Pumping Professor Pantsdown
Neil Ferguson replied to an email from a member of the public. It's an extraordinary encounter, one that provides valuable insight into thinking of the captured elite.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS THIS: a reader from Lockdown Sceptics emailed Neil Ferguson (his address is public) a copy of an article critical of Imperial College by one Derek Winton. Ferguson took the unusual step of replying, which is the only thing I’ll credit him for.
Some context: Neil Ferguson is the Imperial College epidemiologist who is considered the father of UK lockdown. Having made his recommendations, based on (by his own admission) the CCP model, he then broke the very rules he prompted in allowing his Soros-sponsored social justice identity married lover to visit him. He is an open supporter of the worst-performing political party in the UK (Liberal Democrats) and critics have argued that some of his work is so bad it warrants a scientific misconduct inquiry.
I have published Ferguson’s response broken into paragraphs, accompanied by an interpretation - and some additional commentary reflecting the atmosphere he and his SAGE colleagues have obliviously fomented (the individual who sent Ferguson Winton’s article wishes to remain anonymous).
What Ferguson said:
Dear XXXX,
I presume you sent me this because you feel upset, angry, that no-one is listening, want to hurt me or change my mind. Or all of the above.
What he really meant:
‘Well now, what do we have here? An angry peasant sending me some rubbish. Let me make him feel shit immediately.’
He’s got some front here - he couldn’t change his mind if he wanted to.
What Ferguson said:
I and my colleagues and friends (John Edmunds, Jeremy Farrar, Marc Lipsitch, Christian Drosten, Patrick Vallance, Chris Whitty,…) get so many of these sort of emails that we barely notice anymore. Most get dumped into junk mail folders automatically nowadays.
But for a change, I thought I would reply to you. Not that I really expect it to change the alternative reality you seem to have got sucked into, but occasionally I feel I should try.
What he really meant:
‘I am EXTREMELY important. Me and my chinas - check out their names - give fuck-all. We used some of the money Bill Gates gave us to hook up a software nerd so he could come and clean out all this shit you and your peasants send. I really don’t give a monkeys about you, or what you think, but I’m going to present the illusion I’m open to discussion.’
Namedrops keep falling on my head. Nice friends you have there - especially those shitheads Edmunds and Farrar - but more to the point: who amongst you there has been elected?
What Ferguson said:
To start with may want to read this: https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ConspiracyTheoryHandbook.pdf
And ask yourself if a loved one started to exhibit those behaviours, would you be worried?
What he really meant:
“Were you involved in the Capitol Hill riot of Jan 6th? Actually - fuck that - you WERE. You are a climate change denier, a racist and you’ve probably whinged about pronouns being added to the drop-down menu of the White House contact form. You need help (probably some time in jail too).”
The nerve. Equating lockdown sceptism with climate change ‘denialism’ is cheap and hostile - even by the standards of Liberal Democrat spouse-beating pansexuals. He attempts this Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches) because, as the ANC in South Africa has always colourfully illustrated in accusing whites of racism, using some or other fancifully published, condescending but highly contentious (and in some cases demonstrably false) documentation as your measurement is more often effective than it is not.
Lockdown ‘sceptics’ have been targeted on social media and in the left press by a particularly unpleasant MP, from the George Osborne-Matt Hancock Axis of Wankers, and feel aggrieved that their civic participation has been unnaturally terminated by a scheming, power-hungry, ludicrous expenses-claiming chancer.
Lockdown sceptism remains a critical function of democracy at present.
What Ferguson said:
As to the article you refer to, it recycles the same old, same old misinformation. You may be surprised to learn that the Telegraph and Spectator have published over a dozen corrections in response to complaints from Imperial College about inaccurate articles. For instance, no-one ran the Imperial model for Sweden (other than us).
What he really meant:
‘Now I’m getting bored and thinking about my Belgian lover’s hips - her husband is fine with the whole thing by way. Sometimes he comes to visit too. He brings us tea. Sometimes once I’ve finished with his wife I shout: “Smoothie…smoothie…I want a fucking smoothie!’
If he’s feigning ignorance, its not working. Bill Gates practically owns the Telegraph - its rona editorial policy was determined by a $3.4m donation from The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for ‘global health awareness’. The Spectator, sadly, hasn’t fared much better - and to position these as clueless, reactionary adversaries is disingeneous. Between government full rate ad spend, the aforementioned foundation and the increasing climate hysteria of the environmental desk at the Telegraph, all resistance has virtually disappeared.
What Ferguson said:
More substantively, the government never relied on just one model. The models written by LSHTM, Warwick University and Institut Pasteur Paris all agreed with “the” Imperial model. All used different code bases.
And in fact, there was never “one” Imperial model, but several. We now have 4 different COVID models, again which all agree.
What he really meant:
‘The debate is over.’
This position was perfected by Al Gore. But if everyone agrees and everything is cool, did everyone agree and things become cool before or after Microsoft technicians were summoned to deal with the appalling state of the code you didn’t want to release until you were reminded that it actually belonged to the taxpayer?
What Ferguson said:
Government responses were never dependent on one model. They were driven by the reality that any disease which generates epidemics which double every 3-4 days and for which over 2% of those infected require hospitalisation will overwhelm any health system that exists.
What he really meant:
‘Forget about my coding disaster. The response had nothing to do with my code.’
Perhaps we’d have a better understanding of policy and response had someone in the vicinty of SW1 wet their thumb and stuck it into the wind?
What Ferguson said:
In fact, a case could be made that the U.K. government took too little notice of our (not just Imperial- all the SAGE groups) modelling. In that they basically only acted when they saw hospitalisations and deaths growing exponentially.
Best,
Neil Ferguson
What he really meant:
‘It was our scaremongering that shocked the government into action. They had a plan, we kiboshed it. I make no apology for the fact that, as elitist, liberal academics we have long been denied the political power we believe we are entitled to. Now under the cover of the rona we’ve now established something of a grip that we’ll never willingly relinquish (in a few days I’ve been promised a sympathetic interview where I’ll comment that I’m not actually mad about lockdowns, which is an outright lie, but it might be a useful reference for the day I am parachuted into even more power).’
I should emphasize here that neither Ferguson nor any of his SAGE colleagues have been furloughed. The right-on, weasel faces populating SAGE are full pay but inherently anti-business; without any exposure to consequences of actions they have been complicit in the composition of, its hardly surprising that this is, above all, a sneeringly dismissive response, one that reveals the writer’s patronizing intolerance for criticism.
*There has been some additional correspondence which you can locate here. His attempt to row back on the insinuation of conspiracy, detailed in the third part of his first email above, is unconvincing.