An Important Mathematical Oversight

The original intention for this website was to encourage public awareness of an historical medical crime, one that has remained a tightly-kept British state secret now for more than five decades. The matter is of enormous public interest, not least because the motivation behind the crime itself was that of advancing scientific research into areas that would come to provide the seminal knowledge behind much of the technological progress of the last half-century. My investigation into the matter inspired a parallel enquiry into some of the fundamental principles that underpin that scientific and technological impulse.

There are therefore two principle concerns of this website, and if there is acknowledged to be a substantive connection between them, that has inevitably to do with late 20th Century developments in science and information technologies, and more broadly with the idea of an burgeoning technocracy – the suggestion of a growing alliance between corporate technology and state power – one that might be judged to have atrophied the powers conventionally assigned to liberal-democratic institutions. This link therefore serves as a segue to emphasise the equal importance, to my mind, of what is going on in the X.cetera section of the site, so that that section should not appear, from the point of view of the other, as some kind of afterthought.

X.cetera is concerned with a problem in mathematics and science to do with the way we think about numbers. As a subset of the category defined as integers, elements in the series of the natural numbers are generally held to represent quantities as their absolute, or ‘integral’, properties. It is argued that this conventional understanding of integers, which is the one widely held amongst mathematicians and scientists adopting mathematical principles, is the cause of a significant oversight with regard to changes in the relations of proportion between numerical values, i.e., when those values are transposed out of the decimal rational schema into alternative numerical radices such as those of binary, octal, and hexadecimal, etc.

On the page: The Limits of Rationality it is argued that the relations of proportion between integers are dictated principally by their membership of the restricted group of characters (0-9) as defined by the decimal rational schema; and that corresponding ratios of proportion cannot be assumed to apply between otherwise numerically equal values when transposed into alternative numerical radices having either reduced (as in binary or octal, for instance) or extended (as in hexadecimal) member-ranges.

This is shown to be objectively the case by the results published at: Radical Affinity and Variant Proportion in Natural Numbers, which show that for a series of exponential values in decimal, where the logarithmic ratios between those values are consistently equal to 1, the corresponding series of values when transposed into any radix from binary to nonary (base-9) results in logarithmic ratios having no consistent value at all, in each case producing a graph showing a series of variegated peaks and troughs displaying proportional inconsistency.

These findings are previously unacknowledged by mathematicians and information scientists alike, but the import of the findings is that, while the discrete values of individual integers transposed into alternative radices will be ostensibly equal across those radices, the ratios of proportion between those values will not be preserved, as these ratios must be determined uniquely according to the range of available digits within any respective radix (0-9 in decimal, 0-7 in octal, for instance); one consequence of which of course is the variable relative frequency (or ‘potentiality’) of specific individual digits when compared across radices. This observation has serious consequences in terms of its implications for the logical consistency of data produced within digital information systems, as the logic of those systems generally relies upon the seamless correspondence, not only of ‘integral’ values when transcribed between decimal and the aforementioned radices, but ultimately upon the relations of proportion between those values.

Information Science tends to treat the translation and recording of conventional analogue information into digital format unproblematically. The digital encoding of written, spoken, or visual information is seen to have little effect on the representational content of the message. The process is taken to be neutral, faithful, transparent. While the assessment of quantitative and qualitative differences at the level of the observable world necessarily entails assessments of proportion, the digital encoding of those assessments ultimately involves a reduction, at the level of machine code, to the form of a series of simple binary (or ‘logical’) distinctions between ‘1’ and ‘0’ – positive and negative. The process relies upon a tacit assumption that there exists such a level of fine-grained logical simplicity as the basis of a hierarchy of logical relationships, and which transcends all systems of conventional analogue (or indeed sensory) representation (be they linguistic, visual, sonic, or whatever); and that therefore we may break down these systems of representation to this level – the digital level – and then re-assemble them, as it were, without corruption. Logic is assumed to operate consistently without limits, as a sort of ‘ambient’ condition of information systems.

In the X.cetera section I am concerned to point out however that the logical relationship between ‘1’ and ‘0’ in a binary system (which equates in quantitative terms with what we understand as their proportional relationship) is derived specifically from their membership of a uniquely defined group of digits limited to two members. It does not derive from a set of transcendent logical principles arising elsewhere and having universal applicability (a proposition that, despite its apparent simplicity, may well come as a surprise to many mathematicians and information scientists alike).

As the proportional relationships affecting quantitative expressions within binary are uniquely and restrictively determined, they cannot be assumed to apply (with proportional consistency) to translations of the same expressions into decimal (or into any other number radix, such as octal, or hexadecimal). By extension therefore, the logical relationships within a binary system of codes, being subject to the same restrictive determinations, cannot therefore be applied with logical consistency to conventional analogue representations of the observable world, as this would be to invest binary code with a transcendent logical potential that it simply cannot possess – they may be applied to such representations, and the results may appear to be internally consistent, but they will certainly not be logically consistent with the world of objects.

The issue of a failure of logical consistency is one that concerns the relationships between data objects – it does not concern the specific accuracy or internal content of data objects themselves (just as the variation in proportion across radices concerns the dynamic relations between integers, rather than their specific ‘integral’ numerical values). This means that, from a conventional scientific-positivist perspective, which generally relies for its raw data upon information derived from discrete acts of measurement, the problem will be difficult to recognise or detect (as the data might well appear to possess internal consistency). One will however experience the effects of the failure (while being rather mystified as to its causes) in the lack of a reliable correspondence between expectations derived from data analyses, and real-world events.

So that’s some of what X.cetera is all about.. If you think you’re ‘ard enough!

[ PDF version ]

[ PDF version ]

[ PDF version ]

[ PDF version ]


Download my 167-page
report: Special Operations
in Medical Research

[pdf – 1.88MB]:

Download my Open Letter to the British Prime Minister & Health Secretary
[pdf – 363KB]:

The Limits of Rationality
(An important mathematical oversight)


Radical Affinity and
Variant Proportion in
Natural Numbers


Mind: Before & Beyond Computation

Dawkins' Theory of Memetics – A Biological Assault on the Cultural

Randomness, Non-
Randomness, & Structural Selectivity


Attempts on My Life

On pp.83-86 of my report, I have described how in November 2010, following a period of several years during which I had feigned a withdrawal of my earlier allegations against members of my family (that they had benefitted financially from my victimisation as a child to a fraudulent tonsillectomy operation), I intentionally provoked both my mother and my sister with a renewal of the same allegations. This resulted, during December 2010, in their conspiring to orchestrate an attempt on my life. The misconduct of the Lambeth Police in response to my reports of this attempt resulted in the complaint detailed in the page: Complaint to the Metropolitan Police & IPCC.

At approximately the same time, I had made a subject access request to St Thomas’ Hospital Information Governance Dept. for a copy of the Brain MRI scan originally conducted at St Thomas’ Radiology Dept. in October 2008. My receipt of the copy during December 2010 would transpire to be the point at which I first obtained access to the prima facie evidence that would confirm the basis of my historical allegations about the event of my ‘tonsillectomy’ in 1967. Coinciding with this, during the two-week period leading up to New Year 2010/11, and before actually receiving the copy of the scan from the hospital, I started to experience other attempts on my life, in the form of indirect attempts at poisoning, in various food products I purchased, cigarettes, and bottled water. From the degree of their sophistication and organisation, I understand that the source of these attempts on my life was other than that of my family, and that it emanated indirectly from the broader institutional and/or corporate bodies potentially implicated in the allegations I had made. There appears to have been a sophisticated, organised, and clandestine attempt to assassinate me, apparently triggered by my having made the request to St Thomas’ hospital for a copy of my MRI scan; but unconnected with any contemporaneous threat posed by members of my family. The fact that certain products I purchased from various local stores appeared (astonishingly) to contain poison suggests several things:

  1. That there was a degree of determination and preparedness behind attempts to assassinate me which can only be understood as a form of organised imperative, exercised with ultimate power and influence, and with unlimited resources.
  2. There was a degree of foreknowledge of the shops that I frequented, and of the kinds of products that I usually purchased, as well as of my immediate movements, in terms of exactly when I would be at a particular store.
  3. There was such a degree of penetration of local businesses by organised criminals contracted with this undertaking, that such criminality could be induced and mandated within the management and employees of the stores at short notice.
  4. That the reasons behind the planned assassination obviated the use of any ‘conventional’ method of killing, such as by shooting – in other words, it would be problematic if I should die by violent means, rather than by means which could be interpreted publicly as ‘self-inflicted’, ‘accidental’, or as ‘natural causes’.

Until I lost possession of my flat in January 2019, I had retained numerous items in my possession that were suspected to contain various kinds of poison, collected between December 2010 and February 2014, including a bottle of water, which I strongly suspected to contain a solution of radioactive polonium-210. I had consumed literally a few drops of the water, being habituated at this time to taste-testing everything I consumed, and was able to distinguish, after researching the toxic effects experienced as a result of that exposure, that it was likely to have been poisoned with a radioactive substance – polonium-210 has recently been employed in other assassinations.1 I made several attempts to report these events to the police, both at police stations and on the telephone. On each occasion however the police simply dismissed outright the possibility of a real attempt to poison me, refused to accept any poisoned product as evidence, and generally dismissed my reports as ‘probably delusional’. A call handler on the ‘101’ service even suggested that I pour the water I suspected contained polonium “down the sink”.

During December 2010 I visited St Thomas’ Hospital Accident & Emergency Dept. on three separate occasions with symptoms of mild poisoning, the last of these being on 31 December, following my minimal consumption of the poisoned water. I had managed to avoid consuming any fatal dose of poison, being generally alert at this time to the likelihood of this kind of threat, carefully taste-testing everything I consumed in the smallest possible amounts. When I did encounter the presence of toxicity, the effects were therefore mild, and I was able to self-medicate against them by consuming large amounts of water and vitamin C. Consequently, during these visits to the hospital, the symptoms were not immediately apparent to an external observer, and these visits were largely attempts on my part to obtain some biochemical evidence, through blood or urine tests, of these attempts on my life. On each visit to St Thomas’, however, the doctor assigned to me made reference to the online summary of my SLaM mental health record, on which was recorded my period of supervision by the START Team (see p.48 of my report), and which alerted them to the suggestion that my complaints of poisoning were delusional. Consequently, they felt no obligation to take these complaints seriously, refused to make any blood or urine tests, and referred me instead to mental health services.

In view of the fact that my reports of attempts on my life were being persistently spurned both by the police and subsequently by health services, and despite being in possession of evidence that would have proved attempts of poisoning, it became clear from these experiences that any recourse to the police or to medical services was useless for me, against what was becoming an insistent threat to my life. Ironically, only by succumbing to a fatal or near-fatal dose of poison would I have had any chance of impressing upon the police or health services the reality of these attempts. Therefore, I saw the necessity to urgently vacate my flat, which I did on 01/01/2011.

When I returned to my flat six weeks later I discovered that my locks had been tampered with, as though they had been expertly picked but leaving them stiff and slightly damaged. It also appeared that certain consumable items I had left in the flat may have been poisoned, as after taste-testing a selection of these I experienced symptoms of an immediate disturbing increase in heart rate which, had I continued to consume the product in normal amounts, I suspect would have resulted in heart failure. Since my experiences before New Year 2010/11, every product I ate or drank had to be tested in gradually increasing amounts, starting with the merest taste (alternatively, with certain products, I would make initial tests on the skin on the inside of my wrist). On numerous occasions since December 2010 the symptom experienced from the oral presence of a tiny amount of various products was just such a disturbing increase in heart rate, to which I would respond by washing my mouth urgently, and consuming large doses of vitamin C to counteract the toxicity. While this has been highly inconvenient, only by rigorously taste- or skin-testing everything I consumed did I manage to succeed in anticipating every attempt at poisoning. However, it has not been possible entirely to avoid repeated exposures to non-fatal doses of toxicity.

I attempted to report the illegal entry to my flat to the police, by telephone, and also by visiting Kennington Police Station. However, my report was spurned once more. Since that time and through until the autumn of 2012 I was unable to make regular use of my flat, in view of the anticipated risk to my life there, and had to maintain constant motility and secrecy over my whereabouts, avoiding using any regular channels of communication, to prevent my movements being tracked. Effectively, for a period of 20 months, I was forced to remain in hiding.

Later, towards the end of 2013, there was a further resurgence of these attempts, meaning that again I had to take great care over my movements, avoiding shopping in the same shop more than once, and always travelling to unfamiliar locations to shop, and of course continuing to taste- or skin-test everything I ate or drank, before consuming it normally. This was my only recourse to any form of protection, since it was clear that any attempt I might make of presenting evidence of poisoning to the police would be sneered at, and would at best result in a further referral to mental health services.

After three years of experiencing these kinds of attempts on my life, I was becoming quite adept at anticipating and averting attempts to poison me, and the attempts on my life had largely (but not completely) abated between the autumn of 2012 and the end of 2013. However, there began in January 2014 what I understand to be a resurgence of attempts by members of my family, firstly to establish my whereabouts, with a view to then arranging their own (second) attempt on my life (see pp.83-86 of my report for an account of the first attempt). However, I am uncertain exactly which events had precipitated this renewed concern on their part.

I had had no further contact with my mother or sister since the events in December 2010, when I had communicated to my sister by email my awareness that they had orchestrated an attempt on my life. In that email I had included comments intended to confuse my sister over my actual address. Following this my sister would have been uncertain whether or not I remained at the address they knew as mine. On 10/01/2014 I received an unexpected email from my sister containing no content other than an unrecognisable hyperlink. The email was sent to a distribution list containing eight email addresses with mine as the last, none of the others which I recognised. I did not follow the link, but instead forwarded the email to the Staffordshire Police, as I thought it highly suspicious.

This scenario was repeated on the 29 January, and again on the 11 February, each time with emails containing unrecognisable hyperlinks (different from the first, and from each other) and each sent to a varied handful of addresses. Again I did not follow the links, sensing that my sister was trying to lure me into clicking on a link which would then enable her, or her associates, to track my location. On the 13 February, I received an email from a different, remote family member, alerting me to the fact that my mother had become dangerously ill, suggesting that I should contact my sister; which was odd since my sister clearly had my email address, and had sent an email to me only two days before, containing no information whatsoever. I did not reply to the email of 13 February.

On the supposition that my sister might somehow have obtained some assurance of my address (despite my refusal to subscribe to the tracking links), with a view to orchestrating a further attempt on my life, there were limited options available to her and her partner-in-crime. In view of the fact that I would be unlikely to answer the door to any assailants they might send to call on me (I assumed by this time my sister was wise to this policy of mine with respect to unexpected callers), aside from staking-out my flat for extended periods of time by contractors who would not be familiar with my appearance, the only conceivable means of access to my residence were my external letterbox and the small gap underneath the door of my flat. I was, needless to say, already alert to the possibility that someone might try to deliver a toxic substance by either of these two routes.

On 14 February 2014, the day after the email from the remote family member, I was at home when I noticed distinct feelings of numbness on the left side of my head, with some faintness. The symptoms were not at that time very persistent, but I noticed them intermittently throughout the day. It was not enough to convince me that someone had put poison under my door, but the next morning I took the precaution of cleaning the floor inside the front door with a damp cloth and a vacuum, while wearing protective gloves.

I did not experience further symptoms until the afternoon of Monday 17, when, about 30 minutes after returning to my flat, I began to feel very sick and faint, with more numbness on the left side of my head. I cleaned the floor inside the door again with a vacuum, but did not use a cloth. After a while I started to feel more ill with pain in the left side of my head and an increasing heart rate. My heart rate was accelerating and seemed uncontrollable, and I became worried of an incipient heart attack. I prepared to call 999, but hesitated, in view of my previous experiences with emergency services. At the same time I took 2g of soluble vitamin C (a very large dose) which quickly moderated the heart rate and it eventually subsided. The sickness and faintness persisted however, along with numbness on the left side of my head, so I determined I had no choice but to leave the flat, which I did the same day.

Following this event, I was ill for a period of several weeks with ongoing neurological and cerebral-vascular problems involving the left side of my head, leading me to suspect that the substance I had been exposed to at my flat may have included some form of neurotoxin. I strongly suspect that some extremely toxic substance (i.e., potentially fatal if inhaled in tiny amounts) was placed under my front door on more than one occasion between 13 and 17 February, and that the effect of attempting to vacuum the substance was to make it airborne (i.e., by it being partly expelled through the fan of the vacuum cleaner). I had no adequate defence against such an attack, and for the remaining duration of my tenancy (which ended in January 2019) I could not determine to what extent my flat remained contaminated, and so I was unable to safely occupy the flat after 17/02/2014.

I left the UK on 17 February due to the implicit threat to my life should I have remained there, and spent the next thirteen months as a de facto refugee from that country and from the European mainland (see the page: Applications for Political Asylum; or pp.108-109 of my report, for a description of my application for political asylum in Turkey). It was therefore infeasible for me to make any report of the events in February to the Lambeth Police. I did however report them to the Major Investigations Dept. of the Staffordshire Police by letter sent as an email attachment on 26/02/2014, attaching the two additional suspicious emails from my sister. I have received no response to this report from the Staffordshire Police, and there is neither any indication that the Staffordshire Police have referred the report back to the police in Lambeth.

It became necessary for me return to the UK in March 2015, principally for financial reasons (see paragraph 4 of the page: Applications for Political Asylum). When I visited the flat for the first time to collect my mail on 07/03/2015, I spoke to my neighbour who reported to me that that same morning he had heard someone unlocking the door to my flat, and noises coming from inside the flat like the opening of cupboards and movement of furniture. He had assumed that it was me, until I informed him that I had only just that moment returned to the flat for the first time in over a year. He also pointed out that the keyhole covers from the two mortice locks on my front door had been removed, which I also acknowledged. There was no one to my knowledge who had copies of the keys to the flat who may have entered there legitimately.

That same afternoon I reported the suspected illegal entry to my flat to the police in person at Walworth Police Station, at the same time attempting to alert the police to the presence of a serious toxic hazard at the flat, as a result of previous attempts on my life there, and which was preventing me from occupying the flat. Neither of these reports however was greeted with any serious attention. After several further phone calls to the police on the ‘101’ number over the following days, eventually it was agreed that an officer would visit me at my address on 13/03/2015.

I met with PC Burgess 184LX of the Lambeth Police outside my address at 2pm that day.2 Despite my neighbour having agreed in advance to be present at the arranged time of the officer’s visit, he was not however at home when the officer and I rang on his doorbell. This was unfortunate because the significance of this occasion was that it was the first time there had been any available witness evidence to support the series of reports of attempts on my life, and associated illegal entries to my flat, that I had tried to make to the police since December 2010.

From the recording of our discussion, it is apparent that PC Burgess was not briefed appropriately regarding the nature of my report made at Walworth Police Station with respect to the context of an attempt to poison me at the flat, and the fact that the apparent illegal entry had not resulted in anything being obviously removed from the flat. Hence, in the absence of evidence of a property crime, or of an open and explicit threat of violence, the officer saw no reason to pursue an enquiry, or to make any crime report. In the absence of my neighbour’s testimony, the content of our conversation was essentially me trying to impress upon PC Burgess, with some apparent frustration, the reality of the toxic hazard at the flat – which in itself was evidence of an attempted murder – and to elicit some meaningful response from the police, without which I could neither safely occupy the flat, nor safely remove my belongings from the flat.

Generally since December 2010, the Lambeth Police have refused to treat my reports of attempts on my life (and the material evidence offered to them) with the seriousness and sensitivity they required. The nature of those allegations, and of the specific non-visible evidence in support of them, demanded the attention of officers with criminal investigation skills (CID), as well as forensic/toxicologist teams. However, as already mentioned above, the Lambeth Police were anyway predisposed to treat my allegations as ‘delusional’, which tended to preclude the police from investing these kinds of resources in response. The result of Lambeth Police’s exclusive reliance on ‘beat coppers’ in the assessment and collection of evidence was its blindness and insensitivity to any evidence other than that which pointed to an obvious crime against property, or to the sort of intended violent crime where the perpetrator incriminates her/himself by issuing an open written or verbal threat to the victim.

In the recording, PC Burgess is generally dismissive of the potential evidence of an attempt to deliver poison under the front door of my flat, because there was no obvious visible sign of it. As the officer’s remit, as she understood it, ended at the recording of the obvious visible signs of a crime, she was unreceptive to my information about the existence of a highly toxic substance at the flat, which could not be seen, and which was particularly concentrated in my vacuum cleaner. PC Burgess was also reluctant to accept a copy of the evidence of my statement of the events of February 2014 made in my letter to the Staffordshire Police of 26/02/2014, and the tracking emails sent by my sister at that time. Her remarks in the recording suggest that she felt this would have overcomplicated her task of making a report upon what we had discussed, and what she had seen (or not seen) at my flat that day.

As I remained unable to occupy my flat following my return to the UK in March 2015, between May 2015 and January 2016 I stayed instead at the flat of an old friend in another part of London. During much of that period there was a relative reduction in the frequency of organised attempts on my life (a respite facilitated only in part by the fact that my sister, for one, had no inkling of my whereabouts, absent as I was from my home address). There had however been comparable periods of relaxation of those efforts before, between 2011 and 2014, only for them to be re-engaged at a later opportunity, apparently with the intention of taking me strategically by surprise.

In July 2015, I came into possession of items from my medical records from 2013 – specifically, two letters of referral of myself to mental health services, in response respectively to my two complaints made in 2013 regarding the cover-ups of MRI evidence at Guy’s & St Thomas’ and UCLH NHS Trusts (see the other pages in this section: Complaint to GSTT NHS Trust & 2nd MRI Head Scan). This encouraged me to make two further complaints: the first against The South London & Maudsley NHS Trust (‘SLaM’) in October 2015; the second against UCLH NHS Trust in November that year. These two complaints followed shortly after my several attendances at the Royal London Hospital (‘RLH’), with regard to the problem that developed in July 2015 in the region of my thoracic spine/left shoulder blade (there is no connection however between RLH and the complaints to SLaM and UCLH). In relation to the problem in my left shoulder, I have alleged that doctors at the Neurology Dept. of RLH deliberately misrepresented my reports of the symptoms and were wilfully negligent towards the assessment of the problem (see the section: Whole Spine MRI made at the Royal London Hospital (September 2015) in the C-Spine MRI Scan (July 2020) page; or pp.76-79 of my report).

The end of the year 2015 therefore was marked by a general resurgence of my interactions with medical institutions, partly in relation to my earlier (and still unresolved) complaints against GSTT and UCLH over their respective cover-ups of evidence; together with two new complaints against UCLH and SLaM. Added to these was the prospect of a new potential serious complaint against the Neurology Dept. at RLH. This is the context – the new complaint against UCLH was referred to the PHSO on 28/12/2015 – in which I experienced a further resurgence and intensification of attempts on my life towards the end of January 2016.

There was an increased determination behind these new attempts, in view of the kinds of substances employed, and the tactics employed to deliver them. The substances again appear to have included radiotoxic substances (symptoms of exposure to which are unmistakable, even in the mildest doses), and they were delivered to me by persons with whom I had some sort of passing incidental acquaintance, by their replacing items already in my possession with identical items containing poison; although it is very difficult for me to substantiate these claims, since I am not inclined to attempt to retain the evidence. However, in my judgement it is an indication that those contracted with this undertaking were employing methods of last resort (in view of the nature of the substances involved, which are difficult to safely handle even by the poisoner), and therefore were absolutely determined to succeed, no matter what. It is also suggestive of a degree of synchronicity between the processes of my complaints against several medical institutions and the cyclical nature of these attempts on my life; bearing in mind that my first experiences of attempts to poison me began in December 2010, in exact coincidence with my application for a copy of my Brain MRI scan from St Thomas’ Hospital Information Governance Dept. (GSTT NHS Trust). Bearing in mind also that during the period following my return to the UK in March 2015, when there was a noticeable lack of activity on my behalf regarding the unresolved 2013 complaints against GSTT and UCLH, until late 2015 (when I renewed attempts at litigation against UCLH), there was a corresponding period of reduced intensity in clandestine attempts to poison me.

In view of the increasing desperation behind these more recent attempts, I felt I had no choice but to leave the UK once more, which I did on the 08/02/2016, becoming once more a de facto refugee from my home country. I spent the next five months outside the UK and mostly outside mainland Europe (where the attempts on my life are generally most persistent and organised), returning to the UK in July 2016 (see Applications for Political Asylum; or pp.109-111 of my report, for an account of my movements during this period). My commitment, for a large portion of the period December 2010 to July 2016 (during which time I received very little income) to constant mobility and secrecy over my whereabouts, as a way of tactically avoiding attempts on my life, meant that I needed to spend a significant portion of my limited savings on travel and additional accommodation. As I had by July 2016 been able to safely occupy my flat in London only for roughly 17 months (September 2012 to February 2014) of the intervening 67 months, I was by that time running very low on cash. Therefore, in July 2016 I felt that I had no choice but to try to make my case more vocally at home.

Between July and October 2016, I submitted copious information and evidence to various national news organisations with regard to my historical allegations against the NHS and the British Government; the recent cover-ups by several London hospital trusts of medical evidence that would otherwise have supported those allegations; as well as evidence which pointed to the inactions of the police with respect to reports of those cover-ups, and with respect to evidence of attempts on my life; together with evidence of the refusal to appropriately assess or treat my current health problems, in particular by the Royal London Hospital. There has however been no recognition or acknowledgement whatsoever from any of these news organisations in response to my reports. Despite all of these efforts therefore, I remain without any protection from the law against the still-persistent organised attempts on my life.

As I had meagre financial resources, I was unable to maintain indefinitely the mobility and tactical avoidance necessary for me to survive the attempts upon my life. One consequence of this was that, as I could no longer afford my usual habit of changing accommodation on a nightly or two-nightly basis, I tended to remain in certain hostels in London for extended periods of several days or longer. During the first two weeks of October 2016, while booked consecutively into two separate hostels, and with the perpetrators apparently taking advantage of the length of my stays, my luggage was broken into on two separate occasions and attempts were made to poison food and toiletry items I kept there. There were signs on each occasion that the lock on my case had been tampered with, meaning that I was able to anticipate each invasion before succumbing to a fatal toxic exposure. Subsequently, after testing certain toiletry items on my skin and experiencing toxic reactions, on each occasion I was able to avoid any further exposure by discarding all of the consumable contents of my luggage. The novel ‘directness’ of these kinds of attempts to invade my property meant that it was becoming increasingly problematic for me to leave my luggage unattended for any length of time at all.

Both of these attempts were reported to the Metropolitan Police, either on the ‘101’ number, or by visiting Holborn Police Station. Characteristically, the police refused to pay any serious attention to these reports, unless I could present them with some form of medical evidence of poisoning. However, as my exposures on each occasion were relatively mild, and as there were no obvious visible signs of poisoning at the time of visiting the police station, it was most unlikely that I would succeed in getting a doctor to take my reports seriously either (especially in view of my earlier experiences at St Thomas’ Hospital A&E Dept. in December 2010 – see above). In the circumstances, the most likely result of any approach to health services would be that of being further referred to mental health services – a result that would be quite counterproductive, as the effect would only be to reinforce the likelihood of the same form of response on any subsequent occasion, due to the reduplication of such referrals existing in my medical records. Ironically then, the only circumstances in which the police might have taken my reports seriously is if I had succumbed to a fatal or near-fatal dose of poisoning.

I have related above that, as all attempts since December 2010 to poison me by indirect methods had failed consistently, the perpetrators were now employing methods of last resort, involving an increased ‘directness’ in their approach. It is important to point out that, in order to be able to guarantee access to my luggage (i.e., for instance, by being booked into the same dormitory as myself), and to have some indication of how long was my intended stay in a particular hostel, the perpetrators must have depended on the complicity of the respective hostel management in order to plan and execute the attempts. They must also have employed additional persons to watch my movements, so that if I was to return unexpectedly to the hostel at the critical moment, then they could be adequately forewarned of that possibility. In view of the combined odds working against me therefore, and in view of the unavailability of any protection from the Metropolitan Police against the continuance of these organised attempts, on the 17 October 2016 I was forced once again to flee the UK, and the European mainland (see Applications for Political Asylum; or pp.111-116 of my report, for an account of my efforts at seeking asylum in Morocco in November 2016; and again in October 2017).

My first attempt at seeking asylum through UNHCR in Morocco was short-lived, and I returned to the UK on 02/12/2016. The following few months, until April 2017, were spent in much the same manner as before my departure in October 2016; i.e., by moving from hostel to hostel and from town to town on as frequent a basis as I could afford. I developed a strategy of inhibiting attempts to break into my luggage by sealing the fastenings on my suitcase with writable sellotape, which I would then ‘sign’ with indelible marker pen. This method proved to be more secure than any lock (I was unconcerned about theft), as any invasion of the suitcase would have necessitated destroying the unique inscription on the seal, leaving it obvious to me that someone had broken in. The problem persisted however that it was unsafe for me to leave the suitcase unattended and unsealed for any length of time at all – for instance during time spent in the kitchen cooking a meal.

In April 2017, I found a place to stay with a friend who had become terminally ill, so that in exchange for sanctuary, I acted as his carer for several months. The location was one that I had not frequented previously and while I was there I refrained from most internet use, or from regularly using a mobile or smartphone, so that my presence might remain as private as possible. It could not have been a permanent solution however, as I was largely inhibited from any communication, such as would be essential in order to advance my medical claims. After five months in this position, I resolved to depart the UK once more to pursue again the application for political asylum with UNHCR that had been aborted at the end of 2016, departing the UK once more for North Africa on 27/09/2017.

The quite remarkable events occurring in association with my asylum application in Morocco during October 2017 are related in the page Applications for Political Asylum (see this link, or pp.112-116 of my report, for an account of my approaches to UNHCR in Cairo, and again in Rabat, Morocco). In that section I have referred to the fact that the common pattern of attempts on my life by methods of indirect poisoning (involving the supply of toxic products masked as standard ones, by routine purchases made at shops and market stalls) had now extended to Morocco, within a predominantly Muslim population, amongst which I had previously enjoyed relative sanctuary from such organised attempts on my life. This indicated to me that during the year of my absence from Morocco significant steps had been taken by European ‘mafia’ to extend its distributive reach (and economic influence) into this domain, seemingly in anticipation of my return there to pursue again my previously aborted asylum application. At the same time (I suspect these two developments were not unconnected) there were strong indications of corrupt behaviour by staff at UNHCR Rabat, who had tried to conceal the fact of my asylum application from detection by external agencies, by falsifying the details of my identity on the asylum registration. The upshot of this was that, had the attempts on my life there succeeded, the event of my death in Morocco need not have attracted any unwanted controversy.

For these reasons, and because UNHCR Rabat were resistant to my requests that they should process my application without further delay (in view of the pressing medical issues involved), as I now had effectively no more protection in Morocco than I had anywhere in Europe, when UNHCR notified me by email on 23/11/2017 of a three-month delay prior to my interview for refugee status determination, I decided to leave Morocco the following day and return to the UK, travelling overland.

After returning to the UK, things continued much as before – with the need to constantly change my location to stay ahead of attempts to poison my belongings. This was usually manageable, except for instance on New Year’s Eve when it was necessary to book my accommodation a week in advance. On 23/12/2017 I made an online booking for New Year’s Eve at a hostel in Hackney. Consequently, my attackers had a reasonable amount of time to plan a significant attempt on my life. This involved the use of sedation after I arrived at the hostel, leaving me unconscious for several hours having left my luggage unguarded. Several items in my backpack appear to have been tampered with, and therefore I suspected may have been poisoned. I addition, I believe that the battery in my mobile phone may have been exchanged for a modified battery (for what purpose remains unclear). I noticed that the battery showed signs of slight damage. As both the phone and battery were quite new, this indicated to me that the battery had been swapped. Fortunately, when I awoke I realised immediately what had occurred (being anyway alert to this kind of possibility out of sheer necessity), and again was able to avoid any fatal toxic exposure by discarding the consumable contents of my backpack, and abandoning any further use of that particular phone.

These events were reported to the police at Stoke Newington Police Station, where I had a meeting with Detective Sergeant Bent (no satire intended) on 08/02/2018. In spite of the fact that in the sequence of events which followed the making of the booking online, up until and including my reception at the hostel, there were circumstantial factors that might have indicated to the police that the hostel management were complicit in the attempt on my life I was trying to report, and in spite of my offering material evidence to DS Bent which would have confirmed the reality of an attempt to poison me and to tamper with my phone, DS Bent dismissed all my reports out of hand, declaring: “I think it’s all in your head”; and stated that he was unwilling to invest police resources in examining the evidence.

One might raise the question: If they were able to sedate me in the hostel, then why didn’t they just finish the job? My answer to that would be that the plan in place was clearly that I should succumb to the effects of the various poisoned items after having left the hostel (since it was a one-night booking), so as not to invite any suspicion upon the hostel management, whom I have good reason to believe were implicated in the attempt. This underscores the idea that in general the method in all the attempts on my life was to cause me to suffer poisoning in as indirect a way as possible. My death might then be interpreted either as ‘self-inflicted’, ‘accidental’, or as the result of ‘natural causes’ (since not all poisons are readily detectable after death); thereby without attracting any unwanted controversy.

Following the events in Hackney at New Year and until the present time, there has been little respite in the persistence of attempts on my life, although there have been some noticeable shifts in strategy on behalf of those responsible. Generally, the perpetrators were able to take advantage of my financial insecurity and dearth of funds during this period, which seriously inhibited my ability to travel abroad to seek sanctuary in countries beyond the borders of Europe. So while I have been compelled to remain within the UK for much of the period January 2018 to September 2020, it has been necessary for me to ‘double-down’ on my efforts to stay one step ahead of any attempts to track my location for the purposes of interfering with my luggage – the strategy that has, since 2016, tended to be the last resort of those determined to end my life in order to forestall my efforts to bring to public light evidence of an historical NHS crime against humanity. While I retain in my possession several items which will eventually confirm the reality of attempts on my life during this period (including items from the incident in Hackney at New Year), it is very difficult in this context to represent details of these examples with any credible detail – the substances employed are generally quite sophisticated, and vary according to the current strategy of the perpetrators. The nature of their chemistry is therefore frequently obscure and hard for me to positively identify, meaning that I can only speculate on the nature of the substances employed; until such time that is as they may be submitted for toxicological analysis.

I appreciate that in recounting these events, which in their very nature and persistence over time are truly exceptional, that the narration begs an enormous suspension of disbelief from the reader, not least in terms of explaining how I have actually survived all of these attempts, if they were as determined as I have presented them to be. The key here is in the indirectness of the attempts (implying a loss of control by the perpetrators over the end result) – a characteristic determined by the chief concern on behalf of those responsible for avoiding unwanted controversy. The other key factor enabling my survival has been my constant vigilance and attention to detail (not to mention a great deal of luck), which has so far meant that I have always been able to anticipate when it was likely an attempt had been made, even if this meant being exposed to a non-fatal dose of toxicity.

The final point to make is that, to maintain such a series of attempts on my life over a period of eleven years (with some periods of relaxation) – requiring access to toxins not readily available in the public domain (including, indeed, nerve agents and radiotoxins), plus the logistical provision of such substances within standard manufactured products – must have demanded a level of civil influence and control (exemplified in particular by the continual suppression of police interest or action) such as is only befitting those in the position of state actors. This returns me to the point made earlier – that the organised criminals serially contracted with this urgent undertaking acted with the protection of those having ultimate power and influence, supported by unlimited financial resources.

27 December 2021

back to top ^


  1. I am aware that polonium-210 is a highly radioactive source of low-penetration alpha radiation, which is dangerous if inhaled or ingested. Alpha radiation will not penetrate most materials, e.g. skin or paper; and as polonium-210 emits no significant gamma radiation, this makes it easily transportable. The effects experienced after tasting a few drops of the water (a-d were experienced immediately or shortly after) were:
    • a) An immediate ‘hit’ or ‘buzz’ from the oral presence.
    • b) A feeling of being hot and flushed, with severe vasodilation.
    • c) Acute liver pain.
    • d) Several isolated tiny dark-red spots appearing very quickly on my skin in the wrist area, then disappearing over a period of several days.
    • e) Developing general sickness over the subsequent 12 hour period, which became negligible after a further 24 hours.

    Obviously, I did not receive a fatal dose, and was able to eliminate the toxicity by eating lots of fresh foods, water, vitamins, kelp (iodine), and fish oils, soon after the general sickness developed. I did go to A&E shortly after consumption, with acute liver pain, but before the general sickness developed, so the symptoms weren’t very apparent, and again, as related below, the doctor refused to take my claims of being poisoned seriously, and refused to make any tests, having been alerted by my online summary health record of my previous supervision by mental health services, following my self-referral in 2007 (see p.48 of my report). I had not at that point formed the suspicion of radiotoxicity, and only reached this conclusion after subsequently researching the subject. Before these events, I had already decided to leave the country, to avoid this series of attempts on my life, and my visit to the hospital came a few hours before I boarded a plane, so there was no subsequent follow-up visit to the hospital or my GP. The general sickness had already developed by this time, but fortunately it was not so severe to prevent my travelling. I recovered shortly after while abroad by my own efforts. [see: Guilmette, R., Why -210Po?, Health Physics News, Vol. XXXV number2, Feb. 2007:]. [back]

  2. There is an audio recording available of my conversation with PC Burgess on 13/03/2015. [back]