Archive | Business/Economy/Banking


British American Insurance Co. Ltd. – BACOL – (update)

Posted in Advertisements, Business/Economy/Banking, CARICOM, Classified, Local, News, OECS0 Comments


BACOL speaks – Are you a policyholder? It’s about British American Insurance Co. Ltd.

Watch and be guided:

Posted in Advertisements, Business/Economy/Banking, CARICOM, Court, Featured, Legal, Local, News, OECS0 Comments


BACOL – Justice within reach

Posted in Advertisements, Business/Economy/Banking, Featured, International, Legal, Legal Notices, Local, News, OECS, Regional0 Comments


Invitation to Join Legal Action

Posted in Advertisements, Business/Economy/Banking, CARICOM, Classified, International, Legal, Legal Notices, Local, Regional0 Comments


BACOL Announces Launch of Judicial Campaign for Financial Justice for OECS BRITISH AMERICAN (BAICO) POLICYHOLDERS

British American Insurance Company Limited and Colonial Life Insurance Company Limited Policy Holders Group (BACOL)

BACOL is inviting Policyholders of the collapsed British American Insurance Company Ltd (BAICO) to register and be a part of a lawsuit that will be presented to the CCJ. Many of these policyholders (particularly in the OECS) have lost their entire life savings and BACOL is seeking fair and just financial compensation.

A Zoom town hall meeting for Policyholders in Antigua and Barbuda, St. Lucia, and Montserrat is scheduled for Thursday, July 29, 2021, at 6.30 pm.

The following release precedes this zoom meeting:

St. George, Grenada.
July 28th, 2021


  • Legal Action filed at Caribbean Court of Justice
  • Compensation sought from Trinidad and Tobago
  • Legal Action taken on behalf of Policyholders in OECS Countries
  • Treaty of Chaguaramas cited as basis of lawsuit.

BACOL will host an online town hall meeting today Thursday, July 29th at 6:30 p.m. to apprise policyholders of the legal action at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), seeking fair and equitable compensation for all policyholders of the collapsed British American Insurance Company Ltd (BAICO), and their beneficiaries.

Tonight’s town hall meeting will be addressed by BACOL President, Dr. Patrick Antoine, and the legal team, comprised of Mr. Simon Davenport, Q.C., and Mr. Gregory Pantin.

Registration of policyholders wishing to join the class action is already underway.  Policyholders in Montserrat may register with Kharl Markham of the firm Allen Markham and Associates.

The quest for financial justice for Policyholders of BAICO began, with the filing of a legal action at the Caribbean Court of Justice on July 13th, 2021, in pursuit of fair and equitable compensation from the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.

BACOL, on behalf of its members, has caused the jurisdiction of the CCJ to be invoked, with a view to receiving full compensation on par with that awarded to British American Policyholders from Trinidad and Tobago.

The filing of the lawsuit is a culmination of painstaking work, and a long journey that began with the formation of BACOL, after it emerged that following the collapse of the insurance company, British American policyholders in the OECS would not be offered compensation on par with that awarded to policyholders from Trinidad and Tobago.

BACOL is inviting Policyholders of the collapsed British American Insurance Company Ltd (BAICO) to register and be a part of a lawsuit that will be presented to the CCJ. Many of these policyholders (particularly in the OECS) have lost their entire life savings and BACOL is seeking fair and just financial compensation.

A Zoom town hall meeting for Policyholders in Antigua and Barbuda, St. Lucia, and Montserrat is scheduled for Thursday, July 29, 2021, at 6.30 pm.

For further information: Call (WhatsApp only) +1 784 491-2813 (SVG), +1 473 405-2225 (Grenada), +1 868 291-4082 (Trinidad & Tobago) or visit

Posted in Advertisements, Business/Economy/Banking, CARICOM, International, Local, News, OECS, Regional0 Comments


We need to know the true state of our economy

Contribution – Part 117 (DOD ‘21 # 11)

How can we make a proper, strongly supported case for economic relief unless we understand where our economy is?

BRADES, Montserrat, July 8, 2021 –  On June 17, 2021, Hon Premier Easton Taylor Farrell presented our annual budget, which had been delayed in part due to the need for a poverty assessment due for May.  However, during his speech, the Premier did not give us specific statistics on poverty. Indeed, while he gave us economic growth rate figures for the world and for the UK as well as the EC region, he did not do so for Montserrat. Such an omission is likely to be significant (as we have been battered by both a volcano crisis and now a pandemic), and there is a public need and right to know what the state of our economy is. It may be bad, but it is the base on which we must build to achieve a brighter future.

SOURCES, ECCB Reports, Labour survey; Budget speech and radio remarks

Accordingly, once we could find figures at ECCB and once we heard hints from the budget debate and on a subsequent Opposition programme on Tuesday, July 6, we think it is important to share what we found.

The figures, reflecting the pandemic riding on top of twenty-six years of volcano crisis, are – as expected – less than happy reading.

However, we must emphasise: it was the duty of the presenters of the budget, to be frank with the public about our economic performance. If that is not done consistently, astute investors will begin to “read between the lines,” drawing prudent conclusions from what is not said, and not to our advantage.  Others will take their cues from what the smart money players are doing – “signalling” – and business confidence, for cause, will collapse.

Instead, let us face the numbers, again recognising the impact of many years of volcano crisis and the added blow from the pandemic. Then, let us look at how the CIPREG projects approved in 2019 after years of effort to make the case are likely to help to turn the tide.  For, the UK’s confidence to invest in key growth-driving infrastructure is a very good long term signal for Montserrat. Yes, it’s been long, it’s been rough, but we are coming back, better than ever.

A point of surprise (given much talk of a “dead, dead, dead” economy) is that by 2019, the economy was already growing at a 6 – 7% clip. Where, yes, our local economic model runs about 1½% hotter than ECCB’s. But the two models agree that there was about a 14% adverse swing in growth due to the pandemic hit. For further example, low construction activity readily accounts for the high unemployment rate for men. We should note, though, that construction is not that much larger than the much bemoaned agricultural sector (usually pegged at 2 – 3% of GDP); that means, we should not write off agriculture’s potential to help make a difference to growth. Likewise, tourist arrivals, pre-pandemic, were well along the way to the sort of goals that were suggested by planners a decade or so ago. There is obvious room for growth, with tourism as a first growth driver. Close behind, are digitalisation and Geothermal Energy. But we should not overlook agriculture and other possibilities such as light manufacturing (bottled water for example) or even educational tourism.

The linked concern is, how hard the pandemic and lack of a sustained stimulus have hit struggling businesses, families facing income losses or gaps and our financial institutions with a one-two punch combo.  Let us see what we can do to help businesses and people who look to construction, tourism and the like. Of course, the cloud, that given a volcano crisis weakened economy the Civil Service is about half of employment, has the silver lining that the steady income probably cushioned some of the additional blows. But, we want growth, and growth led by the private sector.

That noted, the growth rate for 2019 also suggests that CIPREG should lay a basis for sustained, accelerated growth.  Is there need to mention, in a pandemic world, that a solid hospital is a key enabler for growth? That, in a digital age, solid education with good exposure to key technologies is another key enabler? That we will need training for the hospitality industry? That workers need somewhere to live? That public transport is important, as is access? Have we forgotten how many ways the ferry enabled the small business sector and facilitated travel for so many of us? That this last issue will be the subject of serious if not urgent review as to the motives and beneficial consequences for the disablement?

The high youth unemployment rate is of particular concern, and easily explains the problem of an annual emigration of graduates from our secondary school. We need growth sectors to draw in our youth and give hope for the future. That is in part, what CIPREG is about.

All of this, then draws attention to the missing stimulus.

Yes, missing. Montserrat is probably comparable to a small rural town in England or Wales. With something like £300 billion in pandemic stimulus on the cards, there was no good reason why we should not have had a much more significant intervention, given our pre-existing volcano-ravaged economy. Yes, CIPREG is important, but it is a medium-to-long-term measure. Bridging support is manifestly needed.

The UK acknowledges the legal force of the UN Charter, Article 73, so it should be feasible to negotiate for such a support package; those who tried to deride, dismiss and mock the relevance of this Charter have done us no favours. Let us now re-think and act on this key high card for negotiations. Yes, the UK is legally bound to promote constructive measures of development and to ensure our economic, educational, social and political advancement while respecting our culture.

For those negotiations, the UK’s own domestic support is an obvious yardstick, and social housing, road development and support to businesses and those facing hardships would be logical targets. Similarly, this is the time to make the point that we need to have a proper port development, with a breakwater. Not least, the UK’s domestic pandemic package shows that they know that in the face of a blow like this, failing to inject significant support would only enable a further economic down spiral. That holds for Montserrat, too, and so they must know that an inadequate aid intervention would predictably help to make matters worse. Especially, if it damages the capacity of our tourism sector. Our case for economic support is naturally quite strong. We must make it and we must show our capability and sound governance to build confidence that we can implement successfully.

Posted in Business/Economy/Banking, Columns, COVID-19, De Ole Dawg, Environment, Featured, Features, Local, News, Opinions, Regional, Youth0 Comments


It is not different from forcing mandatory vaccination

UK Health Secretary Sajid Javid

Playing the game! But we can’t say that the BOT Montserrat understands it. That begs the question, “Do the Government continue to ‘mismanage’? The criticism from day one has been how poorly they have managed, criminalising guidelines, and the logistics surrounding them. A most recent press release claiming to have “expanded the categories of persons allowed to enter Montserrat, and have made provisions for the use of electronic monitoring devices under the new public health COVID-19 Suppression Order…, is no more than forcing people to take the vaccine.

The UK Daily Express carried that story today coming after the Government of Montserrat (GOM) announced that it was making laws in a similar fashion that has pressured in more ways than one, the people and visitors to Montserrat. The latest move in a hypocritical way appears to be opening up the island to ‘tourists’ and visitors and even to persons who own homes and others who are normally residents in Montserrat for periods during each year.

What is this thirst, this hang-up on ‘vaccination’ which as seen in the most recent of many stories and official announcements, that the vaccine does not guarantee one who has taken, the ‘jab’ or ‘jabs’ (more than one, three may even be required to improve efficacy, do not prevent the vaccinated from contracting or passing on the infection?

The Order requires that certain categories of persons visiting the island must be fully vaccinated in order to gain admission to the island. The previous rules such as testing when on the island may still be in place.

“The parent or sibling of a Montserratian…”

“The parent, sibling, husband, wife, child or dependant of a person who (i) holds a permit of permanent residence; (ii) ordinarily resides on Montserrat; or, (iii) who owns a habitable house or home in Montserrat.”  

“The parent, sibling, husband-wife, child or dependant of a professional person who has been engaged by an entity in the public or private sector.”

In each case these persons: “…must be fully vaccinated and intends to enter Montserrat no earlier than July 19, 2021 and leave Montserrat no later than September 30, 2021;”

They remind that the new Order also makes provisions for the use of an electronic monitoring device to better manage persons in self-quarantine. 

On the Daily Express website there is also an article which quotes a professor who is angry at PM Johnson for what is called “Freedom Day” when all COVID-19 restrictions are eased on Monday. “Professor Christina Pagel, professor of operational research at University College London (UCL), said: “I feel p****d off, sad and angry.

“We are having the wrong conversation. Opening up on Monday is madness. We should not be doing it.

“We should be talking about how do we get cases down now.”

TMR says they can ease the situation by offering those people who for one reason or another do access the vaccine advice and information on how to protect healthily against the virus and what treatment is available early should they contract or even suspect, infection.

The full referenced GoM press release may be found at:

Readers who wish to read more on the issues of mandatory vaccination and other reletative matters to how the COVID situation is handled, here and world-wide may find on this TMR site and at:

Posted in Business/Economy/Banking, COVID-19, Health, International, Local, News, Regional, TOURISM, Travel0 Comments


Seaport project woes

Contribution, Part 116 (‘21 # 09)

Have we cut down our CIPREG seaport project to inadequacy, by eliminating the breakwater component?

The proposed cut-down seaport development with a shortened jetty – yes, with no breakwater (so no ships can dock if “North Seas” decide to kick up some rough waves)

BRADES, Montserrat, July 8, 2021 –  In a presentation for the social/environmental impact assessment townhall meeting held on June 29th, the Montserrat public saw the “finalised” [?] cut-down, no-breakwater seaport development that is currently contemplated.  The obvious question, is whether we are again being forced to accept an inadequate, cut-down port project, similar to the bitter pill up in Geralds.

For, without a proper breakwater, it is obvious that we are back to the same problem of having to turn away ships when seas are rough that has plagued our current jetty. This has meant, for example, that tourist and cargo ships would have to turn back when seas become rough.

The proposed, cut-down seaport development, with a shortened jetty – yes, with no breakwater

Indeed, when the Port Project was officially launched on Friday, May 17, 2019, then Premier Donaldson Romeo noted that, 

“due to rough seas…out of a total of 478 calls [for 2018?], vessels were unable to berth 58 times…one vessel out of every eight had to turn back. “Yes, that is not sustainable. We had to fix the problem . . .”[1]

So, we may compare the proposed breakwater-based development at that time:

The originally proposed Sea Port development, as was publicised when the project was launched, May 17, 2019. Notice the then identified costing, which was later found to be faulty

Of course, we later heard that a Programme Management Office [PMO] review found that the cost of this general design was significantly low. While no detailed documentation or explanation of the under-costing has been given to the Montserrat public, officials in the know have suggested that the cost may have been double or more the £21.4 million identified in the chart issued on May 17, 2019. Something, that needs to be properly explained, as experienced consultants were used to developing the general design and so too to give its cost estimate. In that process, £14.4 million was found to be inadequate relative to needs and so £7 million more were transferred by the EU. Where, that obviously means our regional development bank, CDB, and the EU as well as DfID and GoM were involved in evaluating design and costs. What went wrong with the port costing, why, and why was it missed until a PMO review was undertaken? 

So, the immediate question is, are we being forced to accept another inadequate, economy-choking port? One, that will instantly cripple our tourism prospects? And if that is so, why is that being imposed now by FCDO?

After all, doesn’t the relevant clause of the legally binding UN Charter, Article 73[2] require the UK to “promote to the utmost . . . the well-being of the inhabitants of [non-self-governing] territories,” to “ensure . . . their political, economic, social, and educational advancement,” and to “promote constructive measures of development”?

In a day when, in response to pandemic, the UK will cumulatively invest over £ 300 billions in internal Covid-19 stimulus and where it spent some £300 millions on an airport for St Helena (promoted as a yardstick of what they were willing to invest), are we to seriously believe it cannot find a further £20 – 30 millions to fund an adequate sea port here? Especially, when apparently DfID, EU and CDB were all caught on the back foot (as well as GoM) on the initial costing? Is Montserrat’s vital first growth driver – tourism – to be held hostage to what seems to be a consultancy blunder?

Something, does not add up.

At minimum perhaps, we will indeed be forced to accept a grossly inadequate sea port to go with our coerced acceptance of an inadequate airport, with its far too short runway, in the wrong place.  This means that just as we have to bear in mind that Thatch Valley is the site to beat for a 5,000 foot, jet plane ready airport, Carrs Bay would be the reserved site for the “real” sea-port development, later on. But, economy-choking ports are going to make that future date shrink even further into the distant future.

Not good.

Far better would be to frankly face whatever errors led to a problem with costing, then seek a solution. Where, no, in a pandemic age we need an adequate hospital so, rob Peter to pay Paul won’t work. Nor can we continue to neglect the social housing challenge nor the needed upgrade to our only high school. Thank God, after a decade of struggle with a clearly reluctant DfID, we now have restored fibre optic digital access and Flow and Digicel are undertaking fibre to the home, school, office, and factory initiatives. Digitalisation is of course, our second obvious growth driver. Likewise, we have had 250 kW of Solar PV capacity installed, with 750 kW and 1 MWhr of storage being further added. Likewise, we are at least hearing talk of follow-up on geothermal energy. Geothermal, arguably, is our third growth driver.

While we are at it, those who were so busy denouncing the EC$ 200 millions of funded development initiatives as a deceitful election gimmick, have some explaining and public apologising to do. That includes – having already publicly dismissed the CIPREG, UKCIF, and EU initiatives and funding – presenting a 2021/22 budget where every capital initiative of consequence came from that derided EC$ 200 million. . . without even generically acknowledging the work of previous administrations in putting that funding in place.

