CV- Proof of Foreknowledge or Coincidence?
The person being hailed as the mastermind behind the CV models has been in the media lately after claims that he resigned.
Neil Ferguson of Imperial College was reportedly breaking the quarantine rules by going out to meet his married ‘lover’.
But many are asking the question, ” Is Ferguson the fall guy for measures that will be shown to be disastrous, in the near future?”
According to his own studies, taken from a 2004 report, Ferguson claims that:
Effective isolation of symptomatic patients is sufficient to control an outbreak.
The aim of this study is to identify general properties of emerging infectious agents that determine the likely success of two simple public health measures in controlling outbreaks, namely (i) isolating symptomatic individuals and (ii) tracing and quarantining their contacts. Because these measures depend on the recognition of specific disease symptoms, we investigate the relative timing of infectiousness and the appearance of symptoms by using a mathematical model.
Given the infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 and the high proportion of transmissions from presymptomatic individuals, controlling the epidemic by manual contact tracing is infeasible.
So according to those responsible for CV models, this particular virus is the easiest to control WITHOUT the need for contact tracing, quarantining of healthy people or Lockdown measures?
Imperial college who are claiming responsibility for the data and consequent actions such as ‘Lockdown’ are also involved in creating the solution to the problem, namely a vaccine.
The UK government have recently given Imperial college £22.5 million to fast track a CV vaccine, with another £20 million to Oxford University.
In 2018 Imperial College formed a partnership with CEPI, the Centre for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations contributed £8.4 million to partner Imperial College to develop vaccines in 16 weeks instead of 10 years. They called this platform, ‘RapidVac’ and the disease they called Disease X.
Oslo, Norway; 15 October 2019—The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) has today launched a call for proposals to invite funding applications for innovative platform technologies that can be used to develop vaccines and other immunoprophylactics to rapidly respond to future outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases and unknown pathogens, known as “Disease X”.
Just 3 days before Bill Gates, WHO, CDC and others held a CV pandemic exercise.
Meanwhile a report from September 2019 from the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board co-convened by WHO and the World Bank. With Involvement from Oxford University and others. With financial support provided to the GPMB Secretariat from the Government of Germany, the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and Resolve to Save Lives claimed that: https://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/annual_report/GPMB_annualreport_2019.pdf
Progress indicator(s) by September 2020 include,The United Nations (including WHO) conducts at least two system-wide
training and simulation exercises, including one for covering the deliberate
release of a lethal respiratory pathogen.
Are we involved in a training exercise created by WHO and the UN?
The report also goes on to state that :
The tools and systems needed to respond effectively to a fast-moving and lethal respiratory pathogen are in place: A universal influenza vaccine is effective and routinely used to protect the global population; new
therapeutics and broad-spectrum antivirals are widely available to treat and reduce mortality from a range of viruses; novel pathogens are routinely identified and sequenced, and the sequences are shared on a globally accessible website. Distributed manufacturing of vaccines (including nucleic acid types) begins within days of obtaining the new sequences and effective vaccines are pre-tested and approved for use within weeks.
The Secretary General of the United Nations convenes a high-level
dialogue with health, security and foreign affairs officials to determine
how the world can address the threat of a lethal respiratory pathogen
pandemic, as well as for managing preparedness for disease outbreaks
in complex, insecure contexts.
So, we have WHO reporting just months BEFORE they declare a pandemic that they need to conduct two training exercises of a respiratory pathogen.
Is this the second wave that we keep hearing about?
Members of that Global Preparedness Monitoring Board include Dr George Gao, the Director General of the Chinese CDC, Anthony Fauci, the Gates Foundation, Wellcome trust and others.
This means that all the same people involved, months prior to the CV pandemic, preparing for a pandemic with the goals of a vaccine in weeks, are the same people involved in the pandemic today. The same organisations and people who have invested millions in rapid diagnostics and rapid vaccines just prior to the pandemic claims.
The Chinese Director General of the CDC, led the China CDC team in the Ebola pandemic and was also a member of the EVENT 201, a global pandemic exercise which occurred a month after the preparedness report.
The description for Dr Goa at Event 201 lists his history and connections but omits to mention that he is also involved in the Global Preparedness monitoring board.
CEPI is also involved in the Global Preparedness report.
As of June 2019, CEPI has raised US$ 750 million to develop vaccines for epidemics
CEPI members include the Chief Scientific adviser to the UK govt on International development. (DFID) Professor Watts.
Professor Charlotte Watts advising the govt is also a member of SAGE. (The Science Advisory group on Emergencies.)
Is it coincidence that a collaboration involving govt scientific advisers, is funding Imperial college to create a fast track vaccine for an epidemic of disease X in 16 weeks, should then be claiming to have be involved in creating a vaccine for the current emergency in the same amount of time AND be declaring the severity of the reported emergency.
Other members of CEPI include senior advisers to WHO, UN and Govts.
Why the need for vaccines?
Neil Ferguson testimony that NewScientist article is based on.
There’s an interesting quote about “excess deaths”. He thinks up to 1/2 – 2/3 of all COVID-19 deaths could be people who would die this year regardless of COVID-19.
“We don’t know what the level of excess deaths will be in this epidemic. By “excess deaths” I mean – by the end of the year, what proportion of those people who died from COVID-19 would have died anyhow. But it might be as high as half to two thirds of the deaths we are seeing from COVID-19. Because it’s affecting people particularly either at the end of their lives or who have other conditions.”
Even after admitting that those who died, up to 2/3 would have died anyway. Admitting that the majority of those infected will have NO symptoms. And having no evidence of the level of excess deaths, yet pushing a world wide vaccination programme that stands to make a fortune with no accountability or safety studies needed.
The pre planning and the funding applied to create a fast track vaccine from the same sources as those delivering the ‘facts’ cannot be ignored.
Another mathematical study was performed in May 2020, a study funded by the Wellcome trust, which determined that :Digital contact tracing could play a critical role in avoiding or leaving lockdown.
The Wellcome Trust study also used the original study by Ferguson in its appraisal and concluded that contact tracing alongside social distancing and quarantine were required to combat the virus.
Epidemic control with instant digital contact tracing
A mobile phone app can make contact tracing and notification instantaneous upon case confirmation. By keeping a temporary record of proximity events between individuals, it can immediately alert recent close contacts of diagnosed cases and prompt them to self-isolate.
Apps with similar aims have been deployed in China. Public health policy was implemented using an app that was not compulsory but was required to move between quarters and into public spaces and public transport. The app allows a central database to collect data on user movement and coronavirus diagnosis and displays a green, amber, or red code to relax or enforce restrictions on movement. The database is reported to be analyzed by an artificial intelligence algorithm that issues the color codes (25). The app is a plug-in for the WeChat and Alipay apps and has been generally adopted. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6491/eabb6936
In this study it claims that: Digital contact tracing could play a critical role in avoiding or leaving lockdown.
Funding: This work was funded by the Li Ka Shing Foundation. A.N. is funded by the ARTIC Network (Wellcome Trust Collaborators Award 206298/Z/17/Z). The funders played no role in study conception or execution.
For Prof. Michael Parker, director of the Wellcome Centre for Ethics & Humanities in the U.K., and one of the paper’s authors, “With transparent and inclusive ethical oversight to ensure genuine public trust, it is possible to both save lives and protect civil liberties.
The study paper is clearly influenced by Wellcome trust despite the claims in the study that it had no conception or execution of the study.https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/app-based-contact-tracing-may-significantly-reduce-pandemic-spread#Ethical-considerations
15,000 calls centres are set to be opened up with a days training for staff for the new Corona phone app.
Whilst Apple and Google have joined forces to create an app for contact tracing, others have warned of the dangers.
An open letter, published on 19 April and signed by professors from 26 countries, urges governments and public health authorities to evaluate the potential dangers of developing contact-tracing technology.
Some of the Bluetooth-based proposals would enable (via mission creep) a form of government or private sector surveillance.
Phil Booth, coordinator at privacy group medConfidential, which has previously called on NHSX to be upfront about how the app will be used, said: “It’s time for them [NHSX] to stop talking and blogging about being transparent, and actually be transparent. Where are the DPIAs, the other Impact Assessments, the Data Sharing Agreements, the contracts? We were promised they would be published over a month ago, and still nothing.
“The lack of transparency is beyond an embarrassment. The real danger is that this undermines trust – for if they can’t show that they are and have been competent, honest and reliable throughout, then NHSX just failed the three pillars of trustworthiness. Not good for an experimental app that demands 60% of the population risk their lives to it.”
It comes as the privacy and security of contact-tracing apps has been called into question by a number of experts.
As of 1 July 2019, NHSX, which brings teams from the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and NHS Improvement together into one unit, is responsible for driving digital transformation and leading policy, implementation and change in this area.
The Open Rights group are campaigning for more transparency on the centralised app being built by govt.
In the UK a centralised app will mean that anyone reporting symptoms will go into a database and that will use AI to decide who to alert amongst contacts.
Health authority’s servers and the government could end up with an enormous database cataloguing everyone’s social interactions.
According to the Spectator :
For the app to be useful, it needs to be running on our phones all the time so that it continues to transmit and receive the Bluetooth signals that determine who we have been in contact with. The problem is that both Apple’s iOS operating system, which runs on iPhones, and Google’s Android operating system, which runs on almost every other smartphone, are not designed to work like this.
Here is a list to all the countries using the contact trace apps.
The proposed system by the UK involves Oxford University who have also been funded by the UK govt. They also founded a vaccine manufacturing in initiative with Imperial college.
Oxford and Imperial are both founders of VMIC.
A week before the WHO announced the CV to the public, members of Imperial College created a private, for profit offshoot of the VMIC UK called VMIC UK SERVICES LTD.
In the meantime, the NHS duties are being transferred to private sector.