Government blocked paper questioning accuracy of Cummings’ Coronavirus project, show leaked emails

Dominic Cummings is planning on rolling back human rights laws
Support us and go ad-free

An article in the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) claims that leaked emails show the health department blocked a paper about a study that raised questions concerning the accuracy of the Coronavirus (Covid-19) antibody test kit. The kit – known as AbC-19 – comes under the ‘Operation Moonshot’ umbrella.

In September, UK prime minister Boris Johnson announced a new project, Operation Moonshot, which he explained would use testing so as to:

identify people who are negative – who don’t have coronavirus and who are not infectious – so we can allow them to behave in a more normal way, in the knowledge they cannot infect anyone else with the virus.

Blocked publication

On 11 November, a paper was published in the BMJ regarding a study “funded and implemented by Public Health England, supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network (CRN) Portfolio”. The paper’s authors were affiliated with Public Health England (PHE) and the universities of Bristol, Warwick, and Cambridge. The study examined the accuracy of the rapid antibody testing programme for 4,842 key workers.

The paper concluded that based on the assumption that 10% of the tested population have had the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) infection, “around one in five key workers testing positive with AbC-19 would be false positives”.

It added:

If the AbC-19 test were to be used for mass population screening in a relatively low prevalence setting, we would anticipate a large number of false positive results (for example, 18 900 for every 1 million tests carried out).

Read on...

However, it’s been reported by Stephen Armstrong, another BMJ journalist, that publication of the preprint of the paper, which is yet to be peer reviewed, was blocked by the government. Also, the BMJ has seen emails, dating back to September, that show “officials at the [Department of Health and Social Care] knew about the disappointing results of the PHE study before the announcement [of purchasing one million AbC-19 tests]”. One of the emails, from the Department of Health, stated that all key figures in government – meaning ministers, special advisers, and 10 Downing Street – were “aligned” in blocking the publication.


In a November 17 article in the BMJ, journalist Gareth Iacobucci referred to a “major expansion” of Operation Moonshot’s mass testing programme, utilising lateral flow tests. He added how these “rapid diagnostic tests” are designed to provide results in 10-30 minutes.

But Iacobucci also reported that Jon Deeks, professor of biostatistics at Birmingham University, commented how:

The poor detection rate of the [lateral flow] test makes it entirely unsuitable for the government’s claim that it will allow the safe ‘test and release’ of people from lockdown and students from university.

When queried if the test meant it would be safe for people to visit their families over Christmas, Deeks told iNews: “We would end up with 400,000 people in the country getting false positive results. So their Christmas would then be in lockdown wrongly”.

Clinical scientist Dipender Gill and clinical immunologist Mark J Ponsfield even referred to possible “societal harm” arising from the tests:

The risk of false positives is particularly concerning. If antibody responses are used as an indicator of immunity, for example, test results may influence both individual and government decisions about permissible risk of exposure, and false positives may therefore do considerable societal harm


In another BMJ article Bing Jones, former associate specialist in haematology, Sheffield; Jack Czauderna, former GP Sheffield; and Paul Redgrave, former director of public health, Sheffield, described the government’s Test and Trace programme as a “lethal mistake”. They suggest that “the media and our profession appear complicit in allowing systematic misinformation, egregious miscalculation, delay, and diversion of public funds, to benefit private companies”.

They add:

The national Test and Trace is a disaster. Its design means that it cannot possibly contain outbreaks of covid-19. It is obsessed with testing at the expense of all the other necessary links in the chain of actions needed to control outbreaks. It fails to detect asymptomatic people and those who are unwilling or unable to be tested and it ignores false negatives.

Instead, they advocate that:

The privatised national Test and Trace system must be brought back under the control of the NHS and local public health experts with support from general practice as outlined by Independent Sage. Assessment of patients prior to and after testing by professionals, must be put in place. Primary care is best placed to provide this.

The Cummings effect

The leaked emails show that PHE first raised with the government the problem of inaccuracies regarding antibody testing in September. But the government blocked the paper that reported on the PHE-led study. The following month, the government announced that a £75m contract for one million antibody tests had been awarded to Abingdon Health. A further £10m was awarded to Abingdon Health for “components and materials” in regard to Covid-19 “lateral flow” tests.

A judicial review of the Abingdon Health awards has now been requested by the Good Law Project (GLP). GLP has also commenced judicial review proceedings against Operation Moonshot, which will be overseen by Dominic Cummings while working from his home.

In the meantime, it’s reported by The Canary that another legal challenge has been launched, claiming that “prime minister Boris Johnson and health secretary Matt Hancock acted “unlawfully” when appointing key figures to top posts during the coronavirus crisis”. The figures referred to are: “test and trace boss and Tory peer Baroness Dido Harding; Kate Bingham, head of the UK’s vaccine taskforce; and Mike Coupe, director of NHS Test and Trace”.

It’s all about transparency – or lack of it – and how science is being ignored by a government that continues to be chaotic in how it responds to the pandemic and its effects on peoples’ lives and livelihoods.

Featured image via Youtube

We know everyone is suffering under the Tories - but the Canary is a vital weapon in our fight back, and we need your support

The Canary Workers’ Co-op knows life is hard. The Tories are waging a class war against us we’re all having to fight. But like trade unions and community organising, truly independent working-class media is a vital weapon in our armoury.

The Canary doesn’t have the budget of the corporate media. In fact, our income is over 1,000 times less than the Guardian’s. What we do have is a radical agenda that disrupts power and amplifies marginalised communities. But we can only do this with our readers’ support.

So please, help us continue to spread messages of resistance and hope. Even the smallest donation would mean the world to us.

Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. I keep coming across words such as ‘scamdemic’ and ‘plandemic’. Additionally, having gone on the Office of National Statististics (ONS) web site, and noted that they are only able to provide PROVISIONAL figures on deaths registered, which are themselves at least twelve days old, I am surprised to see mortality figures that are purported to be up to the minute everyday in the Guardian (on-line)! Additionally in recent weeks (more or less since the beginning of the second SCHLOCKDOWN) the ONS site has begun to include an ‘ESTIMATE’ to their PROVISIONAL figures:
      “The number of deaths registered in the UK in the week ending 13 November 2020 (Week 46) was 13,972, which was 2,216 deaths higher than the five-year average and 542 deaths more than Week 45; of the deaths registered in the UK in Week 46, 2,838 deaths involved COVID-19, 612 deaths higher than in Week 45.
      Based on a statistical model that allows for the time taken for deaths to be registered, we estimate that the number of deaths actually occurring (rather than registered) in Week 46 in England and Wales was between 11,388 and 14,169.”
      If one deducts the number of deaths that “involved COVID-19,” (interesting phraseology) in week 46 from the higher of the figures that “we estimate”, one is left with the figure 11,331 and if we then deduct that figure from the lowest estimate the result is +57.
      Only six more weeks and we will have a year’s worth of PROVISIONAL figures. So unless the powers that be can inflate the death rate considerably, such as decamping real Covid cases into Care Homes again (April 2020), inflating the average of the past two years (600,000 p.a.), we’ll probably discover that the death rate in 2020 remained static or increased as a consequence of Government policy toward our oldest and/or most vulnerable citizens.
      Meanwhile the dramatic increase of the National Debt will be the excuse for more ‘privatisations’ of National assets such as the NHS, more ‘austerity’ along with mass unemployment, which is not a pleasant combination. On the other hand, there is the vague possibility that a substantial proportion of us might ‘wake up’ and smell the garbage…

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.