COVID-19 and the False Science of Computer Models:
How to Defeat Them in Court
TASA ID: 2409
America and the world have devastated their economies based on the false science of computer models, which outputted millions of potential deaths from a respiratory virus known as COVID-19. In America alone, economic damages to small businesses and farmers are in the trillions of dollars. How did this come about?
A British academic programmed a computer model that output 2.2 million Americans to die from COVID-19, along with 500,000 British. This computer model started the panic, followed by computer models done by university PhDs in America predicting deaths from 1.2 million to 800,000 Americans. When these computer models were wrong, when the actual deaths occurring did not match the predictions, the computer models were reprogrammed to show a smaller number of projected deaths. These projected deaths were again wrong and the computer models were reprogrammed again to show even smaller numbers of projected deaths. As of now, the various computer models are outputting deaths ranging between 20,000 and 80,000 American deaths from COVID-19.
Computer models are a hidden secret science programmed by anyone with all or part of the underlying raw data and algorithms used to program those computer models hidden from scrutiny. The lack of transparency by the computer model programmers begs for the demand to show their work, show their algorithms and show all of the underlying raw data that they used to program these computer models so that all of this can be validated by other scientists. As of now, no one has seen the raw underlying data and algorithms that were used to program the British computer model for COVID-19. No one has seen the raw underlying data and algorithms that were used to program the American computer models for COVID-19.
Were these computer models programmed fraudulently? Were there errors in their programming that led to the outputs predicting mass deaths? Obviously the programming of all these computer models was misrepresenting the dangers of COVID-19. If any data was used, was that data verified for accuracy or just blindly believed as truth by the programmer? Was any underlying data used, or did somebody simply program a computer to output what they wanted? Was the data used unreliable and/or unverifiable?
Why should anyone blindly trust the output of a computer model without seeing all of the underlying data and algorithms to validate the accuracy of that computer model? How widespread is the secret science of computer models and how often are they used in court to decide cases? This is much more common than you think.
For example, Robert M. Shavelle PhD, a long-time life expectancy expert whose life expectancy opinions were very favorable for his clients, would use a computer model as the basis for deriving his life expectancies. In the Rockwall County, Texas case of Bonin v. Jarrett, et al. a scientist was retained by opposing counsel who explained the secret science of computer models to the attorneys, which resulted in the judge ordering all of the underlying raw data that Dr. Shavelle used in the computer model he relied on to derive his life expectancy opinion.
Dr. Shavelle’s response was a declaration stating, “In drafting the Expert Report I did not consider, rely upon or use the raw data in the Study. I never stated in my Report that I considered, relied upon or used the raw data in the referenced Study.” Dr. Shavelle was then withdrawn as a testifying expert at trial, along with his life expectancy opinion.
How widespread is the hidden data of computer models? Should an attorney assume that every computer model is fraudulent and has no scientific basis, but is programmed to output whatever the programmer desires? The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on April 1, 2020 that the computer models behind the Environmental Protection Agency’s clean car standards cannot hide their underlying raw data and algorithms from scrutiny and validation. All of the underlying raw data and algorithms must be produced for scrutiny and validation.
Are the COVID-19 computer models that erroneously output predictions of mass deaths fraudulently constructed? A request or court order for all of the underlying raw data and algorithms that are used to construct any computer model is necessary by any opposing attorney. One must assume that every computer model is constructed to output whatever the programmer wants that computer model to output. Honest science always shows all of their work so there will be no questions about the validity of the science.
To simplify matters, if faced with science in the courtroom, think of high school algebra class. You have to show all of your work or you don’t pass the class. The same principle applies here. Every attorney must assume that the secret science of computer models is false science. This should be the standard in all legal matters.
TASA Article Disclaimer
This article discusses issues of general interest and does not give any specific legal or business advice pertaining to any specific circumstances. Before acting upon any of its information, you should obtain appropriate advice from a lawyer or other qualified professional.
This article may not be duplicated, altered, distributed, saved, incorporated into another document or website, or otherwise modified without the permission of TASA and the author (TASA Id#: 2409). Contact marketing@tasanet.com for any questions.