god, we’ve got another one of them, have we? Or maybe the last one just logging on under a different user name…
🙄
The Pfizer vaccine was tested against the prevention of mild to moderate Covid 19 symptoms. For this, the Actual Risk Reduction (ARR) of the Pfizer Covid vaccine was approximately 0.84% as reported in the Pfizer clinical trials. This means that for every 119 people who received the vaccine instead of placebo, one additional symptomatic COVID-19 case was prevented. So hardly that effective then?
Thing is that is not a measure of how a vaccine protects the vaccinatied individual and a very poor measure of vaccine performance. You've quoted a Lancet article so why not link the actual article with the RRR Relative Risk Reduction which is 95% for Pfizer and 94% for Moderna.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext
Just like your Dr hero you are selectively using information to diss vaccination and ignoring the upsides.
As for your link - there were lower death rates in the pre-vaccination lockdown and socila distancing periods than in the vaccination periods in which social distancing stopped and Covid allowed to run through a partly vaccinated population - entirely logical and nothing to do with vaccine efficacity. As for comparing African countries where most people don't live to the age Covid maight kill them with countries with ageing populations really is comparing apples with pears.
Again like your Dr hero you can make true statement that are misleading and not very useful.
100% of people die at some time in their life is true but doesn't tell you much.
No idea, but do we recon it is more or less than Angie Three Houses? How exactly is it in your opinion that he seem to hate Britain?
Well given she’s now paid her tax (bit late I agree) probably more, but I think a thorough investigation of Nige would show it either way.
On the Nige hates Britain, try these:
His recent appearance in the states
His continual running down of everything in Britain as broken
The flag thing (ok, I’m crediting him with that, possibly unfairly) that highlights how disunited the kingdoms are. (Ok it is also slightly (dark comedy) funny given all the flags are at half mast in mourning for the nations)
Moaning on about immigration - much of which was caused by his pet project, Brexit
Brexit, his pet project, which has and continues to damage our well being as a country, our economy and our wallets
His “non-dom for £250k one off” plan which is just looking after other rich tax dodgers
His “Trussonomics II - The unwanted sequel” borrow and spend plans
I suspect a lot will change over the next couple of years and polls won't reflect the votes in that area
Yes, you're spot on, can't argue with that
I hope I'm wrong and Reform implode
Farage led political parties do have a habit of self immolating, so keep your finger crossed
The Pfizer vaccine was tested against the prevention of mild to moderate Covid 19 symptoms. For this, the Actual Risk Reduction (ARR) of the Pfizer Covid vaccine was approximately 0.84% as reported in the Pfizer clinical trials. This means that for every 119 people who received the vaccine instead of placebo, one additional symptomatic COVID-19 case was prevented. So hardly that effective then?
Thing is that is not a measure of how a vaccine protects the vaccinatied individual and a very poor measure of vaccine performance. You've quoted a Lancet article so why not link the actual article with the RRR Relative Risk Reduction which is 95% for Pfizer and 94% for Moderna.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext
Just like your Dr hero you are selectively using information to diss vaccination and ignoring the upsides.
As for your link - there were lower death rates in the pre-vaccination lockdown and socila distancing periods than in the vaccination periods in which social distancing stopped and Covid allowed to run through a partly vaccinated population - entirely logical and nothing to do with vaccine efficacity. As for comparing African countries where most people don't live to the age Covid maight kill them with countries with ageing populations really is comparing apples with pears.
Again like your Dr hero you can make true statement that are misleading and not very useful.
100% of people die at some time in their life is true but doesn't tell you much.
I don't think you understand the meaning of a 95% Relative Risk Reduction (RRR), and whilst it sounds impressive in marketing terms, RRR can sometimes vastly exaggerate the benefit of a treatment, especially when the absolute risk (the actual difference in risk) is very low, as it was in this case with the Covid vaccines. This is why quoting the Actual Risk Reduction (ARR) alongside the RRR is important so as not to mislead. But all we heard quoted in the media, and from you, was/is the RRR, never the ARR. Which shows that you simply don't understand how these things work.
How exactly is it in your opinion that he seem to hate Britain
Well, he went to Congress in America and perjured himself with easily disproved lies about free speech in this country, lied again about the actions of his party in restricting freedom of the press - all as part of a call to support additional US tariffs to damage the UK economy.
