Respond to the COVID-19 Public Inquiry Consultation on its Terms of Reference
The U.K. COVID-19 Public Inquiry is consulting on its terms of reference. The consultation opened on March 11th (not coincidentally, perhaps, the second anniversary of the WHO declaring a pandemic) and will close on April 7th.
Daily Sceptic readers are encouraged to respond, bringing to the inquiry’s attention the questions that ought to be included (the draft terms of reference can be found here). If readers would like to send us the questions they suggest to the inquiry – either by email or in the comments below the line – then we can publish them.
Steve Baker’s suggestions can be found here, Dr. David Livermore’s here and Allison Pearson’s here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I would love to see a people’s enquiry – led by ordinary folk – happy to volunteer my time as chair. Crowdfunded to ensure democratic process and lack of vested interests and temporarily invested with the same powers as the public enquiry.
There is an enquiry for us plebs – everyday on this site for a start. The so called Public Enquiry will be no such thing and the naivety of anyone thinking that it will be anything other than a travesty is absurd. The establishment will protect itself, as usual, in its venal corrupt way. You folks know the reality of this and all that has happened over the last two years, seeking confirmation from the elite low lives is not necessary and impossible. Apologise for calling our esteemed betters in the above terms, but if the hat fits!
You are right olaffreya. The public inquiry is nothing more than window dressing, going through the motions – purely to make the masses think that the government is sincere in wanting to examine what happened. A few damaging allegations might emerge – all to be airbrushed away – to create the illusion that it is a genuine inquiry, but nothing will change as a result of it and the process of continuing on down the Great Reset path will continue unabated. This below makes for sobering reading and a useful reality check Was the Covid crisis a fraud to cancel global debt? – The Conservative Woman “WALL Street executive Edward Dowd alleges the Covid crisis was manufactured to solve governments’ out of control debt crises. His 20 years’ experience with high-profile financial crashes alerted him to a potential underlying fraud being used to wipe the books clean.” “The above tells us we are in for a bleak future before a much-needed reset, but not in the way the World Economic Forum set out in 2020. Dowd said: ‘I believe there’s going to be a lot of chaos and trouble in the next 6 to 12 months. ‘I do believe on the other… Read more »
Given the wilful carnage (of all types) inflicted on the UK people, their culture, their health, their once (supposedly) inalienable rights, their families and their businesses by the Government, SAGE etc I can see no logical grounds for just an ‘Inquiry’. inquiry/noun/(UK also enquiry) uk‘an official process to discover the facts about something’ Many facts are known, they are a matter of record – so what is needed is a People’s Inquisition. inquisition/noun ‘a period of asking questions in a detailed and unfriendly way:’(ie: The police subjected him to an inquisition that lasted twelve hours.) We don’t need to know what happened, but why and how it happened. Only by isolating (arresting if necessary) and questioning those directly responsible will answers be arrived at. Collusion and obfuscation by those being questioned, including the deliberate loss of papers or suppression of evidence (such as the Big Pharma trial data), should be pro-actively prevented by pre-emptive actions by the People’s Inquiry team. This may mean detentions and raids on key sources of info such as computers, minutes from secret meetings and phone records. Further, the Inquisition should look at the role of the Press – not just the MSM but those self proclaimed… Read more »
It will eventually be impossible to print truth of this clarity as clearly it will make some feel ‘unsafe’.
The ‘enabling’ criminals without whom this assault on humanity could not have been launched are the Media/ Big Tech Corps and their megalomaniac owners and bosses . The Russians have sensibly banned the ‘fake truth’ propaganda of Facebook, Twitter, along with Meta and Instagram – we should follow suit and also break up Google- You Tube monopolies and distribute their ill-gotten wealth back to the people they stole it from!
“Foundations”; established as fake charities by political and business leaders and used to hide launder and deploy their obscene wealth to buy influence and fund activism for their own subversive political ends, should be broken up and their assets seized by the state .
Techno tyrannical World Government sponsored by billionaires and the UN will result in the most despicable, evil, genocidal, immoral tyranny ever seen on Earth.
You get the feeling that ‘unbalanced’ Johnson just can’t wait for it to start so he can live out all his infantile fantasies!
Isn’t it rather naïve to be submitting terms and questions when the result will have been decided before the process was even green-lit?
Same as the Climategate inquiry! The result will be a whitewash, but let’s make them work very hard to manufacture that whitewash.
All that “work” will be done at our cost though.
Cheaper if they pretend that they listened to us, and we pretend that we believe them. The results will be identical either way.
Sadly I am inclined to agree.
I responded to the “consultation” on vaxx passports. I learned my lesson from that big time. This will be no different.
