The journalist-run, intelligence-linked operation that warped
British pandemic
policy
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/11/21/journalist-intelligence-british-pandemic-policy/
Kit
Klarenberg·November 21, 2022
Presented as an independent voice for “unbiased” scientific
advice, iSAGE provided a channel for media spinmeisters, spies and psy-op
specialists to influence Britain’s pandemic policy without
accountability. Leaked internal emails show members fretting over its
unethical methods.
Throughout Britain’s response to the COVID-19
crisis, a lobbying group known as the Independent Scientific Advisory
Group for Emergencies (iSAGE) served as a key driving force behind the
government’s most draconian lockdown policies.
While it presented itself as a non-governmental organization composed of
forward-thinking health experts, The Grayzone can reveal iSAGE not only
maintains an array of ties to the British security state, while relying
largely on political, rather than scientific, considerations when
crafting policy recommendations.
With Winter ahead in Europe and calls for the reimposition of COVID-19
restrictions
growing once again not least from
iSAGE itself the outfit’s endeavors provide a disturbing look at
the role of the security state and mainstream media in corrupting British
public health policy.
Nearly three years since the world first heard of COVID-19, societies
across the globe are still reeling from prolonged lockdowns and harsh
social restrictions, which many governments implemented in order to
supposedly “stop the spread” of the virus. Britain is no exception, and
while the full long-term impact of such measures remains unknown, some
grueling effects are already painfully apparent.
Patients receiving care for cancer, cardiovascular, and respiratory
disease
were prevented from accessing routine treatment;
rates of clinical depression and mobile phone addiction among
university students skyrocketed; adults of all ages
reported worsening mental health conditions; and the number of
Britons seeking help for drug addiction
increased by 81% between 2020 and 2021.
Meanwhile, school closures
exposed Britain’s youth to food insecurity and increased likelihood
of falling victim to domestic abuse, while the rapid digitization of
education
further widened learning gaps between wealthy and low-income students
in the country.
“We were mesmerized by the once-in-a-century scale of the emergency and
succeeded only in making a crisis even worse. In short, we panicked,”
lamented Professor Mark Woolhouse, an Edinburgh University
epidemiologist, in January 2022.
As with many contemporary critics of the British government’s initial
“Zero COVID” strategy, Woolhouse argued a targeted response to protect
the most vulnerable members of society, such as the elderly, would have
done more to curb Britain’s death toll than blanket, nationwide
lockdowns.
“This was an epidemic crying out for a precision public health approach
and it got the opposite,” he explained.
Behind some of the most socially destructive pandemic policies
implemented by the British government was iSAGE, a shady organization
founded by a Russia-obsessed Guardian pundit and advised by spies,
behavioral psychologists and media influencers without backgrounds in
science or medicine.
Founded in
May 2020 by David King, former chief scientific adviser to Labour
Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, iSAGE initially set out to
agitate for greater transparency around state health policy,
while providing “robust, unbiased advice” to the public and
government. Yet it rapidly transformed into a powerful, wholly
unaccountable lobbying group, aggressively pushing for “Zero COVID”
measures.
For almost two years, iSAGE members were a fixture in both British and
international media. Senior politicians and pundits effusively endorsed
the group’s pronouncements on the pandemic, and its weekly
YouTube briefings racked up tens of thousands of views. Its
representatives used their popular platforms to call for extensive
control and suppression measures, including contact tracing, mass
testing, border quarantines, lockdowns, and the implementation of
mitigation software in order to stop the transmission of COVID-19.
Confusion regarding iSAGE’s name, given its obvious similarity to the
British government’s official Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies
(SAGE), only increased the group’s prominence. Very quickly after its
launch, iSAGE began to not only work in parallel with its government
namesake, but supplant it in the public mind.
Despite its enormous influence, iSAGE and its members have largely
avoided public scrutiny. Little is known about the forces guiding and
shaping its activities, or whether its representatives are advancing an
ulterior agenda at odds with their stated commitment to providing
“unbiased” scientific advice.
iSAGE pushes lockdowns “without sufficient scientific expertise or
scientific evidence to inform it”
It was on iSAGE’s official
launch date in May 2020 that its founding objective of securing
publication of the identities of SAGE, and its papers, was achieved.
