The Covid Inquiry as the Ultimate Establishment Stitch-Up
STEVEN BARNES
Lady Harlot, sorry Hallett’s latest module of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, a £192 million (and counting) theft from the British taxpayer and exercise in bureaucratic self-exculpation should not be filed quietly away in the archives of official history. It should be hurled into the nearest furnace with the contempt it so richly deserves – after being used to expose the British Establishment as the dangerous enemy they are. After years of hearings, millions of pages of evidence, and a cast of thousands, the report delivers precisely what Britain’s governing class ordered: a comforting fairy-tale in which Boris Johnson’s “chaotic” Downing Street is the sole villain, lockdowns are treated as self-evidently life-saving, and the possibility that the entire response was a catastrophic, premeditated overreaction is simply airbrushed out of existence.
This is not an inquiry. It is a shameless cover-up dressed up as public accountability. An exercise Goebbels himself would be proud of.
The central, glaring and widely predicted omission, the question that renders the entire multi-billion-pound circus pointless, is brutally simple: did lockdowns actually save a net number of lives? The Inquiry never asks it. It simply assumes, with the serene confidence of a Soviet commissar pronouncing on tractor production figures, that reducing social contact was the only moral and scientific response to a respiratory virus with an infection fatality rate now known to have been between 0.15% globally and lower still in most age groups. The Hallett report treats Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College models – the same models that predicted 510,000 British deaths without lockdown and 250,000 in Sweden (actual Swedish death toll: under 24,000 with excess mortality now indistinguishable from normal years) – as holy writ. It cites the claim that locking down a week earlier in March 2020 would have “saved” 23,000 lives as though it were engraved on tablets of stone. It is nothing of the sort. Those figures come from models that were systematically, ludicrously alarmist and that assumed, among other absurdities, that without government orders the British public would have carried on shaking hands with plague victims.
We now know, thanks to Freedom of Information releases and the work of independent statisticians, that the epidemic wave in Britain had already peaked in many regions before the first lockdown on 23 March 2020. Hospital admissions were falling in London by the time Boris Johnson made his fateful announcement. Sweden, Florida, and several US states that avoided prolonged hard lockdowns ended the pandemic with lower age-adjusted excess mortality than Britain, yet the Inquiry waves this away with the breezy observation that Sweden “also took measures”. Yes, voluntary, light-touch measures that preserved civil liberties and caused vastly less collateral damage. The difference is not trivial; it is the difference between a functioning society and a police state.
But facts are unwelcome guests at Lady Hallett’s table.
Consider the treatment of the Omicron wave in winter 2021–22. Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty demanded another full lockdown, brandishing graphs predicting catastrophe. Boris Johnson, to his credit, refused. The predicted disaster never materialised. Hospitalisations peaked at less than a third of previous waves; deaths were a small fraction. The vaccines (which, let us remember, were sold to the public as stopping transmission and only later quietly rebranded as reducing severity and which are now proving lethal for some) combined with natural immunity and a milder variant rendered lockdown unnecessary. The Inquiry’s response? To criticise the government for “optimism bias” and to intone that “if vaccines had been less effective or Omicron as severe as Delta, the consequences would have been disastrous”. In other words, Britain should have locked down anyway, just in case. This is policymaking by worst-case fantasy, the precautionary principle run mad, the same mindset that would ban cars because someone, somewhere, might have a fatal accident.
The report’s treatment of alternative strategies is beneath contempt. The Great Barrington Declaration, signed by tens of thousands of scientists and doctors advocating the only sensible precaution, focused on the protection of the vulnerable while allowing low-risk individuals to live normally, is dismissed in a few sneering paragraphs. Sweden is mentioned only to be misrepresented. The possibility that East Asia’s success owed more to prior immunity from earlier coronaviruses than to masks and border theatre is ignored. The inquiry never seriously examines the mountain of evidence showing that lockdowns did not meaningfully alter long-term mortality trajectories once age, comorbidities, and population immunity are accounted for. Countries that locked down early and hard (Peru, Bolivia) often fared worse than those that did not (Sweden, Japan, several African nations).
And then there is the money. The economic cost of Britain’s response; £376 billion according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, equivalent to over £13,000 per household is mentioned only in passing, as though borrowing 20 per cent of GDP in two years were a minor bookkeeping adjustment. The learning loss to a generation of children, the explosion in mental illness, the missed cancer diagnoses (Cancer Research UK estimates 40,000 fewer diagnoses in the first year alone), the destruction of businesses and livelihoods, all waved away. The inquiry appears to believe that human rights and economic life can be suspended indefinitely whenever a computer model spits out a scary number.
