Your ‘scientific’ advisers: are they free from a conflict of interest and an independent third party?

Bartholomeus Lakeman made this Freedom of Information request to Public Health Scotland This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

Waiting for an internal review by Public Health Scotland of their handling of this request.

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Public Health Scotland,
Your and/or the Gov-‘ decision to quarantine people relies on your ‘scientific’ advisers:
1) How did you exclude their 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, Bill Gates, GAVI)?
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 Pharmacia?
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? Iif not: why not?
6) The Prime Minister had a meeting with Bill and Melinda Gates and/or BMGF on 18 May: What if said meeting had a relationship with said ‘scientific’ advisers or with Sage, Imperial College, Welcome Trust?
7) In the absence of (a) an electron micrograph of the pure & 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?

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

FOI (PUBLIC HEALTH SCOTLAND),

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Lakeman,

 

Freedom of Information Reference: 2020-000027

 

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][Public Health Scotland request email] 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][Public Health Scotland request email]

 

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,

 

Donna Mitchell

 

Coordinator

Public Health Scotland

Phone: 0131 275 7867

Email: [4][email address]

 

 

[5]email-sig

 

show quoted sections

Bartholomeus Lakeman

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 'Your ‘scientific’ advisers: are they free from a conflict of interest and an independent third party?'.
My FOI #2020-000027 of 21 May had on 9 July its reply from the Head of Strategy, Governance and Performance, as “This information is not held by Public Health Scotland, as such we consider that the Section 17(1) - information not held exemption applies to your request, The decision making to ‘quarantine’, would have been based on advice to Government from the UK Chief Medical Officer and the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). The decision to quarantine people was made by the UK Government on the advice of the SAGE group., and “In consideration of whether another organisation may assist you further, I can suggest that the questions may be more suitably directed to the UK Government, by https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...

Said reply is unacceptable and not creditable for the following reasons:
1) The content of FOI 2020-000027 was as FOI2020/06373 also directed to the UK Govt who replied 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.” Yet DHSC could neither answer on how they did assess the independent position of, or prevent a conflict of interest by the Cabinet’s advisers.

2) England has the highest covid19 mortality rate under the elderly and care workers: consequently, one should verify or be sceptic to advices from Prime Minister’ advisers, its Chief Medical Officer and SAGE. Of whom it’s shown that they have strong ties with the industry: e.g. membership of SAGE is for said reason not disclosed. And said advisers’ group do exclude independent scientist and immunologists, and said group have reduced covid19 as a matter of numbers by which one can manipulate the facts. My FOI on how the Govt did assess or prevent a conflict of interest of their medical adviser’s position; is related to said advisers. And so, for Public Health Scotland to reply to my FOI by referring to said advisers is similar to asking the industry to answer my FOI or similar to asking a fox to assess the fox’ integrity and candour in regards it looking after a hen house.
3) 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 what is related to an institution or corporation (see the reference list under my questions in FOI2020/06373). These disclosures are kept by the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists which is sponsored by the UK Cabinet Office. Yet the Prime Minister, instead of preventing that commercial interests are in control of key decisions about the public's health; he left the details about his advisers’ interests, associations, and/or loyalties; undisclosed.