Previously, the body’s composition and the evidence underpinning its
decisions was
entirely hidden from public view, which stoked significant
controversy, particularly given its initial heel-dragging over the
implementation of protective COVID-19 measures.
Emboldened by this immediate success, former iSAGE member Allyson Pollock
claims the group
“rapidly moved away” from its initial transparency agenda “to wanting to
make policy” itself. Unknown to the public at the time, iSAGE’s
transformation from government watchdog project into premier public
health policy-making activist group prompted an internal revolt.
“Often, [iSAGE] ended up advocating things when it hadn’t sufficiently
thought through the uncertainties in the evidence and the potential for
harm,” Pollock, who worked as a clinical professor of public health at
Newcastle University, alleges. She cites “prolonged lockdowns, school
closures, and mass testing,” as examples of iSAGE’s misguided
recommendations.
According to Pollock, the group offered policy advice “sometimes without
sufficient scientific expertise or scientific evidence to inform it.” She
expressed vehement opposition when the group officially adopted its “Zero
COVID” position in July 2020, believing it lacked any basis in science.
Two months later, the group declined to renew her membership.
iSAGE’s push for Zero COVID appeared oddly timed, and the group itself
acknowledged total eradication of a disease had only ever been achieved
once in history, in the case of smallpox. Britain was at that point
beginning to reopen after a four-month lockdown, in line with SAGE
advice. In theory though, as iSAGE was an entirely separate entity from
SAGE, it was free to advocate for whatever mitigation strategies it
deemed appropriate.
In practice though, an overlap in the membership of both bodies as well
as their virtually identical names blurred lines between the two groups.
British government chief scientific advisor Patrick Vallance claims he
explicitly warned iSAGE founder David King against using any
derivation of “SAGE” for the title of his new group, believing it would
puzzle and mislead the public.
Despite apparently pledging to not emulate the name, King did so anyway.
The “Independent” prefix was even more problematic, as it clearly implied
that SAGE was not a trustworthy, autonomous organization, while iSAGE
issued impartial, more credible advice by contrast.
iSAGE gathers influence by fueling confusion
As predicted,
the two groups’ duplicate names muddied the waters on public and
government messaging around COVID-19, leading to numerous troubling if
not outright dangerous blunders on the part of journalists, pundits,
and elected lawmakers alike.
SAGE member Ian Boyd claims such chaos was intentional.
In
October 2021,
he told
The British Medical Journal the two groups’ names “created
confusion and was a device used by those organising [iSAGE] to set up
unnecessary friction.” In the same article, another academic suggested
iSAGE’s title implied the body was “somehow more authoritative than it
actually is.”
Public disorientation was compounded by the fact that several members of
SAGE also moonlighted as iSAGE experts. Take the example of Susan Michie,
a left-wing political activist and self-styled “behavioural change”
expert who served with both iSAGE and SAGE, advising the secretive
governmental
SPI-B council of behavioral psychologists that fear-mongered the
public into compliance with official pandemic policy. Media reports
on Michie almost universally referred to her simply as a “SAGE
scientist,” creating the impression that her comments represented the
British government’s official position.
Michie became a symbol of iSAGE’s advocacy for a permanent biomedical
security state. During a June 2021 interview, she
argued that social distancing and mask mandates should “continue
forever.”
At no point did the mainstream British media acknowledge that Michie’s
background did not necessarily qualify her to recommend policy for a
public health crisis. Rather, a clinical psychologist represented
precisely the type of character who could be called upon to manipulate
the public into accepting extreme lockdowns.
Michie was not the only iSAGE representative that news outlets presented
as a “scientist” despite an apparent lack of relevant credentials in
epidemiology, virology, or public health management. Another long-time
media favorite was iSAGE mathematician Christina Pagel, who was promoted
as a credible expert despite her routinely
misreading and misrepresenting data.
On the flip side, mainstream media
wrongly
characterized members of iSAGE who were
not part of SAGE as
representatives of the latter on numerous occasions. Similarly, the press
erroneously presented iSAGE recommendations as official SAGE advice more
than once.
In May 2020, Labour party deputy leader Angela Rayner
mistakenly declared that SAGE had warned against the planned June 1st
reopening of schools as “too soon,” implying the British government was
recklessly discounting recommendations from its own in-house scientific
advisors. She was in fact referring to
a report produced by iSAGE, not SAGE.
Conversely, SAGE’s
own research cautioned that blanket school closures would result in
children experiencing “a shock to their education which will persist and
affect their educational and work outcomes for the rest of their lives.”
It predicted that extended periods of home learning would gravely deepen
inequalities between pupils and leave early-stage learning and behavioral
disorders undetected.
As scheduled, England began to reopen schools in September 2020, although
they were shut down once again that December. Independent SAGE
representatives then steadfastly opposed mass reopenings in Spring 2021,
and
regularly criticised the move for months thereafter.
In October that year, a
United Nations report concluded countless children worldwide had been
harshly impacted emotionally and psychologically by school closures,
leading to greatly increased “fear and stress, anxiety, depression,
anger, irritability, inattention” as well as “irregular physical activity
and sleep patterns.” A total confirmation of SAGE’s initial warnings
against blanket school closures.
The UN’s withering judgement may explain why iSAGE representatives have
since
deleted social media posts in which they aggressively advocated
for keeping children out of classrooms until COVID-19 was completely
eradicated. Still, some evidence of their advocacy remains extant today,
including a July 2020
livestream on mask mandates billed as a “public
consultation.”
“I don’t believe schools should be opened until we’ve approached Zero
COVID. This is a big challenge,” David King declared in that discussion.
“It means, over to the government, ‘please lock us down, manage the
disease, bring it right down to roughly a level of one in a million
people,’ and we’ll manage to open schools much more safely.”
Not-so-Independent SAGE riddled with conflicts of
interest
It was not until July 2021 the British media began
probing into the scientific collective with any critical scrutiny. That
month,
The Daily Telegraph
revealed a shadowy outfit called The Citizens was responsible for
establishing iSAGE.
The Citizens was itself led by Carole Cadwalladr, the Russia-obsessed
Guardian columnist who won a series of high profile awards for reporting
claiming the data firm SCL-Cambridge Analytica served as a channel for
Russian meddling in the Brexit vote. As
Alex Rubinstein reported for The Grayzone, Cadwalladr’s reporting was
comprehensively discredited by a 2020 British parliamentary report that
found no evidence whatsoever of Russian involvement in Brexit.
In response to the revelation that The Citizens had spawned iSAGE,
Cadwalladr insisted The Citizens’ connection to the group had been
publicly stated on iSAGE’s website since its launch. Though her claim was
technically accurate, the link had never been acknowledged in media
appearances by iSAGE members, let alone by Cadwalladr herself. What’s
more, the relevant passage on iSAGE’s website merely refers to The
Citizens as a “small support team…helping Independent SAGE with its
public events and media activities.”
This characterization significantly downplays the scale and nature of the
relationship between The Citizens and iSAGE. It was around the time of
the
Telegraph exposé that Cadwalladr updated her own Twitter
profile to describe herself as a “cofounder” of The Citizens, the
“parent” of iSAGE. Meanwhile, The Citizens’ Twitter characterizes itself
as iSAGE’s “founder and producer.”
Official records of a June 2020 meeting of iSAGE’s ‘Behavioural
Advisory Group’ show the organization received significant direction and
assistance from another unacknowledged source. Zack King, representative
of
PR firm Firstlight
Group, took a lead role in proceedings, introducing “the work of
Independent SAGE to date,” and leading a dedicated discussion on press
relations.
Along the way, King stressed that he and Cadwalladr “handled press
issues,” and iSAGE “can use both of them” if the organization’s
behavioral scientists wanted to “involve” the media in its
activities.
“Zack and Carole work together on press side. Most press relations are
undertaken via Zack and his PR firm,” the minutes state.
In January the next year, a blog titled, “Holding the government to
account” was published on Firstlight’s website, laying out the “ambitious
media plan” the company pursued in order to “build the group’s profile as
quickly as possible” and “grow the group’s influence” upon launch. The
proposal called for 36 weekly media and public briefings and “countless
one-to-one interviews and bylines.”
Within six months, iSAGE was “agenda-setting,” Firstlight boasted, “and
this publicity empowered them to drive change,” including its “Zero
COVID” approach “being adopted by parts of the Welsh, Scottish and
Northern Irish devolved governments.” At no point was it disclosed that
Zack King is the son of iSAGE chief David King, a fact the former is
keen to conceal.
Leaked iSAGE communications reviewed by
The Grayzone indicate
Firstlight was rewarded handsomely for its media manipulation. In late
May 2020, when Cadwalladr proposed setting up a crowd-funder for the
operation, iSAGE member Allyson Pollock said she was growing “uneasy”
about the initiative. She was “extremely anxious” about seeking such
financing for a “short-term project,” and proposed raising funds via
other non-public means, even offering to contribute to expenses herself.
Read the leaked iSAGE emails
here.
Pollock’s concerns were extensive. There was no clarity on what the
money was needed for “and how much and for [how] long and exactly who
for,” she complained, especially given that iSAGE members were working
pro bono. Further, the group had collectively decided to recruit resident
academics with stable incomes as well as volunteers living off of
guaranteed government financial support.
“Everyone on the committee is in employment and some of us are on very
good salaries. So, should we not be contributing if we need to…that would
be public spirited and in the spirit of what we are doing,” Pollock
fretted. “The public are very hard pressed at the moment and I don’t feel
at all comfortable crowdfunding.”
David King attempted to reassure Pollock that any sums received would not
be used to enrich iSAGE members, but to instead cover invoices to the PR
firm, Firstlight. Remuneration for “professional expertise” would be
solicited elsewhere, he promised.
Cadwalladr also weighed in, remarking that Pollock “won’t be aware of the
behind-the-scenes work that has been involved in getting the project this
far,” including “the unavoidable expense involved particularly in
handling the media.” What services those costs would have covered in the
midst of a national lockdown remains unclear.
That June, The Citizens launched a
dedicated
crowdfunder for iSAGE which raised £60,000. An accompanying blurb was
vague on how donations would be spent, merely stating it would help the
organisation “keep following the science.” No mention was made of
bankrolling a wide-ranging media blitz, courtesy of the son of iSAGE’s
founder.
The Citizens rakes in donations from regime change cut-out
Omidyar
The decision by iSage to launch a fundraising campaign
while the British public suffered widespread unemployment, hardship and
financial uncertainty – and despite wholly reasonable and legitimate
internal dissent – is rendered all the more perverse given The Citizens
has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from
Luminate.
As Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal
documented in an investigation with Alex Rubinstein, Luminate is an
integral component of intelligence-linked US oligarch Pierre Omidyar’s
global propaganda and
regime change network.
In
2020, Luminate gifted The Citizens $150,000 to develop the “Real
Facebook Oversight Board”, and $300,000 ostensibly to produce “impact
journalism to hold government and big tech to account.” Cadwalladr
also claims the
CIA-connected Ford Foundation provided some support, although no
record of the donation is recorded on the Foundation’s website.
A 2016 report on Omidyar Network activities in West Africa underlines
how the billionaire’s media assets are used to further his commercial
interests. One passage refers to “converting passive readers to active
citizens” by sponsoring the publication of “politically opportunistic”
content in order to “motivate citizens and government to act.” The report
went on to cite “recent, major successes” the billionaire’s network had
enjoyed in Nigeria, where Omidyar
effectively owns the local tech sector.
“With the spectre of potential citizen mobilization looming in
politicians’ minds, media outlets also have the potential to elicit
government response directly,” the report boasted. “
In some
cases…government was motivated to act in order to prevent citizen action
[emphasis added], instead of in response to it.”
Between March and July 2020, Omidyar’s
personal wealth grew by $9 billion, in no small part
due to the “Covid-proof” business interests he had fostered around
the globe. These included expansive investments in ed-tech, digital
health and online content, which became major growth industries due to
lockdown policies.
By contrast, it’s difficult to identify how The Citizens put its lavish
Luminate grants to work. Omidyar was clearly happy with the results,
however, giving the organisation another $300,000 in 2021.
Today, the Real Facebook Oversight Board consists of an
infrequently updated Medium blog with 225 followers. There is no sign
either of any “impact journalism” from The Citizens, save for a
long-dormant
Substack, and
legal action against the British government over its purported
failure to investigate Russian interference in elections.
Despite their lavish Omidyar financing, Cadwalladr’s group again
turned to crowdfunding for that effort, raising tens of thousands
from the public before its legal push
was
thrown out by a High Court judge as the case was
“inarguable.”
