Wednesday, May 22, 2024
HomeReaders CommentsLetters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor


PLEASE send your letters (as short as you like) to and mark them ‘for possible publication’. We need your name and if possible, a county address, eg Yorkshire or London. We will include biographical details if you volunteer them. Letters may be shortened.


How to increase the birth rate

Dear Editor

Spiked Online commentator Ella Whelan (who is pregnant) makes the extraordinary suggestion that we should make abortion freely available in order to raise the birth rate. Freely available abortion has been a significant factor in Britain’s falling birth rate, as it has in all Western countries. A great proportion of abortions are experienced by young childless women who have no idea what they are ‘choosing’ because they do not know what it is like to have a child. The experience is often so traumatising that, being unable to come to terms with it, they go on to have more abortions (as the figures show) rather than giving birth.

The best way to raise the birth rate is to give real help to pregnant mothers, rather than taking away their unborn child. In the long run, it is parents who subsidise the childless, not the other way round, since someone else’s children will pay their pensions.

Ann Farmer



Abortion is not ‘banned in the US’

Dear Editor

There has been a lot of hype, not to mention deliberate misinformation, about the US Supreme Court’s decision on abortion.

Abortion has not been banned, as some have claimed. Instead, the right to regulate it has been quite rightly returned to State legislatures. In other words, they will make their own laws on abortion in exactly the same way as our own Parliament does.

There is no absolute right to abortion on demand here or in Europe, as some of the more extreme pro-choicers are calling for in the US.

Strangely Boris Johnson and other European leaders who have been critical of the US Supreme Court (what has this to do with any of them?) have been silent about the truly abhorrent laws in some States, such as New York and California, which allow full term abortion, that is right up to the moment of birth.

Paul Homewood


Government’s denial of reality

Dear Editor

The Covid vaccine technology is being adapted for cancer therapy, despite the absence of long-term data and evaluation of mRNA technology. They are ploughing on with the next generation of vaccines despite the growing body of evidence of vaccine harms and risks showing that it is neither safe nor effective. Meanwhile, Moderna is opening a manufacturing plant in UK. This is wilful defiance of facts and reality by our government with its slavish following of the US in all things. 

Rhydwenna E Jones 


My regrets about the vaccine

Dear Editor,

You have published many pieces describing the web of lies and half-truths surrounding the now patently disastrous rollout of mRNA Covid ‘vaccines’. Good on you!

The more we were pressured to vaccinate, the more I came to suspect that all was not right with the ‘vaccine’. I have spent much of the last 18 months in Austria, where that pressure has been particularly strong. To my deep regret, my distrust was not aroused sufficiently quickly to avoid my accepting two doses of Pfizer. The first was because I swallowed the idea it would protect me from a terrible virus. The second was so I could travel and visit my family (by then I thought I was taking an unnecessary but innocuous product).

Yes, I was duped, foolish etc. I sadly found sources such as TCW too late. But what now? Where can the millions of people in my position get some information on what we can do to minimise our chances of being harmed by the ‘vaccine’ in our bodies?

Clearly those behind this scandal are not going to make this easy for us.

Roland O’Brien


MHRA are enablers of a terrible crime

 Dear Editor

Good to read your piece about the corruption in the MHRA this morning.

Although I have spent my whole life in pharma, I never encountered the rampant dishonesty that is so evident to us all these days. This fact alone is enough for us to conclude that it’s one of a number of facets of a plan that is pure evil.

The truth is not on their side, however, and therefore they can run but cannot hide . . . especially as people like yourselves have them in their sights.

They will indeed be remembered as the enablers – of the biggest crime humanity has ever had to deal with.

Keep exposing the lie!

Richard Tee 


Turning up the heat on Net Zero

Dear Editor

In their mad rush for Net Zero, the UK Government said that they would ban gas for heating and cooking, and said householders should install heat pumps. Their target was 600,000 heat pumps a year. Ground source pumps are priced at £11,000 to £20,000 and air source pumps are £5,000 to £12,000, and very few can afford this. I recently had a replacement gas boiler fitted for £3,000. Now the Committee on Climate Change has admitted that the running cost of heat pumps is at least 10 per cent higher than gas. So not only is the capital cost significantly higher but the running costs are also higher. Following the Ukrainian/Russian conflict the European Union has included natural gas and nuclear as green energy sources so let’s get fracking.

Clark Cross 



Johnson: A saint compared with Blair

Dear Editor 

Johnson was a loose cannon. And that was his downfall. The last thing the Establishment wants is a loose cannon and the collateral damage it will cause.

He had little respect for rules, convention and regulations. His guidance came from neither the Bible or the Conservative rule book.

So was he a sinner or a saint?

Compared with Blair he is definitely a saint.

He was the very antithesis of conservatism but contradictorily was genetically, socially, educationally and economically a conservative. An enigma.

His attitude to Conservative tradition, although respectful and deferential, was if ‘it’ gets in my way; tough, give it the boot. Like Jesus he’ll kick over the tables in the temple!

Because of his extrovert personality, he was generally regarded as a buffoon and his intelligence severely underestimated.

Make no mistake, Johnson’s intelligence is exceptional, even if his morals are not.

So what is more important in a prime minister?

Morals or intelligence? Is it possible for an ambitious politician to have both? Apparently not!

The concentration is now, sadly, on his replacement, not the system that produced him. The Establishment will deliberately focus attention on this rather than reviewing the system on which their power and control depends. They can always get rid of the ‘Johnsons’ when they become a liability.

Without radical reform of democracy, humanity will remain slaves of Establishment control and bumble along from one disaster to the next.

So, after Johnson, be careful what you wish for. The devil awaits.

Malcolm Naylor 



Johnson: An opportunity for a fresh start

Dear Editor

I wholeheartedly endorse everything said by Kathy Gyngell in her discussion with Mark Steyn.

I particularly agree with her comment that Parliament has become a ‘political wasteland devoid of any concept of virtue’. In my view this observation, with a few honourable exceptions, applies across the political spectrum. 

The better news is that the current circumstances allow for the slate to be wiped clean and a completely new start to be made uncontaminated by the tainted baggage of the past. Many of us fervently hope that politicians of proven honesty and integrity will step up to the plate to take the country forward without fear or favour, and reject any unilateral diktats from globalist fanatics seeking to prescribe how we should run our internal affairs.

Ben Blamires 


Johnson: He should quit at once

Dear Editor

Boris Johnson was not directly elected as PM by voters. But the longer he stays, the more of them will want to punish him at a General Election.

Many good Tory MPs would be lost in the process and Sir Keir Starmer will be delighted. 

So if Mr Johnson has any interest in the future of his country he should hand over power to the Deputy PM – today.

Roger J Arthur

West Sussex


Question marks over the vaccines

Dear Editor

It is bemusing how statisticians are still trying to eke out some benefit from the injections. 

Your article of July 7, ‘What’s behind nearly 8,000 excess deaths in under two months?’ by Will Jones, quotes Cambridge statistician Sir David Spiegelhalter taking issue with BMJ Editor Peter Doshi’s paper highlighting the number of adverse effects registered in the clinical trials. Sir David states that the benefit of the vaccines extends far beyond the two-month period of the trials. 

Aside from the ethical question of just how many deaths and life-changing disabilities in previously healthy individuals does a statistician consider acceptable collateral damage in their game of numbers, let us go back to basic principles.  

Dr Mike Yeadon, an experienced vaccine developer with degrees in biochemistry and toxicology, gives these simple and damning reasons why the mRNA injections are useless and dangerous.

As is known, the injections encode for the production of spike protein within the body’s own cells, which then circulate in the vital organs for the secondary benefit of inducing an immune response in the form of antibodies to the protein. Mike Yeadon informs us relative to this ‘benefit’ that:

1. Spike protein is genetically unstable. It mutates rapidly. This means any supposed protection afforded by the injections becomes almost immediately redundant;

2. 90 per cent of the immune response mounted after natural infection is not to the spike protein;

3. Spike protein is highly toxic, and it has been known for over a decade to cause harm in humans;

4. Spike protein has certain similarities with human proteins which can cause the immune system to attack itself in an autoimmune response;

5. Logic tells us, therefore, that every subsequent injection further weakens the immune system;

6. Scientists violated all the rules for creating a safe and effective product, which are:

– You do not use constituents which are inherently toxic to humans;

– You pick elements that are genetically stable, and which are most divergent from humans, in order to avoid the body targeting its own proteins for destruction.

Perhaps therefore the debate should centre around these assertions, any one of which, if corroborated as fact, is sufficient to condemn the entire programme. 

Serena Wylde

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.