Image Credit: apvaper / Getty 
In an article published Christmas Day by The Times, Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London bragged about convincing European governments to adopt the Communist Chinese model of authoritarian lockdowns as a response to COVID-19.
The professor is an epidemiologist credited with changing UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s approach to battling the novel coronavirus in March of 2020.
After his role in coercing Johnson to lockdown the UK went public, Ferguson became known as “professor lockdown.”
In May, he made worldwide headlines for skirting his own lockdown “rules” to meet with a married woman with whom he was having relations.
At the time it was claimed that Ferguson “resigned from his government post,” but last week Mirror reported, “Ferguson continued to act as a Government science adviser after being caught breaking Covid-19 social distancing rules to meet his married lover.”
In the Christmas interview, the epidemiologist admitted “there is an enormous cost associated with” lockdowns, specifically the erosion of civil liberties.
However, thanks to the Chinese Communist Party’s authoritarian measures, he said, “people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed.”
“I think people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed quite dramatically between January and March. […]If China had not done it the year would have been very different,” Ferguson told The Times.
He explained, “’It’s a communist one-party state,’ we said. ‘We couldn’t get away with it in Europe,’ we thought. And then Italy did it. And we realized we could.”
Ferguson claimed to have been “skeptical at first” regarding China allegedly flattening the curve, saying he “thought it was a massive cover-up by the Chinese.”
However, he now says the Chinese Communist Party’s data has since convinced him the lockdowns are responsible for defeating the virus, calling shutdown measures “an effective policy.”
Clearly, lockdown measures are not “effective,” as many places that did not shut down their economies have lower COVID infection and death rates than areas with extreme lockdowns.
Ferguson’s track record of predicting the outcome of viral diseases leaves one wondering why he’s still being trusted by governments around the globe.
As Jon Rappoport recently wrote, “Business Insider: ‘Michael Thrusfield, a professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, told the paper he had ‘déjà vu’ after reading the [Ferguson] Imperial paper [on COVID], saying Ferguson was responsible for excessive animal culling during the 2001 Foot and Mouth [mad cow] outbreak.’”
“Ferguson warned the government that 150,000 people could die. Six million animals were slaughtered as a precaution, costing the country billions in farming revenue. In the end, 200 people died.”
“Similarly, he [Ferguson] was accused of creating panic by overestimating the potential death toll during the 2005 Bird Flu outbreak. Ferguson estimated 200 million could die. The real number was in the low hundreds. HELLO?”
“In 2009, one of Ferguson’s models predicted 65,000 people could die from the Swine Flu outbreak in the UK — the final figure was below 500.”
“So you have to ask yourself, why would anyone believe what Ferguson has been predicting in this COVID hustle?”