Lecture 4: Was there ever a legitimate scientific basis for a lockdown?

“Since the AIDS epidemic, people have been pumping out such models with often incredible figures. For AIDS, the Public Health Service announced (without documenting) there would be 450,000 cases by the end of 1993, with 100,000 in that year alone. The media faithfully parroted it. There were 17,325 by the end of that year, with about 5,000 in 1993. SARS (2002-2003) was supposed to kill perhaps “millions,” based on analyses. It killed 744 before disappearing. Later, avian flu strain A/H5N1, “even in the best-case scenarios” was to “cause 2 (million) to 7 million deaths” worldwide. A British professor named Neil Ferguson scaled that up to 200 million. It killed 440.” – Michael Fumento (It’s Time To Permanently Dump Epidemic Models)

“We don’t want to repeat the mistakes we made during another viral outbreak, namely the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic. Tony Blair’s government adopted a strategy of pre-emptive culling which led to the death of more than six million cattle, sheep and pigs, with an estimated cost to the UK economy of £9 billion. That strategy was informed by predictive modelling produced by a team at Imperial College led by, among others, Professor Ferguson.” – Lockdown Sceptics (How Reliable is the Modelling?)

We indeed do not want to repeat past mistakes, that’s why we have history – to learn from it. But you may be asking yourself now – what does all of the above have to do with SARS-CoV-2? Very much actually, because the same man who was responsible for making grossly false and exaggerated predictions about the impact of avian flu, swine flu, foot and mouth disease, as well as mad cow disease – namely – professor Neil Ferguson, was also responsible for the mathematical model which predicted an exceedingly alarming number of deaths as a result of the spread of the novel coronavirus in various countries in the absence of radical lockdown measures. Specifically, Ferguson’s mathematical model projected a staggering 2.2 million deaths in the U.S. and 550,000 in the U.K. that could allegedly be prevented only with severe lockdown restrictions that would essentially have to be kept in place until a safe and effective vaccine was developed. Ferguson’s model thus provided the supposed “scientific” impetus for governments around the world to impose draconian lockdowns which in a twinkling of an eye turned free countries into virtual prisons and police-states – over what is now estimated by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to be a ~99.8% survival rate virus.

And therefore, since Ferguson’s model shaped the anti-SARS-CoV-2 response of many countries around the world, it is all the more imperative to ask what were the key assumptions underlying this model, in order to evaluate how strong is the scientific support for its dire predictions, and to assess whether or not the lockdown was truly the best strategy to curb the impact of the virus. A significant number of very distinguished scientists, including a Nobel prize winner from Stanford, and Pfizer’s former chief scientific officer, vice-president and research head, critically assessed the Ferguson’s model. Neither have any confidence in its validity as they concluded that it is lethally and fundamentally flawed. Find out what exactly is wrong with the model that destroyed economies and normal civil societies world-wide, and why it should have never been acted upon in part 4 of Unmasking the Panic-demic series:

Watch video on my Brighteon channel Isaiah59_19