Uploaded: Nobember 2022
BBC Pandemic: Into the Lobster Trap



Part One: Hannah Fry Returns

[Bit of footage from Unvaxxed]

So, it looks like Hannah Fry’s strings are still intact and she’s been taken out of the box and dusted off to perform once more for the BBC. There’s an awful lot of weirdness about this programme, and although I am tempted to pile in with all the speculation about it, I’m doing my best to resist, because my hunch is that it was put out there to provoke precisely such a reaction.

But there’s one thing that keeps nagging at me, which is this… The BBC Media Centre’s pre-broadcast publicity implies that the participants were taking part in an experiment… Quote…

“At the end of the experiment, each contributor is asked if what they have learned has changed their mind, and whether they will now take up the vaccine.”

And yet there was no mention of the word “experiment” during the show. Watching the documentary, it looks to me like some sort of psychological experiment really is taking place, but that Hannah is making something of a clumsy hash of it, and so most of the footage of this potential experiment probably ended up on the cutting room floor.
If this really is the case, then who commissioned the experiment? Who designed it? And did it gain ethical approval?
 It strikes me that Hannah Fry was not a “good fit” as presenter for this programme. She is branded by the BBC as a professional mathematician, not a medical specialist or psychologist, and although she diligently sticks to the script, she appears out of her depth right from the word go. Comparing this performance to her 2018 role in the BBC Pandemic documentary as Patient Zero, I’d say that she has lost her sparkle and looks conspicuously alone, with no co-presenter or team of mathematicians to back her up. Might the experiment have worked, and the programme gone down better, with a different presenter? Derren Brown perhaps

But the BBC surely had only one presenter in mind for this programme - it had to be Hannah Fry. Having picked her up as a fledgling academic, invested intensively in her career to transform her into geek queen of mathematics, then successfully groomed and steered her into that all-important prophetic role of Patient Zero, she was always going to be the one to take the fall for the BBC when the COVID narrative inevitably started to crumble and disintegrate.
So, however much the “Unvaccinated” programme is being hammered online, and trashed by critics, it is clear that Hannah has once again performed her role beautifully, and that her gravity-defying career is far from heading for the skids.

Here she is, a keynote speaker at the Disney Data and Analytics Conference 2022, given equal billing alongside Christine McCarthy, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The Walt Disney Company.

“Her critically acclaimed BBC documentaries include City in the Sky, Magic Numbers, The Joy of Winning, The Joy of Data, and the 2018 film ‘Contagion - The BBC Pandemic’ (a massive citizen science experiment aimed to simulate what would happen if a deadly pandemic were to come to UK, a full two years before the predictions came true). ”

Strange how the Walt Disney Company credits Hannah Fry with PREDICTING the COVID pandemic…
And Hannah herself is far from shy of taking credit for shaping world events…

“I'm Professor Hannah Fry, I'm a mathematician, and I worked on the data and the models that the government used to bring us out of that first lockdown.”

It’s true that Hannah did indeed help to steer the UK government’s COVID pandemic policy, but to claim that her role was to “bring the UK out of that first lockdown” really is the most audacious piece of spin! 


I want to take a closer look at just what Hannah and her “Maths Team” were up to in the early weeks and months of 2020, and how they were involved in modelling the COVID pandemic.
First of all, a reminder that the publicity for the Contagion BBC Pandemic documentary claims that Hannah Fry “masterminds” the experiment of 2018, in addition to playing the starring role as Patient Zero. Now, the idea that Hannah was responsible for coming up with, designing and developing the whole project all by herself is clearly ridiculous, but my hours of patient searching for the real behind-the-scenes mastermind hasn’t yet uncovered anyone I can confidently put in the frame. So, for now at least, I am going to take the BBC at their word, and accept that Hannah Fry really is the brains behind the whole BBC Pandemic experiment, and that she personally gathered together her Maths Team – Petra Klepac, Adam Kucharski, Andrew Conlan, Stephen Kissler Maria Tang and Julia Gog - to help her create the BBC Pandemic “dream dataset” which proved so valuable in modelling the 2020 Coronavirus outbreak.
So, here goes. On 19th February 2020, Petra Klepac issued this tweet – an announcement so important that it is still pinned to the top of her Twitter feed.

“Remember the fantastic massive citizen science project behind the #BBC4 Pandemic project presented by  @FryRsquared? We are releasing social contact matrices from contact data collected.”
“The analysis of the full data-set is still ongoing, but we are releasing the contact matrices urgently as they might be important in modelling UK's response to COVID-19.”

This paper, “Contacts in Context”, authored by Hannah Fry and the gang, clearly shows that the BBC Pandemic dataset was available for use by pandemic modellers more than a month before Boris Johnson ordered the first lockdown on 23rd March 2020.


“These matrices are highly relevant for informing prevention and control of new outbreaks, and evaluating strategies that reduce the amount of mixing in the population (such as school closures, social distancing, or working from home).” …
…“the emergence of the novel coronavirus disease COVID-19 has created an urgent need for the best possible social mixing data to be made available to support the outbreak response,”.
“It is therefore our hope that this detailed contemporary picture of age-specific mixing patterns will be of value to those modelling COVID-19 to provide an evidence base for decisions on potential control measures in the UK”,

The lead author is Petra Klepac who was also the lead author for the BBC Pandemic paper released on 22nd March 2018 to accompany the broadcast of the Contagion documentary. I’ll come back to her later, but the person I really want to focus on here is Adam Kucharski, Professor of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM).

I remember Adam Kucharski well from those opening scenes of the mainstream media Corona Show. He was one of the trusted experts who had clearly been lined up in advance to prepare the public for what was about to unfold.
He comes across as a hard-working and sincere academic, and I have little doubt that he believed then, and believes still, that everything he did was for the good of the nation. The possibility that he had been manipulated into performing a small but important bit-part in a much larger stage show is unlikely to have entered his mind for a single moment.
As a bright, young “thought leader,” his role was to explain to the “clever lefties” that this “novel Coronavirus” really was a serious danger, and then nudge them into accepting that they would have to surrender their rights and freedoms to combat the threat. These seeds were sown in early 2020 to give them time to germinate, and they quickly found very fertile ground.


8th Feb 2020

Sunday Times
23rd Jan 2020

BBC World Service
 25th Jan  2020

New Scientist
13th Feb 2020

Sunday Times
16th Feb 2020

New York Times
5th March 2020
Quote from NYT: "In an eerie coincidence, he wrote a book called 'The Rules of Contagion,' before the current outbreak."

But Adam Kucharski was just one of many young, convincing “trusted experts” ready to hit the ground running at the B of the Bang. Although many of them may not have realised it, they had been manoeuvred into position to target the liberal progressive echo chambers and lure this demographic into the entrance of the lobster pot. This they achieved so smoothly and effectively that by March 2020, the lobsters themselves were clamouring, as one, for the total shutdown of the economy, and house arrest for all, in response to the calamitous tsunami they sincerely believed was heading their way.

Away from the public stage, Adam Kucharski was hard at work, alongside dozens of other senior academics, feverishly running “stochastic models” to feed the brewing storm.
On Wednesday 11th March 2020, he and his colleagues at LSHTM issued this report to SPI-M.
The impact of aggressively managing peak incidence
which states that:
“modelled strategies are still predicted to overwhelm NHS services, and result in very large numbers of deaths. A more aggressive management of the peak can reduce demand appreciably”

Things were dramatically hotting-up at this time, and we now know, through the words of Boris Johnson’s Director of Communications Lee Cain, that three days later, a pivotal meeting took place at Number 10.

”I vividly remember the morning of Saturday, March 14th 2020 when, as part of a small team of advisers gathered in the Prime Minister’s office, Boris Johnson was told that the initial plan for managing the pandemic was failing. [Without urgent intervention, the country’s healthcare system would collapse under the strain of tens of thousands of seriously ill patients. The challenges facing us in that first wave were immense. We knew the NHS didn’t have enough beds, there was a massive shortfall in PPE and a severely limited number of ventilators.]
The initial modelling used for crucial decisions, we found out, was very wrong. A review conducted by data experts recruited by Dominic Cummings uncovered that, unless we changed course immediately, the NHS would be overwhelmed within three weeks.
The PM sat in silence as three scenarios were sketched out on a whiteboard. The first looked at no restrictions, the second at social distancing measures and the third considered a national lockdown. Only under the last option would the NHS avoid collapse.”

On that same day, Adam Kurcharski was right in the thick of it, and he solemnly set-out the grave situation in a series of tweets to his many thousands of followers. His followers then dutifully re-tweeted, and added their own penny’s worth, to swell the growing clamour for a national lockdown.

“Given the seriousness of the situation, we are obviously working to get our latest modelling analysis out in the public domain as soon as we can. 8/8”

Then, on Monday 16th March, the now infamous “Consensus view on behavioural and social interventions” report appeared. This was the one that Neil Ferguson and his team at Imperial College London took the hit for, but as can be seen on the gov.uk website, the LSHTM “aggressive management” report of March 11th, was 1 of the 4 papers* which informed this Consensus view: Consensus view on behavioural and social interventions


Imperial College London #1

Imperial College London #2


Lancaster University

It makes chilling reading…
Quote from Consensus View 16th March 2020:
“It was agreed that a combination of case isolation, household isolation and social distancing of vulnerable groups is very unlikely to prevent critical care facilities being overwhelmed.”
“It was agreed that the addition of both general social distancing and school closures to case isolation, household isolation and social distancing of vulnerable groups would be likely to control the epidemic when kept in place for a long period. SPI-M-O agreed that this strategy should be followed as soon as practical”

Now… what was poor old Boris to do?
[Terrible Tim - "Shut Down the World So No-one Gets A Cold"]

Three weeks later, on 9th April, Hannah Fry and Professor Kucharski appeared together on a “Horizon Coronavirus Special”, broadcast to a now terrified, spellbound and housebound BBC-watching public. 

By this time, the majority of the population had blindly and willingly gone along with the game of follow-the-progressive-thought-leader to be guided deep inside the Lobster Trap. They were well and truly stuck, and just like hapless lobsters, they were oblivious to their situation and had no understanding of what was to come.

Moving on, we find this report on the Gov.uk website. It was submitted to the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies on the 16th April 2020: 

“Using BBC Pandemic data to model the impact of isolation, testing, contact tracing and physical distancing on reducing transmission of Covid-19”

This one is particularly interesting because it appears to be the paper that Hannah Fry boldly claims credit for in the Unvaccinated documentary as “bringing us out of that first lockdown”. Reading through it, it is evident that this document was used to pave the way for the next phase of the scamdemic… which was to temporarily relieve the strangle-hold on the British people by throwing them a bogus lifeline in the guise of the ill-fated COVID phone-app tracing system.
The majority eagerly took the bait, all of them sweetly oblivious to the realisation that they’d fallen for one of the oldest confidence tricks in the book… tell them what they want to hear, and give them an easy-to-grasp solution - it worked like a charm. And so, the masses stuck doggedly to the path of least resistance, not for one moment realising that dumb compliance was all that was required of them, and that all they had to do to truly free themselves from the stranglehold was to refuse to comply.




In 2017, the BBC commissioned a TV documentary in which presenter Hannah Fry played the role of Patient Zero as she spread a digital pathogen around the market town of Haslemere in Surrey.
Although billed as “a ground-breaking experiment to help ‘plan for when the next deadly virus comes to the UK’”, the programme was actually nothing more than a data gathering exercise dressed up as a “citizen science experiment.”
Then, in the early weeks of 2020, this newly-minted BBC Pandemic Dataset was used to frighten the population into a trance-state of bewilderment and compliance.
I vividly remember the moment I first became aware of the true significance of this obscure documentary… it was on the morning of 29th February 2020, when I heard on BBC radio that “Haslemere” was the location of the UK’s Patient Zero for COVID-19. This triggered a strong sensation of falling. I knew in my bones this was no “spooky coincidence”, but rather someone’s idea of a very sick joke. Since then, I have been searching for clues as to who orchestrated this tawdry piece of theatre, and, more importantly, who, exactly, set-up and designed the BBC Pandemic simulation exercise?

Central to the experiment was the “BBC Pandemic app” which volunteers downloaded onto their phones to measure the spread of a digital “pathogen” as it infected people across the UK.
The app was launched with a sweeping media blitz on 27th September 2017. This date is important, because despite doing my level best to uncover any mention or trace of the BBC Pandemic project prior to that date, I have drawn a complete blank. There surely must have been meetings, discussions and documents in the months before the launch of the app, and I felt sure that I’d find some lead, somewhere, but the only thing I came across was this…
This is a paragraph from the February 2020 “Contacts in Context” paper mentioned earlier.

Ethical Considerations
“Information was provided and consent obtained from all participants in the study before the app recorded any data. The study was approved by (lshtm) London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Observational Research Ethics Committee (ref 14400).”

