My Experience With Barcode One and How I Stopped Trusting the System

By Ray Wilson

In January 2018, I had some residual faith in the allopathic medical industrial complex. I had taken a PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test, and my doctor wanted to discuss the results. The PSA test is a blood test to detect prostate cancer, but it is not perfect—that’s putting it mildly—and will not find all prostate cancers. It measures the level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the blood, which is made by the prostate gland and leaks into the blood depending on age and the health of the prostate. At this time, I was keen to assist in any research programmes that could benefit future generations; if it meant a bit of discomfort, I was prepared for that. My doctor confirmed I was fit and healthy and didn’t take anti-coagulants or have a history of heart disease. They confirmed that I didn’t have a pacemaker or aneurysm clips, and finally I was admitted to the study.

They made sure that I wasn’t claustrophobic as I would be spending some time in the MRI scanner. After that, I was finally ready to take part in the research. My illusions of cutting edge pioneering research would slowly, piece by piece, be deconstructed. I was told that the genetic profiling model put me in the top 10% risk category of developing prostate cancer, higher than 90% of men in the general UK population. After various meetings with the Royal Marsden genetics research team, my trajectory was set.

The Croydon University Hospital carried out my MRI scan in September 2020. I was aware of the COVID hoax by this point, but many of the doctors I spoke with displayed wilful blindness or cognitive dissonance. “You aren’t pregnant, are you?” said a male nurse as I got comfortable in the MRI scanning machine. At first, I thought that I had misheard or that maybe it was a joke. “How many women have their prostates scanned?” In clown world, political correctness was already deeply embedded in this Orwellian horror show, but I only now realised to what extent. The implications of this experience revealed a much deeper problem with our society.

Just before Christmas 2020, I made my way to the Royal Marsden Hospital on Dovehouse Street in London. “Stay at Home” was being propagated, with exemptions for work, education, childcare, and exercise. People were told not to enter or leave Tier 4 areas, and residents must not stay overnight away from home. I had planned to ride my motorcycle until it was pointed out that this was a fairly invasive procedure and I may not be able to sit down, let alone ride my motorcycle. Using the scans from Croydon University, the datum points were loaded into a newly acquired machine that would extract twelve cores from the prostrate area. There were delays because the researchers were still figuring out how the new machine worked, and I was given extra anaesthetic.

Eventually the procedure was over, and they got me to stand and walk around. The pain was only apparent about an hour later, by which time I was walking away from Dovehouse Street to get my lift home. Just across the street from the Brompton, I got a bite to eat in the café. The seats had all been removed because of the COVID restrictions, so I ate my wrap outside. I couldn’t have easily sat down anyway. I mused about how the innovative new PSA test would be developed—something quick but very accurate. False test results could lead to devastating, life changing outcomes for some unlucky men. My mind wandered to thoughts about Cary Mullis, the American biochemist and inventor who developed the PCR technique in 1983. The PCR test is a widely used laboratory method that allows researchers to amplify and replicate small amounts of DNA or RNA, making it an essential tool in fields such as genetics, biotechnology, and forensics.

Mullis passed away in 2019 at the age of 74 from complications of pneumonia, just prior to the COVID fiasco. It’s all very strange, timing wise. Mullis said that the PCR test was not a diagnostic tool and specifically not to be used to diagnose any disease, and here we were using it for exactly that. Indeed, the timing of Kary Mullis’ passing was rather convenient given his very own warning about the PCR test. So a whole bagful of pennies were dropping for me. I was suddenly very concerned about my involvement with this new and improved PSA genetic test. Many unsettling questions were forming in my mind.


Early in January 2021, it was confirmed that the prostate biopsy detected amounts of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN). They were very eager for me to embark on the next stage of the study.

I had invested a lot of time into this project, and on the one hand, I wanted to proceed for the greater good, but on the other, my trust was lost. I got to know some of the team members, including a New Zealand researcher with whom I had much in common and felt a connection. I spoke to three team members and explained my concerns about the bogus PCR test and how it was fundamental to me to know their views. My thinking was that if the medical profession stooped so low as to use a bogus test, why was I involved in research to develop a test—albeit totally different in nature—that was subject to the same overarching control?

Dr. Tess Lawrie and her laboratory in Bath provided me with an analysis of the so-called “vaccines,” which I submitted to my own doctor along with a reference to the Nuremberg code. The worst kind of lie is a lie of omission. My question was ignored. Silence. Silence. Silence. I was met with a silence that felt like a punch in the gut as I waited for their responses. I knew that something had gone wrong, and this silence was the first indication that I was right.

The Great Barrington Declaration was known to many and signed by many. It states, “As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.”

So that was the answer. My hopes for involvement in the Barcode 1 study were dashed, my belief in the project crumbled, and I explained that I would not be able, in all conscience, to proceed. I knew in that moment that I had made the right decision. They said that their duty of care would cover me for any future treatment I may require. I had decided by the time of the follow up call to decline all of that as well.

The system could not be trusted, so I put my faith in God. I found B17, I found terrain theory, and I found “Tripping over the Truth” by T Christofferson. Through my own research, I discovered that there were alternative treatments available to me that were safer and more effective, to coin an overused phrase, and how the metabolic theory of cancer is overturning entrenched paradigms.

Many studies have found that vitamin B-17 can improve the general health of cancer patients, inhibit the growth of tumours, and prevent cancer development. In its purified form, it is known as laetrile, it has many well documented benefits. Why has orthodox medicine waged war against this non drug approach? G. E. Griffin argues in his book, “World Without Cancer,” that it is based on the hidden economic and political agenda of those who dominate the medical establishment. Without sickness, expensive treatments would no longer be needed. If most human illness is caused by deficiencies on the one hand and exposure to toxins on the other, we have a perfect business model.

For the sake of simplicity, let’s suppose a “nonprofit-philanthropic” organisation recruits and trains doctors and nurses to strictly adhere to its rules and not deviate, specifies the drugs to be used and for what conditions, and controls both the production of those drugs and the bodies that regulate their production and efficacy. What if they could control the illnesses as well? What if the cure is worse than the disease, as in the case of the jab? What if the toxins were in processed foods? But surely it would be on the label, wouldn’t it? What if, say, below a certain number of parts per million, you didn’t need to mention it? Or in the water? Or in the environment? What then?

What if by simply removing the toxins and providing nutrient dense natural foods—foods our ancestors would have recognised as food 1,000 years ago—solved the problem? No, it couldn’t be that simple, could it? That would mean that we have been lied to about everything. We are debt slaves on the “human people farm,” where residents are kept in the dark and subjected to unnecessary pain, poisoned by medicine, food, and water to feed the beast’s insatiable appetite. Now with the new and improved “care pathways,” aka NG-191 eugenics, if we become nonviable, “useless eaters,” we are terminated.

The Bible had it “right” all along. “And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.”

See also: