JONATHAN ENGLER

THIS ‘scene setting’ by Dr Jonathan Engler is the first of six key presentations delivered at last Tuesday’s People’s Vaccine Inquiry press conference that we will be publishing this week. Full details and video of the event can be found here. The slides accompanying Jonathan’s presentation can be found here.

Those given by Dr Liz Evans, Dr Clare Craig, Dr Ros Jones, Mr Nick Hunt and Dr James Royle will follow consecutively over the rest of the week. Their collective conclusion is that the Module 4 Public Hearings ‘were framed to perpetuate the myth that the Covid vaccines were a resounding success’, but that ‘the unheard and censored evidence is quite to the contrary’.

My name is Jonathan Engler. I am a qualified doctor and lawyer, and I co-chair the HART Group with Clare Craig, from whom you will be hearing from later.

The People’s Vaccine Inquiry was formed a year ago when it became obvious to a number of us that the vaccine module of the UK Covid Inquiry – Module 4 – was not interested in hearing the full truth about the products known as covid vaccines.

Several of us decided it was important to create a public record of what the Inquiry seemed determined to NOT talk about. We have been watching Module 4 closely; our fears that this process would in fact be a whitewash have been fully justified.

The framing for this Inquiry was made clear right from the start in the first session, when Baroness Hallett and Hugo Keith stressed how the Inquiry must not be used as a platform for anyone to spread what they termed anti-vaccine mis- or disinformation, as if such terms were amenable to unequivocal objective interpretation.

But throughout the Inquiry, many false assertions have been made, and the Inquiry has ensured that these remain unchallenged, so we would ask: who exactly is spreading mis- or disinformation?

Amongst the misleading, questionable or downright false claims made during the Inquiry and presented as if they were unassailable facts have been the following.

• The covid vaccine rollout was a huge success overall;
• All drugs with the name vaccine are always a net good for a population;
• The covid vaccines saved millions of lives worldwide;
• Covid vaccines broke the link between infection and severe outcomes;
• Pandemics can only be overcome with mass vaccination, a claim for which there is no precedent, and the covid jabs were the only way out of the lockdown restrictions – restrictions which, we might add, were unnecessary anyway;
• We had no choice but to roll out as fast as possible without the benefit of long-term safety data;
• There have been serious side-effects and deaths, but these are rare or very rare or extremely rare and we cannot know for certain if caused by vaccine;
• Vaccine hesitancy is always bad and a problem needing to be solved;
• Anything outside public health or Government communications which question vaccine safety or effectiveness is mis/disinformation and must be censored/prevented to protect vaccine confidence and public health.

It seems clear to us that the structure of the Inquiry and the parameters set for the questioning of the Core Participants were framed to promote a carefully curated story around the covid vaccines, which permitted minimal criticism of the products and the circumstances around their roll-out, while attempting to affirm the programme’s resounding success.

Despite their valiant efforts, the few dissenting voices who are allowed to speak are having their testimony constrained by both the questions asked and the answers they are permitted to give.

Here are some of the more egregious examples.

• The vaccine injured and bereaved groups have been prevented from presenting anything which supported their concerns which was deemed, by the Inquiry of course, to be ‘science’. By way of specific example, Kate Scott from Vaccine Injured and Bereaved UK was trying to make the point that for 100 per cent of her group the vaccines could not be regarded as safe, at which point Baroness Hallett stepped in to stop her, saying they must leave discussions of scientific evidence and acceptable safety levels to the ‘experts’ later in the inquiry.

Of course, these carefully chosen experts ultimately left much unsaid and focused on fully supporting the safety claims made for these products. They ignored many key points, including (and this is in no way an exhaustive list):

Firstly, that safety signals, including deaths, in the trials for the Pfizer product were hidden

Secondly, the fact that the manufacturing process for the rolled-out product was totally different from that given to nearly all the trial participants was essentially glossed over, by June Raine being asked the wrong question which appeared deliberately designed to give the MHRA a way out

Thirdly, that there were in fact very prominent post rollout safety signals which were not acted upon

• The style of questioning of the vaccine injured was unacceptably condescending at times, with Mr Keith posing lengthy but often simplistic and superficial closed questions which had the effect of preventing witnesses from expanding on their points.
• The AstraZeneca representative was not cross-examined at all by any of the CP KCs (every other witness faced 1-2 CP KCs, including Pfizer and Moderna), yet no reason was given for this. If, as has been suggested, this was because of pending legal action, this should have been openly acknowledged and stated by Baroness Hallett.
• Public health and regulator decision-makers faced what can only be described as softball, mainly closed questions from Inquiry Counsels, which appeared designed to support the official narrative, while preventing the need for further interrogation or supporting evidence.

This is why we say that this module – just like the others – can be characterised as set out in the first of my slides – framed to fit the official narrative, obfuscating uncomfortable information, promulgating misleading information adding up to a whitewash with ‘limited hangout’.

In closing, this is what we want:

• Immediate cessation of the use of mRNA products as vaccines;
• Reform of the Yellow Card system;
• Reform of the VDPS [Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme];
• We want manufacturers – rather than taxpayers – to be liable for the huge amount of harm caused;
• Stop revolving door between regulators and Industry which creates implicit COIs [conflicts of interest];
• Place power of medical decision-making back to individual – stop drift to communitarianism in policy characterised by the awful phrase ‘it is for the greater good’, used by tyrannical regimes throughout history to justify all sorts of harmful policies.

As for our small but growing group, we do not intend going away; we intend continuing our quest to make the truth about these products widely known, so that further harms can be prevented.

Editor’s note: The Hallett Inquiry has made an ‘Impact film’ for each module as part of its ‘commemoration activities’ featuring people who have spoken to the Inquiry about how the pandemic has affected their lives, purportedly to ground the proceedings in the human impact of the pandemic. Although the one made for module 4 contained a number of stories of vaccine injuries, its the tone was very much designed to portray the vaccines as nevertheless hugely net beneficial. In fact the film repeatedly stressed the impact that the pandemic (rather than the restrictions) had on communities, and how the vaccines had helped people ‘get their lives back’. Despite these disclaimers the Chairwoman, Lady Hallett and Hugo Keith, the KC still insisted that any criticism of the vaccines did not reflect their views, as illustrated in the accompanying slides.

If anyone would like any further information about this article, do not hesitate to contact The People’s Vaccine Inquiry

---

This article (Inside the People’s Vaccine Inquiry – Part One) was created and published by Conservative Woman and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Jonathan Engler

Inside the People’s Vaccine Inquiry – Part Two

DR ELIZABETH EVANS

Today we publish the second of six presentations delivered at the People’s Vaccine Inquiry press conference last Tuesday. Full details and videos of the event and additional presentations can be found here. 

Yesterday in TCW, Jonathan Engler explained why the People’s Vaccine Inquiry was formed – when, in his words, it became obvious that that Lady Hallett’s UK Covid Inquiry Module 4 was simply not interested in hearing the truth about the so-called covid vaccines. You can read his presentation here.

Today Dr Liz Evans focuses on the complete failure of Lady Hallett to address any questions about the ethics of the vaccine launch in light of its inadequate testing, roll-out speed and failure to live up to government assurances of safety and efficacy.

I AM Dr Elizabeth Evans, a former NHS doctor and CEO of the UK Medical Freedom Alliance, which I co-founded in October 2020 in response to unethical covid policies. We campaign on issues relating to medical ethics and (at the request of Baroness Hallett) submitted a 49-page Witness Statement to Module 4, detailing our work and multiple letters we have sent to policy- and decision-makers, since our first open letter in November 2020 to the MHRA, JCVI and Matt Hancock, alerting them to serious safety and ethical concerns relating to the Covid vaccines and rollout.

The failure of Module 4 to even address fundamental questions about the ethics of the covid vaccine roll-out is a travesty. Vital questions have not been asked, such as:

• Whether the policies and decisions made were morally right, or in accordance with long-established principles of medical ethics?
• Or whether the vaccines should have been rolled out at all, given the lack of safety data, let alone to pregnant women or those least at risk, such as children?

The failure to apply restraint or wisdom in the rollout of Covid jabs has resulted in unprecedented numbers of injuries and deaths reported to the MHRA. This is arguably the biggest avoidable public health disaster in history, and would never have happened if the authorities and healthcare professionals had stuck to the core ethical principles that have alwaysframed and constrained the delivery of healthcare.

It is indisputable that medical ethics were egregiously violated during the roll-out. These principles (enshrined into law and professional codes of practice) uphold the equal value and dignity of every person, and their right to freely decide what happens to their body. They hold healthcare professionals accountable and protect vulnerable patients from abuse. They cannot just be discarded in an emergency, as this is when they are most needed, to protect individuals against panicky state decisions.

All medical interventions carry a risk of harm, so there is a duty to act with care and proportionality. The ethical practice of medicine uses a patient-centred model, where the doctor acts in the best interest of their patient. Informed consent must be obtained for all treatment, after a full explanation of risks and benefits and crucially with no coercion. Privacy and confidentiality are vital.

Every single one of these requirements were violated in the covid vaccine roll-out as a utilitarian ideology, allowing the sacrifice of an individual for the ‘greater good’, was adopted.

In addition, the failure of the authorities to implement the precautionary principle was staggering:

• They set out to vaccinate every person in the country,
• with a novel vaccine, with only two months of safety data, as quickly as possible – regardless of their individual risk v benefit profile.
• Never before has a vaccine still in clinical trials been given to children and pregnant women on such a mass scale. With no data to rule out harmful medium and long-term effects, the regulators were authorising blind.

This was a reckless gamble by the authorities, with the health and lives of millions of UK citizens. In Module 4, we heard the testimonies of the vaccine injured and bereaved, whose devastating stories are evidence that this terrible gamble failed.

Anna Morris (the KC representing the vaccine injured groups) pointed out, in her opening statement, that the groups she represents, ‘present what is an uncomfortable truth for many; that vaccine injury and death are part of the pandemic story’ and that the injured and bereaved are ‘neither anti-science nor anti-vaccine but are real people with real experiences’.

Contrary to the glib claims of the ‘vaccine safety experts’ at the Inquiry, there is now overwhelming evidence, which will be presented by my colleagues, that the covid vaccines are neither safe nor effective. Catastrophic and avoidable harm has resulted from the reckless rollout of these insufficiently tested products.

It may be claimed that ‘we had no choice’ due to the threat from Covid. However, we always have a choice. The choices made were unwise and unethical and should never have been allowed.

It is arguable that no one gave valid informed consent to these products. This slide lists the minimum information required to make an informed decision. I am sure you will agree that the information provided fell well short of this level of disclosure. In addition:

• Coercive messaging, fearmongering and even lies were used by public health authorities, to pressure and shame people into accepting jabs;
• Policies to address ‘vaccine hesitancy’ undermined the right to free medical choice;
• The term ‘anti-vaxxer’ was used to shut down legitimate questions and concerns;
• Many people took the jab under false pretences, believing it would protect others;
• And the extreme coercion of vaccine passports and mandates crossed the line into overt medical tyranny.

An ethical doctor is the only protection a vulnerable patient has from a dehumanised ‘one-size-fits all’ public health system, and from the powerful vested interests of Big Pharma. Yet the few courageous, ethical doctors who dared to voice vaccine safety concerns, were persecuted and censored by health authorities, media and regulators. It is very serious for patient safety when doctors can’t advocate for their patientsand become mere agents of the state.

Covid policies have set a dangerous precedent – normalising the unethical. We are hurtling down a slippery slope of increasing state overreach into individual healthcare decisions. Politicians and bureaucrats have no place in the consulting room or the practice of medicine on individuals.

We must urgently re-establish a clear ethical boundary to prevent the state abusing its power to force medical treatment on an individual. The power of the state in any future health emergency must be restricted, not expanded. And individual rights and medical ethics must be firmly upheld in all circumstances.

Finally, we are calling for an immediate halt to the Covid mRNA vaccine roll-out. It is indefensible that the authorities are still recommending the injection of these dangerous products into anyone.

And we are calling for justice for the vaccine injured and bereaved. It is well past time for them to be recognised and fully compensated for the appalling and unnecessary harm they have suffered. And this must never be allowed to happen again.

---

This article (Inside the People’s Vaccine Inquiry – Part Two) was created and published by Conservative Woman and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Dr Elizabeth Evans