So, I had a reference number for the Ethics Committee report regarding the BBC Pandemic experiment, and I e-mailed LSHTM to ask for a copy,
Now, bearing in mind that the project was commissioned by the BBC, and funded by the British people, myself among them, via the compulsory TV license, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to expect such a document to be made available in the public domain, but my request was turned down flat…

[IMAGE OF EMAIL "We do not make ethics applications for research studies publicly available."]

Undeterred, I submitted a Freedom of Information request to LSHTM for a copy of the BBC Pandemic ethics application and related documents.
I then patiently waited the obligatory 20 working days for their reply. Nothing arrived. And so I started the ponderous process of chasing them up. Many voicemail messages and emails later [LIST], all of which went unanswered, I managed to unearth the email address of LSHTM’s Head of Legal Services, Mr Alex Hollander-Carney.

Only then did I receive a speedy and apologetic acknowledgment from one of his staff… and a few days later I received this*

“We have handled your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and we can confirm that we hold the information you have requested. Please find our response to your request below:
Unfortunately, we do not share ethics submissions that incorporate details of other ongoing research projects that are not yet completed, which could prejudice commercial interests if the research idea is stolen/subverted, and potential rights to first publication.  The ethics submission also contains confidential information such as names and contact details, which we would not share due to data protection.
“After careful consideration we have decided to withhold the information as the public interest in withholding the information outweigh the factors in favour of disclosure.”
“We have also engaged section 40 (2) of the Act which covers personal information. Section 40(2) is an absolute exemption, and it is not subject to a public interest test.”

*for copies of the FOI documents, please email me.

In truth, I don’t quite know what to make of this, other than to say that for such an innocuous sounding document, they really do sound terribly keen to keep it on a very tight leash.
Running through the rest of their reply, they turned down my request for other documents I had specified on similar grounds… apart from a copy of the information provided to participants taking part in the BBC Pandemic experiment, and a redacted copy of the Ethics Committee approval letter.
The former document does not appear to differ significantly from the information that appears on the BBC Pandemic website.

Of more interest is the copy of the approval letter. [SHOW ON SCREEN]
In their email to me, they say that…

“We have removed the personal data of PI, in line with s40(2) of the Act. This demonstrates ethical review has taken place, and an initial submission with amendments that were subsequently reviewed and accepted by the Chair.”

I assume that the abbreviation “PI” stands for Principal Investigator, and they have indeed redacted the name and Job Title of this person.
Why on earth does LSHTM feel the need to invoke the Data Protection Act to protect the identity of the lead academic of a citizen science project that was commissioned and funded by the BBC? Withholding the name implies sensitivity, and invites speculation, and since they’ve made it into a game of ‘Guess Who’, let’s look at who might be in the frame.
First of all, the date of the letter, 14th Sept 2017, and the Study Title: BBC4 citizen science project, confirms that this Ethics Application does indeed relate to the Contagion: BBC 4 Pandemic documentary.
Secondly, we know that the recipient of this letter was based at the department of Epidemiology and Population Health.
Thirdly, the list of approved documents includes the names of four investigators, Andrew Conlan, Julia Gog, Stephen Kissler and Adam Kucharski, all of whom were members of Hannah Fry’s Maths Team. So, they can be ruled out, along with Hannah Fry herself because she is employed by University College London. The two names missing from the roll call are Maria Tang and Petra Klepac. A quick search reveals that Maria Tang is based at Cambridge University, which just leaves Petra… And, lo and behold, she does work for the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health at LSHTM. So, my money is on Petra as the recipient of this letter.

Who is Petra Klepac?

This is the personal website of Petra Klepac. Her main academic post is Assistant Professor in Infectious Diseases at LSHTM, but she also lists “visiting researcher” at the University of Cambridge, and an honorary affiliation with Public Health England on her homepage. Now, Public Health England was, in fact, disbanded in October 2021, and its functions transferred to the UK Health Security Agency, but that’s not important here because the time period of interest is 2017-2018.
And here is Petra’s CV. This confirms her association with Cambridge University, and also shows that from 2016-2018 she was Honorary Research Fellow at Imperial College London. Petra Klepac was a rising star in her field, with high-profile roles in several key institutions. Looking back at her early career, from 2001-2007 she was at MIT where she gained her PhD in Biological Oceanography. And from there, the trajectory of her career was shaped by two major awards. The first was the UNESCO L’oreal  “For women in science” Postdoctoral fellow at Pennsylvania State University. 

And then she became AXA Research Fellow at the University of Cambridge to “study self-enforcing international agreements in regional control of immunizing infections.”
By 2012, her career was firmly established down the path of Infectious Disease Modelling, which seems a fair way removed from Oceanography, but that’s no surprise, since there was plenty of big money sloshing round academia, targeted at bright young things, to lure them away from their chosen interests and towards Pandemic Modelling. Looking even further back, we can see that Petra studied Ecology for her first degree, graduating in 2001 from the University of Zagreb, Croatia, and from her “Skills and Languages” section, we find that she is, indeed, Croatian.
And that small detail is very interesting.
So, in 2017, Petra Klepac landed the role of Principal Investigator for the BBC Pandemic citizen science experiment. Central to the project was the procurement of a Mobile Phone app which would simulate the spread of a deadly contagion. The BBC website categorically credits Big Motive, a company based in Northern Ireland, with developing the app, but I have discovered that’s not quite true.

On 30th March 2020, this article appeared in Time Out (Croatia).
“It was only meant to be a simulation. When the BBC and Cambridge University enlisted the help of Zagreb-based software designers Q, the app they wanted them to build was for a dress rehearsal.”
So, this Croatian software agency, called “Q”, claims that they were the ones who built the BBC Pandemic app. And here it is…

“Q created an app which is intuitive, easy to use, but at the same time very precise in simulating how fast can (sic) a virus spread throughout the UK.”

“Over 100 000 people took part in this experiment and helped create a new gold dataset standard for the future. BBC and Q took a huge leap forward in obtaining and processing information and data that could potentially save millions of lives.”

And there’s more…


''If someone told me two years ago, when we were working on the BBC Pandemic app, that a pandemic would suddenly become a reality, I'd say there's no way, and well... it's happened,'' says Filip Ljubić, director of the Zagreb software company - Q.
''It's almost unbelievable that so soon after the launch of the application, a brand new epidemic, coronavirus, really happened and suddenly what the application simulated in theory, began to happen in real life,''
''Last week, we were contacted again by the BBC and told they were considering developing a new application that would track people with coronavirus symptoms in real time. We've only had a few conversations so far and we're still waiting for the green light,”

Why would the BBC feel the need to airbrush out the role of the Croatian based “Q” in developing the BBC Pandemic app? And what became of the BBC Covid symptom tracking app they were negotiating with Q in April 2020? 

Three Kings video (promo video for "Q Agency" Christmas 2020)

So, Zagreb, Croatia connects Petra Klepac and “Q”. In fairness, this could be complete coincidence – I searched for an association between them, and turned up nothing, but it does seem a little strange.

It turns out that in her homeland, Petra Klepac is something of a big name.

And behind the scenes, she was hard at work as a senior member of the Croatian Government’s Scientific Council, the equivalent of UK’s SAGE committee, doing her bit to make sure that government policy did not stray from its ultimate goal – multiple jib-jabs for all.
So, is Petra Klepac the true “Mastermind” behind the BBC Pandemic experiment?
Well, no. I don’t believe she is, and the giveaway is this one sentence from the paper published on March 22nd 2018 to accompany the BBC Contagion documentary.

“We attempted to make the transmission model as realistic as possible, but due to the programme narrative, some liberties were taken. In particular, we were asked to ensure that the epidemic was seeded in Haslemere.”

As lead author of the paper, I believe these are the words of Petra Klepac, which means that she was not the one responsible for setting up the Haslemere “Patient Zero” scenario. A hidden hand was pulling the strings to make it happen… 


In truth, I suspect a whole forest of hidden hands behind this particular piece of theatre. And the BBC Pandemic project was just one of many predictive appetisers served up to audiences around the globe to ensure that Act One of the 2020 Corona Show went off without a hitch.

So, who is the hidden maestro behind the BBC Pandemic project?
First off, a reminder that the BBC Pandemic Simulation was a collaborative project involving three big institutions: the BBC, LSHTM and Cambridge university.
And these people were selected to be the public faces of the project. Hannah Fry and her co-presenter, Javid Abdelmoneim for the BBC … Petra Klepac and Adam Kucharski for LSHTM … and Julia Gog, Stephen Kissler, Andrew Conlan and Maria Tang for Cambridge University.
The two people chosen to lead the project for their respective Universities were Petra Klepac and Julia Gog. Petra seems a little camera shy, so it was up to Julia Gog to reveal the shock-horror results to the two BBC presenters, both of whom could act well enough to have their facial expressions firmly set to “aghast”.

The full title of the TV programme was “Contagion: The BBC 4 Pandemic”, it was broadcast on 22nd March 2018, and it was, in fact, just one of many programmes, articles and news stories put out that year by the BBC as part of the “Spanish Flu: 100 years on” series.

“It’s been a century since the Spanish flu claimed up to 100 million lives. It’s only a matter of time until a similar strain re-emerges.”
The central running theme was that a global epidemic on the scale of Spanish Flu was both inevitable and imminent. Sinister background music and doomy images were used to ram the message home.

BBC Programme 2018 Link 1 BBC Programme 2018 Link 2

And the BBC Pandemic App itself carried this message as a kind-of welcome greeting:

“The most likely and immediate threat to our species is a global pandemic of a highly infectious and deadly disease.”

Throughout 2018, the BBC drip-fed these messages to their audiences, quietly seeding the idea that a deadly flu-type disease was soon to emerge in humans, and spread around the globe, and that the consequences would be catastrophic.
But this omen wasn’t just aimed at the public, it had also been implanted in the minds of the thousands of academics around the world, whose services would be crucial in kicking-off and maintaining the illusion of the COVID pseudo-pandemic when the time came.
And so, by the start of 2020, Hannah Fry and her Maths team were all present and correct at their starting blocks, keyed-up and just waiting for the signal. News of a novel coronavirus emerging in China and starting to spread would’ve come as no surprise to any of them. After all, this is what they had been expecting all of their careers, and they’d spent years modelling just such an eventuality.
What is more, with the recent excitement of being selected to work with the BBC still fresh, they were all able to participate in shaping the Government’s pandemic policy thanks to the “Dream Dataset” created for them courtesy of the volunteers lured in to “do their bit for citizen science”.
These academics, and many of their peers, were suddenly thrown into a world where their services were in great demand, and they all rose to the challenge, writing reports and papers for SPI-M, dealing with requests from the media for expert commentary, and feeding their ever-hungry followers on social media with real-time despatches from the front-line.
These were the “experts” we were all commanded to “trust” over and over, to the steadily strengthening background drumbeat provided courtesy of the BBC.

And so, the majority of the population were manipulated into a trance-state of unquestioning obedience, not realising that the experts themselves had been worked on for years to get them to the point where they’d be the first to enter the lobster trap when the time came.
All over the world, the same drama was playing out in exactly the same way, even using the same commands… but there was just one moment in the UK which could’ve made a difference… and that was the day news broke of the Spooky Haslemere Coincidence.
There’s no question that the weirdness of this revelation jolted the BBC Pandemic maths team, and Hannah Fry herself, into a sudden state of awareness – they all knew something extremely fishy was going on, and my guess is that they had a very good idea who was behind it, but they chose to close their eyes and ears to this dead giveaway, and continue headlong into the trap.
So, if Hannah Fry and her Maths team were the visible faces of the BBC Pandemic Simulation experiment, who were operators back stage controlling the show?

The field of candidates here is wide, but I have selected these four to illustrate what I believe was likely going on. They are all senior academics in the field of mathematics and epidemiology, and they were all heavily involved with establishing the narrative during the early days of the Corona show in 2020. I call them “The Mentors”.
I’ll start with Graham Medley, Professor of Infectious Disease Modelling at LSHTM. He became known to many in 2020 as the chair of “SPI-M”, and we know from the direct testimony of Julia Gog, that he selected and groomed her into accepting a significant position on SPI-M some time in 2019. Three others from the BBC Pandemic maths team were also recruited to SPI – M, [SHOW PICS OF AK,PK AND SK] and were handily in position to help steer the trajectory of the UK government’s COVID policy.
Was it Graham Medley who gave the green light for the BBC Pandemic dataset to be released for free use by all academics, much to the evident astonishment of Julia Gog?
And was Graham Medley a member of the team who designed the pandemic simulation exercise for the BBC? As a senior modeller at LSHTM, his experience would make him a likely candidate to act as a consultant.

Next up, this is Professor David Heymann. He too is a senior professor at LSHTM, but more than that, he’s a global player and the biggest of big cheeses. He’s an American citizen, and during his career he has held many extremely influential positions at the World Health Organisation, the US CDC and Public Health England. He is currently “Distinguished Fellow in the Global Health programme” at Chatham House, and is a long-time associate of Anthony Fauci.

In 2021, he appeared alongside Hilary Clinton as a speaker at the Global Soft Power Summit, hosted in partnership with BBC Global News.

