Dear Prime Minister’s Office,
Please supply the following on Covid-19
1. Is there an electron micrograph of the pure and fully characterised virus (SARS-CoV-2)?
2. What is the name of the primary specialist peer reviewed paper in which said virus is illustrated and its full genetic information described?
3. What is the name of the primary specialist peer reviewed paper which provides unequivocal proof that the ‘Covid-19’ virus is the sole cause of a particular disease?
4. Where is (if there is proof of SARS-CoV-2) its antibody test that fulfils the Koch postulates and has a false positive below 30%; that can confirm being infected by SARS-CoV-2?
Should I not hear from you within 20 days with full answers to the above points, everyone will be entitled to assume that 1, 2, 3 & 4 are not proven to exist, and that there is no true scientific evidence for the virus causing ‘Covid-19’; and that all related legislation are null and void.

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Prime Minister’s Office, and dear Eirian Walsh Atkins,

I am writing to request an internal review of Prime Minister’s Office’s handling of my FOI request ‘Proof of the Covid-19 virus’.

My FOI2020/06375 of 21 May was directed to the Prime Minister’s Office (Cabinet Office): On 22 June, their respond was “the Cabinet Office does not hold the information you requested. However, you may wish to contact Public Health England, who may hold information relevant to your request.”
Said responds “we do not hold the information you requested” is unacceptable and not creditable for the following reasons:
1) Under the maxim ‘Primum non nocere’:’first, do no harm’; (s)he who endorsed the Corona Act is obliged to ensure that its benefits do outweigh its risks. Accordingly, to ensure that the Corona Act is necessary to protect the population from Covid-19 virus; the Prime Minister’s Office has to have data which unequivocally distinguish covid19 /SARS-CoV-2 and its IFR or CFR and ‘R’ from these of the previous year’s flu, and data which proof that covid19’s IFR, CFR and ‘R’ are a much greater threat than that of the previous flu.
Without said verified and validated data the Prime Minister’s Office risks, by said Act to put people under unnecessary and foreseeable injuries e.g. unemployment, stress, mental health problems, obesity, restricted or no access to adequate health care (e.g. ‘geronticide’), restricted or no access to friends, family and vocation, and loss of peoples’ rights under ECHR (e.g. Art 2, 8, 10 and 13).
As it was the Prime Minister’s Office who endorsed the Corona Act 2020 which said foreseeable and collateral risks are so detrimental; that the Prime Minister’s Office cannot negated to another department its obligation to provide the evidences which justify said Act and its detrimental injuries;

2) For to prove the justification of the Corona Act, as to protect people from covid19 risk: it’s a scientific requirement that one disproofs the ‘zero hypothesis’ (H0): covid19’s IFR or CFR and ‘R’ are the same as the previous years’ flu: And to proof the ‘one hypothesis’ (H1): covid19’s IFR, CFR and ‘R’ are so much more severe than that of the previous flu that it is required to use said Act, i.e. the Lockdown measurements.
Whereas covid19 symptomatology is the same as a seasonal flu, and as the RT-PCR- test which is used has a high false positive rate (>80%) it is neither possible to calculate covid19’s IFR, CFR and ‘R’ nor to distinguish coivd19 from the previous flu;
According to said requirements, maxim and Covid19’ real ‘R’ and IFR and the H0 & H1; it’s necessary for the Prime Minister’s Office’ to have an electron micrograph of the pure and fully characterised virus (SARS-CoV-2), the name of the primary specialist peer reviewed paper in which said virus is illustrated and its full genetic information described, the name of the primary specialist peer reviewed paper which provides unequivocal proof that the ‘Covid-19’ virus is the sole cause of a particular disease, the antibody test that fulfils the Koch postulates and has a false positive below 30%; that can confirm being infected by SARS-CoV-2, and a post mortem examination of the alleged covid19 deaths confirming death mainly by SARS-CoV-2;
The Prime Minister’s Office’ reply to my FOI; implies that said necessary scientific evidence to endorse said Corona Act and its consequential detrimental risks on our whole society; do not exist.

3) It’s a principle of science that findings are validated by a peer review. Yet the Govt refuted the advice from the independent scientists who found said used data to be unverifiable or invalid; and found that the dangerousness of Covid-19 was overestimated: probably at no point did the danger posed by the new virus go beyond the normal level and was no more than the winter flu of 2017/18 (excess deaths 50,000: source ONS); and who found that the risk from Covid-19 did not weight up against the risks from the consequences of the protection measurements.
According peer reviewed papers, it appears that the Infection Fatality Rate for COVID-19 is somewhere between 0.07-0.20%, which is in line with seasonal flu! And a risk 20 to 30 times lower than previous World Health Organization estimated based on Imperial College hypothetical models.
Several foreign parliaments, e.g. Italy and Germany (after 10 weeks’ Lockdown) came to realise that said (a & c) scientific principles were neglected, and that they got said balance wrong: the data and science used for The Lockdown was insufficiently validated; and that it brought more harm than good. And those countries who did not do Lockdown did so because they verified (or did not ‘borrow’) the data from the WHO and the Imperial College or from their funders (BMGF, GAVI, Pharmaceutical companies); and they had less overall-deaths per million population than those who did Lockdown.
The influence, on our health service, from said institutions and funders can be beguiling. E.g. Prof Neil Ferguson predictions on Covid19 mortality were accepted as infallible: yet it could not be peer-reviewed as he refused to disclosed his background info and way of its interpretation. Hydroxychloroquine for to treat Covid19 was discredited due to an article “Hydroxychloroquine /chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19” published by the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine. However, said article had to redacted after the Guardian proved it to be based on fabricated “evidence”; shrouded in scientific-sounding language of credibility as a paid infomercial for Big Pharma’s vaccine.
From their reply, it appears that the data which the Govt used to move to lockdown was ‘borrowed’, e.g. from the WHO, PHE, SAGA or data providers otherwise which are related to the pharmaceutical corporations, institutions and its funders with an interest in the vaccine, which as the Govt advisers did insufficiently or not validate; said used data bears a conflict of interest:
Moreover, the Govt has laid itself open to have violated the “The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014” and to have subjected peoples‘ health need to the interest of the pharmaceutical institutions and its funders (e.g. BMGF) (whose stock market value, during the Lockdown has been doubled), e.g.
Reg- the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine: Pre-publication data released on May 13th reveals the vaccine is less promising than the OVG team implied. All vaccinated macaques sickened after exposure to COVID-19. Edinburgh University’s Ms Riley told Forbes the vaccine provided “insufficient” antibodies to prevent infection and viral shedding. Vaccinated monkeys spread the disease as readily as unvaccinated. It also appears that 90% of said monkeys got infertile.
Andrew Pollard, Senior Advisor to MRHA Panel which licenses vaccines, chairs JVCI committee that mandates them, he used his power to force his COVID vaccine into human trials (As he takes payments from virtually all the big vaccine makers; he shunned inert placebo tests and restricted safety studies to three weeks to hide long-term injuries. In 2014, Pollard developed GlaxoSmithKline’s notorious Bexsero meningitis vaccine, and then mandated it to children despite significant safety signals for Kawasaki Disease and the rarity of meningococcal-B infections this cause Kawasaki disease in as many as one out of every 1000 children). So, OVG recruited 510 healthy volunteers for human trials.
In an update on May 22, the Oxford researchers revealed that “1,000 immunisations have been completed” and that next study will enroll “up to 10,260 adults and children (mostly in foster care) and will involve a number of partner institutions across the country.” A whistle-blower leaked that said vaccine contains antibodies which cause that 61 out of 63 (trial) women, got infertile: Similar in male whose germ count, testosterone and prostate hormone dropped below the fertility range: causing in one generation a reduction up to 15% of the population. N.B, In a 2010 TEDx talk Bill Gates said ”The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent”. And in a Ted Talk Houston 2017 he stated “We can wipe out a lot of humanity if we just get vaccines into more people”. At the CNN 4/23/20 he stated “We want to use Covid-19 as an excuse to ger everyone vaccinated”

Abovementioned notions and scientific principles do put the Cabinet Office under the obligation to review my FOI. Thank you.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p…

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman (Dr)

Dear FOI Team Mailbox,
My FOI2020/06375 of 21 May to the Prime Minister’s Office (Cabinet Office): On 22 June, their respond was “the Cabinet Office does not hold the information you requested. However, you may wish to contact Public Health England, who may hold information relevant to your request.”
When I requested for an internal review their response of 17 July is that PHE or SAGE may hold info relevant to your request.
Reading PHE and SAGE responses to FOI requests similar as that of my; it appears that both state either that they cannot provide such answers in regards the science behind and about covid19 or they refer to the NOS (who neither have such answers) or that their ‘knowledge’ is an assumption and is not verified.
The Cabinet Office’ responds “we do not hold the information you requested” is unacceptable and not creditable. Due to them having imposed the Corona Acts’ measurements which are detrimental for many people: It is the Cabinet Office who is liable to providing the scientific evidence in support of said Act.

Consequently, either the Cabinet accepts another review or are do, via an appeal another review and provide claer answers, or do admit that the Corona Act fails to have scientific evidence in support

Yours sincerely,
Bartholomeus Lakeman