Dear Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates,
Please provide data proving the validity of the Gov- measurments to the COVID crisis, its reasons thereof, and whether the implications of said measurments are justifiable.
A. The validity of the number of ‘confirmed’ cases:
1) Has the COVID-19 its own symptoms: and in case not: How can it be differentiated from a so-called winter flu?
2) Of the confirmed case: How many are free from other morbidities?
3) Of the confirmed case: How many of them are under the age of 75?
4) Of the ‘confirmed cases’: how many is done by its test, and how many been confirmed by the Doctors interpretations of patients’ symptomatology: and how did the Dr count? As of the ‘confirmed’ cases; what or who determinate the validity?
5) What is currently COVID-19 case fatality rate (CFR: % of known infected who die), and with which tool is this calculated, and how much is it different to that the average winter flu?
6) 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?

B. Data about the validity of the current coronavirus test kit:
1) Whether it truly shows the SARS-CoV-2 exitance: does it detect infectious virus in blood: the RNA of said virus?
2) Whether studies based on said test results; do fulfil Koch's postulates?
3) Whether said test's false positive rate is known. And if not how much does it overestimate
4) Whether its result sufficient proofs its relationship with the COVID-19 symptomology: fever, radiographic evidence of pneumonia, low or white-cell count or low lymphocyte count, contact with someone who is a confrimed case?

C. Neil Ferguson advised the PM Johnson: Reducing the COVID-19 mortality number from 500,000 to 250,000 , by a range of quarantine measures: How to know said advice' validity:
1) The peers of Dr. Ferguson did they confirm or contested said number?
2) Dr. Ferguson’s peers, did they agree to or contested his advice on how to reduce number?
3) Why would Neil Ferguson be a more trustworthy than PM’s advisor Dominic Cumming?
4) Reg- the current quarantine measures for vulnerable people: Is there a risk assessment?

D. The justifiableness of the Government’s measurments.
1) Its implications: People being bombarded by the media about the COVID-19 fatal risks, being put in isolation, their access to care being reduced; and being warned against dis-information: Why is this scenario unlikely to cause reactions that will harm peoples' live?
2) Reg- said measurements; Is there made sufficient risks assessment: E.g. its resulting fear compromising vulnerable peoples’ immune system?
3) And considerations towards that said fear will result in accepting vaccines that are insufficient tested and might increase viruses mutation rate: these increasing the risks?

Please see to the references related to above data requests; below.
Covid-19 may be 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. Covid-19 has been linked to about 3,000 deaths so far and there have been about 90,000 cases confirmed by a test which validity is uncertain.
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."
A recent study by the Italy's national health authority found that nearly everyone who was pronounced dead from COVID-19 was already struggling with serious chronic disease(s) & over age 75 and would the ‘confirmed’ case be better validated then Italian’s COVID-19 CFR would be below 2%
From the data available so far, Covid-19 case fatality rate — CFR: the percentage of known infected people who die — 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 its below- the winter flu.
Officially the virus is called SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it is believed to caused, 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: fever, radiographic evidence of pneumonia, low or white-cell count or low lymphocyte count, contact with someone having been a confirmed case.
COVID-19, 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 doctor in combating COVID-19, Dr Benjamin 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…”
The previous coronavirus scare, SARS, after the 2003 epidemic, was that nobody had proved a coronavirus existed, let alone was pathogenic. There was evidence against transmission, and afterwards, negative assessments of the extreme treatments that patients were subjected to, the nucleoside analog antiviral drug Ribavirin, high dose corticosteroids, invasive respiratory assistance, and sometimes oseltamivir (Tamiflu). Much of the amount of vaccines ordered for SARS were left unused. The use of said medicines and said ordered amount were due to the advice of Neil Ferguson.

