by Iain Davis
[48] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200316121627/https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTi-g18ftNZUMRAj2SwRPodtscFio7bJ7GdNgbJAGbdfF67WuRJB3ZsidgpidB2eocFHAVjIL-7deJ7/pub
[49] - https://archive.is/HgL8k
[50] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201018030948/https://www.who.int/news/item/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19
[51] - https://archive.is/2WxB7
[52] - https://copcov.org/
[53] - https://archive.is/aMwCu
[54] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201221224230/https://www.who.int/blueprint/priority-diseases/key-action/WHO_Target_Product_Profiles_for_COVID-19_web.pdf
Chapter 5 - A Testing Time
The pseudopandemic transformed the perception of a nasty but statistically unremarkable disease into wide acceptance of an epochal event. COVID 19 was the potential opportunity, but in order to capitalise upon it, the pseudopandemic narrative needed to blow the perceived risk out of all proportion.
The term "State" can be seen as a collective noun for the constituent organisations that form the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP): the GPPP is the global State. National governments operate as partner organisations within the GPPP. Governments are effectively State franchises.
The core conspirators are part of the inner circle who hold ultimate authority within the GPPP. In order for their pseudopandemic plan to work it was essential that we believed it. To this end they used their informed influencers to corrupt and manipulate scientific, medical and statistical data. They then presented this fabrication to us as the evidence substantiating the pseudopandemic claims.
Imperial College's Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling (MRC) produced Report 9 [1] assessing the value of using non pharmaceutical interventions (NPI's) to reduce the public health impact of COVID 19. It was one of two key documents which lent the pseudopandemic fraudulent scientific legitimacy. Claiming they were "led by science," the UK State used Report 9 [2] as justification for severe lockdown restrictions.
Report 9 was based upon the computer generated models of the MRC. The code used to produce the micro-simulation models was extremely poor. [3]
Founded upon little more than mathematical guesswork [4] the code was littered with calculation and basic coding errors. It was incoherently constructed and absent the necessary annotation. Imperial's code was described by one investigating software engineer [5] as "Sim City without the graphics."
It seems some at Imperial College London (ICL) knew the Report 9 models were junk. The version eventually released to investigators on the Microsoft code depository [6] GitHub was not the original version used to create Report 9. When engineers requested sight of the initial code, ICL representatives said that the Report 9 code had "essentially the same functionality," and that they did "not think it would be particularly helpful to release a second codebase which [was] functionally the same”.
Yet when investigating software engineers reverse engineered the code [7] that ICL released, they found numerous amendments such as algorithm updates, the removal of corrupted data and attempted bug fixes. Hardly "functionally the same."
Despite ICL efforts, the code they offered, though presumably better than the one they used for Report 9, was so poor its obvious failings remained apparent to any professional coder who reviewed it. This included Steve Baker MP who said:
"As a software engineer I am appalled."
Once the politicians had been fed Report 9, it was released to the public on March 16th. It was based upon little more than a series of assumptions [8] and was practically meaningless from a scientific perspective, but it served well as propaganda. It cast an almost apocalyptic shadow over the nation's psyche.
It was Report 9 which gave us all first sight of the orders we had to obey to "stay safe." Effectively introducing the concept of a biosecurity state [9] to an unsuspecting public. Once in the hands of the informed influencers within the State franchise, it was the gift that just kept giving.
It alleged that if the UK politicians did nothing, 81% of population would become infected and more than half a million would be dead by August. For the US the alarming projection was that 2.2 million would perish. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) funded "science" of Imperial College was the fulcrum upon which the political world, and our society, pivoted.
The MSM eagerly reported its predictions with comments like "warnings don't come much starker than that." Indeed not, it was propagandised as a truly terrifying warning. However, the MSM narrative spun from Report 9 had virtually no empirical scientific basis and was the product of a badly written, fantasy computer model.
The MRC produced their modelling error of an 81% population infection rate by assuming a reproduction number (R0) of 2.4. Meaning every person infects 2.4 others on average. This had already been proven not to be the case for SARS-CoV-2 by a numerous of scientists.
Epidemiologists (and many other scientifically qualified experts) knew that the notion of a prolonged duration of near exponential growth in COVID 19 infections, as suggested by ICL's models, was wrong. Not only did Report 9 ignore seasonal variations in respiratory illness, scientists already had hard data from China [10] and elsewhere to prove that COVID 19 epidemics rapidly became sub-exponential before peaking and then steadily declining.
One of the worst possible environments for a viral respiratory disease outbreak is a cruise liner. They are notorious for infections. COVID 19 had broken out on the Diamond Princess forcing 3711 passengers and crew to quarantine together on the ship for nearly a month. This presented a perfect opportunity to study COVID 19 in an isolated human population.
The resultant study [11] showed that, following prolonged exposure in an enclosed environment, 19% of the 3711 people onboard were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Rather than 81% being infected, as ICL assumed, the precise opposite was true. The percentage of people free from infection was 81%. The Diamond Princess study was published on the 9th March, before Report 9 and nearly three weeks before the announced lockdown policies.
Farr’s Law [12] is observed with all respiratory viral diseases. It describes the initial rate of increasing infection before it levels off and then declines in any given population. When epidemiologists observe the point at which the initial infection rate starts to slow down, they can calculate the scale of the outbreak from there with some confidence. This is not new to epidemiology.
That rate reduction occurred in the UK [13] on March 4th. From that point onward the trajectory of the infection was set, no matter what interventions the politicians dreamed up. The State franchise imposed lockdowns began three weeks later.
Though not an epidemiologist, Nobel laureate and Stanford biophysicist Prof. Michael Levitt had been analysing the COVID 19 data since January. His statistical approach evidenced how Farr's law consistently applied to COVID 19 outbreaks.
He observed that the infection data looked like a Gompertz curve [14] and also noted numerous anomalies in the data that required explanation. He had been reporting his findings since February and had made them publicly available [15].
He recorded that deaths and infection rates peaked and then started to decrease in Wuhan in early February. He demonstrated, from this distribution, that he could calculate what the infection and death toll would eventually be. His prediction of around 3,250 deaths and 80,000 infections by mid-March were unerringly accurate [16].
However, his view, and that of many other scientists, contradicted the BMGF funded alarmism of ICL's MRC. Prof. Levitt was just one among the many ignored scientists and statisticians. His science did not support the pseudopandemic story-line. Consequently his work was effectively censored by the MSM [17] and heavily policed by the State franchise's online search partners [18].
Lockdown policy was effectively defined in Report 9. The solution it strongly advocated was Suppression. This was expressed in terms of Non Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPI's):
"Suppression will mi
nimally require a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members. This may need to be supplemented by school and university closures.....The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available.....we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed....measures will need to be reintroduced if or when case numbers rebound."
The suppression model suggested by ICL did not recommend the lockdown of the entire population, only of those infected and their families. However the State franchise took this as a green light to place everyone under house arrest. No one in Ferguson's ICL team objected. They have remained enthusiastic supporters of mass lockdowns.
With the whole population under orders to obey, the biosecurity state was created. There was no such thing as a healthy individual any more, all had to quarantine themselves. This behavioural control system could be throttled on and off by the State franchise based upon "case numbers." The only possible solution offered was a vaccine.
The core conspirators and their informed influencers knew that COVID 19 had a low mortality rate [19]. They also knew the MRC's projections were absurd. There were epidemiologists [20], virologists [21] biochemists [22] and all manner of statisticians and scientists [23] around the world, screaming to be heard over the political din created by the MRC's pseudo-scientific gibberish. The MSM reported virtually none of them.
For example, Prof. Knut M. Wittkowski [24], one of world's leading epidemiologists and the man who coined the term "reproduction number," speaking about the MRC's notion of suppression, said:
"With all respiratory diseases, the only thing that stops the disease is herd immunity. About 80% of the people need to have had contact with the virus....We are experiencing all sorts of counterproductive consequences of not well-thought-through policy....we will see more cases among the elderly....we will see more death because of this social distancing....I have been an epidemiologist for 35 years, and I have been modeling epidemics for 35 years.....but it’s a struggle to get heard."
Prof. Wittkowski was understating the problem. It was virtually impossible for scientists who questioned the pseudopandemic to inform the public and the policy makers refused to listen to them. The only people who would report their expert opinions and the science they presented were the incorrectly named "alternative media."
When thousands of frustrated scientists, tens of thousands of concerned medical professional and hundreds of thousands of desperate citizens, came together to petition governments to stop their destructive lockdown polices [25] the media and online tech giants set about defending the pseudopandemic. At the time of writing the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) has been signed by approximately 14,000 scientists, 43,000 medical practitioners and 792,000 members of the public.
In a quite remarkable display of aggravated sabotage, presumably fuelled by a pressing need to maintain the pseudopandemic story, people calling themselves journalists deliberately signed the declaration with fake names and then wrote MSM stories [26] highlighting the fact that it had been signed by idiots. Although they forgot to mention that they were engaged in a coordinated effort to undermine it. Consequently, the GBD petition organisers were forced to issue a response:
"In a strange twist, one journalist bragged on Twitter about adding fake names, after which other journalists criticized the Declaration for having fake signatures. Anyhow, the fake signatures are less than 1% of the total, and most have been removed from the count tracker."
However, the MSM barrage on the GBD didn't end there. A series of hostile attack pieces were published. In one example the eminently qualified experts who questioned the pseudopandemic were characterised as "half baked" and "self-important scientists with little idea about how to engage with the real world."
The MSM propaganda [27] in question was written by an alleged journalist who was a former UK Government Home Office researcher and a leading political adviser to the leader of the opposition. She was also a former program leader for the progressive think tank [28] DEMOS and a research fellow for the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). The IPPR are "partners" with Merck, Gilead Sciences, Google [29] and the international investment bank JP Morgan Chase, among many other members of the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP).
Of course the GBD is not above criticism. It maintained many of the key fallacies that lay at the heart of the pseudopandemic. While it questioned the policy response and the unwarranted fear propaganda it didn't tackle, or even mention, the fundamental problems of pseudo-science, misleading statistics and manufactured "case" numbers. However, the attacks upon it demonstrated dissent of any kind would not be tolerated.
Google simply removed it from their search results [30]. People using Alphabet's search engine (and other major search engines) to look for the information about the GBD could not find a listed link to it. Presumable many, who would otherwise have signed it, didn't. Instead they were presented with all the opinions and MSM hit pieces telling them it was "dangerous," while the GBD website itself languished on page "no one goes to."
It doesn't matter whether you agree with the thousands of scientists and medical professionals who signed the GBD, the point is their opinions were censored. It is absurd to cling to the delusion that we live in an open and free democracy while this situation persists.
There is a place for censorship. However, we have laws to stop the sharing and open publication of material like child pornography and snuff movies, though arguably they have little impact upon the criminals intent upon making and accessing this vile scoria. But if we censor free speech and legitimate scientific opinion, as we have throughout the pseudopandemic, all we have left is approved information. Dictatorship in other words.
Unlike the people labeled conspiracy theorists [31], most people have better things to do with their time than obsess over the networks that shape geopolitics and drive the realpolitik. Consequently, it is often unthinkable for reasonable people like Prof. Wittkowski to conceive that "the government" would deliberately endanger the lives of its own citizens. Hence, he believes the disastrous lockdown policy was "not well-thought-through."
Sadly, it was meticulously planned and executed. The widely held faith in the illusion of a benevolent State allowed the core conspirators and informed influencers to get away with it. At the SAGE meeting [32] held on the 16th March, the day that Report 9 was made available to the public, SAGE noted:
"The risk of one person within a household passing the infection to others within the household is estimated to increase during household isolation, from 50% to 70%."
The core conspirators and their informed influencers knew that locking people up in their own homes would increase the risk of infection. Despite State franchise claims about policy being "led by science," not only did they ignore all the science which contradicted their preferred yarn, they even ignored the warnings from their own carefully selected scientific advisors.
They then implemented policies designed to increase mortality and used statistical manipulation both to maximise so called case numbers and falsely attribute death to COVID 19. This was done for no other reason than to advance the pseudopandemic. At best it was a deliberate Machiavellian act of wilful neglect and potentially manslaughter.
All that mattered was that the pseudopandemic created the desired condition for the reset of humanity (motive). The casual termination of human life along the way was merely collateral damage.
Coordinated with the release of Report 9, the WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told governments [33] around the world to "test, test, test." The RT-PCR test kit was the weapon of choice.
It wasn't a diagnostic tool, was extremely vulnerable to human and systemic error and was incapable of identifying a "case" of COVID 19. Consequently, it was perfect for the pseudopand
emic. Through centralised control of the global COVID 19 testing regime, the core conspirators and their informed influencers were able to create the illusion of a pandemic.
COVID 19 was a potentially lethal respiratory infection that was a possible threat to the elderly infirm and others with existing comorbidities. It presented virtually no risk to people of working age and none to the young. Most healthy people, even older healthy people, had nothing unprecedented to fear. Without the distorted pseudopandemic narrative, from a global perspective, such a virus would normally have passed largely unnoticed.
By using a test unsuited to diagnosing any disease, the pseudopandemic myth advanced based upon little more than deceptive propaganda spun from meaningless RT-PCR generated "case" numbers. Hence the WHO's incitations to test, test, test.
So called "positive" RT-PCR results were misreported as COVID 19 "cases," allowing pseudopandemic case numbers to climb whenever testing was increased. The intention was to convince the public that a barely perceptible public health risk was an existential threat to humanity.
During the pseudopandemic, many terrified people with colds, coughs, headaches, muscle pain or no symptoms at all, attended their local hospital, or State franchise test centre, where samples were taken. These were then sent to laboratories who used RT-PCR to determine a supposedly "positive" or "negative" result. These laboratories were said to be looking for evidence of the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus first sequenced in Wuhan.
The Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre published the first full SARS-CoV-2 genome [34] (MN908947.1). This has subsequently been updated many times. However, MN908947.1 was the first genomic sequence describing the alleged cause of COVID 19, the etiologic agent SARS-CoV-2.
All subsequent pseudopandemic claims, tests, approved treatments, statistics, vaccine development and resultant NPI (lockdown) policies were, and are, based upon this sequence.
The WUHAN researchers stated [35] that they had pieced the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence together using a process called de novo assembly [36]. They had no a priori knowledge of the correct sequence or order of the RNA fragments they discovered.
