Saturday, 17 April 2021



The NHS is ramping up pressure on its workforce to undergo continual testing and take the vaccine. The same can be said of Care Homes and other workplaces.

Employees will be placed under increasing and almost intolerable pressure to submit and conform to strong 'recommendations'.

Many NHS staff are of the view that governments across the world are 'gaslighting'  their populations (i.e. brainwashing the healthy into believing they are sick) for  political purposes that have nothing to do with our collective good health. They want to resist the advancing tyranny.

This post suggests one way of doing so, by demanding 'proof of claim' from employers and government.

A template letter/demand/petition is presented below (and below that the PHE reply to an FOI request referred to). 

Please read and use or adapt as you please. It is recommended that colleagues work together to protect their basic inalienable human rights. Like-minded staff might present something like the following to their superiors to "put their minds at rest"? If superiors fail to produce 'proof of claim' (and they certainly will fail) then employees are fully within their rights to refuse to comply with recommendations.

Remember that knowing this with certainty is half the battle. Most injustices are suffered because people abandon rights and comply with authority under pressure from that 'authority'.  Ultimately we stand under the protection of the Law of our Divine Creator. AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM RECOGNISES THIS. If we do no harm we are entitled to live in freedom and free from any who would claim authority over us. We can enter into contractual agreements that define our responsibilities to employers but we are not subject to claims without evidence, extraneous to that contract, asserted by those employers.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Regarding the NHS demand that all its staff must take "swab" and PCR tests and considering the following extracts from the  circular of April 16th 2021:

"I encourage you to support this public safety exercise and protect yourselves, your patients and your loved ones ..."
"Please remain vigilant by maintaining social distancing, wearing correct personal protection equipment at all times and do your COVID-19 vaccination ..."

1) Please see the attached FOI reply from PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND containing the following lines:

FOI Request: Please could you forward any information you have relating to experimental evidence demonstrating that COVID-19 is person-to-person transmissible.

FOI REPLY: PHE can confirm it does not hold information in the way specified by your request.  

This is astounding. What other kind of transmissibility/contagion are we dealing with if not "person-to-person"?! What is 'social distancing', 'lockdown' and mask-wearing all about if not reducing person-to-person transmissibility? ... but here PHE admits ...

There is NO direct scientific evidence to support this assumption?!!

2) Why is it necessary to take swab samples from deep inside a person's head using a very long swab-stick potentially damaging that individual's blood-brain barrier in the process of taking the test. The barrier exists for a good reason and should never be damaged.
If this virus can be simply passed on via droplets exhaled from a person's mouth or nose into a room or even into the open air on the street, why is such a procedure  necessary?

We demand, for our own (and the public's) protection, the standard legal demand of any lawyer when a client is charged with a potential penalty or harm ... PROOF OF CLAIM.

This is a core principle of Common Law, which remains to this day the fundamental law of the land, despite what statutes our elected representatives try to impose on us.

If the NHS is going to accuse any person of causing harm or potentially causing harm or demanding that they participate in actions that could possibly harm themselves and others then you MUST provide PROOF OF CLAIM.

We demand you produce the scientific EVIDENCE that clearly demonstrates:
1) COVID-19 is person-to-person transmissible/contagious, and ...

2) That a long swab (or, indeed, any swab) is necessary for carrying out a COVID-19 test when sputum could  be delivered into a receptacle external to the body (e.g. a small bowl) before being 'swabbed' and sent off for testing. 
We know that such a sample, according to PHE/government theories, will contain the offending viruses because ...

... we have restructured the entire Health Service and our national economy on the basis of this assumption. 


A recent (April 2021) circular to NHS staff:

Dear Colleague

As you may have seen in the news, NHS Test and Trace is currently providing additional COVID-19 ‘surge’ testing in the London Boroughs of Lambeth, Wandsworth and in parts of Southwark and Barnet. This surge testing is in response to a number of cases of the variant first identified in South Africa having been identified locally.

Everybody aged 11 years and over who lives in, works in, or travels through these boroughs is being strongly encouraged to take a COVID-19 PCR test by the end of next week, whether they are showing symptoms or not.

As such, because many of our hospital and community services are based in Lambeth, and because many of our staff travel between our sites, all staff who spend any time working on either the Guy’s or St Thomas’ sites, including nearby office buildings, or in our community services, are asked to take a one-off PCR test as soon as possible.

Please note, if you have received a positive COVID-19 PCR test result in the last 90 days, you do not need to complete another test.

Collecting your test kit

To make this as easy as possible for you, we will be making self-testing kits available on-site every day from Monday to Saturday next week.

You can collect a test kit from, and return your completed tests to, the following locations:

·       Where: Atrium 1 at Guy’s Hospital, or Central Hall at St Thomas’ Hospital

·       When: Monday (12 noon-8pm), or Tuesday to Saturday (8am-8pm)

So that we can maintain social distancing at the collection points, I encourage you to coordinate your efforts so that one person collects testing kits for everyone in your team, where possible.

In addition, we will be arranging local delivery and collection of kits to and from our community sites and will share the details of these arrangements as soon as we can.

Local testing centres have also been set up by the affected boroughs for people to collect and return self-test kits (see Lambeth Council’s website and Wandsworth Council’s website for details).

If you work in our community services or live in Lambeth or Wandsworth, please collect a test kit from the most convenient location for you.

Taking the test and returning your swab

I strongly recommend that you read the accompanying instructions fully before attempting to take the throat and nose swab test. Once you have taken the test, please return your swab as soon as possible.

If you decide to collect a test kit from one of our Trust locations, please return your swabs to the same location from which you collected the test kit. Please do not return the swab by post. The samples will be collected in bulk and taken to an external lab for analysis.

Your results

As part of the test you will be asked to enter some personal details online, so that the testing team can inform you of your result. You can expect to receive your result within 48 hours. Importantly, you do not have to isolate between the time of your test and the time you get your result.

If your result is positive, you should inform your manager and our Occupational Health team immediately, as outlined in the existing guidance.

Existing staff testing

For those of you carrying out regular lateral flow testing as part of our staff testing programme, you will still need to take a PCR test, as lateral flow tests do not distinguish between different variants of COVID-19.

However, if you are one of the small number of people already undertaking weekly PCR tests as part of your role, you do not need to take an extra test.

Thank you

I encourage you all to support this public safety exercise and protect yourselves, your patients and your loved ones by taking a PCR test.

Please also remember to remain vigilant by maintaining social distancing and, wearing the correct personal protective equipment at all times, and do get your COVID-19 vaccine if you have not already done so.

Thank you for your ongoing support.



Dr Ian Abbs

Chief Executive

Chief Medical Officer

Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

FOI REQUEST from PHE (discussed here)

Public Accountability Unit 
  T  020 8327 6920 
Wellington House 
133-155 Waterloo Road 
London SE1 8UG  
By email 
Our ref: 06/02/nk/2729 
04 March 2021 
Dear Kevin Boyle 

Re: Evidence regarding COVID19 person-to-person transmissibility 
Thank you for your request received on 06 February 2021 addressed to Public 
Health England (PHE). In accordance with Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of 
Information Act 2000 (the Act), I can confirm that PHE partly holds the information 
you have specified.  
Please could you forward any information you have relating to experimental 
evidence demonstrating that COVID-19 is person-to-person transmissible. 
PHE can confirm it does not hold information in the way specified by your request. 
If no such experimental evidence exists for COVID-19 please could you 
forward any available evidence collected, targeting this particular issue over 
the past 150 years, that demonstrates person-to-person transmissibility for 
any other influenza-type illness?” 
PHE can confirm it does hold this information. However, the information is exempt 
under section 21 of the FOI Act because it is reasonably accessible by other means, 
and the terms of the exemption mean that we do not have to consider whether or not 
it would be in the public interest for you to have the information. However, for your 
convenience we have included a link to the report ‘Impact of mass gatherings on 
You may also find the ‘Weekly National Flu reports’ beneficial, a link has been 
provided below; 
If you have any queries regarding the information that has been supplied to you, 
please refer your query to me in writing in the first instance. If you remain dissatisfied 

and would like to request an internal review, then please contact us at the address 
above or by emailing  
Please note that you have the right to an independent review by the Information 
Commissioner’s Office if a complaint cannot be resolved through the PHE 
complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner’s Office can be contacted by 
calling the ICO’s helpline on 0303 123 1113, visiting the ICO’s website at or writing to the ICO at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, 
Cheshire, SK9 5AF. 
Yours sincerely  
FOI Team 


Tuesday, 6 April 2021




It would be wise to think of our rulers and their minions, enforcing the ongoing genocidal operation, as insane rather than "evil".

 As normal human beings trying to cope with a separated, divided world, the intention of most of us is to internalise and externalise UNITY because unity is wholeness and harmony and happiness and good health. 

The enemy desires SEPARATION of itself from humanity and separation of its own spirit from the DIVINE that IS UNITY ITSELF.

It builds its empire out of LIES (i.e. that which IS NOT). 

These people are addicted to their own illusions and are truly insane.

However, everything we call "evil" is part of the process of creating good. 

It is the NECESSARY background against which we recognise ourselves and against which must polarise.

Our natural response (self-justified by our strong, DIVIDED, self-identification with the good) is that we should attack and destroy evil. A mistake that will add to all woes. By this reaction we make ourselves the thing we claim to abhor.

The destroyer of darkness is light. the destroyer of hatred and fear is LOVE. 

This is what Christ demands of us, that we "Love our enemies".

To do this we must transcend our own divided selves. 

Not an easy task.

Nor even a task we can achieve for ourselves. This is work God does in us. But our co-operation is required.

Let us not HATE the INSANE. They intend to:
a) Defeat God. 
c) Lead us into the hell of separation they already inhabit.

These people and anyone who chooses to SERVE or OBEY them is EXHIBITING SYMPTOMS OF INSANITY.

We've all done it.

Let's get past it and try to help these poor souls.

The well-intentioned will listen.

The committed enemy will not.

Watch them RUN.



The Vaccine is not about protecting our good Health. It is about owning our bodies and souls.

The viral vector/mRNA new (non)-vaccines are designed to edit our genes in some of the same ways GM corn and soya have been genetically modified

Viral vectors can enter our cells and, via its constituent RNA, replace a snippet of the DNA in our own genome.

It can be no accident that one of the strands of RNA "identified" as a constituent part of Sars-Cov-2 is an exact replica of part of Chromosome 8, something that exists in its DIVINE form in EVERY HUMAN BEING.

Chromosome 8 is associated with brain function and many associated disorders (this list is horrifying), also with infertility and cancers.

As with GM foods, a human being that has been genetically adapted by a Corporation can (theoretically at least) be claimed to be OWNED by that Corporation ...

...though if the brain changes are successfully transcribed within human cells, one wonders what kind of Corporation would be interested in owning the probable Zombies they have created.

This is all beyond insanity. 

We can expect that the entering of the gene-editing RNA (now in the bodies of millions of people and lying dormant within cells protected by a lipid coating) into the nucleus of the cells of the vaccinated will be triggered at some date in the near future by a blast of 5G that will release the RNA from its lipid coating and cause many (but probably not all of the vaccinated) the intended harm.

Maybe large numbers will die. 

The rage such events are likely to produce will probably be the greatest threat to life on earth since the flood.

Loyalists to the State will be encouraged to blame the unvaccinated. 

We need to find every possible means to expose the insanity of our rulers and those who choose to serve them.


Friday, 19 March 2021



"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience."    

(Albert Camus)

Worldwide anti-government protests are organised for tomorrow, Saturday 20th March. 

Protesters should take note that the UK government is in the process of pushing the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill through parliament at the moment. 

See notes on the Bill here (or read under this post). 

It smells like fascism on steroids to me.

Most of us understand that the State is a psychopathic entity, controlled by forces beyond parliament ...

... and that their (not our) Intelligence Services are capable of committing every possible crime against the people they are pretending to protect in service of whatever political goal is defined for them by their masters.

Right now these forces will be very keen on gaining maximum sympathy for beleaguered UK Police and this totalitarian Bill. 

As with all wars and other attacks against humanity, it is best for tyranny and those that represent it to present their motive as "the protection of the people" or "the good of all".

The Sarah Everard demonstrations did not go well from a PR perspective. 

Support is needed, or at least most welcome, for measures intended to make public protest near impossible after this Bill is passed.

Expect agents provocateurs to be hard at work tomorrow in Central London. Do not be surprised if great harm is inflicted against a few officers by lunatic protesters. Do not be surprised if some provocation causes an extremely violent police "response".

To the remote authority directing operations, almost everyone is expendable ....

.... as millions of us, thank God, have come to understand.

Outline of the Bill presented by Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick on

1. What are we going to do?

The measures in the Bill will allow the police to take a more proactive approach in managing highly disruptive protests causing serious disruption to the public.

2. How are we going to do it?

Provisions in the Bill will:

  • Widen the range of conditions that the police can impose on static protests, to match existing police powers to impose conditions on marches

This measure will enable the police to impose conditions such as start and finish times and maximum noise levels on static protests. The police already have the power to impose such conditions on marches.

  • Broaden the range of circumstances in which police may impose conditions on a protest

This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”. These regulation-making powers will clarify ambiguous cases where, if they arise, it would not be clear whether the threshold for the use of such powers have been reached. This will enable the police to make use of their powers with the confidence that they are doing so legally.

  • Amend the offence relating to the breaching of conditions

This measure will close a loophole which some protesters exploit. Some will cover their ears and tear up written conditions handed to them by the police so that they are likely to evade conviction for breaching conditions on a protest as the prosecution have to prove that the person “knowingly fails to comply with a condition imposed”. The Bill will change the threshold for the offence so that it is committed where a person “knows or ought to have known” that the condition has been imposed.

  • Restate the common law offence of public nuisance in statute

The Bill will implement a recommendation by the Law Commission to introduce a statutory offence of public nuisance, and repeal the existing common law offence. This will provide clarity to the police and potential offenders, giving clear notice of what conduct is forbidden.

  • Ensure vehicular entrances to the Parliament Estate remain unobstructed

This measure will enable the police to direct an individual to cease obstructing vehicular entrances to Parliament and make it an offence not to comply with such a direction. This will protect the right of access to the Parliamentary Estate for MPs, Peers and others with business there as recommended in the Joint Committee on Human Rights in their 2020 report on Democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of association: Threats to MPs.

3. Background

Freedom of assembly and freedom of expression are vital rights that the United Kingdom fully supports. The rights of an individual to express their opinion and protest are a cornerstone our democratic society.

There is, and will remain, a balance to be struck between the rights of the protestor and the rights of individuals to go about their daily business. However, there are instances where individuals at a protest behave in a way that causes unjustifiable disruption or distress to others.

In recent years we have seen a significant change in protest tactics which have led to disproportionate amounts of disruption. The current legislation the police use to manage protests (the Public Order Act 1986) was enacted over thirty years ago. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service has called on the Government to update this ageing legislation to allow the police to safely and effectively manage the highly disruptive protests we see today. The Home Office has therefore engaged with Police Chiefs and commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to conduct an inspection into the policing of protests to understand what needs to be to ensure that the police can safely manage highly disruptive protests whilst preserving citizens’ freedoms of expression and assembly.

The Government is proposing several changes in the law which will improve the police’s ability to proactively manage the most disruptive protests, and provide punitive outcomes that reflect the seriousness of offences committed by protesters.

4. Frequently asked questions

4.1 Will these measures undermine freedom of expression?

No, freedom of expression is a cornerstone of British democracy. The majority of protests in the England and Wales are lawful and will be unaffected by these changes.

These measures will balance the rights of protesters with the rights of others to go about their business unhindered. They will achieve this by enabling the police to better manage highly disruptive protests.

4.2 Why are these measures needed?

Existing public order legislation was passed in 1986 and is no longer fit for managing the types of protests we experience today.

The highly disruptive tactics used by some protesters cause a disproportionate impact on the surrounding communities and are a drain on public funds. For example, the Metropolitan Police Service’s cost for policing Extinction Rebellion’s 2019 “April Uprising” in London was over £16 million.

These measures will improve the police’s ability to manage such protests, enabling them to dedicate their resources to keeping the public safe.

4.3 How will protesters’ rights be protected?

When using these, or existing public order powers, the police must act within the law and be able to demonstrate that their use of powers are necessary and proportionate. They must act compatibly with human rights, principally Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of association).

4.4 What conduct will the new public nuisance offence capture?

The new statutory offence of public nuisance will cover the same conduct as the existing common law offence of public nuisance.

The offence captures conduct which endangers the life, health, property or comfort of the public, or to obstruct the public in the exercise or enjoyment of rights common to the public.

Conduct captured will include nuisances such as producing excessive noise or smells, or offensive or dangerous behaviour in public, such as hanging from bridges.



Thursday, 4 March 2021



At the start of this 'pandemic' I read about four separate experiments/investigations carried out by the US Military during the Spanish Flu, all of which demonstrated that the Spanish Flu could not be passed from very sick to healthy persons, even by getting the healthy to drink the warm sputum of the sick. 

I wondered why no similar investigation was being conducted into the transmission of COVID19. Such experiments would not have to be so 'gross'. 

Furthermore. It's not like this is an issue of no importance.

I sent FOI requests to the Department of Health and Social Care who, in a first reply (to the question of isolation of the virus), admitted that they held "no information relating to the isolation of Sars-Cov-2", a pretty astonishing statement the elevates Sars-Cov-2 to the same mythical status as that of the unicorn, an extraordinary thing that no one has ever seen. 

The main difference between a unicorn and Sars-Cov-2 is that no one has yet invented a "scientific" test of supposed constituent parts that "proves" the existence of a unicorn, which is a great shame as it would be quite something to observe how many people would be convinced if a 'unicorn test' ever returned a 'positive'. 

The DHSC also held no information about transmissibility/contagion but suggested I sent my request to Public Health England. 

PHE has replied (at last).

Here are the relevant lines:

Please could you forward any information you have relating to experimental 
evidence demonstrating that COVID-19 is person-to-person transmissible. 
PHE can confirm it does not hold information in the way specified by your request.

What this means is that no specific investigation has been carried out into the most central  assumption (and that's all it is) that has driven the global "response" to this supposed pandemic!

It would quite obviously be a straightforward issue to prove or disprove contagion (i.e. contagion-via-transmitted-droplet) experimentally. There is NO EXCUSE for not investigating this directly. Science could easily resolve contradicting beliefs about this, one way or the other.

In my opinion, it already has done. That's why the failure to investigate is, in itself, evidence of bad faith and the enforcement of a diabolical lie.

Scientific papers that demonstrate the uselessness of lockdowns and mask-wearing in protecting people against COVID 'infection' offer further indirect evidence that flu-like illnesses are NOT person-to-person transmissible. This is simply not how such illnesses work. Other factors, external and internal, define who becomes ill and when. 

Here was my second FOI request:

If no such experimental evidence exists for COVID-19 please could you forward any available evidence collected, targeting this particular issue over the past 150 years, that demonstrates person-to-person transmissibility for any other influenza type illness?” 


PHE can confirm it does hold this information. However, the information is exempt 
under section 21 of the FOI Act because it is reasonably accessible by other means, 
and the terms of the exemption mean that we do not have to consider whether or not 
it would be in the public interest for you to have the information. However, for your 
convenience we have included a link to the report ‘Impact of mass gatherings on 

The first (italicised above) part of the response indicates, in my opinion, that PHE are admitting that they hold or are aware of the scientific evidence collected during the Spanish Flu (that used to be online in 'The US Surgeon General's Report 1919 [which disappeared from the document last October]).

By referring to not having to consider "whether or not it is in the public interest" that they release this information they are covertly admitting that they know the investigation demonstrated non-contagion and that it might be "in the public interest" that we be told this.

In fact, under our new global 'Communitarian' system (yes, we're already in it folks) what is defined as "the public interest" is decided by rulers .... as anyone with a brain should realise by now. 

Truth, or even what we understand as the public interest (i.e. the common good) has nothing to do with anything any more ... as American voters recently found out the hard way. 

The linked report, in my opinion, has little to do with my FOI request. The weak 'conclusion' of "The impact of mass gatherings on Influenza" suggests correlation without demonstrating proof of anything at all. The probabilities suggested in the Conclusion are, yet again, based on assumptions that the author does not even care to define. 

Correlation between future infection and mass gatherings without investigation of other factors inherent to mass gatherings (e.g. everyone being in approximately the same place and therefore subject to multiple identical environmental influences at the same time) surely means nothing scientifically. The report admits there is no proof of causation but suggests it is "prudent" to discourage them. 

Why, one wonders, does it not suggest it would be prudent to investigate the scientific community's own primary assumption, that these illnesses are in any way contagious at all?

See this link to the full document.

Here is its 'conclusion'.


In conclusion there is limited data indicating that mass gatherings are associated with influenza transmission and this theme is continued with the inclusion of new evidence for the update. Certain unique events such as the Hajj, specialised settings including civilian and military ships- a new theme for this update, indoor venues and crowded outdoor venues provide the primary evidence base to suggest mass gatherings can be associated with Influenza outbreaks. Some evidence suggests that restricting mass gatherings together with other social distancing measures may help to reduce transmission. However, the evidence is still not strong enough to warrant advocating legislated restrictions. Therefore, in a pandemic situation a cautious policy of voluntary avoidance of mass gatherings would is still the most prudent message. Operational considerations including practical implications of policy directed at restricting mass gathering events should be carefully considered. 

 After reading the entirety of the FOI response, here is my own conclusion:

PHE admits that government's assumption of human-to-human transmissibility of COVID-19  is based on ...