Gov- measurments on COVID-19: are these justifiable?

Bartholomeus Lakeman made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates

Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates Nid oedd gan y wybodaeth y gofynnwyd amdani.

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates,

Herewith I request data which proves the validity and the justification of the Government’s reasons and measures to ‘protect’ the people from COVID-19:
A. Data about the validity of the current coronavirus test kit:
1) Whether it truly shows the SARS-CoV-2 exitance: the RNA of said virus: Does it detect infectious virus in blood?
2) Whether studies, regarding said test; Do fulfil Koch's postulates?
3) Is its false positive rate is known? If not how can it give valid results?
4) Whether Its result sufficiently proofs its relationship with the COVID-19 symptomology: fever, radiographic evidence of pneumonia, low white-cell count or low lymphocyte count, contact with someone being a confirmed case of Covid-10 ?

B. The validity of the number of ‘confirmed’ cases:
1) Whether COVID-19, has its own symptoms: and in case not: How is it differentiated from a so-called winter flu?
2) How many have been ‘confirmed' by said test: and how many have been confirmed by the Doctors interpretations of the patients’ symptomatology: and how did the Dr count? Moreover, what or who determinate the validity of ‘confirmed’ cases?
3) What is currently COVID-19 case fatality rate (CFR: % of known infected people who die), and with which tool is this calculated, and how much is it different to the average winter flu?
4) The mortality number of ‘confirmed’ COVID-19 cases: How does it compare with -and how much does it affect- the mortality of the average winter flu?

C. The justifiableness of the Government’s measures.
Its implications: People being bombarded by the media about the COVID-19 fatal risks, and being put in isolation, and their access to care being reduced; and being warned against dis-information; as if we are at war:
1) Are there sufficient considerations toward that said measurements’ resulting fear will compromise vulnerable peoples’ immune system?
2) And considerations towards that said fear will result in accepting vaccines that are insufficient tested and consequently will enhance the mutation of viruses: causing these to be more fatal?

Below are the references to above data requests.
Officially the virus is called SARS-CoV-2 and the disease COVID-19. If the virus exists, then it should be possible to purify viral particles. From these particles RNA can be extracted and should match the RNA used in this test. Without purification and characterization of virus particles, it cannot be accepted that an RNA test is proof that a virus is present.
The current coronavirus test is based on PCR, a manufacturing technique which uses RNA test which neither confirms the infectious virus SARS-CoV-2 nor fulfils the Koch postulates, nor has a known false positive & false negative rate, nor has a sufficient proven relationship with the COVID-19 symptomology: which has none of its own symptoms. Yet, despite the fact that only a minority of people tested will test positive (often less than 5%), it is assumed that this disease is easily recognized. If that was the truly the case, the majority of people routed for testing by doctors should be positive. E.g. France leading Dr in this matter, Dr B Davido states “ we have an enormous influx of patients who may have flu or seasonal viral infection (mainly rhinovirus). These are consistent with the new coronavirus and, as such, we cannot, for benign cases, make a clinical distinction between them. It becomes therefore impossible to screen everyone. In any case, we don’t have enough kits. We are at the stage of counting the number of cotton swabs to take samples…”
Covid-19 is the focus of headlines, but seasonal influenza has already made more people ill this year. The flu is estimated to kill between 290,000 and 650,000 people worldwide each year. The Office for National Statistics show "There were around 50,100 excess winter deaths in England and Wales in 2017-18 - the highest since the winter of 1975-76. The increase is partially blamed on the deadly strains of flu that swept the nations over the colder months of December to March."
From the data available so far, Covid-19 case fatality rate — CFR: was between 2 and 4 % in Hubei province, where the outbreak began. Yet after some weeks its CFR sloped down to 1.5 to 0.4; similar to -and in Germany below- the winter flu CFR.

Yours faithfully,
Dr B.L

Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates

Our Reference: 202000021577
Your Reference: Gov- measurments on COVID-19: are these justifiable?

Dear Bartholomeus Lakeman ,

Thank you for your correspondence sent on 18/03/2020. Your query will be
passed to the relevant area for consideration and has been given a
reference number of 202000021577. Please quote this number in all
correspondence. The Scottish Government aim to respond, where necessary,
as quickly as possible and within the stated timescale as indicated on our
website
(http://www.gov.scot/about/contact-inform...).

Yours sincerely
MiCase
Correspondence system for SG and partner agencies

The Scottish Government takes your privacy seriously. You may have written
to us because you have a question or want to make a complaint. Our privacy
notice
(https://beta.gov.scot/publications/conta...),
available on our website, sets out how we use your personal data, and your
rights when communicating with us. It is made under Article 13 of the
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
********************************************************************** 
This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is
intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is
not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the
email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender
immediately by return.
Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded
in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other
lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this e-mail may
not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government.
**********************************************************************
 

Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates

Dr B.L.

I am writing regarding your request dated 18/03/2020 for information about
issues around COVID 19 and the Governments response.

A request is not valid if it does not, in accordance with section 8(1)(b)
of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), state the name
of the applicant and an address for correspondence. As your request does
not state your name, we do not consider it to be a valid request.
Accordingly, we are not obliged to respond to it.

However, if you provide your name (a surname and title, eg Mr or Ms, is
sufficient) we would be able to consider your request and respond in
accordance with FOISA. If you need any further advice and assistance to
submit a valid request, please contact me. You may also find it helpful to
look at the answer to the question “Do I have to provide my real name and
my full address when I ask for information?” on the Scottish Information
Commissioner’s website at:

[1]http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/FAQ/G....

 

Kind regards

 

M Bruce

 

Michael Bruce |FOI Adviser | Freedom of Information Unit | Scottish
Government | 2W, St Andrew’s House | Regent Road | Edinburgh | EH1 3DG | 
0131 244 3457 (Ext) 43457

 

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates,
On 23 March 2020 you acknowledged (by Ref- 202000055789) receipt of the abovementioned FIO (Ref-202000022419) request “Gov- measurements on COVID-19: are these justifiable?” Which was made whereas there are neither scientific knowledge and tools to distinguish coivd19 from a seasonal flu; nor is there proof of that coivd19 is more fatal than a seasonal flu; nor is there proof of that coivd19 requires different protection measurements than that of a seasonal flu.

On 22 April was added to the above FOI request more scientific information which shows that the PCR test was neither made nor validated for as a Quantitative test for those who are infected with the covid19 virus; further said test’ false positive rate is too high: Said test does not distinguish the source of what it’s detecting, and it does not indicate that cases are those who are infected with the covid19 virus. Moreover, the use said test is deceptive.

On 21 May was added to the above FOI request more info about the Lockdown measurements harms and risks; and that said measurements are not supported by scientific evidence; and that the evidence used is from and to the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry. You acknowledge receipt of said added info; as by ref 202000039177.

On 2 and 6 June was added to the above FOI request info about the scientific principles required to distinguish covid19 from a seasonal flu; and that some of the foreign parliaments discovered that they were deceived by the Imperial College; as that their predictions were made on behalf of its funders: Bill Gates and the pharmaceutical industry. You acknowledge receipt of said added info as ref- 202000042097.

On 23 June, to your responds which implies that said necessary scientific evidence to endorse said Lockdown measurement and its detrimental risks; do not exist.; I replied with that the detrimental injuries inflicted on the people e.g. unemployment, restricted or no access to education, restricted or no access to adequate health care (e.g. ‘geronticide’), restricted or no access to friends, family and vocation, stress, mental health problems, obesity, and loss of peoples’ rights under ECHR (e.g. Art 2, 8, 10 and 13) are the reasons which put the Scottish Govt under the duty to provide said evidence; or else to abandon said Lockdown measurements. You acknowledge receipt of said added info; as by ref 202000039177.

On 2 July, to your responds I replied with that without said data; the Govt has no justification for to inflict said injuries, and does lay itself open to have violated its obligations to the Nuremberg code and has to cease immediately its Lockdown measurements. Accordingly, the Scottish Govt’ responds has to be appealed. You acknowledge receipt of said added info; as by ref 202000055789.

On 5 Aug-, you imposed on Aberdeen a Lockdown by artificially increasing the case numbers by increasing the PCR testing and by hiring people to do more contact tracing: This despite that you have admitted that this increase of cases has nothing to do with infected people; and that said lockdown is preventing a herd immunity to covid19 virus; see https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/...
Moreover, you have violated the trust that the people have laid to you; and you have violated ECHR (e.g. Art 2, 8, 10 and 13) and the Nuremberg code.

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates

1 Atodiad

Dear Dr Lakeman

 

cc:  as above

 

Further to your appeal request to the Information Commissioner, please see
the attached response from the Scottish Government.

 

Kind regards

 

Annette Stuart

Vaccination Transformation Programme

Vaccinations Division - Covid Public Health Directorate

 

22 September 2020

 

 

 

********************************************************************** 
This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is
intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is
not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the
email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender
immediately by return.
Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded
in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other
lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this e-mail may
not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government.
**********************************************************************
 

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates,

Ref- 202000022419
Reg- the Appeal

Annette Stuart (Vaccinations Division) informed me of that section 17(1) (information not held) and section 25(1) of FOISA (as what the Govt. cannot -yet which other departments might be able to- answer) justifies to leave unanswered parts A5, A6, B1-B4, C1, C2, C3 as well A2, A3, A4, C4, D2 and D3 of my FOI #202000022419 requests for information relating the scientific backgrounds that underpins the Scottish Government’s actions regarding Covid-19. After having considered said FOI parts she feels that all parts are be classified under said FOISA sections: which would pre-empt my Appeal request.

However, there are sufficient equitable reasons for an Appeal to be granted, as by the followings:
1) Under the maxim ‘Primum non nocere’:’first, do no harm’ and for the Govt to be our elected Govt: it has to practice Transparency and Accountability towards its actions: Locking-down under surveillance, most people and families in their vulnerable positions, and herewith the nullification of education, employment, businesses, proper health-care: and inflicting mental health problems, violence, suicide, the geronticide, and the anxiety that our basic rights will never return (having to live with a traceable immunity pass). Towards their duty to balance said actions harms -vs- the risk from SARS VoC-2: the Govt is obliged to show the data which proof that said risks is calculated properly (see 6 a– g), and that Covid-19 accounts for a ‘SARS-CoV-2 pandemic’ and not for a ‘PCR-test-result pandemic’.

2) There is a logical fallacy in the Govt statements: (a) Covid19’ case numbers and ‘R’ are increasing; when in Sep. compared to March, its average daily death-toll has been ±10x reduced, and whilst during this period people made a ±10-fold increase of antibodies against SARS VoC-2 or ±27% herd immunity; (b) Lockdown measurements needs to be extended until the public is vaccinated; when the Govt states that said measurements are effective to reduce covid19 Case Fatality Rate (CFR) and ‘R’ (see 6 c - i): Which controvert that (i) No-Lockdown countries Sweden, Iceland, Belarus, Taiwan, s. Korea, Japan, Mexico have in average 28 deaths per million; whilst Lockdown in UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, USA have in average 2087 deaths per million; and (ii) Countries whose 65+ yrs. flu vaccine uptake was < 40% have in average 10 x less covid19 deaths than those countries whose 65+ flu vaccine uptake was > 50% (see FOI request ‘data to assess the putative flu vaccine / Covid-19 relationship').

3) FOISA section 17 and 25 cannot be used to eschew their duty to provide the data and hear the contra-argument, whereas: (a) All Questions regarding the scientific -data and- principles (see 5) which underpins Govt’s actions regarding Covid19 posed to Public Health Scotland, PHE, DHSC and the Science Office, in FOI 202000022419, 2020000027, 202006373, 202000043039, and 202000034798, as well in FOI requests posed by other members of public: were under said FOISA sections not answered; or (b) said departments referred to Gov-websites which don’t contain the requested information, and which presents data as a polysyllogism to defend the official narrative and to hinder verification, (c) The Govt has censured online information that challenge its official covid19-narrative; (d) Malapropism is practiced when the Govt treats the official narrative as it being unquestionable, and the Scottish Govt. states that it follows “the consensus science” (Res judicata), and Matt Hancock, when scientists show him the contrary to what he had stated; he states “the science is set”: They cannot treat science as a closed system that excludes verification and contra-argument (see 6l & k).

4) The Declaration of Helsinki and the Nuremberg Convention are breached when the withholding information implies that an uniformed public accepts interventions which includes serious risks. As:
(a) By abovementioned categorically use of FOISA section 17(1) and 25(1); the public has no access to data to verify the official narrative and to come to an informed consent necessary to accept willingly the Govt. measurements with said (1) consequences: imposed to decreases covid19 risks;
(b) Said categorically use of said FOISA sections raises the suspect that said Govt- departments are keeping out their record and out of public sight; the true data about and solution to SARS VoC-2 risks;
(c) Withholding of information creates a form of duress. By withholding information and installing fear (as one can overcome fear by knowledge) the Govt creates Collective obedience. Placing people in a situation where they feel intense fear of harm; said victims believe all control is in the hands of their captor, and feel sympathy and support for their captor's plight (Stockholm syndrome) (see 6k):
(d) Along with keeping the public in the Lockdown with its related harms, the Govt is withholding data so that the public will accept a vaccine which contents, implications and risks are undisclosed (e.g. metallic-nanoparticles, surveillance and RNA/Crisp technology) whilst the public has to its potential damage (Narcolepsy, GBS and T. myelitis) and loss of private rights (immunity pass) no recourse;
(e) Data that would disproof the official narrative about covid19’ risks and fatality would make Govt- departments accountable to its measurements’ colossal and irreparable harms inflicted on the public, and accountable to proof the necessity for having purchased £billons worth of tests and vaccines;
(d) Disclosure of critical data could cause the Govt to withdraw the vaccine’s harmless clausula.

5) For to set aside abovementioned suspects; the Govt has to answer all FOIs for the data which proof:
a) The SARS-CoV-2 is the cause of Covid19 and that as an illness it fulfils the criteria of a pandemic.
b) Covid19 PCR test ‘false positive rate’ and its ‘validity’ have been standardised (by autopsy, CT scans, IgG, IgM antibody tests), and is such that when positive it discerns the SARS-CoV-2’ RNA from that of a seasonal flu, a common cold, a previous flu vaccination, and from antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.
c) Positive PCR tests account for Covid19’ Case Fatality Rate (CFR) and not Infection Fatality Rate (IFR).
d) A Covid19’ case and CFR do relate to the medical term ‘case’: having symptoms whilst severely ill.
e) The ‘R’ calculation is based on the SARS-CoV-2’ infection and not on said other sources of viral RNA.
f) SARS-CoV-2’ (covid19) CFR and Mortality Rate (MR) is 10 x higher than that of a seasonal flu.
g) The survival rate of COVID-19 is much lower than that of the ordinary flu’ survival rate which is 99.9%.
h) Covid19 death registration solely includes death caused by SARS-CoV-2’ and not by another condition.
i) To calculate Covid19 being 10 x more fatal than a seasonal flu; the Govt has not mixed or alternate during the Lockdown Covid19 CFR and Mortality Rate (MR) with its IFR, or vice versa.
j) The Lockdown can be justified by it having reduced significantly enough covid19’ CFR and MR.
k) Covid19’ CFR or MR is proportionally higher than that of Lockdown’s fatality rate e.g. loss of education and businesses, domestic violence, suicide, geronticide, and the colossal increment of national debt.

6) To be considered are as well the abovementioned 5 a – l’ reference notes below:
(a) A Pandemic was originally defined as a cross-countries dispersing disease killing 0.25 - 0.5% of the population, e.g. the Spanish-flu, Hong-Kong-flu (H3N2) and the Asian-flu.
According to the WHO: 'The common flu causes up to 1 billion cases and 3- 5 million severe cases of illness worldwide; resulting in 290,000 to 650,000 influenza-related respiratory deaths annually’. Amounting to a death count of 0.005% of the global population: CFR=0.05 - 0.1%, IFR= 0.025% - 0.04%
Reg- the swine flu (HIN1): The CDC estimates that worldwide 700 million to 1.4 billion people were cases (11 - 21% of the population: affecting predominately children and young- to middle-aged adults) and 151,700 to 575,400 people died. There have been lots of arguments about HIN1’ CFR; either it being higher than 1.2 % (in defence of Pandemrix), or lower than 0.3% (to compare it -vs- covid19).
In the case of COVID-19, out of a global population of 7,815,358,156, there are officially 33,916,696 cases and 1,013,879 deaths: amounting to a death count of ±0.01% and a CFR between 3% & 0.3%.
Yet if said official covid19-cases are not confirmed medical cases, e.g. tuberculosis which global annual death rate is 1,300,000 (which more than covid19) and as there is No change of the worldwide annually death from all causes (on average 56 million people); covid19’s CFR is likely 0.35 - 0.035%. The latter is similar to that of the global pneumonia which has an annual death rate of ±30,000. N.B, according to the last four weeks of data released by ONS; influenza and pneumonia had killed ten times more people in England and Wales than COVID-19.
The initial symptoms of coronavirus are typically similar to those of a cold or flu, which means it is hard for people to know if they are infected; given that the outbreak has coincided with flu season. Research show that less than 20% of the general population know which symptoms alarms of being a Covid19 case. And regarding the health professionals; most of those who think they have it: tests show they don’t have covid19. Consequently, when assessing patients; doctors do over-diagnose Covid19. A cause for over-diagnosing might be fear due to the alarming news about the huge numbers of illness and deaths amongst health professionals (yet this was no different compare to the flu of 2017/18).
While SARS--CoV-2 is considered to be similar to SARS-CoV-1; Covid-19 has similar symptoms to seasonal influenza (Viruses A and B) and its milder symptoms are similar to those of the common cold. There are “seven [human] coronaviruses that can infect people”; four are associated with the common cold: 229E (alpha coronavirus), NL63 (alpha coronavirus), OC43 (beta coronavirus), HKU1 (beta c-v), MERS-CoV (beta c-v causing Middle East Respiratory Syndrome: MERS), SARS-CoV-1 (beta c-virus causing severe acute respiratory syndrome: SARS), and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).
In this context, what it means that the RT-PCR test will pick up fragments of corona as well as influenza viruses: It will not be able to identify individual viruses including SARS-CoV-2.

(b) The Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Test (RT-PCR) is the standard test used to estimate and tabulate the number of confirmed positive Covid-19 cases.
“PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment.” According to Dr. Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR test.
The PCR test was never intended to identify the virus. “PCR detection of viruses is helpful so long as its accuracy can be understood: it offers the capacity to detect RNA in minute quantities, but whether that RNA represents infectious virus may not be clear” (see also Lancet report)
According to Dr. Pascal Sacré, “these tests detect viral particles, genetic sequences, not the whole virus”. What this means is that the PCR test cannot detect or identify SARS-CoV-2. What it detects are fragments, which suggests that a standard “PCR positive” cannot be equated to a Covid-19 Positive. The PCR test will pick up fragments of several viruses including corona viruses as well as influenza (flu viruses A and B). “Fragments of viruses positive” does not mean “SARS-2 positive” but positive for influenza viruses (A, B) as well as common cold beta coronaviruses (e.g. OC43, HKU1). In other words, the published estimates of COVID-19 positive (resulting from the standard PCR test) in support of the Second Wave hypothesis are often misleading and cannot be used to measure the spread of SARS-2.
The test gets positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left. Even if the infectious viri are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected]. According to renowned Swiss immunologist Dr B. Stadler; and those who are immune against covid19- will cause a positive PCR test. Due to host defence mechanisms and autoimmunity provided by innate and adaptive immune responses, asymptomatic infections are often prevalent in influenza. With many asymptomatic infections already identified in COVID-19, it appears unlikely that the IFR in an Influenza Like Illness (ILI) like COVID-19 would approximate the disease’s CFR. Pre-symptomatic infections can also lower the proportion of asymptomatic infections. For example, a CDC report found that asymptomatic individuals identified through RT-PCR testing developed symptoms a week later, and those individuals were re-classified as having been pre-symptomatic at the time of testing.

(c) CFRs, IFRs, and mortality rates are tools for Epidemiologists, to describe deaths during and after an infectious disease outbreak. However, with said data one not determinate the cause of an illness.
A CFR is defined as the proportion of deaths among confirmed cases of the disease. CFRs indicate the disease severity, while an IFR is defined as the proportion of deaths relative to the prevalence of infections within a population. IFRs are estimated following an outbreak, often based on representative samples of blood tests of the immune system in individuals exposed to a virus.
CFRs and IFRs represent different segments of a targeted population and contain widely different proportions of nonfatal infections; therefore, misapplying findings or generalizing inferences between these 2 groups can cause a type of selection bias known as sampling bias or ascertainment bias. In this type of bias, people do not represent segments of the population to whom findings apply. Furthermore, “…comparisons of the CFR of 1 disease with the IFR of another are mostly useless,” and sampling bias can lead to serious inaccuracies, as when it was stated that the coronavirus is 10-times more lethal than seasonal influenza; which is the Syllogism Fallacy in the official narrative:
Whereas from the figures of Office for National Statistics (ONS) one can calculated that covid19’ IFR is between 0.1 and 0.08 (similar as of the seasonal flu) and that the PCR false positive rate is above 90%: meaning that 90% of the ‘test positive cases’ are and will not be ill by covid19.

(d) CFR — sometimes called case fatality risk or disease lethality — is the proportion of deaths from a certain disease compared to the total number of symptomatic people diagnosed with the disease. However, sticking a swab up someone’s nose, who feels completely well, or very mildly ill: if positive (s)he is called a covid19 case. Yet a symptomless, or mildly symptomatic positive swab is not a case.
On 7 April, in the UK; 60,733 people were positive and, on that day, there were 7,097 ‘covid19 deaths’
On 26 Sep. in the UK; 131,999 people were positive and, on that day, there were 38 ‘covid19 deaths’.
So, how it can be that, whilst cases are going up and up, deaths are going down, and down?
This dichotomy is even in Sweden. In the first two weeks of August they had 4,152 positive swabs. Yet, in the last two weeks of August, they had a mere 14 deaths (one a day, on average). That represents 1 death for every 300 positive swabs or, as the mainstream media call them, positive ‘cases’. Which, currently, represent a CFR of 0.33%. Similar in France where they have a current CFR of 0.35%. In Iceland, where the most testing per capita has occurred, the IFR lies between 0.03% and 0.28%.
Just to compare that with something similar, the CFR of swine flu (HIN1) was ±0.5%. Thus, COVID is a less severe infection than swine flu – the pandemic that never was.
At the start of the epidemic, the only people being tested were those who were being admitted to hospital, who were seriously ill. Many of them died. Which is why in France was an initial CFR of 35%. In the UK the initial CFR was ±14%. Although UK CFR still currently stands at 5%, because it is dragged up by the 14% rate we had at the start. looking at the more recent figures it has changed dramatically. In the first two weeks of August there were 13,996 positive swabs in the UK. In the second two weeks of August there were 129 deaths. If you consider every positive swab to be a case, this represents a CFR of 0.9%. Around one fifteenth of that seen at the start: and now it’s falling fast.
This fall has occurred, and will occur everywhere in the World, because as you increase your testing, you pick up more and more people with less severe symptoms. People who are far less likely to die. The more you test, the more the CFR falls. It falls even more dramatically when you start to test people who have no symptoms at all. In fact, as you broaden your testing net, something else very important happens. You gradually move from looking at the CFR to the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR).

(e) The ‘R’ cannot be calculated from the PCR test results; instead it has to be calculated from a medical-case causing other medical cases. As the person who is contagious and can spread a flu virus is only (s)he who goes down with the flu due to its symptoms caused by an infection that goes beyond the nasal and throat region (not just a common cold). Research shows that an asymptomatic or a person with mild symptoms (common cold or ‘cold positive’) does not spread SARS-CoV-2 (covid-19).
“…a true positive does not necessarily indicate the presence of viable virus. In limited studies to date, many researchers have shown that some subjects remain PCR-positive long after the ability to culture virus from swabs has disappeared. We term this a ‘cold positive’ (to distinguish it from a ‘hot positive’, someone actually infected with intact virus). The key point about ‘cold positives’ is that they are not ill, not symptomatic, not going to become symptomatic and, furthermore, are unable to infect others.” According to Dr Mike Yeadon; Chief Scientific adviser of Pfizer.
University of Oxford Professor Carl Heneghan, Director of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, writes in a July article “How Many COVID Diagnoses Are False Positives?”: “going off current testing practices and results, Covid-19 might never be shown to disappear.” Moreover, covid19 is a PCR- test-result pandemic.

(f) On the 28 Feb. the New England Journal of Medicine published a paper ‘Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted’ which stated the following: ‘On the basis of a case definition requiring a diagnosis of pneumonia, the currently reported case fatality rate is approximately 2%. In another article in the Journal, Guan et al. report mortality of 1.4% among 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19; these patients had a wide spectrum of disease severity. If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.’ As they also added, ‘the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.’

(g) The survival rate of a disease is 100% minus the IFR. The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) value accepted by Yeadon et al in the paper is 0.26%. The survival rate of COVID-19 is 99.8% of infections. This comes close to ordinary flu’ survival rate which is 99.9%. Although COVID can have serious after-effects, so can flu or any respiratory illness. The present survival rate is far higher than initial grim guesses in March and April, cited by Dr. Anthony Fauci, of 94%, or 20 to 30 times deadlier than its reality.

(h) The UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) has released weekly excess mortality data, comparing differences between overall mortality for each week this year with the average of the previous five years. By excluding the COVID-19 death toll from this year’s numbers, it found that until May 1, there were 12,900 more “non-COVID-related” deaths in 2020 than in previous years.
During the Lockdown the ONS regularly published that only 7% of the ‘covid19 death’ had died without another comorbid condition.
UK’ and USA’ all cause death number for Jan. – Aug. ‘20 is about the same for said period in 2019. For said reason, in Sep. the American CDC quietly published that the ‘covid19 death’ number had to be reduced to 6% of its original number. Moreover, the major cause of death was the Lockdown.

(i) A comparison of coronavirus and seasonal influenza CFRs may have been intended, but due to misclassifying an IFR as a CFR, the comparison turned out to be between an adjusted coronavirus CFR of 1% and an influenza IFR of 0.1%. Had the adjusted coronavirus mortality rate not been lowered from 3% to 1%, fatality comparisons of the coronavirus to the IFR of seasonal influenza would have increased from 10-times higher to 20- to 30-times higher. By then, epidemiologists might have been alerted to the possibility of a miscalculation in such an alarming estimation.
Estimation of the IFR in COVID-19 was needed in March to assess the scale of the coronavirus pandemic: yet this was done in July. Meanwhile miscalculations were made, published and executed.
If the IFR, according to the Imperial college were truly 0.9%, and 80% of the population of the UK became infected, there would have been/could have been, around 500,000 deaths = LOCKDOWN
However, if the CFR is around 1%, then IFR will be about 0.1%, maybe less. So, we would see around 50,000 deaths, about the same as was seen in previous bad flu pandemics = DO NOT LOCKDOWN
What Imperial College did was to use a model that overestimated the IFR by a factor of ten.
As the IFR rates of various countries would falls and falls: Imperial College estimated IFR was false. When the UK counted 42,000 deaths, it was 0.074% of population (IFR).
When the US counted 200,000 deaths it was 0.053%.
Sweden, which did not lockdown down, has seen about 6,000 deaths, which is an IFR of 0.06%.

(j) As health authorities responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by implementing lockdowns and other mitigation measures with minimal supporting evidence, scientists warned of “a fiasco in the making,” Caution was also raised against violations of fundamental principles of science and logic, such as the mistaken assumption that correlation implies causation. For example, the public’s belief that mitigation measures were responsible for reducing coronavirus mortality may be a post hoc fallacy if lower mortality was actually due to the overestimation of coronavirus deaths. Furthermore, implementing the unconfirmed hypothesis that mitigation measures save lives in vulnerable populations, and rejecting the null hypothesis that assumes no life-saving effect exists, is a type I error in hypothesis testing. The null hypothesis does not assume a priori knowledge. Therefore, before implementing mitigation measures that incur severe costs, the onus is on mitigation proponents to formally reject the null hypothesis by justifying claims of life-saving benefits. Additionally, education in principles of basic research methods is essential for consumers of public health research, and there is a need to increase instruction in the science and logic of research methods in general education curricula. More research of nondrug mitigation interventions is also urgently needed to prevent COVID-19, especially in vulnerable populations.

(k) Fear, in contrast to moral civic duty and political orientation, was shown to be a more powerful predictor of compliance with mitigating behaviour in response to a viral pandemic, but with decreasing well-being and poorer decision-making. Studies have shown that fear impairs performance of cognitive tasks through debilitating anxiety and worry. Even if a threat ceases to exist, prolonged fearful avoidance of threats is maladaptive and restricts a return to normal social interaction and productivity. For example, after the outbreak of SARS had ended in 2004, avoidance behaviour continued to restrict people’s social interactions and prevented people from returning to work.
Exaggerated levels of fear were driven by sensationalist media coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic. And yet, while the public was ordered to lockdown, overall costs and benefits to society from severe mitigation measures had not been assessed. Fear of infection also prevented people from seeking needed health-care services in hospitals during the pandemic. The ethics of implementing fear-based public health campaigns needs to be re-evaluated for the potential harm these strategies can cause. Dissemination of vital health information to the public should use emotionally persuasive messaging without exploiting and encouraging overreactions based on fear.
In addition, legal and ethical violations associated with mitigation of pandemic diseases were previously investigated by the Institute of Medicine in 2007. People should have the right to full disclosure of all information pertinent to adverse impacts of mitigation measures during a pandemic, including information on legal and constitutional human rights issues, and the public should be guaranteed a voice in a transparent process as authorities establish public health policy.

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates

Our Reference: 202000095691

Dear Bartholomeus Lakeman ,

Thank you for your correspondence sent on 06/10/2020. Your query will be
passed to the relevant area for consideration and has been given a
reference number of 202000095691. Please quote this number in all
correspondence. The Scottish Government aim to respond, where necessary,
as quickly as possible and within the stated timescale as indicated on our
website
(http://www.gov.scot/about/contact-inform...).

Yours sincerely
MiCase
Correspondence system for SG and partner agencies

The Scottish Government takes your privacy seriously. You may have written
to us because you have a question or want to make a complaint. Our privacy
notice
(https://beta.gov.scot/publications/conta...),
available on our website, sets out how we use your personal data, and your
rights when communicating with us. It is made under Article 13 of the
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
********************************************************************** 
This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is
intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is
not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the
email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender
immediately by return.
Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded
in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other
lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this e-mail may
not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government.
**********************************************************************
 

Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates

Dear Dr Lakeman

Thank you for your email below.

We are unable to undertake a further review of this case because we have already responded to your request for review under reference number 202000042097 and clarified our position in our response to you on 22 September 2020. Your appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner remains ongoing and therefore it would not be appropriate for us to comment further at this stage.

Kind regards
Sarah

FOI Manager | Freedom of Information Unit | Scottish Government | 2W | St Andrews House | Regent Road | Edinburgh | EH1 3DG

I am currently working from home due to the COVID-19 restrictions - please contact me via email or Skype for business.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates,
Through Public Health Scotland (PHS) replies to my Freedom of Information reference #2020-000135; PHS stated that, or confessed to:
1. ‘We have no scientific proof or conclusive evidence for that wearing a mask reduces the spread of the covic19 virus.’ Which is aligned with the following facts:
a) Dr. Carl Heneghan, University of Oxford, director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and editor in chief of British Medical Journal Evidence-Based Medicine: ‘It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks’ (https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-la...
b) The WHO ‘The widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider’ (http://bitly.ws/afUm);
c) The CDC: ‘Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.’ (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/1...
d) Cases exploded even with mandates: Los Angeles County, Miami-Dade County, Hawaii, Alabama, the Philippines, Japan, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Israel. For another detailed explanation of the reasons why masks might not prevent spread see https://t.co/1hRFHsxe59.
Which implies that the promotion or mandate ‘to wear mask’; violates the Fraud Act 2006.

2. ‘A positive RT PCR tests does not mean a SARS-CoV-2 infection: as this can be due to an infection by, or an immunisation or an antibody to SARS-CoV-1 or the 5 other corona viruses, or due to an RNA particle from an instable Chromosome 8 or from exosomes to toxics or to stress.’ Which implies that the promotion or mandate to covid-19 testing; violates the Fraud Act 2006.

3. ‘The total all cause death for Jan. - Aug. 2020 is about the same as that of 2019, and of the total registered covid19 death; only 7 – 6% can be attributed to SARS-Cov-2.’ And ‘What the Govt- calls a Covid-19 case is not the same (according to scientific principle) as a medical case of having symptoms and illness due to SARS-CoV-2 and being contagious. Which Implies that the statement ‘covic19 is a pandemic and a serious threat’ violates the Fraud Act 2006.

4. ‘The increment of case numbers and coivd19 mortality are caused by the stress due to the Lockdown measurements, e.g. social distancing, mask wearing, loss of earning, and social alienation.’ Which implies that the Lockdown restrictions violates Art 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

5. Whereas many psychologists consider the threat of inducing debility to be more effective than debility itself: To comply with ‘coercive or controlling behaviour offence’: The Scottish Government has a case to answer whether the impositions of said case numbers increment (by testing and contact trace & track App), a face mask, Lockdown, and fear are imposed to create a collective obedience. To answer whether their Lockdown restrictions steps are not aligned with these in ‘Biderman’s chart of coercion’:
a) Isolation (quarantine, distancing, Isolation from loved ones, solitary confinement, Travel restriction),
b) Monopolization of perception (24-7 news cycle, censorship on dissenting voices, soft puppet armies on internet, Eliminates information not in agreement with abusers’ messages
c) Punishes actions that show independence or resistance, and Enforcing Trivial Demands: Develops habit of compliance; Punishes for non-compliance with the ‘rules’: Rules are rigid and unrealistic but frequently change and often contradict:
d) Occasional Indulgences: Provides positive motivation for conforming. Exchanged with Barren environments (closed bars, restaurants, gyms),
e) Degradation (those who choose personal freedom are called ‘covidiots’, psychopath, anarchist),
f) Induced Debility, Threats (no child schooling, prolonged quarantine, closing business, forced vaccination),
g) Demonstrating an Omnipotence/Omniscience (world shutdown, authority of science/‘the science is set’).
h) Digital Control: Accessing text, email or online accounts to gather information or monitor a victim: Using GPS tracking/GEO tagging devices to find victim’s location: Installing surveillance software on computer or mobile phone

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman