“Model individuals will be commended in accordance with regulations, and extensive publicity will be conducted through the news media to create a trustworthy and glorious public opinion atmosphere.”State Council of the People’s Republic of China (2014)Heartening as it is to hear some political opposition to covid passports, even if some of the opponents are a mixed bag of chancers and free-loaders, it still seems — assuming the polls are right — the majority of the Britons favour the introduction of covid passports for a wide range of broadly defined social activities. Expressed opposition, on the other hand, is low, never more than one in four of those polled. If the public gets what it wants, which seems likely, given the Tories’ penchant for policy that pushes on open doors, then Franklin’s ‘Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety’ will have finally achieved in full its true modern meaning.

Today we have confirmation that covid passports (shorthand here for something that proves you have, or might have, immunity to covid–19, and is used in a domestic setting) are to be trialled at sporting venues, nightclubs, business conferences, cinemas and — this one really is a joke — a comedy club called, without a hint of irony, the Hot Water Comedy Club. In the Sunday Telegraph (paywall, but there is enough visible to get the flavour), Michael Gove, the minister charged with ‘reviewing whether COVID-status certification could play a role in reopening our economy’, invites ‘readers’ thoughts on the role that certification might play in our anti-Covid strategy.’ The Great Trans Siberian Covid Passport Express has started to roll. As it gathers speed, we can expect the rhetoric to grow. Model individuals will be commended in accordance with regulations, and extensive publicity will be conducted through the news media to create a trustworthy and glorious public opinion atmosphere.

The trustworthy and glorious public opinion atmosphere comes from the CCP’s blueprint for it’s social credit system, the ubiquitous iron first in a velvet app that the Chinese state uses to reward what it sees as model behaviour, and punish the discredited by dumping them in hot water, where the jokes stop being funny. In one colourful but untraceable translation, the system will work by allowing ‘the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step’, or, as Google Translate clumsily has it, ‘the trustworthy will benefit everywhere, and the untrustworthy will be difficult to move.’

Make no mistake: this is exactly how Govie’s covid passports will work. Model individuals will be commended in accordance with the regulations, and allowed to roam everywhere under heaven, while the discredited will find it hard to take a single step. It may be based, at least for the time being, on a single binary score, but in essence the covid passport system is a social credit system. You get social credit if you are a model individual who can show that you are, or might be, immune to covid. If you can’t, and can’t show a state approved reason for exemption, then you get dis-credited, and will find it ‘hard…to take a single step’.

It doesn’t have to be like this. There is no law under heaven, or even in hell, that says we must have covid passports. That the polls come out in favour of covid passports is a crisp reminder that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average pollster’s panellist, who is more than happy to trade in essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety. Instead of taking leaves out of the CCP’s book, with the intention of creating a glorious public opinion atmosphere, we should follow the lead of Florida’s Governor, Ron Desantis, who on the 2nd of April promulgated the following Executive Order, effective immediately:

Section 1. No Florida government entity, or its subdivisions, agents, or assigns, shall be permitted to issue vaccine passports, vaccine passes, or other standardized documentation for the purpose of certifying an individual’s COVID-19 vaccination status to a third party, or otherwise publish or share any individual’s COVID-19 vaccination record or similar health information.

Section 2. Businesses in Florida are prohibited from requiring patrons or customers to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-transmission recovery to gain access to, entry upon, or service from the business.

Section 3. All executive agencies under my direction shall work to ensure businesses comply with this order. Any provision of Florida Statutes is hereby suspended solely to the extent it restricts a Florida agency from requiring compliance with this order as a condition for a license, permit, or other state authorization necessary for conducting business in Florida.

Section 4. All businesses must comply with this order to be eligible for grants or contracts funded through state revenue.

Section 5. The requirements in this order do not otherwise restrict businesses from instituting COVID-19 screening protocols in accordance with state and federal law to protect public health, and nothing herein shall be construed to interfere with individuals’ rights to access their own personal health information under federal law.

It really is that simple, and if Florida can do it, why can’t we? At the stroke of a short  order, no covid passports, no divisions of society, no discrimination, no coercion to get vaccinated against one’s will, no state controlled social credit system, no rude exposure of one’s confidential medical record; and perhaps best of all, no sinister  transformation into a society where ‘model individuals will be commended in accordance with regulations, and extensive publicity will be conducted through the news media to create a trustworthy and glorious public opinion atmosphere.’       


  1. James Robinson Reply

    Yes, I read with much interest that Florida is going against the grain, and by doing so, is doing well, as too are the health of its people.
    A great model for us all to follow.

