That's his conclusion. The premise going in, that a corruption of science is being used to drive political ends appears a reasonable initial line of reasoning. I can differ in where I take the conclusion but agree about this initial premise. Johnson wants economic outcomes which drive him to claim science backed policy when the science does not actually support what he is doing in the UK (for instance) and I do think a perpetuated economic and health crisis is being used to achieve political goals in a lot of ways.

Enabling legislation is being rushed through parliaments in a lot of places to post hoc legitimate a form of rule by ministerial decree.