Another Question for Chris Whitty
I previously posed a question for Chris Whitty here on the Daily Sceptic. (Outrageously, I have not yet had a response.) To jog your memory, here’s what I asked.
In an interview with The BMJ on 4th November 2020, you (Whitty) characterised the Great Barrington Declaration as “wrong scientifically, practically, and probably ethically as well”.
Yet five months earlier, you had outlined a plan to the Health and Social Care Committee which sounded an awful lot like focused protection. You said that we’re “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”.
Given that you were recommending focused protection as recently as March of 2020, why did you subsequently describe the Great Barrington Declaration as “wrong scientifically”?
I now have a follow-up question for Professor Whitty. (If he answers this one promptly and in a satisfactory manner, I am willing to forgive his having ignored my first question.)
Professor Whitty, you opined that the Great Barrington Declaration is “probably” wrong ethically. I presume you said this because you believe that focused protection would have led to a higher death toll (notwithstanding the fact that you were recommending it back in March of last year).
The UK’s official death toll is on the order of 150,000. Let’s assume that if we had followed focused protection, the death toll would be double – i.e., 300,000. Note: I don’t consider this remotely plausible, but let’s assume it for the sake of argument.
Now, the ‘UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011’ states that planners should “aim to cope with up to 210,000 – 315,000 additional deaths across the UK over a 15 week period”.
Given that “315,000 additional deaths” is comparable to the number of people who would have died if the UK had followed focused protection, which you regard as unethical, you must regard the UK’s pandemic preparedness plan as unethical too?
If so, why did you not seek to change the plan while you were Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department of Health and Social Care between 2016 and 2021? Note: the ‘UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011’ was published by this very department.
Thank you for listening, and I once again 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.
Hasn’t he gone yet?
Lockdown and Vaccine Sceptics do yourselves a favour by watching this on YouTube.
20 minutes brimming with brilliance.
It might even cheer you up a bit
As originally posted by Burlinton Bertie
DS editors, pin it to the Roundup, forever.
and read this!
https://technofog.substack.com/p/cdc-emails-our-definition-of-vaccine
The past is malleable the future is fixed. Just change the meaning of words when caught out.
Whenever you’re losing an argument, call your opponent a nazi. Has worked for a century.
From a tweet reference re the changing definition of vaccine by CDC. Note the specific removal of immunity from the definition
or a commie
Their August 2021 definition of a vaccine precisely matches that from my Chambers Technical Dictionary (a real book!) which I was quoting here at Lockdownsceptics sometime last year, Autumn I expect.
taker a photo of the entry and post here.
Hope you can read it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScC0sSYuDsQ
Thank you, everyone at DS should view that, its gone up 2k views since this morning.
Please try and repost later in the day so that evening visitors might see it or on tomorrows roundup as early as possible.
Give a bit of text plug though.
Thanks. Excellent stuff.
With respect this lady was exposed as a shill and grifter some months ago.To quote Strawberry Fields Forever ‘Nothing is real’ seemingly.
That’s interesting, any details?
If so please reply on a newer post as I’m unlikely to back to this page again.
The dead-eyed tosser most definitely has gone over to the dark side.
We are now all familiar with the dramatic and entirely unexplained 180 degree change in Whitty’s ‘science’. So saying the same and then the opposite as GBD is entirely in accord. However, it still begs the question, why? We know that the traditional respiratory truths held, but they chose another path. As far as we knew the science hadn’t altered.
But did Whitty become aware of something not shared with us? Something about how the virus was developed and what it was developed to do? Conspiracy? Maybe. But it fits a tiny bit well. What with the gain of function research at Wuhan, Fauci’s involvement and the attempts at cover up. Plus, the manic demand that everyone is ‘vaccinated’.
Either the vax is to cure something that they don’t want to admit, or they don’t want a control group, that may highlight vax harms, deliberate or otherwise.
I wonder what dirt they have on the park frequenter
I imagine it’s just more the rewards that Davos bestows upon its creatures for their loyalty.
Even Treasona May, the very definition of snatching strong and stable defeat from the jaws of victory, has been raking in millions on the “lecture circuit”. Credit for effort.
Or it was explained to him that the “climate change” “miracle” solution Gates has talked about was to be pinned on forcing rna vaccines and passports on the population worldwide.
Or it was just government policy to mask an economic meltdown by shutting down the UK economy for a virus with a 99.98 per cent survival rate unless you were old or sick? His focused protection plan would have saved more oldies, allowed the rest of us to get on with life, and rapidly spread herd immunity. But the government would then have to justify why they caused a massive recession.
I am sure there was some “sweeteners” to his job / department / research budget etc to “help” him promote the “authorised and correct” government covid response!
I think you need to re-phrase your question in little, short, simple words that Whitless might understand.
I have not so much a question as some suggestions for him, delivered with “nudging.”
Whitty? Whitty!? Are u ther? Pls respond!
‘Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive’.
Add to that a complete lack of moral fibre, a failure to stand up for any principles or against political or peer pressures, and what would be considered in some circles a lack of ability or knowledge of the background of the job, its precedents and previously-established modi operandi for handling such situations, should they arise.
Dear Sir/Madam/Thingy,
Thank you for your enquiry. Professor Whitty is unable to respond personally because he is too important/he doesn’t care for the cut of your jib/he can’t be arsed (please delete as necessary).
Any queries should be sent directly to his controllers and/or his paymasters who will also ignore your letter. So I wouldn’t bother, quite frankly.
yr obedient wossit and so forth
he seemed to be going for the 2011 pandemic plan in early March
then Cummings inspired panic set in and they threw the plan away
They were always going to have to rewrite the plan for the next time and the smart money was that it would look alot like the previous plan rather than ‘lockdown while we rush out a vaccine’
Interesting point about Cummings, which, if so, illustrates excessive power in matters on which he was wholly unqualified, or a complete failure on the part of Whitty and Co. to stick to their medical/pandemic planning guns. Or both.
cummings ‘plan’ when they jettisoned the sensible one. he only wished they’d done it earlier
should have stuck with the 2011 plan – which they will revert to when all this is over anyway
Cummings’ degree in Art History really came in useful when he decided to destroy 1000 years of history and convince the spineless wonder to lock us in our homes for 6 months
Someone did not completely erase the huge swastika
Come on boys and girls this is basics
lol!
Influence, rather than power, I suspect. Along with Gove and a few other key panicker worms in the “Conservative” barrel, enough to rot the lot.
Combined with the toxic meddling from Blair and his dire Institute, ‘advising’ governments.
Whitty said the Great Barrington Declaration was wrong, ethically, because it doesn’t believe that all must be sacrificed to all and that one’s life belongs to the state.
Simples/
He’s simply “updated” the definition of wrong to now mean right.
It’s how they do things nowadays.
Vaccine, Vaccination, Herd-immunity, pandemic. All are now “updated” because the old definition did not fit their needs.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking-Glass
“why did you not seek to change the plan while you were Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department of Health and Social Care between 2016 and 2021″
this is a good question. It’s his plan and he threw it away because he decided it wasn’t any good when the thing it planned for actually turned up
Dear Christopher W
You’re just an apparatchik* of the regime. Hence, anyone paying attention ignores anything you say.
Cheerio
AN Other Lockdown Sceptic
—
*apparatchik
/ˌapəˈratʃɪk/
noun
HISTORICAL
a member of a Communist Party apparat
DEROGATORY•HUMOROUS
an official in a large political organization
“Tory apparatchiks”
Do a ‘Farrar’ Whitty and leave humanity in peace.
Leave Immunity in peace
MatNav now taking questions on the BBC
“But I can’t give you a straight answer… ‘
I’d want to ask Vallance to justify why so much of his work emails with Fauci and Daszak were blacked out.
Or a more to the point question for Mr Whitty, ‘Do you consider yourself to be a lying, morally bankrupt, murderous cunt?’
I have a question for Whitty – why are you such a weird-looking ponce?
Well, make that “Why are you acting like a weird ponce?”.
He emulates the maggots that hopefully will be eating his useless corpse from the inside out.Hopefully soon pray Jesus.
Dur Noah!
Because TheScienceTM.
Cheers
Chris
Non of these serial job jumpers ever moves on saying they fucked it up
They all leave hinting that they were just too good to stay put
I do not think that Noah Carl quite understands the state of modern Western politics. He seems to think that Bureaucrats and their Political Salesmen are here to serve us, and are required to answer our questions. Neither of these things are true any more. Bureaucrats and their Political Salesmen (note that the bureaucrats are in charge, while the politicians are the method by which they transmit their commands to the public) are our rulers. Rulers do not need to listen to the ruled – they just tell them what to do. If you ask a ruler an embarrassing question, it will be ignored. If you ask it again you will simply be told to stop disagreeing, and comply. I was in exactly the same position as you over another issue – the forcible installation of water meters. I had a logical and comprehensive argument showing why the policy was incorrect, and I sent it to my MP, who agreed with me and sent it to the Minister. The Minister’s office replied by restating that there was a policy of forcibly installing water meters. My MP agreed that this was not an answer, and sent back my letter to the… Read more »
Parts 1 and 2 of Tucker Carlson’s new investigative series on what really happened on 1/6 in DC. Recommended.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/isNWinb1yXjw/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0Z7dxfU7TUQx/
And don’t forget Sir Patrick Vallance, who in March 2020 stated Our aim is to try to reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not suppress it completely; also, because the vast majority of people get a mild illness, to build up some kind of herd immunity so more people are immune to this disease and we reduce the transmission, at the same time we protect those who are most vulnerable to it. That is focussed, targetted protection: let the vast majority of the population, who have only a mild illness if they catch it, carry on to build up the herd immunity. Vallance opined that 40 million persons would be enough to achieve herd immunity, and that is less than ‘the vast majority’. Defending the policy of not imposing a lockdown and banning gatherings, Vallance clearly stated that Communities will become immune to it and that’s going to be an important part of controlling this longer term…About 60 per cent is the sort of figure you need to get herd immunity. He didn’t think it was unethical then. Both Vallance and Whitty threw all good science and knowledge of how to handle pandemics under the bus on March 16. Now… Read more »
There is an ivermectin panic on the big tech and MSM right now. Massive articles from MSM on Ivermectin trying to push a danger narrative and also negative press on Americans Frontline Dr’s, again, to keep the Covid narrative alive. Just go to the Goog and type ivermectin then look at all the panic news articles. We are over the target. Big-Pharma is panicking. This medicine has been widely used by humans without any problems for 40 years. It’s inventor won a Nobel Prize after 20 years of successful use and after 100 million people were cured of a broad spectrum of problems without any side effects. Get your Ivermectin while you still can! https://health.p0l.org
Don’t expect an answer, or at least not yet. I sent several emails which have been ignored, sadly, because my proposals turned out to be right and were adopted months after I made them. Remember also that Ferguson the Prophet admitted in a response to a Sceptics reader that emails were routinely consigned to the junk folders, as reported here some months ago.
Just as a confirmation that if you get any response it will be a long time coming I had a note two days ago from the FOI team apologising for the delay in replying to a request and asking if I still needed a response. I made the request in December 2020.
It’s difficult to believe Whitty actually believes what he says, especially given he and the others held the opposite – i.e. conventional scientific wisdom – to be true until mid-March 2020. It is Whitty who abandoned science and ethics – such as overall health maximisation, efficiency in resource use, first do no harm, risk-benefit advantage, do not exaggerate or minimise danger, etc., etc., just about everything he could breach he did, frankly.