INITIAL LOCKDOWN March 2020
Neil Ferguson, professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College, London, was instrumental in forming the UK government’s response to the coronavirus crisis. His virus modelling led to the first lockdown. Neil Ferguson has an appalling track record.
- In 2001 Ferguson and the Imperial team produced modelling on foot and mouth disease and suggested that animals in neighbouring farms should be culled, even if there was no evidence of infection. This influenced government policy and led to between 6.5 million and 10 million animals being slaughtered across the UK, with a cost to the economy estimated at £10 billion. Experts such as Michael Thrusfield, professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University claimed
that Ferguson’s modelling on foot and mouth was ‘severely flawed’ and that he had made a serious error by ‘ignoring the species composition of farms’ and that the disease spread faster between different species. The effects of the epidemic upon individual farmers and their families, as well as those working in tourism and related agricultural industries, were profound.
Source: Mort et al (Nov 2006) Psychosocial effects of the 2001 UK foot and mouth disease epidemic in a rural population: qualitative diary-based study BMJ 2005
- In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from
exposure to BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy or ‘mad cow disease’) in beef. He also predicted that number could rise to 150,000 deaths if there was a sheep epidemic as well. In the UK there have been only 177 deaths from BSE.
- In 2005 Ferguson claimed that up to 200 million people could die from bird ‘flu.
In fact, just 282 people worldwide died from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
- In 2009 Ferguson predicted that swine ‘flu had a case fatality rate of 0.3% to 1.5%. His most likely estimate was that the mortality rate was 0.4% and, based on Ferguson’s advice, a government estimate said a ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ was that the disease would lead to 65,000 UK deaths. In the end swine ‘flu killed 457 people in the UK and had a death rate of just 0.026% in those infected.
“The UK experience provides a salutary warning of how models can be abused in the interests of scientific opportunism” stated Kitching et al in 2006
Source: Kitching, R.P., Thrusfield, M., & Taylor, N.M. (2006). Use and abuse of mathematical models: an illustration from the 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic in the United Kingdom. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics), 25(1), 293
Ferguson predicted 550,000 deaths from Covid-19 in the UK. His disease modelling has been criticised by experts such as John Ioannidis, professor in disease prevention at Stanford University, who has said: ‘The Imperial College study has been done by a highly competent team of modellers. However, some of the major assumptions and estimates that are built in the calculations seem to be substantially inflated’. On 22 March 2020, Ferguson said that Imperial College’s model of the Covid- 19 disease is based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code, that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. As of 20 June 2021, 128,433 Covid-related deaths have been recorded in the UK. It should be noted that most of those deaths relate to individuals dying ‘with’ and not ‘from’ Covid-19 and that the vast majority of those who died had multiple comorbidities. In addition, as of 11 January 2021, the median age of those dying with Covid was 81 (male) and 85 (female). That is somewhat higher than the normal life expectancy in the UK, which in 2017-2019 was 79.4 for males and 83.1 for females.
Unusually in disease management, a positive test result is the sole criterion for a Covid-19 case. Normally a test supports, and is not a substitute for, clinical diagnosis. This means that very little is known about the proportions of people who are paucisymptomatic (subclinical), presymptomatic (go on to develop symptoms later) or post-infection (with viral RNA fragments still detectable from an earlier infection). Earlier estimates that 80% of infections are asymptomatic were too high and have since been revised down to between 17% and 20% of people with infections. It is unclear to what extent people with no symptoms transmit SARS-CoV-2 if they do at all. PCR and lateral flow tests do not distinguish live virus and no test of infectiousness exists. No study has been able to culture live virus from symptomatic participants after the ninth day of illness, despite persistently high viral loads in quantitative PCR diagnostic tests. Cycle threshold values from PCR tests are not direct measures of viral load and are subject to error.
Kary Mullis, who unfortunately died in August 2019, won the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1993 for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. In a public address, he once stated: “The PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody”. Mullis was scathing of Fauci, saying of him that “the man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope and if it’s got a virus in there, you’ll know it. He doesn’t understand electron microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine”.
In the summer of 2020, four German tourists were detained indefinitely in Portugal after one of the four tested positive for the coronavirus. Finally, they made a legal appeal under habeas corpus and were released. On November 11, 2020, the Lisbon Court of Appeal upheld that decision in a 34-page ruling. The judges noted that none of the applicants was ever seen by a doctor and that everything relied on the PCR test, which the judges found flimsy. Reliability of the test, they said, was “more than debatable” as it depended on the viral load and how many repetitive cycles in the PCR test were used to amplify the samples. Each cycle exponentially increased the load, but the court was not told how many cycles were used for the tourists’ tests. The verdict referenced a study published by Oxford Academic in September 2020 on the correlation between 3,790 positive PCR tests and 1,941 SARS-CoV-2 isolates. The researchers found that at a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, the test was 70% reliable – a figure that dropped to 20% at 30 cycles, and just 3% at 35 cycles. That meant 97% were false positives, yet that was used “in most laboratories in the USA and Europe”. The NHS has used 45x amplification.
Source: Asymptomatic transmission of covid-19 BMJ 2020:371:m4851 (published 21 December 2020)
Conventional vaccines usually contain a weakened version of the virus or an inactivated version of a particular pathogen (antigen). They stimulate the body’s immune response, so it is primed to respond more rapidly and effectively if exposed to the infectious agent in the future. A messenger Ribonucleic Acid or mRNA vaccine works differently. Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use this entirely novel technology, which has never been used on humans before. The AstraZeneca vaccine differs in that it is a double-stranded DNA vaccine, it is more robust, and is based on the virus’s genetic instructions for building the spike protein, which is added to an adenovirus (in this case a chimpanzee adenovirus). The adenovirus pushes its DNA into the nucleus where the coronavirus spike protein is read by the cell and copied into an mRNA.
All the Covid-19 vaccines are novel and have not been used in humans before. They have been developed and rushed through trial Phases at warp speed. Every vaccine currently being administered is, in fact, still in Phase III of the trial – not due to end until the very end of 2022 or the spring of 2023. The MHRA, normally such a strict regulatory body, stated on their own website in April/May 2020 that, because of the crisis, they were taking a “flexible approach” both towards their own regulations and good manufacturing process, as far as these vaccines are concerned. Because all these vaccines are still in Phase III trials, there are no longitudinal data at all. No one can possibly say how deleterious these vaccines could be in the long term. In the case of the AstraZeneca vaccine, there are only limited short-term data available relating to the over 55s (the most vulnerable cohort) as that age group was not represented in Phases I/II.
Covid-19 vaccines are all currently licenced for emergency use only and are subject in the UK to the Black Triangle symbol which “is not removed until the safety of the drug is well established”. It is extremely concerning that the Government has granted civil indemnity to the Pharma companies for any damages occurring as a result of their rushed vaccines, effectively giving them complete immunity from prosecution; pharmaceutical companies who are already reaping billions in profits from these vaccines. A vaccine is defined as an intervention which prevents both the contraction and transmission of disease, yet the Covid vaccines appear to do neither. It is purported that they reduce symptoms. Surely, then, that makes them a therapy rather than a vaccine? As the safety testing around the vaccines is not yet complete (there are no longitudinal data), and as very new mRNA technology is being used, they are, in fact, experimental gene therapies – not vaccines.
27 January 2021
EU Bans Compulsory Jabs & Discrimination Against Un-Vaccinated
Principia-Scientific, published February 24, 2021
The Council of Europe signed Resolution 2361, which states that vaccinations in EU Member States should not be mandatory. Furthermore, persons who have not been vaccinated may not be discriminated against in any way. This effectively stops the notion of “vaccine passports”. The resolution goes so far as to order member states such as Sweden to actively inform citizens of these rights. The resolution has been ignored by mainstream politicians and the media.
According to the Nuremberg Convention, experimental vaccines can be seen as an experiment on the population. In the case of ModeRNA’s and Pfizer’s mRNA jabs, they have never been previously tested. The Convention consists of ten points and the first stipulates: The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely necessary. But the question remains: Is it really voluntary if you are not allowed to work, send the children to school, travel or even visit the mall if you do not submit to the experimental vaccines?
The fifth point states: No experiment should be performed where there is reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur.
