February 2024
« Jan    

Is the Bonking Boffin a dangerous fraud?

(Wednesday blog)

Hopefully readers have all recovered from their justified hilarity watching the farce of Professor Neil ‘Mystic Meg’ Ferguson, the Bonking Boffin, being exposed for ignoring his own rules about social distancing and self-isolation so he could reportedly enjoy amorous trysts with his married f**k-buddy:

Now the Bonking Boffin seems to be avoiding the media attention he so eagerly sought at the beginning of the Chinese Covid-19 plague outbreak. However, as the Bonking Boffin runs for cover, some people are starting to question why anyone took any notice of the Bonking Boffin’s advice in the first place:

From what little I understand, the Bonking Boffin has made some pretty deluded predictions in the past:

  • Bird flu, prediction 200 million deaths. Actual deaths – 282
  • Foot and mouth – culled 6 million healthy animals at a cost to us taxpayers of £10bn. The Bonking Boffin (also known as Professor Fraud to those suspicious of the reliability of his now infamous modelling) has apparently now admitted his 2001 modelling was flawed.
  • Swine flu – estimates based on Professor Fraud’s model – 65,000. Actual deaths – 457
  • BSE prediction between 50 and 50,000 deaths. Here he did get it right (sort of). The actual deaths were 177 which is within his range of somewhere between 50 and 50,000
  • Swedish academics using the Bonking Boffin’s model envisaged Swedes having 40,000 Covid-19 deaths by 1 May and almost 100,000 by June. Even a mandatory lockdown was expected to have only limited Sweden’s Covid-19 death toll to 20,000. The latest figure for Sweden is 2,680 deaths, with daily deaths peaking a fortnight ago

Given the somewhat questionable accuracy of so much of the Bonking Boffin’s previous modelling, it seems extraordinary that anyone took his predictions seriously.

And now we find out more worrying information about the Bonking Boffin’s Mystic Meg models:

  • An earlier report, in 2006, Use and abuse of mathematical models: an illustration from the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic in the United Kingdom, identified Professor Ferguson’s modelling as having been the biggest driver of government policy. The paper said that “the models were not fit for the purpose of predicting the course of the epidemic and the effects of control measures. The models also remain unvalidated. Their use in predicting the effects of control strategies was therefore imprudent.”
  • On 22 March, Ferguson reportedly admitted that Imperial College London’s model of the Covid-19 disease is based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code, that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus
  • Modellers at Oxford University came up with quite different results for the Chinese Covid-19 plague than Professor Pr**k. But the Government ignored them. Moreover, when people asked to see the assumptions built into Professor Fraud’s mighty model, we were (I believe) told that this wouldn’t be possible as much of the information was in his head and not written down
  • We now also know that the Bonking Boffin’s f**k-buddy is a lefty environmental activist, living in a multi-million pound house as do so many self-regarding, holier-than-thou Greenies (hello Emma Thompson and Leonardo Di Caprio and Prince Harry and Meghan). So a cynic might be forgiven for suspecting that the Bonking Boffin’s recommendation to close down the economy and ruin the lives of millions of ordinary people could have been influenced by his political views rather than any supposed ‘science’

From what little I understand, the Bonking Boffin being a professor has a guaranteed job for life. So he wouldn’t be affected in any way by an economic collapse. In fact, it would make life easier for people like him – no more crowded roads, cheaper cleaners and gardeners and housekeepers, no more unwashed plebs on the planes they’d be taking to attend important international conferences about saving the environment or whatever or when they go on expensive holidays that the rest of us could never afford and so on and so forth.

The Bonking Boffin’s amorous antics have made the Government’s whole “Stay at Home – Ruin the economy – Bankrupt Britain” (sorry, I meant of course “Stay at home – Protect the NHS – Save lives”) strategy into a Whitehall farce. I expect it will be with great relief that our floundering government moves on to the next stage of its non-existent strategy for dealing with the Chinese plague.

Meanwhile, having followed the priapic professor’s advice, Britain has proudly shot to number one position in Europe for the number of Covid-19 deaths.

Let’s hope that the next time Britain is faced with some kind of disaster our government won’t turn to Professor Penis for advice.

A shared interest in Staats?

I’ve just read this in the Daily Mail – “Prof Ferguson is thought to have met Ms Staats’s husband and they share an interest in data science” (also known as statistics or ‘staats’). The bad jokes just keep on coming.

Thank you Professor Plonker for providing so much entertainment in these grim times.

8 comments to Is the Bonking Boffin a dangerous fraud?

  • chris

    The statistics hoax just got worse. Iain Davis in Off-Guardian (Covid 19 is a statistical nonsense) has analysed the reporting of deaths from CV. He concludes that there could be 56% over reporting of CV deaths. He analyses the many reasons not to trust what the Gov is saying with its daily funereal proclamations’ Its well worth a read.

  • Stillreading

    Covid-19 exists, it is without doubt a very vicious infection indeed for those who, for whatever reason – obesity, ethnicity, viral overload, sheer bad luck – take it badly. It does seem though that remarkably few in Care Homes seem to have died recently merely of old age allied to the multiplicity of conditions which compelled them into professional care in the first place. Quite a few younger women, though, have undeniably died at the hands of the violent partners with whom they’ve been forced to incarcerate themselves for weeks. About three times the “normal”, although certainly not acceptable, number. And now we face the worst recession the UK has ever experienced while yet more “experts” are discussing how to socially isolate, at a distance of 2 metres, for hours at a time, all schoolchildren, from nursery age to adolescence. I can certainly see that working! It would be hilarious were it not so utterly disastrous. Grim times ahead.

  • chris

    On a slightly different note. The western economies have been shut down for approx 2 months due to CV. This might be an intended outcome for dangerously committed extreme lunatic lefties and climate alarmists.

    So, in effect, the Climate Change Act version of ‘net zero’ has been achieved 30 years earlier than enacted for. However if these climate believers are correct, atmospheric CO2 ought to be reducing due to virtually nil emissions from western nations’ human sources. After all we are told that human emissions make up most of the increases reported by NOAA and Mauna Loa.

    Using CO2-earth shows that between April and May 2019 atmospheric CO2 increased by 0.23ppm (413.52-413.75). Yet between April and May 2020 the increase was 0.39ppm (416.18-416.57)

    If these figures are correct then human source emitted CO2 cannot be the major cause of the increasing amount of atmospheric CO2 unless there is a long time lag between emissions and measuring. During our ‘lockdown’ (yuk)industry, shipping, transport etc has shut down yet armospheric CO2 is still increasing. In fact increasing more than last year.

    If true it could be startling and vanquish all of the renewable energy scam.

    NOAA, on its website, says it has not seen any slowing in the rate of increase of CO2. However, Im sure these figures will be massaged soon. NOAA never releases raw data so there will be ample opportunity to ‘correct’ the published figures.

  • A Thorpe

    Science and mathematic is being brought into disrepute by the media and politicians and because of academics who are effectively just trying to make a name for themselves and earn more money in the process. In the cases of the climate, the MMR/autism crisis and now the coronavirus we are not dealing with new scientific discoveries. It is the application of known science to new problems and some of the researchers are getting it wrong and there is no means to validate what they are doing. They are not actually producing anything tangible that can be tested, like a motor car, a plane, domestic equipment, etc. They are just producing opinions that cannot be verified. In most cases there are different opinions and that should be a warning to us to be cautious. Science is based on evidence and that means the evidence should be verifiable by anybody with the relevant qualifications. Too much emphasis is also being placed on peer review which is only a publishing process.

    In the case of the MMR scandal my understanding is that the research was not carried out to acceptable standards and this was obvious to knowledgeable readers of his paper. I think it was published in a reputable medical journal which tells us not to believe everything we read. But the mass media got hold of it and created a panic. Blair didn’t help by refusing to say whether his child had receive the vaccination. There is pattern in this – the deadly combination of politicians and the media.

    In the case of the climate, the physics is established, but climate scientists have created a concept of back radiation which does not exist. They have the backing of the powerful IPCC and environmentalists and it is impossible for genuine scientists to challenge the view. The public of course know very little physics and these days seem to prefer a doom and gloom prediction. But the issue is there has to be evidence to link human released carbon dioxide to the climate and in particular to increasing temperature. Melting of ice is just melting of ice, caused by heat. It cannot tell us that the heat came from CO2. People are now too stupid to understand the concept of evidence.

    In the case of the coronavirus, it is new and we have little understanding about it. Modelling is not evidence, as we should know from the climate work, and Professor Cockup has a record of failure to his name and Boris is going to end up in the same position. Statistics and the understanding of risks are playing an important role in this and this is another weak area for most people. We also have the extremely important issue of most deaths being due to comorbidities but they are being attributed to COVID19. We will not get realistic statistics for probably a year and even then there will be issues with the accuracy of the data. There is an excellent article in the Telegraph by Sherelle Jacobs today.

    It seems to me that our collective knowledge is too complex for most people to understand and it is being used against us either through ignorance or deliberately. It is really a failure of politicians to do their basic job, which is to protect us.

  • Stillreading

    All true Thorpe. Of course the mass of the population cannot understand evidence-based science. It is hardly any longer taught. Someone I know well is a Physics teacher and I have been appalled at what I’ve seen in GCSE Physics exam papers. Yes – a bit on simple equations like V = IR and how to manipulate them (quite a challenge, that, for many!), a bit on Newton’s Laws, but also questions which require the exam candidate to express an opinion – usually on the taken-for-granted, indoctrinated-by-the-syllabus concept of man-made climate change. Utterly pointless to inform youngsters raised in this ethos that the UK was warmer in Roman times than it is now, that more or less concurrently with the final extinction of the Roman Empire, the Icelanders were colonising Greenland, raising sheep and cattle and growing crops. Then a few hundred years later the ice sheets advanced and the Icelanders had to return whence they had come. The world warms. The world cools. We don’t yet always know why these cycles occur. It’s what happens. Tragically, apart from a very few genuinely intellectually able young people who achieve good A Levels in Physics and eventually go on to be true scientists, the overwhelming majority of today’s young cannot distinguish between hard, evidence-based science and the ramblings of the mentally challenged Saint Greta. Of course, this educational dumbing down makes it far easier for the population to be controlled by governments for their own ends. It is inexcusable that for some reason Professor CockUp was not required to produce for objective scrutiny the model and material he used to produce his pessimistic predictions. No genuine scientist should ever be unwilling or unable to submit his conclusions and the material on which they were based, for impartial peer review.

  • David Morgan

    I haven’t got time to type a long narrative. I’ll simply give two quotes. 1) “Lies, damned lies and statistics.” 2) For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert.”

  • A Thorpe

    David Morgan – your second quote gets directly to the problem we have today. Too many experts, all claiming to have evidence to support their claims. The only thing we can do is to recognise there are different views but it does not help us decide which is true unless we have detailed knowledge. We can only ignore it all and carry on. Then it gets more complex because the media and politicians get involved and home in on one view, as with climate change. People then tend to go along with the majority. I’m starting to think that our intelligence could be our downfall, and as Stillreading says, it is effectively using fake science to have control over us.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>