The plebs are by nature ‘naive’ or we would not even be here in the first place as willing victims of such blatantly obvious hysterical propaganda and a stream of equally blatant lies and outrageous actions from our politicians and all our formerly respected institutions !
No enquiry could possibly cover the immeasurable magnitude of the criminal damage they have deliberately inflicted ( and are still on inflicting) on our country our economy, our society, our culture and our people in pursuit of manic globalist objectives..
An “enquiry'” with the corrupt and guilty Institutions in charge, will simply be a further insult to the intelligence.
And will not only continue to inflict but I would imagine worse is to come.
What are they to do with the unvaxxed, and indeed, those who have had some jabs but are refusing to have any more? We have already heard other european leaders say they cannot be tolerated and that they are not citizens. Where do you think that leads to, especially if there is a depopulation agenda at work?
My questions are: WHO was behind it all? WHO funded the Wuhan labs? Who funds the WHO?
Well, Gates pretty much owns the WHO. And he and Fauci are vaccine-best-buddies and enthusiastically-authoritarian rubbishers of early treatment options…
Probably, one need look no further.
Wuhan labs funded for gain-of-function research by Fauci through US taxpayers via the NIH.
Gates is the single most important funding source of the WHO. Fauci funded the Wuhan Labs. Gates and Fauci have been close collaborators in the vaccine world for many years ( see RFKJ ‘The real Anthony Fauci)
Daily Sceptic readers – this is your moment! Given the visitor numbers this site has, there should be a million people ready to bombard the government with reasons why the terms of the enquiry must include all the bits that it currently avoids (collateral damage, the fear-mongering propaganda, the barring of effective treatments etc.) We may be sceptics, but there is a time to act!
This makes for sobering reading and sets the “Inquiry” into its true context – utterly pointless unless of course UK is about the only country in the world NOT participating in the depopulation.
Covid Vaccines as the Aschen Agenda – by Monica Hughes PhD (substack.com)
During the pandemic
No one lost their right to peacefully protest
No one was placed under house arrest
No one was forced to take part in a medical experiment
No one lost their right to free speech
You could leave and enter the country anytime you wanted
Anyone could see their family whenever they wanted
The police did not beat up or murder women
No one had their private property confiscated
Hospital waiting lists improved
The schools did not close
You could travel anywhere you wanted in the country
Child abuse declined
Nobody was killed or injured by a vaccine
There was no government propaganda
No masks were required
(This comment is OSB compliant)
I thought we were supposed to be submitting questions, not the answers!
It’s Jeopardy.
What is the COVID enquiry?
everyone – “But we saw the restrictions with our own eyes”
Enquiry “no you didn’t, look Ukraine!”
You forgot that no-one was driven to depression leading to suicide.
No one lost their jobs because the businesses they worked for were forced to close and didn’t qualify for furlough
The key question is why did SAGE predict the first peak in June 2020, when it was very clear it would peak in April. That is key, because it was the prime cause of the panic that then ensued, and it begs the question: how on earth that people that got such a simple forecast so dramatically wrong, continue to advise the government.
For info. We know they predicted June 2020, from the evidence given to the parliamentary enquiry by Cummings. The actual data showed about an 8-10 fold increase in covid each week. And, we know the PM was misled about the rate of increase because he stated in one early press conference that the figures were doubling each week.
It’s very clear from that, that the forecasters were not even bothering to look at the actual data, but were obsessed with their models right from the beginning which were totally and utterly wrong.
So, it might not seem much, but focussing on that one question is critical: why did they forecast a June peak when a simple plot on a log-time graphed showed that all the UK would have been infected by end of April?
They managed to get that one by Joe public by using big daily figures when it suited and then massive horrifying cumulative numbers when the figures weren’t trending how they wanted.
‘There is no doubt that we need experts and expertise, and that most experts act with good intentions. I believe those advocating for lockdown sincerely believed it was necessary’. I don’t accept this statement, they were not independent enough, ie some had pharma shares, some were touting for grants and funding.
Sincerely believed it was necessary… in order to boost their pharma shares, lock in a knighthood or two and hope that noone who’d lost a relative due to lockdown would seek them out to administer some karma.
My first “suggestion” is that the people conducting the “inquiry” are not part of the establishment.
I propose at least one panel composed of DS readers.
As a question, why were daily all-cause mortalities published and splashed everywhere as if they proved the existence of a highly unusual, indiscriminately deadly virus, when just two minutes’ research and one minute of basic arithmetic showed Little Old Me that they represented nothing more than an outbreak of a bad, seasonal flu virus (which COVID-19 then, indeed, turned out to be)?
And as a little footnote: Life Expectancy in 2020 and 2021 in England and Wales has not changed from 2019’s figure of 81 years… WHERE EXACTLY WAS/IS THE PANDEMIC?
