COVID-19 SCIENCE
Where did the science fail us?
By Dr Juergen Ude | March 26th 2021
The Australian government and others have justified their pandemic responses based on science. The Victorian premier would emphasize how we are data driven and that super computers were running day and night analyzing all the data.
Yet, according to our standards of ‘old school’ science the science was appallingly incompetent. This was the basis for our Open Letter which was also sent to the WHO and the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness & Response which has gone on deaf ears as have all Open Letters by other concerned groups.
A short summary for reason for the conclusion follows. Further information can be obtained from the Full report at the bottom of this page.
- Models were used to justify lockdown. Scientists have long acknowledged that models are always wrong and cannot provide scientific evidence. Their pandemic model performance has been dismal. Every model used in Australia, including Victoria grossly exaggerated the true death numbers. The UK’s Imperial College models’ performance is notoriously bad.
- Australian Health advisers who were driven by science advised lockdown after the first wave peak when cases were already coming down rapidly. We did not need lockdown. What type of science advises lockdown after cases already came down?
- The Victorian government applied an incompetent model to its data to prove that lockdown 3 saved thousands of lives. The model proved nothing because it fitted a classroom curve to a linear trend.
- The Victorian government used deceptive mathematics to prove lockdown 4 worked and that it resulted in drastic reduction of cases and deaths. The mathematics ‘lied’. Cases were already coming down when lockdown 4 was implemented. The use of deceptive mathematics is not science.
- Case reporting is unscientific because it does not factor in the ever-increasing test numbers. The result is that second and third waves were not greater than the first wave, which was also notable in Australia. After factoring test numbers there was no conclusive evidence that the original Kent and South African variants were more contagious.
- The definitions of covid deaths were amateurish and not scientific. How can dying with covid be treated as dying from Covid? That is not science but biased ‘insanity’.
- Excess registered deaths were assumed to be due to covid-19. How can such an association be called science? Associations and correlations do not prove causality. There can be other reasons for the excess deaths. SAGE in the UK has admitted we may have caused twice as many deaths due hospital bungling and other factors.
In Australia there is anecdotal evidence from family members who had nursing home residents that patients without symptoms were given morphine because they were covid-19 positive. These patents subsequently died. At least one nursing home doctor has confirmed this practice. In normal years this would be considered criminal if proven true.
How many people died because of incompetent doctors panicking, especially in certain countries with the culture is more prone to panicking? How many people died because their immune system was affected believing they would surely die.
A statistical analysis of registered deaths for countries including those with and without lockdown showed no scientific justification for the ruining of lives based on excess deaths.
- Science needs a rational clearly defined multi constrained objective. There has been no rational clearly defined objective ever set. The only objective is to save lives which is too broad. We cannot save lives. We can only delay some deaths. Should we cripple the economy, destroy lives, and cause deaths to give people in nursing homes and extra 6 months to two years knowing they hate being in a nursing home and see nursing homes as jail?
What about the constraint of protecting freedom? This includes freedom of movement and freedom of choice, both which the now politically driven World Health Organization once thought is unacceptable today. What animal would choose captivity over long-lived if it could choose? Why have he killed millions in wars to fight for freedom and now freedom no longer matters.
What is the scientific point of saving lives if now a handful of people in each country hypocritically dictate our lives whilst being critical of totalitarian governments?
- Repeat testing until a positive result is found is bias not science.
- Conclusion jumping.
Experts and politicians have jumped to embarrassing conclusions throughout the pandemic. Early successes for countries such as Singapore which did not last are an example. Now politicians and health advisers are telling us that they always knew vaccination roll out would not be smooth. That is not the way they talked in 2020 where it was concluded that the whole population would be vaccinated in a short time and that vaccination is the solution.
- The Australian government and others explained early in the pandemic that the scientific objective behind lockdown is flattening the curve so that that hospitals can cope. If cases are not reduced deaths will not reduce other than those caused by eliminating overwhelming.
The virus is not a living object, just molecular ‘muck’. It does not die. The body does not dissolve it. Lockdown cannot kill the virus because it is not alive. What it can do is provide more time for dangerous mutations of the genetic ‘muck’
If the only deaths lockdown can save is due to reducing overwhelming, then why did we need to spend a tiny fraction of the money we lost on temporary capacity increases?
Knee jerk reactions are not science, but incompetent ‘stupidity’. The containment actions can only be seen as knee jerk reactions. Countries are locking down for two days. How will that make a difference? In Australia finding one case results in lockdowns, use of face masks and other social distancing. That is irrational. It shows no understanding of sparse distribution of infections. We were just unlucky to find the case. If one case is important, we should always be under lockdown. Just because testing did not find it does not mean non-existence.
There is no scientific basis for kneejerk reactions?
These are just small examples of scientific incompetence. How the science was used to justify the destruction is hard to believe and we as scientists believe immoral. The overall conclusion is that the science was incompetent. Science was not above God. Part 2 will explain the problem with modern science and the reasons for the incompetence and why Science can never be above ‘God’.