    Here, we have appeared to have succumbed to the notion that: carry a passport and you’ll get your freedom back. Forgetting, or not realising that it was never the state’s position to take it away, to begin with.

    As Sir Humphrey would say, “It’s the thin end of the wedge”. Meaning today, ‘covid cover’ (tick) residing on your digital papers, but tomorrow all manner of personal information and beyond.

    But what is the real agenda (in seeking power and control) — for what purpose?
    It’s now not beyond the realms of moderate thinking, to slap down the ‘conspiracy theorist’ label, that there appears to be greater, more sinister forces at work here.

    Perhaps, covid was a ‘warm up’ for something more infectious and deadly — a real threat, instead of the truly manufactured medical and social moral panic that we’ve been subjected to over the last 12 months or more.

    I hope the Blighty spirit pulls us through and sees off the imminent encroachment, but I wouldn’t count on it.

  2. carolyn_f Reply

    I despair of my country and the majority of my fellows, would be my heartfelt, brief comment.

    The more I look into this, the more I realise this has been in play for some time. I don’t wish to direct taffic away from your blog Dr, but I would encourage concerned readers having contributed to your insightful post to wander off and have a gander at Simprints with GAVI and ID2020 and partners launch program to provide digital ID with vaccines and note the date on both articles. This appears to tie in with the ID2020 manifesto.

    How on earth do we halt this inthe UK? Readers here will know that “3-weeks to flatten the curve” turned into a year of well… destruction of our civil society? Too strong maybe? So any promise to time-limit Covid passport/certification use ain’t gonna happen. This measure is a disguise for the introduction of national ID cards, biometrics and (world-wide?) shared, distributed personal data .

    I don’t ‘do’ much social media but alerting more people to the approach of Florida’s Governor and his defence of freedom and individual rights might make a few of the waverers sit up, take note? We’re sleepwalking into worldwide governance of the many by the powerful few.

  3. djc Reply

    2019, sitting in my garden enjoying a glorious summer day: I was feeling guilty about all the little tasks that were not being done, maybe I was spending too much time on the croquet lawn; never mind I thought whatever times are to come it is for days like these we live.

    2021, it is a glorious spring day, but the weather forecast threatens every bud with a hard frost and I am filled with dread of what the world has become,

  4. JonBe Reply

    Sometimes, a lotus emerges from swamps. Regarding the swamps, they are so murky that it is difficult to grasp their true essence. Regarding the lotus, the passport does not look like it in any way…

    • ZuZu’s Petals Reply


      Thank you for the link to this excellent film which I watched this afternoon before it was taken down by YouTube. It can still be viewed on BitChute.

      • Annie Davenport Turner Reply

        ZuZu’s Petals – what do I look for on Bitchute, please? Screwtube has removed all hints as well as the video.
        Great blog, Dr No. The only thing is the tragedy it has to be written at all – we’re in very, very dodgy 1930’s Germany territory, global digital version, and mere plaything has in Mr W Gate’s sociopathic video game…

        • dr-no Reply

          The Wayback Machine suggests ‘CORONA.FILM – Prologue’ with this blurb:

          OVALmedia in English

          Everything is different than it once seemed. Things did not have to be this way. Not in Northern Italy, where terrible missteps and political showmanship triggered a global trauma. Nor in the official portrayal of the pandemic in the media, where a single truth was pushed through so as not to disturb the prevailing narrative with nuances and relativisations. Corona.film is uncomfortable, but in the very best way.

          This bitchute link has the same title/blurb.

        • ZuZu’s Petals Reply

          Annie, Apologies, I have only just read your message this morning. Many thanks to Dr. No for providing the link.

  5. Shawn Reply

    The ‘least intrusive coercive measure’ is how Lord Sumption has described vaccine passports. I feel as he does. It is very clear to me that the current government would not reopen mass participation events without some sort of restrictions on entry being put in place, namely more testing. I don’t like it but I want to be crowded into a venue, or a field, or anywhere really and this is the least worst option on the table.

  6. carolyn_f Reply

    The ‘least intrusive coercive measure’ is how Lord Sumption has described vaccine passports. I was surprised by Lord Sumption’s stance on vaccine passports (see his Unherd interview). That is until very recently when I read that he is a director of the English National Opera and a governor of the Royal Academy of Music. I imagine the ENO is suffering greatly from reduced income and it does not need a patron insensitive to the urgent need to resume live performances via the least coercive measures.

    At this stage of the viral outbreak, my preference is for giving folks actuarate information on which to assess risk. Plus, I’m sure venues could do much to improve ventilation (key); most already have some distancing in place but in theatre-type situations this could be done by ‘group’ (spacing between bubbles if you like); and at this stage, if it helps to reduce intermingling between groups (and feels good), have a stewarded, timed one-way system in and out.

    BTW, I suspect the about to be announced ‘freedom measures’ (doublespeak) will indeed involve more testing.

    • Tom Welsh Reply

      “I imagine the ENO is suffering greatly from reduced income and it does not need a patron insensitive to the urgent need to resume live performances via the least coercive measures.”

      That does not excuse Lord Sumption’s feeble acquiescence.

      If the government decides to destroy the last remnants of British theatre and music, let it do so.

      Afterwards we shall have the trials.

      • carolyn_f Reply

        feeble acquiescence No it doesn’t, and I didn’t intend it to; cited rather to highlight how much the principled position is lost in… whatever it is? Some kind of manipulation by the executive using the threat of irreversible taint to one’s reputation? Nowadays that seems rapidly achievable via concerted attack by the Government’s mass media sources.

        I was sorely disappointed by Lord Sumption’s change of position, sorely. To me, at points during the above linked interview he looked thoroughly uncomfortable. I’m sure he is being subjected to vast pressure both public and private (for example, The Law Gazette, the BBC, etc have been consistent in their attacks – outright or subtle). Nonetheless, he appears to have ‘folded’ very rapidly.

  7. dr-no Reply

    It is all very disheartening. We have come from a nation where a columnist who would later become PM once wrote that he would rather eat his ID card than show it to an agent of the state – let alone a lackey at the door of a cinema – to one where that once columnist, now PM, is about to introduce the very cards he said he would eat. One fears for his digestion, indeed the collective digestion of the nation. We have moved from a position a short while ago where a senior and unusually learned judge was vehement in his opposition to rule by lockdown decree – “This is how freedom dies” – to one where the very same judge now plugs the double barrelled assault on individual liberty of covid passports and coercive vaccination as the “least intrusive and the least objectionable coercive measures” (at around 00:31:35 in the video linked to above).

    It is all very disheartening. The bastions of our British liberties, our press, our ministers and our judges, have turned in the tide of public opinion. Both Sumption and Johnson freely admit this: “But I recognise that most of my fellow citizens want coercive measures” (Sumption, same interview) and “my impression is that there is a huge wisdom in the public’s feeling about this” (Johnson, Liaison Committee hearing 24th March). Dr No doesn’t know which is more disheartening: that coercion should increase, or that it does so because that’s what the mob want, and our leaders, populists one and all, throw wisdom to the winds, and cave in to the mob.

  8. H W Tsudnim Reply

    We at the Croestapo will never be out of work unless you passport deniers get your way. Eich papurau os gwelch yn dda!

  9. Tom Welsh Reply

    “…a columnist who would later become PM once wrote that he would rather eat his ID card than show it to an agent of the state…”

    That may have been misunderstood. Mr Johnson did not say that because he honestly believed it or felt strongly about freedom.

    He said it because he believed it would increase his popularity by expressing agreement with a popular opinion.

    One only has to consider how many people nowadays see fit to “quote” Voltaire as having said. “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

    That sounds rather splendid, but of course it’s utter nonsense. I care quite a lot for freedom, but I would not for one moment contemplate “defending to the death” someone else’s right to speak.

    Anyone who can cheerfully say such things obviously does not mean them.

    • dr-no Reply

      Tom – good points, relevant to the one or perhaps two posts that have been circling round and in Dr No’s mind for a while, on Liberty and Life and The Rule of Law. Interestingly Sumpers appears to confirm in the Unheard interview that unusually for a lawyer, he is not a deontologist (rules matter more than consequences, ie you should follow the rules, even if the outcome is bad) on some levels, but on the passports/vaccine question he appears to be reverting to lawyerly form… Traditional medical thinking on the other hand tends to be consequentialist (consequences matter more than rules, so it is OK to break the rules to get a better outcome, and so potentially, by extension, you have a duty to break the law if it is a bad law). The whole area is of course a minefield, all the more so in a time of populist nonsense.

      • Tom Welsh Reply

        “Interestingly Sumpers appears to confirm in the Unheard interview that unusually for a lawyer, he is not a deontologist…”

        Lawyers are supposed (I think) to believe “fiat iustitia, ruat caelum”.

        But it all depends, doesn’t it, on what you believe to be “justice”?

        • dr-no Reply

          “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall”. If “let justice be done” means “let the rules ie law be applied” (though the heavens fall) then it is deontological (rules matter more than consequences). But even if we take justice to mean some higher notion of fairness, it still remains deontological, because this higher notion of justice is arrived at by rules, so once again, rules matter more than consequences.

          If you really wan’t to put the cat among the pigeons, consider the case of inheritance. The last parent dies, and leaves £200,000 to his two children. The son works in the city, and earns £1,000,000 per year, and has a large house in Wimbledon with no mortgage, the daughter is a junior nurse on peanuts and lives in rented accommodation. Should each get £100,000, or should the daughter get more, and the son less?

  10. Tom Welsh Reply

    “Model individuals will be commended in accordance with the regulations, and allowed to roam everywhere under heaven, while the discredited will find it hard to take a single step”.

    If we are forbidden to enter certain places, or to mix with certain people under certain conditions unless we have been vaccinated – I shall happily forgo visiting those places and meeting those people.

    I have not had my hair cut since the restrictions began a year ago. If they continue, I shall continue not to have it cut. Perhaps one day it will be knee-length.

    I will (reluctantly) wear a mask for a few minutes to buy food. Otherwise not. I shall not be tested or vaccinated.

    If the government forbid me to do anything unless I wear a mask, or am tested and/or vaccinated, I shall not do those things.

    And if that means I cannot meet or talk to the uncritical, unsceptical, thoughtless sheep-like people outside my home – so much the better.

    • dr-no Reply

      This Daily Expose article appears to be a pretty straight unattributed lift from this BMJ rapid response (RR), with the only changes/additions being that the author is a medical director of a (private?) hospital in Kent. The RR is a little ‘odd’ – the language isn’t entirely medical, though very close, and the author’s bio is rather brief (normally authors state their institution), so Dr No checked the Medical Register. There is no Dr K Polyakova on the UK Medical Register… Beyond this Dr No has drawn a blank, which is a pity, because healthcare is/would be an ideal setting in which to conduct post-vaccination follow up studies. In fact, come to think of it, it is rather odd that such studies haven’t been done, or at least been published…

      • JonBe Reply

        Thanks for the investigation Dr No, I’ve just seen the BMJ post and agree with your analyse.

        The common sense and good science should be effectively to conduct this post-vaccination follow up studies.
        Believes are hard to change (for the pro vaccine, the anti vaccine and the “vaccino prudent”) and it’s difficult to admit that we are wrong and deceived by our own cognitive biases.
        I continue to hope, maybe naively, for the convergence of reliable informations towards a barycenter as close as possible to a valid truth.

        What I observe (from my point of vue…), is that the vast majority of vaccinated people witch have had advers(s) event(s) (not all had it :), did not signal it, nor their doctor. How to have a fiable pharmacovigilance with this even if it has always has been ?

        More factual, this investigation on the Swiss science task force ask additional questions about the trust we can accord to the proclaimed transparency by the institution.

        My mantra of the day could have been : What is not transparent remains suspect until proven otherwise… and it’s valid for my own intervention :)

        I precise that I have no link of interest with the pharmaceutic industry, nor with politic. Just a simple medical practitioner, seeking like you to understand this crazy period.

      • Misa Reply

        It’s just been pointed out to me on Twitter (tagged @_dr_no_) that the name shown in your link to the Medical Register should not, perhaps, be dismmissed so quickly. I gather that the Yekaterina (or Ekaterina) might be shortened to Katya or, possibly, Katerina. And it’s common enough for people with double-barrelled surnames to use only the one surname professionally.

        I don’t know whether BMJ requires further credentials before publication, but I would have thought they would be well aware of the dangers of publishing even rapid responses without.

        Worthy of taking at face value, Dr No?

      • dr-no Reply

        Misa – looks very possible, all the dots seem to join up. GMC registered name is Yekaterina Yurievna Polyakova-Nelson, on Specialist Register (Child and adolescent psychiatry). The rocketreach.co name is Katya Polyakova-Nelson, Medical Director at The Priory in Kent, with Child and Adolescent Psychiatry listed as ‘skills’. A pretty good match. Well done, whoever made the link (not entirely clear on twitter). And well done Dr Polyakova for getting the RR in the BMJ, highlighting the problems she has observed.

        This is the best outcome – far better than it turning out the author of the RR was not legit. It is also a can of worms. Dr P is in effect a whistle-blower, and we know what the NHS does to whistle-blowers (‘those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad’), but Dr P works in the private sector, and they too have their ways and means.

        We also need to remind ourselves that this is just one anecdotal report, published as a RR. Dr No does not intend that to mean he doesn’t believe it, just that caution is necessary. It may be that there is only one report because only one doctor (so far) has been prepared to speak out. Or it may be something particular to her corner of the “health service function” (an example of the not quite medical speak language alluded to earlier, now possibly explained by Dr P’s background). Or it may be something else.

        The BMJ yesterday added an ‘editorial notice’ to the RR: “Important editorial notice for readers: This is a rapid response (online comment by a third party) and not an article in The BMJ. It is attributed in a misleading way on certain websites and social media. The Editor, 08/04/2021.” They have distanced themselves from the RR, but not removed it.

        Dr No is going to sleep on this one, given the implications of the RR are a possible massive cover up of post vaccinations side effects.

      • dr-no Reply

        Having slept on it, the inescapable fact is that Dr P’s report of common debilitating side-effects is anecdotal. That is not to say it should not be believed, but while it remains a single anecdotal report it should be given the status normally given to such reports. Her wider observations on the many and serious problems associated with mandatory vaccination are unaffected by the anecdotal nature of her local observations on side-effects, and remain sound.

        Dr No has spent some time today looking for corroborating evidence, particularly mortality (because it is usually reliably reported). Among other things, he looked at Israel, given Israel’s high vaccination rates. There is a notable rise in excess all cause mortality in January 2021 (the period when Israel ramped up its vaccinations at warp speed) but this appears to be explained by a wave of covid deaths, provided the alleged covid deaths are indeed real covid deaths…

      • dr-no Reply

        The latest development in the curious tale of Dr P: the BMJ has now removed Dr P’s RR, on the grounds it was “being used to spread misinformation and was attributed in a misleading way on certain websites and social media.” This amounts to censorship. Dr No had dared to hope the BMJ was above such things.

  11. Annie Davenport Turner Reply

    ZuZu’s Petals and Dr No – thanks for the link, but it’s even been removed from Bitchute, let alone the rest… Speaking as someone banned from Facebook today (24 hours) for posting (a) the vaers figures, and (b) something from the gov’s own website, ‘their’ cage is being rattled, but they’re consequently getting very dangerous… We have little time to lose now. Tom, my kettle will always be on, resistance measures are in place, and tunnels are being begun…. We will not be bullied!

    • ZuZu’s Petals Reply

      Annie, I have just found a link to the film which works. Using DuckDuckGo I searched for “corona.film prologue”. The second result was “corona.film”. When I opened that I was directed to a link: https://linktr.ee/CORONA.Film_Prologue. I watched a minute or so of the film to ensure it worked. Hope this helps.

  12. dr-no Reply

    Dr No has been contacted, somewhat after the event, by someone claiming to be the real Dr Yekaterina Polyakova-Nelson, who also goes by the name Dr Katya Polyakova-Nelson, stating most emphatically that she is not the K Polyakova who wrote the BMJ RR discussed above, which was instead written by an imposter. She has asked Dr No to remove all comments relating to her in the above comments, on the grounds they are personal (and by implication private) information, and are defamatory.

    All of the above facts, such as they are, are available in the public domain, as indeed they should be, and so cannot be considered private personal information. There is no reason to remove them on these grounds.

    Dr No has no way of knowing who really wrote the article. That said, he continues to believe that on the balance of probabilities, it is certainly very plausible that Dr Yekaterina Polyakova-Nelson, who also goes by the name Dr Katya Polyakova-Nelson, and who is also a medical director of certain facilities, is one and the same person as K Polyakova, who authored the BMJ RR. But he cannot, in the absence of further and better evidence, be absolutely sure.

    He considers that a discussion as to the identity of a author who appears to be both a doctor and a medical director (based on statements in the RR) is, in the old language, fair comment on a matter of public interest (specifically, the credibility of the content and author of the RR), and therefore does not amount to defamation. To remove the comments as requested would amount to agreeing to censorship, which is not something Dr No is going to do anytime soon.

    The BMJ’s censorship (retraction) note states that “This rapid response has been removed as it was being used to spread misinformation and was attributed in a misleading way on certain websites and social media”. It appears the primary reason for removal was “being used to spread misinformation” (a typical censor’s call). The “attributed in a misleading way on certain websites and social media” statement is vague – it does not say what was mis-attributed or how it was mis-attributed or even where it is alleged to have been mis-attributed. It clearly does not say ‘the author of this RR is not Dr Yekaterina Polyakova-Nelson, but rather an imposter posing as Dr Yekaterina Polyakova-Nelson’.

    All that said, the true identity of the author is not established beyond reasonable doubt, only on the balance of probabilities. Any individual/organisation reading any inference from the above comments over this matter should give due weight to fact that the apparently real Dr Yekaterina Polyakova-Nelson has stated, in private messages to Dr No, though not apparently in the public domain, that she is not the K Polyakova who wrote the RR, which was instead written by an imposter.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *