The fatal mistakes which led to lockdown – Dr. John Lee, The Spectator

Such is the quality of decision-making in the process generating our lockdown narrative. An early maintained but exaggerated belief in the lethality of the virus reinforced by modelling that was almost data-free, then amplified by further modelling with no proven predictive value. All summed up by recommendations from a committee based on qualitative data that hasn’t even been peer-reviewed.

  • According to Office for National Statistics, this year comes only eighth in terms of deaths in past 27 years.
  • The spread of viruses like Covid-19 is not new. What’s new is our response.
  • The whole Covid drama has really been a crisis of awareness of what viruses normally do, rather than a crisis caused by an abnormally lethal new bug.
  • Modelling is not science, for the simple reason that a prediction made by a scientist (using a model or not) is just opinion.
  • To be classified as science, a prediction or theory needs to be able to be tested, and potentially falsified.
  • A problem with the current approach: a wilful determination to ignore the quality of the information being used to set Covid policy.
  • Most Covid research was not peer- reviewed.
  • In medical science there is a well-known classification of data quality known as ‘the hierarchy of evidence’: a seven-level system gives an idea of how much weight can be placed on any given study or recommendation.
  • Virtually all evidence pertaining to Covid-19 policy is found in the lowest levels (much less compelling Levels 5 and 6): descriptive-only studies looking for a pattern, without using controls. 
  • Level 7 is at the bottom of the hierarchy (the opinion of authorities or reports of expert committees) because ‘authorities’ often fail to change their minds in the face of new evidence.
  • Committees often issue compromise recommendations that are scientifically non-valid.
  • The advice of Sage (or any committee of scientists) is the least reliable form of evidence there is.


Ignoring the Covid evidence – Alistair Haimes, The Critic

  • Far from following the science, the government turned its back on all available data.
  • Until mid-April, with the escalating deaths in care homes agonisingly clear across Europe, government policy was still for patients to be discharged to care homes from hospitals without requiring negative tests. And so the toll: around half of UK Covid-19 deaths are care home residents, despite them accounting for only 0.6 per cent of our population.
  • Germany, whose population is roughly 25 per cent bigger than ours, has suffered approximately a quarter of our Covid deaths.
  • Ministers have deferred to scientists who themselves deferred to the projections of models, even when data on the ground told a completely different story.
  • Statisticians on social media had a field day pointing out the chasm between modelled outcomes and reality, but it is not clear that the models on which SAGE relied (both their input parameters and mechanical dynamics) were continually refined with on-the-ground data (or simply discarded as wrong). 
  • Why weren’t Oxford’s team, who specialise in zoonotic viruses and who looked at the same data as Neil Ferguson’s modelling-led team but came to wildly different conclusions, on SAGE’s panel to provide an alternative view?
  • Why were there no economists on SAGE? Economics is not the bloodless pursuit of money but the science of decision-making under uncertainty where resources are finite; could they really have brought nothing to the party?
  • In mid-March, Stanford’s Nobel laureate Michael Levitt (biophysicist and professor of structural biology) discussed the “natural experiment” of the Diamond Princess cruise ship, a petridish disproportionately filled with the most susceptible age and health groups. Even here, despite the virus spreading uncontrolled onboard for at least two weeks, infection only reached a minority of passengers and crew. 
  • The data towards the end of March clearly showed we were already near the tipping point of the bell-curve (meaning the disease is on the wane). We were already past the point where lockdown could have made much difference.
  • Knut Wittkowski: “respiratory diseases [including Covid-19] . . . remain only about two months in any given population”.


No evidence for two-metre rule, Oxford experts say – The Telegraph

Writing for the Telegraph, Professors Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, from the University of Oxford, said there is little evidence to support the restriction and called for an end to the “formalised rules”.

The University of Dundee also said there was no indication that distancing at two metres is safer than one metre.


Has the British scientific establishment made its biggest error in history? – The Telegraph

The scientific establishment in this country has had a bad war. Its mistakes have probably made the Covid-19 epidemic, as well as the economic downturn, worse. Britain entered the pandemic late, with lots of warning, so we should have done better than other countries. Instead we are one of the worst affected in Europe and one of the last to begin to recover.


