In November, 2020 while collecting anti-epilepsy medication from my local medical practice, I was threatened with police intervention.
I refuse to inflict harm upon myself by recycling the waste from my respiratory system. In other words, I will not wear a mask.
What follows is my letter of complaint, issued to my doctor.
Dear Dr ______,
Re: Irresponsible & Unlawful Treatment by Dispensary Staff – Without Prejudice
First of all, I am addressing this serious complaint directly to you as you have tended to be my GP of choice when I’ve needed support regarding my long-term uncontrolled epilepsy and its associated conditions.
As such I trust that, should you have any recollection of me, you will recall a courteous and good-natured individual, blessed with common sense and discernment, and not a subversive pariah and threat to mankind.
Nevertheless, each time I have needed to collect my medication from either your ______ practice or, more recently, ______, which I elect to do unmasked for reasons that I will come to later, I’ve been faced with having to run a gauntlet of questions and scorn as though I were the latter. This in itself is disgraceful. However, when collecting my medication on Monday (23rd), the usual disdain was exceeded when your over-zealous and misguided pharmacist – ______ – threatened me with police intervention.
I cannot, and will not tolerate this type of treatment from anyone, not least an organisation I have helped to finance all my working life, and rely on for the provision of health care for my family and me at times of need.
I will add that, following the reprehensible behaviour of your pharmacist, I suffered two seizures during the brief journey home, and further seizures during the afternoon over and above the number I would normally expect to endure. Subsequently, for the past two nights my sleep quality has been impaired which has led to higher than average levels of seizure activity. I have no doubt that this claim may be validated once readings are next taken from my VNS device.
Upon returning home I contacted your ______ practice to commence this complaint procedure and spoke to ______.
During our conversation, despite being unqualified to do so, and despite having no more than a cursory knowledge of my condition, ______ asserted that there were no reasons for me to refuse to wear a face covering. She also stated that the covering need not be a manufactured mask, as any fabric covering would suffice. This one statement demonstrated that the efficacy of the covering is of no concern to your practice. The emphasis here is one of total compliance, whatever the cost.
I refuse to comply with your practice’s inhumane policy in this regard for the reasons listed below:
- There is no pandemic.
- Masks are ineffective in minimising the spread of disease.
- The wearing of masks represent significant risks to health.
- There is no legal obligation to comply with any of parliament’s draconian diktats.
I will now expand on this, using the assertions of health professionals and official bodies to do so:
1 – There is no pandemic
2 – Masks are ineffective in minimising the spread of disease
On the 4th March the State’s Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, said:
“In terms of wearing a mask our advice is clear, that wearing a mask if you don’t have an infection really reduces the risk almost not at all.”
On the 23rd April the State’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Patrick Vallance said:
“The evidence on face masks has always been quite variable, quite weak. It’s quite difficult to know exactly, there’s no real trials on it.”
On the 24th April the State’s Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, said:
“The evidence around the use of masks by the general public, especially outdoors, is extremely weak.”
On the 28th April the State’s Ministry of Defence Chief Scientific Adviser, Dame Angela McLean, representing the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), said:
“The recommendation from SAGE is completely clear, which is there is weak evidence of a small effect in which a face mask can prevent a source of infection going from somebody who is infected to the people around them.”
This clear and unambiguous message then became clouded:
On the 4th of June the UKs Secretary of Transport, Grant Shapps, said that we did have to wear face-masks on public transport, stating:
“That doesn’t mean surgical masks, which we must keep for clinical settings. It means the kind of face covering you can easily make at home….wearing a face covering offers some – albeit limited – protection against the spread of the virus.”
This statement suggested that clinical masks were to be discarded in favour of scarves, snoods or scraps of rag. Any free-thinking intelligent human being knows this to be ridiculous. So, what is the scientific evidence that even surgical masks could protect us, or someone else, from a viral respiratory infection?
Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) concluded:
“N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.”
Cowling, B. et al. (2010) found:
“None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H).”
bin-Reza et al. (2012) meta analysis discovered:
“There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”
Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) undertook further meta analysis of the available studies on face masks. They stated:
“We identified 6 clinical studies … In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”
Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) undertook a study of healthcare workers to assess the relative effectiveness of face masks and respirators:
“Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
Long, Y. et al. (2020) looked at six randomised clinical trials (RCT’s) of face masks to ascertain if they protected either the wearer or others around them from any viral respiratory illness. They didn’t:
“A total of six RCTs involving 9171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks….The 4 use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
I suggest that every GP within your practice is mindful of these and similar studies, and is aware that masks offer no scientifically-proven protection from viral infection. Despite this the practice continues in its unlawful and inhumane policies.
Note: I indicated above that the mask-wearing policies inexplicably changed between 28th April and 4th June. This change of stance may be explained using SAGE’s own evidence.
In their discussion on 23rd March, SAGE’s behavioural science sub-group SPI-B presented a paper which has clearly influenced the government’s lockdown policy agenda. The science behind this paper is not virology or epidemiology, but behavioural science aimed at behaviour modification. SPI-B stated:
“A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened…The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent.”
Greater levels of fear needed to be instilled into millions of people to ensure compliance. This required a mass propaganda campaign.
SAGE were clear on the mainstream media’s role. This aspect of using the media to convey panic had been covered during the Event 201 ‘High Level Global Pandemic’ exercise, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and conducted in New York on 18th October 2019.
In line with Event 201’s findings, within appendix B of SAGE’s paper they recommended the following:
“Use media to increase sense of personal threat.”
It is my view that your practice is also complicit in a coordinated action geared toward increasing fear-levels among its patients through its use of excessive signage, ‘social distancing’ and mask-mandate policies.
3 – The wearing of masks represent risks to health
The following was first published by Global Research on May 26, 2020:
“By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.”Russell Blaylock – MD
In greater detail the study states:
Researchers found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had pre-existing headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. As to the cause of the headaches, while straps and pressure from the mask could be causative, the bulk of the evidence points toward hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause. That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood C02 (hypercapnia).
It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, and to crash his car and sustain injuries. I am sure that we have several cases of elderly individuals or any person with poor lung function passing out, hitting their head. This, of course, can lead to death.
A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask. Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All felt like the headaches affected their work performance.
Unfortunately, no one is telling the frail elderly and those with lung diseases, such as COPD, emphysema or pulmonary fibrosis, of these dangers when wearing a facial mask of any kind—which can cause a severe worsening of lung function. This also includes lung cancer patients and people having had lung surgery, especially with partial resection or even the removal of a whole lung.
The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver.
In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.
People with cancer, especially if the cancer has spread, will be at a further risk from prolonged hypoxia as the cancer grows best in a microenvironment that is low in oxygen. Low oxygen also promotes inflammation which can promote the growth, invasion and spread of cancers. Repeated episodes of hypoxia have been proposed as a significant factor in atherosclerosis and hence increases all cardiovascular (heart attacks) and cerebrovascular (strokes) diseases.
There is another danger to wearing these masks on a daily basis, especially if worn for several hours. When a person is infected with a respiratory virus, they will expel some of the virus with each breath. If they are wearing a mask, especially an N95 mask or other tightly fitting mask, they will be constantly rebreathing the viruses, raising the concentration of the virus in the lungs and the nasal passages. We know that people who have the worst reactions to the coronavirus have the highest concentrations of the virus early on. And this leads to the deadly cytokine storm in a selected number. It gets even more frightening. Newer evidence suggests that in some cases the virus can enter the brain. In most instances it enters the brain by way of the olfactory nerves (smell nerves), which connect directly with the area of the brain dealing with recent memory and memory consolidation. By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.
The above study is one of many conducted worldwide. Again, your practice will be aware of these. Despite this foreknowledge, the practice insists that, not only do its patients – all of whom by definition have pre-existing conditions – have to wear masks to enter its premises, but its own staff are subjected to those risks outlined above.
4 – There is no legal obligation to comply with any of Parliament’s draconian diktats
In my refusal to comply with unlawful parliamentary mandates and the unethical policies of its immoral collaborating agencies I am exercising my right of ‘Lawful Excuse’.
A lawful excuse arises under the Common Law, when somebody acts in good conscience in contravention of legislation. In other words, my conscience dictates that I cannot obey government dictates. As such, the Common Law grants me the lawful excuse to disobey them. Rights granted by this ancient law were enacted in perpetuity and no subsequent act of parliament may infringe them.
By refusing to comply with COVID-19 edicts because my conscience dictates that I must, I am acting under the protection of lawful excuse, as per the seminal Common Law case called Chamberlain v Lindon . This argument can be used in defence to all alleged breaches of the COVID-19 restrictions, provided the alleged offender does so genuinely believing that such actions are what all reasonable people would undertake in such circumstances.
Therefore, given the overwhelming evidence in sections 1-3, my conscience requires that I refuse to comply in what I perceive to be your unlawful and repugnant policies.
May I strongly suggest that all front-line personnel of your establishment are educated of this right of English Law – a right that extends to each and every one of us, including the staff of medical practices.
I trust that I have sufficiently stated my case for non-compliance, and adequately conveyed the nature of my complaint. I now urge that you:
A: Issue me with an unreserved apology for the unacceptable behaviour of your staff and the consequential distress this has caused. For someone such as myself, struggling to maintain a healthy outlook in the face of the mental and emotional challenges resulting from a life of epileptic seizures, stresses induced by unfair discrimination such as that which I experienced are counter-productive in the extreme. Put simply, in my view your practice has acted unlawfully, unethically and irresponsibly. I have suffered as a result.
B: Provide me with a written assurance that I and my family will be permitted to enter your premises, unmasked, and without harm or hindrance in accordance with our rights under English Common Law.
Should you feel you are unable to provide such an assurance, please justify your stance by providing the following:
- Evidence that masks prevent infection.
- Evidence that masks don’t cause oxygen deprivation which can lead to seizures.
- Evidence that breathing in your own carbon dioxide does not cause bacterial infections and respiratory disorders.
- Evidence that wearing masks do not cause stress and anxiety.
- Evidence that wearing masks prevented the spread of the Spanish Flu.
- Evidence that enforcing such a mandate would not represent a material breach of the Equality Act.
- Evidence that the Virus has ever been proven to exist.
- Evidence that the Coronavirus Act and the regulations which arose out of it are not adjudged to be repugnant and void under the common law.
- Evidence that it is not a crime ancillary to genocide to collaborate with government policy, which has already resulted in thousands of deaths in care homes and hospitals.
- Evidence that the government has not relied upon fraudulent data to frighten the population into fearful compliance with its legally unenforceable diktats.
C: I ask that you remove the excessive ‘Covid-19’ warning signage and tapes from your practices. These are distressing and – for a public that has been subjected to 24/7/365 fear-porn since March, 2020 – the only possible purpose they serve is the one stated in SAGE’s statement of 23rd March (above) – that of inducing fear and total compliance.
During my exchanges with your staff concerning my non-compliance with your mask mandate, they have stated that they are trying to protect patients, implying that it is I who is a threat to them. I suggest that it is NHS policies that are not only harmful but represent a monstrous crime against humanity on a scale such as we have never seen before in this nation.
You will therefore no doubt understand why I now require answers to the following questions, which I am making under the Freedom of Information Act:
- Please provide me with the number of face-to-face patient appointments conducted for the period from March, 2020 to date.
- Please provide me with the number of face-to-face patient appointments conducted for the same period, 2019.
- Please provide the number of prescriptions for anti-depressant medication issued for the period March 2020 to date.
- Please provide the number of prescriptions for anti-depressant medication issued for the same period, 2019
- Please provide me with the number of patient deaths for the period March, 2020 to date.
- Please provide me with the number of patient deaths for the same period, 2019.
Finally, and in line with the subject matter of this complaint, I’d like to draw your attention to the following notice served recently upon every representative MP:
You are hereby served notice that it is my intention to lay information in a Private Criminal Prosecution against yourselves, alleging that the following crimes have been committed against the British people:
- Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 has been repeatedly breached in the enactment of the Coronavirus Act 2020 [the CV Act] – an act which was founded upon a series of dishonest statements relied upon by every serving MP. Namely:
a. That there was a genuine public health emergency, which justified the draconian measures taken.
b. That there was a legal basis for such an act to be passed into law.
c. That there was no viable alternative course of action that could be taken to “flatten the curve” of alleged COVID-19 deaths.
2. In addition, the CV Act unlawfully purports to have suspended the democratic right of every Briton to remove the government from office, as well as the individual rights guaranteed by the Common Law, which are beyond the jurisdiction of the legislature.
3. The CV Act also purports to have legislated for the falsification of death certificates, which has enabled the government to grossly inflate the number of people who have reportedly died of the COVID-19 virus, which in any event has never actually been proven to exist.
4. Nevertheless, the ONS data shows that the government policy which was enabled by the CV Act doubled the average five year UK mortality rate, which is considered tantamount to genocide under international law, when the fatal refusal of care to patients in care homes and hospitals is taken into account.
5. Furthermore, the enactment of the CV Act also comprises a fundamental breach of the Treason Felony Act 1848, in that it treasonously purports to authorise ministers of the Crown to govern the People by royal decree or proclamation, which is strictly prohibited by articles 1 and 2 of the Bill of Rights 1689.
6. In any event, as Lord Coke, the draftsman of the Petition of Right, said in the 1610 decision of Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians 8 Co Rep 107a; 77 Eng Rep 638, commonly known as Dr. Bonham’s Case, in the Court of Common Pleas:
“In many cases, the common law will control Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it and adjudge such an Act to be void.”
Should you collectively move to set aside the act which the Common Law ajudges to be repugnant, as well as void ab initio, as per the Dr Bonham case, no later than the midnight on the 2/10/2020, this action will be suspended.
However, in the event you fail to do so, for any reason whatsoever, a QC and legal team will be engaged to lay the information before a court of competent jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity and the Private Criminal Prosecution will commence.
Whilst the complaint I am now making against your practice has been triggered by a personal infraction, it is impossible for me to treat this in isolation from the broader and far more serious injustice.
I am encouraged, however, that the web of lies woven to bind the British people into a state of fearful despair are fast unravelling as official narratives are collapsing. Truth will out – it always does. An increasing number of NHS whistle-blowers are already speaking out, exposing the health service’s abhorrent collaboration in a crime of epic proportions.
I ask that you extend this to Drs ______, ______ and _______as you are all practioners for who I and my wife have long held a great deal of respect. Irrespective of how this current ‘crisis’ plays out, irrespective of whether our despotic government succeeds in forging ahead with its World Economic Forum-driven ‘Great Reset’, or the NHS does so with its own ‘NHS Reset’, the agendas have already caused the deaths and ruined lives of countless thousands of those you have sworn – through oaths real or implied – to serve and protect.
Whether you would wish it or not, the events of 2020 will define your otherwise long and successful careers. You may feel you have little control over the grand outcome, but you can govern how you will be perceived as men when all is said and done; whether you are condemned as complicit in a monstrous crime, or whether you maintain your self-respect with heads held high.
It is a plea for decency and reason; a plea for humanity. For it is the view of a rapidly growing number of people that a crime against humanity is indeed being committed within these shores, and that the continued silence of professionals such as you may well render you culpable.
That said, I will close with a final paragraph from the above Notice of Intended Private Prosecution. Feel free to replace ‘member of Parliament’ with ‘health professional’ should you deem it appropriate.
Please be advised that a Grand Jury of the People has already determined that there is sufficient evidence to indict every MP for fraud, treason and genocide. This is your last chance to leave your mark on the right side of history because there is no jury that would not convict every complicit member of Parliament on the charges that will be laid.Nevertheless, I trust you will see the devastating error you have made, before it is too late.
On Monday of this week a member of your team threatened me with police action for simply going about my lawful business in accordance with the God-given rights of a free-born Englishman – rights endorsed by Common Law. The action was a direct infringement on my Constitutional rights and therefore unlawful.
This complaint is my measured and fully justified response.
Update – June, 2021
It was my hope that the contents of my letter would provide my doctor and his colleagues a moment of pause in which to reflect on their actions and their futures. I sought no financial recompense or made unreasonable demands. My request was a simple one:
- That the medical practice acknowledge their error by providing me with an apology.
- That they assure me that I and my family could continue to expect medical care without having to risk causing harm to ourselves by rebreathing our own exhaust and its inherent bacteria.
- Remove the excessive fear-inducing signage from its establishments.
The practice refused to meet each one of my requests.
Furthermore, they declined to comment on each of the following:
- Statements from scientific ‘experts’ and government officials stressing that masks are ineffective in preventing infection-spread.
- Empirical evidence that surgical masks are equally useless.
- Expert testimony declaring that the wearing of masks represents significant health risks.
- The assertion that Common Law permits the right to lawfully refuse to comply with repugnant mask mandates.
The practice’s posture was unsurprising and had been anticipated. However, despite being given the opportunity to underpin their diktats through my request for ten items of supportive data, they either elected or were unable to provide a single shred of substantive evidence.
Moreover, data provided under the Freedom of Information Act supported my assertion that many people have refrained from seeking healthcare out of fear – such as that engendered by excessive use of scaremongering signage. The practice’s own statistics demonstrated that, when compared to the same period of 2019, they delivered over forty-nine percent fewer face to face appointments during 2020.
During this same period the small-town practice also issued more than a hundred additional prescriptions for anti-depressant medication, further demonstrating the real detriment to mental health being caused by our government’s policies – policies which are being implemented by an organisation whose overriding principle is to ‘first, do no harm’.
My letter of November, 2020 contained information readily available within the public domain that effectively denounced those measures imposed by our tyrannical government and its collaborators. It also provided the General Practitioners of the medical practice an opportunity to do the right thing and ‘ … leave [their] mark on the right side of history.’
They chose not to do so. On the contrary, they have since embarked on a mass inoculation programme that is already claiming thousands of lives worldwide and causing life-changing damage to countless others. Furthermore, evidence demonstrates that the UK government embarked on this course of action knowing such an outcome to be likely. Moreover, they planned for such an eventuality (see Servitude without Tears).
Such a programme is defined as genocide.
My Doctor and his colleagues have, for whatever reason, opted to disregard their Hippocratic oaths and their sworn commitment to ‘first, do no harm.’ At the time I wrote my letter, they and others in their profession were at a precipice – but there remained at that time an option to pull back from that brink.
Now, however, the Rubicon has been crossed. There is absolutely no going back for those complicit in what is clearly a pre-meditated programme predicted to claim lives. Many have since died as a consequence of what is falsely claimed to be a ‘vaccine’. That death toll is continuing to rise.
The aforesaid pre-meditation will define those deaths as ‘murder’ rather than manslaughter. Worse still – mass murder. Yet those in the medical profession knowingly choose to continue pumping a toxic, experimental gene therapy into the arms of frightened and dispirited patients. Their actions will damn them – have already damned them. No amount of hand sanitizing will ever remove the stain of shame once reality of the Covid scandal is fully and widely exposed – as it will be.
The drip-feed of truth has begun and is rapidly gathering momentum. Once that dam breaks and the resulting outpouring of evidence assaults a shocked and embattled population, not even a complicit mainstream media will be able to plug the breach.
There are now three groups of people in Britain. Victims, collaborators and the resistance.Michael O’Bernicia