1. Home
  2.  » 
  3. Commentary
  4.  » COVID Passports: the government’s sham ‘consultation

The headline above is from Business Insider April 2020, suggesting that the government had plans for Covid passports right from the start of the ‘pandemic’.

Ian Fantom – April 5, 2021

Just three days after the end of an ‘open consultation’ on COVID passports, Prime Minister Boris Johnson virtually announced the results. On 1 April 2021 reports spread in the mass media that he had said that vaccine passports will “definately” be used for travel.

The Guardian, for instance, ran a headline ‘Boris Johnson backs domestic Covid passports as pilot events are planned: Interim report on measure due on Monday, but trials already in pipeline for football matches later this month’. Sky News, in a more detailed article defined the day of the interview as Thursday, 1 April, at the B&Q store in Middlesbrough, North East Yorkshire, and they embedded the relevant excerpt from a video of the event. The article also quoted Health Secretary Matt Hancock as saying later the same day, “Clearly we’re going to need this sort of certification in some areas – like to go abroad because some other countries will require it”, adding that the National Health Service was already making preparations. “I think dismissing something like this out of hand is the wrong thing to do. The right thing to do is to look in detail at how we can most safely open things up”, he was reported as saying.

Monday arrived, and the Prime Minister confirmed what he had previously stated. The full text is given on the government’s website. This linked to a government policy paper ‘Roadmap Reviews: Update’ updated the same day. The video of the complete press conference was presented by Sky News, with a fair summary of what the Prime Minister had said at the end.

The updated Roadmap Review contains a section ‘COVID-Status Certification Review’. No mention was made by name of the government’s ‘open consultation’, but the document did state: “The COVID-Status Certification Review has so far gathered evidence from clinical and ethical experts, as well as businesses and their representative organisations. In addition, the public call for evidence has generated over 50,000 responses representing a wide range of opinions”. They also state: “The Government believes that COVID-status certification could have an important role to play both domestically and internationally, as a temporary measure”. This rather suggests that that is what they are working towards. We all know what “temporary” means in British politics.

The Review also stated: “Equally, COVID-status certification could potentially play a role in settings such as theatres, nightclubs, and mass events such as festivals or sports events to help manage risks where large numbers of people are brought together in close proximity. The Government will begin to trial COVID-status certification in certain settings, including large events, through the Events Research Programme. The Government will continue to work closely with sectors on its approach”. There is no mention of trials in the Houses of Parliament; perhaps that should be the place to start. As regards international travel, they state: “As set out above, certification has already become a feature of international travel, with the UK and many other countries requiring evidence of a negative test pre-departure as part of their border regimes. The Government expects such requirements to continue and is exploring ways of making certification of testing more digital and integrated – as well as considering the implications of vaccines and what certification may be required around them”.

The report also contains a section ‘Global Travel Taskforce’, in which they state: “When non-essential international travel does return it will do so with a risk-based ‘traffic light’ system. … The Global Travel Taskforce will publish its report, setting out more details on this system, later this week”.

In the summary of the press conference, Sky News political reporter Beth Rigby said, “So what can I tell you that we know from the review? In terms of COVID Certification, the document says that it’s likely to be a feature in our lives until the threat of the pandemic recedes. … So, the document suggests that the government really are going to press ahead on COVID Certification, even if the Prime Minister wasn’t so unequivocal about that at the press conference”. I had come to the same conclusion.

It seems that a lot of MPs had come to a similar conclusion, too. The Daily Mirror published a list of 73 MPs from the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democratic Party, who had declared themselves against the idea of COVID passports on the Thursday, the day of Boris Johnson’s press conference at B&Q in Middlesbrough. This was reported in Lockdown Sceptics, under the heading ‘The List of the 73 MPs Opposed to Vaccine Passports’. This list includes suspended member of the Labour Party and former leader Jeremy Corbyn, whose brother, Piers Corbyn, is standing as Mayor of London in the forthcoming elections on an anti-Lockdown platform.

So in the light of all of this, we have to wonder what the point was of the government’s ‘open consultation’. I also have to wonder how many of our MPs, journalists and others who are involved in the decision-making are fully aware of the implications of COVID passports. I came across a video of an interview with Vera Sharav, who recounts her childhood days in Nazi Germany, and how medicine was perverted, violating individual civil and human rights. Nazi propaganda used fear of infectious epidemics to demonise Jews as spreaders of disease as a menace to public health. “And today some are beginning to understand why the German people didn’t rise up. Fear kept them from doing the right thing. Medical mandates today are a major step backword to a Fascist dictatorship and genocide”, she explained.

I also followed an account of what is now happening in Israel, in an interview with health advisor and politician, Ilana Rachel Daniel, in a video ‘OUTCRY FROM ISRAEL – a wake up call for the world’. There they have introduced a ‘Green Pass’. She stated that there is a contract between the Israeli government and Pfizer, with a penalty clause if they don’t vaccinate the required number of people. “I’ve lived in Israel for nearly 24 years, and I could never have imagined that we could do these things”, she said. “Do you still feel that you live in a free and open society?”, asked the interviewer. “No, absolutely not”, she replied, “I think that it’s – you hear people talking about where can we go. People are absolutely terrified for what will be, from one day to the next, for what will be in the future for our children. The divisions are so extreme, are so unreasonable, and I think that even people who have signed up and taken this injection are starting to see that, because it is so extreme, and the government is acting so desperately. But you know right now if you walked out without a mask its the same story that you hear all over. You have people who are willing to scream at you in the street, and that’s only a beginning, and they’ve succeeded in putting this narrative out that you’re a risk, a walking germ-filled risk. …”. The question of “Where can we go?” takes me back not just to the National Socialists, but right back to the pogrom of 1881 when Russian Jews were being blamed for the assassination of Czar Alexander II. The “walking germ-filled risk” takes us back to Vera Sharav’s interview, which I’ve just described.

Three participants in our group Keep Talking sent in their views to the ‘open consultation’. I think that number would have been much higher had there not been a general cynicism of public consultations. I put forward the view within Keep Talking that there would be little point in participating in the consultation unless the submissions were also made public. My own submission expressed such cynicism, and suggested that the government already knew the facts of the matter. My colleagues, Nick Kollerstrom and David Bowman eagerly agreed to my including their complete texts in this article. Nick is the author of the book ‘The Great British Coronavirus Hoax’, which is generally available in bookstores and has received the distinction of being banned by Amazon. David was a young activist in the 9/11 Truth movement when I became aware of it in 2006, and until I joined in was effectively the Berkshire 9/11 Truth movement. Since 2010 I have been coordinating the meetings for Keep Talking in London. Our contributions to the government’s ‘open consultation’ are reproduced below.

Nick Kollerstrom

Your covid certificates will, you say, ‘confirm in different settings that individuals have a lower risk of getting sick with or transmitting COVID-19 to others.’

Have you got any evidence that these vaccinations give people a ‘lower risk of getting sick’? I greatly doubt it. Very much the contrary, these mRNA jabs may well trigger hitherto unheard-of cell metabolism changes.

You must surely understand that safety trials for the Moderna, Pfitzer and AstraZeniker vaccines will not be complete until 2023. You are asking the British public to act as guinea-pigs for brand new RNA-DNA nanotechnology.

The only benefits of the jab come from situations that you are setting up, viz. they will be able to get onto a plane or enter a pub. I put it to you, there are no health benefits.

If you think you have evidence that these vaccines have some effect in ‘reducing risk’ then I urge you to publish it.

If you do issue these ‘ID2020’ vaccine certificates then you will have taken a giant step towards a techno-fascist society. Do you really want to do this?

Not all of us want to become genetically-modified organisms.

Your ‘green card’ scheme has already got a quarter of a million ‘adverse events’ experiences logged in, from taking the new vaccines. And that may be only the beginning. I advise you to pause and think carefully before going any further in this direction.

The statistics of daily ‘covid deaths’ in the UK have pretty well come down to zero in the UK, they are not going up in any ‘third wave’ – would not this be a good time to ease off from the Lockdown, and restore the traditional British right of freedom of movement?.

Thanking you for inviting my opinion,

David Bowman

Q1. I am a private individual with an academic background maths, statistics and research (though not in a medical discipline). I would like to say that, regardless of which research discipline an individual is involved in, if the instrument used to collect the data is considered invalid then the results cannot be trusted. It is on this basis that I am responding to the consultation.

Q2. I question the assumption the PCR test is reliable and that, consequently, the vaccine roll-out is the only solution.

  • Kary Mullis received the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1993 for inventing the PCR test. It was designed as a research tool by amplifying viral material, not as a method for diagnosing illness or detecting viruses.
  • An external peer review of the PCR test revealed 10 major scientific flaws. https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
  • The following link states: “Immunocompetent staff, patients and residents who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR should be exempt from routine re-testing by PCR or LFD antigen tests (for example, repeated whole setting screening or screening prior to hospital discharge) within a period of 90 days from their initial illness onset or test (if asymptomatic) unless they develop new COVID-19 symptoms. This is because fragments of inactive virus can be persistently detected by PCR in respiratory tract samples following infection – long after a person has completed their isolation period and is no longer infectious.” https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-management-of-exposed-healthcare-workers-and-patients-in-hospital-settings/covid-19-management-of-exposed-healthcare-workers-and-patients-in-hospital-settings
  • Dr Fauci stated in a conference call that a cycle threshold of 35 or above is ‘dead nucleitides, period’. As far as I am aware there has been no transparency on how many cycles have been used in this country and if the population have never been made aware of how the test works, they won’t ask the crucial question. This is why the vaccine roll-out has been so successful, because it is publicised as the only solution (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A867t1JbIrs)
  • The following article concluded: “Complete live viruses are necessary for transmission, not the fragments identified by PCR. Prospective routine testing of reference and culture specimens and their relationship to symptoms, signs and patient co-factors should be used to define the reliability of PCR for assessing infectious potential. Those with high cycle threshold are unlikely to have infectious potential.” https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1764/6018217
  • Another related issue is that it has been reported influenza dropped by 98%. COVID is not a novel virus and if the tests are not calibrated to distinguish between viruses, is it not possible that the deaths we’ve had over the winter period attributed to COVID is what we would have expected anyway? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8875201/Has-Covid-killed-flu.html
  • The British Medical Journal states “Current trials aren’t designed” to test whether vaccines will save lives, https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037

Retired chemistry professor, PhD and authority on nanotechnology Neils Harrit has commented on the PCR test entitled “Making something out of nothing”: PCR tests, CT values and false positives and has concluded by saying:

“To be sick is to have symptoms. If you are not sick, you are not contagious. It used to be common sense that you are healthy unless you are not.

Sense is not common anymore during the alleged Covid-19 pandemic. Now you are sick until proven healthy – and contagious by default. The vehicle for this scam is the RT-PCR test run at >35 cycles and beyond. Stop testing and survive.”



Vaccinations are being publicised as the only solution to solve the pandemic. This is based on the assumption that the testing is accurate and the published results can be trusted. Based on the above information, they cannot be trusted.

Vaccines are voluntary but the roll-out has been based on keeping people ignorant about the testing. The idea of a plan that people cannot enter places without one or a negative result (which is very likely anyway due to the high false positive rate) is effectively a form of coercion which is immoral, unethical and will set a very dangerous precedent which I consider to be very frightening.

I can’t help but think there is another agenda behind all this which I find very disturbing. As a consequence, I will not be getting the vaccine.

Other links

False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs


American Institute of Economic Research


American Society for Microbiology


Association of American Physicians and Surgeons



“Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).”

There is another aspect to this which I find frightening. Why would there be such a huge advertising campaign to get people to have the vaccine?

“This study tests different messages about vaccinating against COVID-19 once the vaccine becomes available”


“The Executive Office requires the immediate appointment of an advertising contractor to build on and continue to deliver a multimedia advertising campaign on COVID-19.”


NHS England and NHS Improvement Behaviour Change Unit, in partnership with PHE and Warwick Business School

Optimising Vaccination Roll Out – Dos and Don’ts for all messaging, documents and “communications” in the widest sense


Ian Fantom

The term ‘public consultation’ has gained unfavourable connotations in recent years. We used to have a system of parliamentary democracy in which people were elected to parliament to represent constituencies and to hold government to account. That has now largely been replaced by ‘open consultations’ and government by diktat. Parliament has more-or-less been reduced to a parliament of ‘dead parrots’, to use the phrase of one well-known journalist – and I have to say if you want a name there aren’t many real journalists in the mainstream media to choose from.

I just hope that this ‘open consultation’ is a genuine one. However, initial signs are not good. Firstly, it is clearly about introducing COVID passports. Why not use the term that most people would understand, rather than ‘COVID-Status Certification’? Secondly, the period of consultation is only two weeks, hardly enough time for the public to hear about it and send their considered responses. Thirdly, virtually no-one knows about it, despite the government spending tax-payers money in a massive public relations exercise to bring us into line with government policies.

I am not medically qualified in responding to the medical issues, but, with an MSc in Physics and a conversion MSc in Information Science, I am qualified in asking the questions, raising issues and reviewing the publications. I am a researcher, and I have deep concerns that the government is being selective in accepting evidence from vested interests and suppressing evidence produced by bona fide free-thinking medics. The government should be extremely concerned, too, about the discrepancies between what their advisors are saying, and what other medics are publishing. If you are not aware of such publications and petitions, representing tens of thousands of medically qualified people, then that in itself must be a cause for acute concern.

In my view the key concern associated with COVID passports is that already voiced by tens of thousands of medics, leading lawyers, and civil rights organisations. The very fact that you could tell us the name of the virus before you were defining the symptoms of the illness suggests that something highly irregular was going on, just as with 9/11 the name Osama bin Laden was widely broadcast as the perpetrator before any investigation had taken place. You will be well aware of the fact that no link with Coronavirus, or any virus, has been established by the standard Rivers criteria, and that there was no reason to propagate widespread alarm. You will be aware that in the UK at least there was no statistical evidence of death rates that would suggest a dramatic rise in deaths before the first Lockdown, and that the overall death rate was slightly below normal for the previous five years. You will also be aware that death rates for other causes have risen since the imposition of restrictions on the public’s way of life, and in particular, Lockdown. You will be aware of the suppression of health services in the National Health Service for conditions other than COVID-related cases. I recently read that the number of cases of influenza had fallen dramatically as the number of COVID cases had risen, and that the average age of death from COVID-19 was a year older than for deaths for other illnesses.

I am aware of the employment of public relations consultants in the past, and of their future plans over the next two years. I am also aware of the World Economics Forum’s meeting about handling a future epidemic such as COVID six weeks before the governments and the press exploded with alarmist predictions. I am also aware of the overwhelming emphasis at that meeting on public relations, rather than, as one may expect in a planning exercise, the main emphasis to be on medical contingency plans, such as those involving staffing and equipment. All this adds up to taking away credibility in the World Health Organisation’s narrative.

It is clear to many people throughout the country that COVID-19 is merely an excuse for the concentration of power in the hands of the powerful. In such circumstances, the introduction of COVID passports would not be accepted by the public, and would be considered to be bad law. We are edging into a police state, as you will already know.

Why does it need us to tell you all this, when you already know it? Briefly, it doesn’t. That further supports the idea that this ‘consultation exercise’ is a sham consultation. If anyone is actually reading this, I would appreciate a personal confirmation from them. Few people actually believed that the government was intending to go ahead with a scheme of vaccine passports until it was officially denied. We are already seeing violence in the streets from your agents provocateurs over the ‘Kill the Bill’ protests. I think it won’t be long before such violence starts up over vaccine passports if such a scheme goes ahead. Such a scheme would be dangerous and not in the public interest.