Where, no, long-term development project funding is not a piggy bank to be raided at will and used to do whatever one wishes. Projects are specifically developed, justified, negotiated to obtain funding, then are implemented under close monitoring and audit. If something goes wrong, they can be terminated for cause. Public rhetoric that has suggested otherwise actually undermines confidence in our project governance capability and makes it even harder to negotiate for future projects.

[1] TMR

[2] See UN

Posted in Business/Economy/Banking, Columns, De Ole Dawg, Featured, Features, International, Local, Regional0 Comments


Of the silence of Budgets, DFID/FCDO Business Cases, FAM MoUs (and SDPs)

Contribution (Part 118 ‘21 # 12)

Is the near silence on the pandemic in the Budget Speech and the FAM MoU sending us a message?

Holmes in action, wearing the famous Deerstalker hat. Here, the issue was “the watchdog that didn’t bark” as the key, overlooked clue.  That applies, today, to what officials don’t say, and it applies to what the usual voices don’t say, too.

BRADES, Montserrat, July 8, 2021 –  Our Current Budget and Financial Aid Mission Memorandum of Understanding (FAM MoU), surprisingly, say very little about the pandemic and our urgent need for economic support and stimulus. Given that, at the same time, the UK likely will have spent North of £300 billion domestically on pandemic support and stimulus, something does not add up. So, it is time to look again at our planning and negotiating process, using MoU’s and Business Cases as windows to help us see what is going on behind closed doors. Then, we can make a more effective call for obviously, urgently needed change.

There is a famous Sherlock Holmes fictional detective case that was solved because of the dog that didn’t bark. As the dialogue in the short story, Silver Blaze,[1] puts it:

Inspector Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?
Holmes: To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.
Gregory: The dog did nothing in the nighttime.
Holmes: That was the curious incident.

That observation helped to solve the case.  Just so, taking due note of what politicians, officials, and other public voices don’t say, can give us big clues. This is an application of the famous investment principle, signaling behaviour.[2] (As in, actions – including strategic silence – often speaks more truly than words. However, one usually has to be well informed and insightful to be able to consistently read accurately from silence and other similar behaviours.)

Our first clue, is that the FAM MoU (despite repeated, timely requests) was only released after the budget debate. As a fair comment, this act by the Ministers responsible for the Budget robbed our elected representatives, the media, and the public alike of the chance to carefully examine the terms and conditions attached to budgetary aid. 

Already, that is beyond the pale of responsible behaviour.

Let us, instead, recognise that the people have a right to know what is in the FAM MoU (also, by extension, the 2019/22 Financial Aid Business Case,[3] which is included by reference in clause 1 of the MoU), and our elected representatives, who vote on the budget, have a duty to know. A responsible person does not sign up to a solemn agreement, without careful reading. In that context, clause 37 is interesting: “In line with the FCDO’s Transparency commitments, the Partner gives consent for this Arrangement (and any subsequent amendments) and associated funding to be published on FCDO’s website.”

Secondly, in the MoU, there is hardly a reference to the pandemic.  For key example, notice the obviously studious silence regarding the pandemic in clause 7:

“Should there be any revenue shortfalls in the 2021/22 budget year caused by underperformance of revenue (which are not the outcome of extraordinary external factors such as a hurricane), the government [of Montserrat] will be required to undertake spending restrictions,  implement cost savings or use other methods to cover the shortfall. The FCDO will not disburse extra funding to cover non-performance of revenue.”

Isn’t the pandemic an “extraordinary external factor” that has been hitting us since March 2020? One, that is riding on 26 years of impacts of volcano crisis? Shouldn’t there, naturally, be major steps taken to support those facing hardships and to counter devastating economic and social impacts, similar to what is being undertaken in the UK? If not – on UN Charter, Article 73 (acknowledged by the UK as legally binding) – why not?

Why is the dog silent here?

Then, in clause 14, we see: “The Government must submit full and timely evidence in support of claims, including . . . a breakdown [of?] any expenditure for COVID related expenditures.”

Again, why the business as usual focus, with barely a mention of the current number one global policy issue and challenge?

Thirdly, what was presented is more or less a business as usual budget, in the face of a major disaster.  To see this, let’s compare the Budget support for 2020/21 with that for 2021/22:

21/22: Recurrent  £20, 175,342, Access £493,151, Technical Cooperation & Capacity £2,931,507

20/21: Recurrent £19,230,000, Access £1,560,000, TC&C £2,810,000


Changes: Access falls £1.07 million, recurrent is up £ 945 thousand, TC&C is up £122 thousand; net, fall, about £30 thousand.

This does not look anything like a move to support a strong response to a major disaster.

Fourth, as we noted last time, while in the Budget Speech, there were remarks on the global economy, the UK economy, and even the EC dollar region, there was no summary of specific facts and figures on Montserrat’s economy, just some general references. Fifth, on finding or hearing ECCB and local figures, we recognised the ‘extraordinary event,’ that the economy swung about 14% adverse in its growth rate. Yes, from strong positive growth to sharp recession.

That would normally require far more than business as usual. The contrast with the UK Government’s (UKG’s) domestic response, therefore, speaks for itself. Something is wrong.  Especially, when several classes of construction, maintenance, and similar “kick-start” projects have long been on the table. Where, too, the same message comes out in the missing balance to clause 16: “GOM should identify, quantify and implement efficiency savings that aim to reduce future Financial Aid settlements from FCDO.”

Turning to the 2019/22 Business Case, we see:

 “HMG has a responsibility under the UN Charter to meet the reasonable needs of dependencies in the overseas territories, where financial self-sufficiency is not yet possible . . . UK Financial Aid to Montserrat will continue to help GoM bridge the gap between their domestic revenues and necessary expenditure . . . This enables, among other priorities, health and education services, access to the island, and supports the development of the government’s own capacity through the provision of skills and expertise through a Technical Cooperation program.  This support is vital to ensure HMG is delivering on its commitment to meet the reasonable assistance needs of Montserrat and supporting its sustainable economic growth and prosperity . . . . The program will support the implementation of the Government’s Sustainable Development Plan, Economic Growth Strategy, and the strategies and priorities of GoM ministries, which have been agreed in close consultation between DFID and GoM.” [p. 2]

That acknowledged, legally binding UN Charter Article 73 obligation, includes “ensur[ing]” economic, social, educational and political advancement and “promot[ing]” constructive measures of development. In a context of a pandemic, with the UK’s own domestic interventions as a yardstick, it is fairly clear that a business as usual GoM budget is not good enough.  As a side note, the Sustainable Development Plan sets out the long-term framework for development planning. However, it ran its course in 2020, so perhaps it could be extended as an interim as the development of a successor plan is undertaken.

[1] See

[2] See

[3] See UKG Development Tracker

Posted in Business/Economy/Banking, Columns, De Ole Dawg, Featured, Features, International, Local, News, Regional0 Comments


Compulsory Jabs vs the Nuremberg Code

Contribution Part 115 – 2021 # 08)

Have our authorities overstepped their bounds by moving towards compulsory vaccinations? (What does the post-WWII Nuremberg Code have to say?)

BRADES, Montserrat, July 7, 2021 –  A recent Government of Montserrat Human Resources circular of June 30th entitled “Updated Guidance on Discretionary Leave Provisions” has come to our attention here at TMR. In key parts, it reads:

“Public officers who apply for and are awarded Government Scholarships to study at institutions  abroad  will,  from the academic  year  2021/2022  be  required  to  be vaccinated before traveling to take up these awards . . . . It will also be a requirement for public officers attending training courses abroad to be fully vaccinated.”

Of course, given the third jab proposed for Autumn this year and reports of a train of onward booster shots every year or even every six months (as TMR has already reported[1]), “fully vaccinated” is a meaningless, dead term.  No, given what officials and even BBC[2] have said, it’s not “two jabs plus two weeks and you’re good to go.” BBC: “[p]lans for a Covid booster jab programme in the autumn will be set out in the next few weeks, [now former UK Health Secretary] Matt Hancock has said.”

Now, given utterly unnecessary sharp polarisation and accusations such as “incitement,” a point of clarification: there is evidence that vaccines can be effective and fairly safe. However, as risk is not evenly distributed in the population, if one has a significant medical history, consult a physician before any serious medical intervention. Where, too, if a train of treatments is in view, overall risks obviously can rise with such repeated exposure.

However, the bigger question raised by the circular is compulsory treatment – “required,” “a requirement” –  in the context of rushed experimental vaccines that to date only have emergency or contingent authorisation, not full approval. Tests for long-term effects and risks cannot be rushed.

Where, this obviously means – never mind objections by officialdom – they are still experimental and of course, there are significant concerns about risks.  Also, after the horrific Nazi medical experiments,[3] the Nuremberg Courts that judged war criminals issued a code for experimental medical treatments, which was then embedded in international and national law as well as in ethical standards for medical and research practice. This Nuremberg Code reads, in key parts[4]:

“[C]ertain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally . . . certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts . . . The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have the legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior[5] form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”

A statement by Frontline Doctors group on Ivermectin

This is already decisive.

For, this means, sing- off- the- same- hymn- sheet PR talking points that suppress or stigmatise significant alternative views held by qualified people or simple concerns raised by the public are unethical and create liability. This includes marginalising concerns on risks of treatments,[6] the manifest fact that we are dealing with an unprecedented rushed global vaccination experiment, and issues regarding unduly sidelined evidence[7] that treatments such as Ivermectin-based cocktails can be effective. 

In short, it is arguable that we have not been given a balanced briefing that includes a true and fair view of reasonable alternatives, concerns, and risks.

Even if one could argue that we are increasingly or already beyond “experimental” treatment, a fortiori logic applies.

That is, if coercion, manipulation, hidden motives, and suppression of reasonable alternatives and/or concerns are improper for medical experiments, for cause – “how much more”  or “just like that” – they are also equally unacceptable for treatments in general. So, denial of the experimental status of the rushed vaccines does not allow one to wriggle off the hook.

The Nuremberg Code continues:

“[B]efore the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment . . .”

With a third jab and onward train of booster shots already being on the table, with emerging issues and concerns on risks (think, blood clots and heart issues for young men) and more,  it is simple fair comment to note that such informed consent has long since been undermined. Obviously, informed consent applies “just as much” to more or less established treatments.

Then, we see:

“The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature . . .”

Dr. John Campbell of the UK summarises how the degree of use of Ivermectin across Peru’s 25 states [33 million population] is linked to a reduction in Covid-19 deaths, there are similar results in Mexico and India

So, if there is reasonable access to and evidence of plausibly effective, less risky treatments (such as Ivermectin), then that should be fairly investigated and frankly disclosed.

Similarly, naturally acquired immunity is known to be highly effective. Some even suggest that it can be superior to that from many vaccines. So, why aren’t we testing for natural immunity before vaccinations and insisting on vaccinating people who have had and recovered from Covid-19?

The other methods or means test is also significant.

For, why are we using “gold standard” criteria for “evidence” that block the voice of otherwise valid “real-world evidence” and rule out otherwise plausibly credible treatments?

This lends added force to our next snippet from the Nuremberg Code:

“Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death . . .”

That speaks for itself, especially when we see:

“During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.”

Resort to compulsion cannot be justified. The circular above is ill-advised and the precedent it may set is dangerous.

Accordingly, we find a final duty of those in charge of medical interventions:

“During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject. “

Where, for cause, the attempted defence: “We were following the orders of legitimate authorities” was rejected by the Courts at Nuremberg.

This you will find does have some bearing to the United Nations “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)”

[1] TMR, June 25, 2021:

[2] See BBC:  and

[3] See

[4] See,

[5] That is, hidden.

[6] TMR

[7] TMR,

Posted in Business/Economy/Banking, Columns, Court, COVID-19, De Ole Dawg, Education, Featured, Features, Health, International, Local, Regional, Science/Technology0 Comments

Please Support The Montserrat Reporter

This is bottom line for us! Unless we receive your support, our effort will not be able to continue. Whatever and however you can, please support The Montserrat Reporter in whatever amount you can (and whatever frequency) – and it only takes a minute.
Thank you

TMR print pages



CARICOM – Staff Vacancy

CXC HEADQUARTERS - Executive Search

A Moment with the Registrar of Lands