We repeatedly hear on this blog that the lockdown is based on science, and that the opinions of those who challenge it, including world-renowned experts in epidemiology, infectious diseases, virology, etc., can be discounted because they have not been published in scientific journals or peer-reviewed. I’ve only recently learned that the paper by Neil Ferguson on which lockdown was based was never published or peer reviewed, and is in fact just an internal departmental report from Imperial College. His computer model was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code, that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic and “some of the major assumptions and estimates that are built in the calculations seem to be substantially inflated,” according to John Ioannidis, professor in disease prevention at Stanford University.
Ferguson has a track record for dreadful predictions based on his computer models. In the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic millions of cows and other livestock were killed based on his models which were later condemned by experts as “not fit for purpose” and seriously flawed.” In the aftermath, mega-farming conglomerates bought up bankrupt farms on the cheap, cost to the UK economy £10 billion. During the 2009 Swine Flu Ferguson predicted it would kill 65,000 people in the UK, but in fact 457 people died. Fortunes were made by the vaccine industry. He predicted 200 million would die of bird flu but only 282 did. More fortunes for vaccine makers. though.
Given Ferguson’s track record for making spectacularly inaccurate predictions which make fortunes for big business, and given that the paper which justified lockdown on the basis of 500,000 deaths was never scientifically published or peer reviewed, and given that big companies are now making fortunes from lockdown, and given that Ferguson’s latest prediction has again turned out to be spectacularly inaccurate, is anybody here beginning to have reservations about their support for lockdown?