I find the Daily Telegraph’s ‘Lockdown Files’ revelations about Matt Hancock’s WhatsApp messages simultaneously reassuring and disturbing.
Reassuring, because over the many months I analysed Covid related data for Lockdown Sceptics (as this site was then called) I often had periods of self-doubt. Official announcements by politicians and senior civil servants were so discordant with publicly available information, I assumed I must be missing something, or misinterpreting the figures. Worse, I worried about inadvertently misleading our readership. Recent revelations suggest that my analyses were roughly correct – I’m not claiming any credit because the answers were hiding in plain sight. Anyone with a modicum of common sense and a basic training in biological sciences could have seen it – and many did.
On the other hand, the message trails are disturbing for what they tell us about the nature of decision making in government. It is easy to be misled by taking Hancock’s adolescent WhatsApp messages at face value. Vain, shallow and self-obsessed, he was the perfect mark for manipulation by erstwhile ‘advisors’. A political marionette parroting lines fed to him by others and a convenient fall guy when it all went wrong. I don’t think Hancock is the major villain in the lockdown piece. He’s too lightweight to have dreamt all that up on his own.
Lest anyone misinterpret my view, I don’t think the WEF or the ‘Illuminati’ were behind the lockdown catastrophe. But I do think there were plenty of adults in the room – and that many of them perceived personal advantage in maintaining the Covid fictions and the theatre that went with it.
Hancock’s WhatsApp exchanges suggest a consistent policy of official exaggeration to justify excessive population control measures, certainly from the autumn of 2020. This isn’t news, but it corroborates what I wrote at the time. Here are just a few examples:
- WhatsApp Exchanges between Boris Johnson, Whitty, Valance and Hancock show these main players knew early on that Covid was not a significant threat to the vast majority of the population. We now know that on February 29th 2020 Whitty said on WhatsApp: “For a disease with a low (for the sake of argument 1%) mortality a vaccine has to be very safe so the safety studies can’t be shortcut. So important for the long run.”
I agree with that statement. I think most doctors would concur. Even at the time, the infection fatality rate (IFR) was rarely estimated above 1% except in people over 65 and we now know from the work of John Ioannidis and others that those IFRs were significant over-estimates.
Why did Dr Whitty change his mind? He subsequently vocally and repeatedly advocated for the entire U.K. population to be vaccinated with a drug that had not undergone standard safety studies and in particular for young people to be vaccinated for a disease that was in no way a danger to them. What brought about his volte face?
- The second lockdown: Here is a quote from a piece I wrote in Lockdown Sceptics in early November 2020:
On Weds 4th November, the British Parliament voted to enforce a lockdown of the population in order to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed with COVID-19 admissions.
In support of the Government, Professor Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance provided graphs of dubious provenance suggesting catastrophic consequences if lockdown was not re-introduced. These projections subsequently turned out to be grossly inaccurate.
Sir Simon Stevens, the head of the NHS in England then presented figures suggesting that the NHS was in imminent danger of collapse from Covid pressures in the coming weeks. He stated that the number of Covid patients in some hospitals was greater than the number in the spring and that in total there were enough Covid patients in England to fill 22 hospitals.
We now know from Hancock’s own messages that he was contemplating offering spare ICU beds in southern England to French patients at that exact time. Leaks from within NHS England in November 2020 showed:
there were 290 vacant ICU beds in London, 278 vacant in the South East and 296 beds available in the Midlands in early November 2020. Conservative MP’s complained that the information they had been provided with was insufficiently detailed to allow them to make an informed decision on the matter.
If the NHS was so close to collapse that everyone had to be placed under house arrest, can someone please explain why the Secretary of State for Health was considering offering spare ICU capacity to our French friends? And why the information in relation to the true state of critical care capacity was not provided to our elected representatives before they rubber stamped the second lockdown?
- The fear narrative: Hancock’s text exchanges clearly demonstrate his intention deliberately to terrify the entire country by officially disseminating a false narrative about the risks of Covid, aided, abetted and amplified by the national broadcaster. I won’t elaborate on this theme because it has been well documented and is beyond contest. If such activities had been carried out by a foreign power, they would have been described as information warfare – for very good reason, because that is exactly what we now know the U.K. Government conducted against its own people.
Who put the sock puppet up to that? Who authorised the police to incarcerate people in their own homes – a form of detention without trial – for 14 days, when we now know from the leaks that a five-day quarantine, provided it was accompanied by testing, was sufficient in the eyes of Chris Whitty? Who authorised the incoherent and inconsistent policy of ‘early release’ where people could shorten quarantine if they paid extra for an early test? The WhatsApp leaks are so far silent on this point.
This brings me to the disturbing part of the ‘lockdown files’ reaction. It’s the silence.
By silence, I don’t mean absence of noise – there has been plenty of noise from the lockdown advocate section of the media, largely shrieking ad hominem attacks on Isabel Oakeshott and the ‘lockdown deniers’ (Kate Burley’s tormented phraseology). One example is this piece by Observer columnist Sonia Sodha.
The writer claims the WhatsApp leaks are being exploited by anti-lockdown activists motivated by ‘ideology’. It appears to me that the ideologues are entirely on the other side of the argument – deliberately ignoring the growing evidence quantifying the costs of the policy while dogmatically clinging to the mantra that ‘government-imposed restrictions that reduced people’s social contacts cut infection rates and saved lives’.
She refers to the Swedish official report on the country’s Covid experience and draws attention to a comment that the Swedes should have “taken faster and stronger action to slow the spread of Covid in the first wave, such as closing restaurants”.
Perhaps she got bored of reading past the first couple of pages. Had she read the entire report, she would surely have noted this paragraph:
In the light of current knowledge, however, the Commission is not convinced that extended or recurring mandatory lockdowns, as introduced in other countries, are a necessary element in the response to a new, serious epidemic outbreak. First of all, many countries that have pursued such an approach have experienced significantly worse outcomes than Sweden, indicating at present, at least, that it is highly uncertain what effect lockdowns have in fact had. Second, long-term and recurring lockdowns restrict, not to say practically remove, people’s freedom in a way that is hardly defensible other than in the face of very extreme threats. And third, the argument about measures sustainable in the long term, which people can be expected to accept, carries significant weight here. In many parts of the world, including countries close to our own, we have seen protests, even violent ones, when new lockdowns have been imposed in response to growing transmission of COVID-19.
There has been total silence and zero engagement on the key arguments revealed by the leaks. A wilful deafness and blindness by those who shaped the decisions in the SAGE committees and the civil service, let alone any kind of mea culpa from the hysterics on Independent SAGE. No commentary on the self-evident policy of deliberate public misinformation, or on the multiple instances of official advisors appearing on the media to bounce decision makers into more sustained draconian measures. No commentary on the deliberate policy of denigration, surveillance and repression of dissenting voices – most of whom turned out to have been right all along.
The real instigators of lockdown conveniently hide behind the fig leaf of a ‘public enquiry’ while the inept narcissistic former Secretary of State for Health fulfils his final political function as a human shield. When all this is over, Hancock will be gone, political chaff, sacrificed to deflect blame from the people who wrote the lines he parroted. But they will still be there. Nameless, unaccountable, untouchable.
So, cui bono? Who benefited from the economic and social catastrophe that was U.K. Covid policy 2020-22?
Testing companies, PPE merchants, vaccine manufacturers must head the list. I find it hard to blame them for taking advantage of the golden goose. They weren’t prime movers, just opportunistic exploiters of a confected crisis.
But right behind them were the civil servants and advisors. Several have already banked their gains with promotions and decorations. Some have moved on to more lucrative pastures. The other big winners were the consultants – bound to their governmental counterparts, charging £1 million a day to advise on the development of the disastrous, £37 billion ‘Test and Trace’, which turned out to be the cause of an economically crippling and clinically unnecessary ‘pingdemic’.
The losers? British taxpayers and businesses. Schoolchildren deprived of education. Patients deprived of routine but necessary medical care. Those suffering injury from a vaccine they were coerced into taking for a virus that posed no threat to them.
And paradoxically the politicians are also losers. Their function in a modern managed democracy is now reduced to little more than PR mouthpieces for a state infrastructure that leaks or briefs a compliant press against them when they deviate from the official line.
Power lies in controlling what people believe, because that determines how people act. Hancock didn’t control what people were led to believe. He just read the script out. The public need to know who wrote it.
Get to it Isabel.
The author, the Daily Sceptic‘s in-house doctor, is a former NHS consultant now in private practice.
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.
Followed by
So, it’s a conspiracy… but it’s not (please don’t call me conspiracy theorist!)… but it is really… but what will people think of me if I say it’s a conspiracy… but it has to be, how could it not be…. but, I don’t think it’s the illuminati, ha, ha….but…
At this point, I just find quite amusing watching people who deep down realise there are a few powerful people pulling the strings squirming and struggling to come to terms with it.
A funny thing about how conspiracy theories are painted, is that the idea of a conspiracy itself seems to be deemed impossible, the theory part of the phrase is treated like an accessory. It’s like people cannot believe that groups of people can get together and conspire to commit unlawful acts.
Which is funny, because the criminal law specifically provides for the offence of criminal conspiracy. According to our own laws, conspiracies do indeed exist. Proving them is another thing, obviously, but it is about time that people realise that conspiracies in and of themselves exist and have throughout history – whether they are purely speculation and theory or reality is what needs to be debated, not the concept that there is no such thing as a conspiracy.
I believe we can dispense with the notion of “conspiracy.” Once due consideration is given to Agenda 2021 / 30 the reality is that what is happening is that a plan is being rolled out and worked through.
Exactly. The like-minded behave in the same ways and inevitably find each other and associate for mutual support and benefit.
People confuse themselves by imagining ‘conspiracy’ means some sinister committee in a back room somewhere with a grand aim and plan of action controlling everything, rather than it being a confluence of interests, each of whom might have a different end goal, but who all realise working together makes them stronger than going it alone.
But who are these so-called illuminati anyway? Can anyone explain?
I’ve come across the term numerous times in reading sceptical opinions. It’s always left vague who they are but I have a horrible feeling that, for at least some who use the label, it means Jews (i.e. reviving old antisemitic ideas about Jewish power and malice). Is that right?
The Bavarian Illuminati was a secret society founded, unsurprisingly, in Bavaria in the late eighteenth century. They have been accused of orchestrating the French Revolution and some argue that they, like the Rothschild banking family who were also very influential at the time, are still pulling the strings behind events today. There may be some truth in it, though I have not seen and evidence, or the claims may be a subterfuge to obscure real controlling interests today or they may simply be the fruit of over-active imaginations. By their very nature, it’s always difficult to tell with secret societies.
I think it also worth saying that a conspiracy doesn’t have to be a room of people, but also applies to ‘like interests’, where people are influenced to act in the same way because they know is it good for them.
But the notion that the Rothschilds are there pulling the strings behind the scenes even today is a poisonous antisemitic conspiracy theory, isn’t it?
Btw, an example of this poison about the Rothschilds that I came across recently was in the Together event called “Wot, no cash?” late last year. One of the audience in the Q&A at the end refers to the Rothschilds negatively in this kind of way (at 1 hr 43mins). Unfortunately, that makes the video of this otherwise excellent occasion unusable as something to pass on to family and friends.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3KaxRFn_8w
It’s not really my area but billionaires I guess – not all of them obviously but many – especially those with global interests, and the network of people they are connected with either personally or through their firms/foundations etc – this will be politicians, the media and other institutions. Whether these people are malicious or not I suppose you could debate, but it’s hard to imagine that they have OUR best interests at heart – just theirs (quite natural, but they are powerful so can do more damage). As to their religion or race, I don’t really know. One particular religion or race my well be overrepresented within their number – I don’t think pointing that out is necessarily “racist” – but that doesn’t imply that one follows from the other.
Davos elite + Bilderberg + the usual ‘chosen people’ who dominate various industries including Pharma. Start there.
Just to be clear, FerdIll, by the “usual ‘chosen people'”, do you mean Jews?
Wancock referencing Tedros at the WHO and Kill Gates….Gates owes me one he messages, for injecting so many with his mico chips….but no orchestration, no planning, all the hundreds of G7s, G20-4, G20+5-11, WHO, Climate Thingy, Davos, WEF and other chinwags…were for what? Not to mention Kill Gates’ Oct 2019 table top planning in NJ
Sorry but could you just clarify what you meant by the “usual ‘chosen people'” in your last comment, just to avoid any misunderstanding?
Honestly, how can anyone at this stage be discounting the influence of the WEF?!
They’ve been operating in plain sight for years, and the likes of ‘In-House Doctor’ still don’t get it…
For instance, check out Event 201 – “Event 201 simulates an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.”
Event 201 was sponsored by the World Economic Forum, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and John Hopkins Center for Health Security.
Re it’s a conspiracy, also see this article, which was ready to roll just a day after Neil Ferguson et al’s infamous Imperial College Report 9 was published on 16 March 2020…the report that forgot to disclose Ferguson is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation…
We’re not going back to normal | MIT Technology Review, 17 March 2020.
Exactly. Doublespeak.Cognitive dissonance.Coincidence Theorist. Any and all.
Without being too harsh, for me there is also a certain degree of moral/intellectual timidity.
Our grandkids need lions, not hampsters.
Yes, I also wonder WHO was behind it all? Look at those that fund it as well.
exactly top 2 funders of WHO, China and Bill Gates, and yet Biden, Sunak and other world leaders are preparing to sign and handover sovereignty to the WHO when it next declares a pandemic, it is to be noted the organisation changed its definition of what a Pandemic is.
So in short a Communist party in another country and a megalomaniac billionaire get to rule the world.
Exactly and there is no conspiracy in your assertion just statement of facts.
If only we had had monkeys in charge, we’d have probably all been a lot better off. Eating loads of bananas and getting exercise swinging through the trees would have served us better than the measures that were made up on the fly.
In any event, the belief that there is some shady central source behind what happened isn’t based on the fact that idiot politicians based their decision making on a mixture of fear, looking at polls and trying to guess what the public wanted and the obvious joy at being able to rake in lots of dosh and making mates and family happy and rich with testing and IT contracts.
No, it is the fact that virtually all countries across the world eventually went lockstep in their measures, even after their failure became apparent. It was particularly striking that those countries supposedly most boastful of being based on the rule of law, fundamental freedoms and human rights, threw these out the window without so much as batting an eyelid – with almost zero objection by the legislature and judiciary, whose task is precisely to step up and protect the people from an out-of-control government. Precisely because we were in a ‘crisis’ situation, that is when the balance of powers is more important than ever. That is where the coordination was to be found, that those countries with the strongest principles of freedom and the rule of law ended up with some of the most draconian measures – the ‘liberal’ states of the US, the UK, Aus and Canada – how you failed when push came to shove.
The centralised push became doubly apparent with the pushing of the needle – health authorities in all these countries knew full well the majority of the population did not need the vaxx, they knew it was a huge gamble to use an unknown, untested, risky substance on such large numbers of the population, for little gain. The Dutch health authorities, like the UK one, had originally only advocated the vaxx for the elderly and vulnerable – I have no doubt whatsoever the push to stab everyone and their dog came from the politicans, along with their absurd and disgusting pass. That is where the coordination was to be found.
I never really thought about that expression ‘follow the money’ and what it really meant when a long time ago people happy with their lot used to mutter about behaviour they read about and might have thought was inappropriate/unfair or ‘grasping’ or ‘money grabbing’. It went on of course but it wasn’t until the blatant money money money culture of the 1980s it wasn’t as overt and publicly available as it is now. This recent magic money making event for many in the right place at the right time with the right tools was a dream come true.
The uncomfortable question everyone should be facing is how on our watch our societies allow this to happen without challenge – was the global lockstep of compliance something to do with our interconnectedness – our immediate 24 hour news cycle – our media? The fact that what the UK (or US or Sweden) did was instantly available to others in Australia or NZ or anywhere? Did this feedback loop self confirm that ‘the right decisions’ were being made by the ‘right’ people – those that knew what they were doing – expect they didn’t.
It would be instructive to read how was the information and decisions about the 1918 flu epidemic was communicated to the wider world – what really went on in the corridors of power and about the epidemic warnings and the treatment options? Did they make ‘better decisions’ based on what was going on in front of them?
Were our vaccine treatments developed because we were tied into global powers that made them happen – global power clearly isn’t necessarily better even if our love of ‘globalisation’ thinks so. Other epidemiological experts who disagreed & didn’t buy into the narrative were ignored and cancelled but those in the exulted positions of power in big shiny places in the ‘centre of things’ went ahead.
Follow the money. Follow the people who are following the money. Then put checks and brakes in the system to make sure it cannot happen again.
IMHO it’s as simple as the combination of too much power and too much money. Events conspired to make it a golden time for those in the right place with the right levers.
Anything to do with the fellow who has just recently dumped his stock of Pfizer shares after making a few bob?
‘The public need to know who wrote it.’
They wrote it.
Unfortunately the organ grinder was the vast majority of the population of this country.
That’s the real reason why there is such a deafening silence…..
They were complicit but they didn’t start this, they were reacting to what they were told.
The Nuremberg defence……
I’m not excusing them, just searching for an initiator.
Pantsdown summed it up:
‘It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… and then Italy did it. And we realised we could.’
The socialist fascist state initiated it, the product of an overmighty public sector, enabled by a supine, bovine population:
‘“Those people nowadays who say they would have stood up against the Nazis – I believe they are sincere in meaning that, but believe me, most of them wouldn’t have.” After the rise of the Nazi party, “the whole country was as if under a kind of a spell,’
Brunhilde Pomsel (Goebbels secretary)
The socialist fascist state in every rich world country, all at the same time? Copying eachother? I guess that’s possible.
Enabled also, yes, by socialist fascist supranational organisations with no mandate. Hence the synchronicity, obviously. There is safety, as the spineless know too well, in numbers.
We escaped from the EU, kind of, but not from WHO, IMF, OECD and Uncle Tom Cobley.
The idea that this country should listen to a WHO largely financed by the CCP and Gates, run by a Chinese sympathising (etc.) Ethiopian, makes the blood boil……
Also with a lying corrupt Britshman as their Chief Scientist and a communist Britishwoman as one of their propagandists.
The Gumby Brothers and Loretta
u.s. dod higher up the chain than ccp
There was a critical couple of weeks in early March 2020 where Boris, the CMO and CSA were talking about herd immunity, that changed when the public sector unions threw their weight in behind what was effectively the threat of a national strike. The “we must protect our members” ploy.
The forces of international socialism/communism/Marxism are well versed in this sort of action, that it began in China with the CCP may be a red herring, the international proletariat pushed it from there.
Yes I am sure they played a part.
that doesn’t answer why in multiple countries at the same time
‘Groupthink’ provides the answer
The people were lied to by the politicians, the NHS and the media with the help of very skilled pysychologists and propagandists.
It is a peculiar idea that the victims of this unprecedented campaign of dishonesty are the ones responsible for the medical tyranny we’ve been living under, not the people who carried out that campaign, let alone the people who gave them their orders.
It’s the people who issued the orders who most need to be identified.
The Nuremberg defence….
Repeating an absurd comment doesn’t make it less absurd.
People who believe lies, especially lies told by people they’ve been brought up to trust and respect – doctors and the BBC, not politicians or the Daily Mail, obviously – are not remotely morally comparable to people who commit crimes.
Rudeness invariably indicates the wrong end of the argument.
The vast majority of the British population have enabled the most disastrous public sector intervention since WW1.
They followed illegal orders.
And that is no defence.
Saying that something is absurd isn’t rudeness.
What a desperately feeble response.
You still haven’t managed to explain exactly what crimes were committed by those on the receiving end of the biggest propaganda exercise in history..
And as a committed believer of the crap the government and MSM spout about Ukraine you’re in absolutely no position to criticise people who’ve believed other lies.
‘There you go again’
Claim:
‘Hancock didn’t control what people were led to believe. He just read the script out. The public need to know who wrote it.’
Writer of the script:
The British electorate gave Blair/Brown three majorities creating the ‘Blair’s Britain’ that they now inhabit.
A massive public sector controls just about every aspect of their lives
That is the script…….and the electorate wrote it.
Democracy: the least worst system of government
You do not agree with it, for your own reasons, but it is quite clearly, not an absurd comment:
‘Germans were not forced to be killers. Those who refused to participate were given other assignments or transferred. To this day no one has found an example of a German who was executed for refusing to take part in the killing of Jews or other civilians. Defense attorneys of people accused of war crimes have looked hard for such a case because it would support the claim that their clients had no choice. The Nazi system, however, did not work that way. There were enough willing perpetrators so that coercive force could be reserved for those deemed enemies’
Doris Bergen
In the same way, British citizens were not, in fact, forced to wear masks. They could, as a few of us did, self exempt themselves. They did not have to get vaccinated although some were shamefully coerced. They did not have to spy, inform, on their neighbours. Socialist fascism:
‘These days, lockdown feels inevitable.’ It was, he (Ferguson) reminds me, anything but. “If China had not done it,” he says, “the year would have been very different.””
To those people who, still now, object to lockdowns on civil liberties principles, this will be a chilling reminder of the centrality of the authoritarian Chinese model in influencing global policy in this historic year.’
Unherd Ferguson interview
This country’s covid response, socialist fascism, has killed tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands before their time.
The socialist fascist state, Blair’s Britain, was created 1997-2010 and it was created by big majorities of voters of this country.
It is complete nonsense to claim that the British people were ‘just following orders’ as a consequence of propaganda, just as it was at Nuremberg all those years ago.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels
You are entitled to your opinion.
It is not one that I share.
Blair’s Britain is a country where the state is deemed to be responsible for everything, individuals responsible for very little: socialist fascism.
In reality, in a democracy, the electorate gets the government that it deserves.
This socialist fascist state was created by the electorate.
They wrote the script
I pose the question again: if this is only the result of the clowns and criminals in parliament, then where is the world-wide continuing censorship coming from and why is the WHO pushing for a global pandemic treaty? The reason for the “silence” is because this was a controlled release of embarrassing tit-bits that set up Hancock as the puerile fall-guy while leaving the majority of these vile people unscathed.
“Lest anyone misinterpret my view, I don’t think the WEF or the ‘Illuminati’ were behind the lockdown catastrophe.”
…..
Goes on to mention who else wasn’t behind it, just lists who stood to gain but were not the “prime movers”.
So who were the “prime movers” then? It’s either planned or at least triggered or manipulated, or more or less spontaneous global collective insanity. Occam’s Butterknife say it must have just been madness.
What a curious piece. In short: “Someone’s pulling the strings, but it’s definitely not the WEF or global elites”. I can only put this down to a deep-rooted respect and trust in authority.
Perhaps because the strings are now attached much more widely than they used to be, so an increase in the number of pullers makes it easier for them to hide in plain sight?
It must, by now, be clear to many, from the supine reaction to the well named Hancock’s WhatsApp messages, that no day of reckoning is ever coming, except and until, maybe, a Lockdown Sceptic runs the White House.
On the BBC Politics Live today:
Why is childcare so expensive? Plus, can we abolish poverty?
This country is completely something beginning with F
I agree about a day of reckoning – unlikely. It’s conceivable that there will be more leaks a la Hancock but there has probably been a lot of damage control going on.
Let’s see ….. what is the unifying force for Globalist organisations which benefited so hugely from the pandemic and which has admitted it has embedded its people in all the Cabinets of the western “democracies?”
Oh yes ….. that would be the WEF.
“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world” – Professor Klaus Schwab of the WEF.
Anonymous Doctor “Lest anyone misinterpret my view, I don’t think the WEF or the ‘Illuminati’ were behind the lockdown catastrophe”.
The lockdowns were based on the already discredited modelling of SAGE scientist Professor Neil Ferguson. ICL and Ferguson had previously been awarded $millions from the Bill and Melinda Foundation for that modelling. Wake up Dr Anonymous!
plus lined up for bird flu
Whilst I broadly agree with the good doctor’s article – and to be sure I’m beyond mad at those responsible for Clown World – for me there is one further group firmly in the frame.
Medics and particularly doctors.
If they didn’t know about the dangers of mRNA as balanced against the risk of covid, they should have. Wilful ignorance can be no excuse given their supposed level of expertise.
Bar a few, GP surgeries played an active (and very profitable) role in encouraging the public to get their jabs.
The RPTB may think they’ve succeeded in their aims thus far. but some of their useful helpers may be in for a shock.
It may take decades (look at Vioxx, Bextra, smoking etc.) but they are firmly in the legal frame when it comes to liability.
My advice, to doctors outside the protective umbrella of the NHS, is to ensure their professional indemnity policies are kept up to date.
Lack of informed consent will be the starting point.
The problem is that the “protective umbrella of the NHS” only works if you are prepared to parrot everything fed to you from its Stalinist overseers in the management layers, they don’t want independent thought and they will attack if they see it.
Where I live, I had minimal communication with the GP surgery I’m registered at. All the promotional paperwork came from a centralised NHS organisation, and all the jabs were dished out in premises rented from the local Borough Council. As the organisers did not have a proper return address etc, all I did was to let the surgery know that I did not intend to accept the offer, and just got a reply that it would be noted, and that was that. No further communication from them since then ( 2 years ago).
In support of the Government, Professor Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance provided graphs of dubious provenance
A few days before, the French government had likewise used exaggerated figures to push through a second lockdown. On 27 October 2020, the day their second lockdown was announced, the daily French COVID death toll was reported as having risen to 523 in one day, presented as an increase of 266 since the previous day. The very next day, the figure was explained as 288 deaths in hospital plus 235 over the previous 4 days from care homes.
Spurious spikes in figures grab the readers’ attention, but the reasons are forgotten. During early stages of the first lockdown, the Guardian was initially publishing daily figures of cases, as a neat graphic. The figures were identical to the then PHE figures (I cannot recall if it was cases or “Covid deaths”), so I assumed that the newspaper was duly following the PHE figures, and I skimmed the bar-chart graphic each day. It fitted, suspiciosly accurately the Farr Curve (and the Gompertz Curve too). One day it didn’t appear. I looked at the PHE figures, which showed a massive spike and infeasible for that day. My guess was that the newspaper knew that this was some counting or classification anomaly. Subsequently there was much plausible speculation about whether this anomaly came from care homes being lumped together into one day (so there wasn’t really a spike), which then led on to more speculation but few agreed facts about the policy of emptying hospitals of covid patients and filling care home residents with Midazolam.
I wrote to the head of PHE asking for clarification of the pedigree of the figures, notably whether the figures were raw data or merely reconstituted from the best-fit Farr/Gompertz curves but received no reply. By this time opposition to the Lockdown was emerging out of the panicking stampede, and I lost interest in tracking the figures. Meanwhile PHE was wound up. The Guardian moved onto another aspect of its OrangeManBad campaign (IIRC it was HCQ and the Arizona chap who died from drinking fish-tank cleaner “touted” by President Trump.)
PS: by the time of the first lockdown the figures had clearly diverged from a terrifying but infeasible unbounded exponential and were settling down to the routine bell-curve noticed by William Farr, and falling way short of Neil Ferguson’s figures.
Good article, with lots of relevant points. Clearly Hancock didn’t orchestrate anything. He was and is a fool. What kind of a clown would have given those messages to a journalist? Worse, a journalist who was known to be anti-lockdown?
I do have an answer for that one actually: an arrogant, off-the-scale narcissistic clown. He really is that dumb and stupid.
But for all the commentary on the Lockdown Files, one thing is standing out for me – and I’m sure a lot of other people on this site: their almost complete silence (thus far at least) on the stabs. The stabs are the real crime in all this, and the lockdowns were but a gigantic nudge to induce people to get stabbed.
That’s what we need to get at in all this.
Oh, and on a secondary (although perhaps not altogether unrelated point): the Lockdown Files have very little to say about Gove. Why? I smell a rat here.
Yes, I agree ….. Gove’s almost complete absence is very, very suspicious.
Great article.
There seem to be a lot of ‘vain, shallow and self-obsessed’ people moved into positions of power over the past twenty to thirty years: Hancock, Ardern, Trudeau, Zelenskyy, Fauci, Psaki, etc. People who seem to have got there not through any ability, of which they are notably lacking, but because they are easy for someone else to control and expendable scapegoats if things don’t go according to plan. The question is who is pulling the strings? I share the scepticism that it’s Klaus Schwab and Noah Hararri – they look like more actors, playing the role of theatrical bond villains according to someone else’s script. But that doesn’t mean there is no conspiracy. Rather the contrary: the fact that someone is pushing dubious conspiracy narratives adds weight to the argument that there is a real conspiracy (or conspiracies) that they are desperately trying to conceal. And there’s certainly strong motive: the long awaited collapse of the debt-based monetary system, predicted by Mervyn King and others, after a three year moratorium, seems to be finally upon us and will no doubt expose the crooked dealings of many. The challenge is to work out exactly who and gather the evidence to prove it.
Yes, Matthew Goodwin, interviewed on YouTube, describes how an elite largely drawn from Oxbridge (sadly, Cambridge is my alma mater), and with a woke progressive ideology, has taken over all the reins of power over the last thirty years or so. National populism is the reaction to it.
I don’t disagree, but for a minority to take steps to have their kind control government, civil service, the media, the established church etc not only here but across the world doesn’t just happen. It wasn’t even the case when Oxford and Cambridge were the only two universities. There has to be some shared purpose and strategy… which is essentially what a “conspiracy” is. Goodwin seems, from a data-driven sociological perspective, to be describing the Long March through the Institutions.
He was a puppet; that’s often the nature of political appointments – it is the professional civil servants and others that are actually competent in most departmental issues. It certainly was like that in local government, when I was a Councillor.
I suspect that the underlying structure of many professional organisations is quite similar, at least from a psychological point of view. Observe how they tend to respond to major incidents that tend to demonstrate them appearing to be out of line with their reputation, e.g. No shortage of those with a “something must be done” attitude, and if they’re lucky there’s a profit to be made as they expand their influence on the industry concerned. Maybe I’m a cynic, as well as a sceptic, but look at a wider field than just medicine.
‘Lest anyone misinterpret my view, I don’t think the WEF or the ‘Illuminati’’
No we get it – blinkered and narrowly focused.
Would it help if you consider that there are dozens of international committees, most of which we don’t know about… not hidden just not publicised, many part of the UN deciding on regulations from fertilisers, car emissions, trade, health, electrical standards, food standards, climate change nonsense, etc deciding every detail of our lives?
We used to complain that Britain’s laws were coming from Brussels, but they weren’t, Brussels was just passing on what had come from above. National Parliaments, US Congress are just rubber-stamps without the many of the inmates knowing.
There is a wide scale network of bureaucracies all aided and abetted by big ‘charities’, global businesses, rich and powerful people, banking and finance. There is no such thing as ‘coincidence’ and ‘random’.
James Delingpole described it as a concatenation of vested interests.
Further reading: Baptists and Bootleggers theory.
Have to agree that the response of ignoring and wilful blindness towards Hancock’s leaked WhatsApp tranche is quite a thing..
Not really surprising, since we know from the past 3 years, in particular, about how mainstream news curates it’s content. Just that this is now in the mainstream, so much harder to ignore.
Perhaps they’re all just lost for words with the cognitive dissonance of it all.
In any case it’s out there now. More evidence available for the steady trickle of those recovering from the hysteria that overcame them in 2020.
It’s a classic Greek tragedy but in the wrong order. Instead of Hubris, Nemesis, Catharsis, it’s Hubris, (attempted) Catharsis (his time in the jungle), Nemesis.
Must resist temptation to joke about Matt and Gina grinding organs!!
Don’t, please don’t
Winners? The Military Industrial Complex. Remember that cottage industry that runs biolabs across the globe. Anyone talking about biolabs anymore? You know: those great guys who came up with Agent Orange many decades ago. Mon-santo style organisations in bed with the DOD syphoning off trillions. They might be worth a look.
Like you, I think some sort of Military-Industrial (and Intelligence) Complex is ultimately behind the whole shabang, largely driven from the US.
This is just not good enough.
I agree with ‘Stewart’ who commented 18 hours ago. But I agree with the article that the silence from those being shown up by the WhatsApp texts is deafening. No one is bothering! Which proves to me that the whole thing is a pantomime to distract us (again). MH is exactly as this article describes: a marionette or sock puppet! So why aren’t people looking behind (or above) him? It is all a total charade.
Why the silence?
Where is the outrage (Neil Oliver)?
I had dinner with some friends and they started the conversation on the lockdown files. Only 1/2 of them had read any of the WhatsApp messages. All of them had fully believed the government narrative and knew I was vehemently against it. Some now acknowledged that the files showed my views had been right.
So the message is filtering through.
I think there are several reasons for the silence:
In my view the only way to make sure this never happens again is through the courts. I don’t have legal knowledge how this would be best achieved.
Having spent nearly 3 years keeping schtum at home because my wife refused to entertain anything other than the official narrative the Wancock files have made my wife realise I was in the right all along. Not that she has admitted as much to me, nor have I pointed out this volte face to her. Such a gentleman am I!
You’re probably not a gentleman, you just want to live to your next birthday!
I definitely agree with your point about “a section of the public who actually did not mind or even enjoyed the lockdowns” – that we are all in it together mentality and that wearing a mask is actually a statement “look at me aren’t I a good boy/girl doing the right thing”.
It was a soap opera that those people (ordinary and not so ordinary) could participate in, a sort of 15 minutes of fame and endless conversations about jabs “have you had it yet?” “I’m due my 2nd booster…when’s yours?” and this was the ladies in my pilates class with the hand sanitiser and the anti bacterial wipes.
A brilliant and forensic dismemberment of the whole scamdemic. Many thanks.
Rather than rush to rule in or rule out conspiracy, perhaps good sceptics need to carry on weighing all the available evidence whilst keeping an open mind.
Were the responses to Covid orchestrated, or simply the efforts of politicians blindly following the herd? If the latter, there is the “Sturgeon effect” where each political leader tries to out-do everyone else in trying to score points – which begs the question of whom they are trying to impress as it’s seldom those who (supposedly) give them a democratic mandate.
Is there a link between the organised Covid response, WHO usurpation, central banks and digital currencies, climate alarmism, gender ideology, eugenics, energy/food rationing, etc. – other than a few random speakers to the WEF?
Countries led by WEF-graduates and useful idiots. If orchestrated, then who are the ones setting the agenda? Is it Gates, Schwab and their ilk (Kissinger’s still around and rarely gets a mention these days) – do they have such intellect and strong power base to bend the whole world to their will? Or are they just front men for other powers in the shadows?
“They weren’t prime movers, just opportunistic exploiters of a confected crisis.” This was not merely a UK operation – it was global. For prime movers we must look to a global syndicate (or mafia if you prefer) – and that means that the UN and its “partners” and funders are prime suspects, along with Big Pharma and Big Media (without media censorship it couldn’t have been pulled off)
“They weren’t prime movers, just opportunistic exploiters of a confected crisis.” I think the Pharma companies were/are prime movers. Fauci et al have had decades of practice at making things happen for their masters in Big Pharma.
Has anyone fingered the ‘Big Five’ consultancy companies yet? Accenture, McKinsey et al are famous for creating incredibly stupid policy and following it blindly. They have a presence in all the big companies. Surely they helped drive it all?
I clearly remember that people had been terrorized by main stream media and all the social media blogs. It was terrified people who demanded governments do something, anything to save them. The polls taken in 2020 all indicated 80 to 85% of people were happy with government’s actions on lockdowns e I remember BJ on television urging people to calm down that the virus was not that serious. A week later he was locking down people and had commited 500 million pounds for propaganda to support these policies. Politicians were doing what politicians always do is pandering for popularity. Some entity was pushing the narrative with main stream media and on social media. The staged people dieing in the streets of Wuhan were produced by someone. This does not exonerate politicians and their crass decisions. Just a few in the world showed leadership to resist. Publ8c opinion is still being manipulated by powerful organ8zations.