Passport to a protection racket

If you’d prefer to read this episode, you can download a transcript here.

With the long-predicted launch of vaccine passports announced, the Scottish and UK governments have taken the first step in enforcing a medical intervention that has not been fully trialled and the effectiveness of which, research shows, is at the very least questionable.

This kind of physical imposition has not been known in Europe since…

If you enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe, and feel free to comment below.


Public Health England briefing paper on variants:

Research paper from Tel Aviv, Israel, “Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections”

Kim Iversen: BOMBSHELL Report Suggests Natural Immunity Triggers Better Response Against COVID

Etienne de La Boetie: The Politics of Obedience

Growing up Black in Nazi Germany, interview with Esther Amanu Fordham

Why vaccine passports are a terrible idea

This is my response to the UK government’s consultation on “Covid-Status Certification” – or vaccine passports to you and me. There were three questions asked in the consultation, which is open until 29th March, 2021. The questions can be seen here. My responses follow.

Question 1

g) I am an individual

Question 2

a) clinical/medical considerations

Certification for vaccination for any disease is an infringement of human rights. A vaccination enters the bloodstream, and always carries a certain risk to health. Being vaccinated should therefore be a matter of personal choice. I have been vaccinated many times in the past, and this was my personal choice.

Medical and scientific opinion is not always correct. I was born in February 1962, and my mother was prescribed Thalidomide for morning sickness while pregnant with me. After a week, she heeded my grandmother’s advice, and decided to stop taking it. She told me that she hid the tablets from the health visitor and pretended that she was still taking them.

I have read the MHRA papers for the covid vaccines, and much of the test research for all vaccine brands is stated to be “ongoing”. This in itself raises alarm bells for me.

But even if the vaccines had been trialled for 10 years, I don’t think that any individual should be coerced into taking them.

Many people prefer to take a more natural approach to their health, and pharmaceuticals should not be forced on anyone, especially in relation to a disease that – going by the official figures – has been associated with the deaths of no more than 0.18 percent of the UK population.

b) legal considerations

I am not an expert in law, but there seems to be evidence of corruption and conflicts of interest in the promotion of covid vaccines. The World Health Organisation has been active in pressurising governments all over the world to take certain actions regarding covid, and a very significant proportion of its income comes from pharmaceutical companies.

The Times and the Wall Street Journal have reported [1] that governments and big tech information companies like Google Ventures are invested in firms that stand to benefit financially from the rollout of covid vaccinations.

It has also been revealed that government contracts for PPE were awarded to “brass plate” firms. I suspect that this is the tip of the iceberg. In my opinion, the whole covid episode reeks of corruption.

At a time when there are more billionaires than ever before, I fear that the health of the world’s population is being threatened – not by a disease which has so far been associated with the deaths of no more than 0.03 percent of the global population, but by vested financial interests, maybe even organised crime. This is a very serious concern.

d) considerations relating to the operation of venues that could use a potential covid-status certification scheme and e) considerations relating to the responsibilities or actions of employers under a potential covid-status certification scheme

I think such venues and employers could be exposing themselves to future legal action if these vaccines are found to have caused physical damage or harm. This could be on a mass scale. Even if these companies find a way round the legal action, they could suffer a serious loss of reputation if they are seen to be associated with irreversible physical damage as a result of their coercion.

f) ethical considerations

There are tribes and societies that insist on irreversible practices like circumcision, male and female, and would outlaw anyone who refused to comply. I think this is wrong. I believe strongly in bodily autonomy. I would fight anyone who tried to assault or poison me, or who forced me to take a substance against my will.

g) equalities considerations

A certification scheme would certainly create a “class” of people who are inferior in many ways, and unable to participate fully in society because of their beliefs. This would not only violate current equalities legislation, but could also lead to serious discrimination similar to that suffered by the Jews in Nazi Germany.

h) privacy considerations

Covid vaccine certification would be a violation of personal privacy.

Question 3

With regards to testing:

The PCR test for covid is invasive and potentially dangerous. I would personally choose not to have one, and I would see any coercion to have it as coercion to an assault.

I have taken blood tests for covid, as part of volunteering for research into covid with UK Biobank. I was happy to do this. Invasive tests should be a matter of personal choice.

Finally, with regards to the sentence: “COVID-status certification refers to the use of testing or vaccination data to confirm in different settings that individuals have a lower risk of getting sick with or transmitting COVID-19 to others.”

I would argue that the use of testing or vaccination data cannot confirm that individuals have a lower risk of getting sick with or transmitting covid-19 to others. I have never had the flu vaccination, and I have not had flu since I was 13 years old. But I know several people who have had the flu vaccination and have then had the flu.

Covid vaccinations are said to reduce the symptoms, but not necessarily the transmission of covid. [2] The covid PCR tests have a questionable accuracy. [3] I personally believe that good sanitation and personal hygiene, eating good natural food, taking regular exercise, and mixing with other people to build up my immunity and gut health, is a much better approach to reducing my risk of covid than taking pharmaceutical drugs. If I am wrong in this, I will suffer the consequences. I am not prepared to put my own health at risk by taking a vaccine that some people believe might protect others.

There are many scientific unknowns in all of this, including the long-term (and even the short-term) safety of the covid vaccinations. There are many vested financial interests involved in the promotion of these vaccines and the censorship of dissenting opinions.

I therefore believe that any move towards covid-status certification would be a very serious mistake that could lead us all into dangerous territory.





Photo by Eduardo RS on Pixabay.

A letter to my MP about vaccine passports

On the 15th March, 2021, the UK government is to debate the subject of a petition entitled “Do not rollout Covid-19 vaccine passports”.

I wrote to my MP about this yesterday, and I was surprised to receive a very polite reply this morning. This surprised me because I recently moved home, and my previous MP never responded to any of my letters.

I don’t know whether my MP will attend the debate, and if so, speak out against vaccine passports – it may even have been a standard response. But at least my concerns were noted.

I’m going to publish the letter I wrote below, and I’m hoping that it will inspire others to do the same. I would advise people not to copy it word for word, as MPs are less likely to take note of these concerns if they keep receiving identical letters.

I got my MP’s details from the website All you do is put in your postcode and a basic template comes up. Alternatively, you should be able to find your MP’s details online and you can send them an email or post them a letter.

If you’re in Scotland, remember it’s your MP that you write to, not your MSP, as this is to be debated at Westminster.

So here’s the letter I wrote:


On 15th March, 2021, Parliament is going to debate the petition “Do not rollout Covid-19 vaccine passports”.

I am one of your constituents, and I signed this petition, as I choose not to have a Covid-19 vaccine, and I am very concerned about the measures under public discussion that may be employed to coerce people into having this vaccine.

I am not an “anti-vaxxer” – I have never refused to have a vaccine before, and have always taken the recommended vaccinations when travelling. But a vaccine goes into the bloodstream, and I strongly believe that everyone should have the choice about what is put into their bloodstream, without coercion, and certainly without being put in the position of being an effective outcast from society.

Since the start of the pandemic, 0.18% of the UK population have died with Covid-19 (i.e. within 28 days of a positive Covid test). While people may choose to have a vaccine if they think this will reduce their risk of getting this disease, I do not believe that my having the vaccine will reduce anyone else’s risk of catching it.

I also think it is wrong to expect me or anyone else to put my own health at risk in order to protect others. This kind of issue is a personal moral choice that should not be imposed by any public authority.

Another issue that strongly concerns me is the amount of money that stands to be made from these particular vaccines. The fact that people and companies who are influential in promoting this vaccine strategy stand to profit from the take-up of these vaccines adds to my concern that financial profit may have overcome public safety considerations in this issue.

The MHRA Public Assessment Reports for these vaccines clearly show that they are still under trial; in addition, the producers are immune from liability, yet stand to profit from public take-up of the vaccines.

The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine has been sold to the public as “non profit-making”, yet an article in The Times* revealed that the developers of this vaccine (Adrian Hill and Sarah Gilbert), are directors of a company called Vaccitech whose investors will receive royalties from the vaccine once the pandemic is declared over. Other investors include Oxford Sciences International and Google Ventures.

I fear that big financial interests are overriding basic human rights.

I therefore appeal to democracy to protect my rights to bodily autonomy as a fully participating member of society.

I hope that you are able to speak in the forthcoming Parliamentary debate on 15th March in support of the rights of all of your constituents to have complete freedom of choice over which substances are injected into their bloodstream.

* Source:

Also reported in The Week: Who is set to make money from the Oxford coronavirus vaccine?

Yours sincerely,