Yours faithfully,
Dr Lakeman

Dear Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates,
Neither the Ministry of Health, the Government, nor the media have yet given a true explanation of how covid19 deaths are counted. In the UK on 20 April Office of National Statistics confirmed a mortality of ±2000 as single cause, and suspected mortality ±16,000 of which 95% had an underlying condition or a weakened immunity.
Professor Walter Ricciardi (National Institute of Health of Italy) stated “Only 12% of coronavirus deaths are due to coronavirus”. The Italian Health Ministry reviewed its statistics: It says of the 13,155 people who have ‘died with it’ in fact only 12%, i.e. 1,579, died of it. Whilst all 13,155 are published as covid-19 deaths; ±88% of these died from other underlying diseases.” This bias applies also to the UK
There are biases in the total number of covid19-deaths, e.g.
1) The average age is 79.4 years, and UK’s daily (unavoidable) death toll due to a cardiovascular condition, hyperlipidaemia & sugar metabolism disorder is ±500: these conditions accounts for ±30% of the covid19 mortality (admissions for a cardiovascular operation has been significant reduced);
2) Suspected covid19 due to cough, fever, and shortness of breath account ±30% of its deaths: As under the Coronavirus Act: C19 deaths can be registered without a test clearly diagnosing any coronavirus. The death can be signed off by a doctor who has never seen the patient and can then be registered by someone who has never met the deceased and was nowhere near them when they died.
3) The PCR tests used for C19 has a false positive rate of ±50-80% (failing to discern C19’ exosome from other sources); a review of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 showed that 61% of cases had lung opacities on Computed tomography (CT or CAT) scan; 20% of symptomatic patients had a negative CT
4) The fear & stress that life will never be the same caused by the panic of the Lockdown, loss of earnings, difficulty with child care/learning disability care and isolation (the use of drugs, during the Lockdown, for insomnia, anxiety, or depression, increased with about 30%). Stress makes one more vulnerable to an infection, it compromises the immune system: e.g. stress hormones are given to prevent the immune reaction/rejection of an organ transplant, and stress releases exosomes whose RNA is similar to a Covid RNA; causing its PCR test to be positive;
5) Worry and fear breed by social-distancing, mask-wearing, and compulsive handwashing; which divert people from traditional social-care strategies. Due to panic people experience fear of death and so agree to self-isolation. Yet loneliness and total loss of autonomy injure the psyche much more than other stresses. Alone, a mentally unbalanced person loses their last immunity and common sense. A fear-shock is liable to induce collective blind obedience, immune shutdown, and combined with the stressful measures of the Lockdown mortality is equally liable to increase.
6) Oxygen deprivation syndrome is covid-death’ main cause: 5G increases intracellular calcium ([Ca2+]i) levels which can cause blood dyscrasia, coagulation problems which block the uptake of oxygen, and 5G can also cause the release of exosomes. And EMF exposure, via the calcineurin inhibition can suppress immunity. 5G started in Wuhan and it’s also widely used in N. Italy and Spain.

The propaganda, however, cannot account for the reality that the COVID-19 deaths being recorded around the world are not being clinically or virologically confirmed as anything more than "suspected”.
Even physicians do not have clear and reliable information about whether there is a test for the detection of coronavirus. Immunologists confirm that it is impossible to do a test for a new virus so quickly and on such a global scale. Which test is actually carried out on the sick is not known reliably. This begs the question: on what basis, then, is the decision to quarantine people made? This is a legitimate question to those who have organised this panic.

About 80% ($2.1 billion) of the WHO’s funding is from private foundations and global corporations, e.g. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation with GAVI and the World Bank, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer AG, Sanofi, Merck and Gilead Sciences; funded for to sell vaccines globally. Professor Neil Ferguson & Imperial College London are directly funded by BMGF and GAVI for to provide statistical data analysis in order for them to sell more vaccines. E.g. In 2009, the Swiss pharmaceutical Roche had funded an $84 million to the WHO’s, and following its declared H1N1 pandemic their (unnecessary) Tamiflu H1N1 medication rocketed to more than £3 billion. Now in 2020, the WHO, declaring a pandemic, to comply with the order of the world elite, who want to control the population of the entire planet. E.g. Covid19 vaccines’ shareholder prices are in the billions of $., and so these of microscopic chips. Bill Gates has stated “With a “good” digital identity you can enjoy your rights to privacy, security, and choice.” And “If we are doing a real good job vaccinating children, we can reduce the world population by 10% to 15%”: In Kenya, India, the Philippines it’s shown that his vaccines helps this process; in Senegal 5 children died after a Covid-19 vaccine: He is associated with many powerful people of a like mind. Under Lockdown the food production and distribution system may well not survive, playing into the hands of ever bigger and more powerful food monopolies, thus cutting smaller companies and producers out of the chain. An old Roman saying is “He who does profit from a crime is probably the one who has committed the crime”.

In this regard, it seems that an internationally planned panic campaign is part of the plan for the introduction of a worldwide electronic concentration camp (i.e. China), thus subjugating the population to military suppression under the pretext of danger to life. As during the Lockdown:
a) 5G masts are placed in many cities all over the world, and in the sky thousands of satellites have been launched; on 8 April the U.S launched an Advanced Battle Management System and Surveillance;
b) Global Covid-19 vaccination and its digital certificate being imposed as the only alternative to continued Lockdown as called for by several prominent world leaders, politicians, and the global “health” institutions and financial/power interests.
c) Microsoft applied for a patent on a microscopic-chip that can be implanted in the hand or finger;
d) 7 Trillion dollars have been given to banks (the UK £321 billion) to implement a ‘one world order’; as called for by the above-mentioned leaders, thereby risking a massive currency inflation.
e) Gag-orders and Martial Law have been implemented worldwide to prohibit the voicing of critical views on the above issues: various tech corporations censure the internet to ensure the suppression of views that diverge from the official one; Ms Dawes, CEO Ofcom, forbids all broadcasters to report a connection between 5G and Covid-19; newspapers and Vodafone also ridicule or strenuously deny any such connection.

These makes one believe that under the pretext of quarantine and behind the curtain of panic, digitalization of the whole society as by 5G is being introduced forcibly under the pretext of this Covid19 pandemic Whereas the public has long been protesting against the introduction of 5G, because it believes that this technology is harmful to the health of citizens, animals and plant as it requires an increase in the number of base stations for cellular communications. This ‘internet of things’ aims to include human’ mind and behaviour; will complete the creation of an electronic concentration camp In a February 2019 US Senate hearing, the wireless industry was forced to admit they have no safety studies on 5G, and don't plan to do any. There are about thousand peer reviewed studies linking wireless radiation exposures to a long list of serious diseases, including cancer, CVA, Obesity, Diabetic, and the flu at an ever-quicker return rate. It is also linked to the collapse of bees and other species.

Pursuant to aforementioned issues you, in your elected capacity are requested to:
1. Provide all state medical institutions in all regions of the country with specific tests for the SARS-CoV-2 virus (created from the isolated live SARS-CoV-2 virus), and not for the covid-SARS virus or for ordinary coronaviruses (as is done now). It is necessary to do everything so that independent scientists are convinced that the words of the media do not diverge from reality.
2. To abolish unnecessary and meaningless quarantine measures in educational institutions and distance learning, as excessive and rash, violating the fundamental rights of us and our children. The official disease statistics do not give the right to declare either an epidemic or a pandemic: and herewith disturbing children’s educational-, psycho-social-, and physical- development; and to restrict or disturb people’s independent and vocational means of earning and living their lives.
3. To abolish the implementation of 5G aperture: it being proven that this undermines or harms the health of people, animals and plants, and to ensure that no vaccine has a digital ID tracking device.

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates,
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. Where (if there is proof of the SARS-CoV-2) is its specific antibody test that fulfils the Koch postulates and has a false positive below 30%; that can confirm being infected by SARS-CoV-2?
Should I not hear from you within 20 days with full answers to the above points, I will be entitled to assume that 1, 2, 3 & 4 are not proven to exist, and that there is no true scientific evidence or backing for the virus causing ‘Covid-19’; and that all related legislation are null and void.

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates,
0n 20 March the Government was requested to provide the data to prove the validity of its measures to ‘protect’ people from covid19. Hereby it’s pivotal that they disprove the ‘zero hypothesis’ (H0): covid19 (its IFR and CFR) is the same as the previous years’ flu: And that the Govt prove the ‘one hypothesis’ (H1): covid19 is so much more severe than said flu that it requires to use the Lockdown.
The prove said zero hypothesis is provided by a comprehensive analysis from Oxford University, which stated “Taking account of historical experience, trends in the data, increased number of infections in the population at largest, and potential impact of misclassification of deaths gives a presumed estimate for the COVID-19 IFR somewhere between 0.1% and 0.41%.” And see Question 5

A false proof of said one hypothesis and protecting people from covid19 would be if Govt policy was to push elderly vulnerable patients (95%) with multimorbidity out of hospitals and into care homes and/or loneliness. This way and the use of a policy to certify all deaths (which notes did/or didn’t mentioned covid19) as covid19 death increased covid19 mortality: done as a means to stop a spike. Yet the death curve in those countries who didn’t this kind of Lockdown policy is similar as the UK.

On 29 May the Scottish Gov- ‘responded’ by quotes copy & paste from or only by websites or by referring to Health Protection Scotland or to Public Health Scotland & England: this, as it appears from said institutions websites, because they do and cannot provide the answer.
By its responds, the Govt failed to disprove said zero hypothesis and failed to prove said one hypothesis, and it failed to justify its measures to ‘protect’ people from covid19; see below:

A. The validity of the number of ‘confirmed’ cases:
1) Govt response: https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and... coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-covid-19-general-advice#overview It confirms that a doctor cannot differentiate the symptoms of covid19 from that of a winter flu.
2) Govt response: Deaths where COVID-19 was the underlying cause= 2,669 yet 241= 9% of total death with only covid19: which is similar as NOS.
3) Govt responds: https://www.nrscotland .gov.uk/files/statistics/covid19/covid-deaths-extra-tables-week-19.xlsx states that death with covid19 31% were demented. NRS states 46% of COVID-19 deaths in care homes, and 76% of all deaths involving COVID-19 are people aged 75 or over.
4) Govt responds: on 1st May were tested 40,000 of which 11,353 were positive. Of the covid19 death were 1,515 confirmed by test and 2,823 by a Doctor: “These deaths do not all need to have a laboratory positive result as they include deaths where the certifying doctor recorded that COVID-19 was a probable or suspected cause of death on the death certificate.”. So, Dr called covid19 death of which 50% hadn’t been tested and as its symptomology is no different from winter flu, and as 92% of death cases had other morbid(s) condition: then death by covid19 was 8% of 1,515 which is ±151. Yet as said test’s false positive rate is about 80%: covid19’ mortality number could be 30.
5) Govt referred to Health Protection Scotland and Public Health Scotland: which do not provide Covid19’ CFR or IFR (% of known infected people who die). Yet Oxford University stated “COVID-19 IFR somewhere between 0.1% and 0.41%.” And Stanford’s Dr. Ioannidis published a meta-analysis where he analysed TWELVE separate IFR studies; and his conclusion is “The infection fatality rate (IFR), the probability of dying for a person who is infected, is one of the most critical and most contested features of COVID-19 pandemic. The expected total mortality burden of COVID-19 is directly related to the IFR. Moreover, justification for various non-pharmacological public health interventions depends crucially on the IFR. Some aggressive interventions that potentially induce also more pronounced collateral harms1 may be considered appropriate, if IFR is high. Conversely, the same measures may fall short of acceptable risk-benefit thresholds, if the IFR is low…Interestingly, despite their differences in design, execution, and analysis, most studies provide IFR point estimates that are within a relatively narrow range. 7 of the 12 inferred IFRs are in the range 0.07 to 0.20 which are similar to IFR values of seasonal influenza.”
6) Govt referred to Health Protection Scotland and Public Health Scotland. Which do not provide the mortality number of ‘confirmed’ COVID-19 cases and how it compares with that of the average flu.
B. Data about the validity of the current coronavirus test kit:
1) Govt referred to Health Protection Scotland and Public Health Scotland. Which do neither show the SARS-CoV-2 exitance nor that the test shows infectious virus in blood nor the RNA of said virus?
2) Govt referred to Health Protection Scotland and Public Health Scotland. Which don’t show studies, proving that the test does fulfil Koch's postulates.
3) Govt referred to Health Protection Scotland and Public Health Scotland. Which don’t show said test’s false positive rate.
4) Govt referred to Health Protection Scotland and Public Health Scotland. Which don’t provide a proof of the relationship between the covid19 test and its symptomology.

C. Reducing, by a range of quarantine measures, the predicted COVID-19 mortality number from 500,000 to 250,000; as Neil Ferguson advised the PM Johnson: Its validity:
1) Govt referred to UK Govt. Neil Ferguson produced a scenario in which 0.5 million Britons died, based on an IFR of 0.9 percent. Yet he refused to provide the background of said data, as he and his Imperial College are funded by Bill Gates: he who also funds the PR for his vaccine institutions (e.g. GAVI, WHO, CEPI). N. Ferguson breached the Lockdown rules and resigned from being P.M adviser
2) Govt referred to UK Govt. On 29 May the SAGE minutes indicate that the decision to lockdown was political and NOT science based. And the peers of Dr. Ferguson did contest his prediction numbers.
3) Govt referred to UK Govt. Dr. Ferguson’s peers contested his advice and disproved of said number. The Association of British Pathologists has therefore called for a „systematic review of the true causes of death.“ The British statistics professor David Spiegelhalter shows that the risk of death from Covid19 corresponds roughly to normal mortality and is visibly increased only for the age group between approx. 70 and 80 years. The emeritus British professor of pathology, Dr John Lee, argues that a robust and evidence-based debate is needed to avoid „big mistakes“. Many of the figures used by governments and the media have not been reliable, he says. At the end of April it became known that the lockdown was apparently not, as officially stated, recommended by a scientific commission alone, but that a high government advisor had „pushed“ the scientists to support the lockdown.
4) Govt referred to UK Govt. Neil Ferguson like Dominic Cumming breached the Lockdown-rules.
5) Govt referred to Health Protection Scotland. showing that those in deprived areas and those who are vulnerable are those who are most affected by Covid19 and/or by the Lockdown: As these increased their pre-existing morbidity: as 72.7% of Covid19 death were overweight or obese.

D. The justifiableness of the Government’s measures.
1) Responds “The Scottish Government believe the emergence of Coronavirus (COVID-19) is the biggest global challenge that humanity has faced for generations and the measures we take to deal with it must reflect its magnitude.” Yet this is contradicted by PHE and National Scientific Institutions of abroad. 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." And ONS shows that its rate of those who die without having another condition is about 7%: Independent epidemiologists show that in the USA as in the UK the total death numbers for each of the first 14 weeks of 2020 are the same as for these of 2019.
Japan did not shut-down until April 6, then with voluntary measures, it has 2 covid-19 deaths per million population. China shut-down in December, it has 3 deaths per million population. Belarus never shut-down, it has 4 per million. South Korea has only voluntary measures, it has 5 per million. Iran shut-down early March, it has 62 per million. Sweden did not shut-down (idem as the UK) it has 156 per million and claims a herd-immunity. Switzerland did shut- down, has 165 per million. Belgium draconianly shut-down, has 503 deaths per million population. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia ((bordering China) have no COVID-19 deaths at all. Vietnam and Laos shut-down in February / March, and Cambodia has never shut-down at all. In the U.S., South Dakota, which has not shut-down at all, has four times as many cases, but fewer deaths than neighbouring Montana, which is completely locked-down.
“On 23 April 2020 the Scottish Government published Coronavirus (COVID-19): framework for decision making… […] ….” Yet this framework denies the scientific evidence regarding the risk of wearing a mask and social distancing and social isolation, that of the school closing risk to children, that of the risk of domestic violence and suicide, the Lockdown risk to small and medium business, and it denies the science regarding that the return to normal will be ‘a new normal’ as that of a social and cultural dissociation and/or nihilation ( people fearing each-other and having lost their autonomy and privacy). “On 5 May Coronavirus (COVID-19): framework for decision making – further information – was published. This sets out further information about the challenges Scotland faces and provides illustrative examples of the steps that might form part of initial changes to the current lockdown restrictions, when it is safe to do so.” Yet its implications are People being imprisonment in the COVID-19 fear, in isolation, access to care being reduced: which cause stress reactions that will harm people.
2) “The First Minister emphasised the need for transparency when launching the framework and invited the people of Scotland to engage in this conversation to help us take the next steps to navigate to a new normal.” Yet the Govt does ignore peoples’ written views. And Govt measurements violate Natural Law, Common Law and Art 2, 8, 10 of ECHR. And Govt’ restrictions lack justification, evidence, and are unethical, and are hitting the vulnerable and deprived people most hard; whilst the Govt take no accountability to the provoked Collective fear and harm by the return to ‘a new normal’.
3) “We are delighted that the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow along with NHS colleagues are taking part in the human safety trials for the development of a COVID-19 vaccine by Oxford University. Any potential vaccine must undergo rigorous testing to ensure it complies with all relevant UK health Scottish Ministers, special advisers and the Permanent Secretary are covered by the terms of and safety standards. We are currently working on a plan to deliver a Covid-19 vaccine when a safe and effective vaccine become available.” Reg- Oxford University COVID-19 vaccine: on April 24, OVG scientists announced that a small macaque study proved the vaccine effective. OVG recruited 510 healthy volunteers for human trials. 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 Eleanor Riley told Forbes the vaccine provided “insufficient” antibodies to prevent infection and viral shedding. Vaccinated monkeys spread the disease as readily as unvaccinated. Andrew Pollard, Senior Advisor to MRHA Panel which licenses vaccines, chairs JVCI committee that mandates them, he used his power and deceitful puffery about the monkey trial to force his COVID vaccine into human trials. He shunned inert placebo tests and restricted safety studies to three weeks to hide long-term injuries. Pollard juggles conflict of interest that allow him to license, register, and mandate his own untested vaccines to the masses. Pollard takes payments from virtually all the big vaccine makers. 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. The package insert says Bexsero may cause Kawasaki disease in as many as one out of every 1000 children based on reports in the clinical trials. Forbes reported on May 21 that the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) has given $1 billion to Astra Zeneca in partnership with Oxford for a rushed rollout of the vaccine in September. 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.” Pollard is steaming ahead with his ineffective vaccine. But a vaccine that hides symptoms and allows transmission is worse than no vaccine at all.
The Scottish Govt remains under the duty to provide answers to the question under A, B, C and D or else it confesses that Covid19 is no more than a severe flu and that its measures to ‘protect’ people from Coivd19, including its aimed vaccine are invalid, unlawful, unjustifiable and harmful.
Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Stuart Duncan,
Thank you for seeking to clarify my FOISA request (#202000022419) of 20 March 2020 and for reviewing S. Govt Health and Social Care’ response of 28 May.
Added to my request(s) was a list of references to said request, which notion/cue is:
• Was the knowledge, data and science which the S. Govt used to move to lockdown sufficiently validated for to protect people in Scotland from Covid-19 and was this balanced against the 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)?

For to avoid to my request to be misunderstood; I herewith add some extra factual context.
• For to move to a Lockdown: the advisers consulted; did they implied the basic scientific principles, e.g. (a) Validating the test (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 previous’ flu); (c) Proving the ‘one hypothesis’ (H1 = covid19’ severity 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: and on H0 would limit the individual & collateral damage from the Lockdown)?

• Several foreign parliaments, e.g. Italy and Germany (after 10 weeks’ Lockdown) came to realise that said scientific principles were not fulfilled, 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). Yet those countries who did not do Lockdown (who had less overall-deaths per million population than those who did Lockdown) did they do so because they verified (or did not ‘borrow’) the data from the WHO, the Imperial College (and SAGE) or from their funders (BMGF, GAVI, Pharmaceutical companies)?

