Bartholomeus Lakeman (Account suspended)

Dear Public Health Scotland,

On 14 June was published in the Lancet on behalf of Public Health Scotland and the EAVE II “SARS-CoV-2 Delta VOC in Scotland: demographics, risk of hospital admission, and vaccine effectiveness”. It states “On May 19, 2021, the Delta Variant of Concern (VOC), formerly known as the Indian VOC or B 1.617.2, became the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 in Scotland. (replacing) the Alpha VOC (formerly known as the Kent VOC, B.1.1.7, or S gene negative.” The article has marked the Delta Variant as S gene-positive which samples had Ct values up to 30; and valid [?] Ct values for the other two genes. However, “a weak S gene-positive sample had [also] a Ct of 30 or less .” Further in the article, without any explanation it mixes ‘infection’ which ‘cases’.
To note is that prior the ‘Covid pandemic’ the science disregarded a Ct above 27: it having a too high false positive rate; and 'a case' was a patient being ill with the symptoms belonging to the illness.
According to pre-covid science: discerning cases from infection and using a Ct cut off of 27:
1) How did you (PHS) discern the cause of a positive PCR test either being due to a covid Delta variant or a comorbidity or due to a covid vaccination? And please provide the true incidence of the Covid-Delta variant.

The article states “Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC when compared to the Alpha VOC, with risk of admission particularly increased in those with five or more relevant comorbidities.” and “We show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups.”
2) Please explain how the younger and affluent groups as well those with 5 or more comorbidities have a similar risk of hospital admission due to said delta variant?
3) How did you exclude that these hospitalisations were not simple due to the patient’s comorbid conditions? Why would a comorbidity not increase the chance of a positive PCR test, and why has a PCR Ct value up to 30 not a too high false positive rate? And/or why do these cofounding issues not void your determination them being ill and hospitalised due to the Delta variant?

PHE and PHS data show that in Scotland the hospital admissions belt peaked in Jan- 2020 (blamed to the Alpha VOC) and sloped down to April after which it flatted to a ‘zero’ in May. Whilst the Delta variant belt was flat between Jan- and April, it raised steeply in May and this belt plateaued in June.
4) Please provide the proof that contradict that the Delta variant belt being an inversion of the hospital belt: and the proof that the Delta variant poses a serious risk to healthy individuals.

On 14 June Neil Ferguson emailed to his colleagues, e.g., Dr Gregor Smith the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland. On its 2nd paragraph it reads “In short, this will be moving towards a permanent lockdown of the country from Thursday 15th July, with the reasons for doings so being a spike in the new Indian and Nepal ‘variants’ of ‘the virus’ (which as we know is just a re-branding of Hay Fever). The ‘virus’ has already been very profitable and fruitful for us and there is no limit to which we cannot further profit in both financial and reputational terms.”
Bearing in mind the content of this email being addressed to the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland:
5) Please provide proof of there being no conflict of interest in regards what your article promotes e.g., vaccination provides protection and the unvaccinated poses a risk.

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

phs foi, Public Health Scotland

1 Attachment

Dear Bartholomeus Lakeman,

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REFERENCE 2021-000687

 

Thank you for your request for information received by Public Health
Scotland on 25^thJune 2021 requesting information about.

 

‘’ On 14 June was published in the Lancet on behalf of Public Health
Scotland and the EAVE II “SARS-CoV-2 Delta VOC in Scotland: demographics,
risk of hospital admission, and vaccine effectiveness”. It states “On May
19, 2021, the Delta Variant of Concern (VOC), formerly known as the Indian
VOC or B 1.617.2, became the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 in Scotland.
(replacing) the Alpha VOC (formerly known as the Kent VOC, B.1.1.7, or S
gene negative.” The article has marked the Delta Variant as S
gene-positive which samples had Ct values up to 30; and valid [?] Ct
values for the other two genes. However, “a weak S gene-positive sample
had [also] a Ct of 30 or less .” Further in the article, without any
explanation it mixes ‘infection’ which ‘cases’. 

 

To note is that prior the ‘Covid pandemic’ the science disregarded a Ct
above 27: it having a too high false positive rate; and 'a case' was a
patient being ill with the symptoms belonging to the illness. 

According to pre-covid science: discerning cases from infection and using
a Ct cut off of 27:

 

1)       How did you (PHS) discern the cause of a positive PCR test either
being due to a covid Delta variant or a comorbidity or due to a covid
vaccination? And please provide the true incidence of the Covid-Delta
variant. 

 

 

The article states “Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately
doubled in those with the Delta VOC when compared to the Alpha VOC, with
risk of admission particularly increased in those with five or more
relevant comorbidities.” and “We show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was
found mainly in younger, more affluent groups.” 

 

2)       Please explain how the younger and affluent groups as well those
with 5 or more comorbidities have a similar risk of hospital admission due
to said delta variant? 

 

3)       How did you exclude that these hospitalisations were not simple
due to the patient’s comorbid conditions? Why would a comorbidity not
increase the chance of a positive PCR test, and why has a PCR Ct value up
to 30 not a too high false positive rate? And/or why do these cofounding
issues not void your determination them being ill and hospitalised due to
the Delta variant?

 

 

PHE and PHS data show that in Scotland the hospital admissions belt peaked
in Jan- 2020 (blamed to the Alpha VOC) and sloped down to April after
which it flatted to a ‘zero’ in May. Whilst the Delta variant belt was
flat between Jan- and April, it raised steeply in May and this belt
plateaued in June. 

 

4)       Please provide the proof that contradict that the Delta variant
belt being an inversion of the hospital belt: and the proof that the Delta
variant poses a serious risk to healthy individuals.

 

 

On 14 June Neil Ferguson emailed to his colleagues, e.g., Dr Gregor Smith
the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland. On its 2nd paragraph it reads “In
short, this will be moving towards a permanent lockdown of the country
from Thursday 15th July, with the reasons for doings so being a spike in
the new Indian and Nepal ‘variants’ of ‘the virus’ (which as we know is
just a re-branding of Hay Fever). The ‘virus’ has already been very
profitable and fruitful for us and there is no limit to which we cannot
further profit in both financial and reputational terms.” 

Bearing in mind the content of this email being addressed to the Chief
Medical Officer for Scotland:

 

5)       Please provide proof of there being no conflict of interest in
regards what your article promotes e.g., vaccination provides protection
and the unvaccinated poses a risk.’’

 

Your request is being dealt with and will be answered within 20 working
days in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Yours sincerely,

 

Saba ALSalahy FOI Coordinator

Public Health Scotland

Email: [1][email address]

[2]cid:image001.jpg@01D748A9.AC294E20

[3]Web | [4]Twitter | [5]Instagram

 

Your privacy:  we use your personal information such as name and address
so that we can comply with our legal obligations to respond to FOI and
environmental information requests. For further details about our use of
personal information, please see our Privacy Notice at
https://www.publichealthscotland.scot/ou...

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received
it by mistake,
please (i) contact the sender by email reply; (ii) delete the email from
your system; .
and (iii) do not copy the email or disclose its contents to anyone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.publichealthscotland.scot/
4. https://twitter.com/P_H_S_Official
5. https://www.instagram.com/publichealthsc...

phs foi, Public Health Scotland

2 Attachments

Dear Bartholomeus Lakeman,

 

Freedom of Information Reference: 2021-000687

 

Please find attached our response to your freedom of information request.

 

I hope this information is helpful to you.  Please do not hesitate to
contact me on [1][email address] if I can be of any further assistance.

 

If you are unhappy with our response to your request, you do have the
right to request us to review it. Your request should be made within 40
working days of receipt of this correspondence, and we will reply within
20 working days of receipt. The review will be undertaken by a reviewer
who was not involved in the original decision-making process. The reviewer
can be contacted as follows:

 

The FOI Reviewer

Public Health Scotland

Gyle Square

1 South Gyle Crescent

Edinburgh

EH12 9EB

Email: [2][email address]

 

Please note that Public Health Scotland staff are working from home
currently in line with the COVID-19 pandemic guidance. Therefore, contact
by email is preferable.

 

If our decision is unchanged following a review and you remain
dissatisfied with this, you then have the right to make a formal complaint
to the Scottish Information Commissioner within 6 months of receipt of our
review response. You can do this by using the Scottish Information
Commissioner’s Office online appeals service at
[3]www.itspublicknowledge.info/Appeal. If you remain dissatisfied with the
Commissioner’s response you then have the option to appeal to the Court of
Session on a point of law.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Saba ALSalahy FOI Coordinator

Public Health Scotland

Email: [4][email address]

[5]cid:image001.jpg@01D748A9.AC294E20

[6]Web | [7]Twitter | [8]Instagram

 

Your privacy:  we use your personal information such as name and address
so that we can comply with our legal obligations to respond to FOI and
environmental information requests. For further details about our use of
personal information, please see our Privacy Notice at
https://www.publichealthscotland.scot/ou...

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received
it by mistake,
please (i) contact the sender by email reply; (ii) delete the email from
your system; .
and (iii) do not copy the email or disclose its contents to anyone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/Appeal
4. mailto:[email address]
6. http://www.publichealthscotland.scot/
7. https://twitter.com/P_H_S_Official
8. https://www.instagram.com/publichealthsc...

Bartholomeus Lakeman (Account suspended)

Dear phs foi,
The main aim of this FOI is to know whether the NERVTAG study commissioned by PHS and the EAVE II stands on itself without serving a conflict of interest, whether this study facilitates an informed consent and to serve the public health care or it was mainly to cover PHS policy and plan to get everyone vaccinated despite concerns about the vaccines’ effectiveness and safety.

The referred study has ignored some fundamental cofounding facts about the test, the virus, its mutations and its effect. It is arbitrary to state that the TermoFisher’ RT PCR test does define and discerned Delta variant from the others and it is arbitrary to state that this variant is more dangerous and more prevalent in -or due to- unvaccinated people. This for the following arguments:

The SARS-CoV-2 genome consists of nearly 30,000 RNA bases. There are about 11 protein-coding genes in the SARS-CoV-2 genome and there are genes that overlap, and in this very large genome there are genes within a gene which have a different reading frame: it is very complex. The researchers also analysed more than 1,800 mutations that have arisen in SARS-CoV-2 since it was first identified. And since the Covid vaccination have arisen variants of concern, e.g., the B.1.1.7 strain, the P.1 strain, the B.1.351 strain, the Delta 1.617.2 strain and 6 other strains. And each of those variants has more than 20 other mutations. A single test, without a diagnostic validation, cannot discern these.

These mutations can be explained by Studies from the ‘Read group’ who have shown that vaccination enhances natural selection, creates pathogenic strains which would otherwise not exist and pushes pathogenic evolution which in turn infect the unvaccinated; see http://www.thereadgroup.net/wp-content/u... Proof of the above is from Israel where most of the population is vaccinated and where the Delta variant is particularly prevalent amongst the vaccinated and studies show that it are the vaccinated who infect the unvaccinated.

Yet overall, these mutations intermediate difference is but about 0.3% and the overall complexity of mutation dynamics makes that many characteristics and potentials of SARS CoV-2 variants are for the scientist unknown. They admit that all what can be achieved out of comparative genomics evidence is a first-pass guess. Therefore, is it arbitrary that the used RT PCR test will show more evidence about the Delta variant than what the scientists do know. The ThermoFisher TaqPath PCR test claiming by surveillance SARS-CoV-2’ S-gene dropouts to differentiate 3 mutations; is particularly focussed on the B.1.1.7 and not on the Delta strain. Its differentiation technique depends on the use of a low Ct value e.g., 15 to 22; and so, the use of a Ct of 30 does invalidate this test. The test does not differentiate between a viral load and that of its RNA; the test is without a diagnostic validation and Termofisher states it is for research only. All which has been ignored in this NERVTAG study.

For over a year the scientific community has shown that a PCR test is not a diagnostic, that a case is an ill person by the symptoms due to the same illness, and that the test’s Ct above 27 is invalid. And yet the above science has been ignored in this NERVTAG study. And that them using the PCR test with a Ct up to 30 do provide false results, is shown by that in Scotland the all-cause hospital admissions belt and death belt peaked in Jan- 2020 (blamed to the Alpha VOC) and sloped down to April after which it flatted to a ‘zero’ in May and beyond: whilst the Delta variant Belt was flat between Jan- and April, it raised steeply in May and this belt plateaued in June. There being an inversion between the Delta variant belt and the hospital belt shows that the Delta variant does not poses a serious risk to healthy individuals. That something is more transmissible does not mean that it’s going to create more severe infection, and where the infection is clustering in younger people, this is in age groups who are very unlikely to get seriously ill as a result. That young people have been admitted for various yet unknown reasons and tested positive for the S+ test; does not proof that they were ill and hospitalised due to the Delta variant.

The Delta variant being a relatively non-threat is due to the T cells; and their role in COVID-19 was confirmed early on in the pandemic. Scientists showed that those who recovered from SARS-CoV-1 outbreak some 17 years ago have immunity against SARS-CoV-2. it turns out they still had memory T cells against SARS-CoV-1 which also recognized SARS-CoV-2, despite being only 80% similar. Now, if a 20% difference was not enough to circumvent the immune system of these patients, why should you be concerned with a variant that is at most 0.3% different from the original SARS-CoV-2?

Regarding the conflict of Interest. NERVTAG feeds into SAGE and vice versa. It contains many behaviour scientists and third-party experts related to the industry and GAVI; SAGE along the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling [Spi-M] (and Behaviour [Spi-B] and Imperial College have been responsible for dialling up that fear in order to make the population more compliant to GAVI' instructions. See the email of 14 June from N Ferguson to Dr Gregor Smith.
As long as the Govt, PHE and PHS ignores, ridicules or censures studies which -and scientist who- show a critical view on their vaccination program; they are serving a conflict of interest. Further, billions have been spent on increasing the public’s collective obedience and none is spent on facilitating the public an informed consent.

Now the Govt proceed with a constructive mandatory vaccination bil for the adult population, its related future risks of death and the risks of serious hospitalisation will increase, as shown by the yellow card reports and Euravigilance and VAERS. It shows that for to get the whole population vaccinated, the Govt- and its advisory groups, PHE and PHS will do everything, including commissioning biased-scientific studies to support vaccination.

Herewith is PHS asked to review their response and this in line with independent science and its inconvenient truths.

Yours sincerely,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

phs foi, Public Health Scotland

1 Attachment

 

Dear Bartholomeus Lakeman,

 

Thank you for your email received on 21 July 2021:  

 

Public Health Scotland is unclear currently which aspects of the handling
of your request, or information provided to you that you are dissatisfied
with.

 

Please can you confirm if you are seeking a request for review? If so
please could you respond with the aspects you wish to be considered and
provided to the Reviewer.

 

Once we have received your response, the information will be passed to the
Reviewer. The points you outline will be considered along with a review of
the procedures followed in the handling of the request. A review will be
undertaken and a response provided within 20 working days.  

 

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Chaz Anyanwu | Freedom of Information Officer

Public Health Scotland

Email: [1][email address]

[2]Title: Public Health Scotland logo - Description: The Public Health
Scotland logo

[3]Web | [4]Twitter | [5]Instagram

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received
it by mistake,
please (i) contact the sender by email reply; (ii) delete the email from
your system; .
and (iii) do not copy the email or disclose its contents to anyone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.publichealthscotland.scot/
4. https://twitter.com/P_H_S_Official
5. https://www.instagram.com/publichealthsc...

Bartholomeus Lakeman (Account suspended)

Dear Chaz Anyanwu, dear phs foi,
thanks for asking for clarification of my internal review request.
Initially my FOI was answered by way of it being a primary defence of the NERVTAG study.
I wish my FOI questions to be re-answered with in mind the following: PHS first responsibility is to the public; to protect the public against erroneous health policies. Which after 18 months as ‘a remedy’ are worse than the illness: the risks from the virus is to be preferred above being subjected to a medical tyranny or a Chinese style of citizenship. PHS has to answer the FOI questions from what is evidence based; as in the NERVTAG study there are some serious flaws e.g.:

Covid-19 existence, many of its PCR tests and vaccines are derived from GenBank MN908947.3 which is an in-silico /computerised model estimating for <78% to be the genome of the coronavirus spike S glycoprotein. This 78% match between the in-silico and the 'real' genome is like having a ruler that is for about 78% correct whilst it being used for cutting wood and so, providing a number of variants and a bad result. Which explains the SARS-Cov2 variants and why said vaccines cannot provide immunity against Covid-19.

In the UK as in Scotland after April/May the hospital belt went flat, and so the NERVTAG study cannot state that the Delta variant caused an increment of hosp-admissions. Which can be explained by that they used for the TermoFisher’PCR test a too high Ct; instead of by the test instructed average 16 the study used 30. Running the PCR test at too-high cycle threshold (CT), end up with an inordinate number of false-positives: a CT of 35 will give a 97% false-positive rate. For maximum accuracy, you’d have to use a CT below 17.

Data show countries with the highest COVID injection rates are experiencing the greatest upsurges in cases, while countries with the lowest injection rates have the lowest caseloads; posted by Corona Realism. It’s unclear what PCR test-Ct all these countries are using, but it’s unlikely they’re using a CT below 20 as a matter of routine. This means most case counts around the world will be falsely elevated. ·        As of 15 July, in the U.K, 87.5% of the adult population had received one dose of COVID-19 “vaccine” and 67.1% had received two. Yet symptomatic cases among partially and fully “vaccinated” are now suddenly on the rise, with an average of 15,537 new infections a day being detected, a 40% increase from the week before. Meanwhile, the daily average of new symptomatic cases among unvaccinated is 17,588, down 22% from the week before. This suggests the wave among unvaccinated had peaked and that natural herd-immunity has set in, while “vaccinated” individuals are becoming more prone to infection.

U.K. hospitals are confirming double-injected patients are part of the patient population being treated for active COVID infection, and two cities have issued public warnings to their residents, letting them know they may end up in the hospital even if they’ve been double-injected against COVID-19. And onboard the British Defence aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, 100 fully injected crew members had tested positive. The Navy ship has a case rate of 1 in 16. These suggests vaccine-induced herd immunity is impossible, as these injections apparently cannot prevent COVID-19 even if 100% of a given population gets them.

It is mathematically impossible for COVID shots to eliminate SARS-CoV-2 infection. The four available shots provide an absolute risk reduction between just 0.7% and 1.3%. Meanwhile, the non-institutionalized infection fatality ratio across age groups is a mere 0.26%. Since the absolute risk that needs to be overcome is lower than the absolute risk reduction these injections can provide; mass vaccination simply cannot have a favourable impact.

Compare to the real world is the NERVTAG study so much on the blink that it is suspect of being on the same agenda as the email of 14 June between Neil Fergusson and Dr Gregor Smith: the study serving the interest of the vaccine agenda and that of transfering us into a Chinese citizenship. The study harms the public interest and science; it should be reviewed critically by an impartial mind or it should be retracted.

Yours sincerely,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

Bartholomeus Lakeman (Account suspended)

Dear phs foi,
You did receive my reply on 29 July: Or was that not clear enough?

PHS replied to question 1 with “Sequencing is only carried out on a sample of positive PCR tests. The table below gives the association between S+ and S- and alpha/delta among those swabs sequenced up to 25 May 2021.” alpha 15 S+ -vs- 7,348 S-; delta 2,327 S+ -vs- 11 S-.” However, this does not clarify with which Ct(s) this S- & S+ diffraction was made. According to Thermofisher instruction if the test’s used Ct is above 22 then one cannot state that the founded S+ is a very good surrogate for the delta variant. Further, the alleged virus strain differentiation might be an artefact due to how the computer program's use of the GenBank ORF: the variants can come about by just changing the starting point of the open reading frame (ORF). To note is that even the American FDA and CDC admit that none of the PCR tests are calibrated on the real thing (SARS-CoV-2) but on the genes of other corona viruses. There are about 10 GenBank numbers on which a ‘Covid19 RT PCR test’ is based. Now the questions are: how did the study exclude that the Delta is not a variant of a common cold coronavirus; which Ct has been used, and did PHS exclude that the delta variant is the said artefact. Did PHS really find the thing or just its surrogate?

PHS to question 2 “Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC when compared to the Alpha VOC, with risk of admission particularly increased in those with five or more relevant comorbidities.” Herewith, it seems that PHS denies that the Hospital belt came down when ‘the Delta infection’ came up. That a test scheme interpretation scores particularly young and affluent people whilst the Hospital Belt went flat: confirms that the test score is an artefact. Did PHS verify the said score by means that are more based on a reality check?

Question 3: In case one has a comorbidity, e.g., a cardiac condition or obesities one’ ACE2 receptor distribution is likely to be altered by the condition or its drug prescription. This alteration might increase the viral load and so increase the chance of a positive PCR test due to some kind of coronavirus. The Test instruction states that test results should be interpreted according to the clinical information. How can one see that the study did do that?

Question 4: “The analysis shown on Table S3 from the article, demonstrates that in unvaccinated individuals who test positive for Covid-19 there is an increased risk of hospitalisation if you have the S+ variant compared to the S- variant.” Yet (in table 3 & 4) the unvaccinated difference in S+ (3672) and S- (5828) could have all kinds of biases. Did PHS exclude confounding factors such as clinical and social reason for not being vaccinated, reasons for Hospital admission; and that being vaccinated (DNA modification) causes a different sensitivity to used test (increasing an outcome of S-)?

The Study being widely published has an enormous impact on Gov- regulations: it restricts and modifies the public life, and so, serving the interest of those who want this; the addressee of N. Fergusson’s email and the WEF and their 'vaccination' agenda.

Yours sincerely,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

phs foi, Public Health Scotland

1 Attachment

Dear Bartholomeus Lakeman,

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REFERENCE 2021-000702

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Your clarifications have been provided to the relevant colleagues and we
are currently awaiting that information.

 

Please be assured that your request is being dealt with and will be
answered shortly.

We are taking all necessary steps to ensure that your clarifications will
be expedited and  will be in touch in due course with further information.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Chaz Anyanwu | Freedom of Information Officer

Public Health Scotland

Email: [1][email address]

[2]Title: Public Health Scotland logo - Description: The Public Health
Scotland logo

[3]Web | [4]Twitter | [5]Instagram

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received
it by mistake,
please (i) contact the sender by email reply; (ii) delete the email from
your system; .
and (iii) do not copy the email or disclose its contents to anyone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.publichealthscotland.scot/
4. https://twitter.com/P_H_S_Official
5. https://www.instagram.com/publichealthsc...

Chaz Anyanwu, Public Health Scotland

1 Attachment

Dear Bartholomeus Lakeman

 

I am writing regarding your clarification request for information,
received on 29 July 2021;  

 

FOI 2021 000687: Clarification Response

 

“Initially my FOI was answered by way of it being a primary defence of the
NERVTAG study.

 

I wish my FOI questions to be re-answered with in mind the following: PHS
first responsibility is to the public; to protect the public against
erroneous health policies. Which after 18 months as ‘a remedy’ are worse
than the illness: the risks from the virus is to be preferred above being
subjected to a medical tyranny or a Chinese style of citizenship. PHS has
to answer the FOI questions from what is evidence based; as in the NERVTAG
study there are some serious flaws..."

 

Public Health Scotland can advise that the CT values used in the paper
were set by Public Health England and Public Health Scotland, the Scottish
government set the vaccine policy, and all conflicts of interest have been
declared by all authors in the paper. Therefore, we are unable to assist
any further other than the information which has been already provided as
this is how the information is held.