EXCERPT FROM COUNCIL OF EUROPE RESOLUTION 2361 ADOPTED ON JANUARY 27 2021:
7.3 with respect to ensuring high vaccine uptake:
7.3.1 ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves;
7.3.2 ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated
Dr Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, has said: “I understand the importance of accelerating timelines for vaccines in general, but from everything I know, this is not the vaccine to be doing it with.” Dr Hotez worked on development of a vaccine for SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), the coronavirus behind a major 2003 outbreak, and found that some vaccinated animals developed more severe disease compared with unvaccinated animals when they were exposed to the virus. “ADE (Antibody-Dependent Enhancement) has been observed in SARS, MERS and other human respiratory virus infections including RSV (Respiratory Syncytial Virus) and measles, which suggests a real risk of ADE for SARS- CoV-2 vaccines and antibody-based interventions”
Source: Lee, W.S., Wheatley, A.K., Kent, S.J. et al. Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies. Nat Microbiol 5, 1185–1191 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-00789-5)
Yellow Card Scheme – MHRA
Information up to and including 9 June 2021 (data lock date):
COVID-19 brand Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine Analysis
Total fatal outcome reports: 421
COVID-19 brand AstraZeneca Vaccine Analysis
Total reactions for drug: 732,790
Total fatal outcome reports: 885
COVID-19 brand Moderna Vaccine Analysis
Total fatal outcome reports: 4
COVID-19 brand unspecified Vaccine Analysis
Total reactions for drug: 2,419
Total fatal outcome reports: 22
TOTAL OVERALL REACTIONS FOR DRUG: 949,287
TOTAL OVERALL FATAL OUTCOME REPORTS: 1,332
Public Health England’s most recently published figures relate to variants of concern and variants under investigation in England and is dated 25 June 2021. On pages 13/14 of this report are given figures relating to attendance to emergency care and deaths by vaccination status among Delta confirmed cases (sequencing and genotyping) including all confirmed Delta cases in England, from the 1 February 2021 to 21 June 2021. There has been a total of 117 deaths within 28 days of positive specimen date within this time frame: 44 of those deaths relate to unvaccinated individuals, 20 deaths relate to individuals who have received one dose of the vaccine and 50 relate to individuals who have received two doses of the vaccine (an additional 3 deaths are described as ‘unlinked’). A total of 70 vaccinated individuals have died from the Delta variant despite having received one or more doses of the vaccine, compared with 44 deaths of unvaccinated individuals.
Source: Public Health England website: SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England, Technical Briefing 17 dated 25 June 2021
worrying observations: “One of the most troubling of these [observations] concerns young people between the ages of 12 and 24 and the incidences of myocarditis and pericarditis caused by the mRNA vaccines (of which Pfizer is the main one in use in the UK), especially in young people. HART confirms in its update an admission by the CDC that the observed incidence of these conditions in the 7 days following second dose of Pfizer in age groups between 12 and 24 could be anything between 30 and 200 times than that expected to occur naturally”. Given that the incidence of serious illness or death with or due to Covid in this particular cohort is so low as to be statistically insignificant, surely the vaccine represents far greater risk than benefit?
Dr Robert W Malone is the original inventor of core mRNA and DNA vaccination, and multiple non- viral DNA and RNA/mRNA delivery technologies – work that was carried out whilst working at the Salk Institute in 1987 and 1988. During his time at the Institute, Dr Malone pioneered in-vitro RNA transfection and also in-vivo transfection in frog embryos as well as in mice. More than anyone, Dr Malone is qualified to talk about the Covid-19 vaccines. He is a vaccine advocate and a specialist in clinical research, medical and regulatory affairs, vaccines and biodefense. His expertise includes virology, immunology, molecular biology, pathology and pharmacology. Dr Malone has approximately 100 peer reviewed publications and published abstracts and has approximately 12,000 citations of his peer reviewed publications. On 30 May 2021 Dr Malone submitted an essay to TrialSite News, written as a result of having spoken with a Canadian primary care physician who had related the story of six highly unusual clinical cases of post-vaccination adverse events which he had personally observed, involving patients vaccinated with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine product. Each of these cases was reported via the correct channels in Canada and each was determined to be unrelated to the vaccine, without significant investigation. Furthermore, the primary care physician reported that “any practicing physician in Canada who goes public with concerns about vaccine safety is subjected to a storm of derision from academic physicians and potential termination of employment”.
A group of Canadian doctors filed a freedom of information act request, asking for safety information. They state that “the FOIA documents reveal animal study results demonstrating that the Pfizer mRNA-based vaccine does not remain at the injection site, but rather appears to spread widely after injection … pre-clinical studies show that the active part of the vaccine (mRNA-lipid nanoparticles), which produce the spike protein, spreads throughout the body and is then concentrated in various organs, including the ovaries and spleen.”
