UK COVID Inquiry Declares the COVID Vaccine a “HUGE SUCCESS”

BRITONS HAD PUBLIC VIGILS SHOWING THOUSANDS THAT DIED FROM THE ‘VACCINE’

THEY’RE GASLIGHTING YOU INTO SILENCE

---

Hallet praises vaccines in her UK Covid Inquiry statement

RHODA WILSON

Unsurprisingly, Baroness Heather Hallett’s statement on the UK Covid Inquiry Module 4 praises the success of vaccine research and rollout.

In the following, the People’s Vaccine Inquiry criticises Baroness Hallett’s conclusions, citing concerns about vaccine safety, conflicts of interest and the lack of support for those injured by vaccines.

UK Covid Inquiry Module 4: Vaccines and Therapeutics

By the People’s Vaccine Inquiry Team (Dr. Clare Craig, Dr. Liz Evans, Mr. Nick Hunt, Dr. Ros Jones and Dr. Ayiesha Malik), as published by the Health ethics Advocacy and Research Team (“HART”) 16 April 2026

Baroness Hallett Module 4 Video Statement

Baroness Hallett has today published her 4th report from the UK Public Inquiry. Her statement is linked HERE. It is no surprise to those of us who followed the module itself that the vast majority of her 12-minute statement is spent lauding the success of the vaccine research and rollout. “In many ways, the development, manufacture and distribution of effective vaccines to prevent covid-19 and of therapeutics or drugs to treat covid patients are two of the success stories of the pandemic.”

She repeats the view that SARS-CoV-2 was a new virus and therefore there were “no vaccines and no clinically proven therapeutics or drugs available to combat the disease at the start of the pandemic. The discovery, development and approval of new vaccines can take between 10 and 20 years but within a year of its first case of covid-19 the UK had developed its Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine and authorised access to two more, the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna.”

She repeated the extraordinary (and much discredited) computer modelling estimate that the vaccines saved “more than 450,000 lives of people aged 25 or older in England.”

There was absolutely no acknowledgement of the reckless risk of rolling out such an “innovative” technology at speed and at scale to the whole population.

Baroness Hallett talked about the importance of maintaining the link between academia, government and industry, which is, of course, one of the issues for which many have highlighted the conflicts of interest that arise.

Turning to the efficiency of the vaccine rollout, she said, “While the majority of people took up the offer of vaccination when it was made, there was lower uptake within communities in areas of higher deprivation and in some ethnic minorities’ communities. For many, their concern centred on the safety of vaccines and possible side effects. To some extent, this lack of confidence in covid-19 vaccinations was a global issue, fuelled by the rapid sharing of false information online.” [Presumably a slap on the wrist for all the groups involved in the People’s Vaccine Inquiry and many others – in fact, the written summary went further, saying, “Vaccine hesitancy is on the rise across the world and in the UK. The use of social media and instant messaging means that false or misleading information can spread rapidly. The UK must take action now to counter it.”]

Eight minutes into her 12-minute statement came the acknowledgement that not all was rosy for vaccine safety. “Tragically, a number of people suffered harm as a result of having a vaccine. This was a small minority compared to the overall scale of the vaccination program but of no less importance to the individuals affected and their families. I heard moving evidence from representatives from the vaccine-injured and bereaved core participant groups, who have often felt silenced, ignored or treated as vaccine deniers. Similar experiences were also described to the inquiry through its listening exercise ‘Every Story Matters’. It is vital in the context of a whole population vaccination programme in which the state is asking people to be vaccinated, in part to protect others, that people are adequately supported when side effects do occur. A sufficiently supportive government scheme must be in place to help such people and their loved ones. I have found that the current scheme for those who’ve been injured as a result of having a vaccine, the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, is not sufficiently supportive and requires reform.”

Vaccine Injury Support Group

Please read the briefing from UKCVFamily’s co-founder, Caroline Pover, published earlier today by HART HERE. In it, she highlights the huge burden which their charity has had to cover for the last almost 5 years, with no proper government acknowledgement, let alone support. As she says, they have been constantly told to wait for the Inquiry. So, Baroness Hallett’s statement must sound a bit hollow: “requires reform,”but when?

