Yup. Right above the standard freedom-for-corporates statement of values lies a mealy-mouthed warning about complying with health regulations.

What does that mean? Why didn’t they spell it out? I had to email to get clarification.

And yes, in the reply, beneath yet more corporate-speak, the admission that the CIS bans the unvaccinated.

Three observations here. In none of their promotional material is there an apology, or even a half-hearted acknowledgement, of this restriction on liberty and individual rights. Nowhere is there mention that it is for a reason unsupported by “independent, fact-based practical research”, or even that it is open to serious debate.

The second is the CIS’ complete cowardice in publishing an invite that obscures the fact that the unvaccinated are not welcome. Not good for the reputation to highlight one’s hypocrisy, I guess. Throwing it in at the Registration form hardly counts.

The last is that an organisation focused on individual rights, choice and liberty could at least have postponed in-person events until it could run one consistent with its claimed values.

But you gotta keep those corporate donors and Board members happy. Not to mention your name in the papers.

The post The Freedom-for-Corporates Brigade Doesn’t Do Irony appeared first on St David's Street.

I can’t believe that any serious political player would dilute a winning message on incompetent, immoral and insulated governments of both major parties to pursue…abolition of the States.

I had hoped for more in this Palmer incarnation. His initial press conference was surprisingly impressive. He put narrative-pushing dimwit journalists in their place. He refused to be drawn on clear gotchas. He was calm. Finally, I hoped, he knows his place, and his real place is behind a chequebook.

Nope.

What the hell is Craig Kelly thinking?

The post Clive Palmer Lives Down to His Buffoonery appeared first on St David's Street.

In my youth as a bourgeois intellectual wanker, the distinctions between Fascism, Communism, Corporatism and tribal Big Man societies seemed important. All the arcane differences, the cross-national variations, the varied social alliances, the reams of theoretical writing, it all seemed so…intellectually exciting.

Like a libertarian splitting the atom of their own ideological position, I got off on the complex historical detail.

And now? What we’re living under in Australia reveals just how much of a wank that was.

It doesn’t matter if you’re being squashed in the name of the proletariat, for the sake of the national volk, or the safety of the population. It doesn’t matter if the mobs are the Komosol killing peasants who own two horses, Brownshirts beating poor Jewish cobblers, or uniformed police crushing wogs, tradies and truckies who dare to walk on the street.

The result is still the same. Those with power, or connected to it, exert arbitrary control over those without power, under the threat of lethal force. Under the authority of some arbitrary ideological lie.

The ideological justification is, for those crushed, utterly irrelevant. All ideology does is focus hate and power on one group rather than another, but for arbitrary reasons. The driver is unrestrained power for the ruling class, the tool is the hated group. Which group is that? Whatever works in the moment.

In the end, only political theorists and historians who aren’t living under authoritarianism give a damn about the details.

Our own authoritarian society is nominally about medical safety.

But tell me, in practice how does it differ from an occupation by a foreign invader? From one designed to strip the rich and independent-spirited of their assets and livelihoods? From one targeting an ethnicity or religion independent of their wealth or influence?

Imagine our police as WWII Japanese soldiers. Yup, what we’re living under is exactly what you’d expect from a post-war occupation. Movement passes, vindictive punishments for disobedience, restrictions on speech, association and protest, removal of earning capacity, invisible executive decision-making, unjustified but coerced medical procedure, arbitrary street violence.

You might think I’m exaggerating, getting all conspiracy and angry-mannish.

No. I just see history in the making and have moved beyond the academic distractions of my youth.

So next time some preening, corporate-funded, “libertarian” thinktanker talks about the dangers of populism, ask yourself this: how would you describe our current society if our ruling and media classes were white, and our citizens were black?

The post Authoritarianism In the Raw appeared first on St David's Street.

In another life I did a lot of work in public sector productivity, and still watch the administrative state very closely. I follow a lot of public sector groups, including the very amusing Government News. It is a parade of irrelevant concerns, absurd self-aggrandisement, and spending interests that would make Kim Kardashian blush.

And then, today, this piece of tin-eared, insular and very, very revealing self-indulgence:

Hello, Craig Kelly? It’s me. When you have the balance of power, may I suggest a commitment to reduce average Federal public sector earnings to 5% below average private sector earnings within 5 years? Easily done. SES? Gonski. Gonski? Gonski too. And don’t get me started on productivity measures.

As for local and Federal government, in my world no Council General Manager should earn more than 75% of the US President’s salary (now that would be a wage cut). The US President earns $550,200 (USD400,000 at 72.7c to AUD). The NSW Premier earns $329,924 plus an electoral allowance of $78,056. And we all know an electoral allowance doesn’t go near a Premier’s pocket. Especially one with such a Maguire-standard of probity.

The General Manager of the Parramatta Council earns $633,852.

The Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet earns $915,000.

Don’t even think about agencies and Statutory Authorities. The CEO of the NBN earns at least $3.15 million.

What a joke. It’s just that ordinary people aren’t laughing.

For an introduction to public sector heroes, consider the late, great Norm Macdonald on real heroes. I’m sorry to say I was unfamiliar with his work when he was alive. A shame.

The post Hardworking Public Sector Heroes appeared first on St David's Street.

There are two major observations here. The first is that there are no star reporters, especially ones working for nightly news. They’re all dumb hacks who’d sell out their wives, husbands, mothers and bodily organs for a chance at an anchor role. They research nothing, they regurgitate conventional wisdom, and they have all the skills of a provincial game show host struggling for an audience.

The second is that media types – all of them, columnists, reporters, editors, anchors, producers, the lot – believe that they deserve a free-ride that ordinary citizens don’t.

They claim a right to access where ordinary citizens can’t go. They claim a right to waivers of laws that apply to ordinary citizens. They claim protection from arrest and street violence that no grandma could ever hope for. They claim protection for using stolen information. If you’re Tara Brown, they claim protection from conspiracy to commit kidnapping. In short, they claim special privileges despite the fact they offer no special benefits to anyone other than themselves.

They’re special, don’t you know.

They forfeited any such claim decades ago by being unprincipled fame-whores who lie for a living. And by doing less investigation, less thinking , less honest work than thousands of amateurs around the world.

The real story here is that 90% of the Australian population welcomes a TV reporter being covered in urine. And thinks it isn’t punishment enough.

The post What Gibbering Fame-Whores Journalists Are appeared first on St David's Street.

This a collection of pseudo-quotes from, and topics that were a complete surprise to average educated people. Reported to me immediately after conversation.

On Getting the Vaccine

Across several people not one mentioned health issues as a reason to get the vaccine. They just repeated the standard slogans of vaccinate for freedoms, vaccinate to keep a job, vaccinate for holidays. They are nice people, but they are Goebbels-sponges.

When a friend said “You only vaccinate for health reasons, not for freedom” they looked like they had been hit by a brick. They hadn’t even considered that. Nor had they considered the idea that for every other childhood vaccine, you only vaccinate children for their own protection, not to protect others.

No surprise, but when a friend mentioned the word “data” the shutdown was immediate.

I waited, but I’ve got a trip booked in December. That’s why I got it.

I just want my freedom back

If nothing happens to you after three months, you’re OK

My husband has to visit sites, if he doesn’t get the jab he’ll lose his job

We have to vax to end lockdowns. I can’t wait for it to end so I can get my cleaner back

I vaxxed my Year 12 daughter, but I’m still hesitant myself

The Pope says vaccination is morally right

What They Had Never Heard About

• The vanishingly small risk of Covid hospitalisation or death for under 18s
• Average age of Covid deaths and the effect of comorbidities
• Breakthrough infections in the vaccinated
• Elderly vaccinated still being hospitalised
• Waning vaccine protection against infection
• Waning vaccine protection against severe illness
• The need for multiple boosters
• The FDA has not approved boosters for the general population
• Time-limited vaccine passports requiring regular boosters
• Provisional Registration (Aust) or Emergency Use Authorisation (US) only
• 2 month initial clinical trial before the vaccine was rolled out versus a 10+ year standard program
• Limits on travel to-from highly vaccinated countries
• Israel, UK, Singapore, Iceland, Hawaii, Gibraltar, Malta, Scotland, and other vaccine failure sites.

Propaganda Works Like a Dream in a Culture of Unreason

Early 20th Century Germany was one of the most educated and rational societies in human history. Goebbels had a job on his hands. Post-war chaos and resentments helped him; instrumental reason untethered by ethics helped him; hierarchical schooling and society helped him. But he still had to overcome an educated culture steeped in restrained reason.

We are not early 20th Century Germany.

The post Goebbels-Sponges – How Much People Know and Why They Vax appeared first on St David's Street.

There’s lots of general commentary on this. All I want to do is highlight two observations following review of all the formally-submitted presentations (links below).

• The sub-trial that Pfizer performed for the 3rd booster was a phoned-in piece of crap. Overview of Phase 1-3 trials at p15 of Pfizer’s Evaluation of a Booster Dose (Third Dose)
  • Phase 1 study looked at 11 people 18-55; 12 people >65 (p16)
  • Phase 3 study looked at 312 18-55 year olds only, even though those at most risk from Covid and most likely to have declining efficacy are 65+, and those most likely to have risks exceeding benefits are <18
  • Worse, when Pfizer described the Phase 3 study population they hid the age group. It is mentioned in text at p7, but see p 23, and Table 3 and 4, for making sure it wasn’t obvious.
  • Pfizer just assumed a study of 18-55 years olds can be “In accordance with FDA guidance, safety and effectiveness of the booster dose demonstrated in 18 to 55 years of age can be extrapolated to 16 and 17 years of age and to 55 years of age and older” (CC-6, CC-27 Pfizer-BionTech, BNT162b2 [COMIRNATY® (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA)] Booster (Third) Dose )
  • They only examined data up to 1 month following the booster.

• The Israel Ministry of Health presentation did a good job in the first half of showing vaccine failure and declining protection against severe illness (p1-16 Israel Ministry of Health, Booster protection against confirmed infections and severe disease – data from Israel ). But when it came to evaluating their 3rd Booster experience, it too was a phoned-in piece of crap:
  • the claimed efficacy of the 3rd dose is based on changes in confirmed infection rates….in days 12-25 after the booster. (p22-28)
  • the claimed efficacy for protection against severe illness is based on differences…on day 12 after the booster (p29)
  • comments on vaccine effectiveness, reproduction number and adverse events are all based on this short-term data (p30-41)
  • the conclusion is a puff piece based on effects at Day 12-25, presented as if it’s meaningful for a longer period.

12-30 Day Improvements Consistent with Vaccine Hesitancy

No serious analyst denies that the vaccines provide short-term protection against infection, and longer-lasting but declining protection against hospitalisation and severe illness. The extent of that latter protection is coming under some pressure as people start to pull apart the data, some of which is clearly gamed by bureaucrats. The long term endpoints of both declines in benefit are unknown. Rather like long-term side effects.

From June or July many writers have been concerned the vaccines just provide a serum sugarhit with no lasting immunity, but with the possibility of unknown long-term adverse events. The data underlying boosters supports that concern.

The benefits that Pfizer and Israel MOH point to in their presentations are completely consistent with that view. They only examine booster effects up to one month after inoculation. Improvements? So what.

Unless you want people to have constant immune supplementation, with continuing exposure to possible adverse events against a long-term trend of declining efficacy on all measures, 30 day benefit is meaningless.

And so, we return to the principle of vaccine-hesitancy. It is a question of scientific prudence and risk-benefit analysis based on a true appreciation of the risk of death or serious illness from Covid, and on the limitations of the science and trials behind the vaccines.

Give us the data. Give us true long-term data. Stop the spin.

Links to Meeting Presentations in PDF

CDC: Updates to COVID-19 Epidemiology and COVID-19 Vaccines

Jonathan Sterne, University of Bristol, UK Real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines

FDA Review of Effectiveness and Safety of COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) Booster Dose Biologics License Application Supplement

FDA, Application for Licensure of a Booster Dose of COMIRNATY, COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA

Israel Ministry of Health, Booster protection against confirmed infections and severe disease – data from Israel

FDA, Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) Supplemental Biologics License Application for a booster dose in individuals 16 years of age and older

Pfizer-BionTech, BNT162b2 [COMIRNATY® (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA)] Booster (Third) Dose

FDA, FDA Briefing Document Application for licensure of a booster dose for COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA)

Pfizer, BNT162b2 [COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA)] Evaluation of a Booster Dose (Third Dose)

The post Just How Bad Was the Data For FDA Vaccine Booster Meeting? appeared first on St David's Street.