And got very huffy when asked why he was over there doing that, rather than doing his day job as an MP that my taxes pay him to do.
That's not the actions of someone who likes his country or is patriotic. It's the actions of a self serving traitorous grifter. And a lying ****.
No idea, but do we recon it is more or less than Angie Three Houses? How exactly is it in your opinion that he seem to hate Britain?
which has and continues to damage our well being as a country, our economy and our wallets
Thankfully he seems to have a plan for that, to ditch the utterly pointless charade that is 'Net Zero'. That should save us around £30 billion a year.
I don't think you understand the meaning of a 95% Relative Risk Reduction (RRR),
Which shows that you simply don't understand how these things work.
Post reported. I think NickC has it.
Which shows that you simply don't understand how these things work.
You being a newbie here won't be aware, but we had several very educational years on here being schooled on vaccines, testing and statistical modelling by people who are recognised experts in the field. Unless you can point to any papers YOU have had published in these areas, you might want to sit this one out, or at least take it over to the Covid thread where it belongs.
I don't think you understand the meaning of a 95% Relative Risk Reduction (RRR),
That a bit rich given the wilful ignorance you've been demonstrating with your every post. I think NickC has it.
If you provide some data to challenge the data that Mr Malhotra presented in his speech, then I will perhaps start to take you seriously.
Thankfully he seems to have a plan for that, to ditch the utterly pointless charade that is 'Net Zero'. That should save us around £30 billion a year
Hey, this Dai kid is good. Ish.
Sorry that one doesn’t work - not pointless, won’t save that money because you loose the income as well as the expenditure.
Which shows that you simply don't understand how these things work.
You being a newbie here won't be aware, but we had several very educational years on here being schooled on vaccines, testing and statistical modelling by people who are recognised experts in the field. Unless you can point to any papers YOU have had published in these areas, you might want to sit this one out, or at least take it over to the Covid thread where it belongs.
Oh really? Someone with a vested interest perhaps? Didn't work for the utterly discredited lot at Imperial College did they?
But yeah, I'll stop on this now as my intention is not to wind people up, and I can see that people react badly and start to throw their toys out of the pram when they have their long held beliefs challenged. So it's okay, heads back in the sand guys.
If you provide some data to challenge the data that Mr Malhotra presented in his speech, then I will perhaps start to take you seriously.
Dr Malhotra stated he would not present the data in his speech. Nothing to respond to.
Time for the Mods to arbitrate this one.
Thankfully he seems to have a plan for that, to ditch the utterly pointless charade that is 'Net Zero'. That should save us around £30 billion a year.
HOUSE!
Dai - you’re not winding me up. I like surreal humour
Thankfully he seems to have a plan for that, to ditch the utterly pointless charade that is 'Net Zero'. That should save us around £30 billion a year
Hey, this Dai kid is good. Ish.
Sorry that one doesn’t work - not pointless, won’t save that money because you loose the income as well as the expenditure.
Don't you mean the Chinese and foreign owned windmill and energy companies will loose the jobs and income from manufacturing all this stuff for us. Wonder where all those taxpayer subsidies that prop up UK renewables will be diverted to instead?
If you provide some data to challenge the data that Mr Malhotra presented in his speech, then I will perhaps start to take you seriously.
Dr Malhotra stated he would not present the data in his speech. Nothing to respond to.
Time for the Mods to arbitrate this one.
So you've lost the argument, hence you are running to the moderators?
Ive seen this pattern before. Porn incoming before the inevitable flounce.
Yeah yeah yeah, because if this place is open house to anti-vax propaganda like the Reform stage it's not a place I want to hang out.
Facts are guys that like it or not, Reform are on course to win the next election. I look forward to the day when our prime minister is someone who does not believe that a women can have a cock and balls. And someone who ditches this Net Zero farce, based on the great 'CO2 controls the climate' scam that is about to bankrupt the UK with ever increasing energy costs from our intermittent and unreliable wind power folly. Thankfully Trump has seen the light, and soon we will follow in the great man's footsteps.
The renewables that are cheaper than gas?
No subsidies were involved in my renewable installation (unlike the £17bn or so of subsidies the oil & gas industry get).
