The People’s Vaccine Inquiry: Bias, censorship and ethical failures of the UK Covid Inquiry
On the first day of the long-awaited Module 4 of the UK Covid Inquiry, it became clear that the Inquiry was going to do everything it could 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.
In response, a group of experts held a press conference to set the record straight. In their press conference, the group, called The People’s Vaccine Inquiry, lays bare the theatre that is known as the UK Covid Inquiry Vaccines and therapeutics (Module 4).
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…
In June 2024, when Module 4 was originally due to be held but was postponed to 2025, a group of experts who were called to submit witness statements believed it was in the public interest to give immediate access to their expert testimony. So, they formed The People’s Vaccine Inquiry to make their evidence available to the public.
Now, because of the glaring issues with the way Module 4 has been conducted, The group has seen the need to continue with its mission. On 4 February, The People’s Vaccine Inquiry held a press conference. It laid bare the theatre of the UK Covid Inquiry Module 4 public hearings, which were held from 14 to 31 January 2025.
Speaking at the press conference were:
- Caroline Pover representing the UK CV Family for covid vaccine injured and bereaved;
- Jonathan Engler is the co-chair of the Health Advisory & Recovery Team (“HART”);
- Dr. Liz Evans representing the UK Medical Freedom Alliance (“UKMFA”);
- Dr. Ros Jones representing the Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council (“CCVAC”);
- Dr. Clare Craig representing HART;
- Nick Hunt is a Senior Civil Servant in the Ministry of Defence and wrote the 2023 Perseus Report;
- Professor Angus Dalgleish;
- Dr. James Royle; and,
- Dr. Dean Patterson.
In the following, is a brief description of what each speaker highlighted and the video clip relating to their section of the press conference. To avoid our article becoming too lengthy, we are publishing three speakers a day over the next three days. We begin with the first three in the list above, will move onto the second three and then our final article will be the final three.
If you wish to get ahead of us, you can find all the videos and transcripts from the press conference on the People’s Vaccine Inquiry website HERE.
Table of Contents
Caroline Pover: Reflections of Inquiry Core Participant
Caroline Pover shared her personal reflections on the Module 4 public hearings of the UK Covid Inquiry.
Pover expressed her disappointment with the media’s initial response, particularly the BBC, who seemed uninterested in her story and instead expected her to be an angry protestor, despite her professional attire and demeanour.
She noted that other corporate media outlets provided coverage, especially after Vaccine Injured and Bereaved UK’s (“VIBUK’s”) Kate Scott and Scottish Vaccine Injury Group’s (“ScottishVIG’s”) Ruth O’Rafferty gave evidence but observed that the questioning style and content differed significantly, raising concerns about the Inquiry’s independence.
Pover criticised the lead counsel, Hugo Keith KC, for his controlling and narcissistic behaviour, using leading questions and showing admiration for the vaccine rollout, which she felt hindered the witnesses’ ability to speak freely.
She highlighted the expertise of Kate Scott, Ruth O’Rafferty and UKCVFamily’s founder Charlet Crichton on vaccine harm, contrasting them with government, healthcare and pharmaceutical representatives who echoed the “safe and effective” narrative.
Pover pointed out that the Inquiry seemed to assume the covid vaccines were not to be questioned and that witnesses were not allowed to ask questions that hadn’t been pre-submitted and approved by the Chair.
She expressed concern about the distress caused to UKCVFamily members, who felt that their legitimate questions were not being asked, and emphasised that the Inquiry was not a trial and that no one would be held responsible for the harm caused by the vaccines.
Pover attended the Inquiry’s Module 4 sessions, where experts claimed the covid vaccine rollout was a success and expressed confidence in the safety monitoring systems, but she believes these systems do not work in reality.
She feels that the Inquiry presented an alternate universe, as most people she interacts with have stories about themselves or loved ones who have become seriously unwell or have been mistreated after refusing the vaccine.
She believes the Inquiry’s Module 4 has three main goals: increasing the UK’s capacity to run clinical trials, increasing vaccine manufacturing capacity and increasing the number of people getting vaccinated.
The theme of “trust” was prominent throughout the module, particularly in the context of marginalised groups, and Pover thinks that any recommendations for the vaccine-injured and bereaved will be made to improve trust and increase vaccination rates.
Pover is concerned that the level of mistrust in the media, government and healthcare system caused by the covid vaccine rollout may be too great for the Inquiry to repair without a full and open discussion of the issues.
Pover also mentions Brianne Dressen, who participated in AstraZeneca’s clinical trials and has filed a case in the USA, and notes that the Inquiry did not seem interested in hearing about adverse reactions to the vaccine.
[embedded content]
Jonathan Engler: Observations About the Inquiry Censorship
The People’s Vaccine Inquiry was formed a year ago due to concerns that the UK Covid Inquiry’s Module 4 was not interested in hearing the full truth about covid vaccines. The group created a public record of the information the Inquiry seemed to be avoiding, and their fears of a whitewash have been justified after closely watching Module 4.
The UK Covid Inquiry’s framing was set from the start, Engler said, with Baroness Hallett and Hugo Keith emphasising that the Inquiry should not be used to spread “anti-vaccine mis or disinformation.” However, the Inquiry has allowed many false assertions to go unchallenged, leading the People’s Vaccine Enquiry to question who is actually spreading misinformation.
The Inquiry has presented several misleading or false claims as facts, including the success of the covid vaccine rollout, the idea that all vaccines are a net good for a population, and the claim that covid vaccines saved millions of lives worldwide.
Other claims misrepresented as facts include the idea that covid vaccines broke the link between infection and severe outcomes, that pandemics can only be overcome with mass vaccination and that the covid vaccines were the only way out of lockdown restrictions.
The Inquiry has also downplayed the risks of serious side effects and deaths, describing them as rare or very rare, and has framed vaccine hesitancy as a problem that needs to be solved.
The People’s Vaccine Enquiry believes that the structure of the Inquiry and the parameters set for questioning Core Participants were designed to promote a curated story around the covid vaccines, minimising criticism and affirming the programme’s success.
Some dissenting voices have been allowed to speak, but their testimony has been constrained by the questions asked and the answers they are permitted to give. The vaccine-injured and bereaved groups were prevented from presenting their concerns about vaccine safety, which were deemed “science” and therefore not allowed to be discussed by non-experts. For example, Kate Scott from VIBUK was stopped by Baroness Hallett from making a point about vaccine safety, with the Baroness stating that such discussions should be left to the “experts” later in the inquiry.
The Inquiry’s chosen experts ultimately focused on supporting the safety claims made for the vaccines, ignoring key points such as hidden safety signals, differences in the manufacturing process and unaddressed post-rollout safety signals.
The style of questioning of the vaccine injured was often condescending, with simplistic and superficial closed questions that prevented witnesses from expanding on their points.
The Astra Zeneca representative was not cross-examined by any of the Inquiry Counsels, with no reason given for this omission.
Public Health and Regulator decision-makers faced softball questions from Inquiry Counsels, which appeared designed to support the official narrative and prevent further interrogation or supporting evidence.
The People’s Vaccine Inquiry group is calling for several reforms, including the immediate cessation of the use of mRNA products as vaccines, reform of the yellow card system and the VDPS, and making manufacturers liable for harm caused.
The group also wants to stop the revolving door between regulators and industry and to place the power of medical decision-making back in the hands of individuals rather than allowing a drift towards communitarianism in policy.
The People’s Vaccine Inquiry intends to continue its quest to make the truth about these products widely known to prevent further harm.
[embedded content]
Dr. Liz Evans: Ethical Failure
Dr. Evans emphasised the failure of the UK Covid Inquiry’s Module 4 to address fundamental questions about the ethics of the covid vaccine rollout, which is considered the biggest avoidable public health disaster in human history.
The rollout of the vaccine egregiously violated medical ethics, including the principles of equal value and dignity of every person, the right to freely decide what happens to their body and the protection of vulnerable patients from abuse.
All medical interventions carry a risk of harm, and there is a duty to act with care and proportionality, using a patient-centred model, obtaining informed consent and maintaining privacy and confidentiality, all of which were violated in the covid vaccine rollout.
The authorities’ failure to implement the precautionary principle was staggering. They set out to vaccinate every person in the country with a novel vaccine that had only two months of safety data without considering individual risk-benefit profiles.
Dr. Evans challenges the claim that “we had no choice” due to the threat from covid, arguing that the choices made were unwise and unethical. No one gave valid informed consent to the vaccines due to coercive messaging, fearmongering and lies, she said.
The use of coercive measures, such as vaccine passports and mandates, crossed the line into overt medical tyranny, and the persecution and censorship of doctors who voiced vaccine safety concerns undermined patient safety.
She warned that covid policies have set a dangerous precedent, normalising the unethical and increasing state overreach into individual healthcare decisions, and calls for the re-establishment of a clear ethical boundary to prevent the state from abusing its power.
The UKMFA is calling for an immediate halt to the covid mRNA vaccine rollout and justice for the vaccine injured and bereaved, recognising and fully compensating them for the harm they have suffered.
[embedded content]
