HART group reviews the first day of the UK Covid Inquiry’s hearings on vaccines
In the following, the HART group summarises the first day of hearings for the UK Covid Inquiry on vaccines and therapeutics.
HART also provides comments which clearly show the Inquiry is going to do everything it can to bury evidence that does not suit the narrative of “vaccines are safe and effective” and continue to gaslight the many who have been vaccine injured.
However, as HART notes, the vaccine injured have an excellent King’s Council (“KC”) to represent them so it’s worth watching what happens next.
HART and other groups which would provide facts contrary to what the public has been told by the Government and other officials have been informed they will not be permitted to give oral evidence to the Inquiry. Not allowing themselves to be silenced, HART and other groups will be holding their own meeting the week after the Inquiry’s Module 4 hearings to redress the balance of evidence. The Covid Inquiry’s hearings for ‘Module 4: Vaccines and Therapeutics’ are being held from 14 January – 31 January 2025.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
By Health Advisory & Recovery Team (“HART”), 14 January 2024
HART was one of a number of groups who were asked to provide detailed witness statements to the Inquiry, only to find we will not be called to give oral evidence.
The Inquiry legal team have apparently shared our statements with the Core Participants and indeed with one of their commissioned experts, but have not as yet confirmed whether or not our statements will be available on the Inquiry website.
Meanwhile, if you wish to read those statements which you will not hear discussed by Baroness Hallet and team, then please take a look at the People’s Vaccine Inquiry website where we decided to post our evidence over 6 months ago when it was announced that the official hearings were being postponed.
We will be holding our own meeting the week after the Module 4 hearings, to try and redress the balance of evidence available to the British public.
With that in mind, we have spent the day listening to the live YouTube hearing and here is a taste of Mr. Keith’s opening remarks which perhaps explain why neither HART nor the children’s covid vaccines group (“CCVAC”), UK Medical Freedom Alliance or Perseus group have been invited. We might just muddy the waters with an alternative interpretation of the “evidence.” The full transcript is available HERE.
Table of Contents
Preamble and Opening Remarks
Baroness Hallett made some opening remarks before handing over to Hugo Keith KC for the Inquiry team.
Mr. Keith highlighted the Inquiry’s brief to look at the “systems and processes for the research, manufacturing, trialling, safety, authorisation and delivery of the vaccines.”
On 2 December 2020, Pfizer-BioNTech was “licenced” and by 8 December, the UK rollout began, the first country in the world. He described well-powered (20,000 to 43,000 patients) randomised control trials (“RCTs”). All trial data must be shared with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) including negative data prior to seeking approval.
He spoke of the rolling review system adopted and stated that their expert report concluded that there was no reduction in efficacy or safety arising from the accelerated review process. He reported that the vaccines’ adverse events were very rare (between 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000) or extremely rare (less than 1 in 100,000) and would therefore not be expected to be identified in trials with 20,000-40,000 participants). He said they reported no serious adverse events from the trials which continued for 2 months after the second dose.
He talked of post-authorisation surveillance, the manufacturers being legally obliged to report any serious adverse events and the MHRA to regularly review safety surveillance reports, case safety reports periodic safety update reviews, risk management plans and post-authorisation safety studies supplied to them by the manufacturers. This led to updated patient information leaflets (though these are rarely seen by the patients!).
He spoke of the yellow card data and detailed follow-up for a proportion of vaccine recipients, and specific epidemiological studies also carried out to try and look at statistically increased conditions. All in all, “the UK had a robust and sophisticated system for ensuring the highest levels of safety but it will be of course for you my lady to assess the accuracy of this position proposition.”
He spoke of “acceptably safe” where benefits or expected benefits are considered to outweigh the risks at a population level. The Inquiry must consider whether the MHRA properly assessed whether the benefits outweighed the risks where “covid was a life-threatening disease for many”.
Mr. Keith gave a brief but clear description of how messenger RNA vaccine technology differs from a standard vaccine but with no explanation or apparent understanding of why the difference was potentially important. He also later described AstraZeneca’s viral vector technology again explaining that it was the genetic code for the spike protein being introduced into the cells but he said it had been “around for a while” including for flu vaccines (evidence please Mr. Keith!) and also for Zika and Ebola. He explained that within two days of the rollout starting in December 2020, the UK had given more doses than in the combined published trials! He showed graphs of cumulative uptake which had the famous UK Oxford product flatlining after June 2021 but with no explanation as to why AstraZeneca’s vaccine had been quietly dropped.
He ended his introductory remarks by saying, “It is of the utmost importance that I emphasise, that by the particular metric of the need to protect at a population level against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the vaccine programmes succeeded.”
Conflicting Estimates of Lives Saved
Our readers will be pleased to know that Public Health England (“PHE”) estimated 14,000 lives saved in England in older adults from January to June 2021, whereas the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) estimated 22,000 lives saved in Scotland and the UK Health Security Agency (“UKHSA”) suggested 123,000 deaths and 23 million infections were averted.
The Inquiry’s commissioned expert, Professor Prieta-Alhambra will apparently confirm that the covid vaccines were “entirely effective.” As Mr. Keith reassured us, the covid-19 UK vaccines were “overwhelmingly … successful against a virus that was killing and liable to kill hundreds of thousands of people.” Indeed, the WHO estimated that the UK had the highest number of deaths averted of any country in Europe. Also of course “the success of the programme enabled the relaxation of other control measures, facilitating socio-economic recovery.”
Collaboration Building on UK Strengths
The foundation for our success was built on “the UK’s formidable science and clinical research infrastructure. Ultimately the success could not have been achieved without the collaborative and collective efforts of dedicated administrators and regulators, scientists, clinicians, epidemiologists, public health professionals, academics, universities and external professionals as well as of course the commercial entities that developed and manufactured … And of course those members of the public who volunteered for various clinical trials in the community, also the bodies and organisations particularly NHS and social care bodies, public health agencies, military, charity and volunteer groups.”
“It is beyond argument, that vaccinated people were far less likely to get covid-19, they were even more unlikely to get serious covid, to be admitted to hospital or to die; the vaccinated were less likely, although figures are much harder to interpret, to pass the virus to others.”
Non-Vaccine Therapeutics
In short, the speed of the research was “admirable” and the decision to “repurpose” dexamethasone was the “single most important” non-vaccine therapeutic. (In what sense was it repurposed, when it was already a standard treatment for people with septic shock and multiorgan failure? Maybe the trial just deprived half the participants of a useful therapeutic!)
There may be something interesting to follow about hydroxychloroquine, with a suggestion that its use for out-of-hospital early treatment may have been played down because of a Lancet publication “claim” of side effects. Not a word of vitamin D, let alone ivermectin.
Why the Module Is Necessary
Following Mr. Keith’s glowing account of the success of the vaccine programme, he said some might question the need for this module, “beyond the fact that these topics are mandated by our terms of reference. The answer is easy”:
1. “Firstly, written submissions from the bereaved families have highlighted the importance of recognising achievements and best practice, things that worked as well as things that didn’t. Lessons can be learnt as to whether the innovative ways of working utilised during the pandemic can be embedded in ‘peacetime’ and replicated in the future. Is the UK Scientific and biomedical Research sector sufficiently robust and resourced to continue experimental research into vaccines and therapeutics for example in relation to disease X, the as yet unknown pathogen that might cause a future pandemic … What is the nature of the UK’s Participation in the ‘100-day mission’, the global initiative to prepare the World by driving the development of new diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines. [Oh no, we thought that might be the plan!]
2. “Secondly, and even more tragically, a number of people, very small in the overall scale of the vaccine program but of no less importance individually or to our examination, did suffer serious harm. Alongside the vast majority of the population who did have access to the beneficial effects of vaccine, a severe price was paid unfortunately by some individuals. Side effects may be encountered in every medicine but those side effects, whilst very rare, are nevertheless significant and debilitating. I must emphasise the rarity, more often the extreme rarity of the severe adverse events that were suffered and that the figures demonstrate beyond any doubt that the benefits of the UK covid-19 vaccinations vastly outweighed the very rare risk of a serious side effect. Nevertheless, my lady, they did occur and for those who did suffer serious side effects or even worse for the very small number of people whose loved ones died as a result it was of course a complete tragedy – nothing that is said about the rarity of those terrible consequences can be taken or should be taken to diminish that loss.”
He then proceeded to go through the importance of recognition and the hope that this “will assist in countering the stigmatisation they have also had to bear”. He also highlighted the problems with the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme.
“More widely, the long-recognised fact that vaccines can very rarely have serious side effects, is also intimately bound up with the issue of confidence in vaccines. For vaccines to have their true curative effect and there is a massive public interest in the maintenance of proper vaccination and immunisation programmes, populations must take them up. It would obviously be damaging to uptake if any belief were to take hold and were to be allowed to take hold, that in the unhappy and very rare occurrence of vaccine injury, the state has forgotten those who suffered.”
3. Safety: Mr Keith then talked about the Inquiry’s remit to scrutinise the development and use of vaccines and therapeutics, the Yellow card system and post-authorisation surveillance.
4. Uptake: Slides were presented showing the expected difference in uptake by age group, but a grudging acknowledgement that this was not surprising as younger groups were at lower risk. A slide showing much lower uptake particularly in black ethnic minorities and low uptake in London will be explored further during the Inquiry. This led on to vaccine hesitancy.
5. Vaccine hesitancy: Their commissioned expert, Professor Heidi Larson, noted a significant decline in trust from April 2021. Mr. Keith doesn’t seem to have noticed that this was about the time when countries across Europe were dropping the AstraZeneca vaccine because of serious brain blood clots, while the MHRA was continuing to say there was no evidence of causation. But maybe Anna Morris, KC, for the vaccine injured, can cross-examine Professor Larson on that point in due course.
Meanwhile, Mr. Keith told us that:
A “number of false narratives emerged throughout the pandemic, ranging from tropes concerning the efficacy of vaccines, their chemical constitutions, certain side effects and more grandiose claims that vaccinated vaccine-related deaths were being concealed or that the vaccines could alter one’s DNA or that covid-19 itself was deliberately caused as a pretext for mass vaccination … It is obvious that this was contributed to by low trust in government and in scientists and medics and that lack of trust seems to go hand in hand with high usage of social media, high distrust of vaccine safety and high levels of vaccine hesitancy. We have asked a number of organisations, DHSE, NHS England and the UKHSA to explain how the UK government tackled mis- and disinformation and we will be looking at the work of the counter disinformation unit [CDU] and the rapid response unit. What did they do to address these real problems? We have obtained evidence from the social media platforms as to how the government interacted with them and we will be hearing from the permanent secretary at the DCMS on the process for identifying and acting on such material.”
He then spoke of the contentious topic of vaccine mandates and acknowledged that in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland no mandates were introduced. He also acknowledged the loss of staff from care homes resulting from the mandates. The public in consultations had never favoured the move.
The Impact Film
At approximately 1 hour 50 minutes, an impact film was played but beforehand we got a short pep talk from Hugo Keith and from Baroness Hallett on how not to misinterpret the film.
Mr. Keith said, “May I have your permission to say a word? I think it is in the public interest it is important that I seek to emphasise that the references in this video to the obvious and well-known fact that in very rare cases vaccines have serious side effects, as indeed do all medicines, must not be used as a platform to seek to undermine the vital public health role that vaccination plays in keeping the public safe from disease or to try and seek to argue that at a population level vaccination is not overwhelmingly beneficial.”
Baroness Hallett then made three points:
- “it is not evidence”;
- “it is not intended to represent the UK vaccinated population”;
- “it is not my view.”
“I will reach my findings based on the evidence, the evidence will explore in detail the overall benefits of the vaccination programme, as well as any problems it faced or it created.”
Finally, the film was preceded by a health warning: “The film includes physical, mental health, bereavement and suicide and anyone who wishes should leave the hearing room now.”It is linked HERE.
[embedded content]
Core Participants Opening Submissions
After the film, the hearing was addressed by three consecutive KCs for Bereaved families: Ms. Munroe KC on behalf of Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK, followed by Mr. Wilcock KC for Northern Ireland Covid Bereaved Families for Justice, then Dr. Mitchell KC on behalf of Scottish Covid Bereaved. Then, submissions on behalf of the Traveller Movement by Mr. Jacobs.
Finally, the excellent Anna Morris KC was left to make a submission on behalf of the Covid Vaccine Adverse Reaction and Bereaved Groups:
“My Lady, I, alongside Mr. Weaver, Mr. Mark Bradley and Mr. Wilcox of Hudgell Solicitors represent three groups who together are recognised by the Inquiry as the Covid Vaccine Adverse Reaction and Bereaved Groups. These three groups are the UK CV Family, the Vaccine Injured and Bereaved UK, and the Scottish Vaccine Injury Group.
“You will hear powerful evidence from Kate Scott, Charlet Crichton and Ruth O’Rafferty on behalf of these three groups during your Inquiry.
“The thousands of people that these three groups represent present what is an uncomfortable truth for many: that vaccine injury and death are part of the pandemic story.”
Alternative Perspective
Just a few examples:
1. “All trial data must be shared with the MHRA including negative data prior to seeking approval.”But no mention of the legal challenge to force Pfizer and the FDA to release data they want kept under wraps for 75 years!
2. “Covid was a life-threatening disease for many” doesn’t really accord with the evidence. Even given that much of the management, such as fear propaganda, closed access to primary care, lack of antibiotic use, isolating care home residents, and use of Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (“DNAR”) notices precluding hospital care, will all have combined to increase all-cause death rates significantly, even then only 3% of the over 90s in England and Wales died with or of covid in 2020 and for healthy children, the risk was 1 in 2 million. I wouldn’t call that “many.”
3. The statement that the trials showed no serious adverse events was somewhat economical with the truth (the whole truth and nothing but the truth – I didn’t hear Hugo Keith take an oath, I think that is only for the witnesses!). Fraiman et al found a 1 in 800 risk from the Moderna and Pfizer published trials. But of course, Fraiman looked at the actual events reported in the appendices of the trials rather than at the events the drug company-sponsored investigators had chosen to deem likely to be causally linked to their vaccines.
4, Use of words such as “overwhelmingly,” “entirely effective” and “beyond argument” in the opening remarks, don’t exactly suggest a balanced and open mindset to the findings of this Module. We also await any mention of natural immunity.
5. As for: “A number of false narratives emerged throughout the pandemic, ranging from tropes concerning the efficacy of vaccines, their chemical constitutions, certain side effects, and more grandiose claims that vaccinated vaccine-related deaths were being concealed or that the vaccines could alter one’s DNA or that covid-19 itself was deliberately caused as a pretext for mass vaccination,” Mr Keith might find several of those have a clear evidence base. We’re sorry we won’t be at the hearing to enlighten him. Only yesterday, follow-up letters went to heads of state of now 20 countries in the NORTH group initiative, regarding the DNA contamination in Pfizer and Moderna modified mRNA vaccines. Most worrying is the hints of their discussions with the CDU and their questioning of how the government dealt with this mis- and disinformation – it didn’t sound as if he was going to criticise their zealotry.
6. Given that “we will be hearing from the permanent secretary at the DCMS on the process for identifying and acting on such material,” it was perhaps not surprising that they didn’t want any of the likes of HART members Drs. Clare Craig, Liz Evans or Ros Jones (known to the CDU) asking awkward questions.
7. Finally, I ask why the three “covid” bereaved groups all had separate KCs and yet the three vaccine-injured groups all had to share. Having said that, I have no doubt that Anna Morris will do an excellent job on their account. Currently, the video from the afternoon proceedings has been removed from the website. Anna Morris, KC for the Vaccine injured and bereaved had her opening statements in September 2023 removed from YouTube as a breach of their community policy.
UPDATE 16 January: The afternoon session for Day 1 is now available.
About the Author
HART is a group of highly qualified UK doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists and other academic experts who came together over shared concerns about policy and guidance recommendations relating to the covid-19 pandemic. The group continues to be concerned about the lack of open scientific debate in corporate media and the worrying trend of censorship and harassment of those who question the “official” narrative.
As well as on their website HERE, you can follow them on Substack HERE, Facebook HERE and Twitter HERE.