Payback for me is around 4-6 years with a 15-25 year production expectation.
Private renewable investment (generally completely subsidy free) is one of the biggest growth areas in the UK at the moment.
Sadly you are right though that Brexit makes folk more likely to buy their renewable kit from, say, China than more locally. But I assume that was Nige’s plan
Or maybe it was to try and make us reliant on Russian gas - the Russians have slipped him a bit of cash over the years have they not?
Thankfully Trump has seen the light, and soon we will follow in the great man's footsteps.
Kowtowing to Putin?
The renewables that are cheaper than gas?
No subsidies were involved in my renewable installation (unlike the £17bn or so of subsidies the oil & gas industry get).
Payback for me is around 4-6 years with a 15-25 year production expectation.
Private renewable investment (generally completely subsidy free) is one of the biggest growth areas in the UK at the moment.
Sadly you are right though that Brexit makes folk more likely to buy their renewable kit from, say, China than more locally. But I assume that was Nige’s plan
Or maybe it was to try and make us reliant on Russian gas - the Russians have slipped him a bit of cash over the years have they not?
We won't have any Russian gas for that much longer, as Russia have just done a deal with China to supply them with gas instead through a new pipeline, cutting off Europe. But yeah, sanctions, yeah Ukraine etc. So in the absence of much Nuclear, it's either start drilling in the North Sea again, or perhaps instead, invest in candles for when the wind does not blow.
I look forward to the day when our prime minister is someone who does not believe that a women can have a cock and balls.
I look forward to the day when you say something like that in real life to the wrong person and you get the kicking bigots like you deserve.
It's coming, your type is very vocal from behind your masks and keyboards, but there are many many more of us than you.
Thankfully Trump has seen the light, and soon we will follow in the great man's footsteps.
I tried to cut this clown some slack earlier in the thread. I take it back.
I look forward to the day when our prime minister is someone who does not believe that a women can have a cock and balls.
I look forward to the day when you say something like that in real life to the wrong person and you get the kicking bigots like you deserve.
It's coming, your type is very vocal from behind your masks and keyboards, but there are many many more of us than you.
So you think a woman can have a cock and balls?
Yes, I do.
I also know a man can have a uterus.
Just another dull troll, in a long line of boring dull trolls.
He/ she/ they will be gone in a couple of days, they always overstep the line with their bullshit and out themselves as total psychos.
See ya.
Yes, I do.
I also know a man can have a uterus.
Yeah, in the case of an exceedingly rare medical condition. But most men claiming to be women, and women claiming to be men, are clearly mentally ill and should probably be treated as such.
based on the great 'CO2 controls the climate' scam
A reply to you copied to the Mods:
As a geologist I can confirm CO2 really does play a major role in controling the climate.
How long are you going to let this guy post his conspiracy bollocks? At some point moderating a forum means being on the side of verifiable facts, and the side of right and good.
Have a pleasant evening all, I'll drop in tomorrow and see how this went.
The Mods must be on holiday, that's hate speech above and still no sign of action.
Yes, I do.
I also know a man can have a uterus.
Yeah, in the case of an exceedingly rare medical condition. But most men claiming to be women, and women claiming to be men, are clearly mentally ill and should probably be treated as such.
Would you say gays and lesbiens are mentally ill too? 🤣
Yes, I do.
I also know a man can have a uterus.
Yeah, in the case of an exceedingly rare medical condition. But most men claiming to be women, and women claiming to be men, are clearly mentally ill and should probably be treated as such.
Would you say gays and lesbiens are mentally ill too? 🤣
Nope they're all sound. Shame their pride marches have been given a bad rep by the trans mob.
Yes, I do.
I also know a man can have a uterus.
Yeah, in the case of an exceedingly rare medical condition. But most men claiming to be women, and women claiming to be men, are clearly mentally ill and should probably be treated as such.
Would you say gays and lesbiens are mentally ill too? 🤣
Nope they're all sound. Shame their pride marches have been given a bad rep by the trans mob.
LOL you are J K Rowling, and I claim my £5.
Dai Hard - Joined September 1, 2025
Let's not feed 'it'.
Called too early there Binners
Indeed. At this rate, endorsing eugenics within the next few posts is a given