Written evidence submitted by Gillian Jamieson (CLL0095)
I am a member of the public, who has become increasingly concerned about the erosion of civil liberties over a long period with insufficient justification and believe that Covid 19 has only been a little worse than seasonal flu. Many epidemiologists and others in medicine have this view and I have spent time, looking into the facts and what might have gone wrong. I am strongly against personal freedoms being dependant on having had a test or a vaccine.
The composition of this group has been highlighted by Dr. Mike Yeadon. In Spring and Summer 2020 there was not a single immunologist in the group. There were several mathematicians. Exaggerated worse-case scenario predictions have already been exposed. Crucially there was no understanding of already existing immunity.
Diversity of opinion
Steve Baker MP has recognised difficulties with scientific advice and has a plan to enable politicians to hear and give weight to a more diverse range of opinions. During this pandemic, dissenting voices have been silenced, being absent from TV news and censored on Social Media. An example of this was Carl Heneghan being censored for discussing the Danish study on face masks (Facebook).
Even in March world experts in epidemiology and related areas warned of over-reaction. https://europost.eu/en/a/view/necessary-measures-or-mass-panic-27724
Conflicts of Interest
Wolfgang Wodarg, one of the experts had previously called for an inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest surrounding the EU response to the Swine Flu pandemic in 2009. The problem of conflicts of interest needs to be considered. Is conflict of interest at play when ministers continually suggest that the virus must be suppressed (= people must be locked down) until a vaccine comes?
2. World Health Organisation Mistakes
WHO mistake number 1: Definition of Covid-19 “case”
Each positive laboratory PCR test for the virus was to be "reported as a confirmed Covid-19 case, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms"
However a positive test result is NOT necessarily a case i.e. illness. Prof. Bhakdi (Reiss, Bhakdi 2020: Corona False Alarm) says:
“This definition represented an unforgivable breach of a first rule in infectiology: the necessity to differentiate between “infection” (invasion and multiplication of an agent in the host) and “infectious disease” (infection with ensuing illness). Covid-19 is the designation for severe illness that occurs in about 10% of individuals, but because of incorrect designation, the number of “cases” surged…..” (Reiss & Bhakdi, 2020, Corona False Alarm).
On 20th November 2020 I received a Written Answer from the Scottish Parliament that the maximum Ct (cycle threshold) value used for PCR tests is 40 and I assume that will be similar for England. However a recent study shows that even with a Ct value of 35, only 3% of positive results will show live infection
CONCLUSION: WE HAVE NO RELIABLE DATA ON INFECTIONS. IT FOLLOWS THAT WE CANNOT CALCULATE THE R RATE.
WHO mistake number 2: Definition of “Covid death”
"A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness,in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma).
In the above definition the “Covid death” does not need to be confirmed and gives scope to include any other respiratory illness such as pneumonia or influenza. Clearly this will lead to grossly exaggerated Covid death figures.
In addition, in the UK the death of anyone who has tested positive in the 28 days preceding death can be described as a “Covid death.” This does not need to be the actual cause of death. In addition, the positive test result may be a false positive. Furthermore, there is much anecdotal evidence of Covid being put on the death certificate, when the patient had never been tested for Covid and had clearly died from something else. (The question arises: what incentives were being given for these wrongly completed death certificates?)
CONCLUSION: COVID DEATHS HAVE BEEN GROSSLY EXAGERRATED.
In summary, policies have been based on wrong figures for actual infections and for actual deaths caused by Covid. Lockdowns causing loss of businesses and livelihoods, much emotional suffering and delays in treating other medical conditions have been based on wrong figures.
Why are we dependent on the WHO, when they can get it so wrong?
3. Report on Corman-Drosten article containing PCR test protocol
"In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies, which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless” from https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
This is from the conclusion of a report on the Corman-Drosten article mentioned thus in Dr. Mike Yeadon’s latest comprehensive article out today, 30th November 2020
"There is concern that this extremely important article, which contains a PCR test protocol that has been used to run hundreds of millions of PCR tests across the world, including the UK, was not peer-reviewed. As a method, it contains numerous technical weaknesses, some of which are serious and highly complex. Suffice to say that a very detailed dissection of the paper and of the Drosten protocol has been made by Drs Borger and Malhotra, experienced and concerned molecular biologists.
Here is the abstract of the report:
In the publication entitled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” (Eurosurveillance 25(8) 2020) the authors present a diagnostic workflow and RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV (now known as SARS-CoV-2), which they claim to be validated, as well as being a robust diagnostic methodology for use in public-health laboratory settings.
In light of all the consequences resulting from this very publication for societies worldwide, a group of independent researchers performed a point-by-point review of the aforesaid publication in which 1) all components of the presented test design were cross checked, 2) the RT-qPCR protocol-recommendations were assesses w.r.t. good laboratory practice, and 3) parameters examined against relevant scientific literature covering the field.
The published RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV and the manuscript suffer from numerous technical and scientific errors, including insufficient primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-qPCR protocol, and the absence of an accurate test validation. Neither the presented test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication. Further, serious conflicts of interest of the authors are not mentioned. Finally, the very short timescale between submission and acceptance of the publication (24 hours) signifies that a systematic peer review process was either not performed here, or of problematic poor quality. We provide compelling evidence of several scientific inadequacies, errors and flaws.
Gillian Jamieson, M.A.Hons, PGDip, MBACP