The UK Covid-19 Inquiry has been scolded in an open letter by group of 55 professors and academics, who express their concerns that the process is “not living up to its mission", with typical British understatement.
The Covid-10 Inquiry is an ongoing, independent public inquiry into the United Kingdom's response to, and the impact of, the COVID-19 pandemic, and to learn lessons for the future. Public hearings have been going on since June 2023 and is headed up by Baroness Hallett.
The letter, organised by Dr Kevin Bardosh, an expert in infection medicine at Edinburgh University and Prof Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at Oxford University, accuses the Inquiry of being “fundamentally biased” and failing to examine the costs of lockdowns. They warn that;
a lack of neutrality gives the impression of being fundamentally biased [and appears to have led to] predetermined conclusions, for example, to lockdown faster next time.
The group states that the inquiry is neglecting to hear evidence from those who suffered from the “negative effects” of pandemic policy decisions, or scientists who disagree with choices made by the Government.
As the second module of the inquiry comes to a close, they call for this to be urgently addressed and greater focus to be placed on the;
economic and social cost of Covid policies to British society.
Dr Bardosh said;
The letter is an attempt to get the inquiry to recognise that they have got some things wrong, they still have time to redirect it to be more impartial.
Previously, MPs have written to Lady Hallett to urge caution about the direction of the inquiry. But this is the first time that a group of eminent academics have raised concerns.
The letter goes on to say that the inquiry is taking;
key assumptions for granted instead of examining and critiquing them.
It states:
The consensus position in pre-2020 pandemic plans was that non-pharmaceutical interventions, including lockdown, had weak evidence of effectiveness, and were predicted to cause substantial harm to society, especially if used for prolonged periods.
This informed the initial response to Covid in early 2020. Yet, the inquiry assumes that these measures are effective and appropriate. As a result, it downplays the harms to society caused by two years of emergency infection control mandates.
Herald Sun
The academics also note that the inquiry “lacks impartiality” in the selection and questioning of expert witnesses;
It has given preferential treatment to scientific advisers on Sage (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies), who have a vested interest in maintaining the justification for their policy recommendations.
Very few scientists with an alternative position have been asked to testify, and the inquiry has been confrontational rather than inquisitorial in its questioning of these views.
They further contended that the inquiry has not seriously questioned the hypotheses and assumptions offered to government, especially from government-appointed modellers, which were used to justify Covid policies. Neither has it seriously examined the social and economic costs of lockdown.
In response the spokesperson for the inquiry said;
The inquiry does not act on assumptions and has called expert witnesses who question the use of lockdowns and other interventions, as well as experts who advised on the imposition of lockdowns.
The inquiry will consider important issues such as the impact of lockdowns, key scientific and policy questions as well as population health and well being in forthcoming modules. Our modular approach is clearly set out on our website and we will report during the lifespan of the inquiry, with the first report scheduled for this summer.
On the same day as this letter was published it emerged that Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK Government’s chief scientific adviser during the plandemic, described in his diary that Nicola Sturgeon’s decision to force Scotland’s secondary school children to wear face masks as “totally political” and “not based on medical advice.”
With an unknown threat it is easy to see why governments would take steps to err on the side of caution, however, there were early signs that not all was right. Western attempts to copy China’s supposed lockdown success was seen in the thinking of SAGE and the modellist Neil Ferguson. Speaking to the British newspaper, The Times, Ferguson said;
We knew it was possible...but there is an enormous cost associated with it...we said, we wouldn’t get away with it in Europe we thought...and then Italy did it, and we realised we could.”
Now numerous studies have concluded that not only did lockdowns prove ineffectual but caused all manner of harm.
The central point must be made that lockdowns were a deliberate policy with set goals (unrelated to public health). They were designed by globalist entities (as demonstrated by Event 201) designed to make the population suffer and actually increase mortality. Why, you may ask? Well, by heightening the fear factor they increased the level of control and, of course, made the vaccination appear as a God send.
Lockdown’s achieved neither a reduction in the spread of the disease or a decrease in mortality. If you want proof simply look at how Sweden approached the plandemic and, without locking down their society, they stand out in Europe for having the complete opposite outcomes.
One reason lockdowns didn’t work was because Covid-19 was an airborne virus. In other words tiny virons capable of spreading throughout the atmosphere. These aerosol viruses spread in winter times and everyone knows it. So the decision to lockdown Britain for the summer of 2020 was complete nonsense.
An additional reason for the lockdowns, but no less significant, was the extension of government control over people’s lives. Like they were literally trying to see how much they could get away with. When I say they it needs to be clear that this is just not national governments I am referring to, because lockdown policies were international in aspect. It revealed the face of the “global public/private partnership” (some might just go ahead and call it capitalism) in directing policies from above whilst the other hand was deep in the trough of corruption.
The consequences of contact tracing, entry/exit screenings, shutting schools, destroying businesses and placing healthy people into quarantine is uncounted has been untold. Let’s be clear here though, this was never about our health. They did this to us deliberately.
USA Today
