Scientific’ advisers: Is their position that of an independent third party; free of a conflict of interest?

Prime Minister's Office did not have the information requested.

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Prime Minister's Office,
Your and/or the Gov-‘ decision to quarantine people (thereby disturbing children’s educational, psycho-social, and physical development, as well as restricting or disturbing people’s independent and vocational means of earning and living their lives); relies on your ‘scientific’ advisers:
a) Is their position that of an independent third party; free of a conflict of interest?
b) Did your advisers disclose their current or previous relationships with the pharmaceutical industry and institutions and/or its funders or interest groups; or did they disclose a conflict of interest?
c) How did you avoid to have blindspots and groupthink (closed ranks): a collection of advisors from the same background, the same field, the same institutions, serving on multiple panels, or serving one particulair interest group?
d) What have you and/or the Gov done to prevent that commercial interests are not in control of key decisions about the public's health?
e) On or about 18 May you had a meeting with Bill and Melinda Gates and/or BMGF: did said meeting bear any relationship with said advisers?
f) Regarding these questions and for to serve an independent position; should or did you consider the following issues?

1) In 2008, Chief Medical Adviser Prof Chris Whitty, accepted, $40 million from Bill Gates to control British vaccine promulgation: and he stated “COVID-19 vaccines and drugs would need to be in place before measures could be lifted … ":
2) The Imperial College; Neil Ferguson for Covid-19 mortality predictions (0.5 million in UK) accepted £184 million from B. Gates.
3) Patrick Vallance (5-12 yrs.) GlaxoSmithKline ex-director, he chairs SAGE which was created by Bill Gates for to advise WHO & UK gov- on vaccine & immunization policies, research, development, and delivery systems;
4) Gates is the main donor & stakeholder of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, Welcome trust and Pirbright institute who claims to have a patent SARS-CoV-2 and produces its vaccine. He is the main and most influential funder of WHO via which he implements the vaccination of the global population.
5) Prof J. van Tam served the interest of the pharmaceutical industry 1997 - 2000, as an Associate Director at SmithKline Beecham. In April 2001 he moved to Roche as Head of Medical Affairs, before joining Aventis Pasteur MSD in February 2002 as UK Medical Director. He chaired the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) Expert Advisory Group on H5N1 human vaccines, sits on the UK national Scientific Pandemic Influenza Committee (SPI), the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) and was a short-term consultant and temporary adviser to the World Health Organization on many occasions. On WHO/van Tam’ advice of was a mass vaccination by H5N1 human vaccines from which Roche and GSK each earned billions £. And said industries was not held liable for the damaged inflicted on thousands of people by their vaccines.
6) Professor Dame Angela McLean, Deputy Chief Scientific Adviser, her career and professorship was funded via the Imperial College; as by Bill Gates
7) Sharon Peacock, the director of the National Infection Service: Welcome Trust (BMGF)
8) Maria Zambon, director of Reference Microbiology Services at PHE and head of the UK World Health Organization National Influenza Centre (BMGF)
9) Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust (BMGF)
10) Dr Edward Mullins is a clinical lecturer at Imperial College (BMGF)
11) Dominic Cummings and Ben Warner are related to an artificial intelligence company for data-mining operation which was teamed up with Palantir, founded by the rightwing billionaire Peter Thiel, who shares biotech startups with Bill Gates.

Yours faithfully,

Bartholomeus Lakeman

FOI Team Mailbox, Prime Minister's Office

CABINET OFFICE REFERENCE:  FOI2020/06373

Dear Bartholomeus Lakeman

Thank you for your request for information. Your request was received
on 20/05/2020 and we are considering if it is appropriate to deal with
under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

This email is just a short acknowledgement of your request.

When corresponding with the Cabinet Office, you may wish to be aware of
how we treat your personal Information.  This is set out in our personal
information charter, at the following
link: [1]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

If you have any queries about this email, please contact the FOI team.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

Yours sincerely,

 Knowledge and Information Management Unit

Cabinet Office

E: [2][Number 10 request email]

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
2. mailto:[email address]

FOI Team Mailbox, Prime Minister's Office

1 Attachment

Please find attached the reply to your FOI request

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

FOI Team

Room 405

70 Whitehall,

London, SW1A 2AS

E-mail -[1][Number 10 request email] 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Prime Minister's Office, and dear Eirian Walsh Atkins,
I am writing to request an internal review of Prime Minister's Office's handling of my FOI request 'Scientific’ advisers: Is their position that of an independent third party; free of a conflict of interest?'.

My FOI2020/06373 of 10 June, directed to the Prime Minister’s Office (Cabinet Office) was replied on 22 June, with “the Cabinet Office does not hold the information you requested. However, you may wish to contact Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) or Department for Business, Energy& Industrial Strategy, who may hold information relevant to your request.”
Said responds is unacceptable and not creditable for the following reasons:
1) My FOI is related to the Prime Minister' advisers, and under the maxim ‘Primum non nocere’:’first, do no harm’ the Prime Minister who endorses the advices from his advisers; is obliged to ensure that said advices’ benefits do outweigh its risks to the public:
And under the ‘Transparency of Lobbying Act’: consultant lobbyists and Govt advisors have to disclose the names of their ‘clients’ on a publicly available Register and to update their details on a quarterly basis (‘clients’ include what is related to advisers’ interests, benefit in kind, loyalties, and/or benefits related to their former or current employer, funder or institution or corporation: e.g. in the example list under my FOI2020/06373). These disclosures are kept by the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists which is sponsored by the UK Cabinet Office. And as the Prime Minister, in order to prevent that commercial interests are not in control of key decisions about the public's health, and to prevent that the public is not subjected to corporative interest; he must have details about his advisers’ interests, associations, and/or loyalties.

2) The Prime Minister has many examples of that the influence, on our health service from the pharmaceutical institutions and funders; comes as a groupthink and serves a conflict of interest, e.g.
(a) In 2009, for the swine flu (283 UK deaths) Prof Neil Ferguson advised a mass vaccination by which 6 million UK people had the GSK’ vaccine of which 1000 people got long-term or permanently damaged. His ‘R0’ and other computer numbers, statistics used for this unnecessary vaccination appeared to be a paid infomercial for Big Pharma: Neil Ferguson had accepted from B. Gates £184 million. Prof Neil Ferguson’s predictions on Covid19 mortality were accepted as infallible: it could not be peer-reviewed as he refused to disclosed his original data and his manner of its interpretation: as to endorse the next mass vaccination.
(b) Dexamethasone and Hydroxychloroquine are known to treat severe inflammatory pneumonia such as Covid19 and these could have saved many British lives; these drugs were discredited in favour of the vaccine. E.g. by an article “Hydroxychloroquine /chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19”; which had to be redacted by the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine after it was proved to be based on fabricated “evidence” as a paid infomercial by Bill Gates for Big Pharma.
(c) Patrick Vallance was (5-12 yrs.) ex-director of GSK and thereafter he chaired SAGE:
(d) SAGE was created by Bill Gates for to advise WHO & UK gov- on vaccine & immunization policies:
(e) Dominic Cumming broke the Lockdown-rule to attend near Barnard Castle a meeting with GSK:
After said meeting the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine has been approved without the necessary proof of it being safe, and it will be jabbed in those who are not prone to covid19 infection, e.g. children and who are part of covid19’ herd immunity: and its producer holds a Harmless Clause (f).
Yet pre-publication data reveals that all vaccinated macaques sickened after exposure to COVID-19 and that vaccinated monkeys spread the disease as readily as unvaccinated, and it appears that 90% of said monkeys got infertile. Despite this harm said vaccine is trialled in 510 humans. A whistle-blower leaked that said Oxford vaccine contains antibodies by which 61 out of 63 (trial) women loss fertility: and in most male their sperm count, testosterone and prostate hormone dropped below the fertility range (which can cause a reduction up to 15% of the population*). (g) This approval was due to Prof Chris Whitty who accepted $40 million from Bill Gates to control British vaccine promulgation, and Andrew Pollard (Senior Advisor to MRHA Panel and chairs JVCI committee that mandates vaccines) (h) who takes payments from most vaccine makers. In 2014, Pollard developed GSK’s Bexsero meningitis vaccine, and then mandated it to children despite significant safety signals for Kawasaki Disease and the rarity of meningococcal-B infections this cause Kawasaki disease in as many as one out of every 1000 children (mortality risk 0.1%).
* Bill Gates, in a 2010 TEDx talk; ”The world today has 6.8 billion people, that’s heading up to nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent”. And in a Ted Talk Houston 2017; “We can wipe out a lot of humanity if we just get vaccines into more people”. At the CNN 4/23/20 he stated “We want to use Covid-19 as an excuse to get everyone vaccinated”. As he uses the Malaria as an excuse for his genetically modified mosquitos which will not only wipe-out the natural mosquito population but also destabilise the eco system.
(i) On 24 Jan 2019, Matt Hancock met Bill Gates at The World Economic Forum to discuss infection control at the global level. On 24 Jan- 2019 was introduced the American version of the Corona Act: CARES Act which after multiple House meetings (HR 748) was signed for >3 trillion$ on 27 March 2020: (j) In August 2019. the Govt approved Bill Gates’ ‘Trace and track covid19 App; and he stated “With a good digital identity you can enjoy your rights to privacy, security, and choice.” And as the UK Govt signed about £321 billion to the big corporations: it signals the suspect that UK’ Corona Act was introduced when Hancock met Gates.

Forgoing examples (a – j) raises the suspect that the advises which the Prime Minister used to move to the Corona Act was from a groupthink and is to support the pharmaceutical corporations, institutions and its funders: Advises which the Govt did neither verified nor sought to validate by independent advisers. Moreover, with said Cabinet’s responds “the Cabinet Office does not hold the information you requested" it has laid itself open to have violated the “The Transparency of Lobbying Act” and to have peoples‘ health need subjected to the interest and profits of the pharmaceutical institutions and its funders (e.g. BMGF market value, during the Lockdown has been doubled to about 100 billion).

Abovementioned principles and examples put the Cabinet Office 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/s...

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

FOI Team Mailbox, Prime Minister's Office

CABINET OFFICE REFERENCE:  IR2020/08517

Dear Bartholomeus Lakeman

Thank you for your request for an internal review. Your request was
received on 23/06/2020 and is being dealt with under the terms of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.

This email is just a short acknowledgement of your request.

If you have any queries about this email, please contact the FOI team.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

Yours sincerely,

Knowledge and Information Management Unit

Cabinet Office

E: [1][Number 10 request email]

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Number 10 request email]

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear FOI Team Mailbox,
On 25 June the Cabinet Office acknowledged (Ref- IR2020/08517) my request of 23 June for an internal review of their (empty) reply to my FOI of 20 May; and said office promised that it will be dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Subsequently I wish my request also to be dealt under the ‘Transparency of Lobbying Act’. With the notion that Bill Gates is to be seen as a consultant lobbyist and so his lobbying actions should be on a publicly available Register. Which includes Bill Gates’ or BMGF’ and GAVI’ funding of Chris Whitty, Neil Ferguson, Imperial College, and Patrick Vallance; and B. Gates meeting with Matt Hancock on 24 Jan- 2019, and the Govt approval of Bill Gates’ ‘Trace and track covid19’ App in August 2019, and his meeting with Boris Johnson on 19 May 2020: All these and Gates’ public unknown interactions which via the PM’ advisers and SAGE influences the Govt- decisions which do affect to a great extend peoples’ lives and rights.

Yours sincerely,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

FOI Team Mailbox, Prime Minister's Office

Dear Mr Lakeman
You had lodged an FOI request, which is covered by the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, including your right to request an internal review
of the response to your original request - we can only review the outcome
of the original request under the same legislative and procedural process
that the original request was processed under.   We do not deal with
Lobbying Act legislation.
Kind regards,
FOI team

show quoted sections

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear FOI Team Mailbox,
Thank you for highlighting that you can only deal with the original request and that for an internal review I should have phrased my argument differently. Such as the relevance of my request is supported by that an undisclosed interest of Govt advisers is a dishonour to the ‘Transparency of Lobbying Act’.
I hope this amendment helps: Does it? Please accept my amendment.
Yours sincerely,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

FOI Team Mailbox, Prime Minister's Office

1 Attachment

Please find attached the reply to your IR request

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

FOI Team

Room 405

70 Whitehall,

London, SW1A 2AS

E-mail -[1][Number 10 request email] 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]