My latest communication to the Cabinet Office, whereby this time I made suggestion as to how a vaccine passport could be implemented through valid means. The full text is as follows: To: Cabinet Office Re: Suggestion to Justify Vaccine Passports For debate on March 15th. As I am awaiting response to FoI on various pertinent issues around the vaccine passport and wider matters relating to the metrics and consequences of all policies since March 23rd, 2020 I have a suggestion that should be discussed in the Parliamentary debate, that actually isn't a debate because once again it has been disclosed that the Government intends to do whatever it wants regardless ( https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/03/10/boris-says-vaccine-passports-international-travel-feature-life-future/?). So, the suggestion requires some basic facts first: FACT 1: There is no evidence of the COVID-19 virus as a purified isolation sample nor electron microscopy evidence, and therefore is merely a hypothesis of single causation with no consideration toward other or multiple causations, a method that is not historically unique and is always found to be a flawed method of reliance on one single concentration, but only after £billions have been conveniently wasted buying pharma products that then cause more harm than does good. FACT 2: The 'vaccine', of which not a single one of those being promoted are technically vaccines, have not undergone the standard approval process (also not unique, and never works out well), and as such the roll out of said vaccines are in fact a human experiment, in contravention of the Nuremberg Code, and whereby as per usual the full extent of ramifications will not be known for years to come (aside from the collective thousands already established as having severe consequences), and as per normal process, will likely be ignored in favour of rhetoric. The suggestion itself: As persons that are clearly low information and gullible, have been supportive of policies that have increased the mortality risk for healthy people through lockdowns, denial of healthcare, forced unemployment etc., have incredible levels of paranoia over an as yet evidenced ailment that comes with a mortality risk of 0.2% at worst (i.e. lower ratio's than those associated with every policy resulting), and are apparently willing to be jabbed with God knows what, that will result in God knows what, and until such time as each individual case can determine whether Nuremberg Code practices have been followed in the disclosure of being a human guinea pig, we must assume willingness to be this human guinea pig, and re in favour of vaccine passports, it is then also safe to assume that such persons have some level of mental incapacity, and as such must be considered as a mix of 'vulnerable person', 'risk to the public' and above all part of an experiment that could last up to 10 years to determine risks of the 'vaccines'. These clear classifications are in comparison to persons who are healthy and informed enough to know that being part of a mass human experiment is illogical and likely criminal, as well as having the mental capacity to ascertain risk ratio's that being healthy and clear of mind is a lesser risk than all of the beliefs of those with obvious mental incapacity. So, if a vaccine passport is to be issued, the greater risk to the public is with those who are vaccinated, and who also require constant supervision for negative side effects etc. therefore anyone holding a vaccine passport should be prevented from travel, isolated and kept away from healthy normal people with functioning brains, who should then be the persons freed from the nonsensical and illegal restrictions to freedoms, including travel, opening and entering businesses of any description, and all normalities of life, as per normal process of only isolating the ill, not the healthy. Any argument against infringing on the lives of the healthy would be illogical, illegal and identification that persons making such an argument would likely also be suffering from the mental incapacity, and should probably be isolated for their own safety, and that of healthy people. Should Parliament fail to debate this sensible and logical suggestion, I shall consider any debate to be void of proper consideration.