Lame excuses offered for refusing new “virus” FOI
Posted October 24, 2023
Greetings and Best Wishes,
Last month I reported that folks at the University of Sheffield were shielding fake-covid test developers Carl Smythe (who acts as Professor of Cell Biology) and a company called Paraytec Limited from having their fake “virus purification” methodology publicly scrutinized and how the university openly admitted to putting private commercial interests ahead of the world’s interests.
In June, 2023, the FOI staff had claimed that “the University” held records within the scope of my request but that they were exempt from disclosure.
They also admitted that public scrutiny of the actual methodology employed by Carl and Paraytec could jeopardize their chances of getting the research published (lol).
They also tipped their hand by defining “purification” as mere “processes” (of “progressive enrichment”), whichwould not necessarily lead to the crucial end result: particles suspected of being “the virus” separated from everything else in the patient sample. A new low in “virus” FOI responses.
(Note that particles passed off as “viruses” in electron micrograph images are typically only found in stressed cell cultures, and never purified, studied scientifically and shown to fit the definition of a “virus”.)
Analytical chemist Saeed Qureshi hadreviewedthe university’s response and noted:
“Progressive enrichment is, in fact, another name for what has been done all along… They are using new terminology with the hope that you will not understand and will accept their view as authentic/scientific.”
Update – a complaint and a new FOI attempt
After publication of my September article, I had further communications with Luke Thompson who acts asHead of Data Protection & Legal Services (see Addendum). I asked Luke to respond to the request that I had actually made – for records of the alleged virus being found in bodily fluid/tissue/excrement and separated from everything else – as opposed to the imaginary request that he had pretended I made (involving a mere “process” of “progressive enrichment”).
Luke repeatedly refused and told me to “contact the ICO 0303 123 1113 or www.ico.org.uk”.
Eventually I decided to file an a complaint with the “Information Commissioner’s Office”. But Carly Smith acting as Lead Case Officer responded that they “expect complaints to be made to us within six weeks of a public authority either refusing or failing to respond to an information request”.
I guess improper responses become okey-dokey once 6 weeks have passed.
So finally I filed a new FOI with the university, avoiding use of the words “purification” and/or “isolation”. I asked for all studies/reports in the possession, custody or control of Carl Smythe that scientifically prove or provide evidence of the alleged “virus” (valid controlled experiments), and if Carl has none, records of the imaginary “virus” simply being found in the bodily fluid/tissue/excrement of any sick person and purified.
On October 20, 2023 Elspeth Summerfield, acting as Assistant Data Protection Officer in the University Secretary’s Office, responded. Below are the pertinent sections of her email with the most interesting bits underlined, followed by my response.
Basically Elspeth calls my new FOI “vexatious” with the “potential to cause… disruption, irritation or distress” (lol). She also claims to have already responded sufficiently to my earlier request, but also that responding would “risk our responses misleading, or being misconstrued by, the public”.
Elspeth also stated that my focus on Carl Smythe(whose false and slanderous tweets about virology, the FOIs and myself are what prompted my FOIs to Sheffield) could be viewed as a personal grudge (hmm now why would I have a grudge against Carl?). And that they are “unable” to engage in any more FOIs from me relating to fake-covid (or, as Brendan D. Murphy calls it, “Clownvid-19”).
My response to Elspeth isn’t terribly important, but for anyone interested it begins on page 5 here, with screenshots below.
For truth, freedom and sanity,
Christine – an unincorporated woman!