 New evidence has emerged is something obviously we've been suspicious of on Tiskey sour for a very long time But these scientists who are employed by the government tend to be more than willing to cover for them and to often cover for them in a very Unscientific way and this was evident in sage advice newly released yesterday Which showed the scientists said things in private which contradicted what they said publicly It was also apparent in evidence given by the chief Scientific officer Patrick Valance and the deputy chief medical officer Jenny Harris to the health and social care select committee yesterday I want to take a look at a couple of those key Example so the first is from the newly published sage minutes This was on the 3rd of March sage met to discuss the use of behavioral and social interventions on a COVID-19 epidemic in the UK Very interesting document in general What's particularly interesting is this particular paragraph? So it says there was agreement that government should advise against greetings such as shaking hands and hugging giving existing evidence about the importance of hand Hygiene a public message against shaking hands has additional value as a signal about the importance of hand hygiene Now that was on March the 3rd And we know that sage meetings are chaired by Patrick Valance or Chris witty so the chief scientific advisor or the chief medical officer mostly both of them Now on that same day, so on March the 3rd This is what was said in a government press conference with Boris Johnson flanked by Chris witty and Patrick Valance Well, I will be sorry. I can tell you that I I I'm shaking hands continues I was at a I was at a hospital the other night where I think there were a few there were actually a few coronavirus Patients and I shook hands with everybody. You'll be pleased to know and I continue to shake hands and I think it's very important that we You know people obviously can make up their own minds Matt has said that people must make up their own minds But I think the scientific evidence is well, I'll hand over to the to the experts for our judge. I'll judge him to his wash Washing your hands is the crucial thing one Boris Johnson completely stupid I was shaking hands with people with coronavirus But then the the the journalist or actually was Boris Johnson explicitly passes on that question to Patrick Valance So we know sat in a meeting that day where the the minutes from that meeting So what was agreed by all of the scientists there as official advice was to tell people to stop shaking hands He stood there sort of shrugged his holder and said just shake your hands So he was directly contradicting what was agreed that day by scientists Why to cover for Boris Johnson and we were supposed to believe that these were the scientists who were leading government No, it was clearly the other way around There's another example. So this is from the health and social care committee Yesterday and this is not Patrick Valance. This is Jenny Harris. So she is the deputy chief medical officer for the UK She was asked yesterday by Jeremy Hunt who was a terrible health secretary But it's actually quite good at being chair of the health and social care select committee She was asked about the UK's decision to stop community testing back in March. This is what she said the issue here is what capacity do we have to To undertake testing and where should that be prioritized? So in the unlikely event that the country has An ending capacity to test then I think we we would continue However, there is an issue around capacity and it's not just the testing I think Unfortunately, some of the conversations have ended with perhaps just thinking about the testing. It's the action that goes with it Jenny Harris there saying what we always, you know suspected all along Which was the reason that the government stopped community testing was because the government didn't have capacity to do community testing at that point It was an issue of capacity That's a reasonable answer The problem is what Jenny Harris said there when she was under scrutiny from MPs is in direct Contradiction to what she said on March 26 when she was explaining government policies to the press and the public So on March 26 out of press conference She was asked why Britain had gone against WHO advice and stopped mass community Testing a similar question to that asked by Jeremy Hunt. Let's take a look But there comes a point in a pandemic where that is not an appropriate intervention And that is at the point really where we moved we moved into delay And although we still do do some contact tracing and testing for example in high-risk areas like Prisons or care homes that is not an appropriate mechanism as we go forward So that was Jenny Harris saying the reason we're stopping community testing is because it's not medically appropriate So it's a matter of epidemiology, you know, she's not saying it's a matter of capacity She's saying one thing to the public another thing under scrutiny from MPs Just like Patrick Valance is saying one thing in a sage meeting and saying another thing to the press and the public I mean Aaron is completely undermines the claim that the government have been making that they have been led by the science and to me I mean me watching these when there is an inquiry or I mean when there is investigative journalism into it right now This really doesn't make these these scientists look very good. Does it which any Harry's in particular? I mean, I remember when we were commenting on that That second clip we just played towards the end of March and she said well WHO guidance comes from the World Health Organization the clue is in the name world. You have different health care systems You think what you know a viral pandemic you have the the transmission of a virus It's human to human doesn't really matter what society you're in The presumption was that the NHS would have such capacity that could basically take this on But that appears just to have been an article of faith. It doesn't seem to have been any science behind it The preparations were there for something equivalents were seasonal flu And even when Jenny Harry is there is talking in late March It's as if she thinks we're gonna have a seasonal flu that we weren't dealing with something with a far higher level of mortality We weren't dealing with something which is actually in many ways far more contagious. It's a symptomatic and so on It's strange it's kind of like they were in psychological denial of just the extent of this problem for weeks Really until the government has its first coronavirus action plan on March the 3rd But I don't think it's until the end of March that actually We get moving and when you think that you know, the Americans were putting in bids We now know this panorama did a great piece of journalism on this the Americans were putting in bids for PPE from British firms Please ramp up production. We're gonna import it from you and yet our domestic senior science advisors are still behaving like it's really just a flu epidemic Six weeks eight weeks later You don't want to obviously Attack individuals in this context, but Jenny Harry's in particular seems very remiss in her duties And again, I think it's it's right to say look This is not about a few bad apples or bad people or people who are incapable of scientists I think you're entirely right Michael The way these incentives stack up if you want to be a science advisor for government You have to tow a particular line. There are certain set of parameters You can't step outside of I don't think that's a good way to operate in a society where we want good objective scientific advice Given to politicians so that they can act in full receipt of the facts and an objective analysis of what's going on Rather than what they want to hear and increasingly it sounds like And that this is a generous reading by the way It sounds like they are being told what they want to hear of course. There's a there's another layer to this We know to an extent that Dominic Cummings and other people Close to Boris Johnson were in at those meetings We could infer that perhaps there were other real-time conversations happening between the science advisors and Dominic Cummings Again incentives really all over the place Dominic Cummings job is to make sure Boris Johnson gets reelected The job of senior government science advisors is to offer objective scientific analysis and advice You have different incentives, please please please you shouldn't have one of these guys telling one of these guys I the Dominic Cummings telling Jenny Harry's or Chris Whitty what they should or shouldn't be doing or what advice is or isn't wise Very very very dangerous and again one for any future inquiry or investigation I mean I think the real issue here is you can't have your cake and eat it So it could be the case that the job of scientists employed by the government is one to you know Sort of advise them in private and then in public go out and bat for them to the hilt You know that is what some employees are supposed to do and that would be a legitimate job But that is completely in contradiction to the job of being an independent authority Which we are supposed to you know defer to and so there was a complete category error made by the mainstream media during this period Which was to suggest that these were independent scientific authorities when actually they were employees of the government behaving Like employees of the government perfectly willing to cover for them and it seems quite frankly to lie to do so