Open Advisory to the IATF and Media Editors: UP Projections Flawed, Ignore It and Remove Lockdown

Yesterday, Independence Day, the front page of The Manila Times newspaper headlined a study from the University of the Philippines. It said: “Covid transmission significant – experts. 40,000 cases seen in June”. [efn_note][/efn_note] The “experts” advised not to lift the lockdown.

For many, this news headline was the last thing they wanted to see. Instead of freedom, the advice is for more de facto jail time in their houses, especially for millions of children, teenagers, and senior citizens. Filipinos have already suffered inconceivable misery. Now “experts” want them to suffer more on the basis of unscientific assumptions.

Before I demolish the scientific pretensions of this paper, I have to appreciate an unusual move by The Manila Times. On the same day that it headlined this news, it published an editorial: “Be wary of UP computer model on PH Covid-19 situation“. It cited a research by Michael Fumento which the US National Review published on 18 April 2020 with the title, ‘After repeated failures, it’s time to permanently dump epidemic models’.[efn_note][/efn_note]

I strongly agree. Government policy makers should ignore this mistaken projection from UP. It is a typical example of what computer experts call GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. The UP authors are aware of GIGO. The editorial said that, according to one of its authors, “the mathematical methods the group used in making forecasts … were ‘just estimates of reality.’ ([The] … forecast … depends on certain factors and on data provided by the DoH.” [Emphasis added.]

The UP projections are deeply flawed. For one, in addition to Fumento’s examples, the rapid rise and decline of computer modeler Neil Ferguson highlighted the problem with GIGO and computerized mathematical models.[efn_note][/efn_note] Ferguson’s exaggerated projections of infections struck fear in the hearts and minds of global leaders. The latter panicked and plunged the world into lockdown chaos and darkness.

We need to avoid our local version of the Ferguson effect that could panic our policy makers. We need to examine closely the “certain factors” of the UP study. Imagine it took 11 weeks to reach 16,000+ cases starting the national lockdown on March 15.[efn_note] Aika Rey. “PH confirms 1,046 more coronavirus cases. Rappler. 29 May 2020 at[/efn_note] UP says another 16,000 cases will be reached in barely 3 weeks. The IATF and media editors should ignore this fairy tale.

Here is the reasoning of the UP Team. The transmission of COVID-19 will still be ‘significant’ because the “virus is still highly contagious”. The infection rate is affected by ‘mobility, proximity [social distance], and if people do not wear [face] masks’. It is also influenced by the degree of “targeted testing and contact tracing [by govern-ment…and good hygiene [by people themselves.]”. Are these assumptions true?

The virus is not highly contagious. Infection rates are mostly a by-product of defective testing methods. Kary Mullis, the Nobel Prize scientist who invented the PCR, vigorously warned against the use of his invention in diagnostic tests.[efn_note] Nicanor Perlas. “Faulty COVID-19 Tests: Why Prisoners Love Their Jailers and Never-Ending Lockdowns.” 24 May 2020. Contains many references that support the conclusion that current COVID-19 tests are faulty. See[/efn_note] His devise, refined to become the current RT-PCR test, is so sensitive that it can pick up any DNA or reverse transcripted RNA found in the samples. Using this test, a Harvard study of blood samples from over 8000 healthy individuals, detected 94 different kinds of viruses including HIV and different kinds of coronaviruses.[efn_note]Ibid. This article explores in depth and in many dimensions the problem with testing.[/efn_note]

This is why a large number of scientists have remarked, in different ways, that we are having a pandemic of tests.[efn_note] See David Crowe, “Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory” Version 8.3. May 19, 2020. See also Ref. #4.[/efn_note] The more we test, the more false positives we will get, scaring us all to believe that the virus is contagious, therefore dangerous.

Assuming the virus is contagious, so what? Contagion does not equate with ability to kill. One can easily catch the virus (contagion) but the virus may not be deadly.

In the end, this measure of deadliness is more important than infectiousness. We all have flu and flu can be very contagious. But many do not die from flu. Witness the over 200,000 cases of flu each year in the Philippines, but relatively few die from flu.[efn_note] Nicanor Perlas. Briefing Paper attached to Open Letter to Rodrigo R. Duterte, President of the Philippines. 20 April 2020. The 40-page Briefing Paper can be accessed at[/efn_note]

Scientists use the CFR or the Case Fatality Ratio as the measure of the killing power of a virus. The verdict is in. Accurate measures of COVID-19 CFR are hovering in the range of 0.1 to 0.2%, that is, in the range of a strong flu.[efn_note][/efn_note] Did we ever shut down our country every time we have a flu epidemic? Did we shut down our economy when we have an epidemic of pneumonia that kills over 57,000 people every year?[efn_note]Perlas. Briefing Paper. Op. cit.[/efn_note]

For all the hysteria, COVID-19, as of few days ago, reached only 23,732 infections (assuming the tests are accurate) and a death figure of 1,027, but nothing close to the 57,000 killed by pneumonia every year. Also, the government death figures assume that all deaths were due to COVID-19, which is not true. Deaths from other causes are often counted as COVID-19 deaths, part of the global fraud perpetuated on humanity.[efn_note] Ibid.[/efn_note]

The UP scientists were not aware of the contradictions in their own study. Dr. Guido David from the UP Institute of Mathematics and member of the UP study team remarked: The “… Covid-19 cases in the country were mostly mild, but the number of asymptomatic cases was underreported because of lack of testing.”

He used this remark to buttress their case for more testing. But Dr. David did not realize that his own statement was undermining his own advocacy in three ways. First the cases are “mild”. Infection does not equal to death, as many fear. Second, the asymptomatic cases are underestimated. Therefore, the CFR will decrease even more drastically because the actual number of infections is higher. The CFR is the ratio of deaths to infections. And third, our immune system is strong enough to neutralize the virus.

Given these, scientists are now also showing that the “new normal” of lockdowns, including the use of facemasks, social distancing, and contact tracing are mostly not necessary. They are only useful in specific, clearly defined circumstances.[efn_note][/efn_note] Good hygiene and strengthening of our immune system is our ultimately solution, not lockdown and ultimately forced vaccinations.[efn_note] Nicanor Perlas. “Vaccines: Salvation or Damnation? Part 1. 01June 2020 at and Part 2. 11 June 2020 at[/efn_note]

These new scientific findings are also the basis for the empirical evidence that strict lockdowns did not necessarily save lives as compared with countries who did not lockdown. Instead lockdowns destroyed economies and spawned significant depression and suicide.[efn_note] and[/efn_note]

So dear IATF and editors of quad media, kindly ignore the misplaced warnings of the UP study. Adhere to empirical evidence. Other countries have done so, learned from their mistakes and have eased their lockdown. They opened schools with no adverse effects.

Let your conscience truly speak to you. Be brave enough to advise and advocate for lifting our lockdowns. One day, you can proudly tell your sons, daughters and grandchildren that you did not become an ignorant or willing accomplice in the breakdown and suffering of a nation and its millions of people.

3 replies on “Open Advisory to the IATF and Media Editors: UP Projections Flawed, Ignore It and Remove Lockdown”

[…] Editor’s Note: Early in April, Nicanor already raised the concern on the underestimation of coronavirus infections and the overestimation of COVID-19 deaths [read the Briefing Paper to review]. By May, many countries have already found statistical proof of this claim. Unfortunately, in the Philippines, such findings are largely ignored, and there remains an unfounded fear of the COVID-19 [proof of this is the recent research published by the University of the Philippines which enjoins the government to postpone the lifting of lockdowns, see Open Advisory To The IATF And Media Editors: UP Projections Flawed, Ignore It And Remove Lockdow].  […]

Adequately referenced, logical and focused. A comparison of the evidence-based impact of the current policy and this proposal could clarify more the difference. Better still for IATF groups to do an open workshop with their constituents to look for more evidence in making the comparison, as motivated by integrity and love of country.
Thank you Dr. Nick Perlas.

Thanks for your kind comments, Jessica, and welcome! We totally agree with your suggestion for more transparency in the way IATF makes its decision and on what scientific basis they make their decisions. Instead of blind top-down decisions, they could then harness the collective intelligence of people of good will and who want to help out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *