‘The CCP’s Global Lockdown Fraud’ - Summary of a Call for Investigation
An open letter from prominent academics, attorneys, and public personalities calls for an investigation into ‘the scientific debate on major policy decisions during the COVID-19 crisis.’ Its central claim is that fraud of enormous proportions has been allowed to be carried out. It documents how the unprecedented idea of lockdowns originated in China and how China played a central role in spreading them around the world. Due to suspicious circumstances surrounding it, we must entertain the possibility of China’s nefarious intentions and criminal conduct behind it. The letter is addressed to the FBI along with intelligence agencies of the UK, Australia, Canada, Germany, and the US Department of Justice. Below is a summary of this extensive and detailed open letter.
Most states instituted lockdowns in the wake of panic and uncertainty brought about by the coronavirus emergency. This followed the advice of the world’s top ‘experts’. This process of knowledge and advice dissemination is the target of the call for investigation. ‘The intervention of federal authorities with police power may be required to ensure that those who have promoted these lockdown policies have done so in good faith,’ the letter says. In 11 points, the case for such an investigation is then made.
1) ‘Lockdowns originated on the order of Xi Jinping and were propagated into global policy by the WHO with little analysis or logic.’
The authors recount how there were no lockdowns in response to the closest analogical example to COVID-19, the Spanish Flu. Instead, only restrictions of ‘certain activities for a limited period of time’ were in effect. It is emphasised that the idea of ‘lockdowns’ is unprecedented in the field of public health. The guidelines for a ‘Very High Severity’ pandemic (on the level of the Spanish Flu) state that the ‘CDC recommends voluntary home isolation of ill persons’ and that the ‘CDC might recommend voluntary home quarantine of exposed household members in areas where novel influenza circulates’.
Instead of following previously established knowledge, a domino effect starting from Wuhan lockdowns took place:
‘Donald Henderson, the man widely credited with eradicating smallpox, wrote in 2006, “Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.” To our knowledge, no scientist ever publicly supported imposing lockdowns until Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), personally authorized the “unprecedented lockdown of Wuhan and other cities beginning on Jan. 23.”’
The letter points out that the idea of a lockdown policy was modelled on Uyghur concentration camp-like internment taking place in the Chinese province of Xinjiang.
When China locked down Wuhan and several other areas, the WHO praised CCP lockdowns mere days after they had started - before any results could be observed. The WHO said:
“The measures China has taken are good not only for that country but also for the rest of the world,”
WHO Director Tedros Adhanom then praised China for “setting a new standard for outbreak response”.
The letter concludes that the conduct of the WHO is ‘at best, criminally negligent’:
‘The idea of “lockdown” was brought into human history on the order of General Secretary Xi; it otherwise never would have entered the collective human imagination. Anytime anyone endorses a lockdown for any length of time, even a few minutes, they are endorsing a Xi Jinping policy.’
2) ‘The most influential institution for COVID-19 models, self-described as “China’s best academic partner in the West,” has been by far the most alarmist and inaccurate COVID-19 modeller.’
Neil Ferguson, working at Imperial College London, became famous last year with his early model predicting millions dead in the US and hundreds of thousands in the UK. The authors point out that the official CDC and NHS COVID-19 death statistics come nowhere close to that, despite likely being ‘vastly overstated’ through misattribution of other causes of death. A UCLA study comparing the accuracy of COVID-19 deaths models showed that Imperial College models had ‘far higher rates of error than the others - always erring on the side of being too high’.
Suspicious circumstances of the ties between Imperial College London and the CCP are recounted:
‘[O]n October 21, 2015, General Secretary Xi personally visited Imperial College London for the announcement of “a series of new UK-China education and research collaborations” including “nanotechnology, bioengineering… and public health.” This was the only trip Xi ever made to the U.K. as General Secretary; the trip lasted just four days and involved just one university: Imperial College London.’
In December 2020, Neil Ferguson, praising the ‘control’ exerted by the CCP, admitted that without the impetus from China, lockdowns would not have been instituted:
“I think people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed quite dramatically between January and March… It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… And then Italy did it. And we realised we could… If China had not done it, the year would have been very different.”
The authors of the open letter explain why Imperial College ended up playing a major role in the pandemic response:
‘In a time of panic, it’s natural for the public to focus on the worst possible outcomes. Thus, a prestigious institution producing particularly alarmist models can have an outsized impact on political discourse. In this case, the institution in question not only consistently and egregiously erred in just one direction - the “tendency to overestimate mortality” - but also had a special relationship with China as its “best academic partner in the west.”’
3) Deadly ventilation recommendations came from China.
Under the non-rigorous rationale of protecting others at the expense of patients, the advice to practise early intubation and mechanical ventilation had disastrous consequences.
‘In early March 2020, the WHO released COVID-19 provider guidance documents to healthcare workers. The guidance recommended escalating quickly to mechanical ventilation as an early intervention for treating COVID-19 patients, a departure from past experience during respiratory-virus epidemics. In doing so, they cited the guidance being presented by Chinese journal articles, which published papers in January and February claiming that “Chinese expert consensus” called for “invasive mechanical ventilation” as the “first choice” for people with moderate to severe respiratory distress,’
Some of the effects of this advice are then presented:
‘[I]n New York and other cities, early and often ventilator use became a common theme, and it had devastating consequences for patients. … A New York City study found a 97.2% mortality rate among those over age 65 who received mechanical ventilation. The “early action” ventilator guidance that the WHO distributed to the world killed thousands of innocent patients; the WHO obtained that guidance from China.’
4) Inaccurate PCR tests are based on faulty genome sequences supplied by China.
The authors recount how the most-used PCR protocol was pushed through the publishing process in a very suspicious way and involved a conflict of interests. They document how critics from the scientific community agree that the process contained ‘multiple, fatal errors’.
‘Borger’s report goes on to specify ten major flaws with the Corman-Drosten protocol, the biggest issue being the fact that the entire test is based on in silico (theoretical) sequences supplied by China’
“The first and major issue is that the novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 ... is based on in silico sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China, because at the time neither control material of infectious (“live”) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 nor isolated genomic RNA of the virus was available to the authors. To date no validation has been performed by the authorship based on isolated SARS-CoV-2 viruses or full length RNA thereof.”
Multiple grave issues render ‘the test useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify SARS-CoV-2; and - given the protocol was accepted for publication just one day after it was submitted to Eurosurveillance - it was obviously never subjected to any meaningful peer review.’
On this point, the authors of the open letter conclude that the ‘Corman and Drosten’s PCR protocol thus has every indication of being fraudulent.” The CDC protocol is similar to Corman and Drosten, and together they ‘account for the vast majority’ of COVID-19 PCR tests carried out in the West:
’Both rely on in silico sequences from China, and both produce wildly inaccurate results, testing positive for all specimens including negative samples and plain water.’
5) PCR testing practices producing inaccurate and inflated results came from China.
The issue with PCR cycle thresholds has been repeatedly pointed out throughout the coronavirus crisis. Through repeated cycles of amplification, signs of a virus are made detectable. However, the more cycles are performed, the larger the chance of a test being ‘positive’ despite an increasingly insignificant presence of the virus in the sample, not indicative of whether the subject is actually infected.
The preeminent COVID-19 public health adviser in the US, Dr Anthony Fauci, indicated in a July 2020 interview that ‘a cycle threshold of 35 or more should not be considered a positive result’. This is in line with the scientific-medical consensus regarding PCR tests. Nevertheless, the WHO’s guidance on PCR cycles comes from China and features cycle thresholds between 37 and 40. The authors of the letter then describe the impact of this guidance:
‘As described by the New York Times, most laboratories and manufacturers in the United States now set their cutoff for a positive PCR test from 37 to 40 cycle thresholds: “Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.”’
‘Doctors interviewed by the New York Times agreed with Dr. Fauci that anything above 35 cycle thresholds is too sensitive. “A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35,” said Juliet Morrison, virologist at UC Riverside. Dr. Michael Mina, epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Using current testing standards with 37 to 40 cycle thresholds’
‘[A] study conducted by “some of the leading European and world specialists,” show[s] that if someone tested positive for COVID-19 at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher, the chance of that person actually being infected is less than 3%, and that “the probability of… receiving a false positive is 97% or higher.”’
6) ‘Studies showing significant asymptomatic transmission, the only scientific basis for lockdowns of healthy individuals, came from China.’
The letter recounts how the WHO claimed in February 2020 that people without symptoms can infect others and that this may be causing a significant number of transmissions. However, the process of arriving at this conclusion seems highly dubious:
‘The concept of significant asymptomatic spread was believed to be a novel and unique feature of SARS-CoV-2 based on several studies performed in China. Multiple studies from other countries could not find any transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from asymptomatic individuals.’
The authors then elaborate on several of the most significant non-Chinese studies claiming to find asymptomatic spread. In all of these, the methods range from problematic to outright preposterous. For example:
‘An influential study from Brunei Darussalam found significant asymptomatic spread, but its findings are considerably weakened by a poor case definition; its two findings of asymptomatic spread were that of a young girl with no symptoms who allegedly spread SARS-CoV-2 to her teacher who had “a mild cough on one day,” and a father who remained asymptomatic but whose wife briefly had a runny nose and whose baby also had a mild cough one day.’
7) ‘The CCP engaged in an early, broad, systematic, and global propaganda to promote its lockdown response’ to the coronavirus.
This was done through institutional influence, including the WHO, as well as on the internet with the aim of convincing the world that lockdowns were effective in China and should be adopted around the world.
‘[B]eginning in March 2020, the entire world was bombarded with propaganda extolling the virtues of China’s heavy-handed approach.’
China-bought ads circulated around Facebook without the otherwise-mandatory disclaimer of politically-sponsored content. The WHO has rewritten the definition of ‘herd immunity’ on its website - from immunity developed through previous infection to protection reached through mass vaccination.
China flooded the world with posts calling on governments to emulate Chinese lockdowns, ‘while denigrating governments and world leaders who failed to follow suit’.
The open letter suggests that:
‘it is worth wondering whether these social media posts were intended to popularize lockdowns as the end in themselves,’
A dangerous connection between global media and the CCP is highlighted:
‘China has financial stakes in virtually every top media outlet. With regard to complex issues like lockdowns, China’s influence can collectively tip these media entities in a dangerous direction, such as encouraging countries to copy China’s response to COVID-19.’
China exerts this influence through shaping the narrative that “China controlled the virus” using lockdowns, ensuring its fraudulent data became integral to the world’s scientific discourse. ‘Meanwhile, the CCP began closely monitoring Chinese academic publications on COVID-19.’
8), 9), and 10) Many prominent pro-lockdown scientists, public personalities and leaders, and national health officials ‘show conspicuous pro-China bias’.
As the authors extensively document, many important figures in the lockdown ‘debate’ have ties to China or suspicious sympathies towards the CCP party line.
With regards to scientists, the letter states that even given that some of them might have just been wrong:
‘if even a handful of influential scientists are cross-incentivized to support lockdowns regardless of any real data or results, this can have an outsized impact on both public opinion and policy.’
On public personalities and leaders, the authors comment that:
‘In addition to the many scientists with ties to China, a number of woefully unqualified individuals have held themselves out to the public and politicians as experts with regard to COVID-19 epidemiology and lockdowns, when in fact their backgrounds reveal them to have no such expertise. Many of these, too, have shown unusual deference to China.’
Finally, the letter recounts how Canada’s Health Minister, UK’s Health Minister, Germany’s most influential health official and Australian Premier of Victoria’s employees all have dubious backgrounds, ties, or sympathies towards China.
11) ‘Prominent lockdown supporters have proven unusually indifferent to the devastating consequences of their policies.’
There are innumerable examples of adverse impact or outright destructive effects of lockdowns. These range from mental health and suicides, through permanent business closures, to famines and starvation. They often far surpass any of the effects of the coronavirus itself.
‘The CDC revealed that young adults aged 25–44 saw the largest increase in “excess” deaths from previous years, a stunning 26.5% jump, despite accounting for fewer than 3% of deaths from COVID-19. This increase literally surpassed the increase in excess mortality of older Americans, who are at much higher risk of COVID-19 fatality. Since young people are at very low risk for COVID-19 fatality - 20-49-year-olds have a 99.98% chance of surviving the virus, per CDC data - this shocking increase in deaths is largely attributable to deaths of “despair,” in other words, deaths by lockdown.’
‘‘The United Nations forewarned of a “famine of biblical proportions” with 265 million people “literally marching to the brink of starvation,” and later estimated that the crisis had “pushed an additional 150 million children into multidimensional poverty - deprived of education, health, housing, nutrition, sanitation or water.” All this for a virus that the WHO’s peer-reviewed data now reveals to have an infection fatality rate of 0.23% - 0.05% in those under age 70 - and which the WHO estimates might have already infected one in ten people worldwide by October.’
‘According to the International Monetary Fund, the economy of just one G20 country grew during 2020: China.’
The letter ends with a call for action. The apparent evidence presented in it points to the lockdown policy being devised by the CCP for the purpose of damaging other countries’ economies and societies, presumably in order for China to strengthen its geopolitical position relative to others. The authors explain that though lockdowns are ‘supported’ by most of the public, this support is ‘deceptive’. For the public, the idea that someone would do something so horrible on purpose is ‘quite simply, too dark.’
‘But those who know history know that others with superficially excellent credentials have done even worse for even less.’
Most of the public believes that if there was anything improper behind lockdowns, ‘intelligence agencies would stop them.’ That is why this letter is addressed to intelligence agencies, asking for a global investigation to take place of the scientific debate surrounding political decisions regarding lockdowns.
‘[W]e cannot ignore the possibility that the entire “science” of COVID-19 lockdowns has been a fraud of unprecedented proportion, deliberately promulgated by the Chinese Communist Party and its collaborators to impoverish the nations who implemented it.’
All sources linked are taken directly from the references listed below the open letter.