Discredited former MI6 agent Christopher Steele advises
iSAGE
The Citizens’
website, which has
been “under construction” for most of its existence, once featured a
dedicated profile of disgraced former MI6 spy and
former FBI contractor Christopher Steele. And The Citizens founder
Cadwalladr has been a fervent promoter of the intelligence huckster,
lionizing him despite his ‘Trump-Russia’ dossier having been
comprehensively exposed as a fraud compiled with rumors and tall tales
fed to him by a single dubious source for cash.
In email exchanges with The Grayzone, Zack King, the PR agent and son of
iSAGE’s founder, initially contended The Citizens “drew on a wide and
diverse collection of unpaid advisors before it launched.” Christopher
Steele was among them, though according to King, he “never played any
active or other role” in The Citizens or iSAGE.
Requests for details on the services Steele provided for The Citizens
before its public inauguration were ignored. When asked why the group’s
website featured his profile if he was no longer involved in any
capacity, King revealed Steele was actually part of “a network of
pro-bono advisors we can call upon as needed.” He therefore implied the
former spook could provide indeterminate support at any time to The
Citizens, and perhaps iSage as well.
Steele’s intimate but mysterious involvement with an influential outfit
that shaped government policy and public perceptions on COVID-19 is
troubling, given the power grab that British security and intelligence
services carried out under cover of pandemic prevention.
Britain’s security state merges with the public health sector
under cover of tracking Covid
In May 2020, the same month iSAGE
was launched, London rolled out an initiative called the Joint
Biosecurity Centre (JBC). The JBC was advertised as a state-of-the-art
system that provided “evidence-based, objective analysis to inform local
and national decision-making in response to COVID19 outbreaks.”
Purportedly tracking the virus’ spread in real-time, its
coronavirus
“alert level” was
directly modeled
on the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre’s “traffic light” system,
established in 2003.
JBC was first led by Tom Hurd, a
veteran
intelligence official who months earlier had
been
put forward as the likely next MI6 chief. Hurd soon returned to
running counter-terrorism for the Home Office, however, and was
replaced by senior GCHQ operative Clare Gardiner. Her appointment
reportedly came at the behest of Cabinet Secretary
Simon Case, GCHQ’s former Director of Strategy.
At the time,
concerns were rising about the growing role of intelligence service
personnel in managing the pandemic, particularly given their
abject failure to sound any alarm on COVID-19 before it circulated
among the general public. But any resistance to the integration of the
security state with the public health sector were comprehensively shunted
aside, when the British government replaced Public Health England with
the Health Security Agency, of which the JBC became a
subdivision.
Despite the body’s enormous and constantly expanding power, the opaque
JBC has entirely eluded scrutiny from British media since its launch. Its
membership, the minutes of its meetings, data, analysis, and arguments
all remain a secret, while it maintains the power to impose restrictions
if not outright lockdowns without explanation or warning at any
time.
In October 2020, as Britain edged towards a second national shutdown,
parliamentarians demanded the publication of JBC’s deliberations,
evidence sources, and key personnel be published. On each point, they
were shut down by the government. In justifying its refusal to disclose
members’ identities, Downing Street claimed the Centre is “largely
staffed by civil servants,” meaning it was “not appropriate” to name
them.
Given that the veteran GCHQ spy Clare Gardiner was merely referred to as
a “senior civil servant” in an
official press release announcing her appointment to lead JBC, the
question must be asked: is the center “largely staffed” by intelligence
operatives?
Gardiner
left her post in mid-June 2021 without any official announcement,
and the position has been vacant ever since. At least, no replacement has
been publicly mentioned, and no one has asked officials for clarity.
Given the enormous clout exerted by the body to this day, it is
staggering that not one single journalist or campaigner has demanded
answers.
Indeed, contrary to their professed, principled commitment to scientific
transparency, and their initial calls to break the wall of official
silence surrounding the British government’s scientific advisory group’s
composition and thinking, iSAGE and The Citizens have made no attempt to
pressure the government to release any information on the JBC or Health
Security Agency.
As we will see in further installments in this investigation, leaked
emails absolutely debunk the stated commitment by iSAGE and The Citizens
to “following the science.”
Britain
Carol
Cadwalladr
coronarivusCovid
covid-19
firstlight
iSAGE
lockdowns
pandemic
SAGE
Susan
MichieThe
CitizensUK
Kit
Klarenberg
Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of
intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions.