Secret government unit collected Telegram posts about Covid policy critic

A secretive government unit collected posts from a secure messaging app about a scientist who questioned Number 10’s Covid policies, The Telegraph can reveal.

The Counter-Disinformation Unit (CDU), which was set up by ministers to tackle supposed domestic “threats”, amassed posts from Telegram about Prof Carl Heneghan, an epidemiologist who was critical of lockdown measures, data released by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) revealed.

The document showed that the CDU logged what were described as “sample Telegram posts” which made reference to the scientist’s views, including on the efficacy of face masks in stopping the spread of coronavirus.

Telegram is a secure messaging app which works in a similar way to WhatsApp and is often used by people who want an increased level of privacy in their online communications. Much of the app is encrypted.

It also has both a private chat function and channels where anyone can read the messages posted.

It is understood that the data held by the DCMS, which refers to Prof Heneghan, was taken from public Telegram channels.

Sources said that the purpose of gathering the posts was to “better understand how to analyse narratives on social media” and that the CDU did not regard it as “an attempt to identify disinformation”.

However, while a spokesman said that the CDU “has never tracked the activity of individuals” and that Prof Heneghan was “never monitored”, the disclosure about the range of information amassed by the unit is likely to provoke questions about transparency.

There is growing speculation that the intelligence agencies may have been involved in the work of the CDU as officials have cited national security as a reason for the lack of transparency.

On Wednesday, Prof Heneghan told The Telegraph that “the effect of these tactics is chilling”.

Writing for the website, below, he said: “The Counter-Disinformation Unit’s tactics included looking at posts from ‘popular channels’ on Telegram, a platform we didn’t use. It’s likely these were groups, but it’s not clear to us how they were identified or how they gathered the material.

“The effect of these tactics is chilling. They raise serious questions about the true extent of the Government operations – who and what was captured within their spying net.”

Last week, The Telegraph disclosed that the CDU worked with social media companies in an attempt to curtail discussion of lockdown policies during the pandemic.

The Telegraph also revealed that another unit, the now-defunct Rapid Response Unit, which was part of the Cabinet Office, hunted online for content it considered to be disinformation.

Subject access requests submitted by Prof Henegan, who was a vocal critic of some lockdown restrictions, identified material related to him which was gathered by the units.

Two of the references, revealed last week by The Telegraph, were to information logged by the Rapid Response Unit, including an article in which Prof Henegan questioned the science behind the Rule of Six.

Now it can be disclosed that among the other information about Prof Henegan that was collected by the units were eight “sample Telegram posts”, which were logged by the CDU.

One of the Telegram messages read: “According to professor of evidence-based medicine at Oxford Dr. Carl Heneghan, who is also an emergency GP, most diabetic, heart disease and Alzheimer’s deaths were categorized [sic.] as Covid deaths in the UK.”

Another raised an Irish parliament committee report which “drew on expert advice from Professor Carl Heneghan” and made reference to how he had noted “cloth masks ‘may actually increase the risk of infection’ and explained the shortcomings of mandated policies based on observational data as opposed to scientific evidence”.

During the pandemic, there was much debate about the efficacy of face masks and recently, a UK Health Security Agency report was unable to find a single piece of scientific research which had usable data when they carried out a rapid review into whether high-quality masks protect clinically vulnerable people.

In his Telegraph article Prof Heneghan, and his colleague Dr Tom Jefferson, said he believed that “the Government took covert action to shut down what it thought was misinformation: It didn’t like criticism, opposition or hostility to its policies”.

They added: “Over-reliance on modellers’ poor quality science and the opinions of a chosen few meant the Government resorted to secret surveillance tactics to protect itself.”

As of last year, Telegram had more than 700 million active users worldwide. Millions flocked to Telegram and Signal, an alternative secure messaging service, over privacy concerns with WhatsApp, and when Facebook and Twitter removed thousands of far-Right accounts after the storming of the US Capitol in 2021.

In 2018, Theresa May criticised Telegram for being a “home to criminals and terrorists”.

Telegram did not respond to a request for comment.

A spokesman for the Government said: “The Counter-Disinformation Unit does not, and has never, tracked the activity of individuals. The individual referred to was never monitored or referred to a social media platform and no dossiers exist.”

The Government lost its way by seeking to silence pandemic critics

By Carl Heneghan, professor of evidence-based medicine, and Dr Tom Jefferson, senior associate tutor, both at the University of Oxford

An analysis from researchers at Johns Hopkins University reported that the lockdown in the spring of 2020 saved a meagre 1,700 lives in England and Wales. This pales in comparison with the Office for National Statistics report, which indicates that 23 per cent of all deaths in Great Britain, amounting to 153,008 out of 672,015, were apparently avoidable in 2020.

So what caused all these deaths, how could they have been avoided, and were the draconian restrictions of no value?  What matters is not whether you believe these results, but that they can be aired and discussed without the impending threat of censorship. During lockdowns, such a study would have been counter to the Government’s narrative, heretical to policy and subject to suppression.

A year ago, one of our articles reported that the death toll might be lower than thought, leading to a Twitter takedown. After reviewing 800 responses to freedom of information requests, it was clear there were several flaws in how deaths were recorded.

When we pointed this out, the account @‌carlheneghan was “locked” because it was “violating the policy on spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to Covid-19”.

Lockdown sceptics were vilified

Throughout the pandemic lockdowns, sceptics were vilified: Neil O’Brien MP and a gaggle of self-appointed fact-checkers attempted to publicly discredit sceptics through his Covid-19 FAQ website – as if it was the authority on all things pandemic.

Facebook also had its day when it suppressed one of our articles questioning the evidence base supporting masks. The UK’s Department of Health and Social Care Technical Report on the Covid-19 pandemic informed us we learnt little during the pandemic; there are substantial gaps in the evidence-based for non-pharmaceutical interventions that remain unfilled, they said.

The Lockdown Files revealed that masks were introduced in English secondary schools because the Prime Minister thought it wasn’t worth an argument with Nicola Sturgeon. The driver behind community mask mandates lay with the obsession of Dominic Cummings.

We also got flip-flopping of advisers from one government policy to the next. Face mask rules changed 10 times – why? Lacking evidence, it became too easy to make it up as you went along. But as time passed, it became harder to justify the Rule of Six, the 10 o’clock curfew, the closure of schools, or the Covid rules that changed more than 200 times in 2020.

Government monitored our writings for some time

However, these attempts to silence dissenters were surpassed by the Government’s efforts to censor individuals who publicly criticised their Covid policies.

Last August, Big Brother Watch asked one of us to submit a freedom of information request to the Cabinet Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. What we got back was surprising and disturbing: pages highlighting the Government had monitored our writings and online activities for some time. Other journalists, human rights campaigners, members of the public and members of parliament were also under the Government’s watchful eye.

The Counter-Disinformation Unit’s tactics included looking at posts from “popular channels” on Telegram, a platform we didn’t use. It’s likely these were groups, but it’s not clear to us how they were identified or how they gathered the material.

The effect of these tactics is chilling. They raise serious questions about the true extent of the Government operations – who and what was captured within their spying net.

The Government took covert action to shut down what it thought was misinformation. It didn’t like criticism, opposition or hostility to its policies. Over-reliance on modellers’ poor quality science and the opinions of a chosen few meant the Government resorted to secret surveillance tactics to protect itself.

Hallmarks for effective governance: truth and integrity

Yet, the freedom of the press requires journalists to pursue lines of enquiry without undue interference and publish articles that counter the prevailing narrative. It requires academics to counter the silence of science and question the status quo. Many of the policies now seem absurd, but too many went unchallenged.

But do you genuinely believe the pandemic is over and we can all move on? Is it necessary to implement a Pandemic Preparedness Treaty signing away most of the rights earned in the past 400 years? What will happen to free speech when unelected officials declare the next pandemic?

Truth and integrity should be the hallmarks of effective governance, not spying on its citizens with the temerity to disagree with its policies. At the height of the pandemic fear, the Government lost its way: it threatened democracy by seeking to silence its people.

But without the dissenters questioning the narrative, the restrictions would have been much worse for much longer.