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

Bartholomeus Lakeman made this Freedom of Information request to Prime Minister's Office This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Prime Minister's Office should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Prime Minister's Office,
Your and/or the Gov-‘ decision to quarantine people relies on your ‘scientific’ advisers:
1) How did you assess a conflict of interest and your adviser’s independent position?
2) Said advisers did they disclose their current or previous relationships with the pharmaceutical industry or its institutions and/or its funders (e.g. BMGF)?
3) How did you avoid having blind-spots, groupthink and closed ranks (e.g. a collection of advisors from the same background, the same field, the same institutions, or them serving on multiple panels related to the same topic)?
4) How many of your advisers have in one or another way a link with BMGF, Bill Gates or Microsoft or with the Artificial intelligence industry or with that of the Pharmacea?
5) In case your adviser or his/her current or previous work- or study-place (e.g. Welcome Trust, Imperial College, Sage, WHO, CEPI, UNICEF) had received funds from B Gates, BMGF or from an institution having an interest in vaccines (e.g. GAVI, SmithKline Beecham, GSK, Roche, Pirbright institute): Would you regard this as him/her serving a conflict of interest or a commercial interest, or having a cause for a blind-spot or groupthink? If not: why not?
6) The Prime Minister had a meeting with Bill and Melinda Gates and/or BMGF on 18 May: Did said meeting bear any relationship with said ‘scientific’ advisers or with Sage, Imperial College, Welcome Trust?
7) In the absence of: a) an electron micrograph of the pure and fully characterised virus (SARS-CoV-2), b) a primary specialist peer reviewed paper in which said virus is illustrated and its full genetic information described, c) a primary specialist peer reviewed paper which provides unequivocal proof that said virus is the sole cause of Covid19, and d) a specific antibody test that, by fulfilling the Koch postulates and having a false positive below 30%; confirms the infectious SARS-CoV-2: Then how can said advisers state that Lockdown is a must and that its only alternative is a vaccine?
9) 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?
10) Who is responsible and who will be hold liable to the quarantine of 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)?

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman