Monday, 14 December 2020

A Gross Fraud: auditing the birdemic

A while ago I became interested in the use of auditing technologies - especially Quality Assurance - in the UK public sector; especially universities, schools and the National Health Service. 

I described the essence of auditing as follows:

Auditing was originally financial auditing, and the principal purpose of financial auditing is to detect and deter error and fraud in the handling of money within a closed system. A closed system is necessary because only within a closed system may it be expected that all money flows will balance. 

Indeed, financial audit defines the units of closed finance, the units of 'accountability'. There are legal requirements for certain individuals and organisations to be auditable, and this requirement enforces the monetarily-closed nature of such systems. 

Within a closed system, audit detects errors and fraud through sampling information and cross-checking it for inconsistencies when compared with established organisational and practice criteria

Independent sources of information should be consistent with each other when checked every-which-way. Since a complex organisation has so many strands making up a web of cash flows, the number of potential cross-checks is almost infinite. 

Anyone wishing to ‘cook the books’ has a great deal to fake if they are to ensure that every possible inconsistency between independent sources has been ironed-out. 

 

In sum, therefore, auditing is a matter of cross-checking for consistency

The auditor makes an assumption that if everything was done honestly (and data is sufficiently complete and accurate) then all cross-checks should add-up. Any and all-possible valid cross-checks will then reveal internal coherence - everything holds-together. 

 

At a gross level, auditing is something we all do spontaneously. We could call it Common Sense Auditing. 

For example, when a Gross Fraud is being done with no attempt at concealment; then it is obvious to anyone who pays attention that 'things don't add up'. 

For example; if a multi-billionaire claimed to be deriving his income from a small corner shop for cheap goods, which had hardly any customers - nearly anybody could see that there was a Big Fake going on. 

But when there is a more moderate degree of fraud, and when there are also serious attempts to conceal the fraud (such as 'money laundering', and the employment of crooked accountants); then detection probably requires (honest!) expert professional auditors - who both understand this kind of business and have advanced numerical skills.  

 

So what kind of fraud is the birdemic? Is it one of those cleverly-concealed, moderate, 'money-skimming'-type, frauds - implemented by clever but crooked 'accountants'; and detectable only gradually, in retrospect, and by honest, expert auditors?

Is the problem, therefore, that honest expert 'auditors' (epidemiologists, immunologists, virologists etc) are so rare, or are being ignored? Or that the evidence of fraud is insufficient at present? 

Not at all! The birdemic is the first kind of fraud, a Gross Fraud with very little attempt at concealment, like the corner shop billionaire.  

 

There is no need for expertise or advanced abilities to discover that the birdemic is a Big Fake: Common Sense Auditing, by anyone who pays attention, is sufficient. 

All the birdemic fraud requires for its discovery, is ordinary cross-checking for internal consistency. 

Such cross-checks as comparing official predictions of what will happen, with what actually happens. Comparing what is stated to be happening in one place, with what is happening in other places. And comparing statements made now with statements made previously...

And wherever the cross-checks actually are performed on the birdemic, there are 'red-flags' - there is a failure of coherence; there is obvious, gross evidence of fraud. 


But the cross-checks are Not performed. The masses refuse to do Common Sense Auditing.

People will not pay attention and do for themselves the kind of ordinary comparisons that make it obvious the corner shop billionaire is a Big Fake.

Instead, the masses have presumed that the birdemic cannot be a Gross Fraud, but must (if anything) be a subtle and expert fraud. 

So the masses rely upon 'other people' to do the birdemic auditing. So the whole issue becomes just part of the usual media circus of claims and counter-claims...

 

Having decided that they themselves cannot, cannot be bothered to, or should not perform a common-sense birdemic audit for Gross Fraud; then the masses have overwhemingly concluded that it is the birdemic auditors who are a Gross Fraud - not the birdemic itself!

And therefore the masses are being duped by a Gross Fraud; an obvious fake, which could easily be detected by anybody paying attention; But Is Not. 

And therefore the masses have only themselves to blame for that which has been done to them in 2020, using the fake birdemic as 'justification'. 


2 comments:

Nova said...

Pablo Escobar notoriously perpetrated the very type of Gross Fraud you describe, Bruce. Despite owning some 800 homes, hundreds of boats, cars and planes, and a complete zoo, Escobar publicly maintained that all this wealth was a result of his successful taxi business. Which had three cars. The public simply accepted this, as did virtually all officials and authorities. To question this obvious fraud was to put the lives of your family members in grave danger. Ultimately the fraud became a manufactured reality. As in the Soviet Union, people were frightened into literally believing the unbelievable.

We're not quite at the Escobar stage yet, but we're getting closer. Here in Canada the ominous chatter has begun from media and government elites: "you may decline the vaccine legally, however you will be prohibited from travel and barred from most employment. Also, getting the vaccine does not preclude more lockdowns. You will still be a potential carrier."

Bruce Charlton said...

@Nova - You can't fix the world - but you may be able to fix your own mind. You are responsible for your own discernments - and that responsibility is not affected by what the mass of other people (mostly not known to you) have decided.