Where is the Scientific proof of SARS-CoV-2?

Bartholomeus Lakeman made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Department of Health and Social Care

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.

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Department of Health and Social Care.

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Department of Health and Social Care,

On 21 May, Matt Hancock stated “This is a deadly virus and it has brought pain to so many both here and across the world”. “But, thanks to your shared sacrifice, we’ve now brought R down. … We are currently at step 1, which means: …” “But for the public at large to know whether or not they have had coronavirus, we need antibody tests at large scale.” “We are developing this critical science, to know the impact of a positive antibody test.”

Therefore, please supply the following on Covid-19
1. Is there an electron micrograph of the pure and fully characterised virus (SARS-CoV-2)?
2. What is the name of the primary specialist peer reviewed paper in which said virus is illustrated and its full genetic information described?
3. What is the name of the primary specialist peer reviewed paper which provides unequivocal proof that the ‘Covid-19’ virus is the sole cause of a particular disease?
4. Are there Autopsies on Covid-19 deaths which do confirm having died by SAR-CoV-2 and not by Disseminated intravascular coagulation, blood dyscrasia, Oxygen deprivation syndrome, or due to an increased intracellular calcium ([Ca2+]i) level? And of said autopsy results: what is the percentage of death only due to SAR-CoV-2?
5. Is there an antibody test specifically for SARS-CoV-2 as that fulfils the Koch’ postulates and has a false positive below 30%, and confirms that Covid-19 symptoms are only due to SARS-CoV-2? And if not, then how is it possible that you or your advisers can provide a meaningful ‘R’ number?

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

Department of Health and Social Care

This is an acknowledgement - please do not reply to this email.

Thank you for contacting the Department of Health and Social Care. 

We are currently experiencing high volumes of enquiries and we are
focusing our resources on the Coronavirus (COVID-19) response.

The answers to many questions, including the latest information on
COVID-19, can be found on [1]GOV.UK, the [2]Department of Health and
Social Care website or by visiting the [3]NHS website. We may not respond
to you if the answer to your enquiry can be found on either of these
websites. Where a reply is appropriate, we aim to send a response within
18 working days, or 20 working days if your query is a Freedom of
Information request or complaint.

If you are experiencing symptoms related to COVID-19, please
visit [4]111.nhs.uk or telephone your GP surgery immediately for further
advice. Do not go to a GP surgery, pharmacy or hospital directly.

If your organisation can offer support to help with the response to
coronavirus, including the supply of personal protective equipment, the
Government has set up an [5]online hub to compile and respond to all
offers. 

If you are clinician looking to support the NHS, please visit the [6]NHS
Professionals website for further information. 

If you are a clinician who has retired within the last 6 years and would
like more information on how to apply for the temporary register, please
visit the [7]NHS England website for further information. 

If you are a student looking to join the NHS, please visit the HEE website
for detailed guidance for [8]nurses and [9]doctors respectively. 

If you are seeking to offer your time to/volunteer for the NHS, please
visit [10]this website for more information.

The Department of Health and Social Care does not process complaints about
the NHS or social services. If you wish to make a complaint about a
healthcare professional, an NHS organisation or a social care provider,
please visit the [11]Complaints Procedure page on GOV.UK.

You can find out more about the Department’s commitments from our Personal
Information
Charterhttps://www.gov.uk/government/organisati....

This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Any views expressed in this
message are not necessarily those of the Department of Health and Social
Care. Please note: Incoming and outgoing email messages are routinely
monitored for compliance with our policy on the use of electronic
communications.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/
2. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
3. https://www.nhs.uk/
4. https://111.nhs.uk/covid-19/
5. https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus-support-f...
6. https://www.nhsprofessionals.nhs.uk/
7. http://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/re...
8. https://www.hee.nhs.uk/news-blogs-events...
9. https://www.hee.nhs.uk/news-blogs-events...
10. https://www.goodsamapp.org/nhs/
11. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

Department of Health and Social Care

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Lakeman,

Please find attached the Department of Health and Social Care's response
to your recent FOI request (our ref: FOI-1228983  ) 

Yours sincerely,

 Nicole Mercer 

Freedom of Information team
Department of Health and Social Care

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Department of Health and Social Care,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Health and Social Care's handling of my FOI request 'Where is the Scientific proof of SARS-CoV-2?'.
My FOI-1228983 of 23 May was directed to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC):
On 7 June, their respond was “DHSC does not hold the information you requested. This is because we are not the appropriate authority to contact on this subject. However, you may wish to contact Government Office for Science, which may hold information relevant to your request.”
DHSC reason “we are not the appropriate authority on this subject” is unacceptable due to the following issues:

1) The DHSC cannot negated to another department i.e. Govt Office for Science their obligation to justify Lockdown’s likely collateral damage to the people, e.g. unemployment, stress, mental health, obesity, restricted (or no) access to adequate health care (e.g. ‘geronticide’), the risk that there will be no return to a known normality: the loss of cultural- & psycho-social identity and relation;

2) It implies that the DHSC had neither the scientific evidence nor the scientific advisers to declare the Covid-19 virus as such a threat that compelled them to endorse on our whole society the Lockdown measurements, nor that they can the justify said consequences of their measurements;

3) Without the verified and validated data of the ‘Covid19 virus’ it’s impossible to define who had died by said virus and who had died from other causes: seasonal flu, severe conditions (who would statistically die this year) or from said Lockdown’s consequences. Moreover, the cure is likely to be worse than the disease, e.g.
a) For to declare covid19 as the threat for to move to a Lockdown: Govt scientific advisers should have implied some basic scientific principles, e.g. (a) Validating the tests (and the image) (with a low (<30%) false positive rate) that can distinct covid19 from usual flu; (b) Disproving the ‘zero hypothesis’ (H0= covid19’s IFR and CFR are the same as that of a seasonal flu); (c) Proving the ‘one hypothesis’ (H1 = covid19’ risk is so much more than that of usual flu that it requires the Lockdown); (d) Balancing the consequences of acting on H0 – vs – H1 (acting on H1 would limit the Covid19 mortality: H0 would limit the individual & collateral damage from the Lockdown)..
b) In 2009, for the swine flu the Imperial College advised by the ‘R0’ and other computer numbers, statistics; a mass vaccination. Consequently 6 million UK people had GSK’ vaccine of which 1000 got long-term or permanently damaged; whilst UK’ swine flu deaths was 283.

4) The data and ‘science’ which the Govt used to move to lockdown seems to be ‘borrowed’, e.g. from the WHO, PHE, SAGA or data providers otherwise which are related to the pharmaceutical corporations, institutions and its funders with an interest in the vaccine, which as the Govt advisers did insufficiently validate; said used data is ‘Public Relation Data’, e.g.
c) It's a principle of science that findings are validated by a peer review. Yet the Govt refuted the advice from the independent scientists who found said data to be unverifiable or invalid; and found that the dangerousness of Covid-19 was overestimated: probably at no point did the danger posed by the new virus go beyond the normal level and was no more than the winter flu of 2017/18 (excess deaths 50,000: source ONS); and who found that the risk from Covid-19 did not weight up against the risks from the consequences of the protection measurements.
d) It appears that the Infection Fatality Rate for COVID-19 is somewhere between 0.07-0.20%, which is in line with seasonal flu! And a risk 20 to 30 times lower than previous World Health Organization estimated based on Imperial College hypothetical models.
e) The influence, on our health service, from said institutions and funders can be beguiling. E.g. Prof Neil Ferguson predictions on Covid19 mortality were accepted as infallible. Yet it could not be peer-reviewed as he refused to disclosed his background info and way of its interpretation. And Hydroxychloroquine for to treat Covid19 was discredited due to an article “Hydroxychloroquine /chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19” published by the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine. However, said article had to redacted after the Guardian proved it to be based on fabricated “evidence”; shrouded in scientific-sounding language of credibility as a paid infomercial for Big Pharma’s vaccine.
f) Several foreign parliaments, e.g. Italy and Germany (after 10 weeks’ Lockdown) come to realise that said (a & c) scientific principles were neglected, and that they got said balance wrong: the data and science used for the Lockdown was insufficiently validated; and that it brought more harm than good. And those countries who did not do Lockdown did so because they verified (did not ‘borrow’) the data from the WHO and the Imperial College or from their funders (BMGF, GAVI, Pharmaceutical companies); and they had less total-deaths per million population than those who did Lockdown.
g) Moreover, the Govt has laid itself open to have violated the “The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014” and to have subjected peoples‘ health need to the interest of the pharmaceutical institutions and its funders (e.g. BMGF) (whose stock market value, during the Lockdown has been doubled);
h) The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine: Pre-publication data released on May 13th reveals the vaccine is less promising than the OVG team implied. All vaccinated macaques sickened after exposure to COVID-19. Edinburgh University’s Ms Riley told Forbes the vaccine provided “insufficient” antibodies to prevent infection and viral shedding. Vaccinated monkeys spread the disease as readily as unvaccinated. It also appears that 90% of said monkeys got infertile.
Andrew Pollard, Senior Advisor to MRHA Panel which licenses vaccines, chairs JVCI committee that mandates them, he used his power to force his COVID vaccine into human trials (as he takes payments from virtually all the big vaccine makers; he shunned inert placebo tests and restricted safety studies to three weeks to hide long-term injuries. In 2014, Pollard developed GlaxoSmithKline’s notorious Bexsero meningitis vaccine, and then mandated it to children despite significant safety signals for Kawasaki Disease and the rarity of meningococcal-B infections this cause Kawasaki disease in as many as one out of every 1000 children). So, OVG recruited 510 healthy volunteers for human trials.
In an update on May 22, the Oxford researchers revealed that “1,000 immunisations have been completed” and that next study will enroll “up to 10,260 adults and children (mostly in foster care) and will involve a number of partner institutions across the country.”
A whistle-blower leaked that said vaccine contains antibodies which cause that 61 out of 63 (trial) women, got infertile: Similar in male whose germ count, testosterone and prostate hormone dropped below the fertility range: causing in one generation a reduction up to 15% of the population.
N.B, In a 2010 TEDx talk Bill Gates said ”The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent”. And in a Ted Talk Houston 2017 he stated “We can wipe out a lot of humanity if we just get vaccines into more people”. At the CNN 4/23/20 he stated “We want to use Covid-19 as an excuse to ger everyone vaccinated”.
But a vaccine that hides symptoms and allows transmission is worse than no vaccine at all.

Abovementioned notions and scientific principles do put the DHSC under the obligation to review my FOI.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman (Dr)

FreedomofInformation, Department of Health and Social Care

Dear Dr Lakemann,

Thank you for your email.

The Department has received your request for an internal review of FOI-1228983, and will aim to reply within 20 working days.

Kind regards

FOI Team

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear FreedomofInformation,

In case the DHSC has 20 days after 9 june: then their responds should be on next Monday: it that right?

Yours sincerely,

Bartholomeus Lakeman

FreedomofInformation, Department of Health and Social Care

Dear Dr Lakeman,

Thank you for your email.

The Department will aim to respond within 20 working days of receiving your request for an internal review, which will be 7 July.

I hope that is helpful.

Kind regards,
FOI Team

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FreedomofInformation, Department of Health and Social Care

Dear Dr Lakeman,

I apologise for the length of time it has taken to carry out your requested internal review of FOI-1232496.

The Department of Health and Social Care aims to respond to requests for internal reviews within 20 working days. Accordingly, you would expect to receive our response on 7 July 2020.

Unfortunately, the Department's response is not yet complete. We will update you as soon as possible.

Please accept my apologies for this delay.

Yours sincerely,

Charlene Carter
Freedom of Information Casework Manager
Department of Health and Social Care
39 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0EU

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear FreedomofInformation,
My FOI-1228983 was delivered on 23 May.
DHSC reply of 7 June was uncreditable; therefore, on 9 June I requested an internal review.
On 20 June, DHSC promised to respond to my request for an internal review by 7 July.
As until today this promised has been left unfulfilled: meaning that DHSC has no scientific evidence for to back up their claims about coivd19
Please request DHSC to provide a.s.a.p. said promised internal review; or alternatively advise me about how to progress. Thank you
Yours sincerely,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

FreedomofInformation, Department of Health and Social Care

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Lakeman,

I apologise for the length of time it has taken to carry out your requested internal review of FOI-1228983.

The review is now complete. Please see the attached letter for the outcome.

Yours sincerely,

Charlene Carter
Freedom of Information Casework Manager
Department of Health and Social Care
39 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0EU

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Freedom of Information; dear Madam/Sir,

INTERNAL REVIEW CASE REFERENCE IR 1228983
FOI request-FOI-1228983 / 666987

On 24 Sep. Charlene Carter, Casework Manager Freedom of Information Team stated that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) relies on Section 12(1) of the FOIA because my request for information (FOI-1228983/ 666987) exceed the appropriate limit i.e. £600.
Said use of FOIA Section 12(1) for not answering FOI ‘peer reviewed/verified proof of the Covid-19 virus’ is unconscionable for the following reasons:
1) For the members of the Public to give an informed consent to the Lockdown measurements and its consequences: requires that the Govt or DHSC provides the information/ the science which support said Govt’ actions;
2) Prior its implementations, Matt Hancock, the DHSC and the Cabinet gave the assurance to have the science which support the Corona Act and the Lockdown measurements;
3) The average costs of the Lockdown measurements (as DHSC advised), to most members of the public; is more than £600;
4) Every man/woman and child have an Inalienable right and duty to defend all Crimes against Humanity (mankind). Therefor a FOI request can be used for any/all public concerns: And under the Declaration of Helsinki; the Govt should answer the FOI;
5) On 7 July, the DHSC, stated “we are not the appropriate authority on this subject”, and advised me to pose my FOI to Government Office for Science: who neither hold information relevant to my FOI. And now using FOIA Section 12 suggests that the DHSC is eschewing to answer FOI request #1228983;
6) Other FOI requests for the scientific -data or -principles which underpins Govt’s actions regarding Covid19, posed to Public Health Scotland, PHE, DHSC and the Science Office; were categorically under the FOISA sections 17 or 25 not answered;
7) The Govt’s/ DHSC categorically not answering said FOI requests, by using either FOIA Section 12(1), 17 or 25 is a breach of their code of Transparency and Accountability; the maxim ‘Primum non nocere’; and the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consequently, to the above 7 points: the DHSC has to answer FOI request 1228983 / 666987.
Or the Govt. / DHSC should at least provide a ‘peer reviewed and verified paper which provides the proof of SARS-CoV-2, and its genome that has caused the Covid-19 pandemic’.
This under the following conditions: (a) the paper, picture or its test is not peer reviewed by the Pharmaceutical industry or a vaccine institution or its lobby or its third-party expert; (b) The proof of said genome is not provided by accumulating multi series of tests which add their findings (of genetic sequencies) which by an extrapolation allegedly results into the total SARS-CoV-2 genome.

Yours sincerely,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

FreedomofInformation, Department of Health and Social Care

Dear Mr Lakeman,

Thank you for your email.

As set out in DHSC's email to you of 24 September, the internal review is now complete. As you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may wish to apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision.

The ICO can be contacted at:

The Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely,

FOI Team
Department of Health and Social Care

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir