No word yet whether his backer, Bill Gates, who pours tens of millions of dollars a year into Ferguson's institute at Imperial College, has turned off the money spigot.

Sex scandal: Ferguson admits he broke his own rules and the UK government's.

He saw his married girlfriend, Antonia Staats, during the lockdown; she traveled from her home to his, while he was still, technically, recovering after a diagnosis of COVID.  Staats says she and her husband have an open marriage.  She says she suspects her husband has COVID.

Ferguson issued a statement of regret, a mea culpa, on his way out the door.

In his wake, he's left a distinct impression that: the privileged and rich live by a different set of rules, not subject to the constraints imposed on the masses; he can flout the lockdown edicts he helped create---therefore, how important can those edicts really be; the science behind lockdowns is not science at all; cheaters win, suckers lose.

If Trump, Boris Johnson, Merkel, Macron et al had a shred of sense, reason, smarts, and conscience, they would use this incident to attack Ferguson's reputation and computer model and rip them to shreds.  It's a perfect launch pad.  But no.  They drone on.  They enable the armies of pod people wearing masks and staying home.  They support that cosmically sociopathic Howdy Doody, Bill Gates.

The Guardian is bending over backwards by running a headline about headlines: "The prurient headlines about Neil Ferguson are a huge distraction."

Really?  Does the author of the Guardian piece have a clue about Ferguson's track record in predicting epidemics?  Does he know Ferguson claimed, in 2005, for example, that 200 million people could die in the bird flu "outbreak?"  Official figures eventually listed the death toll in the low hundreds.

Does the author of the Guardian piece have a clue about the false-positive-spitting PCR diagnostic test for the virus?  Is he aware that doctors and hospitals are putting "COVID-19" on death certificates of 90-year olds falling off buildings and testing positive on the way down?

Does he even faintly understand what is actually involved in claiming the discovery of a new virus---and how a reliable procedure was never followed in Wuhan?

No, to all of the above.  He's stuck railing about "prurient headlines."

Tsk, tsk, Neil Ferguson made a boo-boo.

Afraid not.

He set off a storm on nations and economies and people's lives.

His professional colleagues, who are still praising him as a genius, are covering their own asses, because they know the career of making computer predictions is a fatuous con.  They feast at a table of numbers, arranging them to suit their purposes.

To whom it may concern: when person A works for person B, and person B dumps money on person A's head, person A is going to do person B's bidding.

Person A is Ferguson.  Person B is Bill Gates.

In what universe would Ferguson ever claim a virus, which is supposed to lead to a messianic Gates vaccine, is not dangerous at all?  In no universe.  That is called a conflict of interest.

No one firmly ensconced in the mainstream of medicine or science will say this out loud.  No one in the mainstream will say, on this basis alone, Ferguson's models should be rejected.

Why?

Because they're cowards.

They should be wearing full hazmat suits pumping gas in Death Valley in the summer.  Waiting for cars that never come.