Mortality statistics for Australia compared with Covid infection numbers. Whatever the cause of excess deaths between 22 Nov 2020 and 22 May 2021 it certainly wasn’t Covid. Source Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Imperial College’s infectious disease modelling … In 2002 they predicted 50,000 people in the UK would die of “mad cow’s disease,” less than 200 did; shortly after forming the MRC in 2007, they predicted up to 200 million deaths from H5N1 bird flu, this has resulted in an estimated 455 deaths globally and a year later they “modelled” 65,000 UK swine flu deaths. Less than 460 died.
In 2009, advised by the BMGF funded MRC [21], the WHO declared H1N1 influenza a global pandemic. As usual, Imperial College predicted millions would perish, though the eventual total was 18,500 laboratory-confirmed deaths globally.
“An epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries, and usually affecting a large number of people.” It was notable that the WHO removed their reference to illness and mortality and added the concept of immunity. Every person who contracts a disease lacks immunity. If they were immune they wouldn’t fall ill in the first place. When you get the flu you aren’t immune to it. Claims that COVID 19 was unique because people weren’t immune was claptrap.
This equivocation from the WHO regarding immunity was notable. Why replace the meaningful measures of sickness and death with the far less tangible estimate of immunity? Initially this appeared to make no sense. Yet there was method in the WHO’s apparent madness.
If you define the problem as immunity then the solution to declared pandemics becomes vaccines. The WHO went to considerable lengths, including what appeared to be the deliberate sabotage of scientific investigations into potential COVID 19 treatments, to make sure vaccines were the only offered solution.


Pandemic modelling and climate modelling have much in common: a complete disdain for the scientific method.

2 Replies to “Pseudo-pandemic?”

  1. Nice to read your stuff John. Interesting! We have to keep an open mind, and inquisitive mind; beginners’ mind!

    Great to read some of your writing, ” … they take into account the inherent randomness of the physical world. It is a “bottom up” approach which starts from the data, unlike modelling which is “top down” and starts with the modeller’s opinions about how things ought to behave. Climate modelling resembles Ptolemaic astronomy according to which planetary orbits must always be circles (or circles on circles …). The Ptolemaic, top-down model was finally overthrown by the bottom-up approach of Galileo, Brahe and Kepler, culminating in elliptical orbits and the gravitational insights of Newton.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.