The Hallett Inquiry Must Stop Now

In February, one of us expressed his concern that the Hallett Inquiry was interviewing the wrong people and, in his view, suppressing scientific evidence. He wrote, in relation to Module 4 on vaccination, “…it was not designed to look at the scientific evidence (indeed at one point it was specifically prohibited) but designed to examine the official response to the pandemic predicated on the ‘truth’ that the vaccines were safe and effective”.

Since then, all manner of cats have been let out of the bag (or Pandora’s Box has flown open?). Evidence is growing that SARS-CoV-2 not only leaked from Wuhan’s Virology Institute, but that the template for it had been supplied by a laboratory in the United States which had failed to obtain funding for gain-of-function research and so outsourced the work to Wuhan. The lab leak was concealed by the Chinese, and a false narrative on its origin was constructed with the connivance of individuals in other countries, some of whom were intimately involved in planning the response. The worldwide lockdowns flew in the face of pre-existing pandemic management protocols, and their economic risks appear to have been ignored. Appropriate treatments for those with severe consequences were not applied; sick elderly patients were discharged to care homes where they infected others; wild speculation on numbers became embedded in thinking, and alarming predictions of case fatality rates were treated as fact. Testing had major flaws; a whole-population vaccination programme was introduced despite the likelihood that only the old were at significant risk, and naturally acquired immunity was superior to anything a vaccine could provide.

Subsequently, it became apparent that the vaccines were not vaccines as we knew them, but were designed to make the body’s own cells reproduce the viral spike protein by introducing subcellular particles (plasmids) containing messenger RNA that would incorporate themselves body-wide. They were a form of gene therapy. Concerns were raised over contamination with DNA (which was identified but varied between batches) and the risks of cancer induction. The world was assured that any shortcuts in trial testing were necessary due to the gravity of the situation and repeatedly told that the “vaccines” were safe and effective.

When Dr Andrew Bamji wrote in February, he pointed out that neither of these claims was true. They were not safe. They caused body-wide damage – myocarditis, stroke, renal impairment and more. Neither were they effective. Transmission was not stopped. The vaccinated, despite boosters, still developed Covid. It seemed pertinent to ask why, if safety and effectiveness were assured, the AstraZeneca vaccine was quietly withdrawn. The high incidence of myocarditis that led to its withdrawal was glossed over.

Worse was to come. It was proved that many deaths listed as from Covid were deaths from other causes with Covid being coincidental (with, not from), thus inflating the Covid risk to support the severe curtailment of activity measures such as lockdowns. Critics, both medical and non-medical, were harassed and defenestrated. Doctors were forbidden to prescribe drugs that were quite safe and had proved effective. Analysts found that death rates from coronary events jumped after the introduction of the vaccines, a risk particularly for the younger age groups. And in the last couple of weeks the Senate hearings in the USA have heard, thanks to diligent Freedom of Information requests from concerned sceptics, that the vaccine trials were completely inadequate and that evidence from those trials was concealed. For a résumé, see ‘Covid Vaccine ‘Safe and Effective’ Narrative Collapses on Camera’. New research has suggested that fertility might be affected, and that the vaccination of pregnant women was unsafe. Overall, the risk of damage was far higher than with existing vaccines that had been withdrawn on safety grounds, and this had actually been found in the short-term trials but was concealed. Figures were fiddled by only calling people vaccinated after an interval, thus consigning subjects with early or immediate side effects to the unvaccinated cohort. Because there have been no long-term trials of any of the vaccines, late effects such as cancer induction cannot have been picked up or quantified. The conduct of regulatory authorities in the USA, Canada, Australia and the UK is questionable, not least because those authorities derive a large part of their funding from the pharmaceutical industry and, in some cases, appear more keen to enable the introduction of new preparations than to properly analyse their safety.

We have little doubt that more revelations will follow. Some have postulated that the dissembling and cover-ups amount to a conspiracy; maybe, maybe not. But we are sure that the evidence gathered by the Hallett Inquiry to date is not fit for purpose, based as it is on interviews with a false agenda, inadequate or false information, false preconditions and the exclusion of dissenting voices which have slowly been proved to be mainly correct. Therefore, we consider that the Inquiry should be halted immediately, or at least paused, until the current unending stream of data analysis, data leaks and FOI information has dried up. If that takes years, so be it. The last thing that will help anyone is a final report at an enormous cost that is immediately condemned as a whitewash.

Andrew Bamji is a retired Consultant Rheumatologist and past President of the British Society of Rheumatology. Angus Dalgleish is an expert in immunology and Emeritus Professor of Oncology at St George’s Hospital Medical School, London.