We’re publishing an original piece today by Dr Anthony Fryer, a Professor of Clinical Biochemistry at the School of Medicine at Keele University and member of HART. He is becoming more and more frustrated that the Government isn’t being more transparent about the data it’s basing its decisions on, its failure to contextualise the data it does release and why, in particular, it has failed to acknowledge the impact false positives have in inflating the number of cases as well as the figures about how many people have supposedly died from COVID-19. Here are the first three paragraphs:
When I look back over the last year or so of the pandemic, I can forgive the first couple of months. We were all finding our feet with a largely unknown entity. However, as a clinical scientist with over 30 years in NHS laboratories and as an academic researcher with over 200 peer-reviewed clinical research articles in scientific and medical journals (including over 130 involving use of the polymerase chain reaction [PCR]), I found my views increasingly divergent from those of the Government and its advisors. Those who know me will know that it takes a lot to get me annoyed, but I could not sit by and do nothing when I could see the immense damage being done to countless lives and businesses in the name of supposedly protecting us from SARS-CoV-2.
But let me say at the start; I am not one to deny the damage that COVID-19 can do. (And I deliberately use that term, rather than SARS-CoV-2. It’s the disease that causes the problems – most people manage the virus without much difficulty.) COVID-19 can be very nasty and my heart goes out to all those affected. But the way in which the Government handled the pandemic has, in my view, been shocking. It’s felt like it has focused blindly on the virus (and not very well at that either – just think about PPE in care homes for a start) and ignored the massive implications on every other level.
So I wrote. I wrote letters to the local paper, emailed the Chief Medical Officer, submitted evidence to a Parliamentary Inquiry, signed the Great Barrington Declaration, published scientific papers on the ineffectiveness of face coverings and on the non-Covid harms to people with diabetes, and wrote to my MP. Several times. I also joined UsforThem and the Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART).
This is a brilliant piece by an eminent medical scientist who’s been red-pilled by the Government’s poor handling of the pandemic and is very much worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I agree, a brilliant piece by someone who has eminent standing in the field. Puts SAGE and the other Government suspects and lackeys to shame.
To be honest – not that brilliant.
It states/points up the bleedin’ obvious about the government’s non-use of evidence, and the title asks a rhetorical question.
It also includes this sentence :
“Now we have the vast majority of susceptible individuals vaccinated (one of the few success stories)”
Doh!
I feel this kind of statement often gets thrown in by default, almost as a hidden message “PS I’m not an antivaxxer”, to avoid the likely demonisation that could come if picked up by MSM or employers.
I think you’re right. A measure of how much knee-jerking has become embedded.
The title almost certainly is not his.
Are intelligent human beings slowly starting to crawl out of the woodwork?
I received virtually the same letter from Lord Bethell in response to the seven page letter I sent to my MP back in November, requested by said MP, who said he knew vary little about Covid.
I responded by saying how disappointed I was that much of the information Lord Bethell gave was out of date, inaccurate or exaggerated (hundreds of thousands have died, it is a very dangerous disease, excess deaths etc.) All of these statements were made without context or statistics with which to back them up.
Some of my responses:
-The WHO have said that PCR should not be used as the gold standard, particularly with high Ct. numbers in the absence of symptoms.
-The government do manipulate data. The cross party report released in March states that the government uses data either to make themselves look good or to cause anxiety in people instead of informing them of their risk. This is not acceptable says the report.
-The projection of 4000 deaths a day when in reality it turned out to be just over 200 was not met with a change in policy nor an apology. The Statistics authority pulled up Whitty and Valance for doing this.
-I told Lord Bethell (or his minion who probably wrote the letter) that I was insulted by his suggestion that I might like to look at ONS statistics. My original letter was backed up by such statistics taken from ONS, PHE, NHS, Euromomo etc. unlike his letter.
I suggested to Lord Bethell that he may like to read the cross party report released in March on government transparency and accountability during Covid. In several areas it is damning of the government’s use of statistics, graphs, briefings etc.
So It appears that the letter published ATL is the cut and paste edition sent out by the Department of Health and Social Care.
