The People’s Vaccine Inquiry: Vaccine safety and MHRA failings were left unchallenged by 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).

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:

1. Caroline Pover representing the UK CV Family for covid vaccine injured and bereaved;
2. Jonathan Engler is the co-chair of the Health Advisory & Recovery Team (“HART”);
3. Dr. Liz Evans representing the UK Medical Freedom Alliance (“UKMFA”);
4. Dr. Ros Jones representing the Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council (“CCVAC”);
5. Dr. Clare Craig representing HART;
6. Nick Hunt is a Senior Civil Servant in the Ministry of Defence and wrote the 2023 Perseus Report;
7. Professor Angus Dalgleish;
8. Dr. James Royle; and,
9. 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 three days.  We published the first article about the first three speakers in the list above HERE.  The following is the second three. The next article will be the final three.

If you wish to get ahead of us, you can find all the videos and accompanying written statements from the press conference on the People’s Vaccine Inquiry website HERE.

Table of Contents

Dr. Ros Jones: No Justification For Covid Vaccination Of Children

Ros Jones, a retired consultant paediatrician.  Dr. Jones and her colleagues at CCVAC had sent numerous letters to regulators and politicians expressing their concerns, but their statements were not used in the inquiry and were instead dismissed as part of the “misinformation brigade.”

The group’s first fully referenced letter was sent by Chris Whitty’s department to the Counter Disinformation Unit, which had previously monitored online child pornography and terrorism.

[Related: “Counter Disinformation Unit” on The Exposé]

Dr. Jones emphasised that the government’s measures during the pandemic caused disproportionate harm to children, and the risk-benefit balance of the vaccine varied by age, making a one-size-fits-all approach incorrect.

Matt Hancock and Kate Bingham initially stated that the vaccine was intended for adults, particularly those over 50 with comorbidities, but the vaccine rollout eventually included children.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) authorised the use of the Pfizer vaccine for 12-15-year-olds based on a study of 1,131 vaccinated children followed for two months, which Dr. Jones argued was not a sufficient measure of safety.

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (“JCVI”) initially decided not to recommend the vaccine for healthy children under 18 but reversed their decision 48 hours later after an emergency meeting requested by the Chief Medical Officer (“CMO”), Chris Whitty.  Dr. Jones questioned why Whitty was not asked about this change in decision to vaccinate children.

Myocarditis has been acknowledged as a potential side effect of the vaccine and is now shown on the public information leaflet. But the MHRA’s so-called expert misquoted the Oxford study, saying it showed more myocarditis with covid than with the vaccine.  Dr. Jones cited studies from Israel and Thailand that showed myocarditis was not “very rare” as claimed, with rates of 1 in 6,000 and 1 in 29, respectively.  1 in 6,000 is classified as rare and 1 in 29 is common.  Nobody raised these studies at the UK Covid Inquiry, Dr. Jones said.

She also pointed out that teenagers who seemed to recovered quickly from myocarditis often had abnormal cardiac MRI results, which could be associated with reduced 5-year survival.

Finally, Jones expressed concern about the use of inducements, such as football tickets and cash offers, to encourage children to get vaccinated, which she argued was not in line with the principle of only allowing treatments for personal health benefit.

Dr. Clare Craig: Illusion of Benefit

There was a  deliberate exclusion of narrative-challenging evidence at the Covid Inquiry, Dr. Craig said, where lead counsel Hugo Keith interrupted speakers and made it clear that the predetermined position would not be challenged.

Keith and other participants claimed the covid vaccines were “entirely effective,” “undoubted successes,” and offered “lifesaving benefits” without providing evidence, instead relying on slogans and doctrine. 

The vaccines’ efficacy and safety were not scrutinised and the Inquiry relied on models and statistical illusions to support their claims.  The models assumed a never-ending tsunami of infection and death without lockdowns and vaccines, which has been disproven by subsequent waves, and assumed vaccines prevented 90% of deaths, ignoring the less severe Omicron variant.

Dr. Craig also highlighted the statistical “Cheap Trick” – the illusion of benefit. The vaccine’s suppression of immunity for two weeks triggered infections earlier in susceptible people. The statistical illusion was perpetuated by labelling the two-week window after vaccination as “unvaccinated.”  By labelling those who got infections in the first two weeks after the vaccine as infections in the “unvaccinated,” it appeared as if the unvaccinated were at a higher risk of covid infections while making the vaccine appear safer than it was.

Dr. Craig cited the example of Peter Rossiter, a 39-year-old pianist who fell ill with covid four days after his second dose.  Pfizer’s response to Rossiter’s case was that he “wasn’t fully protected.” They knew the two-week period was risky. Instead of admitting it they used such cases to prop up the illusion of benefit, Dr. Craig said.

Shifting Narrative and Contradictions in Vaccine Efficacy

The covid vaccine narrative shifted from reducing infections to preventing severe disease and death, despite real-world evidence showing the vaccines did not reduce infections in 2021.

During the Inquiry, different witnesses, including Chris Whitty, Professor Prieto-Alhambra, Dame Kate Bingham, Lord James Bethell and Matt Hancock, clung to various parts of this false narrative, with some claiming the vaccines were effective in controlling severe disease and death but not transmission.

Professor Prieto-Alhambra turned to the Imperial College model which claimed the vaccines saved over 14 million lives globally and helped prevent long covid.  Claims based on such modelling are worthless and unscientific, Dr. Craig said.

During the Inquiry, contradictions arose regarding death prevention, with Professor Wei Lim claiming 99% of covid mortality was in Phase 1 groups, those people targeted for the earliest injections.  In other words, post-vaccination all this group would be saved.  UKHSA reported only 14,000 deaths were prevented after the first six months, which magically increased to 109,000 by September.

Real-world evidence showed that populations in the USA and Europe (excepting UK, Portugal, and Ireland) saw no benefit from vaccines in 2021, with deaths continuing to rise in line with virus levels in sewage and people developing antibodies.

Clinical Trials and Safety Concerns

Representatives from AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna were questioned during the Covid Inquiry.

Dr. Justin Green from AstraZeneca claimed that on the basis of a single death in the trial placebo group indicated an “excellent product.”  The US trial safety board had condemned the “misleading” press releases that quoted 100% effectiveness against death on the back of this one death.  But no one at the Covid Inquiry challenged Dr. Green’s assertion.

The Moderna representative, Mr. Darius Hughes, denied any suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions during the trials. But the head of the Commission on Human Medicines, Professor Munir Pirmohamed, reported there had been a facial paralysis signal from Bell’s Palsy from “the beginning.”

Other mentions of clinical trials were forbidden during the inquiry.

Suppression of Dissenting Voices and Key Topics at the Inquiry

During the Covid Inquiry, Ruth O’Rafferty of the Scottish Vaccine Injured group and Charlet Crichton of UK CV Family brought up critical issues regarding vaccine safety and trial data, but were interrupted by counsel Hugo Keith.

Keith dismissed discussions on the differences between trial and mass-produced vaccine products, vaccine injuries in trials and regulatory failures, stating that there was no time to delve into such details or examine individual cases.

The Inquiry also avoided discussing several key topics, including lipid nanoparticle risks, cardiac risks and sudden death, spike protein production, and differences in doses between Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

The Myth of Vaccine Safety and Efficacy vs. Real-World Evidence

Despite the emphasis on the “rarity” of serious adverse effects during the Covid Inquiry, with Keith using the word “rare” 134 times, data showed that excess deaths, working-age disabilities and heart disease increased significantly after spring 2021, even in countries with minimal covid cases.

Trial data revealed a 1 in 800 risk of serious adverse events for mRNA vaccines and 1 in 550 for Pfizer, while evidence suggested that the mass-produced Pfizer vaccine had 2 to 13 times more adverse reactions than the laboratory version used in trials.  Furthermore, 3% of mRNA recipients showed evidence of heart damage, contradicting Keith’s claims of the “rarity” of adverse effects.

Dr. Craig criticised the Covid Inquiry for idolising the vaccine narrative, silencing dissenting voices and refusing to question the myths surrounding the covid pandemic and vaccine effectiveness.  The twin pillars of the covid era, namely the myth of an unstoppable tsunami of death and the myth that vaccines saved us, are false, with the benefits being an illusion and the harms being real.

History will not look kindly to those who refused to listen.

Nick Hunt: MHRA Failures

Nick Hunt, a former Senior Civil Servant in the Ministry of Defence, co-authored the 36-page Perseus Report in 2023, which documented the harms caused by covid vaccines, exaggerated benefits and the MHRA failures in safety management of medicines.

Hunt also co-authored a Witness Statement to the Covid Inquiry, but was disappointed that the Inquiry decided not to call them to present their evidence and doubts it will be published on the website.

Hunt expressed concerns about the MHRA’s slow response to safety issues, taking an average of 11 years to withdraw a medicine on safety grounds, and the harm caused to people during this time. “It’s appalling.  But the Inquiry didn’t ask about that, did it?” Hunt said.

Inquiry’s Failure to Challenge MHRA and Investigate Safety Signals

June Raine, the head of MHRA, admitted in her Written Evidence that the agency does not investigate all Yellow Card reports, including fatal ones, and instead relies on statistical analysis of the whole Yellow Card database to generate safety signals.

The Inquiry did not challenge the Chair of the Commission on Human Medicines when he falsely reassured them that MHRA follows up all fatal Yellow Card reports, and also did not ask about the lack of causation assessment in reported adverse events.

The statistical analysis process used by MHRA has been shown to miss safety signals, and the Inquiry did not ask questions about the extent to which this contributes to the agency’s slow response to safety issues.

Unpublished Trial Results and Lack of Transparency in Vaccine Approval

The covid vaccines were mass-produced using a different process than the product used in clinical trials, with no comparative safety data, and the Inquiry failed to expose the fact that the results of a small trial using the mass-produced vaccine were never published.

The MHRA also did not include information about quality concerns, lack of comparative safety data, and consequential safety risks in its advice to Ministers recommending approval of the vaccines.

The Inquiry ignored key safety issues, including DNA contamination in the mass-produced vaccines, and the lack of measurement of DNA contamination in MHRA’s own batch testing.

Inquiry’s Neglect of Key Safety Issues and Post-Authorisation Studies

Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca were required to conduct Post-Authorisation Safety Studies, but the Inquiry did not ask about the status of these studies or the potential risks associated with the covid vaccines.

Hunt criticized the Inquiry for ignoring evidence from Pfizer’s ‘Interim Report 5’, which reported a higher incidence of heart conditions among covid vaccinated people, despite the MHRA withholding its publication.

Hunt questioned why the Inquiry did not ask about the MHRA’s decision to withhold the report, June Raine’s statement under oath that MHRA was not holding any such reports and the expert witnesses’ belief that the increase in heart conditions is not caused by the vaccines when Pfizer says that it is.

Hunt also questioned why the Inquiry did not ask whether the MHRA has required covid vaccine manufacturers to extend the analysis of NHS data to other conditions like cancer, where rates have increased significantly since 2020.

Hunt highlighted that the MHRA’s safety management is all relative: approval is based on benefit being greater than risk and surveillance is based on a drug being no worse than similar drugs, without defining a threshold for suspension.

He criticised that the MHRA is not subject to independent safety audits.  “It has a biennial quality audit of its pharmacovigilance system.  But that’s a completely different thing – a quality audit looks at compliance with business processes whereas a safety audit would look at the extent of safety risks.  Why is MHRA allowed to get away with that?” he asked. 

Hunt noted that the MHRA’s safety management of covid vaccines was appalling, symptomatic of its broader safety management issues with medicines and medical devices.

He concluded by quoting Patrick Vallance’s 2014 statement: “In the future medicines will come to market quicker with less data, with more research being conducted in the post-license phase.”

Hunt warned that unless the MHRA’s safety management is reformed, medicine safety will continue to deteriorate.