Covid Refuseniks


The UK government is considering a plan to despatch council staff to knock on the doors of those who have refused to take a coronavirus vaccine, in an effort to coerce refusniks into taking the shot, according to a report…

In December, a poll found that around a third of people in the UK do not want to take the vaccine.

I’m one of the UK refuseniks.

There are multiple reasons.

Firstly I think the Covid pandemic danger is being exaggerated. It’s no worse than flu (which seems to have vanished). And I’ve never had a flu shot either.

Secondly I doubt that Covid vaccinations are very effective. In fact in some cases the vaccinations seem to be killing recipients.

Thirdly, I’m a smoker and I’ve already been expelled from society. I no longer go to pubs, except to occasionally sit outside in summer. It’s been that way since 2007. I’ve already been “locked down” for 13 years on the basis of one medical lie (about the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke). Why should I pay attention to another lie?

It’s not just that I don’t believe what Public Health zealots have to say about tobacco smoke or Covid. I don’t believe what they say about all the other supposed health threats either.

I don’t believe in Global Warming or Climate Change or their supposed health threats.

I don’t believe in the EU. Or the UN. Or the WHO. Or the BMA. Or the RCP.

They care nothing for me, and I care nothing for them.

They have contempt for me, and I have contempt for them.

About the archivist

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Covid Refuseniks

  1. James Sykes says:

    The BMA is a trade union, what do they know about anything. The whole trades union movement probably welcomed the smoking ban and other such restrictions on people’s freedom to choose.

    • Rose says:

      Indeed they did, they helped create it.

      MPs urged to vote for total smoking ban
      20 Jan 2006

      “Unions and public health officers are urging MPs to back a total ban on smoking in public places, including pubs and clubs. The calls come after the government’s decision last week to allow Labour MPs a free vote on the smoking ban proposals in the health Bill (Risks 239).

      The TUC has already called for a ban without exceptions. And last week GMB organiser Mick Ainsley, whose union organises casino workers, said: ‘We are writing to all GMB sponsored MPs to remind them that the issue here is not about a smoker’s individual choice, it is about the right of workers not to breathe in secondhand smoke.’

      They even got a special mention in Smoke and Mirrors

      “We created a coalition around our key messages. A smoke-free steering group was set up involving major health and medical organisations in alliance with the Trades Union Congress, individual politicians, local government officers and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.
      They ran their own effective campaigns, but remained committed to an agreed strategy originally drafted by Ash.”
      https: //

      GMB demonstrates for total ban
      Thursday 24 November 2005

      “Hospitality workers from the GMB union make a point about the dangers of second-hand smoke at a protest outside a Gala casino in London last week.

      The protesters were marking National Lung Cancer Day (17 November) by donning gas masks and calling on the Government to introduce a total ban on smoking in public places that doesn’t exempt private members’ clubs and pubs that don’t serve food.

      About 100,000 workers in hospitality will still be exposed to second-hand smoke under the Government’s plans.”

      • Dmitry says:

        I wonder what these people think now, or will think, when the bans will be reversed (inevitably).
        Now, dear Rose – maybe you know the origins of the current assertions that masks, after all, do protect from anything? There was zero proof only very recently, and what do they have now? The Jenna document from Germany, going in pair with a similar research in the US, with the totally opposite result?

        • Rose says:

          Dmitry, I am not sure, I think at first it was they were worried about medical staff running out of masks, which did happen, so they told us they were useless.

          Naturally it didn’t occur to the powers be that that the public are resourceful and can make their own masks in a variety of attractive styles and supply them to others less gifted.
          Not me I hasten to add.

          I had mine given. These are so beautiful you wouldn’t dream of throwing them away.
          You wash them.

  2. Chris Sorochin says:

    You left out NATO.

  3. Doonhamer says:

    Also the black-holed strong suspicion that smoking might protect you.
    Like quinine compounds, an inconvenient truth.

  4. Jim says:

    The amusing thing is that the BAME lot are the ones who are disproportionately refusing to have the vaccine. Its funny to watch how the likes of the BBC are covering this, you can almost feeling the cognitive dissonance oozing out of the reports. Its one of the reasons I’m relatively sanguine about all the ‘vaccine passport’ guff – they won’t dare do it once they realise it would mean making second class citizens out of a significant proportion of their pet class.

  5. waltc says:

    I don’t want the vaccine because, first of all, for some reason I uncannily get side effects from most pharmaceuticals and this is a pharmaceutical. Second, because it hasn’t been around long enough to know its population-wide side effects (and I believe the media won’t report or will downplay them if and as they emerge) and I remember that tne swine flu vaccine left about a thousand people paralyzed. Third, because they’re not even sure of its effectiveness against tne evolving strains.

    That said, this virus is serious business, and much more serious than the usual flu. The usual flu doesn’t have the (frequently realized) potential to permanently or lethally affect every organ of the body including the brain.

  6. Mark Jarratt says:

    Too true and the contempt is justified – unfortunately it seems according to polls (infallible of course) that only about one fifth of people agree.

    This extract from the latest newsletter may be of interest:

    “Can employers insist that staff get the vaccine? According to the Telegraph, the question is dividing the Government, with some ministers believing that employers who take a ‘no jab, no job’ approach may be protected by Health and Safety legislation.

    – Employers can insist that all their staff get vaccinated against Covid under laws governing health and safety at work, ministers believe…
    The idea of ‘vaccine passports’ – which would allow employers to insist upon proof of vaccination – have been dismissed by vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi as “discriminatory” and “not how we do things in the UK “. [tell that to smokers, who did not consent to continued “treatment”].
    However, the Telegraph understands that the issue is at the centre of a row in Cabinet, with some ministers arguing in favour of the scheme.
    Whitehall sources believe that companies who adopt a “jab for a job” stance are protected by current health and safety laws which require workers to protect not only themselves, but also colleagues from harm.
    One Government source said: “If someone is working in an environment where people haven’t been vaccinated, it becomes a public health risk.”
    “Health and safety laws say you have to protect other people at work, and when it becomes about protecting other people the argument gets stronger.
    “If there is clear evidence that vaccines prevent transmission, the next stage is to make sure more and more people are taking up the vaccine.”
    But wouldn’t this be a breach of the right to consent, whereby the law protects people from receiving a medical treatment unless they’ve explicitly consented to it? As set out on NHS website, consent must be:
    * voluntary – the decision to either consent or not to consent to treatment must be made by the person, and must not be influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family
    * informed – the person must be given all of the information about what the treatment involves, including the benefits and risks, whether there are reasonable alternative treatments, and what will happen if treatment does not go ahead
    * capacity – the person must be capable of giving consent, which means they understand the information given to them and can use it to make an informed decision.
    This strays into employment law, as well as anti-discrimination law, and it would not be a surprise to see a flurry of lawsuits if an employer insists on workers being vaccinated [or prevented from smoking, even when not on duty?] on pain of dismissal. Economia magazine has a viewpoint on the rules as they currently stand.
    According to employment law experts, employers cannot insist on employee vaccination unless the circumstances are exceptional. For example, employers in the social care sector may be able to give reasonable instruction for employees to be vaccinated as they are working with high-risk, vulnerable people.
    Other sectors such as professional services don’t have the same strength of argument for insisting their workers are vaccinated, as lockdown working conditions have demonstrated that work can often be done effectively from home…
    “Employers should encourage, and not compel, employees to have vaccinations”, said Rachel Suff, CIPD Employee Relations Adviser…
    “Mandatory vaccination may discriminate on the basis of disability, or religious or philosophical belief. If an employer disciplines or dismisses an individual who refuses to be vaccinated [or stop smoking], this carries a risk of exposure to an unfair dismissal claim”, added Rachel Suff.
    Employers should always take care that their actions do not breach employee human rights and/or lead to claims for discrimination – particularly on grounds of age, religion, belief, disability, or pregnancy – or for breach of employment contracts…
    Leanne Francis, Senior Associate at Pinsent Masons, said: “Mandatory vaccinations could also raise privacy implications. They could be interpreted as interfering with Article 8 of ECHR which gives individuals the right to a private life.”
    “An employer will need to be able to demonstrate that their interference was proportionate in all of the circumstances, and this defence is often nuanced and complex. Employers will also be expected to obtain consent for any work-related medical intervention, in the same way that consent is obtained for referrals to occupational health or drugs and alcohol testing.”
    Worth reading in full.

  7. Mark Jarratt says:

    Here is more information along similar lines.

    “Germany’s Federal Ministry of the Interior Colluded With Scientists to Frighten the Public

    There was an interesting story in yesterday’s Welt am Sonntag based on 200 pages of internal correspondence seen by the paper and obtained by lawyers in the course of an ongoing legal dispute involving the Robert Koch Institute.
    In March 2020, during the first wave of the pandemic, the Federal Ministry of the Interior enlisted scientists from multiple research institutes and universities for political purposes. It commissioned researchers from the Robert Koch Institute and other institutions to create a model, upon which basis the Minister of the Interior Horst Seehofer (CSU) wanted to justify tough Corona measures.
    This has emerged from more than 200 pages of internal correspondence between the management of the Ministry and the researchers which is available to the Welt Am Sonntag…
    In an email exchange, Markus Kerber, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior, asks a researcher to prepare a model upon the basis of which “measures of a preventative and repressive nature” could be planned.
    According to the correspondence, the scientists, in close coordination with the Ministry, compiled the contents for a secret paper in just four days. It was then released over various media in the days that followed.
    The paper included a “worst case scenario” according to which more than one million people could die from coronavirus in Germany, if social life were to continue as before the pandemic. [there is a translate button]…

  8. DP says:

    Dear Mr Davis

    I’ve just posted a link on Mr Longrider’s latest post which provides a lengthy insight into the Great Hysteria. As I noted there, Section 5 has some rivettng data:

    My latest graph of excess all-cause mortality by age group from 2020 Week 1 to 2021 Week 4 is at:



  9. DP says:

    Dear Mr Davis

    From our beloved BBC in January:

    “Highest daily Covid deaths recorded in UK
    20 January 2021 00:00

    • A further 1,820 deaths have been reported within 28 days of a positive Covid test in the UK
    • It’s the highest daily deaths figure since the pandemic began – surpassing the previous high yesterday”

    Consider the graph below showing all-cause excess mortality compared with the 5 year average. Wednesday 20 January is in Week 3 ending Friday 22 January 2021. Excess deaths were 5,838. Is the BBC (PBUI) saying fewer people died in 2020 Weeks 16 (excess deaths 11,854) and 17 (11,539) ‘with covid’? If so, what did they die of or ‘with’?

    The BBC’s reporting is either wilful or ignorant. Neither reflects well upon it.

    All-cause deaths 2020-21wk4


No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.