Oh and I also sent Lord Bethell the report on the Swine Flu of 2009 which, in its recommendations, calls for a PROPORTIONAL response to pandemics. It particularly mentions the disparity between what the government was saying at the time and what people were actually seeing on the ground-it suggests that this causes great damage to the government’s credibility.
Did you also send him this:
https://healthcare-in-europe.com/en/news/european-parliament-to-investigate-who-pandemic-scandal.html
European Parliament to Investigate WHO and “Pandemic” Scandal
by F. William Engdahl
The Council of Europe member states will launch an inquiry in January 2010 on the influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the global swine flu campaign, focusing especially on extent of the pharma’s industry’s influence on WHO. The Health Committee of the EU Parliament has unanimously passed a resolution calling for the inquiry.
The step is a long-overdue move to public transparency of a “Golden Triangle” of drug corruption between WHO, the pharma industry and academic scientists that has permanently damaged the lives of millions and even caused death.
https://youtu.be/-xQ25ueSJUA
No, but it would be good to send him Channel 4’s expose on the Swine Flu Scandal.
I’m sick to death of writing to my MP. There’s two of us doing it in this household and we have spent a lot of time and effort on it. We gather the real statistics, often quoting ONS, we discuss the known failings of PCR, particularly at high Ct. We talk about mental health concerns, economic concerns, others health outcomes.
Lately we’ve been focusing on vaccine passports or other Covid passes. Nothing we say is given the courtesy of a thoughtful reply. It’s all just cut and paste generic replies with sweeping statements about the crisis and the death rates which are all inaccurate and easy to rebut. Seeing as the rebuttal was likely already in the letter they are replying to and they hadn’t addressed it, then what is the point?
I’m giving up trying to talk to her. 2 spoiled ballots and one Robin Tillbrook vote coming up next week. The main parties are a totally shameful disaster and they wouldn’t know the truth or the right thing to do if it came up and punched them in the face.
Yes. Only course now is voting itself, and talking to people. I often find they are against the whole Sage takeover, but unwilling to say so till they see I am.
Same situation here. Adding up the hours I have spent composing thoroughly researched, evidenced letters, with links included to original sources to my MP and opposition leaders results in a total of several whole weeks. What do I get in return? Standard cut and paste rubbish which totally ignores every point and question I have raised. What is so galling is it is MY money that is paying their wages and they are supposed to work FOR ME, not against me, so because my letters are informed, evidenced and polite they could at least reply with respect and actually answer my questions – or do some actual work and find out the answers themselves. If they remain ignorant of the issues and facts, how the hell can they vote on measures? It is hardly surprising that Fryer is frustrated. So am I – as are many thousands of other medics, scientists and well-informed others. It is not just incompetence or group think. They are deliberately lying and ignoring genuine evidence. As Dr Yeadon stated in a recent interview, there cannot be anything other than a malign reason behind this universally widespread behaviour.
Oh how I wish they could be punched in the face; preferably with a piece of planed 4 x 2
This is an excellent summary that cites numerous examples where facts and context were not presented.
I would only quibble with the author’s first sentence: “When I look back over the last year or so of the pandemic, I can forgive the first couple of months. We were all finding our feet with a largely unknown entity.”
Maybe, but let’s not go overboard in cutting these experts too much slack.
I can report that most conclusions I’d made about this virus, I’d formulated by Month Two of the pandemic.
That is, it took me about 60 days post lockdowns to know that the young faced no real health risks, that masks wouldn’t stop the spread, that being outside was completely safe, etc.
Still, all the “finest minds” from all these “institutions of higher learning” – and all the experts who served on all the “health panels” that were created to advise colleges and sports leagues, etc – doubted everything I thought was “common sense,” facts that quickly became obvious to me (from simple observation).
I could simply drive to my local hospital in early May 2020 and see that the facility wasn’t over-run. It was, in fact, a ghost town. It didn’t take long at all for me to notice that no child or young adult in my acquaintance had been hospitalized, or much less died from COVID … so I quickly began to wonder why my kids were at home with me, playing video games all day.
I knew that most of the “cases” – especially among those under the age of 60 – were either “asymptomatic” or people who had a symptom or two, but who definitely weren’t bed-ridden like when they get the flu.
In short, I felt like the little boy who cried out, “The emperor has no clothes!” … although I admit I was a little hesitant to say this lest I be stoned.
Like the author, I also wrote articles and letters to the editor, expressing doubts about many of the key features of the Covid “narrative.” Alas, my efforts at adding my two cents were, for the most part, rejected or ignored.
But I did wonder why the statistics professors at all the colleges that imposed draconian mandates didn’t utter a word about mortality probabilities for 19-year-old students?
I did wonder why I couldn’t find an example of one coach anywhere who was willing to admit that of all the athletes in his program who “tested positive,” hardly any actually had become “sick.” Or why journalists didn’t point out this fact (and still won’t).
Basically, I quickly concluded that the facts and simple observations didn’t really matter. The “narrative” – which was penned in Week One – was not going to change. Nobody (who mattered) was going to challenge any part of it.
It seems to me that an army of “non-experts” figured out in two months what the “experts” still haven’t figure out today.
Interestingly BRJ, the Emperor’s New Clothes was the analogy used by Dr Wolfgang Wodarg in the early days of the scamdemic. He had experienced the same things happening during the Swine Flu pandemic in 2009 so it was history repeating itself.
It was he who convinced me that there was something very wrong going on.
Indeed:
“European Parliament to Investigate WHO and “Pandemic” Scandal
by F. William Engdahl
The Council of Europe member states will launch an inquiry in January 2010 on the influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the global swine flu campaign, focusing especially on extent of the pharma’s industry’s influence on WHO. The Health Committee of the EU Parliament has unanimously passed a resolution calling for the inquiry.
The step is a long-overdue move to public transparency of a “Golden Triangle” of drug corruption between WHO, the pharma industry and academic scientists that has permanently damaged the lives of millions and even caused death.”
The Council of Europe Report is available :
https://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDocs/2010/20100604_H1N1pandemic_e.pdf
It’s essential reading to see the failed attempt to do what has been done with SARS-CoV-2. It’s amazingly prescient.
It seems to me that “Investigations” like this from the EUSSR (as revealed by Vladimir Bukovsky) are merely an attempt to widen the bribery to EU as well as WHO bureaucrats.
This is an excellent article – highly recommend people read it and pass it on to others.
I shared it at “Keep Alabama Universities Open” and “Keep Mississippi Universities Open,” two Facebook Groups created by parents of college students who are protesting all of the draconian mandates on college campuses.
Forums like this actually serve the same purpose as this site – one of the few places where skeptics can voice their opinions and share contrarian facts.
“Why Can’t the Government be More Transparent About the Data Guiding its Decisions?”
Ha ha. Is there any data guiding its decisions, or do they make decisions and then use whatever data they can find, or just mad modelling and fluff about variants, to justify what they have done?
As for transparency, I would be surprised if many of them believed their own bullshit any more, so why would they want to be transparent and risk being exposed as fools or worse?
Did anyone else spot, in Bethan’s first paragraph?
“COVID19 is an incredibly dangerous virus”
No, the virus is SARS-Cov-2 you idiot!
and it’s not incredibly dangerous.
“Why Can’t the Government be More Transparent About the Data Guiding its Decisions?”
Because they’re lying.
They’re not being guided by the data, but by doctrine and money.
I really do wish him all the best in finding new employment after Keele shut him down.
“ I can forgive the first couple of months. ” Well I can’t. They had a Pandemic Preparedness Strategy and they threw it out the window. I recall thinking that the economic cost of those first three weeks was going to be astronomically high and surely not justifiable… Plus locking us young and healthy all away at home instinctively felt like the completely wrong thing for herd immunity. So no I don’t!
“Why Can’t the Government be More Transparent About the Data Guiding its Decisions?”
Simple answer surely is because they are not using any data to guide their decisions – unless you include opinion polls or MSM headlines.
Why?
Great. Reset. Exposure massiveand deadly incompetence too.
That’s why.
The b’s can’t be transparent because even the gullable, “if the Man on the telly says… “, would finally see what a huge pile of b.s. these c*nts have been peddling for over a year.