While I accept that this possibly wasn't quite the intent it also can be said that the suggestion that scientists shouldn't be questioned because they work for the government....is somewhat taking an anti science position.

This kind of stance would mean we were would have ignored Einstein because Newton's theories were the accepted view.

The very nature of Science is that it must be questioned and securitized. It's the very point of peer review for example.

While presumably no one here is a specialist it is certainly true that specialists differ and that those who differ with the government have felt pressured into silence.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Dec 2021 4.56pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Your qualifications for doing so are....?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

That there are sone dissident opinions is true. So is that there are plenty of attention seekers.

What matters is the consensus viewpoint, and we know what that it isn't that held by this guy.

Some people still believe the world is flat. Doesn't mean they are right.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Surely as a 'one nation conservative', you view Liberal voters as idiots too?

Whilst he is certainly a dissident, his comments on the impact of our covid response on cancer are not new. These are well understood. Who-ever is actually taking the decisions will know this and will have had to make some very difficult judgement calls.

It's always easy to criticise and point out the fairly obvious. It's much, much harder to actually make a finely balanced decision.

By all means watch it, learn if there is anything really new to you, and then form an opinion. But also bear in mind who is conducting the interview and why they are doing so.

It would be reasonable to conclude that Sonya Elijah has a specific political perspective and keeps some dubious company. She regularly collaborates with James Delingpole, the UK editor of Breitbart.

Be known by the company you keep!

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The impact on other NHS services, including cancer, is well understood and one of the primary reasons why the vaccination programme is regarded as so important.

Reduce the number of hospital admissions because of Covid, and you can start to recover the time lost for other treatments.

Confusing the issue by relating it to lockdowns is where the error lies. Not that there isn't a problem. There are many NHS concerns and the sooner we reduce the burden on the NHS the better. As a cancer sufferer myself, I understand this only too well.

So instead of posting politically motivated videos, I suggest you go and get yourself vaccinated and play your part in overcoming this terrible situation. It would be a much more productive use of your time than trawling through the web looking for videos that lend apparent credence to your biases.

Of course, you must judge information on its truth, and not who posts it. I hope you, and everyone else, remembers that when considering what I just wrote.

From the tone of your response, it sounds as though you would like the public to vote in a referendum on the best way to handle this. Great idea. Brexit was daft. That would be even dafter. We employ experts. You may not like what they conclude, but that's their job. You are very unlikely to actually know better.

I have read some of the other things this lady has said, and it's clear what her political position is. Even in this interview, she was asking heavily loaded questions. She isn't a journalist at all. She is an activist. Trust her at your peril.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.