• The influence from said funders on our health care 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 his way of its interpretation. 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.

So, my FOIAS is in the frame of: Did the Scottish Govt verify whether the data given in March by WHO, PHE, SAGA or data given otherwise; was independently and sufficiently validated and balanced against the risks of its implementation (i.e. Lockdown)? According to this and abovementioned notions and scientific principles; I ask you to proceed with your review. Thank you.

Yours faithfully,
Bart Lakeman (Dr)

Dear Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates's handling of my FOI request 'Gov- measurments on COVID-19: are its reasons sufficienetly verified?'.

My FOI #202000022419 of 20 March, 22 April, 21 May, 2 June and my clarification of 6 June to Stuart Duncan, to review Scottish Govt Health and Social Care’ response was responded on 22 June, via John Qureshi DMH : COVID-19 Response Hub with “While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance, under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested.” This responds ‘we do not hold the information you requested’ is unacceptable and not creditable for the following reasons:
1) Under the maxim ‘Primum non nocere’:’first, do no harm’; (s)he who endorsed the Lockdown measurements is obliged to ensure that its benefits do outweigh its risks. Considering that said measurements have never been implied before and that it can inflict detrimental injuries 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).
Accordingly, to ensure that said measurements are really necessary to protect the people from Covid19; the Govt has to have data which unequivocally distinguish covid19 virus from that of previous year’s flu, and data which proof that covid19’s IFR, CFR and ‘R’ are a much greater threat than that of said previous flu. Without said verified and validated data; said Lockdown measurements risks to inflict on people said injuries without it being necessary: 'The Cure Is Worse Than the Disease'.
As it was the Scottish Govt who endorsed the Lockdown measurements with its foreseeable, collateral and detrimental risks; the Govt cannot eschew its obligation to provide its necessary evidences.

2) For to prove the justification of Lockdown measurements, it’s a scientific requirement that one has to disproof the ‘zero hypothesis’ (H0): covid19’s IFR or CFR and ‘R’ are the same as the previous years’ flu: And to proof the ‘one hypothesis’ (H1): covid19’s IFR, CFR and ‘R’ are so much more severe than that of the previous flu that it is required to use said Act, i.e. the Lockdown.
Whereas covid19 symptomatology is the same as a seasonal flu, and as the RT-PCR- test which is used has a high false positive rate (>80%) it is neither possible to calculate covid19’s IFR, CFR and ‘R’ nor to distinguish coivd19 from the previous flu;
According to said requirements, Covid19’ real ‘R’ and IFR and the H0 & H1; it’s required for the Govt to have an electron micrograph of the pure and fully characterised virus (SARS-CoV-2); or the name of the primary specialist peer reviewed paper in which said virus is illustrated and its full genetic information described; and/or 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: the antibody test that fulfils the Koch postulates and has a false positive below 30%; that can confirm being infected by SARS-CoV-2; and an autopsy of the alleged covid19 deaths confirming death mainly by SARS-CoV-2.
Said Govt’ responds to my FOI; implies that said necessary scientific evidence to endorse said Lockdown measurement and its detrimental risks; do not exist.

Abovementioned notions and scientific principles do put the Scottish Government under the obligation to answer my FOIs or to end its Lockdown measurements. Thank you.

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

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates,
My FOI 202000022419 since 23 March and of later datums requested from the Govt the data which proof the validity of its measurements to ‘protect’ people from covid19. Whereas the implications of or injuries from the Lockdown has been for many people (across all generations) so detrimental, irreparable, and a violation of their natural rights and these under the ECHR: for to justify the said injuries (see examples in said FOI); the Scottish Govt has a duty to provide such data.
In my FOI requests are multiple examples of how said scientific data can look like. Yet the Govt only provided website addresses which do not provide a single piece of scientific data that can be used for to justify the Lockdown measurements; e.g. a peer reviewed validation of the test to confirming covid-19’ and that of covid-19’ IFR, CFR, and ‘R0’. 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.

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman