Anti Digital ID Protest Birmingham 20 December 2025

This was the next monthly protest in the series.

On this occasion there were three main speakers, former Conservative politician Andrew Bridgen, David Icke, and Covid vaccine injured John Watt.

Andrew Bridgen spoke for about 4 minutes. The main theme of his speech was that digital ID is a one way street – once its introduced, it will be very difficult to get rid of. He said even if you are deluded enough to trust the current government, supporting digital ID is going to require trusting every future government. There is also a risk that the Labour government may come up with an excuse to cancel the 2029 general election. Digital ID is required for Agenda 2030, such as vaccine passports and carbon credits.

David Icke giving an interview in front of oversized Christmas baubles.

David Icke gave a long speech discussing what he called the global cult. There are similarities across countries due to the control over humanity by this global cult. The aim of this elite cult is to promote artificial intelligence and transhumanism as a means of control. The likes of Ray Kurzweil have made this agenda clear through their promotion of ideas such as the Singularity and the interlinking of AI and the human brain.

Elected politicians are deliberately idiotic and deliberately selected by the global cult to be do, so that people will be more willing to accept technocracy. They promote rigid belief systems and ideological conflict for control. Alternative media is too focused on issues like who killed Charlie Kirk, rather than exposing the real agenda.

It is better to remove the source of the problem rather than to talk about solutions. We need to stop believing in rigid belief systems as these are used for control.

John Watt spoke about the difficulties of getting help when injured by the Covid vaccine. It was good to see him give a speech since I believe at one point he was bedbound due to his injuries.

The next protest is 24th January. I will also cover that protest.

Anti Digital ID Protest Birmingham 8 November 2025

There was another protest against the government’s Digital ID scheme on 8 November 2025. This was in the same location, Chamberlain Square, Birmingham.

Two people holding a banner reading 'Birmingham Rejects Digital ID, Freedom doesn't need a pass, we stand together'

There were fewer speakers at this event, instead there was some live music as well as speakers. Then there was a march around the city centre. They had also set up a TV screen partway through the march advertising the next protest.

Crowd sitting on steps and standing at the bottom of steps in front of large water fountain

The crowd was a similar size to last time. The speakers included an Army veteran and Fiona from the Mass Non Compliance campaign. She gave a speech focusing on the government’s One Login and the international actors who are supporting tyranny such as the WEF.

Booth giving out information with quotes from Klaus Schwab on a banner 'You will own nothing and be happy'

Some video footage from this protest and the last one has been uploaded to my YouTube account. As of yet it hasn’t been censored. I plan to upload the videos to Odysee as well but you have to reformat everything and I haven’t yet had time.

The next protest in Birmingham is 20 December 2025 with David Icke.

Anti Digital ID Protest Birmingham City Centre 11 October 2025

I went to a protest against Digital ID in Birmingham City Centre on 11 October, 2025. I have taken some photos and video for upload (the videos will be uploaded at a later date).

The themes of the protest were basically what you would expect. There were still quite a lot of references to the Covid issue and the vaccines. Rameece, a rap artist who had previously attended some anti-Covid events, did his rap song about the Covid vaccine.

Sign taped to a step reading Instead of a pathetic Covid inquiry, let's have a covid nurenberg trial for crimes against humanity — One example among many of Covid themed signs

Rapper Rameece performing song against Covid vaccine — Rameece

Other themes that came up were 5G, the One Login system implemented by the government and its relation to digital ID, and other authoritarian surveillance legislation such as the Onljne Safety Bill. As well as usual themes of criticism of the claims of climate change, Agenda 2030, the UN, WEF, etc.

Protesters marching against Brit Card holding yellow signs. Sign reads Warning Brit Card is a trap to control freedom

The attendance for this protest was a few hundred people. It looked like primarily the people who used to attend the anti lockdown protests, I recognised several faces from those events.

Protesters holding signs reading Jail Keir Starmer for Treason, Say No to Digital IDs

Politician Andrew Bridgen also attended the protest.

He said that he knows a Labour MP who has admitted he essentially votes with the Labour whip (for non UK readers, the ‘whip’ enforces voting with the party) without even reading the legislation.

MP Andrew Bridgen stands at the top of the stairs. Multiple yellow signs with text criticising digital ID, agenda 2030 and net zero and below him. — Andrew Bridgen

There has been an update on Digital ID since my last post. This is the new digital Veterans ID where people can prove they served in the military to get certain benefits.

I would also recommend giving Iain Davis’ article on the Brit Card a look (linked above), where he argues that the Brit Card is a distraction (politically untenable) from the real digital ID that is/will be introduced.

We should still continue to make our voices heard against all forms of digital ID. I know I haven’t done many protests recently but I plan to continue being involved in this campaign where possible.

Starmer’s Digital ID Plan

Introduction

The UK government led by Kier Starmer has recently announced that they intend to introduce a Digital ID scheme. This article will look at the roots of this scheme in a UK context, the arguments they will be using to support it, and the reasons why this is a planned step towards government tyranny.

Background

Kier Starmer is the leader of the Labour Party and this particular party has a history of wishing to bring in national ID cards.

Under the Tony Blair government (1997-2010), there was a plan to introduce ID cards. In 2006, the Labour government passed the Identity Cards Act. This act was designed to provide biometric cards backed by a government database. These were physical cards (as smartphones etc were not in mass use).

The government did introduce a pilot scheme in 2009 for these cards where people could apply for them, and around 15,000 cards were issued.

However, the scheme faced significant opposition. There were some protests against the plan, as well as opposition from other political parties. Part of the opposition was based on the fact that any such scheme would be extremely expensive, and part of it was based on surveillance/police state concerns.

The scheme was scrapped by the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government after they took power in 2010.

The New Scheme

The new scheme suggested by Starmer has been outlined in the mainstream media as follows:

It will include a name, date of birth, nationality or residency status, and a photo
You won’t have to carry IDs around
You’ll never be asked to produce it – other than when proving a right to work in the UK
The ID will be on people’s phones – similar to contactless cards
It will be compulsory for anyone looking to work in the UK

List taken from the BBC report on the ID card scheme.

Arguments

The main argument being used by Starmer to back his scheme is that digital ID will help to combat illegal immigration. Starmer is very unpopular in the UK at the moment and one reason is that people are dissatisfied with his response to small boat crossings of people illegally entering the UK, and ‘migrant hotels’ where migrants are kept while claims for asylum are looked at. As a result, poll results are showing a significant swing towards the anti immigration party Reform UK run by Nigel Farage. As such, he hopes to boost his popularity by announcing this scheme as well as normalise a plank of planned government authoritarianism.

The argument being made is that by having a Digital ID, it would make it more difficult for illegal migrants to work in the country, reducing the ‘pull factors’ that cause people to illegally enter the country. The government also argues that it will more quickly allow people to verify their identity when accessing government services such as welfare benefits to prevent fraud.

Problems

I don’t want to spend too much time outlining the issues of Digital ID as I think they are fairly obvious to my readers. One argument that has been made by some, that I would like to bring up, is the issue of whether it would work. Farage has criticised the scheme, partially on grounds that it would be ineffective. I personally think we shouldn’t focus on the effectiveness argument either way. We shouldn’t want Digital ID even if it was 100% effective against illegal migration.

The main thrust of any argument against Digital ID should be the state tyranny aspect. Once the infrastructure is established, there is nothing stopping creeping expansion of the scheme. Mahmood, the Home Secretary, has already agreed that this can/will happen. Digital ID can be linked to any aspect of life, for example, vaccination status, which the government could use to force people to behave in particular ways.

Conclusion

There has already been much concern from the public about the use of Digital ID. The scepticism towards the scheme must be mobilised as means to prevent further state tyranny. Hopefully the unpopularity of the Starmer government combined with resistance to the scheme can prevent it ever being introduced.

A Brief History of British Antivaccinationism Part 3.1 – Initial Opposition to the Smallpox Vaccine Mandate

Introduction

This series hopes to explore the history of British Antivaccinationism and Vaccine Scepticism. It is divided into 7 main eras: the period of Inoculation, 1721-1798; the introduction of vaccination, 1798-1853; the imposition of mandates, 1853-1902; the remaining history of the National Antivaccination League, 1902-1972; DTP Vaccine Scepticism 1972-1998; Andrew Wakefield and vaccines cause autism, 1998-2019, and Covid 19, 2020 to present. Because most active resistance to vaccination is clustered in this period between 1853 and 1902, Part 3 will have three sub-parts, discussing initial intellectual resistance in John Gibbs and Charles Pearce, the later intellectual resistance of William White, Charles Creighton, and Edgar Crookshank, and popular class resistance.

The Vaccine Mandate

In 1853, the United Kingdom introduced mandatory smallpox vaccination. There was a fine of 20 shillings introduced for non compliance. William White covers the introduction of this mandate in detail in his 1885 book, Story of a Great Delusion. According to White, the mandate was introduced because of the organised interests of the medical profession. There was a lack of discussion on the bill in Parliament, and White states it was an “act for application to the vulgar”, i.e. the working classes. In 1861 and 1867, the level of compulsion was increased, the 1867 amendments made non vaccination a continuous offense and gave the state the power to impose multiple fines.

Prior to the mandate, there was no organised antivaccinationism. There was personal distrust of vaccination among people, particularly the working class, and an apathy of not pursuing vaccination. The mandate triggered new wave of intellectual antivaccinationism, as well as popular vaccination resistance.

John Gibbs

John Gibbs was one of the first to write pamphlets against the vaccine mandate. In 1855 he wrote a letter opposing the mandate. He argued that the mandate was an attack on liberty, and that legislators freely admitted their ignorance on vaccination – relying only on the opinions of the medical profession to pass the bill. He argued that there were statistical issues with the case for vaccination, as there was evidence that smallpox was simply replaced by other causes of death and that there was no decline in the death rate due to vaccination. He also pointed to other diseases spread by vaccination, such as erysipelas (a form of skin rash and swelling), tuberculosis and syphilis.

He drew attention to the moral issues with government forcing a medical intervention on the people and that this opposed self responsibility. Vaccination was in his view “a state religion in physic”.

Charles Pearce

Charles Pearce was an editor of a medical journal, who received papers from Gibbs, and as a result became an antivaccinationist. In 1868, he authored the short book, Vaccination Its Tested Effects, arguing that “vaccination is a crime against nature”.

Pearce points to the theory behind vaccination, that is the idea that cowpox and smallpox are “governed by the same laws” as an error believed by Jenner. He argues that vaccination is not even practised according to Jenner’s theory, since Jenner believed in a chain from horse-cow-human. Vaccine lymph had been spread from human to human for many decades at this point, and had not been anywhere near passage via a cow. He also pointed to the introduction of revaccination as a contradiction to Jenner’s theory of life long protection from vaccination.

He argued that smallpox vaccination did not save lives, by arguing that smallpox increased longevity if you survived, by the fact that there was an increase in mortality from measles after compulsory vaccination was introduced, and that smallpox vaccination could spread syphilis. He points out that there were ups and downs in smallpox due to the laws of epidemics. He believed sanitation and hygiene were the best methods to combat smallpox mortality.

Conclusion

There was increased intellectual resistance to vaccination after the smallpox vaccine mandate was introduced. This would continue to develop further, and British antivaccinationism would reach its peak between 1880-1902 with the cases made by William White, Charles Creighton and Edgar Crookshank against the practise.

Free Lucy Letby Protest Part 2 – The Protest and Narratives

On 17th March 2025, a protest took place in Liverpool outside the Thirlwall Inquiry stating the innocence of a nurse, Lucy Letby, who has been convicted of murdering several babies. For the problems with the case against Letby, see Part 1.

The Protest

The protest took place between 9 and 10am outside Liverpool Town Hall. The protest was called by the Spartacist League, which is a UK Trotskyist group. While the protest was called by this group, they explicitly stated in their promotion of the protest that anyone who agreed with the message of Free Lucy Letby could/should attend.

I don’t know how many attendees were affiliated with this group. There were only a few attendees at this event (less than 100) so I would guess the majority are Spartacist League members.

The Spartacist League, because they are a Marxist group, have a particular spin on things. Marxist groups, by and large, believe that even a capitalist/bourgeois state can provide important concessions to the working class and that these concessions are worth defending. (At this point in my life, and I confess I have thought differently in the past, I believe the only stance to take is that against anything that enhances state power and control on principle, and that radical decentralisation is the only possible means to prevent corruption).

As such, the framing put forward by the Spartacist League is that of a hard-working and competent nurse framed up for systemic failures, such as the sewage mentioned in Part 1. This is true as far as it goes, in that I do believe the Countess of Chester Hospital consultants and the police sought to scapegoat Letby for these failings by accusing her of deliberately murdering babies.

The Spartacist League links the failings of the NHS to the right wing agenda of reducing the amount of funding available to the NHS, which is why these failings exist. The League (correctly) sees Labour and the Conservatives as part of the same system (they both support the same key policies such as, say, imperialist wars).

Fundamentally, the League perceives the NHS as worth defending as an institution that provides health care to ordinary people free at the point of use and funded via taxation. The establishment sees the problem as an allegedly ‘rogue’ nurse such as Letby, whereas the opposition sees the problem as the lack of funding and corruption in management. While corruption in power structures is a real issue, neither of these narratives examines the allopathic medical paradigm as an issue.

The Allopathic Paradigm

The allopathic medical paradigm is based upon two broad factors – the separation of Western societies from natural medical knowledge, and the rise of the chemical industries in the late 19th century (the root of the modern pharmaceutical industry).

Western populations were separated from natural medical knowledge via the phenomenon of the Witch Trials. Female healers, who served the interests of the people they attended, were viciously exterminated under the guise of the Church. While the Church’s aim was to increase its own power, the Witch Trials had the effect of eliminating any competition that could arise to the allopathic paradigm in Western societies.

The second factor, the chemical industry, came about as a result of the Industrial Revolution, particularly in Germany. This industry directly spawned the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry is the basis of the modern NHS, because although it is directly run by the state, it purchases all of its drugs via the pharmaceutical industry, and its treatments are mostly dependent upon this industry.

Returning to Lucy Letby, she was an operative within this particular paradigm, and an agent of such. Any (inadvertent) harm she did would have been as an operative within the paradigm itself. For example, her Wikipedia page states that:

[I]n April 2016, she administered antibiotics to an infant that was not prescribed them, which she misclassified as a “minor error”.

I would bet any nurse, doctor, etc. has done the same thing or similar, and if they have a long enough career, probably multiple times.

Anyone on those wards could have caused harm to those babies, through this kind of method, or through a drug harming a baby more generally. It is much more plausible that this happened, than the alternative of Letby as psychopathic baby killer.

One final point to make. The allopathic paradigm believes its control over nature is complete. The fact that these babies were highly vulnerable and would have been at high risk of death even with the best of intentions is ignored. This links directly to the ideological belief of absolute control over nature, which is fundamental to allopathic medicine.

Conclusion

I believe the murder charges against Lucy Letby are most likely unjust and that the conviction in this case is unsafe. I believe her defence lawyers did not present a good case for her innocence. There does need to be another trial in this case.

This should not be confused with believing that the allopathic medical system should be defended. Letby was a low-level operative within that system, who took the blame for its failings. She bears no more or less guilt than any other similar operative.

Free Lucy Letby Protest, Part 1 – Background

On the 17th March 2025, there was a protest in Liverpool outside the Thirlwall Inquiry. The protest was about stating the case for the innocence of Lucy Letby, a nurse who worked in the National Health Service (NHS) and was convicted of murdering several babies on a neonatal unit.

Liverpool Town Hall, the location of the Thirlwall inquiry

Context

Lucy Letby was a neonatal nurse working on a ward in the Countess of Chester Hospital. While she was working there, there was an above average number of baby deaths on the unit. When this was looked into, it was claimed that one particular nurse, Letby, was on shift for the suspicious baby collapses and deaths. As such, Letby was charged with murder and attempted murder, and was convicted in 2023. The case against her rested on circumstantial medical evidence presented by the prosecution.

The purpose of the Thirlwall inquiry was to examine why warnings about Letby were ignored and how she was allowed to act to kill babies.

Doubts about the Conviction of Lucy Letby

Many people – an increasing number – have been questioning the conviction of Letby. This includes even some mainstream examples.

I was first made aware of the weaknesses in the case against Letby by Norman Fenton, who you may be aware of, as he has questioned the official Covid narrative. The original reason for suspecting Letby was statistical, that is, she was on shift for the baby collapses and deaths. Fenton pointed out that the data was cherry picked, and that a similar chart could be made for any nurse by simply selecting the events that happened when they happened to be on shift.

Scott McLachan, who Fenton interviewed, has pointed to a plausible alternative explanation for the deaths. During the period that Letby worked there, the unit was handling very vulnerable premature babies. The building where the unit was housed also had very old plumbing systems, with a high probability of leakage. There was evidence of water contamination at the hospital and the death certificates of many of the babies included sepsis. There was also a high probability of natural death of these babies due to extreme vulnerability.

More recently, mainstream figures have questioned the case against Letby. David Davis, a Conservative politician, has stated there is a “high probability” that Letby is innocent. He argues that there is no evidence of murders in the accounts of the trial or transcripts, and that a large number of medical experts question the evidence presented by Dewi Evans, the medical expert relied on by the prosecution. Peter Hitchens, a Mail on Sunday journalist, has also expressed doubts about the case.

Motives for Blaming Lucy Letby

There are several motives to blame Letby for the baby deaths. The hospital was clearly unsanitary, and they were treating very vulnerable babies. As with everything else, there is always the tendency to blame someone low down the food chain, rather than consultants, doctors, or top-level managers. Only nurses were mapped on the statistical chart used against Letby, but if there was a murderer on the ward, why not consider the doctors as equally possible culprits?

It is worth noting that Letby was charged in November 2020, which was still in the middle of the ‘Covid pandemic’ narrative, if not quite the peak. During the ‘pandemic’, the NHS was glamourised, and a failing ward such as we observed at Countess of Chester Hospital would not have fit with that narrative. There is one further critical question to ask: what if Letby is simply a scapegoat for failings of the allopathic medical system?

Conclusion

It is unlikely that Lucy Letby consciously killed babies as some sort of psychopathic thrill, as alleged by the prosecution. The second part of this article will be a more critical follow up, covering the protest itself, the framing of the narrative put forward by the protest organisers, and the flaws of that framing. We will also return to critical questions of guilt within the allopathic medical paradigm, and how all practitioners are embodiments of that guilt.

Right wing causes can be used to push the control agenda – the case of immigration

Introduction

Many people know and understand that stereotypically left wing causes – such as the environment or transgenderism – can be used to promote state control agendas. However, there is much less consideration of how right wing ideas can be used to push the same control matrix. As right wingers claim to be ‘small government’, it is often assumed that right wing ideas cannot be used to push for these sinister agendas. However, there are some ideas on the right that can be used for this purpose. One of the most significant of these is immigration.

It should be noted that the terms left and right are overgeneralisations, just as not all left wingers support transgender ideology, for example, not all right wingers are supportive of the ideas outlined below. For example, this analysis would not apply to many members of the libertarian right. However, I will use right wing in this article as a shorthand.

Definitions

Certain right wing political parties – for example, Reform UK – are extremely concerned with illegal immigration and use this to appeal to voters. I would say that reducing immigration is Reform UK’s main policy. In the UK, there are a large number of small boats that attempt to land on the shore so that people can illegally enter the country. There are some examples of both refugees and economic migrants entering the country via this method. Parties such as Reform argue that this has negative effects on the country, such as crime and the risk of terrorism, as well as reducing the wages paid to British people via illegal immigrants taking jobs. They also point to costs to the stage of hosting individuals they have caught illegally entering the country (the famed ‘migrant hotels’). As such, a more robust response seems attractive to many people on the right, or many working class people who are concerned about their income.

Pragmatism

When looking at this topic, we need to consider it pragmatically. What would effectively policing illegal immigration look like?

Britain has an open coastline.

According to the Ordnance Survey: “The coastline length around mainland Great Britain is 11,072.76 miles [17,819.88 km].”

Policing simply chokeholds or more obvious areas would not be effective, since boats would simply avoid the more obvious routes even if it was riskier. Bear in mind that the boats seen on the news, etc, are only the boats that are known, there may be many that successfully crossed the border, and the people disappeared into the shadow economy. As such, there would need to be a massive increase in border control police.

This is a large amount of territory to have to police effectively. Sure, there may be some areas of this where it would be difficult to land a boat, so that may reduce the volume somewhat. Nevertheless, it is still a large amount.

Businesses employing illegal immigrants would be another significant issue, as there would need to be increased checks on businesses, and raids on businesses if it suspected they are employing illegal immigrants.

There is also the issue of removing the immigrants effectively. This might encourage more rubber stamping in the judiciary to deport people more quickly.

In other words, effectively removing illegal immigrants would require an increase in state authoritarianism. More police officers would need to be employed, and there would need to be an increase in checks, possibly arbitrary ones, to see if people were hosting or employing illegal immigrants.

Agendas

During Covid, and even before that, it became obvious that one of the key state agendas was the introduction of Digital ID. It was argued that digital identity needed to be linked to vaccine passports in order to ‘control the virus’.

However, policing illegal immigration can also be used by the establishment to promote digital IDs. On this argument, these IDs would be required to confirm that people are citizens or legal migrants. In fact, one of Tony Blair’s arguments for the original ID card scheme, which was eventually scrapped, was to crack down on illegal immigration.

Conclusion

Nominally right wing and left wing ideas can both be used to promote a state control matrix. The establishment is not concerned with which of these ideas it uses to get you to support the increased level of control. So long as it can garner enough support to get these ideas through or at least get you to tolerate them, that is the only thing that matters. People should consider whether ideas they support (whether they are right wing or not) can be used to support these agendas and not assume their ideology is immune from being used by the establishment.

The Concept of a Chickenpox Vaccine Exposes the Bankruptcy of the Vaccine Paradigm

In the UK, there has just been an announcement relating to the varicella (chickenpox) vaccine.

From the government:

JCVI [Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation] recommends chickenpox vaccine in childhood immunisation programme
Statement

Currently, the varicella vaccine is not on the UK childhood vaccine schedule, but as of yesterday, the JVCI is seeking to change this.

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has recommended a vaccine against varicella, commonly known as chickenpox, should be added to the UK’s routine childhood immunisation programme.

The vaccine would be offered to all children in 2 doses, at 12 and 18 months of age.

The committee has submitted its recommendations to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), which will take a final decision on whether to implement a programme.

It will probably be rubberstamped, so that they can start giving the vaccine as soon as possible. Of course, we should just ignore the evidence that the JCVI is corrupt and ignored real problems with the Urabe MMR vaccine. Pharma profit is clearly much more important.

The vast majority of people remember getting chickenpox as a child. What happened? You were off school for a week and itched a lot. That was about it. Nothing happened. Your parents weren’t worried. The school wasn’t worried. No one cared. You were possibly told that if you get the chickenpox young, you’re better off. And we need a vaccine for this?

The JVCI has come up with a model to address this problem. Because many people are probably thinking exactly the same as what I’m thinking, even if they support some vaccines. Kind of like when even many Covid fanatics drew the line at injecting mRNA into their five year old because there was no benefit.

The purported justification for this vaccine is some really rare, fringe cases where someone got significantly sick. As such we should inject all healthy children with chickenpox vaccines. Of course this is nuts. The model seeks to play up the risks of chickenpox, and claims that the risks have been underestimated, well of course, what else are they going to say? Now of course we should probably be a bit scpetical given the UK government’s track records with modelling (Neil Ferguson is quite strongly coming to mind at this stage).

The rate of vaccination injury is not even considered in the JVCI model. Even if we assume the vaccine is effective, a very low rate of vaccine injury will massively outweigh any benefits of saving people from chickenpox since well, chickenpox just isn’t very deadly (I can’t believe I have to point this out). Yet the JVCI page online does not mention that adverse reactions as a consideration in their model. Parents having to take a week off work is considered though. Because that is far more important than vaccine injury.

Even more horrible, they want to stick this in MMR, yes, they want to make the MMR vaccine even worse. The only mention of vaccine injury comes in this section with a reference to increased febrile seizures with a combined MMRV vaccine as opposed to MMR + V vaccines. Honestly this rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while children are poisoned to death. Nevertheless rare, not of concern, etc, standard pro vaccine spiel.

They also seek to justify why they want to promote the vaccine at this time, since, they previously rejected the idea of chickenpox vaccines:

Due to the larger pool of varicella-susceptible children following the pandemic restrictions and, as vaccination is predicted to significantly decrease circulation of varicella, susceptible people may continue to be vulnerable to catching varicella as they head into adulthood.

In other words, let’s use the lockdown that we did to push more of what we want: or, problem-reaction-solution.

They also state that the vaccine recommendation will put us in line with other countries like the United States. Yeah, because we really want to be in line with the United States’ vaccine insanity.

In conclusion, this rather odd sentence from the recommendation stuck out to me:

The community arm of the study estimated the quality adjusted life year (QALY) loss in cases which would not be captured in any medical datasets. This study aimed to assess the impact of mild varicella on quality of life, healthcare use and the financial and health impact on the family unit.

As we can see from the above information, a study was literally done on ‘mild varicella’ i.e. being off school and itching for a week and its effects on ‘quality of life’ and ‘the family unit’. This may seem a bit nuts but trivial, i.e. why would anyone study the effect of being mildly sick for a week? In fact it shows the deeper hubris involved in the vaccination program. All minor inconveniences caused by Nature must be abolished even if it’s being itchy for a week. Consequences? What are those? The idea of a vaccine for everything, no matter how rare or trivial, proves that vaccination is not about our health, but pharma profits and medical hubris.

Image credit Photo by Tara Winstead on Pexels.com

The Urabe Strain MMR Vaccine: Adverse Events and Medical Corruption

“In the area of vaccination, since its inception, the public has paid a price for an illusory peace of mind.”
Martin J Walker MA

Introduction

The MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine has been subject to controversy in the United Kingdom and worldwide, due to the 1998 Lancet paper by Wakefield et al. However there is one scandal around this vaccine that has been largely forgotten, despite the fact it has affected hundreds of thousands of UK citizens who were born in the late 1980s-early 1990s. This is the story of the MMR vaccines which contained the Urabe strain of mumps – and had to be removed from the Canadian, Japanese and UK markets due to causing aseptic meningitis in certain children. This episode demonstrates the corruption of the vaccine industry and the regulatory authorities in the United Kingdom in particular and shows that the deliberate use and promotion of known unsafe vaccines did not begin with Covid-19.

The History of the MMR Vaccine

Vaccination for measles, mumps and rubella was originally introduced in the 1960s. These were originally introduced as separate doses and not as a combined vaccine. For example, the measles vaccine was originally introduced in 1963 in the United States and the mumps vaccine was introduced in the US in 1967. The combined MMR vaccine was introduced in the 1970s in the United States and Canada, but somewhat later in some other countries, and in the UK in 1988. The MMR is a live virus vaccine, so it contains versions of these three different viruses that have been attenuated via running them through cycles in tissues in a lab.

However the virus strains in the MMR vaccine have not always been the same. There are multiple different MMR vaccinations that have been used since the 1970s, and one of the key differences has been the strain of virus employed to attempt to create artificial immunity. For example, a current vaccine in use, Priorix, contains the following strains of virus:

attenuated Schwarz measles, RIT 4385 mumps derived from Jeryl Lynn strain and Wistar RA 27/3 rubella strains of viruses.
Priorix Vaccine Page

Though there have been differing strains of measles and rubella employed, this article is concerned with the mumps strains employed in the vaccines. According to a 1994 US government report on vaccine adverse events, there are three main strains of mumps used in MMR vaccinations: Jeryl Lynn, Leningrad-3-Parkow, and Urabe AM9. There have been differing vaccines using these strains, for example, both Priorix and MMR II use the Jeryl Lynn strain of mumps. There have also been multiple MMR vaccinations using the Urabe AM9 strain; the main two of concern in this article are Trivirix/Pluserix (two names for the same vaccine – the former used in Canada, the latter elsewhere) and Immravax. Although there is evidence that other strains of mumps virus used in MMR can cause aseptic meningitis as well, the Urabe strain has a significantly higher risk of this than the Jeryl Lynn strain based on the clinical data.

The Introduction of Urabe Strain MMR & Adverse Events

Although Canada used the MMR vaccine previously, the Urabe strain MMR was first introduced in Canada in 1986. In the UK, the MMR vaccine was introduced for the first time in 1988, and two out of the three vaccines that were used contained the Urabe strain mumps. Japan introduced these vaccines in 1989.

One significant side effect of these vaccinations was aseptic meningitis:

Aseptic meningitis refers to inflammation of the meninges [area surrounding brain and spinal cord], not of the brain. It can result from a variety of infectious, toxic, chemical, or physical agents. No bacterial organism can be identified in or isolated from the cerebrospinal fluid, but serologic studies often implicate a viral etiology.
Adverse Events following Childhood Vaccines

According to the CDC, the symptoms are as follows:

Fever
Headache
Stiff neck
Photophobia (eyes being more sensitive to light)
Sleepiness or trouble waking up from sleep
Nausea
Irritability
Vomiting
Lack of appetite
Lethargy (a lack of energy)

It is possible for long-term harm to result, however, many cases resolve without long-term sequelae.

This section will discuss the evidence in detail for the conclusion that specifically the Urabe strain mumps component in these MMR vaccines causes aseptic meningitis. I will discuss multiple case reports and studies on this topic from medical journals in order to demonstrate the large amount of evidence that this vaccine causes aseptic meningitis and I will discuss the different article in the medical literature, in age order, starting with the earliest first. I will look at full articles when available and also abstracts where full articles are paywalled.

An early case report from Canada (dating from 1986, published in the medical literature 1988) reports a 14-year-old girl developing aseptic meningitis from a Urabe strain vaccine:

In October 1986 a 14-year-old girl with no history of measles-mumps-rubella vaccination was given Trivirix vaccine […] 26 days later […] she had clinical signs of aseptic meningitis.
A case of mumps meningitis: a complication of vaccination?

Another Canadian source, an article published in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal in 1989, has the following to say:

All cases of mumps meningoencephalitis diagnosed at our institution during the past 15 years were reviewed. There were […] 5 [cases] in 1986 to 1988. Four of the recent cases occurred 19 to 26 days after receipt of a new mumps vaccine (Urabe Am 9 strain) released in Canada in 1986.
Clinical and epidemiologic features of mumps meningoencephalitis and possible vaccine-related disease

There is no other information provided in the abstract about the course of illness in the 4 cases. The US 1994 government document mentioned above discussing the study states than none of the 4 children had sequelae in this study.

An article from the British Medical Journal, 1989, discusses another proven case of aseptic meningitis after Pluserix:

[W]e also hesitated before reporting a girl aged 3 years and 2 months who developed proved mumps meningitis 21 days after being given mumps, measles, and rubella immunisation (Pluserix). […] The mumps virus isolated from her cerebrospinal fluid was identical with the Urabe vaccine strain used in her immunisation.
Mumps meningitis after mumps, measles, and rubella vaccination

Another case report from the British context was published in the Lancet:

In 1989, Gray and Burns published two letters (Gray and Burns, 1989a,b) in The Lancet concerning a 3-year-old girl presenting with aseptic meningitis 21 days after vaccination with MMR. Fluorescent-antibody tests identified the isolated virus as mumps virus (Gray and Burns, 1989a), and soon thereafter, this virus was identified by nucleotide sequencing analysis as the Urabe strain (Gray and Burns, 1989b).
Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines: Evidence Bearing on Causality.

A 1991 article discusses Japan, where the Urabe vaccine was introduced in 1989. Japan had exactly the same issues with this vaccination as the UK and Canada:

Thirty-five children developed meningitis within 2 months after MMR vaccination during the 8-month period extending from April to November, 1989. The time lag between MMR vaccination and meningitis ranged from 14 to 28 days in the 35 cases of meningitis. The incidence of aseptic meningitis with positive mumps vaccine virus was estimated to be 0.11% (0.3% as a whole) during the 8 months from April to November and increased to 0.3% (0.7% as a whole) in September and October. We conclude that the incidence of aseptic meningitis after MMR vaccination seems to be higher than that reported previously.
A prefecture-wide survey of mumps meningitis associated with measles, mumps and rubella vaccine

Another article looking at Japan, again from 1991:

Among 630,157 recipients of measles-mumps-rubella trivalent (MMR) vaccine containing the Urabe Am9 mumps vaccine, there were at least 311 meningitis cases suspected to be vaccine-related. Meningitis was generally mild and there were no sequelae from the illness. The complication was more frequent among male than among female children.
Aseptic meningitis as a complication of mumps vaccination

For reference, the rate of Urabe strain mumps MMR vaccine meningitis would work out at about 1 in 2000 from this study.

A 1993 letter to the editor of the Archives of Disease in Childhood discusses underreporting of this vaccine complication:

Vaccine associated mumps meningitis was one of the conditions reportable to the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit (BPSU) between February 1990 and January 1992. During this two year period, 15 confirmed cases were reported. […] Based on the BPSU study the estimated risk of vaccine associated mumps meningitis in this age group was 1.5 per 100 000 vaccinations given. However when the BPSU data were supplemented by laboratory reports, a much higher rate of approximately 10 per 100 000 vaccinations was observed.
Reporting of vaccine associated mumps meningitis

A 1996 article, this time from France, sought to retroactively assess the risk of this vaccination:

Fifty-four cases of AM were reported to the regional drug surveillance centres or to the manufacturer from the time each vaccine was launched up until June 1992. Twenty cases were associated with the time off administration of a monovalent mumps vaccine and 34 with a trivalent measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR).[…] The global incidence of mumps vaccine-associated AM was 0.82/100,000 doses, which is significantly lower than the incidence in the unvaccinated population.
Aseptic meningitis after mumps vaccination

A 1996 study from Japan sought to compare the risks of Urabe containing MMR vaccines with other MMR vaccines.

The rates of virologically confirmed aseptic meningitis per 10 000 recipients were 16.6 for the standard MMR [i.e. containing Urabe strain mumps]
Adverse events associated with MMR vaccines in Japan

The rate was lower for the other MMR vaccinations.

A 1999 article acknowledges:

Aseptic meningitis is a well documented adverse event (1-4) that is attributable to the Urabe mumps strain of the combined measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine.
Outbreak of aseptic meningitis associated with mass vaccination with a urabe-containing measles-mumps-rubella vaccine: implications for immunization programs

There was a mass vaccination campaign in Salvador, Brazil with the Urabe strain MMR vaccine Pluserix. The vaccination campaign en masse injected children from 1-11 within a very short period of time, just a couple of weeks. There was a significant spike in aseptic meningitis 3 weeks after ‘Vaccination Day’, providing further evidence of the dangers of this vaccine:

We conservatively estimated the risk of aseptic meningitis to be 1 in 14,000 doses (32 cases out of 452,344 applied doses).

A 2007 article attempts to assess the risk of aseptic meningitis with the Jeryl Lynn strain vis-a-vis the Urabe strain. It states that of 6 cases identified in computerised records between Jan 1991-Sep 1992, 4 were most likely triggered by a Urabe strain MMR vaccine. It further observes that the rate of aseptic meningitis from these vaccines can be estimated at about 1/12,500, and that:

The real risk of acute neurologic consequences from the Urabe mumps component of MMR was underestimated when using case ascertainment methods that were reliant on laboratory investigations
Risks of Convulsion and Aseptic Meningitis following Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in the United Kingdom

As we can see from the above evidence, there are a multitude of different estimates of the rate of Urabe strain-induced vaccine meningitis. The Japanese articles give the highest estimates, with 16.6/10,000 [1 in ~602] and 311/630,157 [1 in ~2000]. Surveillance was more intense in the Japanese context, with the 1996 study that gives us 16.6/10000 being based on active surveillance. This means the study authors are actively looking for the adverse event, rather than passive surveillance where something only gets flagged up when it happens to be reported by a doctor or patient (such as VAERS or Yellow Card). This will lead to a higher number of cases reported.

Other articles originating in other countries give a lower estimate of aseptic meningitis. These articles seem to be based on retroactive studies of hospital admissions for aseptic meningitis and may be less complete than studies based upon active surveillance. Nevertheless they still give a rate of around 1 in 14,000-1 in 10,000.

However all these articles are agreed in either the suspicion or the fact that the Urabe strain MMR does cause aseptic meningitis. In many cases discussed the Urabe strain mumps was found in patient samples. In other words there is no real debate about this: the vaccine causes aseptic meningitis. I could not find a single article dissenting from the view that the vaccine is responsible for at least some observed cases of aseptic meningitis.

Political and Medical Corruption Behind the Urabe MMR Vaccine

We are immunising the children and the government is immunising us.
SmithKline Representative to MMR whistleblower, as reported to Andrew Wakefield (Callous Disregard, p. 68)

This section will focus on the UK situation only, and not upon the introduction and use of this vaccine in other countries.

Let’s start with the Guidelines for the MMR vaccination, published in the British Medical Journal in 1988 [the vaccine was introduced in October of that year]:

The vaccine will be available from two manufacturers, Smith Kline and French [Trivirix/Pluserix] and Merieux UK [Immravax]; both vaccines contain the same strains of virus: Mumps; Urabe AMI9. This has been in use in the Smith Kline and French vaccine in Europe and Asia for three to four years.
Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: The following guidelines on the use of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine have been sent by the Department of Health to all general practitioners.

The comment relating to the Urabe strain is clearly meant to imply that it is safe for use, since if if has been in use for 3-4 years, that makes it safe, right? Interestingly, there is no comment in this document regarding the strain of measles or rubella, indicating a defensiveness about the mumps vaccine strain in use.

The ‘Adverse reactions’ section says the following (in full):

As with measles vaccine, malaise, fever and/or a rash may occur, most commonly about a week after vaccination and lasting about two to three days. Parotid swelling [glands near the jaw] occasionally occurs, usually in the third week; children with postvaccination symptoms are not infectious. Parents will be given information and advice for reducing fever, including the use of paracetamol in the period 5-10 days after vaccination. Serious reactions should be reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines using the yellow card system.

As we can see, there is no reference to the possibility of aseptic meningitis in this section. However, as we can see from the above literature, the possibility of aseptic meningitis had already been raised as an issue in the Canadian context, with cases of aseptic meningitis having been reported very soon after the vaccine’s introduction, with the two articles above from Canada highlighting some of these cases.

However it gets worse. Not only were there cases in Canada, but:

Pluserix had been licensed in numerous countries prior to 1988 but unbeknown to the British public, far from it having a good record in these countries, the vaccine had already been withdrawn in Canada, where it had been marketed as Trivirix, following the discovery of adverse reactions of aseptic meningitis. [original emphasis]
The Urabe Farrago

The Canadian Chief Medical Officer of the Ontario Ministry of Health stated all of these vaccines had to be sent back and no longer used in July 1988. Canada eventually went further and pulled the license of the vaccine in 1990.

The UK decided, essentially, to ignore the Canadian experience with these vaccines and introduce them anyway in 1988. When assessing the safety of the MMR vaccine, they used irrelevant data from countries using a completely different MMR vaccination, such as the US. This data was accepted as relevant despite the differences in the vaccinations. They rushed through a license for the Pluserix vaccine, in order that their announced MMR program could go forward as per schedule. Furthermore, the whistleblower mentioned at the top of this section, who had worked in the Canadian system and seen the harms of the vaccine, advised the JCVI that it should not be used, but he was ignored by more senior members.

As mentioned in the header, it appears the company SmithKline had no liability for these vaccinations and adverse events caused by them. Instead the government seemed to be the party liable. This situation continued; the JCVI minutes in 1993 state that the manufacturers “continue to sell the Urabe MMR without liability” (cited in Callous Disregard, p. 74). The UK stopped using the vaccines in 1992, but did not pull the license which helped to enable the use of the vaccine in other countries (such as Brazil in 1997 – see above cited article). This meant injuries caused by these vaccines continued to occur.

What can we conclude? The main concern of the UK authorities was not to ensure the safety of the vaccine, but to ensure the political success of the MMR program.

There are very powerful people in positions of great authority who have staked their reputations on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves.
Dr. Peter Fletcher

Conclusion

The success of a vaccination program, as defined by the establishment, has nothing to do with the safety or effectiveness of a vaccine. Instead, it is purely a political and religious construct about getting needles in arms. The corruption in vaccination programs is not a new development with the ‘Covid-19 pandemic’, instead it has existed in previous vaccine campaigns.

Appendix: Personal Comments on Urabe Strain Mumps MMR.

I received the MMR vaccine in 1989. At the time, 85-90% (different sources give slightly different figures) of the MMR vaccinations in use in the UK contained the Urabe strain mumps. As aseptic meningitis is a specific form of inflammation around the brain, it is not far fetched to suggest a possible link to autism (given that autism is an inflammatory disease) – although as far as I’m aware there has been no direct evidence regarding this question. Of course, the US, with its skyrocketing rates of autism never used these specific vaccines, and MMR vaccination is not the only factor to consider in autism.

With this in mind, I tried to find out specifically which MMR vaccination I received, so I wrote to my GP surgery and asked for the ‘brand and/or batch/lot’ of MMR vaccine I received. They sent me my vaccination records, which appears to not contain this information, so I was not able to confirm whether I received a Urabe-containing vaccine. However, I did receive a message from the GP surgery on my letter enclosed with the vaccination records that the surgery is a “Vaccine Positive practice” that “Vaccination is one of the greatest success stories in modern medicine” and that it “saves lives and prevents suffering.” Bear in mind, the only question I asked was about the brand and batch/lot of MMR vaccine I received: I made no reference to adverse events in any way. Apparently even asking about this basic information is too much of a question for the vaccination cult.

Image Via Openverse.