There was a short-term pandemic in care homes when the government sent infected patient back to unprotected homes and then slapped ‘do not resuscitate’ noticed on them.
Then there was a longer pandemic amongst cancer sufferers when their treatments were withdrawn until they died…
Seems to me that all the policies that were pursued from quite early on were entirely predicated on the PCR test. No one in government or among the so-called experts questioned the validity of that test, despite its very doubtful provenance. I would love to know why.
No point in questioning what was obviously convincing the public to be largely compliant.
Even now, most folk I speak to just want it to be over and don’t seem to care that it was all a disgraceful shambles.
I agree – they genuinely think “there was a dreadful pandemic – the jabs saved us, and now it is all over”. They have no clue that worse could be on its way.
I was having a conversation yesterday with someone about Abramovich and what happens to the money realised through the sale of Chelsea FC to someone “more acceptable” (likely someone equally dodgy, but just not Russian, so ok then).
If Abramovich owned it and it is sold then the money should be returned to him – but the person I was talking to thought he didn’t ‘deserve’ to have the funds returned to him and that it was ok for them to be confiscated by the government.
I pointed out if the government can do that to him then it follows that they can do that to you to. He just couldn’t accept that as a possibility.
Some people are in for a massive wake up call – but when it happens it will be too late.
This is all lovely and very quaint.
But as long as parliament is sovereign and can enact any law by simple majority, everything seems rather pointless to me.
I would like to see a contract between the people and the government and its institutions – call it a constitution if you like – that lays out clearly the conditions under which the people cede power to the government and state institutions. Those conditions should basically be a list of rights that we have, that are unassailable and that the government can under no circumstances take away. At the very least they should include
This would require a constitutional revolution to make the people instead of parliament sovereign. It’s happened before when sovereignty was taken away from the monarch and given to the parliament. I could happen again, in theory, with another shift this time to the people. Not likely though.
Yup, something the below: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising… Read more »
Would love this in theory, except even countries with decent constitutions had their enshrined rights trampled on these last two years.
“you can’t make me take anything, you can’t make me wear anything.”
I wish I had had that notion clearly in my mind two years ago. Or at the least had the courage to adhere to it.
“Will P&O ex employees take Ukrainians in?”
“Border Farce has taken most of their business away.”
“Basic employment law, the role becomes redundant not the person, you can’t just replace people with other people.” – I think we’ve just witnessed you can!!
I was brought up a Christian Scientist. Which has an advantage: we learn about the limits of medical expertise and the right to refuse treatment. Why isn’t the enquiry looking at the moral problem posed by the pandemic? Why did politicians not articulate the rights of patients to refuse treatment. Why did no-one in the medical profession remind us that consent is the cornerstone of all medical practice? Why did the Government allow the denigration of ‘anti-vaxxers’? Anyone who knew anything about medical ethics could see that the behaviour of the medical profession and the Government was dishonest. Why are they asking the opinions of the bereaved? Hardly anyone in our society can find appropriate language to describe the perfect natural process of dying. We’ll get endless accounts of how every death is a ‘tragedy’, and we all have a right to Iive forever.
Why did anyone pretend that those being jabbed had given ‘informed consent’?
I made some suggestions. The most important of which is that this Inquiry should be completely and utterly transparent. All meeting minutes should be release, all e-mails, internal communications, source code to any models run, configuration and data fed into said models, etc.
Two Questions:
1) Given the track-record of Prof Neil Ferguson over many years, of which the low-point was perhaps the cull of several million farm animals, what was the justification for canvassing and heeding his advice in this case?
2) My general practitioner declined to issue me a prescription for Ivermectin and it quickly became impossible to source this treatment on-line. On which authority was the policy introduced and why was this not made public at the time?
How about:
3) Why was it thought necessary to ban several substances that had been approved for decades and with good safety records, thus potentially allowing people to die while waiting for the panacea of the vaccines to arrive? Even if those treatments had been useless, what harm would have come of their potentially-prophylactic use?
A critical question that somehow I think they’re not even close to being brave enough to answer properly.
A main question I want answering is: to what extent does the World Economic Forum (WEF) influence political affairs and politicians in the UK?
you will never get an answer to that
My questions are few and straightforward:
A polite expression of my rage.
Well, for what it’s worth, I made my suggestions, but then I’m asked how best the voices of those who have suffered from the covid or been bereaved can be taken into account, or words to that effect. Which suggests we are due for lots of mawkish headlines in due course, before the inquiry finds that the country didn’t lock down hard enough or fast enough or thick enough (or something)
There’s lots of ways we have been bereaved. One of my best friends died from a cancer that she shouldn’t have died from that quickly, had she been able to be seen when she first tried to get seen. Sept 2020 she tried to get to see a doc. Sept 2021 she was diagnosed. Dec 2021 she was dead. Do we think that kind of thing will come under the heading of ‘bereaved’? She left two teenage daughters.
Don’t worry. I know the answer.
The inquiry should also include the government’s obsequious obedience to the WHO narrative despite the very clear signs of partisan influences, not least from China. This is important if we are to balance decisions taken in the national interest versus those that may be taken in the supranational interest.
A second line of enquiry should be to understand exactly why established scientific guidelines – including those espoused by the WHO prior to the pandemic – were suddenly rewritten with no justification. This includes the rationale behind imposing a single clinical model of treatment rather than exploiting the diversity of medical and scientific resources worldwide in order to establish both the actual severity of the pandemic, and possible prophylactic and clinical treatments.
I shall respond to this but I shall also send my response to my MP (he is actually one of the decent ones and has always been against the accursed and satanic ‘vaccine passports’) and state my firm view that:
This Government and ALL the institutions of this country (the bloated, incompetent and inefficient public sector. the church, by which I mean ALL denominations, and the Press (newspapers, mass media generally, radio, TV and www) are completely corrupt and need to be flushed down the toilet. There are some members of some churches who have not bowed down to Baal; there are some journalists who try to be objective; possibly there may be some in the bloated, incompetent and inefficient public sector who try to serve the public.
But these three groups are very small in number.
The enquiry needs to actually refer to scientific evidence when it concludes what measures were and weren’t effective, and what should have been implemented instead.
We were locked in a tyranny of illogic, emotion and handwaving during the crazy times. Please let the enquiry right the balance.
I suggested that disagreeing experts should be offered immunity, since the government and medical establishment have a track record of seeking revenge on anyone who disagrees with them….
I do not trust anything this government says or does. But anyway. Questions.
1) Why did Bill Gates visit number 10 in 2020 in private with Boris Johnson ? What did they discuss or decide as he also visited many other european leaders in 2020 ???
2) What sage members have shares in vaccine companies ? Including whitty especially.
3) What sage members have contact or links with Bill gates or the Gates foundation or shares in vaccination companies.
4) Why did Hancock and johnson ignore the respected Tess Laurie of the BIRD organanization in respect to Ivermectin and early treatment.
5)Did hancock have any contact with the gates foundation or Bill Gates or any shares in vaccine companies.
6) Why did the UK government expect increased deaths and advertise for IT staff to handle these deaths and injuries before the vaccines arrived.
7) Who advised the UK gov to not do early treatment and send people home till they were seriously ill
8) What members of the Cabinet have shares in vaccination companies
It is obvious. FOLLOW THE MONEY !!
full breakdown of WHO benefited from the PPE and other contracts and by how much
One might like to ask why the recruitment advisor for the job title ‘NHS England Head of Strategy’, tasked primarily with ‘Vaccine Deployment Programme Strategy’ is called Rebecca Cull?!
See https://www.england.nhs.uk/about/working-for/#!/job/UK/West_Yorkshire/LondonLeedsany_other_NHSE_base/NHS_England_NHS_Improvement/Vaccine_Deployment_ProgrammeStrategy/Vaccine_Deployment_ProgrammeStrategy-v3974361?ref=LinkedIn&
if you don’t believe me….
So, for what it’s worth – this is my response. The Terms of Reference should include: The role of scientific modelling in guiding government policy The accuracy of scientific modelling and to what extent if any, that models were updated and corrected by actual outcomes The descriptions given to modelled outcomes (ie “reasonable worst case”) and how those descriptions came to be interpreted by the media The issues of continuing with the same “failed” modellers throughout the pandemic The use and misuse of models by the PM. CMO & CSA to justify policy The use of and publication of out-of-date data by the PM, CMO & CSA to support policy The failure to model or consider financial or any other medical outcomes, outside of Covid The reasons why SAGE models used were not just badly wrong, but always wrong in the same direction The actual data which was used to justify the wearing of face masks The resulting impacts on adults and children of compulsory face masks The actual data which was used to justify or support lockdowns The allowance of SAGE members to make regular media appearances to push, support or influence policy The role of OFCOM in shutting… Read more »
Information submitted, but it will be ignored as it doesn’t support the approved narrative
I have responded to the request for comment on TOR. Here is what I put for the important things they should concentrate on:
Accuracy, or rather inaccuracy, of modelling the epidemic waves.
Lack of a Blue Team/Red Team approach to avoid disastrous groupthink.
Whether the 3 lockdowns were justified from a health standpoint and from an overall cost benefit standpoint.
The glacial emergence from restrictions in spring 2021 when infections were extremely low.
Why the Downing Street civil service thought it was OK to party at a time when the populace couldn’t see their dying parents.
Seems reasonable??