The architects of lockdown must not be allowed to rewrite history – The Telegraph

Britain’s lockdown nightmare may be far from over, but an attempt to rewrite the history of the country’s greatest political blunder has already begun. With the UK now past the peak, the lack of evidence that lockdown served any useful purpose is glaring. And crucially, thanks to a growing abundance of raw data – from deaths and hospital admissions, to Covid-related 111 calls and mobile tracking intelligence –we now have the power to piece together what Britain’s lockdown achieved (or didn’t) in hideous technicolour.

Getting at the truth will be an uphill struggle, however: Downing Street has shown no appetite whatsoever for sifting through the evidence, even though it could inform (or, let’s face it, rip apart) its uniquely odd approach to easing lockdown. We must also beware the shape-shifting, scientific architects of the stay-at-home order; as criticism grows, are they attempting to dress their reconstructed reality in the language of scientific pedantry?


Science, doubt and the ‘second wave’ of Covid – Dr. John Lee, The Spectator

One of the key things about science – obvious to its practitioners, but often obscure to outsiders – is that it is fuelled by doubt, not certainty. When the ‘facts’ change (as they often do), and when original assumptions are qualified or overturned, then any scientist worth their salt re-examines and, if necessary, alters their conclusions. The presence of cross-reactive helper cells in maybe half the population means that ideas about a possible second wave must be rewritten. This finding must make a second wave less likely, probably much less likely. And the fact that there has been no ‘second wave’ (as opposed to isolated outbreaks) anywhere where lockdown has been released also fits this hypothesis. It may well also explain why the first wave didn’t infect much higher proportions of the population.


Hydroxychloroquine Lancet Study: Former France Health Minister blows the whistle – Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy, BFMTV

Pharmaceutical companies are putting pressure on scientific results says Philippe Douste-Blazy, Cardiology MD, Former France Health Minister.



Ep78 Stanford Professor and Nobel Prize Winner Explains this Viral Lockdown – Professor Michael Levitt, The Fat Emperor Podcast

Podcast highlights

  • There were many signs that were really available by the end of February indicating this is a virus that has ‘weak legs.’
  • The data was all available by the end of February [2020] and anyone who can use Excel could analyse it.
  • “The best statistical test is the eyeball test.” And if you chart things in Excel, you can very quickly make an instinctive judgement.
  • No country succeeded in protecting the elderly and nursing homes–it’s hard thing to do.
  • We had a soft flu season. The people who would have been susceptible to a generic flu were hit by a virus that came late and swept through rapidly. This could explain the high COVID-19 death numbers among the vulnerable.
  • Many analysts agree that the lockdown did nothing to affect the peak of infections and deaths.
  • None of the pro-lockdown people seemed to analyse the data and used the data to support lockdown.
  • Many pro-lockdown scientific colleagues are academics receiving salaries; their lives would not be negatively affected by the lockdown. Scientists love nothing more than staying at home to work.
  • What really matters is the years lost rather than the number of dead. Life is risky and when you’re old, life is more risky. You’re expecting younger people to give their future to get two more months of life.
  • While COVID-19 is not the same as the flu, the numbers look very similar.
  • People rolled over for a lockdown based on no real solid science.
  • There’s a whole fallacy about the R value because it is dependent on the time you’re infected and no one knows what the time infected is, no one knows about hidden cases.

Source website:



Scientific and ethical basis for social-distancing interventions against COVID-19 – The Lancet

The observation that the greatest reduction in COVID-19 cases was achieved under the combined [social distancing] intervention is not surprising. However, the assessment of the additional benefit of each intervention, when implemented in combination, offers valuable insight. Since each approach individually will result in considerable societal disruption, it is important to understand the extent of intervention needed to reduce transmission and disease burden.

The effectiveness and societal impact of quarantine and social distancing will depend on the credibility of public health authorities, political leaders, and institutions. It is important that policy makers maintain the public’s trust through use of evidence-based interventions and fully transparent, fact-based communication.


No 10 is hiding behind secretive Sage pseudo-science – The Telegraph

There’s almost a whiff of superstition about No 10’s secretive “evidence-based” approach to lifting lockdown. Ministers are peddling an esoteric assortment of “precautionary” measures, from a scientifically baseless two-metre rule to a pointless 14-day holiday quarantine. They are obscure and enigmatic on risks and trade-offs. And, in the daily press conferences, they continue to bewitch an already hyper-paranoid public with lurid graphs and charts that propagate bogus science.


Why the government should not always ‘follow the science’ – Spiked

‘Evidence’ has been turned into a gospel truth and that’s bad for political decision-making.


Is the government blaming the scientists? – The Spectator

With ministers and officials involved with the country’s coronavirus strategy braced for an eventual public inquiry, this week we’re being given a glimpse of how it might play out. During a morning broadcast round on Tuesday, Work and Pensions Secretary Thérèse Coffey set the cat among the pigeons when she was asked about mistakes the government may have made. It’s clear that this is a row No. 10 does not wish to be having right now.

Coffey replied by saying ministers can ‘only make judgments based on the advice’ they are given. She went on to say that on issues such as testing capacity, if the scientific advice at the time was ‘wrong’, she would not be surprised if people think ‘we made the wrong decisions’. Those comments were quick to gain traction – with critics claiming Coffey was attempting to scapegoat scientists for the government’s U-turn on testing.

Visitor Contributions

An Interactive Anti-Coronavirus Toolkit – Dr. Kevin P. Corbett

In the interest of public debate, we allow visitors to share opinions, experiences and research that may be of value to others. This is a visitor contribution from our Discussions page.

The views expressed are those of the individual posters themselves. Please read our Comments and contributions disclaimer.

Dr. Kevin P. Corbett

An Interactive Anti-Coronavirus Toolkit


He had moved from thought to words, and now from words to actions.”

George Orwell, 1984

In this toolkit I draw on the predictive power of fiction together with various medical and other sources to both describe and illustrate how the Hysteria over the ‘novel Coronavirus’ is leading towards a form of physical and cultural death.

This Hysteria has bred mass delusion biasing medical diagnosis to more fully bolster and grossly inflate the evidence for the spurious disease category of ‘Covid-19’. This occurs through the medical generation of illness and death, caused by faulty clinical reasoning during medical examination and treatment [‘iatrogenesis’]. This process of iatrogenesis is assisted also by powerful social forces like Terror and Fear [‘sociogenesis’] .

All of these medical and social forces are being marshalled and fuelled in Great Britain and overseas by the confluence of Hysteria from the respective elected Governments, The World Health Organisation, the US Centres for Disease Control (CDC) and other non-elected supranational agencies, which are all now fatally impacting on our national psyches and policy makers.

These unelected agencies include, the 24-7 cycling Mainstream Media (MSM), The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (who fund Imperial College London a British source of Lockdown modelling), Gilead, and other pharmaceutical interests.

All of the above respective commercial and academic interests stand to gain financially from any subsequent mandatory mass screening, testing, treatment and travel certification (‘passporting’).

The investigative journalists are right on it. Celia Farber cites the above confluence of vested interests, the “Gates-led Pandemic Reich”. Jon Rappoport calls them the “..actual conspiracy theorists—Gates, WHO, CDC—who invented the conspiracy..” ‘Covid-19’ and the government Lockdowns.

Read the full monograph. (Opens PDF from external site.)


The ‘official Covid story’ is one-sided to the point of deceit – The Telegraph

The biggest political ruse of our time has now spiralled so far out of control that it has become almost impossible to distinguish fact from deception. Every day we are besieged with such a selective and biased artillery of “scientific” assertions that it makes a mockery of expert insight.

Every day we are subjected to yet more bitesized epidemiology that gives an utterly false impression of risk. And every day we are bombarded with terrifying death figures so out of context that they are effectively meaningless.


UK scientists condemn ‘Stalinist’ attempt to censor Covid-19 advice – The Guardian

Government scientific advisers are furious at what they see as an attempt to censor their advice on government proposals during the Covid-19 lockdown by heavily redacting an official report before it was released to the public, the Guardian can reveal.

Publications Visitor Contributions


In the interest of public debate, we allow visitors to share opinions, experiences and research that may be of value to others. This is a visitor contribution from our Discussions page.

The views expressed are those of the individual posters themselves. Please read our Comments and contributions disclaimer.


Dr. Kevin P. Corbett


Monograph One. The Coronavirus Hysteria Series: ‘SARS-CoV-2’, the ‘novel Coronavirus’. A monograph by an independent research consultant on the accuracy of the RT-PCR and antibody tests.

Dr Kevin P Corbett MSc PhD


Test regulators must publish evidence for this ‘novel Coronavirus’ (‘SARS-CoV-2’) showing viral purification and visualization in order to underpin the gold standard for the respective RT-PCR and antibody tests.

If the ‘novel Coronavirus’ is proven to exist, regulators must then publish evidence showing how this ‘novel Coronavirus’ fulfils Koch’s postulates before it can be assumed that it causes the ‘new’ disease recently termed ‘Covid-19’.


No Gold Standard, No Fulfilment of Koch’s Postulates

Viral purification and visualisation prior to test manufacture is the scientific approach for validating how accurately tests perform, known as the gold standard (White and Fenner 1986 p9). This must be followed by proof that any proven viral agent fulfils Koch’s postulates for causation of this ‘new’ disease called ‘Covid-19’ which is currently lacking (e.g. Zhu et al 2020). A forthcoming scientific paper on current RT-PCR/antibody tests for the ‘novel Coronavirus’ (‘SARS-Cov-2’) by leading scientists in the U.S. state of Georgia states:

‘There is no gold standard for COVID-19 since this specific virus has never been properly purified and visualized. Thus, the accuracies of the tests are unknown. The development of these test kits is contrary to the FDA’s guidance document.’

Reliable analytical data is critical for the correct determination of the real presence or absence of COVID-19 infection’ (Ogenstad et al 2020 pp3-4).

The above extract, which was confirmed by the USA Georgia State authors, reveals that the way these tests perform when testing patients/staff has never been properly evaluated in relation to the gold standard of ‘purified virus’. This means that the accuracy of these tests is currently unknown and impossible to judge until more work is completed.

Britain Is Using Flawed Tests

Investigative journalists at London’s Daily Telegraph (Donnelly and Gardner 2020) report that the British test regulator – Public Health England (PHE) – is using flawed ‘novel Coronavirus’ tests (for ‘SARS-CoV-2’) with no real capacity to roll out national screening and testing (Open Democracy 2020) on thousands of UK National Health Service (NHS) patients and workers. PHE is also reportedly giving ‘discordant’ (+/-) results, running in-house testing (aka ‘home brew’), and creating differences between the PHE ‘in-house’ tests and commercially available tests (Donnelly and Gardner 2020).

The Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) Test ‘ used for initial hospital screening for the disease Covid-19 (assumed to be caused by this supposed ‘novel Coronavirus’) is thought to detect what is believed to be bits of ‘RNA’ from this ‘novel Coronavirus’. Similarly, the antibody test for this ‘novel Coronavirus’ is assumed to detect viral ‘antibodies’ but in Britain it was proven to be unsuitable (Smythe et al, 2020).

Data sheets (e.g. Roche, 2020) rushed out from the test manufacturers and fast-tracked for clinical use by the US Federal Drug Administration under Emergency Use Authorisation have dropped the requisite caveats that such tests MUST be confirmed by comparison with purified infectious virus – and not just from bits of RNA, the so-called ‘RNAaemia’ of Huang et al (2020 p499) assumed to come from a ‘novel Coronavirus’ based only on molecular/genetic similarity.

All of the above arguments (and more) were first advanced about the ‘isolation’ of ‘HIV’ and its role in AIDS by Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al (2012). However, these sorts of arguments were vehemently and continuously rejected by ‘mainstream’ scientists. As Ogenstad et al are ‘mainstream’ scientists; it is now interesting, one could say highly worrying, to see how these so-called ‘rejected arguments’ are now so adamantly advanced by Ogenstad et al for these RT-PCR/antibody tests. It is highly worrying because the implications and ramifications stemming from what Ogenstad et al are now admitting is that the science underpinning the Lockdown and the continued erosion of our liberties is not just questionable (as is all ‘normal science’ (Kuhn (2012)) but is wrong at worst or fatally misguided at best.

The gold standard for any ‘novel Coronavirus’ test is the best independent way to measure the test’s accuracy at truly detecting those patients with and without the virus, the positive predictive value of the tests (Griner et al 1981). Logically, as the Georgia State U.S. scientists imply, the gold standard must not be bits of RNA (‘RNAaemia’) but “purified virus” confirmed by “purification” and “visualisation” using electron microscopy (White and Fenner,1986 p9). Even then, after what Ogenstad et al (2020) term “the correct determination of the real presence or absence of COVID-19 infection” [SARS-CoV-2, ‘novel Coronavirus’] these conjectured ‘viral’ particles must be rigorously proven to cause the disease through strict criteria called Koch’s postulates (University of Maryland 2020), which have never been fulfilled for the ‘novel Coronavirus’ (Zhu et al 2020, Crowe 2020a).

This may help to explain why the PHE is now reporting ‘discordant results’ (non-binary) where some people test alternatively ‘positive’ and then ‘negative’, with or without symptoms, according to investigative journalists at London’s Daily Telegraph (Donnelly and Garner 2020). These PHE reports match other studies which show how the test is as far from binary (Li et al 2020) as a quantum, the cut-off is in reality totally arbitrary (Young et al 2020), discordant results occur continuously with the same patients (Cao et al 2020, Li et al 2020), and the quantity of RNA totally fails to correlate with illness severity (Young et al 2020).
British test guidance says the precautionary actions governing quality control of the RT-PCR should be expedited to get a definitive result (NHS England and NHS Improvement 2020 p8). This further helps to explain reports showing that people have been advised to return to work too early (false negatives), and vice-versa, people are similarly misadvised – to stay off work unnecessarily (false positives) (Donnelly and Gardner 2020).

Furthermore, the number testing RT-PCR positive (with or without antibodies) is reportedly inaccurate (Donnelly and Gardner 2020) and likely conflates false + true positives: false positives are those testing positive that never had the virus, and false negatives vice-versa. As the Georgia State US scientists openly admit: “the accuracies of the tests are unknown”. Coupled with these problems is the subjective way in which different definitions are made of how a positive test is arrived at (Bustin and Nolan 2017, Crowe 2020b). For example, in the ‘HIV/AIDS’ era this gave rise to a whole set of different generations of test methodologies engendering false and indeterminate results subsequently terrorising patients due to the uncertainty experienced (Corbett 2001, Corbett 2009). The evidence underpinning the accuracy of these ‘novel Coronavirus’ tests have been exhaustively summarised by David Crowe, an independent Canadian researcher, on the London website ‘Lockdown Sceptics’ (Crowe 2020c).

The Georgia State US scientists (Ogenstad et al 2020) show the downside of the global rush to judgement and the dangerous bypassing of the expected precautionary principle with regard to test development. It points to the regulatory veneer of scientific certainty over testing versus the actuality of scientific uncertainty. The fast-tracking of tests together with the fear induced actions of the World Health Organisation and the profit-driven pharmaceutical industry have produced a confluence of interests. This is the background for the panic-driven collusion of the official health authorities – the U.S. Federal Drug Administration and their respective British counterparts (PHE/the British National Institute for Health And Care Excellence (NICE)). Together, under emergency instructions, these forces are rolling out these tests (accuracy ‘unknown’) onto a public who unquestionably believes them to be ‘sound’ and to be ‘binary’. This is an appalling scientific disaster of enormous proportions, implications and ramifications. Ogenstad et al (2020) are clearly admitting that no purified infectious ‘novel Coronavirus’ (‘SARS-Cov-2’) has ever been adequately demonstrated as coming from patients (e.g. see Huang et al 2020). The implication is that the ‘novel Coronavirus’ RNA/antibodies whose veracity are assumed by PHE/FDA may not actually prove to be ‘viral’ but could represent other phenomena. For example some scientists like Andrew Kaufman (Kaufman, 2020) suggest these may be ‘exosomes’, whilst others point to numerous confounding process artefacts (Schierwater et al 2009), or due to the laboratory ‘quality processes’ which appear remarkably open to errors and misinterpretation (Bustin and Nolan 2017). Until the proper research is suitably undertaken (and reproduced) regulators cannot scientifically claim that the tests are accurate.

The Pathology of Lockdown ‘Science’

The ‘science’ underpinning this Lockdown is becoming more and more like the science underpinning Irving Langmuir’s concept of ‘pathological science’ (Langmuir 1953) with its ‘claims of great accuracy’, now refuted (e.g. Imperial College London’s ‘model epidemic’). For example, the fantastic over-reach theories, contrary to human knowledge/experience, of this ‘novel Coronavirus’ that certain contagion occurs through the normal quotidian of ‘touch’; ‘receiving holy communion’; ‘breathing’; ‘sitting on a park bench’; ‘attending funerals’; ‘CPR’; ‘non-invasive ventilation’; and ‘being present with hospitalised loved ones on their death beds’ etc.

This fauxdemic’s ‘high ratio of supporters to critics’ was initially rising but is now acknowledged as falling, as we see an emergent Lockdown ennui amongst politicians, scientists and the general population. All of these italicised characteristics of Langmuir’s ‘pathological science’ are now arguably fulfilled in the case of this ‘novel Coronavirus’ and ‘Covid-19’. This fauxdemic, by bizarrely turning the normal into the abnormal, is arguably looking like another instance of pathological science, such as cold fusion theory. Many scientists have tried to rein in the zealotry of Imperial College London’s epidemiology, but with little apparent success. For example, the work of Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson of Oxford University did not impact greatly in the media or with government even though they showed good evidence that this ‘pandemic’ is a ‘..Late seasonal effect in the Northern Hemisphere on the back of a mild ILI season.’ (‘ILI’=influenza-like illness)(Heneghan and Jefferson 2020).

Furthermore, daily snitch reports by the media show how the mystical spell cast by the pathological science can wear off, as all sections of society can wake up to the reality of what has been so zealously perpetrated in the name of ‘epidemiological science’. This is the creation in the Western world of an inhuman dystopia of prospective mandatory screening, flawed testing and fast-tracked vaccination (akin to Communist China), from which all our elected ‘Free World’ politicians have failed to protect us.

The characteristics of this emerging dystopic order form the thematic of a further monograph in this Coronavirus Hysteria series published by KPC Research and Consultancy Limited.

British Scientific Credibility Compromised

What is not publicly admitted by PHE and is implicit in the above cited reports is PHE’s failure to create testing capacity. This may be due to the rapid NHS public health changes which followed the Lansley NHS reorganisation (Health and Social Care Act 2012). It locally disaggregated services like PHE and exacerbated the existing NHS contract culture (Ham et al 2015). Those highly controversial reforms are now fatally impacting on test-kit purchasing and in-house test evaluation which is required on a UK-wide, and not a local [‘home-brew’] scale and must impact similarly across both the NHS and commercial providers.

The marshalling of testing capacity in the UK is not happening quickly enough as the necessary infrastructure has changed from the 1980s when ‘HIV’ tests were the official panic. The infrastructure developed from the 1980s onward by Phillip Mortimer, and the now extinct Public Health Laboratory Service, created a truly innovative HIV testing strategy using in-house ELISA algorithms, thus dumping the more expensive/less accurate US ones (Corbett 1998). Such British innovation was arguably largely due to Mortimer’s creative scientific leadership of the PHLS (Corbett 1998). At the time of Lansley’s NHS reorganisation, some very erudite and evidence-based warnings went almost entirely unheeded over the subsequent negative effects of the ensuing contract-culture (e.g. Pollock et al 2012).

Lack of Scientific Transparency and Public Accountability

What is very clear now is how our PHE experts seem much less transparent about these failures and the limitations of existing science, unlike their US colleagues (in the leaked report), who are basically calling for the scientific evidence for the existence of this ‘novel Coronavirus’. A lot depends on this as the lockdown continues and civil liberties are severely curtailed (Corbett and Crowe 2020). Other independent researchers have already called for this sort of evidence (Crowe 2020) but their pleas have gone unheeded, or have been dismissed by officialdom just as was the work of Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al.

PHE and other national test regulators like the FDA must now urgently publish reproducible analyses on the ‘proper’ purification and visualisation of this ‘novel Coronavirus’ to underpin the proper gold standard for any associated testing.


Our respective test regulators, who in Britain are incapable of supplying the testing technology required for this government-imposed Lockdown, are practising what some call incomplete and erroneous science (OffGuardian 2020). They must be made fully accountable, and be required to address in the terms described in the opening of this monograph, this question:

Where is your evidence for the existence of the ‘novel Coronavirus’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’?


Bustin S Nolan T (2017) Talking the talk, but not walking the walk: RT?qPCR as a paradigm for the lack of reproducibility in molecular research. European Journal of Clinical Investigation: August 10

Cao S, Wu A, Li J et al.(2020) Recurrent recurrence of positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a COVID-19 patient, April 15, PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square.

Corbett K (2018) The Regulation of British HIV Testing, 1985-2003. London, KPC Research and Consultancy

Corbett, K (2001) Contesting AIDS/HIV: the lay reception of biomedical knowledge. Unpublished PhD thesis, London South Bank University.

Corbett, K (2009) ‘You’ve got it, you may have it, you haven’t got it’: multiplicity, heterogeneity, and the unintended consequences of HIV-related tests. Science, Technology and Human Values, 34 (1), pp. 102-125. ISSN 0162-2439.

Corbett K, Crowe D (2020) Problems with current UK government lockdown policy. Journal of Advanced Nursing interactive.

Crowe D (2020a) Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory.

Crowe D (2020b) The Infectious Myth – Simplifying RT-PC.R. The Infectious Myth, April 21.

Crowe D (2020c) The Incredible and Scary Truth about COVID-19 Tests. London, Lockdown Sceptics April 26

Donnelly L, Gardner B (2020) Revealed: NHS staff given flawed coronavirus tests. Leaked memo exposes farce as Covid-19 results are less reliable than first thought because of ‘degraded’ performance. April 21. London.

Griner PF, Mayewski RJ, Mushlin AI (1981) Selection and interpretation of diagnostic tests and procedures. Annals of Internal Medicine 94:559-563.

Ham C, Baird C, Gregory S, Jabbal J, Alderwick H (2015) The NHS under the coalition government. London, King’s Fund.

Health and Social Care Act (2012) Health and Social Care Act. London, Her Majesty’s Government

Heneghan C, Jefferson T (2020) COVID-19 deaths compared with ‘Swine Flu’. Oxford University and The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine develops, promotes and disseminates better evidence for healthcare. April 9,

Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020 Jan 24.

Kaufman A (2020) Dr. Andrew Kaufman: Is COVID-19 an Exosome?

Kuhn, Thomas S. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 50th anniversary. Ian Hacking (intro.) (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Langmuir I (1953) Pathological Science. Colloquium at The Knolls Research Laboratory Niskayuna, New York City, New York, December 18, 1953. Transcribed and edited by R. N. Hall.

Li, Y, Yao, L, Li, J, et al. (2020) Stability issues of RT?PCR testing of SARS?CoV?2 for hospitalized patients clinically diagnosed with COVID?19. Journal of Medical Virology, 1,6.

NHS England and NHS Improvement (2020) Guidance and standard operating procedure COVID-19 virus testing in NHS laboratories. London, NHS England and NHS Improvement.

OffGuardian (2020) 12 Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic.

Ogenstad S, Peace K, Liu L (2020) Accurate COVID-19 Testing in Clinical Trials. Unpublished paper submitted to Journal of Bioharmaceutical Statistics.

Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E et al.(2012) HIV ‘ A virus like no other. Posted at the Perth Group website July 12th.

Pollock A, Macfarlane A, Godden S (2012) Dismantling the signposts to public health? NHS data under the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

Roche (2020) Covid-19 Factsheet. Cobas’-SARS-CoV-2. Fact Sheet. Roche Molecular Systems Inc., Pleasanton, California.

Schierwater B, Metzler D, Kr’uger K, Streit B (2009) The effects of nested primer binding sites on the reproducibility of PCR: mathematical modeling and computer simulation studies. Journal of Computational Biology 3, 235.

Smyth C, Kennedy D, Kenber B ( 2020). “Britain has millions of coronavirus antibody tests, but they don’t work” London April 6.

University of Maryland (2020) Koch’s Postulates to Identify the Causative Agent of an Infectious Disease.

White DO, Fenner FJ. (1986) Medical Virology. San Diego, Academic Press.

Young BE et al. Epidemiologic Features and Clinical Course of Patients Infected With SARSCoV-2 in Singapore. JAMA. 2020 March 3.

Zhu N et al. (2020) A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl Journal of Medicine. January 14.


Dr Kevin P Corbett completed both undergraduate and postgraduate training in Art at the University of Reading (1979) and The Slade School of Fine Art, University College London (1981). Kevin qualified as a Registered Nurse in 1986 becoming part of the commissioned staff for Broderip Ward at The Middlesex Hospital, London, Britain’s first purpose-built HIV/AIDS unit, opened by Princess Diana in 1987. Postgraduate nursing research followed at King’s College London (1987-1989) into improving metred dose inhalation through patient training in the physiology of the inhaled route. This won support from the Stimulating Progress fund of London’s North East Thames Regional Health Authority and Vitalograph Ltd (UK). Doctoral research (1995-2001) focused on patients’ indeterminate experiences of the tests used in HIV/AIDS, the ELISA, Western blot and PCR tests. Kevin has more than thirty years’ experience in gaining ‘150k+ in research funds for leading and participating as principal and co-instigator. He is a qualified nurse educator who has worked in university education, research and public health at Kingston/St.George’s University of London, University of York, Liverpool John Moores, Canterbury Christ Church University and Middlesex University. Kevin also has experience in acute clinical, forensic and community nursing with over one hundred research outputs in peer-reviewed, patient-reviewed and citizen science publications. Current research and consultancy is focused on human physiology, visual art and citizen participation in science and technology.


KPC Research and Consultancy Limited gratefully acknowledge the valuable feedback received from all of the reviewers during preparation of the manuscript revision prior to publication. Monograph design by KPC Research and Consultancy Limited.
Kevin P. Corbett has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act, 1988, to be identified as the Author of this Work. All rights reserved.
© Kevin P. Corbett

ISBN 978-1-5272-6214-0
Designed and Printed in Great Britain
KPC Research and Consultancy Ltd
[email protected]

Monograph freely available for download at:

How to cite this monograph:
Corbett K (2020) Monograph One. Where is the Evidence For The Existence of The ‘novel Coronavirus’, SARS-CoV-2? The Coronahysteria Series:’SARS-CoV-2′, the ‘novel Coronavirus’. London, KPC Research and Consultancy Limited. April 2020. ISBN 978-1-5272-6214-0

News Videos

Coronavirus: Is the government really ‘following the science’? – BBC Newsnight

Throughout the UK’s coronavirus crisis, the government has stressed its response has been guided not by ideology; not by politics – but by the science. So what are the scientific justifications for lockdown?

News Opinion

The science is becoming clear: lockdowns are no longer the right medicine – The Sunday Times


Perspectives on the Pandemic | Professor Knut Wittkowski Update Interview | Episode 5

This video has been removed by YouTube so a Bitchute mirror is provided below. Please wait after pressing the play button. It may take longer than usual to load the video.

  • Professor Neil Ferguson was not doing science.
  • Lockdowns are worse than useless.
  • It was known to everyone that the lockdown would cause a catastrophe.
  • Isolating nursing homes would have prevented the load of hospitals.
  • The lockdown approach taken by most governments was a human catastrophe that should never have happened.
  • All we have done is slowed the spread of herd immunity and increased the risk to the elderly.
  • We have wasted a lot of time, money and lives.
  • The spread of respiratory diseases are predictable and relatively short.
  • Bill Gate’s comments about the need to lockdown until a vaccine is ready is absurd and has nothing to do with reality.
  • We don’t need a vaccine for COVID-19.
  • “I don’t know where the government finds these so-called experts who very obviously don’t understand the very basics of epidemiology.”
  • Tragic stories from some doctors are not representative of the general experience. We don’t stop living our lives because something goes wrong in a particular place.
  • The Swedish approach shows that the draconian measures taken in other countries were unnecessary.
  • We may see a ‘Second Wave’ rebound but it may be low.
  • There is no reason to believe that COVID-19 will be fundamentally different from other coronaviruses.
  • Having a novel virus is not novel.
  • We have no science about the effect of social distancing.
  • The COVID-19 disaster is a failure of the people to take control of the government.
  • There is no reason to wait before opening up schools and businesses.


Government adviser says social distancing rule guidelines on keeping apart was ‘conjured out of nowhere’ – Daily Mail

Social distancing orders to keep two metres apart to stop the spread of coronavirus is based on a made up figure, a government adviser has warned.

Robert Dingwall from the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag) said the rule was ‘conjured up out of nowhere’.