But it’s this detail from his CV that caught my attention: he was chair of Public Health England at the same time that Petra Klepac was employed there as Senior Mathematical Modeller. And they are also both affiliated to the same Faculty and Department at LSHTM.
We know from my FOI request that the Principal Investigator for the BBC Pandemic study was based at this department – could the Ethics Committee letter have been addressed to David Heymann? I somehow doubt that as I’m pretty confident that Petra Klepac was the Principal Investigator.
However, the BBC Pandemic Dataset is owned by LSHTM, and it was “commercial interests” which caused my FOI request to be rejected, so my bet is that David Heymann, as a senior member of the department, had background involvement in the project at the time.

Moving on to Sir David Spiegelhalter. Anyone who was paying attention to BBC coverage of the COVID pseudo-pandemic will likely know his name - he was given a lot of air time as one of their go-to “trusted experts” who could be relied on never to stray off narrative. And he never did. He is an old hand who knows the ropes when it comes to TV appearances – here he is being interviewed by the sainted Brian Cox in 2018.

He is clearly held in high esteem by Hannah Fry, who is in awe of his mathematical prowess, and speaks warmly of him as a good “friend”. Amongst his many TV and radio appearances for the BBC, there is one that stands out as significant…
Climate Change by Numbers, first broadcast in 2015 on BBC 4, the same channel that commissioned the BBC Pandemic documentary. As you can see, Hannah Fry was a co-presenter on this programme – was this where she was “tried for size” by the BBC as presenter for the upcoming Pandemic documentary? And was David Spiegelhalter involved in putting her name forward, and maybe, coaching her for the role of Patient Zero?

And finally, we have Professor Bryan Grenfell OBE. I’ve included him because his name kept coming up time and again when I was researching the backgrounds of the “Maths Team”. He is the only behind-the-scenes academic I’ve managed to link directly to the BBC Pandemic project.
This University of Cambridge webpage from August 2021 shows that Julia Gog and Bryan Grenfell were working together to increase “public engagement with science”, and it cites the BBC Pandemic project as an example.

Bryan Grenfell’s CV reveals some interesting details, but first to Wikipedia.
He is a British citizen, who started his career at Imperial College, London, then Cambridge University in 1990. But in 2004 he moved to the USA, and has been working at Princeton University as Professor of Ecology and Public Affairs since 2009.
His Wikipedia page makes particular mention that he started his career under the tutelage of Professor Sir Roy Anderson, whose own Wikipedia page credits him with being “a leading international authority on the epidemiology and control of infectious diseases, and author of the most highly cited book in the field”.

According to the website “Powerbase, Anderson was brought in as a government advisor in 2009 to ‘provide cross-government scientific advice regarding the outbreak of Swine Flu’ and he was rewarded handsomely by the board of GlaxoSmithKline for his troubles.

Even more interestingly, “In 2001 the UK government put Anderson in charge of charting the epidemiological progress of the foot and mouth disease outbreak.” [FROM POWERBASE] in which he “pushed the strategy of the contiguous cull, which led to the slaughter and burning of thousands of healthy animals on massive pyres.”
And who did Anderson have on his team in 2001? Well, Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, for one, but also Dr Bryan Grenfell, who is on the record as being an enthusiastic supporter of the “slaughter and cull” policy.

So, Bryan Grenfell’s career was heavily shaped by the influence of Roy Anderson in the UK before he departed for the USA. Here is Grenfell’s CV… which says that his current funding comes from the “National Institutes of Health, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the US Department of Homeland Security.”
Scrolling down to the list of “Postdoctoral scholars and research assistants”, we can see just how many of them have been funded by the NIH, the Gates Foundation and the Department of Homeland Security. And there are three familiar names on this list… Julia Gog, Andrew Conlan and Petra Klepac. [CUT OUT AND ENLARGE],

So their careers, have, in turn, been shaped by Bryan Grenfell.
Grenfell has also co-authored many papers with Adam Kucharski, and he gets a warm thanks in a recent tweet by Stephen Kissler for “patiently mentoring him through his training”.

But out of these, the one who Grenfell seems to have influenced the most is Petra Klepac…
“My interest and work in control and management of infectious diseases developed during my postdoc with Prof. Bryan Grenfell at Princeton University.”

In 2016, they worked together on this paper…
Self-enforcing regional vaccination agreements
which says that the work began as a part of a “Vaccine Refusal Workshop”, and was funded by the Gates Foundation, the Department of Homeland Security and the NIH.

And there’s another telling snippet at the end of this paper on Foot and Mouth disease written in 2017…
“We are grateful for insight provided by Petra Klepac and Bryan Grenfell.”
So, was it Bryan Grenfell who brought Petra Klepac and the rest of the Maths Team together for the BBC Pandemic assignment in 2017? He certainly had a big hand in moulding their careers and guiding them into the field of epidemic modelling of infectious diseases, a field massively bloated with an endless supply of easy money…
and speaking of money…
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
 And it’s clear that someone with an awful lot of money has been calling an awful lot of tunes. Now, I wonder who that could be? Absolutely no prizes for guessing.
[IMAGE OF Bill and Melinda Gates]
It’s beyond all reasonable doubt the Gates’s sticky fingerprints are everywhere – the Covid plandemic is their baby, and aren’t they both such proud parents?
Now, I’m well aware that this isn’t much of a finale, but the BBC Pandemic simulation exercise turns out to be a useful illustration of just how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been worming its way in to academic and media institutions for years.

Starting with the BBC, its common knowledge that Gates Foundation money, to the tune of many millions, has ensured a cosy relationship and bought a lot of air-time, along with many weirdly-reverential interviews on prime-time, conducted by the BBC’s leading lights.
Way back in 2016, Bill had already got his feet well under the table at the Beeb, and was brazenly steering the narrative to get us all in the mood for the upcoming deadly pandemic.

And in March 2017, this creepy little “animated explainer” appeared on “BBC Future”.
“Historically it's taken years for a new vaccine to be created, for several reasons...
...one is that science is complicated and you have to build special manufacturing.
Second, the approval: -HOW people are indemnified, who should take charge - hasn't been clear.
The vaccine market for typical diseases works fairly well...
...but there ISN'T a business there.
We've done simulations that show IF you could get a vaccine in LESS THAN a year...
...how beneficial that would be for the next Ebola...
...or something more serious...
...like a global flu epidemic.”


Well, he certainly had those problems ironed out in time, didn’t he just?

Meanwhile, at LSHTM…

[“Bill Gates visits our School” 28 October 2016  ON SCREEN]

 ...the Gates Foundation has found another welcome host, and showering the big bucks clearly buys a lot of influence – so much so that when Bill pays the school a visit, he is sure to be fawned over as an honoured guest.
“Professor Piot said: "We are delighted that Bill Gates has been able to visit us, and taken the time to hear about some of our work. His leadership has been transformational for global health. The Foundation is a very important funder and in many ways helps to drive the global health agenda."

And so, to Cambridge University where Gates Foundation money buys a slightly different kind of influence in the form of the “Gates Cambridge Scholarship.”
“The goal of Gates Cambridge is to build a global network of leaders who will work together to improve people’s lives.”

This one is interesting because Bill’s father, Bill Gates Senior, played a part in establishing the Scholarship. He was actively engaged with Gates Cambridge until his death in 2020.

“The Cambridge University community is saddened to hear of the death of Bill Gates Sr., who was instrumental in creating the Gates Cambridge Trust with a donation from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that remains the largest single gift Cambridge has ever received. “
And his influence lives on in the form of the Bill Gates Senior Prize

What is more, this obituary on the Gates Cambridge website says that:

“Bill Gates Sr.’s wife, Dr Mimi Gates, is a current Trustee of the Gates Cambridge Trust and works tirelessly to ensure that his values continue to inform the vision and work of the programme.”
And here she is…

So, the Gates Cambridge Scholarship is very much a father-son enterprise…
And one of the BBC Pandemic maths team was, indeed, a Gates Cambridge scholar…

Stephen Kissler, originally from University of Colorado, Boulder, received the scholarship in 2014, and in 2017 he was charged with the task of modelling the Haslemere Outbreak. His previous tutor at Boulder gave him a glowing reference…
“Stephen is one of those rare students who quietly and without fanfare changes the landscape. His research is likely to have a significant impact on the way we manage disease on an international scale. But he is also a humanitarian whose greatest strengths lie in his ability to connect on a human level.”
This may well be true, and it gives a snapshot into the character of the ideal recruit for the Gates Cambridge scholarship.

I could go on… scratch the surface anywhere, and Gates Foundation money is never hard to find…
… but you get the picture.


It was clear from the start that there was only one escape route for the lobsters in the trap, and that was to join the queue for a mysterious new injection… then another, and another.

Next time… just what is this man up to?