Robin Monotti interview

Robin Monotti is an architect, film producer and polymath. Many of us followed him on Twitter before he was unceremoniously de-platformed. He’s now set up camp on Telegram.

His tweets were always erudite and informed. He was a thorn in the side of the government Covid narrative because he used empirical evidence to challenge.

In this half-hour interview I ask Robin about his ousting from social media, his views on human rights issues in the ‘new era’ and his perspectives on vaccine passports and the vaccination of children.

It’s a fascinating discussion. I hope you agree.

If you like what we’re doing please help us cover some of our costs. Buy us a coffee or two.

8 Replies to “Robin Monotti interview”

  1. What a fascinating truthful presentation of the Covid 19 narrative. I have total respect for you Robin, you have been a tower of strength and information to me and so many over this very long period.

  2. Powerful interview with an equally strong message – we all need to take responsibility and not rely upon leaders that have so spectacularly failed us.

    Article 6 within the UNESCO UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF BIOETHICS & HUMAN RIGHTS, 2005 is our most trusted weapon alongside, IMO, universal non-compliance.

    Robin/Jeffrey – thank you for sharing your thoughts and insights.

  3. Thank you for this interview. Robin is a real inspiration and incredibly eloquent, such a pity he doesn’t have a wider audience any more. It highlights the reality that this battle is not about a virus and purely about manipulation, control and greed

  4. Thanks to Robin and Jeff for a great interview.

    Imagine if you will William Wallace’s famous call to arms against the English ‘tyranny’ in Braveheart. Imagine again if that exhortation were uttered in 2021:

    “…..just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they’ll never take our safety”

  5. Article 6 is very useful indeed, but I’m wondering about article 27, “If the application of the principles of this Declaration is to be limited, it should be by law, including laws in the interests of public safety, for the investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, for the protection of public health or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Any such law needs
    to be consistent with international human rights law.”
    So, when the law say you have to wear a face covering in public place, or show a certificate of vaccination or recent test FOR THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH, can you still invoke article 6?

  6. Article 6 takes precedence. If you wanted to invoke Article 27, you’d have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that a person showing absolutely no symptoms of a disease was a deadly threat to another person simply by being in the same space as them. That they would definitely kill them. Since no one has ever killed anyone by passing Covid to them (fatalities are caused by the state of health of the individual – this is a virus that does not have a huge impact on healthy people), you cannot use Article 27. If you ever did have such a disease (that was a 100% fatality rate and passed by people without symptoms) and thought you could enforce testing, you’d have to have a test with 100% accuracy. No such test for any disease exists. And in terms of vaccination, you would have to prove that a vaccine for this disease with a 100% Infection fatality rate, for which we have a 100% accurate test was completely infalible, that no one with a “vaccination” could ever get or pass on this disease. In the case of masks; they do not stop anyone dying, in fact they can make people very unwell, so they are irrelevant here. So, no, article 27 is not applicable in any sense, and article 6 takes absolute precedence.

    1. Oh and here are Robin’s comments. “The onus is on anyone claiming public health is protected by the limiting of human rights to prove this beyond doubt in the first place. They can’t, because it isn’t protected by any of these measures and although some governments claim so there is no scientific consensus on this. Also note the clear indication that the freedom of others is protected under the same article 27. In any case, according to latest PHE estimates the mortality of Covid19 is 0.096% therefore it would in any case be comparable to a bad year of seasonal flu for which we never limited any human rights, therefore we would also have plenty of precedents for why in this case there are no grounds for article 27 to apply.” (See: for mortality data).

Leave a Reply