"Covid-19" and the Attack on Bodily Autonomy

I am publishing sections of “Covid-19,’“ Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy, Volume 2, in advance on my website.

In what follows, I consider further the nature of the obedience training that was carried out against the public, this time through the lens of the attack on bodily autonomy.

Surrendering Bodily Autonomy as Submission to the State

Denis Rancourt made the following astute observation in January 2022:

To agree to have the state inject a substance into your body, to agree to have the state to restrict your breathing, this is a high level of submission, and they want that because they don’t want independent thinkers. They don’t want people resisting in any way, […] and therefore they want to train you like they would train any animal to accept in a very submissive way. (Rancourt, 2022)

I have written previously about how the ruling classes see the masses as mere animals, to be managed like livestock (Hughes, 2024c).

Rancourt’s remarks add a new twist, however. Thinking of people as animals is not merely a ruling class conceit. Rather, treating people like animals by putting them through assorted forms of obedience training is a psychological warfare mechanism intended to induce submission at a deep level. For

Once you invest to that degree with your own body and you’ve been wearing a mask for months and months and months, and telling others and glaring at them when they don’t wear a mask, you’re really part of that. You’re ingrained into that at the deepest psychological level. You have bought into it. You invested personally in it, and that’s what they want. That’s why vaccination is so important to them. They want complete submission. (Rancourt, 2022)

Attacking bodily sovereignty, and with it human dignity, was a core component of the “Covid-19” operation. In many ways, it marked the extension of unnecessary invasive procedures introduced at airports after the “9/11” false flag (Corbett, 2019).

As the CIA torture manuals note, inmates are “given a thorough medical examination, including all body cavities, by the facility doctor or nurse” (CIA, 1983, §F-4). To the extent that all of society was “locked down” (a prison term) in 2020 and told to submit to invasive medical testing, and with the global digital gulag now at an advanced stage of construction, the increasing treatment of everyone as a potential criminal is clear enough to see.

The medical infringements during “Covid” began with swab testing, were escalated via mask mandates, and culminated in repeat injections for those who consented to them.

Swab Testing

PCR Tests

PCR swab testing, conducted en masse, was a physically invasive and unpleasant procedure involving a six-inch swab being stuck up the nasal cavity. As Bill Gates knew full well,

If you’ve ever had one of the nasopharyngeal tests, you know how uncomfortable they are — and how they can make you cough or sneeze, which is bad news with a respiratory virus like COVID-19 because it increases risks to healthcare workers. With any luck, the days of the jam-a-stick-to-the-back-of-your-throat COVID-19 test will soon be over. (Gates, 2020)

This begs the question: why use invasive tests at all? As retired senior registered nurse Debi Evans asked, why not use sputum, urine, or stool tests instead? (Gerrish & Evans, 2021). The authorities admitted that “In children, viral loads from saliva correlated better with clinical outcomes than viral loads from nasopharyngeal swabs” (DHS Science and Technology Directorate, 2021, p. 9). Gates (2020) pointed to a new test that could be done by swabbing the tip of the nose.

Given all the money spent (£37 billion on the NHS “Test and Trace” scheme alone over two years), would not a breathalyser-type test have been possible? According to official sources, aerosol detection devices were capable of “identifying SARS-CoV-2 in the air” and could test for exhaled breath condensate (DHS Science and Technology Directorate, 2021, p. 9). Seeing that “asymptomatic” people could allegedly transmit the virus simply by breathing in someone else’s vicinity, it seems odd that an invasive swab test was supposedly needed to find it.

Those who had supposedly had “Covid-19” in the past were in principle immune and should not have required PCR testing if they could demonstrate immunity via an antibody test that could be delivered by pricking a fingertip. Despite requiring a puncturing of the skin, this was less invasive, and less dangerous, than having a PCR swab inserted into the centre of one’s head.

By mid-October 2020 in the UK, only 4.6% (1,826,789) out of 39,480,052 tests administered in total were antibody tests (Department of Health & Social Care, 2020, Table 5A). Granted, the antibody tests did not test for a live infection, and there was nothing to prove that antibodies detected implied immunity to “SARS-Cov-2” (Cowan, 2023). Nevertheless, the antibody tests did very little to reduce the invasive nature of the PCR testing while the WHO (2020) implored all governments to “test, test, test.”

As argued in Volume 1, the PCR test was unfit for purpose, should not have been used to diagnose disease (especially among asymptomatic people), and was run at too high cycle thresholds to have any chance of being reliable (Hughes, 2024a, pp. 138-142).

In the UK, the testing regime was badly flawed, even on its own terms. A National Audit Office analysis in December 2020 found that too few test results were delivered within 24 hours and too few contacts of “infected” people were told to self-isolate (National Audit Office, 2020; Woodcock, 2021).

If only 1-7% of “SARS-CoV-2” positive tests came from asymptomatic people (as Figure 12 of the weekly UK National Influenza and COVID-19 Surveillance Report consistently showed [e.g., Public Health England, 2021]), and if some (conceivably all) of those were false positives, then only a small percentage of people with no symptoms were potential spreaders — certainly not enough to drive an epidemic, as NIH Director Anthony Fauci had recognised in January 2020 (cited in Ballan, 2021). The vast majority must have been healthy.

In sum, the medical rationale for mass nasopharyngeal testing was suspect. The real reasons must have had to do with other factors, such as fear creation and faking a “pandemic” (Hughes, 2024a, pp. 138-142), covert DNA harvesting (Hughes, 2024b, pp. 30-32), and obedience training through use of physically invasive measures.

Lateral Flow Tests

In 2021, lateral flow tests were introduced that did not require deep nasopharyngeal swabbing, but rather swabbing of the anterior nasal (front of the nose) or mid-turbinate (mid-nose) regions. Unlike PCR tests, which had to be sent to a lab, lateral flow tests could be entirely self-administered.

Between April 2021 and March 2022, lateral flow tests were made freely available to everyone in England and immediately became more widely used than PCR tests: they accounted for an estimated 67%-83% of all tests administered during that period (UKHSA, 2023).

Lateral flow tests were considered “minimally invasive” but could still feel uncomfortable or awkward. Like PCR tests, albeit in milder form, they represented a form of compliance training in which citizens were expected to consent to certain forms of physical discomfort or inconvenience.

On January 4, 2022, the UK Government claimed to have identified 100,000 critical workers whom it wanted to take daily lateral flow tests (Clarke & Clayton, 2021). This coincided with media fear mongering that 200,000 cases had been reported in a single day for the first time (simply because of a backlog generated over the Christmas and New Year period).

Five days later, however, the urgency evaporated when it was announced that free lateral flow tests would be scrapped within weeks, apart from in “high risk” settings such as hospitals and care homes (Wheeler et al., 2022). Given doubts over the very existence of “SARS-CoV-2” (Hughes, 2024a, pp. 228-236), it is questionable whether any of the testing was ever really needed.

Indeed, a key benefit of the testing, from the authorities’ perspective, was that it promoted behaviour change and compliance with “government guidelines”:

widescale testing was having the public health benefit of changing people’s behaviours even if they did not register their test results officially and [furthermore] the failure to register test results is not an indication that an individual will not follow the behaviours advised in COVID-19 guidance. (UKHSA, 2023)

Perhaps obedience training was the true reason £36.4 billion was allocated for NHS Test and Trace (National Audit Office, 2023), which otherwise proved a colossal waste of money.

Face Masks as Muzzles

The face mask is often referred to by critics as a “muzzle” for the way in which it covers the nose and mouth like a dog muzzle. Hopkins (2022) described the FFP2 (Filtering Face Pieces) mask as a “doggy-snout mask” for its appearance.

Although its alleged purpose is different from that of a muzzle, there is something profoundly unnatural about both the muzzle and the mask mandate, with each representing a forced imposition — by the master in the case of the dog, or by the “authorities” in the case of the people.

Dogs may not be able to remove their muzzles in the same way that humans can in principle take off their masks. However, in many situations people felt coerced to wear a face mask, often for long periods, e.g. because employers or social norms expected it (cf. Hughes, 2024a, pp. 88-89).

Thus, masks formed a key part of human obedience training: they “put us in a state of humiliation, like dogs not trusted off our leads” (Wright, 2020). Being forced to act irrationally is an affront against human dignity, an attack on the faculty of reason that distinguishes human beings from animals (Hertzberg, 2021).

Face masks were an infringement upon bodily autonomy, because they covered the airways and restricted the supply of oxygen to the lungs. This set a precedent, as it did during the “Spanish flu” a century earlier, when

Civil libertarians, whose sensitivity on the subject of tyranny exceeded their fear of flu, agreed: “If the Board of Health can force people to wear masks, then it can force them to submit to inoculation, or any experiment or indignity.” (cited in Crosby, 2003, p. 109)

Similarly, one of many evil purposes of face masks in 2020/2021 was to condition populations to accept indignities and be willing to receive injections.

“Vaccination”

The false promise of taking a single “vaccine” — an even more invasive medical intervention — to become immune to “Covid-19,” and so not be subjected to regular testing, must have seemed appealing to many people.

Indeed, testing was always presented as the precursor to “vaccination.” To quote Schwab and Malleret (2020, p. 112), “It will be very hard to fight COVID-19 without an effective treatment or a vaccine and, until then, the most effective way to curtail or stop transmission of the virus is by widespread testing.”

As it turned out, however, “vaccination” did not mean taking one shot (as per the “flu shot”). Rather, it meant taking two. From the beginning, moreover, the “Covid-19 vaccines” guaranteed neither protection against infection nor reduced transmission needed to confer a public health benefit. They were merely meant to alleviate symptoms, like treatments or drugs. At worst, they conferred no measurable benefit but, rather, toxicity from first principles (Doctors For Covid Ethics, 2023).

Nor was “vaccination” restricted to specific groups, as was originally promised by Kate Bingham, the head of the UK’s “vaccine task force,” on October 5, 2020: “It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable” (cited in Ackerman, 2020).

Instead, the “vaccines” were systematically rolled out to as many people as possible, working their way down the age groups despite the under-70s statistically being at almost no risk of death from “Covid-19” (Ioannidis, 2021; Pezullo et al., 2023). Children were at almost no risk of contracting “Covid-19” or spreading the virus, yet the “vaccine” was offered to them, too, for no good reason (Hughes, 2022).

“Vaccination” did not stop testing and mask wearing. As the WHO (2021b, p. 4) noted on April 13, 2021, “Because no vaccine is 100% effective, standard infection prevention and control precautions, which includes masks but also a number of other standard precautions, should be used to minimize risk.”

UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock stated on April 9, 2021, that

Alongside the successful roll-out of the vaccination programme, rapid testing will be one of our most effective weapons in tackling this virus and ensuring we can cautiously reopen our economy and parts of society that we have all missed. (Department of Health & Social Care, 2021)

So, for those who consented to them, the invasive procedures did not let up. Testing, masking, injections, more testing.

Then, it turned out that “vaccine” efficacy “waned.” The human immune system was likened to a battery needing to be recharged. So-called “booster” shots were rolled out, implying that the original “vaccines” had not worked. It was another compliance test. How many people would be willing to take a third “vaccine” that demonstrably did not confer immunity and had failed the first two times? Some people took more than three, and many of them still complained about getting “Covid-19.”

The Threat of Mandatory “Vaccination”

“Social distancing” led to testing and mask wearing, which led to “vaccination.”

Had governments tried to coerce citizens to surrender their bodily autonomy to the state in February 2020, there would have been massive public resistance. But gradually, in a premeditated fashion, the public was habituated to a new, less free, and more compliant way of life.

By the autumn of 2021 in the UK, “three weeks to flatten the curve” had, following three national “lockdowns,” become “three jabs to save your job” for care home workers, plus plans to mandate “vaccination” for NHS workers, as well as the promise of “booster shots” multiple times a year.

Israel announced that its vaccine pass would expire six months after the second dose, effectively rendering participation in everyday life contingent upon routine submission to injection (Guenot, 2021b).

In the United States, “Covid-19 vaccination” was mandated for service members (Vergun, 2021), meaning that those in the military were maximally compliant. There were also “vaccine” mandates for federal government employees and contractors, healthcare workers (specifically those working in facilities receiving Medicare or Medicaid funding), and state and local government workers (varying by jurisdiction). Some private employers also insisted upon “vaccination” as a condition of employment.

Mandatory “vaccination” for some, plus the threat of mandatory “vaccination” for others, meant that the threat of universal mandatory “vaccination,” in egregious violation of the Nuremberg Code, was palpable.

Future “Vaccine” Dangers

The “Covid-19” operation was unexpectedly wound down in early 2022, and “vaccine” mandates subsequently disappeared (the one for the US military, for instance, was rescinded in 2023).

Nevertheless, a major concern is that the “Covid-19 vaccines” set a precedent (Corbett, 2021, 17:00). Regardless of what was actually in this or that particular injection, and regardless of the extent of the harms caused, the groundwork was lain for mandating future medical interventions that may or may not contain mRNA technology.

The precedent that was set around “vaccination” was clearly aimed at reducing the time needed to bring an immunological product to market — on average, eight-and-a-half years, with Phase III vaccine trials alone typically taking three years (Getz, 2020) — to as little time as possible.

The concept had already been mooted at the Milken Institute’s Future of Health Summit in late October 2019. According to BARDA director Rick Bright,

It is not too crazy to think that an outbreak of a novel avian virus could occur in China somewhere, we could get the RNA sequence from that, beam it to a number of regional centres, if not local, if not even in your home at some point, and print those vaccines on a patch and self-administer. (“Fauci and Bright,” 2019)

This, Bright claimed, represented a “futuristic view of a rapid response to an emerging novel threat.”

Or, it could be seen as a pretext for getting substances of an unknown nature into the bodies of the population with minimal delay, which would be highly expedient for a militarised transhumanist agenda (cf. Johnson, 2024).

GAVI ran a series of articles between March and May 2021 on candidates for the “next pandemic.” In June, the final article in the series was titled, “Speeding up vaccine development: Can we go from lab to jab in just 100 days?” (CEPI, 2021). Only four days later, the G7 (2021) announced its “100 Day Mission to respond to future pandemic threats,” which involved “making diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines available within 100 days.”

As it turned out, there was no need to identify a real disease to legitimise the “100 days” concept. A purely hypothetical disease, known as “Disease X,” would suffice. First coined by the WHO in 2018, “Disease X” was widely promulgated in the legacy media in 2021 and 2022 (e.g., Grealish, 2022).

Professor Dame Sarah Gilbert, who was behind the Oxford AstraZeneca “vaccine,” called for the “vaccine” for “Disease X” to be ready in 100 days (Moore, 2022). The next day, Health Secretary Sajid Javid (2022) declared that the UK had committed £160 million to CEPI’s “#100DaysMission.”

The intent is, thus, perfectly clear: namely, to abandon models of “vaccine” and other pharmaceutical development that require long-term safety testing and to replace them with a new model that requires very little, if any, safety testing. The public will be given no time to think and will simply be expected to take whatever “medicine” it is being coerced and cajoled to take.

In stark contravention of the most fundamental principles of medical ethics, entire populations will thereby appear as guinea pigs for the latest inventions of the military-pharmaceutical complex.

Should such products be universally mandated, the Nuremberg Code, which was a response to Nazi medical experiments, will be rendered redundant. As Davis (2020) puts it, “You will have no autonomy over your own body, which will be owned by the State, and you will ‘officially’ be a slave.”

At that point, anything becomes possible, including forced drugs and medical experiments, mandatory sterilisation, and involuntary euthanasia (i.e., murder by the state). All of society will have been transformed into a giant concentration camp (Hughes, 2025).

It is, therefore, imperative that the training of the population like animals to accept whatever “medical” interventions the state wants to make is recognised and challenged. The right to bodily sovereignty is a core pillar of a free society, and it must not be allowed to be eroded through nefarious psychological operations played upon the public.

References

Ackerman, N. (2020, October 5). Coronavirus vaccine will be given to less than half the UK population, task force chief says. Evening Standard. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-vaccine-less-half-uk-a4563396.html.

Ballan, A. (2021, July 15). Covid—start at the beginning and question everything. TCW. https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/covid-start-at-the-beginning-and-question-everything/.

Central Intelligence Agency. (1983). Human resource exploitation training manual. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/#hre.

CEPI. (2021, June 8). Speeding up vaccine development: Can we go from lab to jab in just 100 days? https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/why-world-set-getting-next-pandemic-vaccine-out-just-100-days.

Clarke, J., & Clayton, C. (2022, January 4). As-it-happened: PM warns of challenging weeks, as cases top 200k. BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-59865257.

Corbett, J. (2019). The TSA (and other experiments in evil). The Corbett Report. https://corbettreport.com/the-tsa-and-other-experiments-in-evil/.

Corbett, J. (2021, June 7). Interview 1647 – James Corbett presents to the Corona Investigative Committee. The Corbett Report. https://corbettreport.com/interview-1647-james-corbett-presents-to-the-corona-investigative-committee/.

Cowan, T. (2023, June 10). Circulating spike protein? [Video]. Odysee. https://odysee.com/@shortXXvids:e/Dr-Tom-Cowan---SP-Issues--3,-Circulating-SPs:1?r=FABHJRisWD1S4JYWmGeKjZit5KmmZfyX.

Crosby, A.W. (2003). America’s forgotten pandemic: The influenza of 1918, second edition. Cambridge University Press.

Davis, I. (2020, July 22). We must inoculate ourselves against the crazy anti-rationalists. https://iaindavis.com/anti-rationalist/.

Department of Health & Social Care. (2020). Weekly statistics for NHS Test and Trace (England) and coronavirus testing (UK): 12 November to 18 November. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-test-and-trace-england-and-coronavirus-testing-uk-statistics-12-november-to-18-november/nhs-test-and-trace-england-and-coronavirus-testing-uk-statistics-12-november-to-18-november.

Department of Health & Social Care. (2021, April 9). New campaign urges public to get tested twice a week. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-campaign-urges-public-to-get-tested-twice-a-week.

DHS Science and Technology Directorate. (2021). Master question list for covid-19 (caused by SARS-CoV-2) weekly report, 23 February 2021. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mql_sars-cov-2_-_cleared_for_ public_release_20210223.pdf.

Doctors for Covid Ethics. (2023). mRNA vaccine toxicity. https://doctors4covidethics.org/mrna-vaccine-toxicity/.

Fauci & Bright — Universal flu vax scenario for mRNA vax & COVID. (2019, October 27). C-SPAN. https://www.c-span.org/clip/public-affairs-event/user-clip-fauci--bright-universal-flu-vax-scenario-for-mrna-vax--covid/4980377.

G7. (2021). 100 day mission to respond to future pandemic threats. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/992762/100_Days_Mission_to_respond_to_future_pandemic_threats__3_.pdf.

Gates, B. (2020, December 22). These breakthroughs will make 2021 better than 2020. Gates Notes. https://web.archive.org/web/20210202002046/https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Year-in-Review-2020.

Gerrish, B., & Evans, D. (2021, February 11). No smoke without fire Part 0: Covid-19 and the RiO gulag. UK Column. https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/no-smoke-without-fire-covid-19-and-rio-gulag.

Getz, K. (2020, September 7). Applying pre-pandemic benchmarks to assess future speed strategies. Applied Clinical Trials. https://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/view/applying-pre-pandemic-benchmarks-to-assess-future-speed-strategies.

Grealish, S. (2022, June 26). NEXT COVID: New Disease X could arrive in Britain any day as expert warns of signs ‘major’ outbreak ‘on the horizon.’ The Sun. https://www.thesun.co.uk/health/19004331/new-disease-x-arrive-britain-any-day/.

Guenot, M. (2021, September 1). Israel’s vaccine pass will expire 6 months after the 2nd dose, meaning people will need booster shots to keep going to restaurants and bars. Business Insider Australia. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/israel-vaccine-pass-to-expire-after-6-months-booster-shots-2021-9.

Hertzberg, A. (2021, December 27). Facemasks are not a mere “inconvenience.” The Brownstone Institute. https://brownstone.org/articles/facema sks-are-not-a-mere-inconvenience/.

Hopkins, C.J. (2022, August 6). The “unvaccinated” question (revisited). Consent Factory. https://consentfactory.org/2022/08/06/the-unvaccinated-question-revisited/.

Hughes, D.A. (2024a). “Covid-19,” psychological operations, and the war for technocracy. Palgrave Macmillan.

Hughes, D.A. (2024b). Wall Street, the Nazis, and the crimes of the deep state. Skyhorse.

Hughes, D.A. (2024c). Managing the Herd. https://davidahughes.net/managing-the-herd/.

Hughes, D.A. (2025). On avoiding the biodigital concentration camp. https://davidahughes.net/ghost/#/editor/post/69499500a3cc9200b0b28a38.

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2021). Infection fatality rate of Covid-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 99, 19–33. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.20.265892.

Javid, S. (2022, March 9). More than $1.5bn has now been pledged to @CEPIvaccines - which is staggering news. The UK has committed £160m to the #100DaysMission [Tweet]. Twitter.

Johnson, L. (2024, September 21). Transhumanism and Covid-19: Military Operations in Civilian Disguise? https://davidahughes.net/lissa-johnson-transhumanism-and-covid/.

Moore, T. (2022, March 9). World must roll out jab for next pandemic virus in just 100 days, scientist behind Oxford COVID vaccine says. Sky News. https://news.sky.com/story/world-must-roll-out-jab-for-next-pandemic-virus-in-just-100-days-scientist-behind-oxford-covid-vaccine-says-12560169.

National Audit Office. (2020, December 11). The government’s approach to test and trace in England – interim report. https://www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/the-governments-approach-to-test-and-trace-in-england-interim-report/.

National Audit Office. (2023, June 23). NHS COVID-19 APP. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/FOI-1624.pdf.

Pezzullo, A. M., Axfors, C., Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G., Apostolatos, A., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2023). Age-stratified infection fatality rate of Covid-19 in the non-elderly population. Environmental Research, 216(3), Article 114655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.114655.

Public Health England. (2021). Weekly national influenza and Covid-19 surveillance report, Week 8. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/964754/Weekly_Flu_and_COVID-19_report_w8.pdf.

Rancourt, D. (2022, January 22) COVID-19 is a war measure for population control in shadow of US-China conflict. Geopolitics and Empire. https://denisrancourt.ca/uploads_entries/1642863538923_Denis%20Rancourt%20COVID19%20is%20a%20War%20Measure%20for%20Population%20Control%20in%20Shadow%20of%20US-China%20Conflict--3d.pdf.

Schwab, K., & Malleret, T. (2020). Covid 19: The Great Reset. World Economic Forum.

UK Health Security Agency. (2023). COVID-19: general public testing behaviours. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lfd-tests-how-and-why-they-were-used-during-the-pandemic/covid-19-general-public-testing-behaviours#:~:text=A%20total%20277.86%20million%20LFD,February%20to%2028%20March%202022).

Vergun, D. (2021, August 25). Secretary of Defense mandates COVID-19 vaccinations for service members. US Army. https://www.army.mil/article/249720/secretary_of_defense_mandates_covid_19_vaccinations_for_service_members.

Wheeler, C., Calver, T., & Smyth, C. (2022, January 9). End of free lateral flow tests as country told to live with Covid. The Sunday Times. https://web.archive.org/web/20250830174955/https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/end-of-free-lateral-flow-tests-as-country-told-to-live-with-covid-3bpz8lnqf.

Woodcock, A. (2021, March 10). Scathing report blasts “unimaginable” £37bn cost of coronavirus test and trace system. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-test-trace-dido-harding-report-b1814714.html.

World Health Organization. (2020). Behavioural considerations for acceptance and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines: WHO Technical Advisory Group on Behavioural Insights and Sciences For Health, Meeting Report, 15 October 2020. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/337335/9789240016927-eng.pdf.

Wright, R. (2020, June 23). Saving face. The Critic. https://thecritic.co.uk/saving-face/.

Support My Work

If you valued this content and are not a paid subscriber, please consider leaving a one-off tip for an amount of your choosing.

If you would like to make a one-off or recurring donation to help fund my work in general, I would be most grateful. There are numerous ways of doing so.

If you have not done so already, please consider taking out a subscription or upgrading an existing one.