Member of the Welsh Parliament breaks ranks
Welsh Parliament Member Neil Hamilton says Britain will remain as “a kind of open prison or series of gulags around the country” if the government commits to a permanent lockdown. He says the government “are not being guided by the science” and instead were following mathematical models which are “guesswork…it’s garbage in, garbage out.”
*We the People is not affiliated with any political party. Any Senedd Member willing to speak out against the destruction of our nation based on dodgy numbers and panic and gods knows what else will be featured on this site.
At this point in time, it is their silence that condemns them.
– – –
Is the Welsh government’s response to coronavirus a Crime Against Humanity?
Latest letter sent to the Welsh Health Minister 29 September
Dear Mr Gething,
I write to you again in you capacity as Welsh Health Minister regarding the government’s recent increasing restrictions on personal liberty as party of the response to covid19.
Medical professionals around the world, particularly in Germany and Belgium, are coming together to denounce continuing restrictions and are demonstrating that the cure is now far worse than the disease. Continuing restrictions on public life will lead to great suffering and premature death on a scale far outweighing any viral disease.
For example, read this open letter (link below) from Belgian Health Experts clearly stating “there is no medical justification for any emergency policy anymore.”
I would urge you to reconsider the government’s imposed restrictions as public anger and frustration rises.
When the facts about this “pandemic” are widely recognised it may be too late to mitigate the damages caused by the restrictions, not to mention the damage to your reputation and future prospects.
You may feel that it is bad form to announce a u-turn in policy, yet your only other option is to dig yourself deeper and deeper into this hole.
As a human being, I suggest you pull the plug on this downward spiral before it is too late. No one will think less of you if you do the right thing, albeit belated. Your reputation will not be salvaged by failing to speak out before it is too late.
[any response received will be copied below]
– – –
On 22 September I sent the following letter to Mr Gething, Minister of Health for the Welsh government:
Dear Mr Gething,
I write to in your role as Welsh Health Minister.
On 11 July I wrote to you regarding concerns over the Welsh government’s measures in response to covid19 creating more long lasting public health problems than solutions.
On 13 July I received the following response from you:
“This is a standard acknowledgement confirming receipt of your correspondence to the Welsh Government dated 11/07/2020, your reference . You will receive a substantive response in due course. Our reference for this correspondence is TO/VG/04909/20”
I have received no substantive response from you to this date, 22 September.
However, on this occasion there is another issue concerning covid19 testing in Wales I would like you to clarity.
The issues arise from a letter of complaint made to the ONS, UK Stats Autority, Public Health England and Public Health Wales that has come across my desk. It raises some very important issues regarding the compiling of statistics from tests. I attach a copy of the letter to this email. It is short, concise and to the point, complete with reference links.
Two simple questions I would like you to answer for me regarding PCR tests (called ‘antigen tests’ on the Welsh government site).
How many amplify cycles do the antigen tests use to determine a result?
Is there any False Positive Rate (FPR) taken into account when generating positive result statistics? If yes, what is the rate calculated?
I have studied the latest covid19 test results statistics at https://gov.wales/testing-data-coronavirus-covid-19-13-september-2020-html and there is no mention of either antigen test amplify cycles or False Positive Rate assumptions.
The lowest, most conservative estimate of FPR I have come across is 0.8%. Yet even at this low figure, if 1,000 people tested positive from a 100,000 test sample, 800 of the positive results (or 80%) could be safely assumed as false. If the amplify cycles are over 24 then that would result in an even higher FPR.
So the assumed FPR and amplify cycles used in the antigen tests are vital information to make sense of the statistics we are presented with.
I look forward to receiving your reply to these 2 questions.
– – –
The letter of complaint attached to the email above is copied below:
Formal complaint to ONS, UK Stats Authority, PHE, PHW – 17th September 2020
I am writing to complain in the strongest terms about the outright statistical fraud being perpetrated against the people of England and Wales.
According to the case definition for Covid 19 published on the Government’s website, a “case” is diagnosed by the presence of clinical signs and symptoms. The definition does not include asymptomatic people who have been tested as part of mass community disease surveillance. The, extremely good, reason for this is that PCR testing picks up traces of non-infectious virus for three months or more – but the person ceased to be ill or infectious on day NINE of their illness (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.25.20162107v2).
It is not only LUDICROUS but also completely OUTRAGEOUS that these positive tests are being touted as “cases” by yourselves and that the people of England and Wales are being deprived of their civil liberties on the basis of them. It is entirely feasible that an individual could have contracted Covid 19 during the first “wave”, experienced a mild illness, and then be picked up by testing and declared a “case” in the alleged second “wave”.
As hospitals gear back up and begin to admit patients from their waiting lists, they are testing them on admission. A person who had Covid three months ago and is now admitted for routine surgery can therefore become a current “hospitalised” case, and – if they unfortunately die – a Covid death as well. Statistical FRAUD is the only possible term for what is happening.
In contrast to the UK, China has a very stringent definition of what constitutes a Covid case – requiring presence of both clinical signs and symptoms AND in most cases, epidemiological exposure, AND a positive PCR test before counting a Covid case.
**At the very least, published figures for E&W should provide, for each case, information about whether a clinical diagnosis was made and whether there has been epidemiological exposure. Where “cases” are reported as hospitalised it should be made clear whether the person was routinely swabbed upon admission for non Covid related conditions, caught the infection in hospital or was admitted FOR treatment of Covid symptoms**.
Doctors in Spain are reporting that swabbing of road traffic accident victims, and detection of old viral fragments, is the main reason why Covid “hospitalisations” and deaths are rising in that country.
It is necessary to define a threshold of PCR amplification cycles beyond which a person no longer has any viable, infectious virus in their body. A recent systematic review carried out by the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Oxford, England found that samples amplified more than 30-34 times were associated with inert, non-infectious samples. In other words, with samples taken from people who were not ill and not infectious but were simply shedding fragments from a previous infection. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.04.20167932v3
This study found that 24 cycles was the upper limit for detecting infectious samples https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32442256/
England and Wales amplify cycles a staggering FORTY FIVE times. Conservative estimates are that almost 100% of cases are therefore falsely designated positive.
A cut off of between 24 and 30 cycles for PCR amplifications should be standardised across England and Wales and all statistics for both cases and deaths diagnosed on the basis of PCR tests should be re-examined as a matter of urgency.
Boris Johnson has implied further coercive measures if cases do not decline over the next two weeks and it is, frankly, completely unacceptable that people should be deprived of their liberty because of this unconscionably sloppy statistical reporting that fails to make any distinction between a mild infection that occurred 3 months ago and a newly infected person. To add insult to injury, old cases are, almost certainly, now immune. The mass testing is detecting herd immunity and calling it a second wave.
**At the very least, for each positive test, the cycle threshold at which that positive result occurred should be published**.
Clearly, non infectious viral shedding from old infections does not constitute legal grounds under the Public Health Act 1984 for any restrictions to be issued. it is therefore strongly in the public interest that the statistical information is correct and complete.
In addition to the PCR amplification issue, tests will generate a certain number of false positives (**FPR**) in any case as a function of low disease prevalence and less than perfect specificity. As far as I can see NO attempt has been made to define or adjust for the FPR. This truly beggars belief quite honestly.
I am of the opinion that the current statistical fraud constitutes malfeasance in public office and I am taking legal advice with a view to pursuing prosecutions of all those responsible unless remedial action is taken without delay.
I also draw your attention to a previous complaint I have made regarding the unreliability of Covid death statistics that has not received any attention. I would like it to be treated as part of this complaint.
*As part of this complaint, I would like you, in any case, to provide me with the **asterisked information** under the FOIA.
( a copy of this letter can be downloaded from this link: download letter
– – – –
Responses from the Health Minister, when received, will be copied below.