Tool of pandemic deception: Controversy over Johns Hopkins University’s ‘Covid-19 Dashboard’

In a recent opinion piece published in ‘The Conservative Woman’, Professor Martin Neil delves into the intricacies of the ‘Covid-19 data dashboard’ launched by Johns Hopkins University (JHU) at the onset of the pandemic.

Neil is Professor of computer science and statistics at Queen Mary, University of London.

Thomas Verduyn’s investigation, cited by Neil, unveils startling revelations about the genesis and methodology behind this influential global data resource.

The JHU Covid-19 dashboard was an online tool launched by JHU at the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic. It was used by legacy media and government ‘experts’ around the world to track the global spread of the ‘virus’ in real-time. The dashboard puportedly provided ‘up-to-date information’ on confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries from Covid-19 across countries and regions worldwide.

The dashboard stopped collecting data in March 2023.

Verduyn’s analysis revealed that the dashboard was initiated when Covid-19 was in its nascent stage, with only four cases reported outside China and no deaths. Despite its humble beginnings, the it swiftly gained prominence, becoming a primary source for media, researchers, and health authorities worldwide. Its ability to aggregate data from diverse sources, including social media and obscure websites, raised eyebrows, especially given its apparently meager resources and swift development timeline.

One striking aspect highlighted by Verduyn was the potential reliance on epidemiological models rather than empirical data to populate the dashboard. With JHU’s lead author, Professor Lauren Gardner, specialising in mathematical modeling of infectious diseases, questions arise about the accuracy and reliability of the data presented. Verduyn suggested that this reliance on modeled data could have perpetuated a cycle of fabricated statistics, reinforcing the pandemic narrative.

Furthermore, Verduyn’s scrutiny of mortality data from New York City (NYC) reveals discrepancies between JHU’s figures and those officially reported by NYC authorities. This incongruity, he argued, provided evidence of artificially generated ‘probable death’ numbers, akin to the controversial models of the UK government’s Covid ‘expert’ Neil Ferguson.

Neil’s interpretation of Verduyn’s findings leads to a provocative conclusion: the JHU dashboard might have been engineered to magnify the severity of the pandemic, potentially aligning with the objectives of Event 201, a pandemic simulation exercise held prior to the outbreak, which was run by JHU in ‘partnership’ with the globalist World Economic Forum.

The controversy surrounding JHU’s Covid-19 dashboard raises fundamental questions about the transparency and reliability of pandemic data dissemination, wrote Neil.

Professor Neil concluded:

‘Tracking any illness in real time was and remains an impossibility. Given this and the fact that nothing particularly alarming was unfolding at the time of its creation, Verduyn’s analysis suggests that JHU succeeded in creating a Covid-19 dashboard for the purposes of communicating the impression of a pandemic or exaggerating what would, given the mortality burden, otherwise have been perceived as a routine influenza season. Notably, the rollout of the dashboard also fulfilled one of the objectives of Event 201 – to simulate a pandemic so realistic it was utterly believable.’