TrialSite has also learned “via regulatory documents” that Pfizer “did not follow industry-standard quality management practices during preclinical toxicology and studies during vaccines, as key studies did not meet good laboratory practice (GLP). The full panel of industry-standard reproductive toxicity and genotoxicity studies were apparently also not performed”. Dr Malone continues:
“Among the most critical tests, which must be performed prior to testing any drug or vaccines in a human being, is whether it can cause mutations in the DNA or whether it could cause problems with cells or tissues of the reproductive tract – including ovaries. […] In the case of the Pfizer COVID mRNA vaccine, these newly revealed documents raise additional questions about both the genotoxicity and reproductive toxicity risks of this product. Standard studies designed to assess these risks were not performed in compliance with accepted empirical research standards.
Furthermore, in key studies designed to test whether the vaccine remains near the injection site or travels throughout the body, Pfizer did not even use the commercial vaccine (BNT162b2) but instead relied on a ‘surrogate’ mRNA producing the luciferase protein.”
These new disclosures appear to suggest that “the US and other governments are conducting a massive vaccination programme with an incompletely characterized experimental vaccine” and that “routine quality testing issues were overlooked in the rush to authorize use” with the result that the vaccine could be delivering mRNA and producing spike protein in unintended organs, including the brain, ovaries and spleen. It may also “cause […] the immune system to attack these organs and tissues”.
Dr Malone believes that adults must be allowed free will, particularly in the case of clinical research, pointing out that “these mRNA and recombinant adenovirus vaccine products remain experimental at this time”. The suppression of information, discussion and outright censorship concerning these COVID vaccines, and lack of transparent evaluation of post-vaccination adverse events, plays into the hands of ‘anti-vaxxers’ and validates their arguments. Dr Malone argues that “any and all risks associated with these experimental research products” must be fully disclosed. The adult public are essentially research subjects who are not required to sign informed consent due to EUA (Emergency Use Authorisation) waiver but now some authorities are calling for the deployment of EUA vaccines to adolescents and the young who, by definition, are not able to directly provide informed consent to take part in clinical research. Dr Malone maintains that “Suppressing open disclosure and debate concerning the profile of adverse events associated with these vaccines violates fundamental bioethical principles for clinical research”. There must be informed consent for experimentation on human subjects.
Dr Malone, in conclusion, summarises as follows: “1) An unlicensed medical product deployed under emergency use authorization (EUA) remains an experimental product under clinical research development. 2) EUA authorized by national authorities basically grants a short-term right to administer the research product to human subjects without written informed consent. 3) The Geneva Convention, the Helsinki declaration, and the entire structure which supports ethical human subjects’ research requires that research subjects be fully informed of risks and must consent to participation without coercion”. He asks whether a line has been crossed and, if so, what actions are to be taken?
Sources: Bioethics of Experimental COVID Vaccine Deployment under EUA: It’s time we stop and look at what’s going down (a brief essay). TrialSite Staff May 30, 2021 Robert W Malone, MD, MS
Did Pfizer Fail to Perform industry Standard Animal Testing Prior to Initiation of mRNA Clinical Trials? TrialSite Staff May 28, 2021
(Following a television interview at the end of June 2021, Dr Malone reported that he had been banned and censored by both YouTube and LinkedIn after voicing his concerns about the vaccines and lack of transparency on the part of governments. HYPERLINK “https://trialsitenews.com/did-pfizer-fail-to-perform-industry-standard-animal-testing- prior-to-initiation-of-mrna-clinical-trials/#comments“)
In a liberal democracy, free will and bodily autonomy is fundamentally important. Scientific debate should be encouraged, not banned and censored. Vaccines – especially experimental, novel vaccines with only emergency use authorisation – should not be used as a coercive tool to force individuals to suspend informed consent in order to win back basic freedoms. An individual who is hesitant about this particular vaccine is neither an idiot nor, in the majority of cases, an ‘anti-vaxxer’. Where there is risk, there must be choice, without fear of reprisal of any kind.
Walach, H.; Klement, R.J.; Aukema, W. The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy. Vaccines 2021, 9, 693. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9070693 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcp.13795