But the deepest scandal is what the inquiry refuses even to peek at: the growing body of evidence that the pandemic response was not a panicked improvisation but a long-pre-planned power grab by supranational bodies and their domestic placemen.
Event 201, hosted in October 2019 by the Johns Hopkins Centre, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, simulated – weeks before Patient Zero in Wuhan – a coronavirus pandemic and rehearsed precisely the censorship, lockdown, and “vaccine passport” measures that were later rolled out globally. The WHO’s 2019 pandemic influenza guidelines, quietly rewritten in late 2019 to remove previous cautions against border closures and to downgrade the importance of economic costs, set the stage. Britain’s own 2011 pandemic strategy, which explicitly rejected lockdowns as ineffective and disproportionate, was binned in March 2020 without public debate.
SPI-B, the behavioural-science subgroup of SAGE, openly discussed in March 2020 how to use fear to secure compliance: “A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened… The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging.” Minutes later reveal they considered whether the fear level was already “too high” before deciding it was “about right”. Masks, as the author of the original piece witnessed, were mandated in mid-2020 explicitly because they had “no meaningful effect” on transmission but would “remind everyone we were in a pandemic”. The British public was subjected to a deliberate campaign of psychological warfare by its own government.
And the financial beneficiaries? Step forward the pharmaceutical giants who lobbied for lockdown policies that made their experimental gene therapies the only route back to normal life, and the tech companies that profited from house arrest. Pfizer’s revenues doubled; Zoom’s stock rose tenfold. Meanwhile, small businesses were crushed and public debt exploded, transferring wealth from the young and poor to the rentier class and the state.
Lady Hallett’s inquiry was never designed to expose any of this. Its terms of reference were carefully drawn to exclude examination of the scientific advice’s reliability, the economic costs, or the human-rights implications, let alone the efficacy and/or dangers of mRNA vaccines. Witnesses who questioned the orthodoxy; Sunetra Gupta, Carl Heneghan, Jay Bhattacharya, were given short shrift or ignored entirely. The establishment closed ranks with the efficiency of the Brigade of Guards. This is not incompetence. It is collusion.
Britain spent £192 million to be told that the people who wrecked the economy, traumatised a generation, and trashed two decades of public-finance discipline were essentially right all along, they just weren’t authoritarian enough, soon enough. The report is not merely wrong; it is a moral and intellectual outrage. It ensures that when the next respiratory virus appears – and it will – the same cast of modellers, behavioural psychologists, and supranational bureaucrats will demand the same measures, only faster and harder. And many think, as do I, that this is the plan, the sinister agenda behind it all, designed to make it easy to establish totalitarian control.
Until a proper inquiry is held that asks whether the pandemic justified the greatest peacetime assault on British liberty and prosperity in our history, one that follows the money and the power rather than protecting it, Lady Harlot, sorry Hallett’s, multi-volume doorstop should be regarded as what it is: a £192 million establishment theft from the taxpayer and a whitewash of sinister proportions.
History will not be kind to those who authored it. Nor should we. But most of all, we must not forget the sinister agenda beneath it.
This article (Lady Hallett’s Whitewash) was created and published by Free Speech Backlash and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Steven Barnes
See Related Article Below
C-19 Inquiry a whitewash? It’s up to us
HART
There have been many complaints that the UK Covid-19 inquiry is just a hugely expensive way of kicking the can down the road and that no-one will be held accountable for the huge damage to UK citizens caused by the whole debacle.
Baroness Hallett has been in the chair at the UK Inquiry for every session, though her legal team have swapped around, and she has an army of people to write the reports, but blogger, BiologyPhenom, has not only sat through the UK sessions but the Scottish Inquiry too, reporting on an almost daily basis.
He has complained on a number of occasions that those condemning the Inquiry as a whitewash, are thereby failing to cover the actual sessions, at which so much damning evidence has been presented. Where were the other journalists sitting there?
I think most people assume that the final report will conclude that the politicians were a shambles and that everything should have been done harder and faster, with better planning to mitigate the obvious harmful effects of the measures. The chances of the Inquiry saying ‘Never again’ feels a bit like snowballs in hell. Module 2’s report released yesterday, is a case in point. Listening to Baroness Hallett’s statement confirms her summary of the actions as ‘Too Little Too Late’.
But unless the public see any of the raw material, they may assume that her conclusions are correct, that there was indeed a ‘novel and deadly virus spreading rapidly around the country’ and may completely miss the likelihood that the vast majority of deaths attributed to covid-19 were rather due to its management.
Today, Health And Truth published the article below, cataloguing BiologyPhenom’s exposure of the mass deaths of those isolated and denied standard care. Please share widely.
The Anatomy of Institutional Neglect: How BiologyPhenom Exposed the Truth Behind the UK and Scottish COVID‑19 Inquiries
A chronicle of hidden suffering, papered‑over testimony, and the quiet courage of those who refused silence.
🧬 The Chronicler: Who Is BiologyPhenom?
In the fog of official opacity that blanketed the pandemic years, one independent investigator quietly did what entire newsrooms refused to do: watch every hour of testimony, archive every deleted clip, and contextualize every bureaucratic admission.
Known only by the handle biologyphenom, this prolific Substack author became the de‑facto record keeper of both theScottish COVID‑19 Inquiryand theUK Inquiry. His work is exhaustive — hundreds of timestamps, screenshots, transcriptions and comparative analyses connecting seemingly isolated cases into a unified pattern: a systemic architecture of neglect built and maintained by state policy.
While the BBC reported the inquiries as dull procedural exercises, BiologyPhenom captured the lived horror — the tremble in the voice of a daughter describing her mother’s final video call, the resigned tone of care‑home managers admitting they were forbidden to call ambulances.
He did not editorialize; he documented. The evidence, once seen in totality, speaks for itself.
⚰️ Act I – The Silent Mass Deaths of 2020
Long before hearings began, red lights were flashing in the data. Care‑home mortality in both Scotland and England spiked not in correlation with viral spread, but in parallel with policy directives:
- 23 March 2020: National lockdown and suspension of routine GP and ambulance visits.
- Early April 2020: 22,000 additional packs of Midazolam ordered by Health Secretary Matt Hancock.
- April–May 2020: Discharge of untested hospital patients into care homes “to protect hospital capacity.”
Within eight weeks, 2,500 excess deaths occurred in Scottish care homes and many multiples of that in England. Testimonies later confirmed these individuals were not dying of respiratory failure but of starvation, dehydration, sedation, and neglect.
The tragedy was reframed as “the virus’s toll.” The paperwork ensured it. Doctors were instructed to record “COVID‑19, suspected” without testing.
🧾 Act II – The Scottish Inquiry Breaks the Spell
When the Scottish COVID‑19 Inquiry opened hearings in 2023 under Lord Brailsford, witnesses began naming what families had known all along:
- Blanket “Do Not Resuscitate” orders imposed without consent.
- End‑of‑life medication prescribed 9 times out of 10 for residents classified as “at risk.”
- Ambulance and GP blackouts leaving staff to watch residents deteriorate alone.
Dr. Donald Macaskill, Chief Executive of Scottish Care, confessed under oath that “human‑rights law was broken.”
He admitted that, by April 2020, providers already knew the restrictions were “increasingly disproportionate” to the alleged threat.
Independent coverage by BiologyPhenom linked video clips, cross‑referenced statements, and compiled unseen footage proving a disturbing thesis: what killed so many was not the virus at all but the administration’s logistical protocols masquerading as care.
🧪 Act III – A Country‑Wide Pattern Emerges
Parallel testimony across the border mirrored the same trajectory. The UK COVID‑19 Inquiry, chaired by Baroness Hallett, received hundreds of submissions. Few were televised, and fewer still were quoted by mainstream publications.
Yet BiologyPhenom acquired the transcripts and brought them to light. The July 2025 instalment — “New UK COVID‑19 Inquiry | 16 July 2025” — centred on the witness statement of Caroline Abrahams, Director of Age UK, whose paragraphs numbered into the hundreds.
Her evidence, brutal in simplicity, documented:
- Suspension of safeguarding law under emergency “Care Act easements.”
- Collapse in antibiotic use during 2020 concurrent with an explosion in sedative prescriptions.
- Non‑attendance by clinicians, often remedied only when a senior doctor intervened to override abandonment.
- Phone calls from anonymous officials delivering news of loved ones’ deaths.
- Legal downgrading of elders’ rights under the rhetoric of “risk management.”
She described how elderly citizens were “plugging care gaps left by disappearing GPs” — left tended by untrained volunteers and temp staff administering morphine instead of medicine.
📊 Act IV – The Numbers That Betray the Narrative
One of the most devastating comparative analyses came from BiologyPhenom’s chart overlays:
Indicator 2019 2020 Change Broad‑spectrum antibiotic usage (per 1,000 residents) 100 39 ↓61% Midazolam orders (NHS trusts, England/Scotland combined) baseline +400% ↑400% Care‑home deaths labelled “COVID‑19” near zero 18,000+ +∞
These figures are not abstract. They reveal a single inverted pattern: treatment suppressed, sedation maximized.
What looked like a public health operation was, in structural terms, a mass triage program redirecting resources away from the elderly to preserve ICU optics. The death certificate became a political instrument.
🧩 Act V – The Forgeries and the “Trials”
In testimony after testimony, relatives discovered forms bearing falsified signatures: consent for drug trials, inclusion in “randomised treatment research,” or even forged DNR acknowledgements.
Pamela Cameron Thomas’s brother James—admitted for dehydration—was placed on a pneumonia drug trial although he never had pneumonia. The “patient signature,” she testified, did not match his handwriting.
This replication of forged consent across both the Scottish and UK inquiries suggests systematic document tampering, not isolated clerical error.
🧠 Act VI – The Psychological Torture of Isolation
BiologyPhenom curated the raw emotional weight that state broadcasters edited out:
“She was deprived of everything that’s natural,” said Micheleine Kane.
“Your mum had a small funeral—you couldn’t touch her coffin,” recalled another.
Nurses described residents dying after months without touch, voice, or daylight. One resident told staff during a video call, “If I can’t see my family, I’d rather be dead.”
These statements match every criterion of Article 3 violations under the Human Rights Act — “inhuman or degrading treatment.” Yet not one official has faced sanction for it.
🧮 Act VII – The Bureaucratic Rebrand of Mass Death
By 2023–2025, phrase management replaced accountability. Legal briefs and inquiry summaries began using euphemisms like:
- “Tragedy of unprecedented challenges.”
- “Safeguarding shortfalls.”
- “Lessons learned.”
What once had the contours of a national crime was linguistically converted into an administrative oopsie. As BiologyPhenom notes with bitter irony, the final report’s conclusion — “Rebuilding trust will be difficult in the context of legalised assisted dying” — quietly signals the next boundary the establishment intends to move.
🌐 Act VIII – A Global Echo
Independent analysts such as Dr. Peter Halligan and UK Column have drawn direct parallels between the UK policy structure and those of Canada, Australia, and several EU nations. The operational signature is identical:
- Transfer untested hospital patients to care homes.
- Impose visitation bans and communication blackouts.
- Replace life‑saving medication with palliative regimens.
- Label every death as COVID‑related to inflate perceived mortality and justify lockdown extension.
This is not conspiracy—it’s pattern recognition. The same crisis‑response manuals, drafted under WHO and WEF influence, were copy‑pasted across jurisdictions.
📜 Act IX – The Human Cost and Moral Accounting
By 2025, over 40,000 British families had joined independent networks seeking legal redress. What they want is not money — it’s recognition.
Their collective evidence dismantles the “public health success story” and replaces it with a story of engineered abandonment—where bureaucrats, not biologists, determined who would live or die.
The inquiries, treated by corporate media as procedural post‑mortems, are in truth coroners’ platforms in disguise.
💥 Act X – What BiologyPhenom’s Archive Accomplished
In documenting every session and correlating testimony across national boundaries, BiologyPhenom performed the function that BBC, Sky, and every “fact‑checking” outlet abdicated:
- He preserved evidence mainstream sources quietly deleted.
- He cross‑verified statements with Freedom of Information disclosures.
- He compiled human rights abuses into a coherent timeline so the next generation couldn’t claim ignorance.
His Substack became not a blog but a national archive of dissent, a living record of one of the gravest peacetime atrocities in Britain’s history — clothed in the satin language of bureaucratic compassion.
🕯 Epilogue – The Reckoning Ahead
Whether this record births genuine justice depends on whether citizens awaken to what has been revealed. The inquiries proved beyond reasonable doubt that:
- Health policy can be weaponized with administrative pen strokes.
- Data manipulation and pharmaceutical substitution can erase the line between treatment and euthanasia.
- Media silence perpetuates harm long after the acts cease.
If ignored, such systems will not dissolve; they will evolve. Pandemic law becomes climate law, becomes digital‑ID law — the same mechanism for de‑personing human beings under the pretext of “protection.”
BiologyPhenom’s chronicle is therefore not just a forensic record. It is a warning.
“Those who recorded nothing have the luxury of amnesia. Those who recorded everything now carry the truth as their burden.”
What once had the contours of a national crime was linguistically converted into an administrative oopsie. As BiologyPhenom notes with bitter irony, the final report’s conclusion — “Rebuilding trust will be difficult in the context of legalised assisted dying” — quietly signals the next boundary the establishment intends to move.
This article (C-19 Inquiry a whitewash? It’s up to us.) was created and published by Hart and is republished here under “Fair Use”
