Professor Mark Woolhouse, a senior epidemiologist who has been advising the UK government about infectious diseases for 25 years reveals that he was told to “correct” his views after criticizing the “implausible” graph shown at an official briefing about the COVID-19 pandemic held last September 21, 2020.

According to Woolhouse, the graph, which showed that COVID cases would double every seven days, was wrong. He said, based on his calculation using the data at the time, the doubling time should have been 10 to 11 days, and that there was no reason for the epidemic to accelerate suddenly. [We have reported about Woolhouse’s early criticisms of the doom and gloom predictions of other scientists regarding COVID cases, read Mark Woolhouse: UK lockdown a monumental mistake and Mark Woolhouse: We must follow the Swedish model].

Woolhouse reveals that after issuing his criticism of the projections, he received a flurry of emails inviting him to “correct” his statement. He says that he received another flurry of emails when he was invited by the House of Commons Select Committee to give evidence. He says, “two senior government scientists [were] concerned that I might criticize the CSA [referring to Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Valance]’s graph before the MPs”.

Woolhouse further reveals that the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M) on which he sits, used “ensemble modeling” wherein different teams, calculated their own scenarios. He says: “The model that generated the 4,000 deaths a day figure was an outlier – all the other model projections gave much lower numbers.” But somehow, it was the outlier that was shown to millions of people on TV.

Other issues raised by Woolhouse in this article include:

• The first lockdown was implemented because there was “no other option on the table”, not because the data supported it.
• The SPI-M was never asked to model alternatives to a lockdown.
• There was a lack of debate regarding lockdowns from the very beginning.
• The Imperial Model which predicted 500,000 deaths due to COVID “wasn’t remotely realistic” and anyone who supported on that basis was misled.
• Data from the Office for National Statistics showed teachers “were not at increased risk of infection compared with other professions”.
• There was no evidence showing that closure of schools contributed to controlling the infection.
• Contribution of schools in COVID transmission was very modest. Woolhouse says, “”We could have kept schools open and still kept the R number below one.”
• The strategy employed to control COVID was so harmful to children and young adults.
• As an alternative to lockdown, Woolhouse says that the government could have opted to protect the vulnerable and support their contacts.

Editor’s Note: Based on these statements from Prof Woolhouse, it is clear that there are scientific advisors to the government who actively lobbied for lockdowns, disregarding all the other options available. If this can happen in the UK, we are certain that this was happening too in the Philippines, and perhaps other countries around the world.

This essentially means one thing: the government knew what it was doing. They knowingly put our economy at risk. They caused the delay in our children’s development through the closures of schools. And lastly, they had a game plan for how this “pandemic” was going to play out [read Proof that the COVID-19 crisis was planned to usher in a new world order].

No wonder experts who subscribed to a view that opposed the official narrative had to be cancelled and censored from the internet. They simply cannot afford for people to know that they did not even look at other less harmful alternatives.

With this revelation, it has now become so important to demand an audit of the decisions and policies implemented by governments during the pandemic. Those who knowingly put our countries at risk must be made accountable for the damage they have cost us. We cannot afford to just let this entire COVID fiasco slide – not when people have died due to wrong treatment, businesses have failed, employees have lost work, and years of productivity has been lost