A Question for Chris Whitty
I haven’t watched any of the Government’s COVID-19 press briefings since the early weeks of the pandemic. The scientific parts seemed to be mostly concerned with projections from rather dubious epidemiological models, and the political parts were even less informative.
As I understand it, the Q&A that follows whatever Boris and the boffins have said often involves journalists demanding to know why there aren’t more restrictions in place (more rules, more limits, more penalties).
Ironically, these questions tend to come from people who a few months before the pandemic might have compared Boris Johnson’s Government to certain mid-20th century political movements that we now associate with authoritarianism.
What questions would I ask Boris and the boffins? There are many I’d like to raise, including: “Why hasn’t the government published a cost-benefit analysis of lockdown?” Such analyses are routine in policy-making, and you’d expect that something as far-reaching as a national lockdown would justify one.
Another query I’d like to make is: “What specific evidence led the government to change its advice on masks?” Back on 4th March 2020, Chris Whitty told Sky News that “wearing a mask if you don’t have an infection reduces the risk almost not at all”. And as late as 3rd April, Jonathan Van Tam said “there is no evidence that general wearing of face masks… affects the spread of the disease”.
However, the question I’d most like to ask – of Chris Whitty in particular – is as follows.
Professor Whitty, on 5th March 2020, you told the Health and Social Care Committee that “we will get 50% of all the cases over a three-week period and 95% of the cases over a nine-week period”. You said that we are “very keen” to “minimise economic and social disruption”, and mentioned that “one of the best things we can do” is “isolate older people from the virus”.
This all sounds rather similar to the Great Barrington Declaration. Why then, in an interview with The BMJ on November 4th, did you describe that document as “wrong scientifically, practically, and probably ethically as well”? You said that the Great Barrington Declaration is “really a pretty minority view”, but it appears to have been your view as recently as eight months earlier.
As I’m sure you’re aware, there is a document titled “UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011”, which was published by the Department of Health. It says that attempting to stop the spread of a new pandemic influenza “would be a waste of public health resources and capacity”.
And as late as 2019, the World Health Organisation published a report titled “Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza”. This document classifies “quarantine of exposed individuals” as “not recommended in any circumstances”.
Given that the WHO, the Department of Health and you – as recently as March 2020 – have rejected suppression as a strategy for dealing with respiratory pandemics, why did you describe the alternative focused protection strategy as “wrong scientifically”? Thank you for listening, and I look forward to your answer.
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.
Another question you could ask him – would he be prepared to publicly debate all things covid, including treatments and vaccines, with Dr Peter McCullouch?
McCullough and Pierre Kory or Paul Marek.
Dr Tess Lawrie, Simone Gold and the FLCC docs using repurposed drugs for early Tx COVID with massive success💕💕💕
And / or, with Dr Vernon Coleman.
They were panicked out of such rational positions by the hysterical campaign in early March 2020, based on media fearmongering and shrill, infantile arguments that we can’t possibly apply cost/benefit to the pandemic because people would die, and that those who advocated following calm reason would be “putting money ahead of lives”, “engaging in eugenics”. and “killing the old and vulnerable”.
You could ask Vallance similar questions:
UK needs to get COVID-19 for ‘herd immunity’
(13th March 2020)
Those hysterical liars and cowards are the ones really to blame for enabling this ending of reason and the turn to hysterical panic as the driver of policy. Even if you are a believer in darker forces managing and manipulating it, those people were the transmission mechanism that turned their plans into achievable actions.
That was my best guess until fairly recently
But the maniacal drive to vaccinate absolutely everyone has led me to believe there is evil afoot
As per the final paragraph, my point is largely independent of whether or not, and to what degree, there are evil motives and forces at work behind the scenes.
You could question whether and to what degree the likes of Whitty were personally aware of and involved in any hypothetical conspiracies, but it’s rather academic imo, as far as this particular point is concerned. If they were just pretending to respond to the hysteria, nevertheless it gave them the cover needed to do so. And clearly the vast majority of those in media, politics, courts etc who failed to question the panic narrative cannot have been knowing members of any such conspiracy.
I don’t necessarily think it was pre-planned. But I don’t think Whitty et al believe the claptrap they come out with and I don’t think the PM does either. I think they are drunk on power. The arguments for vaccinating the young and for vaccine passports are such obvious nonsense, they must know they are lying but they do it anyway.
The ‘power’ motivation is clear – as is the connected one of significance seeking in the scientific community.
All they had to do was not vaccinate under 18’s until a least a year has passed to see any longer term effects and possible ADE this Autumn. But no they want everyone vaccinated before that, so if something bad does happen, the cause was a variant. Definitely evil.
Near universal coverage is needed both to avoid any significant “control group” and to ensure that any resisters are heavily outnumbered by the unsympathetic vaccinated.
The internal contradictions are so immense that it has become impossible to believe that there was no intent behind the strategy.
Well put!
The “manical drive to vaccinate absolutely everyone” stems from the same root as the equally manical drive to force everybody to wear face covering: People can’t handle probabilities well. Otherwise, the lottery would be brankrupt and people wouldn’t constantly confuse “relative frequency of a past event” with “probability that it’ll happen again in future”. To illustrate this with an obviously nonsensical example: On a certain 15th of March, an Italian politican named Julius was stabbed to death in Rome. Because of the precautionary principle, it is thus advisable that Italian politicans named Julius should either change their names or at least avoid ruins in Rome during mid-March. That current real applications of this principle seem less ludicrous is just because we’re all so used to it. Some people (and – judging from the popularity of lotteries – presumably a lot of some) see a number like 0.2% IFR and immediately think “OMG! It’s going to me! I’ve always known it!” and they will engage in any magical safety procedure believed to reduce this terrible risk by some degree. Some of these some people sit in politically influential comittees like SAGE which isn’t really a well-defined group of people but a… Read more »
SAGE and the Cabinet know all about probabilities. Whitty said it was mild for most. And this has nothing to do with vaccinations. They know very well the vaccines don’t work well and that they don’t stop the spread and that the young don’t need them. Whitty and Vallance are much cleverer than you or I. They are just wicked.
If you used clever with its originally meaning of well-versed in opportunistic exploitation of political/ administrative systems, I’d agree with that: I’ll never be so skilled at greasing the right wheels etc that I’ll be named CxY of a country (what’s that supposed to mean, anyway). If you mean intelligent, then, I decidedly don’t.
I also don’t believe that all of the people pumping out these meaningless statistics about anecdotes (mostly) and wrongly turning them into predictions à la “members of group … are … times more likely to …” are wicked and perfectly aware of the nonsense they’re propagating. If people keep doing stupid things they should have learned to avoid in highschool (I’m really thinking of the German Mittelstufe), the default assumption is still “apparently, they didn’t learn it” (and they are stupid).
Predominantly social skills combined with generous cheating can get all kinds of mental retards very far.
This pandemic has been, and continues to be, based on the deliberate promotion of a very specific set of beliefs.
That this is a very serious unprecedented health crisis.
That lockdowns are necessary to contain the spread and save the NHS
That you need to be very afraid
That masks are effective
That healthy people (asymptomatic) are significant drivers of infection
That non-sanitized surfaces and objects are deadly
That vaccines are the only way out of the deadly situation and the only way to recover our freedoms
That the unvaccinated are walking disease-spreaders generating deadly variants with every foul breath they breathe
That questioning this narrative is dangerous and needs to be suppressed
That we’re all in this together
That no one is safe until we’re all safe
I’m sure that this is not an exhaustive list.
None of these promoted beliefs have any good evidentiary foundation. We’re not following science but some mystical, magical voodoo mumbo-jumbo – a sort of covoodoo – complete with its own set of magical amulets, potions and ritual behaviours.
That’s a pretty good, succinct list. And you have put the foundation deception at the top. Everything follows from that.
Don’t we need to “correct” that now that we “know” (via the US CDC) that even people with double doses of the experimental medical treatments are dirty spreaders of this deadly disease?
Whither now for vaccines and passports?
Of course we need to correct all of these things – but that won’t happen.
When you’ve dug your ideological trench this deep there’s no easy way to climb back out of it. Especially if you ignore all the ladders people keep trying to give you.
Depends if “they” are following science or belief/politics, the evil scum.
In early March 21, NHS England told NHS managers to focus, via a 1-1 meeting, on ‘unvaccinated’ staff and explain the ‘powerful, protective effects’ of the vaccine!
