Covid Agents - Episode 1 - Professor John Edmunds.

I am going to embark on a series of posts that will take an in-depth look at some of the characters who are instigating, encouraging, and/or enforcing the changes we’ve recently seen in society during the so-called Covid pandemic.

Social change. Oppressive legislation. Mandatory vaccinations. Medical passports. The weaponization of behavioral science. These are just some of the tools being used to change life as we know it and it will behoove us all to understand more about those who are standing behind the gun and placing the general public in its crosshairs.

Welcome to Covid Agents!

Professor John Edmunds

I have chosen Prof. John Edmunds as my first subject on Covid Agents solely on the basis of what he stated during a recent BBC interview. The interview came to my attention during Friday’s episode of UKColumn news and as a parent, I feel incensed by what this man is advising the government to do. In fact, it is the possible consequences of what this man has said which is why I’ve been inspired to begin shining a torch into the face of those attempting to unleash harmful policies upon the general public.

Professor John Edmunds is currently standing on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, aka SAGE. Tasked with advising the government on Covid policies, the SAGE committee is made up of scientists and behavioral psychologists and their influence has been the major driving force behind recent Covid restrictions, legislation, and medical interventions.

There has been much debate about each and every policy both inside and outside the SAGE cabal. Unfortunately, those not towing the line of Big Pharma, The Gates Foundation, The green agenda, and politicians hankering after “The great reset” have all been silenced and/or thwarted in their effort to hold meaningful discord. Renowned and commonly cited scientists, such as Prof. Michael Levitt, who had previously been heralded as experts in their fields have since been ostracised from the scientific community for speaking out against the more militant members of SAGE and the draconian policies rolled out by the government. This policy of smear campaigning those who speak out against things like lockdowns and forced vaccination is common-place and many of the more knowledgeable and experienced experts have been silenced or ridiculed (sometimes both)

Consequently, we now have what the government likes to call “The Science” and this particular brand of dogma is fiercely guarded by those who have been awarded the title “Government expert”.

Professor John Edmunds is one of these experts who has been patronized by the state, and with that being so his word carries with it a gravitas comparable to that of a Pope. And it is this level of disproportionate trust in one man's opinion which concerns me, especially when that person holds such dangerous views…

Scary stuff, right? On the one hand, he wants to vaccinate children in order to dismantle the restrictions that have been placed upon us, and on the other hand, he also wants to make sure these vaccines are safe to be administered to children before doing so. Now, one could assume Prof. Edmunds is thinking of doing this in the not too distant future, which means he is willing to vaccinate children before carrying out any long-term research into adverse reactions. To say this view is contradictory is an understatement and IMO also naive. Prof. Edmunds understands fully the risk of using an experimental vaccine on young children and he’s been in the game long enough to understand that without carrying out long-term studies you can’t possibly claim any medical intervention to be safe. And let’s not overlook the devastating consequences these vaccine trials have already shown to produce amongst young participants.

(Forward to 5mins 59secs to hear the testimony of a mother describing the awful effects the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine has had on her 14-year-old daughter)

Is this type of adverse reaction one in a million? Is it one in ten thousand? Is it one in a hundred, maybe? The fact is we just don’t know and neither does Prof. Edmunds, but that hasn’t stopped him from publicly supporting the charge to vaccinate children. Now there’s no way of knowing for sure but I’m quite confident that Prof. Edmunds is aware of this particular case and others just like it. Reports of young vaccine recipients suffering from enlarged hearts as a side effect are becoming common knowledge, so we can safely assume the Professor knows that there are already some serious risks involved when vaccinating children against Covid. And then we add the unknown long-term risks to this equation and it’s pretty hard to see how Prof. Edmunds could advocate a criminally negligent policy such as this.

Are we to believe that Prof. Edmunds is simply unaware of all these risks? Or is it that he thinks the benefits outweigh those risks? I think not. Quite frankly, you’d have to be the world's most gullible person to absolve this highly educated and experienced scientist with either of those explanations. Instead, a more plausible theory to Prof. Edmunds's motives would be one that accounts for the motives of almost all who will be featuring in my Covid Agents series...Money.

Following the Vaccine Money Train

Professor John Edmunds(real name William John Edmunds) gained his Ph.D. while studying at Imperial College London, an institution that has now become synonymous with the failed Covid modeling that has driven the UK's lockdown policies. According to Wikipedia, "Edmunds specializes in the design of control programs against infectious diseases, including chlamydia, the 2009 swine flu pandemic, the HPV vaccine, and the Western African Ebola virus epidemic. In 2009, he established the annual online Flusurvey project to track the extent and evolution of UK seasonal influenza."

When Professor Edmunds isn't acting as a government advisor on the SAGE committee instructing Boris to roll out Covid vaccines to children, he is busy working for the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. It is here where we find the first cookie crumbs that give us a clue to a possible motive behind Edmunds' insistence on vaccinating the young, fit, and healthy.



And the list goes on and on and on...But on just one page we see a total of around $6,000,000. Just imagine what the total might be from the other 137 grants I haven't captured?

Is it safe to say that Professor Edmunds is on the Bill and Melinder Gates' payroll? And is it also a possibility that Prof. Edmunds is willing to overlook and/or ignore certain things which would otherwise halt a vaccine trial? Remember, the 1976 Swine flu vaccination program was halted after just 50 cases of GBS(Guillain-Barré syndrome) were attributed to it. So far, the various Covid vaccines already have well over a thousand deaths to their names, and that's just in the UK! Critics would argue that many of these severe adverse reactions have not yet been confirmed to have been caused by Covid vaccines. But when the MRHA fail in their duty to investigate these deaths and merely choose to collect the numerical data, that's exactly what they're going to say. I mean you can't confirm a severe reaction if you choose not to investigate it.

The fact that Prof. Edmunds work relies heavily on grants from Bill Gates is most certainly a conflict of interests but not necessarily a smoking gun(Although accepting money from a eugenicist who's hell-bent on vaccinating the entire population of the planet does seem rather unethical). But what about the character of the man and his previous work? Maybe looking into Prof. Edmunds' past will give us some idea of his trustworthiness...

If, like myself, you tune into interviews involving scientists such as Dolores Cahill, Michael Levitt, or Sucharit Bhakdi you'll notice they tend not to hesitate when speaking. Even when challenged, people I've just mentioned very rarely slip up or backtrack. IMO, this is because they believe in what they say and that is because what they say is based upon honest research. Now, I'm not saying that honest research instantly qualifies as the truth. What I am saying, is that those who carry out their work with impartiality and integrity tend to be the ones with the most credible theories.

So, let's take a look at some examples of Prof. Edmunds work and testimony. We can use this to study his reactions when under pressure...Will John Edmunds hold his nerve? Will he have satisfactory answers? More importantly, will he convince us that he's telling the truth, or at least that he, himself, believes what he's saying? Hopefully, by looking at him and his previous work we can find out what makes this man tic.

Not exactly a great performance from the professor, but let's give the guy a chance to redeem himself...

Well, what a depressingly pessimistic person he is, no wonder we're in the state we're in if he's the one giving old Bojo advice. But hey, the man has got a heart after all, because he clearly states he felt very sad to hear about all the unnecessary deaths that were brought about after not listening to his advice. Let's hope he feels the same sadness towards all those people killed or harmed after taking the experimental vaccines he's so keen to push onto everyone. But let's give the man his dues, he held it together during that interview and to anyone not listening to the other side of the story he would have sounded quite convincing. Shame he never brings up the point about PCR tests creating massive amounts of false positives, or how many of those deaths he was so saddened by were actually nothing to do with Covid but instead they were people who had died within 28-days of testing positive. I mean for someone so experienced in the world of epidemiology you'd think he'd understand the importance of collecting data in an accurate and honest manner. What is it they say when it comes to processing data? "Bullshit in, bullshit out?"

While writing this post I've had to watch many interviews involving John Edmunds and what has become poignantly clear about this mans is that he believes the only way out of this pandemic is through synthetically enhanced herd immunity, otherwise known as mass vaccination. I say he "believes" this, but maybe that's not quite right. I guess after years of research funded and directed by The Gates Foundation it's quite possible that Edmunds has lost his grip on reality altogether and now actually does believe what he's saying? They do say that if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth.

So if Edmunds has embedded himself so deeply in the world of vaccines through his research and now believes that a virus no deadlier than the flu requires us all to take an untested, experimental vaccine, what else has he managed to convince himself of...?



Faced with an epidemic of an infectious disease, persons may take precautionary actions to try to reduce their risk. Such actions include avoiding situations that persons perceive to be risky, which can have negative health and economic effects. Therefore, we conducted a population-based survey of persons’ precautionary actions in response to a hypothetical influenza pandemic. For the 5 European and 3 Asian regions that had been affected by severe acute respiratory syndrome, the pattern of reported precautionary action was broadly similar across the regions; ≈75% of respondents reported that they would avoid public transportation and 20%–30% would try to stay indoors. Some regional differences were noted; Europeans were more likely than Asians to avoid places of entertainment, and Asians were more likely to avoid seeing physicians. This international survey provides insight into what might be expected during an influenza pandemic.

Most notable exerts from this study paper

According to most models of health behavior, perception of being at risk is a prerequisite for behavior change, a supposition supported by empirical studies (10,11). These models endorse the belief that a high perceived risk of harm encourages persons to take action to reduce their risk.

Employment has emerged as an important determinant of prospective precautionary actions; The only individual-level variable that appeared to affect many of the precautionary actions was employment status. Fewer employed respondents reported being likely to avoid public transportation, entertainment venues, and work, and less likely to stay at home than those not employed full-time (e.g., homemakers, retirees, students). Although employed respondents were less likely (or perhaps less able) to adopt precautionary measures for themselves, they were more likely than persons who were not employed to report that they would withdraw their children from school .


So it appears from this research paper, the young Prof. Edmunds is well educated in how to coerce a population into taking certain courses of action, and maybe it is this type of experience that has earned him a place as a government advisor? After all, when you read this research paper in full it has an uncanny connection to the way in which policy has been implemented during the Covid pandemic.

To my mind, Prof. Edmunds is a dangerous man and someone that has been so long immersed in the culture of vaccines he welcomes their arrival. I believe he has become numb to the deadly side effects caused by vaccinations and sees them as collateral damage that's acceptable against his perception of the greater good. His legacy and his livelihood depend on 2 things; 1st is the prevalence of a deadly virus(Or at least the perception it's deadly), and 2nd is the creation of a vaccine to combat that virus. Without either of those two things, Prof. Edmunds has nothing, and like most of those unelected "experts" we find controlling our every move, Prof. Edmunds is putting his own interests before the safety of You, Me, and worst of all our children.


Thank you for taking the time to read this post and I hope to see you all again for the next instalment of Covid Agents!

Peace to you and yours

3 columns
2 columns
1 column
Join the conversion now