 

Please also be advised that the Freedom of Information request service is
for information which is actually ‘held’ for the purposes of the Freedom
of Information Request Act 2002. Please note that the Act does not require
a public body to create information as a result of a request but it simply
requires a Public body to provide what is actually held at the time the
request is made. In response to the information requested we have provided
the information ‘held’.

 

We hope that the above information satisfies your queries. If you are
still unhappy with our response, we can proceed with your request for an
internal review. A further response will then come to you under the terms
of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). Please let us
know if you wish for us to do so.

 

If our decision is unchanged following a review and you remain
dissatisfied, you have the right to make a formal complaint to the
Scottish Information Commissioner within six months of receipt of our
review response. You can do this by using the Scottish Information
Commissioner’s Office online appeals service at
[1]www.itspublicknowledge.info/Appeal. If you remain dissatisfied with the
Commissioner’s response you then have the option to appeal to the Court of
Session on a point of law.

 

Kind regards

 

Chaz

 

 

Chaz Anyanwu | Freedom of Information Officer

Public Health Scotland

Email: [2][email address]

[3]Title: Public Health Scotland logo - Description: The Public Health
Scotland logo

[4]Web | [5]Twitter | [6]Instagram

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received
it by mistake,
please (i) contact the sender by email reply; (ii) delete the email from
your system; .
and (iii) do not copy the email or disclose its contents to anyone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/Appeal
2. mailto:[email address]
4. http://www.publichealthscotland.scot/
5. https://twitter.com/P_H_S_Official
6. https://www.instagram.com/publichealthsc...

Bartholomeus Lakeman (Account suspended)

Dear Public Health Scotland,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Public Health Scotland's handling of my FOI request 'Delta Variant’s true risk profile'.

When it is PHE and the Scottish Govt- who determine, for the PCR test its Ct value as 30 or 40; then they are inflating the science that states that, for to avoid a too high false postive test result its maximum Ct value is 22. Inflating the science is the same as inflating the currency: its value loss harms the people yet it is for the Govt- its gain. Inflation is a way to cover-up Govt- system failure. When it is Govt departments who determine which Ct value is used; it raises the suspicion that this is to serve the interest of its system. When Public health care is not based on science but on the opinion of a Govt- departments or systems: it is to cover-up its systems failures.

A similar study as PHS did the imperial College; “REACT-1 round 13 final report: exponential growth, high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and vaccine effectiveness associated with Delta variant in England during May to July 2021”. See https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/... This study fails to mention which PCR test it used and the instructions of its to be used Ct. It chooses a PCR test Ct value up to 40; and it found no significant difference between a Ct of 35 and 33. Using a Ct of 33; a positive test was provided for 22.9% by the Unvaccinated; 27.7% by an Unknown vaccine status; 25.2% by those with 1 dose vaccine and 24.3% by 2 vaccine doses. Showing that the differences are insignificant between 1 or 2 vaccine doses and between unvaccinated and vaccinated: -2%. That the study included 27.7% of an unknown vaccine status does bias all its calculated differences.
Yet in order to change these insignificant differences into “the infection risk of unvaccinated is 3 x that of vaccinated”; the study used a “Distribution graphs of N-gene detection (aka Delta strain) Ct values, by vaccine status, for positive samples obtained from individuals aged 18-64 years.” Showing that the difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated was at a Ct value of 24 for the unvaccinated and 27 for the vaccinated as difference in Cumulative density. This computerised difference is, however, virtual and arbitrary as this Ct differentiation failed to include the record of having Covid-symptoms: The study actually states that most positive tests were from asymptomatic individuals; yet -no symptoms: no case: no infection-. When the study mentioned infections; it only means PCR test positive; which means that asymptomatic individuals have viral particles in their nose, yet as long as the viral load are not infiltrated into the body (which causes symptoms) those individuals cannot be viral transmitters:
While this is a scientific truth, Govt commissioned studies cannot state that a positive test is a Covid case and that those who test positive have to be vaccinated or re-vaccinated. E.g., the Imperial College study state “However, in round 13, 44% of infections occurred in fully vaccinated individuals, reflecting imperfect vaccine effectiveness against infection despite high overall levels of vaccination.” and “As the Ct threshold for positivity was reduced, the difference between medians for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals became smaller.” This study also states that the ‘R’ is 1.26, yet PHE states it is 0.8 to 1.1; which shows that it depends on the Ct value.
Overall, one cannot state that the Covid19 infection rate is growing. Reg- the alleged increased Covid admissions: data from the NHS, showed only 44% of patients classified as COVID-19 patients had a positive test at admission; the remaining 56% did not test positive until they underwent a standard test during hospitalization. These biases of used Ct value and Hospital admission also implies the PHS commissioned NERVTAG study.

The CDC’s 21 July statement (Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS CoV-2 Testing) has raised serious concerns about the reliability of the approved PCR testing regime. The official CDC statement says in part, “CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses…” This assertion would seem to indicate that the current generation of PCR tests do not reliably distinguish COVID from influenza, or other viral diseases. Such reliability issues would call into question data regarding cases upon which lockdowns and other government mandates have been based since their ‘Corona Act’ (CARA).
Whilst the ‘Corona Act’ has been based on PCR testing– to identify cases, justify lockdowns and to ascribe cause of death. Now the CDC is saying these COVID “cases” might actually have been influenza cases. It is absolutely essential these tests are accurate, reliable, and validated. The public has a right to know how the CDC, PHE, Imperial College, SAGE and PHS made their decision to recommend that the public rely on this test and its use. Anything less than full transparency is tantamount to an admission that CDC PHE, Imperial College, SAGE and PHS manipulated data intentionally by using these PCR tests to cover-up its system failures or to serve a hidden agenda and to misled the public.

The above shows that Govt commissioned studies are to serve its systems, and as there are numerous data leaks it shows that Govt- departments have different sets of data, about which they are to the public not transparent.
PHS' primary duty is not to a system of the Govt- but to serve the people in Scotland: PHS has a duty of candour to those who are injured by the Govt’ system: PHS is under the obligation to answer peoples’ FOI questions with candour.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

phs foi, Public Health Scotland

1 Attachment

Dear Bartholomeus Lakeman,

 

Thank you for your email dated 7 August 2021.

 

Please be advised that as your request has been responded to within the
period stipulated by Freedom Of Information Scotland Act 2002 and the
information requested has been provided as it is 'held', we are unable to
assist you any further, under the Freedom of Information Scotland Act 2002
(FOISA).

 

As your dissatisfaction does not fall under the procedural or information
processes for the purposes of handling a FOISA request, we can advise that
there will be no internal review of this request for the purposes of FOISA
2002.

 

If you wish to understand more about the Freedom of Information Scotland
Act 2002 (FOISA), you can find out more from;

 

[1]https://www.itspublicknowledge.info/home...

 

Kind regards

 

FOI Corporate Team

 

 

Public Health Scotland

Email: [2][email address]

[3]Title: Public Health Scotland logo - Description: The Public Health
Scotland logo

[4]Web | [5]Twitter | [6]Instagram

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received
it by mistake,
please (i) contact the sender by email reply; (ii) delete the email from
your system; .
and (iii) do not copy the email or disclose its contents to anyone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. https://www.itspublicknowledge.info/home...
2. mailto:[email address]
4. http://www.publichealthscotland.scot/
5. https://twitter.com/P_H_S_Official
6. https://www.instagram.com/publichealthsc...

Bartholomeus Lakeman (Account suspended)

Dear phs foi,
The meaning or reason for the FOIA is that it is a way to enforce Govt- bodies (who are meant to serve the public) to be & to act ‘transparent' and 'accountable'. Their primary accountability is to the people; not to their systems. However, what I and others experience is that Govt- departments replying to a FOI, tend to protect their system by bending the science and selecting the available data. And to justify further Covid restrictions by pseudo-science (e.g., unqualified use of PCR tests) which implies that peoples' interest gets harmed. Further, information is more than recorded data: a Govt body, in order to fulfil its duty of candour to the public; it has to reach out.
For to progess: my FOI questions have been reformulated. Your second chance.

Yours sincerely,
Bartholomeus Lakeman