I laughed out loud at this – it reminded me of almost voodooesque connotations. Were the next steps by the managers involved, to drive round to the recalcitrant staffs homes and leave a bloodied, dead chicken on their doorstep, paint symbols on the doorframe and chant spells?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/nhs-health-service-journal-england-asian-care-quality-commission-b922441.html%3famp
“Why are you such a cunt?”
Can I get a selfie? Go on, mate go on! waaayhhhaaaaayyy!!
A far more cogent and useful question.
Actually – a good investigative journalist (that almost extinct species) asking simple, well-informed questions, would be much more devastating.
Sense of humour failure?
No. Just a reaction to pointlessness. There was no joke to laugh at.
🤣🤣🤣
Excellent, alternatively “how’s your bank balance doing?”.
Former Pfizer Employee Confirms Poison in COVID ‘Vaccine’:
https://rumble.com/vkgdq7-deadly-shots-former-pfizer-employee-confirms-poison-in-covid-vaccine.html
Former Pfizer employee is accurate according to her LinkedIn. But she was a sales rep for them >25 years ago. Not in a position to have inside info on the vaccine goings-on.
Doublethink: the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct.
To understand double think you have to apply double think or believe everything the politicians tell you.
And the purpose of doublethink isn’t just to sell a lie, it’s to break your will destroy your ability to distinguish between lie and truth.
The most recent example from the US CDC is actually triplethink:
Vaccines protect the pure double-jabbed from the dirty unjabbed spreaders of filth.
and
We must have “vaccine passports” to protect the pure double-jabbed from the dirty unjabbed spreaders of filth..
and
We must return to muzzles because the double-jabbed are dirty spreaders of filth.
If you can successfully hold all those claims in your brain without feeling the slightest twinge of cognitive dissonance, then congratulations, your loyalty is appreciated and your social credit score will not be penalised, at this time.
Chris Witty’s soul appears to have left his body long ago – I’m afraid you’ll have to ask him in the eternal beyond.
Sadly, I don’t think rich people who sell their souls to profit from mass murder end up in the same afterlife as us impoverished peasants.
Nothing sad about that!
Florida Nurse exposes covid plan for next week:
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/080/691/563/original/645dacb301c77703.mp4
Broward County again, what a surprise. It seems to be a Californian-style enclave of corrupt weasels infesting the otherwise pretty based Florida.
Is it just me, or do others think that Chris Whitty bears a strong resemblance to a tortoise?
I am always reminded of Gollum when I see him – my precious lockdown, and those tricksy sceptics are trying to take it away.
Like Mitch McConnell, the ultimate reptile.
Or one of Icke’s lizard people.
And I used to scoff when David Icke talked about lizards!
Yes they were actually turtles (all the way down). He looks like he is chewing a lettuce leaf. Drakeford too.
How about the simplest question of all? –
“Why did government lie in describing this event as ‘unprecedented‘ in the document setting out the by-passing of safety measures for vaccines.”
Here’s another question for the government and its advisers, one which the public inquiry will undoubtedly ask:
The precautionary principle was adopted, with regard to health matters, by the eu commission, and subsequently by the Blair government in Britain, in a communication 02 Feb. 2000.
The communication quite clearly stated:
‘6. Where action is deemed necessary, measures based on the precautionary principle should be, inter alia:
https://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-4.html
Where is the ‘examination of the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action (including, where appropriate and feasible, an economic cost/benefit analysis)’ that the government was obliged to undertake?
Another question: What did you do to yourself to make you look like ET?
Whatever it is, please don’t inject me with it.
Black dead eyes
Excellent question, Look forward to his reply. Bet he won’t say, It was Political Coercion. The Psyops Mantra was, ‘if it saves one life’ which the sheep caught onto immediately
Yesterday: Promoting antibody-dependent enhancement was a crazy conspiracy theory that would have had you censored or expelled from all Davos owned media.
Today: The Settled Scientists at SAGE have decreed that antibody-dependent enhancement is totally real, utterly terrifying, and why we must have more boosters, more lockdowns, and more kitten culls.
Tomorrow: Denying antibody-dependent enhancement will be a crazy conspiracy theory that will have you censored or expelled from all Davos owned media.
Just accept that we have always been at war with ADE. Mis-remembering otherwise will result in a severe penalty to your social credit score, citizen.
The Chaos and confusion appears to be the plan to break us and accept their NWO
It was purely public opinion that drove their strategy. Zero science involved.
They had the right strategy and ditched it.
But they played a major part in shaping and directing public opinion
Not at first, the media drive most of it IMO.
They further stoked it rather than dampening it down, and have continued to this day.
I think the media contracts were already drawn up anyway, from what I remember.
Yeah you’re right. When they decided to change track, they went full on doomsday to get people to comply
Public opinion?
Media opinion more like.
Yes I expect the media would claim they were reflecting public opinion but that’s nonsense. They now see their role as shaping opinion to suit their own political agenda.
I still always look at Whitty and and am reminded of someone who’s family has been taken hostage and is doing everything they know is wrong to have them freed.
Except – as far as I know – he doesn’t have family.
His goldfish, perhaps?
I’ve just been re-reading the UK Influenza Preparedness Strategy 2011. It provides all the questions that Whitty needs to be asked under the umbrella “Why, and on what grounds, did you depart from the agreed strategy for managing pandemics?” One might start with the definitions of degree in the document – where the SARS-CoV-2 non-epidemic clearly falls into the ‘LOW’ risk category : Similar numbers of cases to moderate or severe seasonal influenza outbreaks AND In the vast majority of cases – mild to moderate clinical features Note that to be classed even as ‘MODERATE’, the following criterion needs to be fulfilled : Higher number of cases than large seasonal epidemic Young healthy people and those in at-risk groups severely affected AND/OR more severe illness The fact is that the mortality in 2019/20 was at the 75th centile level. i.e a quarter of infection seasons in the quarter century were more severe. Then, in terms of the NPIs imposed by government, here is a sample of the contradictions imposed in the last 18 months : “Although there is a perception that the wearing of facemasks by the public in the community and household setting may be beneficial, there is in… Read more »
Bloody excellent post.
P.S. Another document for those with the inclination to spot the contradictions is the one on the ethical framework for pandemic planning :
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130104202555/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_080751
Always pie in the sky to expect masks to be used correctly and consistently. And madness to push for their general use.
Let’s hope what happened to spook Whitty senior repeats.
You either believe the pro lockdown drivel or you don’t, there’s no middle ground.
I think the clearest dichotomy, tho’, is in the coercion and compulsion of vaccines, and their use against the younger population.
There, you clearly are with Mengele – or you’re not.
That for me was the moment where they crossed the line irrevocably and all possible justifications that they are acting in the interests of public health became untenable.
Ditto. I have a natural instinct to take Occam’s shaver to ‘conspiracy’ theories and slice and dice them.
But the circumstantial evidence around the vaccines is too strong when you fit it all together – especially with all government agencies co-opted to the role of mere PR agencies. And, let’s face it, with an even crappier narrative the the average piece of shite that disgraces your television screen.
Many thanks Noah Carl for this post. The simple answer for me on why they are so inconsistent and economic with the truth is that they are all self serving politicians. They allow their ‘scientific’ opinions to change with the prevailing weather and/or influence. What makes Whitty, Valance and Van Tam etc far more dangerous than Al Johnson et al is that they never have to face the electorate and they get to politic forever if they want to – e.g. Fauci. What is more, their well documented conflicts of interest are seen as an asset by many.
And answer came there none.
IMPORTANT POST: I’ve just uncovered more evidence of what could be MURDER BY GOVERNMENT/NHS POLICY relating to treatment of C19 patients with the drug REMDESIVIR. First you will need to listen to a section of this interview with Dr Ardis and Tom Renz, the US attorney who is enacting multiple legal challenges against the corona fascism in the US. Relevant section starts at 1hr 11mins. Suing The CDC Over COVID Fraud – Attorney Tom Renz https://www.bitchute.com/video/afV4Nuti7MHE/ Dr Ardis explains his research into REMDESIVIR published papers and how in trials using it for Ebola in Africa and SARS COV 2 in China it resulted in multiple organ failure including kidney failure to the point it was shut down and removed from treatment programmes due to the severe adverse events. He says kidney failure can cause what looks like pneumonia, because malfunctioning kidneys can cause the lungs to fill up with fluid which to a medical doctor will look like regular pneumonia, but to a radiologist it will look different. He says it is called pulmonary edema. So Remdesivir has a very shady history yet was being recommended for use in the US for Covid19. Well it turns out that it is… Read more »
Whitty has the face of a liar. You can see when he speaks there is absolutely no conviction in what he is saying. He was maybe human once, a long time ago, but the deadness in his eyes says it all.
The way I see it is this; we all know the answers to all of the questions, and have done for quite a while. We know why the gov changed strategy at the start. We know where the “virus” came from. We know why the media go along with all of this. We know why there is no political opposition. We know why they want to protect the NHS. We know how the vaccines were created in such a short space of time. We know why alternative treatments are not used. We know why they use lockdowns. We know why they don’t want us to travel. We know why they are trying to get everyone vaccinated. We know why colossal amounts of money are being spent by governments all around the world. We know why governments are looking at CBDCs. We know what is REALLY going on. And we know exactly who are behind all of this shithousery. There is no way on earth that anyone is ever going to tell the truth about this; the hole they have dug is black and evil, and will engulf anyone and anything that comes into close proximity. The truth, if it came… Read more »
Indeed
Making plans for this
But I have 2 school aged sons God help them 😬
Same. The best you can do is ensure that they have a few bars of gold each and a brain capable of critical thinking!
Is it Christmas yet? And, if not, why is the plucked turkey’s rear-end shown above?
This is the moment, I think 28 August 2020 where Deputy CMO Jenny Harries declared that evidence for masks was “not strong in either direction”: they were made compulsory approximately 3 days later (I am not sure on what new evidence).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/uknews/video-2239200/Video-Dr-Jenny-Harries-Evidence-face-coverings-isnt-strong.html
I also note that I and Chris Exley attempted to ask Whitty in the electronic columns of BMJ about the usefulness of PCR testing underneath the November interview and were met with silence by both him and anyone else:
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4235/rapid-responses
A question he will never answer.
The plan in a nutshell: Fear to facilitate lockdowns & other measures Lockdowns & other measures to facilitate vaccines Vaccines to facilitate vaccine passports Vaccine passports to facilitate digital IDs Digital IDs to facilitate the Great Reset, Green New Deal, NWO etc. (ie. Build Back Better) The powerful forces involved in this plan are immense and they aren’t going to stop until the goal is achieved. They’ve silenced or bought off any possible opposition and have probably portrayed the objectives as altruistic, necessary for the planet and humanity’s future, hence the reason it has all been so easy. If this was ever a “cock up” as the likes of Toby would have us believe, then Whitty and the government would have ended it after the old and vulnerable were jabbed. That gave them the perfect political cover, especially as coming out of winter was inevitably going to lead to a fall in hospitalisations and deaths. They could have claimed success to a gullible public. But no, it was no longer just the old and vulnerable that needed vaxxing. It was everybody. Why? See plan above. Maybe Whitty et al weren’t in on it to start with, but they joined, either… Read more »
Maybe Whitty et al weren’t in on it to start with, but they joined, either by choice or through intimidation.
IMHO it does not matter if he and the others “joined by choice” or by a form of “intimidation” – all of these medics should face public censure by their professional bodies. If they were subject to any form of persuasive “intimidation”, because they did not believe what they were asked to present to the entire UK population, every single one of this “cabal” could have proved their personal integrity by saying “no” and resigning. The fact that they did not damns them in my eyes, and especially if in the future any of them tries to explain their conduct by suggesting that they “expressed their doubts privately”. It is the John Profumo/ Peter Carrington Principle – public figures suddenly realise they have screwed up monumentally and “do the right thing”.
I’ve been reading the US equivalent to the UK plan, The National Strategy For Pandemic Influenza from 2006. What became very obvious while reading through the US plan is that only pandemic plans the Western Governments have was for a pandemic influenza. All assumption in these plans were based around any pandemic agent having exactly the same pathology and public health profile as influenza. The plan was based on using the existing influenza public health monitoring system to track the pandemic and use the existing influenza vaccine production infrastructure to develop a vaccine. The plan was to monitor the development of the pandemic using existing infrastructure, take small invasive steps in the early stages but the containment and control strategy for the pandemic was complete based on using the existing influenza vaccine production infrastructure producing an effective novel influenza vaccine very quickly. If the pandemic agent was not influenza then the whole plans collapses at the very start of the pandemic. With a pandemic novel human corona virus there was very little published literature on human corona viruses to work with. Researcher never really bothered doing much research on them. With a pandemic novel human corona virus there was no… Read more »