The Losers Are Writing History

Reader, they think you're dumb.

Matt Le Tissier, who from the beginning spoke out against lockdown, will be coming to South Leith Parish Church in Leith, Edinburgh on the 4th May. He will be interviewed by one of the only academics to speak out against this policy, (retired) Professor of Biosciences Richard Ennos. Tickets here.

‘History is a fable agreed upon by the winners,’ said Napoleon. However, in the Upside-Down word of today, you can be a loser and still make a pretty good fist of scribing the history and your role in it that suits you.

One of The British Medical Journal’s latest articles claims that the UK government’s two year-long campaign of fear, exaggeration, humiliation and, at times, laughable inanity, was not in keeping with the scientific advice given at the time.

The authors should know. They were the ones who are now claiming to have given it. Incredibly, two of the authors are Professor John Drury and Dr Susan Michie, both of them crazed, hair-lit, iris-blackened lockdown zealots whose media interviews were a depiction of End Times consequences combined with reminiscences of Alf Garnett’s phrase, ‘Lock’em up, I say. Lock’em up!’

Yet, in the cold light of the morning after – the WhatsApp revelations – there is a wistful regret, a lachrymose tone suffusing the facts recalled, that they, who seemed to take every opportunity to represent the oppressing government message on TV, were not listened to when they advocated a more positive, people-trusting approach. Free money, empowering people to ‘overcome the dangers they faced’ which means ‘using hard-hitting emotional messaging’ but, to be ‘effective’ must make ‘clear the actions they can take to reduce the threat’.

I don’t like the cliché of ‘through the Looking Glass’, but that’s where the authors of this article are trying to take us: the example of ‘advice’ they had given and that they are trying to use to exonerate themselves from the accusation of terrifying and disempowering people, literally is a guide to terrifying and disempowering people. The government’s ‘clear actions’ proscribed were the non-choice allowed, not the alternatives the marginalised experts who knew what they were talking about offered.

The parties to this odyssey into the world of amorphous meanings and unenlightening exegesis seem to be, when read carefully, deliberately confusing different sets of scientific advisors. There are the scientific advisors, like the maligned Chris Whitty, who rises from the ashes of his reputation having actually counselled the government minister to not lockdown, that were knowledgeable about health and viruses and probably should have been the only ones that were heard.

Then there were the other ‘scientific advisors’ that were concerned with manipulating the public. The behavioural psychologists. The Michies. The Drurys. The SRIDHARS. It is they, with media complicity, who tried to pass themselves off as experts in the field of viruses, epidemics and vaccinology. Not explicitly misleading yet it was never clarified in many interviews that I saw that Susan Michie or Edinburgh University’s dire Linda Bould were psychologists; and their role was never fully scrutinised, which it, of course, should have been. In these instances, the public would, naturally, assume that an academic doctor being interviewed on the BBC about an epidemic response would have a background in, at the very least, biology and thus their advice would be grounded in science, not policy objectives handed to them by government in turn instructed by unaccountable international bodies.

Yet, in spite of this obvious presumption, in the article itself, no distinction is drawn between the two groups, therefore again allowing the reader to conflate the one group whose directions were not followed but were proved correct; and another group whose recommendations were enacted, actions they supported by their own efforts, and who are now suffering part of a political backlash as they are exposed as cruel and deceptive. Giving the highly misleading impression that good advice was supplied by all advisors - including SAGE - but the ‘bad’ government did not comply.

Reader, they really, really think we’re stupid.

No question of whether lockdown was an appropriate response - they’re still playing psychological tricks by assuming the conclusion they want people to accept – the article merely tries to defend the intended manner in which lockdown and vaccination was achieved (a manner which was followed/not followed dependent on your understanding of their words).

The article proceeds to accuse the then Health Minister Matt Hancock of having contempt for people, calling it a ‘defining feature…found throughout the leaked WhatsApp messages’. Ironic. SAGE members accusing others of having disdain for the public after treating them like misguided children. Very ironic. Strikingly so when upon you reading in one paragraph that their (SAGE’s) reports passed to civil servants and ministers had ‘the conception of the public as an asset rather than an impediment in the pandemic’.

Is this a joke?

Who is the public an asset for? Elite psychologists so we can fight off the virus for them? The public as a resource. People as tools. Very dehumanising.

In the article it also mentions that ‘vaccines and treatments’ were encouraged to be used. If you are inattentive or have a poor memory, you could be fooled: history is, dishonestly I might say, being ‘nudged’ - their favoured approach - to a different narrative, slowly, repeatedly, unnoticeably. It’s pretty brazen though: ‘vaccines and treatments’.

‘Treatments’!? It was vaccines or bust for two years. The government, with SAGE’s assistance, conditioned the citizens of the UK daily, hourly, that the sole hope for deliverance was by those damn jabs. The only ‘way out of this was through vaccines,’ said the hideous, garden furniture adornment, BBC health correspondent Fergus Walsh. Sage was no doubt behind media’s portrayal of continually narrowing of options, like closing walls of fear. Now they’re trying to hint that they were not pushing experimental jabs; that they had, at the time, acknowledged they were other methods available.

They really, really, really think we’re stupid.

The Losers are trying to re-write history to justify themselves because they have the same contempt for us they accuse others in power of having - which is about the only thing they’re right about. We cannot allow this. Susan Michie, John Drury, Devi Sridhar, Linda Bould and many, many others are complicit in a glacial-speed grinding down of humanity, of setting-up a catastrophe to unfold in slow motion. They must be held accountable; repeatedly, daily, hourly, minutely be reminded and held accountable for their actions. Let’s see if their slippery psych tricks work then.

Matt Le Tissier will be interviewed by Professor Richard Ennos in Leith, Edinburgh on the 4th May. Tickets are available here. It is funded by the community and any profits return to the community.

Common Knowledge blog posts will increase over the next couple of months as we try to promote this event.