The Highwire with Del Bigtree - UK HEALTH MINISTER GRILLED OVER PANDEMIC RESPONSE

Episode Date: August 2, 2022

Former UK Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, was confronted this week during a press hearing to elaborate on the studies the English government referenced on asymptomatic spread to justify the tyrannical lockdown. Hear his astonishing answer.#MattHancock #NeilFerguson #MasterOfDisasterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Last week, we shared with you that Deborah Birx is now admitting that, yeah, I mean, it really was ultimately just wishful thinking or hope that the vaccine would be affected, but we had no way of knowing. Our studies weren't even looking at the sort of long-term effects or ability to stop the virus. So all of that is coming clear. And remember, from the very beginning of the high wire, our biggest frustration is why is no one asking Anthony Fauci the obvious questions? Where is your data coming from? How can you prove that there's asymptomatic carriers? You know, what is the actual death rate, something that they have never, ever stated on any one of the side shows or the CNN and the MSMECs, but in playing these White House press conferences?

Why has no one stayed in the obvious? And they will never put themselves in front of a question. Well, one of the big kingpins of this entire disastrous approach to a virus called coronavirus over the last two years, was obviously Matt Hancock, who is the former UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in England. Remember, this is the guy that really celebrated the imperial model by Neil Ferguson

that predicted these outrageous death rates. Two million people are gonna die in America, and hundreds of thousands in the UK. And so it was just all based on whatever, fantasy. And so finally, just this last week, video came out where a citizen journalist got into a room where Matt Hancock said that he wanted to take some questions. I think this is very important for all of us because remember we never get to ask these questions. We never got to know where their evidence was coming from and why this was

happening. This is a little bit of a long video, but honestly, this is what the high wire has been about from the beginning. All of this we knew to be true. Why is it that no one was allowed to talk about it? This is Matt Hancock talking to a small group of people, and luckily one of our own got on the inside. You're going to find this fascinating. You know, it is worth touching on, I don't know whether we were going to come to this, that we did end up in a tangle a couple of times in the stats agencies. And the, you know, to a degree that was, that was, a lot of that was quite unfair, because they approached it as if we had, you know, a classic,

40 year long data series and the accusation which was false was that we're playing fast and loose with it. The truth was we were short of data and the measurability of some of that data was really, really tough as in the accuracy of the data. I don't mean that in the benevolent sense, just the ability to match the data we were publishing to the truth of what was going on on the ground. The questions I'd really like to answer are the things where you think that what I've said, is rubbish. Do we have any questions from the floor? Yeah. The entire principles you've started the lockdowns with, the measures with, were based effectively on an unproved, at least at that time, a totally unproven argument that asymptomatic infection was a significant

factor driving transmission. And there was no evidence for that whatsoever. The other evidence was based upon one German woman, so one Chinese woman in Germany, who was taking large amounts of hyper-proofing in order to prevent her from her from her symptoms. Now, I'm not saying that pre-symptomatic people who were just becoming ill couldn't transmit, at least in the first phase, but there was actually no evidence backing that up. Second point, there's a couple of points, so if you've done, I'll put them all together so you can tie them up. The lockdown, you mentioned the lockdown measures and the forecasts. Neil Ferguson, because you said there were wasn't 40 years of data. Neil Ferguson's been working on forecasting for decades and the fact

that a matter is all his epidemiological forecasts have been wrong, every single one of them and not by a factor of one or two, but by a factor of 10 or 20 or 30 or 40, BSC, swine flu, bird flu, you name it, every single case, he was vastly incorrect and the argument that there would have been 500,000 K dead, had there not been a lockdown, has no basis in fact. It's pure speculation. But because you can compare it with other countries around the world, and you can see, for example, in Sweden or even North Korea now, for God's sake, or Belarus, or anywhere else in Africa, there's no evidence whatsoever that the lockdowns made any difference, in a beneficial difference,

to the number of deaths. And there's a, just a citation for that, John E. E.Nedis, the leading epidemiologist in the world, along with many other experts, were banned from being on the YouTube and Facebook, and they were slandered and denigrated. And the government ministers should be protecting free speech. I was arrested six times for trying to defend free speech. So why don't you defend free speech in democracy in science? So the second point you make kind of demonstrates exactly what I was saying earlier, which is that making forecasts is hard, right?

And making forecasts of what would happen if you did nothing and then doing something and the forecast not coming true does not disprove the foreshould. But now we know. Hold on. I'm answering the question. Thank you. So in a way, your question has demonstrated why. it's really hard to communicate this stuff in the public now. The second point on asymptomatic transmission is really important,

and maybe I should have brought itself as a different example. There was not the formal evidence of asymptomatic transmission on a clinical trial basis, and therefore it didn't get into the formal advice to me, but we knew that there were a lot of stories of it happening. What peer-reviewed documents proved it? What peer-reviewed documents? Well, we were locked out home for two years, yeah. We got a right to ask the minister, were the minister responsible?

I'll handle it, Mr. Sir. You've had your say. This session is about how we measure these things better in future. Well, you ask for criticism? No, I'm afraid I'm not going to take anything further from. Okay, okay. Because you've had your saying, you've asked your questions, two of them. I've just answered one, and I was halfway through answering the second,

when you started talking again. The science, yeah. That's enough, thank you. You've had your questions. I'm now going to complete answering them, then I'm going to go on to other people. Asymptomatic transmission is a classic example of that middle group of problems, right?

It was really important that we found out whether there was asymptomatic transmission or not, and it didn't become a formal finding until the start of April. Yet we were worried about it happening before that. And so making decisions in the face of that uncertainty was one of the challenges. I'm sorry, what was the evidential paper that showed that? What was the paper that showed that? What paper showed that? He just said he was provided with that evidence in April.

What paper showed it? That unfortunately has all got time for you need to move on to the next stage. But Matt, thank you so much for joining us. Well, if nothing less, and it's certainly a good case of careful what you wish for, of course, Matt Hancock saying, I really just want to get questions from somebody that thinks what I've said is full of rubbish. And then what he gives us an answer is total rubbish. I mean, and really it's the question that we all need to be asking ourselves and frankly was not answered there, which is this entire idea of an asymptomatic carrier being the one spreading the virus would have been brand new. This would be one of the first viruses that this was.

ever recognized as a serious issue. In fact, you have to say it was a manufactured concept. And so what he was saying early on is we didn't have any data to prove what we were doing. We just had an idea that maybe this was possible. And then, you know, so this asymptomatic is why we're all locked down. Because every other time we deal with the virus, whether it was polio or smallpox, or no matter how awful,

what we do is take symptomatic people and we quarantine them. And those that are directly around the symptomatic people sometimes, is a serious disease right there. But you never took all the population that are walking around healthy, breathing, fine, and say, you know what, you're a danger to society? We need to wrap your face and closet that you cannot breathe the air

and you gotta lock you in the house. And by the way, we're gonna take your job away, your place of business. We did this in the United States of America, in the UK, places where we have democracies and republics where we're supposed to be in control of our own lives. They destroyed the world we lived in based on a false assumption of an Asian

asymptomatic carrier being problematic. And by the way, there are headlines that have pointed out. We've now seen studies that show that asymptomatic were fears about asymptomatic COVID spread overblown, infected people without symptoms are two-thirds less likely to pass virus on study finds. I mean, these are everywhere now. So the guy's asking you perfectly good question. He's saying, where's this study you're talking about?

I mean, okay, you just said you wanted to answer a hard question. You said sometime in April there was a study that showed you were right about asymptomatic, Because I'd like to see that too. The high wire would like to see that study. What are you talking about? And by the way, never provides it. The guy even follows him out the door. Never says, let me get your number.

Let me get a secretary. I don't remember the name of it. Can someone give me the name? It's all total and complete baloney. We watch this with Deborah Birx. Folks, you've got to start recognizing. These are government officials that literally had the ability to take our lives away and they can't even explain

or point to data after it's all over. They still have no. data to show you. And speaking of Neil Ferguson, this guy makes such a great point. Do you realize the United States of America followed this buffoon. This buffoon, professor of Imperial College, impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce COVID-19 mortality and health care demand. I mean, this was all the stuff that they were putting out their deaths in the population, but there's a, there's a great article that came out sort of showing all the mistakes this guy's made. And I want to discuss that because that's what the gentleman asked the question. Professor.

for lockdown, model resigns in disgrace. Well, he resigned because while he was locking everybody else down, he got caught not locked down, actually sleeping in another man's wife's bed. For what it's worth, I don't care what you think about that, but he has bigger problems than that, the fact that he really sucks at his job. In fact, his history has been to overblow situations that affect people's lives. Ferguson has been wrong so often that some of his fellow modelers call him the master of disaster. Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of 11 million sheep and cattle

during the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease. A total disaster, Charlotte Reed, a farmer's neighbor recalls, I remember that appalling times. Sheep were left starving in fields near us, then came the open air slaughter. The poor animals were panic-stricken. It was one of the worst things I've ever witnessed and all based on a model.

Ifs, butts, and maybes. It proved to be ridiculous. In 2002, Ferguson predicted that by 2080, up to 150,000 people could die from exposure to mad cow disease, the BSE issue in beef. In the UK, there were only 177 deaths from BSE. In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009. And then in 2009, a government estimate based on Ferguson's advice said a reasonable worst-case scenario was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths.

In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the UK. Remember, swine flu was a disastrous vaccine. They pulled that from the shelves. That was a whole mess put together by Neil Ferguson's. Imperial model could be the most devastating software mistake of all times. You got attacked and criticized by all of his fellow, fellow, fellow. epigeneticists, you know, all of these people doing the math. What is it? Epidemiologist, that was the word I was trying to come to. So look, here's the point. Here's the point. And it's a really good question to be

asking. Why is it? Does the UK keep going to the one man who is a disaster when it comes to predictions, has been overblowing it every single time? And by the way, Matt, you know, Hancock says, I'm going to answer you two questions. There were three questions, and the third one was the most important. If, as you have stated clearly, as Deborah Burke said, you really don't know that the data is all speculation and a bunch of hypotheticals, ifs, ands, or buts, that you are using wishful thinking,

and you're now trying to get some sympathy for what it was like to have to make these decisions without any really decent data. The biggest question is this. Why were you censoring then? Why were you shutting off all of the great epidemiologists like John E. Anidis, who was brought up by this reporter, who has never failed. He is literally one of the most impeccable epidemiologists we have in the world that was saying the opposite of what Neil Ferguson was saying. He's written several papers, yet this guy is banned every time he posts one of his studies on YouTube or Facebook. It's yanked. He's never on CNN. He's never on the BBC. Neither is Sinatra Gupta, which is right down the road at Oxford.

who is the head of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, all of their statements, Martin Koldorf, Dr. J. Bata Charia, everything they've said now is like a time capsule, like wrapped in gold because they were dead right that the biggest issues were going to be from the lockdown, the biggest hardships would be the lockdown, far worse than the virus, we now know that to be true. All it is to be said that I want to say,

I told you so, I told you we would eventually be here. Yes, sure, I suppose, it was a bit of a gamble that we always just seemed to be coming down the exact opposite side of our own government, the United States, of Tony Fauci and Deborah Berks, and all these people in the White House. But it was because we were reading the science. We actually know how to read. We weren't trusting experts, which is what apparently the news agencies around the world, like New York Times and Washington Post and BBC, as long as Anthony Fauci says it, it must be true. As long as Deborah Burke says it, oh, well, then it must be true. Only now we

No, it wasn't true, that they were speculating and guessing and shutting down the people that in the end were the ones that were right the whole time. And now we have laws all across the United States of America and around the world that seek to take away licenses from doctors that go against the Deborah Berks's and the Matt Hancock's of their government. If you go against the government, then your license needs to be taken away. Do you see how utterly terrifying that is? even now that they're admitting they were all dead wrong,

we're all supposed to be being held hostage by their words. There's a lot of work to do here, folks, but while they're rolling in it, and now they're admitting to it and they're eating crow, let's make sure they eat the whole damn crow, shall we, so that we never do this again. All right, we have a huge show coming up, lots of science coming away to discuss a lot of the fallacies

that are out there about what the vaccine did and did not do, what masks do and do not do, And are we sort of sliding right back in to that same dark hole we have finally recovered from?