1 1 November 2024 Paul Greatrix, Registrar Registrar’s O ffi ce Trent Building University of Nottingham University Park Nottingham NG7 2RD Dear Paul, My disclosure made in March 2023 under the Public Interest Disclosure Act Thank you for your letter to me dated 23 August 2023 and please accept my apologies for the long delay in acknowledging it and responding to you To aid transparency and for future reference I have uploaded your reply at https://pgreply.tiiny.site T o recap: we met in your o ffi ce on 24 March 2023 , shortly after I had left the University. At this meeting , having been advised by the whistleblowers’ support charity ‘Protect’ and a solicitor, I made a disclosure to you under the procedure facilitated by the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) and under the University’s whistleblowing code, which itself is based on that legislation I made this disclosure as a recent employee of the University, as the PIDA procedure allows me to do. I summarised some key aspects orally and presented you with a comprehensive document which includes full details of my allegations with some supporting evidence M y disclosure concerns the University’s ‘Get Vaccinated’ campaign which took place throughout 2021 and 2022 and which encouraged all members of sta ff and all students to ‘get vaccinated’ with the commercial , injectable covid - 19 products produced by Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna. The allegations I made each fall under one or more of these specific sections of the University’s whistleblowing code: 2 4.3.ii: that a person has failed, is failing, or is likely to fail to comply with their legal obligations; 4.3.iv: that the health and safety of any individual has been, is being, or is likely to be endangered; and 4.3.vi: that information tending to show any matter falling within any of the above sections has been, is being, or is likely to be, deliberately concealed. No d o ubt you still have the document I gave you ; nonetheless , t he full text of that original disclosure including your signed receipt as the final page is available online at www.docdroid.net/fkDaWwE/nottingham - pdf P lease allow me to remind you of what you said at our meeting on 24 Ma rc h 2023 : ‘I hope that you can trust me ... I will do the right thing. I’ve got obligation s for the University under our whistleblowing code. And I will follow that because it’s the right thing to do and it’s my job to do so. ... I will talk to the University’s General Council about the process and what I do with it because ... I’m duty - bound to consider this properly and thoroughly, and will do so ... [my emphasis in bold ] I can’t tell you now what action I will take, but one way or another I will look at it, take it seriously, and ensure that the University does the right thing with the evidence that you’ve presented ... [my emphasis in bold ] I will take this seriously, it’s very serious allegations that you’re making. ... I can tell you that I will take this very seriously, I will read it, and I’ll talk to our General Council about how we progress some form of activity in relation to this, maybe an investigatory panel ... [my emphasis in bold ] ... We will take it seriously. ... I’m not going to stick it in my bottom drawer and forget about it, I can tell you that.’ In your letter to me of 23 August 2023 you state that after our meeting it became clear to you that my ‘ submission ’ ( which , to clarify, is a disclosure made under the PIDA Act ) was one which ‘went beyond the terms of the University’s whistleblowing policy’. I disagree with your determination; my allegations fall entirely under the three parts of section 4 of the code outlined above: sections 4.3.ii, 4.3.iv, and 4.3.vi. These sections mirror those set out in the PIDA legislation. You further state that it is for a Government enquiry, and not the University, to determine whether the covid vaccines are ‘safe’. Again I disagree. My allegations are not related to the 3 Government or its enquiry, but are about the behaviour of senior members of the University’s sta ff who have very likely broken the law : they recommended repeat injections without any qualification to do so; these same injections they knew at the time of their recommendation to be dangerous. Furthermore, ‘Get vaccinated’, the key phrase used in the University’s campaign, is not advice; it is an instruction, and it was given repeatedly to thousands of impressionable young students, as well as to all employees My disclosure was based entirely on facts, and I note that in your response you have not disputed any of those facts. Apparently, in the period since our meeting in March 2023, you have not brought my disclosure to the attention of the University Council , despite promising to do so. Y ou also state in your letter that : ‘You express the view that the University should not have communicated any public health information about the vaccine campaign to sta ff or students’. This is incorrect; at no time did I express this view. At the end of your letter , after again referring to the Government enquiry, you state that there is no further action which it is possible for you to take. I reject this conclusion entirely. With respect, it seems that you have misunderstood the nature and seriousness of the allegations that I made , and you appear also to have misunderstood how the Public Interest Disclosure Act operates, what your own obligations are under this legislation, and also what your common law obligations ar e , having read my disclosure document in ful l I remind you that common law applies at all times, to everyone , equally Just as I was obliged, morally and legally, to make my disclosure to you, so too are you morally and legally obliged to investigate it , as you promised to do. So too is anyone else on the University’s sta ff so obliged, if they have read my disclosure document. Therefore , I consider that this matter remains open, and I repeat my request to you to arrange a full investigation of all aspects of the disclosure that I made , as the law requires. Only after an investigation is completed and its finding s made public will I consider this matter closed. An investigatory panel organised with the help of the University Council, an idea to which you referred in our meeting, would seem the obvious way to begin. To recap, the main allegations in my disclosure are as follows. I have numbered them to assist you in your investigation : 1. In recommending multiple doses of covid - 19 vaccines for sta ff and students, the University behaved unethically and committed moral and legal wrongdoing (malpractice). 2. The University failed to communicate to its sta ff and students vital information about known risks and harms of the covid 19 vaccines, including data on serious adverse reactions including death , which it had in its possession from June 2021 onwards This data came from o ffi cial Government sources including the Yellow Card system , from expert reports and from published scientific papers; these data and sources were sent many times to senior members of sta ff in 2021 and 2022 4 3. With respect to the University’s ‘ G et V accinated’ campaign and messaging in 2021 and 2022, the University failed to consider or explain individual risks/benefits, failed to consider or explain individual informed consent, failed to consider or explain what the available alternative treatments were, and failed to communicate data about the consistently very low infection fatality rate (IFR) of the alleged illness ( any risk was always negligible for al most everyone ) The University had all of this information in its possession at the time of the campaign. 4. The vaccines employ novel technologies, and no medium - or long - term safety data was available, therefore in recommending repeated injection s w i th these products the University failed to apply the precautionary principle. 5. In making medical recommendations to all members of the University to ‘Get Vaccinated ’ and urging all teaching sta ff to recommend covid - 19 vaccination to colleagues and students, including during class time, University sta ff including teaching sta ff were practising medicine without medical qualifications or medical licences 6. The University repeatedly recommended products from two pharmaceutical companies (AstraZeneca and Pfizer) with which it maintains close financial ties but which have extensive criminal records for fraud, corruption, bribery, racketeering and criminal marketing. These criminal records are a matter of public record and senior members of the University ’s sta ff were aware of them at the time of the campaign. The University did not mention its close relationships with those companies or those companies’ extensiv e criminal records in its ‘ G et V accinated’ messaging. 7. As a consequence of its recommendations and omissions, the University may have caused lasting physical harm to its sta ff and students. I trust that you will now treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves (a seriousness which you acknowledged in our meeting , as evidenced above ) and carry out the investigation that the law requires you to do. I trust also that you will make the results public once the investigation is complete I look forward to hearing from you again , either by email or by post. With sincere best wishes,