Posts
Leading UK professor
‘busted’ after flouting tough
coronavirus restrictions
Sky News
Sky News host Chris Kenny says in Britain, one of the leading experts who is informing the government’s tough coronavirus measures has absolutely “taken the cake in hypocrisy” after allegedly breaking regulations in order to see his mistress.
Imperial College epidemiologist Professor Neil Ferguson has been forced to resign from his senior role providing advice to the Johnson government after he was caught flouting social distancing rules while reportedly engaging in a romantic relationship with a married woman.
“There you go, breaking social distancing rules and social norms all at once,” Mr Kenny said.
“And undermining faith in the lockdown messages and processes all at once”.
“And we can add this one to the ever-expanding file of instances where there is apparently one rule for the self-declared elites, and another rule for everyone else”.
Coronavirus shock: How Neil
Ferguson was bankrolled by
major pharmaceutical
companies
NEIL FERGUSON, one of the Government's senior
scientific advisors on the coronavirus response was
financed by the pharmaceutical industry in the run-up to
the 2009 Swine Flu pandemic, unearthed reports reveal.
4 May, 2020
Professor Neil Ferguson is one of the most senior advisors to the Government on the coronavirus outbreak. Tasked with shaping the UK’s response, Prof Ferguson sits on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) with several other scientists.
He spearheads a team at Imperial College London which produces the mathematical prediction models largely credited with prompting the Government to impose the current lockdown.
Prof Ferguson has a history in working as an epidemiologist for over 20 years, though he began and finished his studies in the field of physics.
Just as Prof Ferguson’s prediction models have proved decisive in the ongoing fight against coronavirus, so too were his models used as a precedent in the fight against Swine Flu (N1H1).
His team at Imperial College predicted a scenario in which 65,000 people in the UK died – a significant benchmark in the WHO's decision to issue a pandemic.
Coronavirus UK latest: Neil Ferguson previously received fees from pharmaceutical companies
In the end, the UK death toll from Swine Flu stood at 457.
Added to this, the controversy over so-called “conflicts of interest” with those who advised the World Health Organisation (WHO) but had simultaneous ties with the pharmaceutical industry.
In 2010, the WHO revealed the names of 16 experts and advisors on its emergency committee which recommended the declaration of the Swine Flu pandemic – five of them having had links with the pharmaceutical industry.
The 2018 documentary “TrustWHO” noted how Prof Ferguson, who was on the committee, “reported conflicts of interest”.
The film’s maker, Lilian Franck, said: “Neil Ferguson declares consultancy fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Baxter, and Roche.
“The manufacturers of the Swine Flu vaccines and medications.
“Not a problem for the WHO.”
At the time, in an interview with the pharmaceutical publication, Scrip, Prof Ferguson explained the extent of his ties to the companies.
He said: "I chose to end the relationship with GSK and Roche in 2007 due to the mounting pressures of other (more important) work, and because I wanted to pursue advisory work with public bodies which is more easily done without current relationships with commercial companies."
He added: “I think it would be difficult to find a true expert on influenza vaccines and antiviral drugs who has not worked at some time with pharma companies.
“The development of such products is undertaken by commercial companies, they have the data, and they are interested in research which relates to their products.
“I think science generally benefits from links between academic and commercial research, as does the quality of scientific advice offered to public health agencies."
The pandemic proved a perfect financial opportunity for the pharmaceutical industry.
JPMorgan estimated some $7-10billion (£5-8bn) was made off 2009 vaccine profits alone.
When contacted by Express.co.uk, Prof Ferguson said he had no conflicts of interest in relation to the coronavirus pandemic.
He said: “I have no commercial consultancy interests, and have not had for several years.
“For the reasons previously stated, I have no links with pharmaceutical and/or vaccine companies related to work on pandemics.
“My only links to vaccine and pharmaceutical companies are in the area of dengue (a mosquito borne virus which is a research interest of mine).
“I receive no personal income or expense payments from that work.
“I am a co-investigator on a research grant funded by a pharmaceutical company to analyse early preclinical data on a novel drug to treat dengue fever.”
The "Left" (personified by the Guardian) - which used to be mildly critical of transnational corporations openly supports Bill Gates, Neil Ferguson and the whole globalist agenda and LOVES to see the population locked up while the economy is decimated.
Meet Corrupt Professor
Ferguson The Scumbag Who
First Claimed This Was A
Pandemic, And The Idiot
Presidents And Prime
Ministers Who Believed His
Computer Predictions
5 May, 2020
Buying, for the moment, the official story about the “pandemic,” there were two basic choices:
Let people go about their lives and develop, through contact, natural immunity to the disease; or imprison populations in their homes.
Why was the second choice made?
This is my second article about Neil Ferguson (first article, here), the UK professor whose computer model of COVID-19 changed the world and drove that second choice.
Ferguson’s model predicted a worst-case estimate of 510,000 deaths in the UK, and 2.2 million deaths in the US.
At that point, anybody who was anybody stood up and saluted.
Both heads of government, Trump and Johnson, radically changed course. Instead of allowing people to go about their lives and develop natural immunity, they took the lockdown approach, devastating their economies.
Below, I’ll reprint quotes from my first article, exposing Professor Ferguson’s track record of abysmal and destructive failures in predicting the spread of diseases.
This record was available to anyone—including Trump, Fauci, Deborah Birx, Boris Johnson—but of course these important people have no time to read or think.
Apparently, a key White house conversation went something like this:
FAUCI: Mr. President, we have a new report from the UK. A computer model is predicting the spread of the epidemic. There could be 2 million deaths in the US, if we don’t take drastic action. There must be heavy lockdowns. The state governors will have to carry that ball, but your position on this needs to be unequivocal.
TRUMP: Two million deaths. You’re sure?
FAUCI: Yes, sir. Quite sure.
TRUMP: No way out? Except lockdowns?
FAUCI: That’s right.
TRUMP: Well, then. Okay.
The sheer brilliance in the Oval Office that day must have been blinding.
So, first up, let’s take a peek at a recent article from Nature, the venerable British medical journal. April 2, “Special report: The [computer] simulations driving the world’s response to COVID-19”:
“…it’s natural to wonder how reliable any of the [computer] simulations are. Unfortunately, during a pandemic it is hard to get data — such as on infection rates — against which to judge a model’s projections.”
This is called a clue. Computer models predicting the spread of disease may be an interesting academic exercise, but in the real world, where lives and nations are on the line, THE DATA, on which the projections are based, are elusive. Without accurate data, what do you have? How about opinion, bias, and conjecture?
Nature: “’You can project [via computer models] forwards and then compare against what you get. But the problem is that our surveillance systems are pretty rubbish’, says John Edmunds, who is a modeller at the LSHTM [London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine]. ‘The total numbers of cases reported, is that accurate? No. Accurate anywhere? No’.”
I see. Rubbish. Total number of cases—inaccurate everywhere. Bad data. No data. In other words, the computer models are sophisticated tripe.
You may think this is an unkind comparison, but we know something about that dusty Ferguson 2005 computer model of avian flu. Here is a quote from the Business insider, 4/25:
“…he [Ferguson] was accused of creating panic by overestimating the potential death toll during the 2005 Bird [avian] Flu outbreak. Ferguson estimated 200 million could die. The real number was in the low hundreds.”
THIS is the basic model Ferguson has now used to project deaths from COVID-19.
Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.
Without further ado, here is the Business Insider, 4/25, reporting Neil Ferguson’s other grotesque prediction failures:
“Michael Thrusfield, a professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, told the paper he had ‘déjà vu’ after reading the [Ferguson] Imperial paper [on COVID], saying Ferguson was responsible for excessive animal culling during the 2001 Foot and Mouth [actually, Mad Cow disease] outbreak.”
“Ferguson warned the government that 150,000 people could die. Six million animals were slaughtered as a precaution, costing the country billions in farming revenue. In the end, 200 people died.”
“In 2009, one of Ferguson’s models predicted 65,000 people could die from the Swine Flu outbreak in the UK — the final figure was below 500.”
Want more? The Business Insider raises the level of shock even higher.
“Ferguson co-founded the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, based at Imperial [College], in 2008. It is the leading body advising national governments on pathogen outbreaks.”
“It gets tens of millions of dollars in annual funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and works with the UK National Health Service, the US Centres for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC), and is tasked with supplying the World Health Organization with ‘rapid analysis of urgent infectious disease problems’.”
Getting the picture?
Bill Gates wants a COVID vaccine before planetary lockdowns end. The lockdowns, of course, are already making a wreck of the Earth’s economies.
Bill Gates’ money goes to Ferguson.
Ferguson supplies, to the CDC and WHO, a vastly worthless but frightening computer projection of COVID deaths. Ferguson thus communicates a justification for the Gates global vaccine plan.
The CDC and WHO act, based on what Gates wants, as expressed by Ferguson.
National governments surrender to WHO and CDC. LOCKDOWNS.
What say you, Trump, Johnson, Merkel, Macron, et al? Are you merely clueless idiots, no brighter than some passerby on a street corner who’s handed a sign for a protest, and joins the line, having zero idea what he’s supporting? Are you that stupid, as you point to Ferguson’s farce of a computer model, with eyes glazed?
Are you simply in fear of experts who, on their best day, should be consigned to modelling numbers of cockroaches in motel rooms?
Or are you hostile idiots, who intend to destroy countless lives as economics sink further into ruin, day by day?
P.S. Perhaps you’re thinking, “These governments couldn’t be THAT crazy and stupid and vicious. They couldn’t have acted based on Neil Ferguson’s computer model…”
Business Insider, 4/25: “Ferguson’s team warned Boris Johnson that the quest for ‘herd immunity’ [letting people live their lives out in the open in the UK] could cost 510,000 lives, prompting an abrupt U-turn [massive national lockdown in the UK]…His [Ferguson’s] simulations have been influential in other countries as well, cited by authorities in the US, Germany, and France.”
“On March 23, the UK scrapped ‘herd immunity’ in favor of a suppression strategy, and the country made preparations for weeks of lockdown. Ferguson’s study was responsible.”
“Dr Deborah Birx, coronavirus response coordinator to the Trump administration, told journalists at a March 16 press briefing that the Imperial paper [Ferguson’s computer projection] prompted the CDC’s new advice to work from home and avoid gatherings of 10 or more.”
Nature: “’Forecasts made during an outbreak are rarely investigated during or after the event for their accuracy, and only recently have forecasters begun to make results, code, models and data available for retrospective analysis,’ Edmunds and his team noted last year in a paper that assessed the performance of forecasts made in a 2014–15 Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone.
They found that it was possible to reliably predict the epidemic’s course one or two weeks ahead of time, but no longer, because of the inherent uncertainty and lack of knowledge about the outbreak.”
Computer predictions are rarely investigated for accuracy. Can’t make accurate predictions for more than two weeks ahead. Do you suppose Fauci, who has served as a public health dictator since medieval times, is aware of this, but is ignoring it? That’s a rhetorical question, Your Honor. I withdraw it.
The answer is obvious.
Finally, Nature provides us with this startling factoid: “The 16 March simulations that the [Neil Ferguson] team ran to inform the UK government’s COVID-19 response used an agent-based model built in 2005 to see what would happen in Thailand if H5N1 avian flu mutated to a version that could spread easily between people.”
That’s like saying, “This year, the driver in the Indianapolis 500 is sitting in a car built 15 years ago.
He’s dusted it off and hopes it works and doesn’t crash into the wall.”
TO READ ALL MY ARTICLES ON THE COVID LUNACY:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.