[ PDF version ]
[ PDF version ]
[ PDF version ]
[ PDF version ]
Download my 199-page
report: Special Operations
in Medical Research
[pdf – 2.07MB]:
Download my Open Letter to the British Prime Minister & Health Secretary
[pdf – 380KB]:
The Limits of Rationality
(An important mathematical oversight)
[863KB]:
Radical Affinity and
Variant Proportion in
Natural Numbers
[2.86MB]:
Mind: Before & Beyond Computation
[677KB]:
Dawkins' Theory of Memetics – A Biological Assault on the Cultural
[515KB]:
Randomness, Non-
Randomness, & Structural Selectivity
[612KB]:
Special Operations in Medical Research: in Brief
The Surgical Abuse of Children within British Post-war Science and Medicine
On 9th April 1967, a week before my sixth birthday, I underwent a tonsillectomy procedure at the North Staffordshire Infirmary (now the University Hospital of North Staffordshire). Before 2001 I had no reason to doubt the authenticity of that procedure.1 Since the year 2001 I have had occasions to undergo several MRI scan procedures in the UK, which have now revealed evidence that this was NOT a straightforward tonsillectomy procedure – the first, a Brain MRI scan conducted at St. Thomas’ Hospital, London in 2008; the second, an MRI Head scan conducted at the National Hospital for Neurology & Neurosurgery, London in 2013. An image from the second scan is displayed below, and selected images from each scan are available to view as slideshows in the links below it:
The second scan appears to show a small rigid box-like structure (or structures), self-evidently of non-biological origin, approximately 1cm square, and situated behind the back of my throat close to the brain-stem; while the first scan appears to show an object, also of non-biological origin, situated within my neck to the left of my spinal column (‘right’ in the images).2
Prior to either of these MRI scan procedures, my tonsillectomy in 1967 was the only occasion that I had had surgery under general anaesthetic – hence there can be no doubt that the tonsillectomy operation had been the occasion of these apparent illicit implants to my neck. Since the operation took place within the organisational perimeters of state healthcare provision, the evidence ultimately points to the UK Government’s culpability, through its Department of Health, in facilitating the plan and execution of a program of covert medical research (implicitly understood to be neuroscientific research), involving what can only be judged as the criminal exploitation of a number of vulnerable research subjects, i.e., children.3
Due to the highly sensitive nature of the evidence therefore, and the implicit threat to national security posed by the prospect of its revelation, public disclosure of the evidence has been rigorously suppressed across all UK institutions since the creation of the first MRI scan in October 2008. This means that no doctor has been prepared openly to discuss the evidence (even with myself) in a way that might be seen to corroborate the existence of the implants. That is to say that the evidence has been systematically covered-up by each of the hospitals responsible for producing the scans. Hence, for primarily political reasons, I have been unable to receive health assessment and care that fully acknowledges the truth of my medical condition as it is revealed by these MRI scans.4
Evidence and analysis in support of these statements, including further MRI images, and my account of my medical and family case history spanning the years 1967 to the present, is presented in my report, and also in the Report section of this site. From analysis of the evidence as a whole it emerges that a technological imperative had arisen, amongst key scientific and industrial interests during the late 1960s, to obtain recondite biological data regarding the structure of the brain and its processes – data which at the time was considered essential to the advancement of certain technological fields (in particular, that of Artificial Intelligence).5
See the page: Technological Imperatives for an understanding of why it was considered that the most appropriate material for this research was that of the living brains of infants engaged in day-to-day intellectual activities, with particular emphasis on those at the stage of language acquisition. Clearly, there are no ethical means for conducting internal examinations of children’s brains while they actually undergo their education. The nature of the technological imperative was therefore that, as the theoretical and practical progress of information technologies was hindered by the absence of certain recondite biological data that was considered indispensable to it, but for which there were no ethical means to obtain it, we must not halt the progress of science if there is a way to obtain that data, if not by ethical means, then at least by methods that could be kept discrete and securely out of the public domain.
