Carl I think your hard hitting summary at the end of this podcast should perhaps be where you start when you give evidence. There is no point "beating round the bush".

"It's very clear to me that...... at some point people are going to recognise the poor quality and the limitation [of modeling outbreaks of respiratory infection] and it may come and go a bit like Farr's law would predict. It came with the advent of modern computing and it may disappear just as quick because at the moment I consider it is doing more harm than being helpful."

Then, hopefully you will be asked how modelling the epidemic caused harm, why the quality of modelling evidence is so poor and how Farr's Law is so relevant. But don't make it personal - you might sound that your harbouring a bit of a "chip".

All the very best on Thursday. We all need intelligent, persistent, independent people like you so stand up and be counted in these strange times.

Expand full comment

On the subject of dodgy modelling being used to fear-monger and create a massive vaccine market...

In Imperial College Report 9, published in March 2020, Neil Ferguson et al said, "The global impact of COVID-19 has been profound, and the public health threat it represents is the most serious seen in a respiratory virus since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic".

I challenged Neil Ferguson about this in my email to him dated 5 August 2021, saying:

This is a very alarming statement, as the US CDC reports the H1N1 virus spread around the world in 1918-1919, resulting in estimated deaths of at least 50 million.[5] This was in a global population of around 1.8 billion at the time.

If the CDC's estimate of H1N1 deaths in 1918-1919 is accurate - with a 2020 global population of 7.8 billion - it's equivalent to 216 million deaths in two years, i.e. the insinuation from your Imperial College Report 9 is that COVID-19 could potentially amount to 216 million deaths in the world in the same time period.

Professor Ferguson, while you inferred COVID-19 represented a public health threat in the same league as the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic, a few days after your report was published, Public Health England reported: "As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK".

According to Public Health England (PHE): "The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase." (My emphasis.)

It was also noted that "The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID". (See attached HCID webpage which was last updated 17 June 2020, to compare with the HCID webpage accessible online today: High consequence infectious diseases (HCID). Last updated 12 May 2021.)

Subsequent PHE HCID reports don't even mention SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19.

This is extremely confusing Professor Ferguson.

Your Imperial College Report 9 insinuated the world could be facing approximately 216 million deaths as a consequence of COVID-19, and that an aggressive suppression strategy would "need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) - given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed".

Despite the fact COVID-19 was downgraded from a high consequence infectious disease on 19 March 2020, and it was known it had low overall mortality, the mainstream media has maintained very alarming reporting for the past 17 months re the number of 'cases' and deaths attributed to COVID-19.

Professor Ferguson, according to Statista[6], around 4.25 million deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 globally in say the past 17 months, likely mostly in elderly people with comorbidities, this is well below the potentially 216 million deaths inferred by you with your comparison with the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic.

The 4.25 million global deaths figure over 17 months attributed to COVID-19 must also be seen in the context of deaths expected in the global population of 7.9 billion during that time, i.e. around 83.9 million deaths over 17 months.[7]

Professor Ferguson, clearly something isn't adding up here...can you please clarify the situation?

How did you come up with data that suggested COVID-19 was on a par with the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and thereby unleash a grossly disproportionate response to COVID-19?

I didn't receive a response from Neil Ferguson...

Here's the link to my email: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/neil-ferguson-and-andrew-pollard-sharing-a-taxi...-1.pdf

Additional note: In my email I asked Neil Ferguson if he was the 'modeller' who shared a taxi with Andrew Pollard in mid-January 2020 - I subsequently discovered the modeller in the taxi was John Edmunds, after reading this article on The BMJ: How the Oxford-AstraZeneca covid-19 vaccine was made: https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/372/bmj.n86.full.pdf

Expand full comment

In my opinion, Neil Ferguson et al's Report 9 was all about facilitating a massive vaccine market and population control - if conflicts of interest had been properly disclosed in this report, e.g. that Ferguson was funded by arguably the world's biggest vaccine promoter, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, would it have rung any alarm bells then?

Here's an extract from an email I sent to Neil Ferguson on 23 March 2021: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2021/03/neil-ferguson-not-at-all-certain-that-suppression-will-succeed-long-term.pdf


Professor Ferguson, in your Imperial College Report 9, you argue for a suppression strategy, saying: “The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed.”

Who decided on the mass vaccination intervention? Wasn’t it known at the time that the virus wasn’t a threat to everyone? It appears now it’s mainly the elderly with comorbidities who are at risk of the virus. So why was it planned to vaccinate the entire global population?

Was the vaccine response initiated at the behest of one of your funders, Bill Gates??[1] Gates outlined his global Covid-19 vaccine plans in his article published in April 2020: What you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccine.

Why is a software billionaire dominating international vaccination policy?

We are now seeing calls for people of all ages, including children, to be vaccinated with fast-tracked experimental Covid-19 vaccine products.

In The Telegraph today, it’s reported Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock are planning to set in place compulsory vaccination for care home staff.[2] This is the thin end of the wedge, with compulsory vaccination probably to be pressed upon everyone, e.g. No Jab, No Job; No Jab, No School; No Jab, No Travel; No Jab, No Pub; etc.

This is looking like a disaster Professor Ferguson, because this is not just a matter of one magical shot to provide lifelong immunity. People are being set up for repeated revaccination throughout life with Covid-19 vaccine products, even though most people aren’t at serious risk of the virus – did anyone think this through?

People who are not at serious risk of the virus, are going to have their own effective immune response compromised by the vaccines, with the apparent aim of making them dependent upon Covid vaccine products for life. How can this be justified Professor Ferguson – is this ethical, to steal people’s natural immunity and seek to make them dependent upon the vaccine industry?

According to an article in the Independent on 13 March 2020, there were plans to develop natural herd immunity, see: Coronavirus: 60% of UK population need to become infected so country can build ‘herd immunity’, government’s chief scientist says.

But this all seemed to change after your report was published, dated 16 March 2020, resulting in a massive impact around the world with the implementation of lockdowns and other restrictions hindering free movement and association, with devastating consequences for society and the economy.

Professor Ferguson, in your report you queried whether suppression “is possible long-term, and whether the social and economic costs of the interventions adopted thus far can be reduced”. You also emphasise “that (it) is at all certain that suppression will succeed long term; no public health intervention with such disruptive effects on society has been previously attempted for such a long duration of time. How populations and societies will respond remains unclear”.

Wow…didn’t anyone think to do ‘modelling’ of the social and economic costs of the interventions?

We really are living through the biggest scandal in history…


Ferguson et al's report enabled a manufactured global catastrophe...it's mind-boggling that this happened, that the scientific and medical establishment went along with this scam.

Where was critical thinking in March 2020?

Expand full comment

In regard to transparency re conflicts of interest...

See my BMJ rapid response published on 6 November 2020: Who are the members of SAGE? There must be transparency and accountability for coronavirus policy: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4235/rr-1

And see these articles published on The BMJ:

- Conflicts of interest among the UK government's covid-19 advisers, published on 9 December 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4716

- Covid-19: SAGE members' interests published by government 10 months into pandemic, published on 17 December 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4911

Expand full comment

Agree. It is unclear how 'expert pandemic panels' were chosen in many jurisdictions. No transparency -they were cherry picked, bffs, with shovel loads of nepotism, careerism and narcissism. Absolutely astounding. And not an ounce of shame regarding their consensus driven gong shows.

Expand full comment

Spot on!

Expand full comment

Really good points on terminology and worst case scenarios. As you say, it doesn't really matter that there are technical differences between the definitions of prediction, projection and scenario if no-one understands the terms and if they are all conflated in the minds of people

to mean this is the forecast of what will happen if we don't intervene.

And even though you can say 'this is a worse case scenario and it is unlikely to be that bad', it doesn't really help because you have already anchored that worse case number in the minds of the politicians, but also the SAGE team. So, just like Kahneman talked about the anchoring effect, this would lead to more extreme responses than if no 'extreme but unlikely' scenario was presented. Everyone, from SAGE members to politicians, was under tremendous pressure- people were thinking not only of what was the right thing to do, but also more selfishly, as they didn't want to be blamed and have their careers tarnished. Without the imagined worst case scenarios people might have been a bit more circumspect about taking radical actions which would they knew would have significant harms. It takes a very special kind of person (like Tegnell) to resist the bias to action in such circumstances, especially when the media are starting to push for lockdowns and whip up the public.

Just one thing on Farr's law that I was wondering as I don't think the modellers ever denied that the cases would go up and down in a predictable way, like all infectious disease epidemics. Their argument was that by intervening the peak of the curve would be lower - eventually just as many people would be infected but more spread out so that the health service wasn't overwhelmed. I think Valances graph just showed the exponential bit of the 'prodiction' though he would have known that it wouldn't keep going up like that. In Claire Craig's book she talks about the Gompertz curve and that you can map out the trajectory from what you know about the rate of growth and then rate of slowing of the infection. So you can predict the peak from what you know quite early on. Daft question but if you intervene as the rate of growth is already slowing does it actually make any difference to the peak? I'm guessing it must or why talk of flattening the curve.

Expand full comment

Thank you for sharing this.

I have one comment and I am probably kicking in an open door.

I have the impression the inquiry audience is very mixed with eminent scientists, politicians, lay persons, journalists?

Maybe a good idea to make sure your evidence has a high impact to use the ‘sandwich’ method?

First say what you intend to say

Then say it, providing the evidence

Lastly repeat what you were going to say.

Maybe that way people will at least remember the key message in your answer.

I admit I have never stood for an inquiry and have not had any media training.

Good luck tomorrow!

Actually you don’t need luck, just people to start listening.

Expand full comment

(Could you also give a transcript of the audio?)

Expand full comment

Good podcast: clearly presented and informative. Good luck tomorrow.

Expand full comment