4) There are many examples of that the influence, on our health service from the pharmaceutical institutions and funders; do come as a groupthink and do serve 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 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 should & could not be peer-reviewed as he refused to disclosed his background 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 e.g. Covid19 and could have saved many British lives; Yet 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 redacted by the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine after many doctors proved it to be based on fabricated “evidence”; shrouded in scientific-sounding language of credibility as a paid infomercial by Bill Gates and Gilead/ Roche for Pharma’s vaccine.
(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. Thereafter the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine was approved without its necessary safety tastings, and its producer holds a Harmless Clause; (f) As 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, said vaccine is trialled in 510 humans. Of which a whistle-blower leaked that said vaccine contains antibodies by which 61 out of 63 (trial) women loss fertility: similar in male whose germ count, testosterone and prostate hormone dropped below the fertility range; (g) This approval was due to Prof Chris Whitty who accepted $40 million from Bill Gates to control British vaccine promulgation and Andrew Pollard (Senior Advisor to MRHA Panel and chairs JVCI committee that mandates vaccines) who takes payments from most vaccine makers. In 2014, Pollard developed GlaxoSmithKline’s notorious Bexsero meningitis vaccine, and then mandated it to children despite significant safety signals for Kawasaki Disease and the rarity of meningococcal-B infections this cause Kawasaki disease in as many as one out of every 1000 children (mortality risk 0.1%). (h) Andrew Pollard blocked the replacement of the PCR test by a covid19 antibody test as this would reveal that coivd19’ IFR & CFR is no more than that of a seasonal flu. (g) In order to gain the public’s consent to vaccination; the official narative is ongoing bombarding us with scare news, the threat of a second wave, by a PCR test with an 80% false positive result, the condemnation of anyone who challenges the official narrative, and the suspension of our basic rights and social contacts.
(i) On January 24th 2019, Matt Hancock met Bill Gates at The World Economic Forum to discuss infection control at the global level. On 24 Jan- 2019 was introduced the American version of the Corona Act: HR 748: CARES Act which after multiple House meetings was signed for >3 trillion$ on 27 March 2020: 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 also introduced on 24 Jan- 2019 when Matt Hancock met Bill Gates; who is a consultant lobbyist (e.g. BMGF market value, due to the coivd19 fear has been doubled to about 100 billion).

5) Under the maxim ‘Primum non nocere’ (first, do no harm) and the First Minister’ & Public Health Scotland’s responsibility to the Scottish people: Those who endorse the advices from Prime Minister’s advisers are obliged to ensure said advices’ benefits do outweigh its risks to the public; and that said advices do not subject the health of Scottish people to the profit interests of the said industry.

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

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

FOI (PUBLIC HEALTH SCOTLAND),

Dear Mr Lakeman
Thank you for contacting Public Health Scotland with regards to FOI 2020-000027 requesting a review of our response.
We will now undertake this review, and present you with our findings as soon as possible and no later than 11 August 2020.
Further information on the time scales for public reviews is outlined here:
http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/home/...
If you have any questions regarding this process please let me know.
Best wishes
Amanda

Amanda Stewart

Communications Officer
Public Health Scotland

show quoted sections

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear FOI (PUBLIC HEALTH SCOTLAND),
For the Scottish Government and Public Health Scotland to accept the Cabinet’s medical advisers advises as the consensus opinion or reality; is a grave mistake. Whereas the Cabinet, in its decisions side-lined the Parliament, and due to that the Govt advisers by their mode of operation (as it appears through the Cabinet’s responses to my FOIs) their advices have too many errors or deceptions, e.g.

1. They form a groupthink with blind spots and that dishonoured the principle of science (that is an open system and treats challenges with an open minded), e.g. (a) Most of the advisers are specialist in mathematical models and in data; (b) Their conundrum is ‘The Science is settled’; (c) They failed to include the most essential specialist regarding an infection; i.e. an active immunologist and a microbiologist; (d) they excluded scientists who are independent from the industry (e.g. Karl Friston, Neuroscientist at University College London) or who have a critical view on the official narrative (e.g. Prof. Knut Wittkowski); (e) they ridicule, vindicate or suppress any scientific view that challenged their narrative (e.g. Statistics professor David Spiegelhalter, pathology professor Dr John Lee).

2. For predicting the numbers and rates for covid19’ case, morbidity and mortality they used computer models which numbers and their values were neither verified by independent scientists, nor were their numbers put into its right context (according to immunologist’s principles) nor related to real life. Moreover, their numbers and predictions represented only a virtual reality. E.g. Neil Ferguson covid19 predictions were taken as Infallible: Despite that he refused to disclose the background data of his covid19 predictions for a peer-review; and his predictions for the swine flu; it killing 65,000 people in the UK, whilst it was 457. By which he caused that 6 million UK people had a GSK’ vaccine of which 10,000 people got permanently damaged. Ferguson is funded by BMGF and the vaccine industry.

3. For to match their covid19 predictions they used such a test that shows a very high case number, which however have little to do with these of the actual covid19 infection; as by the followings:
a) A sensitive PCR test with a high false positive (80% or more): getting positive when it detects RNA particles which can be caused by multiple factors e.g. infections, vaccination, toxins, EMF, stress. E.g. (i) Doing a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left. Even if the infectious viri are long dead: the test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected]; (ii) COVID-19 tests are "not 100% sensitive or specific," and that when the viri actual prevalence is low in the community, the false positive rate will be high. If you have 1% of your population infected, and you have a test that's only 99% specific, that means that when you find a positive, 50% of the time will be a real positive and 50% of the time it won't be. In other words, if the prevalence of infection in the community is 1%, about half of all positive tests will be false positives. Nobel prize winner Dr. Kary Mullis the inventor of the PCR test stated that it was not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool.
b) They published said case numbers as if it is that of infected peoples. Yet the sharp increases in “cases” are not proof of disease spread but, rather, the spread of testing. I.e. National Office of Statistics shows that of the total covid19-deaths only 7% had no other complication. Prof Walter Ricciardi (National Institute of Health of Italy) stated “Less than 10% of coronavirus deaths are due to coronavirus.”
c) The execs deaths involving COVID-19 is derived from said PCR test, its case number and from anyone who had a flu symptom. Yet when comparing this winter & spring’ total all-cause mortality with these of previous years: it has followed the usual track. This with one exemption; the 4/5 weeks peak from ±8 March till ±11 April 2020: which is extraordinarily rapid, never been seen before this late in the season, and it happened everywhere, on every continent, about the same time: it's an anomalous very sharp peak which happened in exact coincidence when the pandemic was declared by the WHO, who recommended countries to prepare their hospitals for a huge influx of people. And they closed people into their institutional places of residence, they didn't allow visitors. So, they isolated the most vulnerable parts of society that already had comorbidity conditions who were in a fragile state.
d) Said advisers have ‘squared’ the discrepancy between the number cases and that of who were truly infected by covid19; by stating that the non-infected [healthy] people are ‘asymptomatic carriers’. Yet (i) 69% of who tested positive were asymptomatic on the day of the test or in the previous 2 weeks; (ii) 18 to 24 yrs. Old, who have a low covid19 mortality; were more likely to test positive than other age groups who have however a high covid19 mortality; (iii) People with Asian ethnicity were more likely to test positive than those of White ethnicity; as if the viri is discriminating races.
e) To camouflage said discrepancy, and to keep up the emergency state; they no longer speak about flattening the curve, as to slow the spread of the infection so that hospital resources would not be overwhelmed*: Instead they alarm the public that the number of “cases” are increasing.
*The predictions of most mathematical models in terms of how many beds and how many ICU beds would be required were astronomically wrong. the health system was not overrun in any UK location, although several hospitals were stressed. Conversely, the health care system was severely damaged in many places because of the measures taken … causing people to die due to lack of medical care.
Anyone who has tested COVID positive but subsequently died at a later date of any cause will be included on the PHE COVID death figures. Professors Yoon Loke and Carl Heneghan write "By this PHE definition, no one with COVID in England is allowed to ever recover from their illness. A patient who has tested positive, but successfully treated and discharged from hospital, will still be counted as a COVID death even if they had a heart attack or were run over by a bus 3 months later."
f) The “R0” (the basic reproduction number of an infection) is also derived via said PCR test from the case-number; so, it is not the expected number of cases directly generated by one infected case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection. This ‘R0’ is now used to reason the social distancing: which is, according the CIA, is the most effective tool to control a large population. And so, breaching the social distancing rule is classified as putting lives at risk (a criminal offence). Yet science shows that one of the biggest risk factors to human wellbeing is social isolation (a criminal offence).

4. Said advisers failed to imply a basic scientific principle, e.g. (a) Distinction covid19 from the usual flu by a test with a low (<30%) false positive rate; (b) Disproving the ‘zero hypothesis’ (H0= covid19’s IFR* is 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 emergency measurements); (d) Balancing the consequences of acting on H0 – vs – H1. (acting on H1 would limit the Covid19 mortality: H0 would limit the individual & collateral damage from the emergency measurements.
To determinate a SARS-CoV-2 infection one should use an antibody test with a low false positive rate. A Swiss study using the antibody test shows that coivd19 mortality is similar as of a seasonal influenza. Yet the Govt advisers dismissed this was because they demand an antibody test with a 95% accuracy (yet their PCR test had less than a 20% accuracy). To determinate having died from SARS-CoV-2 one should do a post mortem examination: As done in Italy which showed that Covid19 mortality rate was lower than that of a seasonal flu. Yet also this fool-proof test was by UK Govt advisers dismissed.
They failed to have other fool-proofs of the SARS-CoV-2, e.g. (a) the name of the primary specialist peer reviewed paper in which said virus is illustrated and its full genetic information described; (b) 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; (c) 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.

5. They stated that SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus. Yet it is a corona virus similar as in the cold and various influenzas. A Swiss study showed that most of those having had a seasonal influenza have an immune cross-reaction (imprint and viral interference) with Covid19: and herewith able to form a natural herd immunity to Covid19. Other studies show that the rate of flu vaccination in the over 65 yrs. equals the rate of covid19 death in said group: as vaccination hinders said cross-reaction. Stating that it’s a novel virus (similar as with the swine flu) promotes the use of its mass vaccination. An investigation by The Times of London reveals many questions about COVID-19's origins and shocking cover-ups. In a paper on Center for Open Science, Montagnier and his colleague, bio-mathematician Jean-Claude Perez, say COVID-19 mutations suggest the virus is deleting the inserted, manmade elements. Nobel Laureate Luc Antoine Montagnier said on French media that COVID-19 contains elements of HIV and a parasite that causes malaria, and resulted from an industrial accident during HIV vaccine development: He says the COVID-19 virus pandemic will likely end from "interfering waves" because nature rejects molecular tampering. In the Quarterly Review of Biophysics, Norwegian scientist Birger Sørensen and British oncologist Angus Dalgleish also call COVID-19 manmade. And its "interfering waves pre-empties the need for a covid19 vaccine.
6. Said Govt advisers failed to focus on those being prone to covid19 and having to be protected in the right context. Despite that studies show that those with a low vit D level include the vulnerable groups, e.g. in care homes, over 65+ yrs., BAME, in deprived areas, and those with a BMI over 30, and Diabetic. Most of them are also immune compromised due to their previous flu vaccinations. These groups form less than 10% of UK’ total population; and so protective measurements should have been focuses mainly on them; and the Lockdown restriction should not have been imposed to the whole population.

7. So, there's this dissonance between what the science actually tells you when you measure correctly, and what the Govt. advisers tell you to do. They want you to be convinced that you're in this dangerous environment and that if you follow their directives, you’ll be safe. Their purpose is to control your life and to give you directives, and you're going to accept that. What’s worse, they’re currently forcing you to accept an evaluation of risk that cannot be scientifically justified. Instead of the infected numbers; they publishing and broadcasting said fabricated case numbers: They aimed, by the abovementioned deceptive numbers to create the panic necessary for said total Lockdown measurements, and a collective obedience and a consensus scientism opinion.

8. Most of said Govt advisers have a link to the vaccine industry, institutions or its founder Bill Gates. Matt Hancock has ties with Porton Biopharma Ltd and Babylon Health about which he had several undisclosed meetings with Bill Gates. Said Govt- advisers are hired “third-party experts” to promote a mandatory vaccination with an immune pass or a GAVI trust card. Further, those health authoritarians suppress or vindicate scientists having a critical view on their advises. Remember, it’s just a mask. It’s just social distancing. It’s just a ID tracer, it’s just a vaccine, it’s just a train.......it’s just a shower.

Yours sincerely,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

FOI (PUBLIC HEALTH SCOTLAND),

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Lakeman

 

Outcome Internal Review 2020-000027

 

Please find attached the response regarding the your recent request for an
internal review of the response made to you.

 

 

Kind regards

 

Donna Mitchell

 

Coordinator

Public Health Scotland

Phone: 0131 275 7867

Email: [1][email address]

 

 

[2]email-sig

 

 

show quoted sections

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear FOI (PUBLIC HEALTH SCOTLAND),
Please consider an internal review to PHS response to my FOI: Whereas
(a) “PHS’ and the Scottish Ministers, special advisers and the Permanent Secretary are covered by the terms of the Lobbying (Scotland) Act 2016”, and so they have to act under said Act;
(b) PHS and the Gov has to prevent that corporation /commercial interests are not in control of key decisions about the public's (our) health;
(c) From PHS' response it appears that they have given, via the Cabinet’s advisers, the pharmaceutical corporations a card blanch to profit from the public’s fear to covid19.

Yours sincerely,

Bartholomeus Lakeman