In its passion for the “white heat” of technological progress, Wilson’s 1964-1970 Labour Government, in pioneering spirit, entered into a Faustian pact by which it undertook to suspend all ethical objections to a research program designed to extract the required biological data, in a limited and controlled manner, from a select group of infant research subjects. This required those infants to undergo, covertly, on the pretext of routine tonsillectomies, invasive surgery including the implantation of sophisticated devices designed to extract the data remotely and without the awareness of its subject-host. The nature of this ‘devil’s pact’ was that, as ethical objection to this proposal for the biological enslavement of a select group of children arises only in the event it should become a matter of public discourse, the Government could rely upon the fabric of state secrecy to occlude that possibility; implying that its formal responsibility for having hosted these unspeakable medical atrocities among its public health services would never suffer coherent public examination – preventing it ever being exposed to the light of day. Conversely, Britain stood only to gain immensely from reaping the fruits of its pioneering input to technological progress.
In the following I will outline how since December 2010 the Government has striven to resist and to suppress my efforts to make a public disclosure of the evidence revealed by the two MRI scans discussed above, and has sought to control and manipulate medical and legal opinion to that end. It has also striven to remove all obstacles to the success of a series of organised attempts on my life, designed to eliminate me as the principle source of the threatened disclosure. This includes systematic influence over the police, preventing the police from giving respectful credence to my reports of attempts on my life, or from accepting evidence from myself in relation to those attempts. The result is a life-changing situation in which for 15 years I have had no reasonable protection from the law against a series of organised attempts on my life; for that reason am now homeless because I am unable to reside safely at a single address; and furthermore at age 64 I have no safe access to healthcare at home in the UK for the reason of my outstanding criminal allegation against the NHS – one which NHS Management hopes would simply go away.
The systematic cover-up of the evidence by both the NHS and its regulator
The original radiological report on the first MRI scan made at St Thomas’ Hospital Radiology Dept. in October 2008 made no reference to the anomaly revealed in images 7.13-7.15 from the scan, concluding with the words: “No significant intracranial abnormality identified”. This resulted in my submitting a complaint to Guy’s & St Thomas’ (‘GSTT’) Complaints Dept., in March 2013, over the apparent attempts to cover-up this evidence by both St Thomas’ Radiology Dept., and subsequently also the Neurology Dept. at Guy’s Hospital (see: Complaint to GSTT for a detailed account of the progress of this complaint).
The same tendency towards reticence and denial affected the process of the reporting on the second MRI scan from the National Hospital for Neurology & Neurosurgery (NHNN – a part of UCLH NHS Trust), in March 2013. Again the reports were that the scan was basically “normal”, with no reference to the self-evident anomaly revealed in the 4-image scan sequence presented above. This resulted in a further complaint made to UCLH NHS Trust in November 2013 over the apparent cover-up of evidence within NHNN (see: 2nd MRI Head Scan for an account of the progress of this complaint).
Neither of these complaints had been satisfactorily resolved through the complaints processes internal to the two NHS Trusts, and each complaint was subsequently referred to the Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman (‘PHSO’). The PHSO declined to conduct an investigation of my March 2013 complaint against GSTT on the basis that the complaint was ‘out of time’ (there was a gap of 27 months between my obtaining a copy of the MRI scan and making the complaint to GSTT); in spite of the fact that I possessed no expert corroboration of the evidence with which to substantiate a complaint during that period, and in spite of the fact also that there were clear overriding reasons in the public interest for the PHSO to waive its standard 12-month time limit on the acceptance of a complaint (see my analysis of the PHSO’s decision).
The PHSO did agree to conduct an investigation into my complaint against UCLH NHS Trust. However, in the PHSO’s final investigation report of 04/04/2014, in which it declined to uphold the complaint, it transpired that the PHSO had pursued a deliberately crude and peremptory investigation, relying upon the informal advice of one of its contracted medical advisors (not himself a specialist in neuroradiology, and an employee of the NHS, hence with questionable independence), given merely by word of mouth, and quoted only indirectly in the investigation report, and whom it appears had concurred with the opinions of the specialists at NHNN. Considering that the PHSO refused to provide any challengeable verbatim statement of the medical advisor’s findings, together with the fact that it had declined to conduct any formal assessment of the original MRI scan material itself, it is clear that the PHSO’s intention had been the most peremptory form of investigation, one designed to avoid a substantive assessment of the MRI evidence under dispute; so that the PHSO appears to have been effectively complicit in the hospital’s original cover-up (see my analysis of the PHSO’s investigation).
The PHSO’s apparent complicity in its wilful disregard of the evidence that would have exposed a cover-up was an act of reflexive denial by the regulator that was to become the pattern of response to whatever complaint or legal application I might make between 2013 and the present day, in association with my efforts to make public the evidence of these historical crimes against children – this kind of response by summary rejection is the one I continue to receive systematically from all public institutions in their responses to my claims. There is an overriding incapacity and unwillingness, amongst all public and regulatory bodies, to take the enormity of my complaints seriously, or to conduct fair and proportionate investigations into them, when it is clear to those bodies from the outset that the findings of such an investigation would directly implicate the State and the NHS in a series of covert medical atrocities, and thus present a significant threat to national security.
The seriousness of the historical allegation over events in 1967, and which goes some way to explain this full-scale omerta in effect against disclosure of the evidence, is that the event of my fraudulent tonsillectomy cannot be conveniently explained-away in terms of the evil deeds of a single maleficent individual, but must be understood rather as an organised, collegial, and interdisciplinary enterprise, implicating the activities of various offices of state, scientific, health, and educational institutions, and backed by corporate investment. This is to say that the evidence directly or indirectly undermines the moral integrity and respectability of a wide range of high-profile national (and international) institutions.
Given the extent of the official license behind these alleged crimes, and their legacy as state secrets, one can understand the utter fear and inhibition felt by any individual medical expert against offering a fully candid medical opinion with respect to the MRI scans, one that risks breaking the established code of secrecy and affirming the enormity of these medical crimes. It is too great a responsibility for an individual clinician to be so bold as to affirm facts that would by implication bring a devastating judgment against the NHS per se. It would be unfair to expect clinicians to become selfless whistleblowers and to commit professional suicide if that is this cost of them speaking the truth. That is why a series of neurological experts across three London hospitals were compelled to lie to conceal the evidence (if indeed they weren’t explicitly forbidden to disclose it), and the UK Government has thus succeeded in maintaining over 17 years (since October 2008) the wholesale suppression from public disclosure of this prima facie evidence of its historical crimes against children.
The State’s ongoing efforts over 17 years to block public disclosure
My tonsillectomy in 1967 at age five was a significant life-changing event for me. Part 1 of my report (pp.1-46) goes into some detail over the chronic physical and mental ill-effects that I experienced during the years following that operation, which for many years could not be explained or diagnosed, but which now appear to have been the direct consequences of that ‘tonsillectomy’.
It was a further life-changing event when in 2001 my suspicions over the propriety of my tonsillectomy were first aroused, because, even though at the time (before the emergence of the MRI evidence) I did not have the confidence that I have now in bringing these allegations, it was already clear to me that if proven those allegations would be some of the most serious and consequential ever to be brought against the UK NHS. In the absence of prima facie evidence I judged that any attempt to communicate the content of these suspicions would be immediately defended and shot-down as ‘delusional’ (as the allegations do ironically resemble the caricature of a classical delusional syndrome). I was unable therefore to speak to anyone about the nature of my suspicions, and although I was unable simply to abandon them, any further investigation I might pursue would be an entirely self-directed process carried out in isolation, against persistent efforts by both the police and the medical profession to suppress and deny the evidence. As the content of my allegations made them essentially unspeakable, the most significant effect of my discovery in 2001 was that it alienated me entirely from all social, familial, or otherwise publicly available sources of support and advice.
It was a third life-changing event when in December 2010 I made a subject access request to St Thomas’ Hospital Information Governance Dept. for a copy of the Brain MRI scan produced at the hospital in October 2008. Exactly at the time I made that request, and before I received the scan copy in response, there began the series of organised attempts on my life that I have discussed above, as attempts to eliminate me as the potential source of a public disclosure, and which have been dominated by the use of sophisticated methods of poisoning. In view of the fact that the police have consistently refused to take my reports of these attempts on my life seriously, or to accept evidence of the attempts when offered to them, my only effective means of defence against the attempts was to go into hiding and maintain constant mobility and secrecy over my whereabouts. That then has been my condition for the past 15 years – as the priority of the State (and the Police) has been to remove all obstacles to the success of attempts on my life, it has been impossible for me to reside safely at a single address since the beginning of those attempts in December 2010.
I must refer the reader to Part 2 (pp.47-138), and to the Addenda section (pp.139-192), of my report for a detailed exposition of the events that have occurred since my December 2010 request for a copy of the first MRI scan. The following is a list of key items of concern to serve as a précis of the detailed account of events found in those sections of the report:
- I first conveyed my suspicions over a series of medical crimes at the North Staffs Infirmary, of which I had been a victim in 1967, to both the Metropolitan and Staffordshire Police forces in late 2003, in the form of an early edition of what is now Part 1 of my report. The Evidence section of Part 1 entails the associated allegation (re: pp.7-10) that my father was murdered by medical professionals in 1968, as a consequence of him openly voicing his suspicions over the propriety of my tonsillectomy (my father had not been part of the arrangement between the NHS and my mother through which it is alleged that my mother received a large financial sum in exchange for her consent for me to undergo the fraudulent tonsillectomy). I also wrote to both those police forces in January 2012, enclosing a copy of the first Brain MRI scan, and referring to evidence of illicit implants revealed in that scan, and to a suspected cover-up of the evidence by Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Trust. The police have therefore been in possession of circumstantial evidence since 2003, and of conclusive evidence since January 2012, but have so far failed to make an appropriate response to it.
- To complicate matters, the attempts on my life that began in December 2010 were divided between attempts from two independent sources. Firstly, in November 2010 I renewed allegations I had first made in 2003 against certain members of my family that they had benefitted financially from my mother’s corrupt arrangement with the NHS in 1967, implying allegations of money-laundering on their behalf. This resulted in a series of attempts on my life by those family members, beginning with a first such attempt in December 2010. This attempt on my life was direct, involving a visit to my flat by contracted thugs, and was categorically distinct from the much more frequent, sophisticated, and ‘indirect’ attempts at poisoning that are understood to be financed by UK Establishment interests, or by affiliated corporate interests potentially implicated by my broader allegations. The section of my report entitled: Attempts on My Life (pp.83-113) presents a detailed account of the attempts on my life from both sources and conveys some of the frustration and injury caused to me due to the police having shown complete and unreasonable disregard to my reports of those attempts over 15 years. The police’s response to my report made to them in December 2010 of the attempt on my life by members of my family, and my subsequent complaint over the misconduct of officers involved in that report, is the subject of the section of the report entitled: Complaints to the Metropolitan Police, on pp.114-121.
- The responses in general to my approaches to the NHS, either in my discussions with individual clinicians regarding my suspicions over the content of my MRI scans, or in my presentations to emergency health services with suspected cases of mild poisoning (involving my reports of attempts on my life as the cause), or to my various complaints submitted to the two NHS Trusts responsible for producing the MRI scans (and hence allegedly having covered-up the evidence), have been met with the principle line of defence that these reports and allegations are all ‘delusional’. This defensive response began following my approaches in 2011 to Dr Thomasin Andrews at Guy’s Hospital, who had given consultation over the first MRI scan earlier in 2009 (see: details). In response to my contact with her by email, Dr Andrews, without informing me, made a referral via my GP to mental health services, alleging I had made delusional claims about my MRI scan. These referrals were repeated in 2013, following my complaints to both GSTT and UCLH NHS Trusts over their alleged cover-ups of the MRI evidence. The point is that these referrals were cynical and dishonest, as the clinicians involved all knew the truth about what was revealed in the MRI scans. Moreover, clinicians in 2013 also made false allegations of violent or aggressive behaviour on my part in order to reinforce the MH referrals, and even to try to secure my detention under the Mental Health Act – all of which was defamatory and injurious to my character. The mere existence of these entries on my medical record tended to function as a self-perpetuating myth, predisposing any future clinician redundantly to repeat the same referral process. It was the cynical but highly effective construction of an alibi on behalf of those NHS departments involved, which obviated the need for any future clinician to give due consideration, either to my reports of attempts on my life, or to my allegations of historical NHS crimes, or to recent NHS cover-ups of those crimes. Furthermore, the sharing of this received wisdom between the NHS and the Police, thus extinguishing my various claims and reports as ‘delusional’, is perhaps the most important contribution to the desired effect of removing any obstacle within the State to the potential success of attempts on my life.6
- In order to stay one step ahead of attempts on my life it was necessary for me to keep moving, rarely staying at a single location for more than a day or two, with frequent travel abroad in order to maximise the effect of mobility in enhancing my personal security. This has been my condition of existence for the greater part of the period December 2010 to the present; although there have been some periods of relative respite in attempts on my life, only for them to be re-engaged at a later date, with the intention apparently of taking me strategically by surprise. It is understood that the attempts to poison me are organised by Establishment and affiliated corporate interests, backed by unlimited resources, which means that there are very few locations abroad that are beyond their practical reach (although I find I have better effective sanctuary when staying within Muslim populations). As I have no safe access to healthcare in the UK, and no protection from the law there against persistent attempts on my life, my condition is best described as one of de facto statelessness. It was reasonable under these circumstances for me to make applications for political asylum in various countries I visited. These were mostly unsuccessful, except for my application in Turkey in October 2014 – the Turks accepted my request for international protection after I asked four separate hospitals in Istanbul to assess my MRI scans, and then gave the contact details of the Neurology Depts. at the hospitals to the Turkish Immigration Office. Some months later, in March 2015, my landlord in the UK issued a Notice to Quit on my tenancy in London. For that reason it was necessary to return home temporarily, which resulted in Turkey ending my asylum status (a decision not however in concordance with the 1951 Refugee Convention). A detailed account of my applications for asylum is given in pp.122-130 of my report. See also the second addendum to the report: Swedish Asylum Applications, on pp.180-192.
- Between December 2010 and February 2014 I had regular access to my flat in London (a social housing tenancy), but chiefly for the reason of the threat to my life from members of my family, it was not possible to reside there as normal for much of that period. Following an attempt on my life there in February 2014, understood to have originated from members of my family, it became impossible to stay there at all due to the persistence within the flat of a lethal toxic hazard (this also prevented me from safely removing my belongings from the flat). It was a breach of my tenancy agreement if I should not occupy the flat for at least 6 months a year – this was the basis for the landlord’s NTQ in March 2015. However, the landlord did not act upon that Notice until October 2017, at which point a possession claim ensued in the London county courts. My defence of course was that the series of attempts on my life at the flat meant that I was unable safely to reside there for reasons that were beyond my personal control. To have any possibility of success that defence required my appointed solicitor to acknowledge the attempts on my life as the appreciable grounds for my perceived ‘non-occupation’ and to make that case in court. That would entail a public airing of the evidence relating to a series of attempts on my life in court – a disclosure that would of course have wrecked the Establishment strategy of removing all obstacles to the success of those attempts. The first addendum to my report: A Miscarriage of Civil Justice (pp.140-179) provides an extensive analysis of the conduct of my defence case between January 2018 and February 2019, in which the case is made that my defence team had colluded, including with MoJ staff and with the claimant’s legal team, to avoid at any cost the risk of such a public disclosure in court. As part of that strategy my solicitor had actually committed fraud by false representation (contrary to S.2 of the Fraud Act 2006) in order to obtain illegal access to my full medical records from my GP Practice (evidence of this crime did not come into my possession until February 2023). My defence team were able to exploit the spurious mental health referrals existing in those records, to echo the received wisdom that my reports of attempts on my life were ‘delusional’, and thus eliminate that as my defence against the possession claim. Important case papers were unlawfully withheld from my attention for the duration of the case and I was not alerted to this perversion of my defence. Consequently, I lost possession of the flat at a hearing at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court on 04/10/2018, and was thereafter evicted from the flat on 28/01/2019, and subsequently lost possession of the entirety of the belongings I kept there. I have since been officially homeless. The Metropolitan Police Service, with deliberate disregard to the Victims’ Code of Practice, to the Fraud Act 2006, and to the Home Office Crime Recording Rules, has steadfastly refused to record or investigate a crime in response to my report to it in October 2024 of my solicitor’s offence of fraud committed in January 2018; which now leaves me without any option for redress against the loss of my home and belongings as a consequence of that fraud (re: pp.163-179 of my report for extensive detail).
31 January 2026
Footnotes:
- The reasons for my suspicions over the propriety of my tonsillectomy operation being first aroused during the year 2001 are discussed in the Introduction to Part 1 (pp.4-6) of my personal report: Special Operations in Medical Research. For a deeper understanding of my justification for those suspicions as they emerged between 2001-3, see also the Evidence and Summations sections of Part 1 (pp.7-25, first written during 2003). [back]
- I have made it clear in these pages that there exists no explicit expert corroboration relating to the presence of items of non-biological origin in my anatomy, such as those I have indicated to be revealed in the MRI scan evidence represented above. However, I have during the past 15 years had occasion to discuss these claims informally with certain experts in the field of neurology. Within those discussions it was made reasonably clear to me that the MRI scans show the presence of items of metallic origin situated in my neck area, although that advice was given in general terms only, without reference to any specific image or object. My confidence in relation to the specific items I have pointed out is partly grounded on that advice, but my description of those items as being “self-evidently” of non-biological origin results from my own judgment in relation the physical structure of the items as revealed in the images. I must stress that the informal advice referred to was advice given in complete confidence by sources I am not at liberty to disclose. [back]
- The evidence discussed on these pages relates only to my own individual case of subjection to this alleged covert research program. The statement that a number of other such victims were also involved is largely speculative, as I have no direct knowledge of those cases. However, I have discussed on p.133 of my report that, in view of the inevitably massive financial investment that will have been involved in the design, planning, and execution of the research program, it is inconceivable in economic terms that such an investment might have been risked upon the fate of a single research subject. It is a necessary inference therefore that there were other victims in addition to myself, although the total number of cases is expected to have been few – probably in the order of a single figure. [back]
- This circumstance has been exacerbated recently in respect of problems emerging in 2015 in the area of my thoracic spine/left scapula. In relation to these recent symptoms, in July 2020, while abroad, I arranged for an MRI scan to be made privately of my thoracic spine. This is discussed further at the page: C-Spine MRI Scan (July 2020), or on pp.72-82 of my report. As an update to this discussion of the evidence revealed in the UK MRI scans, I should add that following this more recent scan there is now visual evidence that appears to confirm speculations I first made 23 years ago (five years before the first MRI scan made in 2008) about the possibility of an additional illicit implant situated in the region of my thoracic spine. These speculations were first aired in the earliest edition of my report (see: Part 1, pages 17-19 & 29-31). See also: Further Evidence in the Report section. [back]
- Based upon the structural properties of the object(s) of non-biological origin I have drawn attention to in the series of 4 images from the second MRI scan, and their positioning adjacent to the brain stem (medulla), it is suspected that the device may have the function of recording photometric data that is either reflected by, or has been transmitted through, the brain stem (such function might explain the role of the second item which appears located posterior to the medulla, although revealed less clearly in these images). It is inferred that a key focus for the required research data was to record activity within the brain stem, in order to understand the correspondences of that activity with activity in other parts of the brain, and with respect to the particular type of intellectual activity being undertaken at a given time. [back]
- My interactions with several departments of the NHS and with my GP form the main content of the various sections under pp.48-82 of my report. The cyclical nature of the attempts on my life and their synchronicity with the progress of my various complaints against NHS departments is discussed on pp.94-98. [back]