Huawei to Fund New Tech Hub at Imperial College London Whose Flawed COVID19 Model Led to Lockdowns

Huawei to Fund New Tech Hub at Imperial College London Whose Flawed COVID19 Model Led to Lockdowns

Written by Radix Verum
May 19, 2020 at 5:36 pm

May 19, 2020 – Huawei has announced they have signed a 5-year contract with the Imperial College London to fund a new tech hub. The deal is $6 million, and will include cutting edge technologies like 5G and Artificial Intelligence (AI).

The state-owned media organization, China Global Television Network, announced via their European bureau the surprising new deal on Twitter earlier today:

Not everyone is happy about the deal. The United States has warned the UK government about working with Huawei and the threat it poses to National Security. Huawei has been labeled by the U.S. as essentially being a Trojan horse for Chinese military intelligence.

U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo tweeted on February 19, 2020:

Imperial College London: Coronavirus “Modeling”

The Imperial College London produced an academic model of the presumed course of COVID-19 that made a number of grave predictions. Immediately, their model was picked up and amplified by the mainstream media prophets of doom. The coordinated, global media campaign was effective, compelling several countries to adopt harsh lock down and social distancing policies based upon it.

Eric Rasmusen has called out the code that was used for the Imperial College London “modeling” and has pointed out that they refuse to release the original code. That seems to suggest they are being deceptive, or have something to hide.  He refers us to an article published by Lockdown Skeptics, a website created in the aftermath of Coronavirus and failed predictions. The author of the article claims to have worked for Google, and says they are “exposing” the flaws in the code.

There is also a follow-up analysis, the gist of which is the Imperial College London “model” was extremely inaccurate and dangerously flawed. The author excoriates Professor Neil Ferguson for including in the “modeling,” attempts to track impact of contact tracing apps, even though parts of the “modeling” was already proven to be flawed. The writer called for the “model” to be pulled, and Ferguson to be replaced. He was eventually removed, and we have learned some interesting things about him. The “modeling” is so bad, that the writer implies this is not just malpractice on a massive scale (think of the deaths that have occurred in countries who adopted policy based on this flawed modeling) but deliberate fraud that could not have been a mistake. The analysis found over 30 flaws in the “models” some of the more egregious being:

These are just a few of the many issues and flaws with the Imperial College London COVID-19 “model” that led to the lockdown orders of at least two countries. This is something that was also outlined by Matt Ridley and David Davis of Sign of the Times Magazine, in an article entitled “Is the Chilling Truth that the decision to impose lockdown was based on crude mathematical guesswork?“ they claim:

Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College ‘stepped back’ from the Sage group advising ministers when his lockdown-busting romantic trysts were exposed. Perhaps he should have been dropped for a more consequential misstep. Details of the model his team built to predict the epidemic are emerging and they are not pretty. In the respective words of four experienced modellers, the code is ‘deeply riddled’ with bugs, ‘a fairly arbitrary Heath Robinson machine’, has ‘huge blocks of code – bad practice’ and is ‘quite possibly the worst production code I have ever seen’.

When ministers make statements about coronavirus policy they invariably say that they are “following the science”. But cutting-edge science is messy and unclear, a contest of ideas arbitrated by facts, a process of conjecture and refutation. This is not new. Almost two centuries ago Thomas Huxley described the ‘great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.’

In this case, that phrase ‘the science’ effectively means the Imperial College model, forecasting potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths, on the output of which the Government instituted the lockdown in March. Sage’s advice has a huge impact on the lives of millions. Yet the committee meets in private, publishes no minutes, and until it was put under pressure did not even release the names of its members. We were making decisions based on the output of a black box, and a locked one at that.

It has become commonplace among financial forecasters, the Treasury, climate scientists, and epidemiologists to cite the output of mathematical models as if it was ‘evidence’. The proper use of models is to test theories of complex systems against facts. If instead we are going to use models for forecasting and policy, we must be able to check that they are accurate, particularly when they drive life and death decisions. This has not been the case with the Imperial College model.

At the time of the lockdown, the model had not been released to the scientific community. When Ferguson finally released his code last week, it was a reorganised program different from the version run on March 16.

It is not as if Ferguson’s track record is good. In 2001 the Imperial College team’s modelling led to the culling of 6 million livestock and was criticised by epidemiological experts as severely flawed. In various years in the early 2000s Ferguson predicted up to 136,000 deaths from mad cow disease, 200 million from bird flu and 65,000 from swine flu. The final death toll in each case was in the hundreds. In this case, when a Swedish team applied the modified model that Imperial put into the public domain to Sweden’s strategy, it predicted 40,000 deaths by May 1 – 15 times too high. – Sign of the Times

This devastating report was written in part by a conservative MP, and it lists many other resources under recommended additional reading at the end of the article.

We have seen that Neil Ferguson appears to be connected to the Gates Foundation:

Indeed it does appear to be a potential conflict of interest, and now we are learning there may be another one.

As noted, by the above chart, the Imperial College London is connected to many organizations and companies all working on vaccines or medications or “research” that may benefit financially from the virus appearing worse than it actually is.

Imperial College and Huawei

When the announcement was made that Huawei would be funding a new technology hub at the Imperial College London, the first thing that came to my mind was, doesn’t that seem like a form of payment for the flawed “modeling” from China? Knowing how China uses soft power and businesses to influence other nations, it certainly seems an easy conclusion to draw. In fact, there have been many cases of academic espionage not only in Canada, Australia and the U.S. — all three members of the Five Eyes — but in the UK as well.

For those not familiar with the the Five Eyes (FVEY) is, its an intelligence sharing program that was introduced in the aftermath of WWII. Five nations comprise the so-called five eyes: America, Canada, Australia, the UK and New Zealand. This agreement allows for sharing of things like Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) among member nations.

Anytime the communists at Google laud something as “news” we should be skeptical, and look deeper. The Google post about the Huawei-Imperial College London deal states:

Chinese telecoms giant Huawei is to fund a new GBP 5 million (roughly Rs. 46.3 ccrores) technology hub at Imperial College London, British media reported.

The institution did not confirm or deny the reports when contacted by AFP, and said an announcement about the project would be made on Tuesday.

‘Imperial, like other UK universities, has received support from Huawei for high-quality and open research for several years, and we are continuing this work,’ a spokesman said.

‘Such funding continues to be subject to the college’s robust relationship review policies.’

The Mail on Sunday last weekend said some British lawmakers were opposed on security grounds to Huawei’s involvement in developing Imperial’s west London campus.

The weekly said the Chinese firm would provide and run a superfast 5G internet network, and fund research over the next five years.

Its involvement comes after controversy about the company’s bid to build next generation 5G mobile networks in Britain and across Europe.

The United States has claimed the equipment can be used to spy for Beijing. Ties with Washington have been strained as European countries have resisted US calls for a ban.

Britain and France in particular have decided not to bar Huawei, which strongly denies any charge of subterfuge, but have imposed restrictions on its operations.

With Oxford University, Imperial is currently involved in the global search for a COVID-19 vaccine. – Google

Google of course benefited from the initial Imperial College London “model” as they were able to cite it as justification for their “contact tracing” app.

These above graphs show Huawei’s unprecedented year-over-year growth. This seems to indicate they are relying either on theft of intellectual property or they are being artificially boosted.

Fears of Espionage

The announcement of the deal between Huawei and Imperial College London revived UK concerns about Chinese commercial and academic espionage.

The front page of the Times reports on this, and a potential legal battle with Boris Johnson over 5G.

The article correctly points out how China treats its own citizens, including the concentration camps and gang rapes of the Muslim Uighur community.

The Imperial College London released a statement, that included what appear to be CCP talking points about the university’s role working with Huawei.

Phrases like “cultural enrichment” and “innovation ecosystems” are common phrases in CCP propaganda promoting tech transfers or Belt and Road infrastructure deals. My own research led me to a potential connection between the Provost of the Imperial College London and the CCP.

Here we see even more promotion of academic ties to China. This is how China infiltrates and colonizes countries without firing a shot.

This is highly concerning, especially when we consider the fact that the UK is part of the Five Eyes agreement.

Once again, we witness more “academic funding” and “research funding” for universities reliant on China.

Now we see reports on Chinese infiltration at Surrey and Glasgow universities.

I’m stunned that these universities would install a wireless network created by Huawei which is simply a cutout for the Chinese government.

At this point, I’m starting to wonder if we should form an international panel, led by the United States, primarily to document and study Chinese penetration into the critical infrastructure and supply chains of other countries.

Conclusions

There are serious concerns about the growing influence of Beijing around the world. From espionage, to aggression in the South China Sea, to intellectual property theft — the world is starting to pay attention.

While it looked like some progress was being made back in April of 2020, to block Huawei from signing a deal with the UK government for its 5G installation, it appears that was too hopeful. With the announcement of the Imperial College London deal, Huawei now has its claws into the UK.

Beginning today,Huawei is holding its 17th annual Global Analyst Summit in Shenzhen, dubbed the “Silicon Valley of China.”

With the White House threatening to pull U.S. Military and Intelligence operations from the UK, their government hopefully will reconsider allowing these Chinese state-owned enterprises from infiltrating and gaining a foothold in the country.

While we cannot say with 100% certainty that Imperial College London created the flawed COVID19 “model” to benefit Big Tech, Big Pharma and China, it does raise many questions. If Imperial College is accepting any “academic funding” from China, or any SOE (state owned enterprise), the world has a right to know. As someone who worked in the legal field, I see them personally as liable for the needless deaths stemming from policies based on their “model” that was flawed. There may even be a potential for a class action lawsuit as a result of the perceived malpractice.

~~This story is still developing, please check back for updates. 

See a spelling or grammar error? Let us know! Highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

You may also like...