Take a look at the current treatment guidelines (image below) for hospitalised Covid-19, recommended by two separate groups: the NSW Therapeutics Advisory Group (NSWTAG), and the NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation (ACI).

Of the five drugs shown in the ACI/NSW TAG Hospitalised Guideline, the TGA has approved only one (Dexamethasone) for respiratory illness. NSWTAG Guideline 13 April 2021 TGA Product Information

Three of the other four are neither approved nor provisionally registered for treating Covid. They are all arthritis or dermatitis drugs and are being prescribed off-label (for other than approved indications). Only one is Covid-specific, provisionally registered, but still in ongoing phase 3 clinical trials with onerous reporting and review conditions.

Baricitinib is not approved, not even provisionally registered, for the indication of Covid-19. It is prescribed off-label. It is an arthritis and dermatitis drug. It is conditionally recommended based on two trials “suggesting that baricitinib probably reduces the risk of death” [my emphasis] NSWTAG Guideline 6 August 2021

Tocilizumab is not approved, not even provisionally registered, for the indication of Covid-19. It is prescribed off-label. It is an arthritis and arteritis drug. The conditional recommendation is based on the view that “in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 who require supplemental oxygen, tocilizumab probably reduces the risk of death” [my emphasis] NSWTAG Guideline 15 July 2021

Sarilumab is not approved, or provisionally registered, for the indication of Covid-19. It is prescribed off-label. It is an arthritis drug. There is a limited supply and not directly recommended by NSW TAG any longer.

Remdesivir is not approved, but only provisionally registered. It is an antiviral that “is currently being evaluated in ongoing phase 3 clinical trials for COVID-19”. NSWTAG Guideline 15 March 2021. Compared with many drugs, it has a heavy, liver-related and kidney-related adverse event profile.

National Covid-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce

The National Covid-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce (NCCET) gathers and reviews evidence for different Covid-19 treatments for different stages of disease. It then categorises them into recommended, conditionally recommended for/against, consensus recommended, not recommended.

The Taskforce’s recommendations inform the NSW TAG and ACI’s recommendations. Those recommendations are not exactly the same as the NSWTAG’s.

• Management of adults with mild covid-19  26 August 2021
• Management of adults with moderate to severe covid-19 26 August 2021
• Management of adults with severe to critical covid-19 26 August 2021.

For example, the NCCET recommends use of REGEN-COV (Casirivimab plus Imdevimab) and Sotrovimab for some types of moderate-to-severe Covid illness, while NSWTAG/ACI do not. Note, however, that the NCCET in their evidence review state that REGEN-COV only “probably reduces the risk of death” [my emphasis].

Early Treatment Recommendations

Both the National Clinicial Evidence Taskforce and the NSWTAG conditionally recommend Sotrovimab (Xevudy) for early treatment for specific groups of at-risk people who don’t need oxygen therapy. For everyone else, it’s Paracetamol or Nurofen.

Sotrovimab is a monoclonal antibody drug that targets the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. It has no long-term safety or efficacy data. NSWTAG Guideline 2 September 2021

The TGA has only provisionally registered Sotrovimab as a treatment of Covid-19 as at 20 August.

The two organisations recommended the treatment on the basis of short term efficacy and safety data from one trial. The trial is described on page 8 of the TGA Product Information.

Continued approval of this indication depends on the evidence of longer term efficacy and safety from ongoing clinical trials and post-market assessment

TGA Product Information p6

How Strong Is the Evidence that the Evidence Taskforce Relies On?

We can see from the drugs listed above that the evidence is far from overwhelming. Clearly there is clinical effect, and in the fog of medical war our doctors do need to charge ahead with lower levels of certainty than in other situations.

But let’s not pretend that there is a proven protocol with proven, tested drugs. That would be a lie. The TGA hasn’t approved most of them. Most rely on a very limited number of trials with suggestive rather than conclusive findings.

So what type of evidence does the NCCET rely on?

The evidence presented is based on research papers and then the Taskforce makes judgement calls on seven aspects:

• Benefits and harms
• Certainty of evidence
• Patient preferences and values
• Resources
• Equity
• Acceptance
• Feasibility.

Realistically, the only ones that matter are the first two.

You can see just how certain the NCCET must be when NSWTAG has to quote words like “probably” to justify treatment options.

Weak Evidence to Shut Down Ivermectin

So, let’s consider the evidence that the NCCET used to shutdown Ivermectin use, and to advise the TGA Advisory Committee on Medicines Scheduling to support restrictions on doctors prescribing it. To be fair, it’s nicely transparent that they list those papers.

If we consider harms, for Ivermectin they are minimal and well-understood, because the drug has been around a long time. You could describe the listed harms of diarrhoea, nausea and dizziness as bog-standard short term side effects.

If we look at the certainty of the evidence criterion, the NCCET only addresses treatment after progression from mild disease. Many of the claims for Ivermectin refer to protection from symptomatic infection or progression to moderate-to-severe illness. The NCCET does not address that type of claim in the Certainty of Evidence.

As for the papers on Ivermectin, if you believe these are all the relevant ones, I have a bridge for you. What’s more annoying is that 12/20 papers study effect on hospitalised cases rather than the prevention and protection from hospitalisation. Two references were not papers but general. More than half were from 2020 and there was only one meta-analysis. The vast majority were poorly designed or too small to show statistical significance, but 13/18 did show non-statisically-significant benefit from Ivermectin. None showed overall worse outcomes or major adverse events.

Again, I’m not in a position to make a call on Ivermectin. Nor any of the other non-recommended therapies the NCCET considers.

What I can see is slanted behaviour. What I can see is a bureaucracy in action.

I can also see spin-doctoring that allows ordinary people to think that there are only proven therapies and the rest is quackery. Yet any honest scientist would accept that in this fog these papers provide no reason to exclude from off-label prescription a well-tolerated, available drug with promise for an under-serviced patient population (asymptomatic and mild or non-hospitalised cases).

I guarantee decisionmakers never thought anyone would read through their reference list. And discover it doesn’t address the key issue, and that it is so limited as to be embarrassing. Well, we’re in a different world now.

The post How Tested and Approved Are Our Covid Treatments? appeared first on St David's Street.

This throws real shade on the validity of one of the major benefits of Covid vaccination for healthy under-50s, who have a very small risk of death from Covid. How reliable and necessary are the other 48% of hospitalisations? Are they hospitalisations with Covid that don’t relate to Covid disease? Are they precautionary for the elderly? What is the real reason and where is the data that reveals it?

Recent UK Public Health Data showed that vaccinated under-50s have strong protection from hospitalisation compared with the unvaccinated. But as I noted, the severity of that hospitalisation is unclear – it’s everything above and including a one-night stay.

The key recommendation is to clarify what hospitalisation means by providing a severity metric to differentiate hospitalisation with/from Covid. Transparency in Covid data: good luck with that. Even The Atlantic has picked up on it.

Anyone familiar with how bureaucrats game their metrics would smell something off. This preprint begins to flesh out that smell. It’s sad that our health bureaucrats’ behaviour over the past 18 months has led us to the point where we suspect every piece of data to be gamed or misrepresented. But here we are, nonetheless.

As an aside, it is remarkable how quickly international Covid data is disseminated. The level of focus, the quality of engagement, and the timeliness of analysis puts our corporate media to shame. It has its downsides, like the too-rapid embrace of some preprint studies. And it relies a little too much on mavens like Alex Berenson. But most of all, this is a real information superhighway that is helping keep bureaucracies accountable. It is what the internet should always have been.

The Research

The researchers reviewed records of SARS-CoV-2 positive hospitalisations in a single Veterans’ Affairs hospital from January 2020. They split the records into pre- and post-vaccination periods.

They then checked how many of those hospitalised had moderate-to-severe Covid. This is defined as “… any oxygen supplementation or any documented SpO2 < 94% recorded in the vital signs domain during a VA inpatient admission at any time between one day before and two weeks after the positive SARS-CoV-2 test.”

In the pre-vaccination period (1 March 2020 – 20 January 2021) 64.0% of hospitalised patients met the moderate-to-severe criteria. Post-vaccination (20 Jan 2021 – 30 June 2021) the proportion was 52%.

The latter result underlies the claim that half of hospitalisations are mild.

The researchers also looked at a higher level of severity, defined as “a clinical definition of respiratory distress (oxygen supplementation > 2L NC or any documented SpO2 < 90%).”

This stricter severity showed similar pattern, with 32.3% / 24.0% of hospital admissions meeting the criteria.

Limitations and Riders

• single hospital data
• all Veterans
• median age 71.1 (mean 68.9, SD 14.0)
• 60.5% white
• 94.5% male
• retrospective documentary research.

Preprint PDF

The post Now Let’s Pull Apart Covid Hospitalisations appeared first on St David's Street.

It began as ridiculous panic-mongering, lying about relative-risks and ignoring real data. It then morphed into attacking policy critics and promoting unjustified government policy, especially on lockdowns and vaccines. And finally, it has hit hate-mongering and demonising. Not anyone evil; just people dubious about the science, data, morality and legality of vaccine policy or vaccine passports.

This is News Limited’s worldwide corporate policy. Watching Fox News and SkyNews anchors tiptoe around real data and vaccine issues is, well, saddening and maddening. An anchor will suddenly change tack and stress vaccine efficacy in some strange non-sequitur (Greg Gutfeld). Or shut down a discussion of meaningful data with no explanation at all (Paul Murray). There are clearly vaccine policy-police in their earpieces.

Then you see news.com.au produce evil nonsense like Joe Hildebrand: People who refuse to get vaccinated are no longer decent members of society.

So, as part of that world, here is a minor editorial from The Daily Telegraph of 14 September, 2021.

Let’s look at what’s wrong with it, by category:

• The lobby isn’t anti-vaccination, it’s anti-vaccine passport – Misrepresentation to smear
• Even those who are against the Sars-CoV-2 vaccine may not be against any other vaccine – Misrepresentation to smear
• “not especially stable at the best of times” – irrelevant ad hominem smear that does not apply to scientifically prudent, data-rich critics, or people concerned about basic civil liberties
• The people besieging Aria are primarily anti-vaccine passport, not anti-vaxxers – Misrepresentation to smear
• “aggressive” is negative label for committed, active disagreement – smearing by adjective
• “traumatic” – if it were any other topic, they would ridicule a multi-millionarie businessman who found a few words online traumatic – sensationalising something minor to demonise a hated group
• “angry anti-vaxxers” – demonising a group, misrepresenting the concern, labelling to smear
• “in line with the government’s roadmap to freedom” – supine support for a policy while ignoring the destruction of civil liberties; ignoring the real wrongdoing
• “all we’re doing is what the government will enforce us to do” – ignoring the real wrongdoing (just following orders) and presenting it as a positive.

So many propaganda tools used in eight paragraphs (175 words). And all of them demonise a group opposed to a government policy.

Ben English may not have written this leader. Any of the Opinion team could have. But he is responsible for it. Unprincipled, ignorant coward.

A Relevant Lesson for Ben English from Journalism 1945

In addition to shutting down collaborationist publications, the Resistance-led press reform movement took steps to formally expropriate their property and assets. A May 1945 decree authorized the prosecution of collaborationist press owners; a guilty verdict could result in either the full or partial seizure of ownership profits and company property.[53] The Paris Court of Justice brought 538 papers to trial on the charges related to collaboration. The vast majority of these cases were dismissed, but 115 papers were convicted, and thirty more were acquitted.[54]

Perhaps the most tragic consequence of the purge was the persecution of journalists employed by collaborationist papers. The Resistance and Gaullists worked to extirpate not just the publishers and ownership of the old press, but also the individual journalists who had continued to work under the German occupation. Whether these journalists had done so as a function of their ideology or as a matter of professional necessity was irrelevant; all writers who collaborated or demonstrated “a weak patriotism” were systemically excluded from the post-war press by the decree of September 1944.[55] The new government even used press credentials to screen journalists and prevent collaborationists from returning to work. Camus remarked that the “total renewal of its personnel” signified just how pervasive the purge of the press was in comparison to purges of other industries.[56] Resistance journalists, as might be expected, faced few problems obtaining press credentials—further demonstrating the reach of Resistance’s influence in shaping the post-war media scene.

Collaboration Resistance and State Sanctioned Journalism in Vichy France

The post The Daily Telegraph Is Run By Unethical Cowards appeared first on St David's Street.