Caroline’s article should bring shame on the previous and the current government and also on the press who have largely failed to take up their cause. And also, on the many doctors across the UK who have continued to gaslight their patients, interpreting the palpitations of myocarditis as panic attacks, or the intense pain of small fibre neuropathy as “functional neurological disorder.” Sometimes even acknowledging verbally to the patient the likelihood they have suffered a vaccine injury, while refusing to write this diagnosis in the medical notes.

The People’s Vaccine Inquiry

HART readers will be aware that four of the authors of this article all applied for core participant status at Module 4, as spokesmen for respectively: Healthcare Advisory & Recovery Team; UK Medical Freedom Alliance; Perseus; and, Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council.

Although core participant status was refused, we were invited by Baroness Hallett to provide witness statements to the Inquiry and assured that these would be used by her legal team to assist them in cross-questioning witnesses. This we all did, with additional clarifications and references as requested and all submitted for a deadline in January 2024 and with dates in our diary for potentially being called to give evidence in July 2024.

But pending the 2024 General Election, the Module hearing was deferred until 2025. We were given no assurance that our statements would even be published on the Inquiry website and we decided between us that the questions we were raising on vaccine safety were too important to the British public for us to delay publication still further. We set up the People’s Vaccine Inquiry website, where all our statements are available. At this point, we invited the Doctors for Patients UK to join us and write a multi-authored statement of their own, compiling evidence from clinicians.

Having listened to most of the hearings and also read many of the witness statements, the headlines from the final report contain no real surprises. In his opening remarks in January 2025, Hugo Keith KC highlighted the Inquiry’s brief to look at the “systems and processes for the research, manufacturing, trialling, safety, authorisation and delivery of the vaccines.” He said: “The UK had a robust and sophisticated system for ensuring the highest levels of safety but it will be, of course, for you, my lady, to assess the accuracy of this position proposition.”

He spoke of “acceptably safe … where benefits or expected benefits are considered to outweigh the risks at a population level … The Inquiry must consider whether the MHRA properly assessed whether the benefits outweighed the risks” where “covid was a life-threatening disease for many.”

They then showed the Impact video but, just as the film was about to start, Mr. Keith interjected, “May I have your permission to say a word? I think it is in the public interest it is important that I seek to emphasise that the references in this video to the obvious and well-known fact that in very rare cases vaccines have serious side effects, as indeed do all medicines, must not be used as a platform to seek to undermine the vital public health role that vaccination plays in keeping the public safe from disease or to try and seek to argue that at a population level vaccination is not overwhelmingly beneficial.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, none of us were called to testify but also, none of the questions we had posed were properly addressed.

Four days after the end of the hearings, we held a press conference in London to highlight some of what was missed. The opening speaker was Caroline Pover, co-founder of UKCVFamily, a peer support group charity for the vaccine-injured and bereaved.

Caroline had attended the entire 3-week hearing and spoke eloquently about the problems their members encountered. She particularly highlighted the effective censorship even within the hearing, where their lawyer, Anna Morris KC, had to submit all her questions in advance, only to have many of the most probing questions rejected. As a result, she did not address a single question to the representative from AstraZeneca, which, to the viewing public, seemed an extraordinary omission. But what she did say was, “The thousands of people that these three groups represent, present what is an uncomfortable truth for many: that vaccine injury and death are part of the pandemic story.”

Caroline’s view was that the vaccine-injured were being used to endorse the official narrative that serious adverse events were “extremely rare,”and yes, those unfortunate souls must be properly compensated but no injuries must be allowed to increase “vaccine hesitancy.”

Conclusion from Baroness Hallett

“The inquiry has also identified a number of key elements of the UK response to the covid-19 pandemic which must be properly embedded in pandemic planning and built upon in order to better prepare for the next pandemic. The rapid and coordinated funding for research and vaccines and therapeutics; … an expedited regulatory approval and recruitment system for clinical trials, as well as expedited authorisation of new vaccines and therapeutics without compromising on public safety; the rapid establishment of specialist vaccine and therapeutics task forces to bring together national expertise and to act decisively to coordinate the search for effective vaccines and therapeutics. These approaches worked during the covid-19 pandemic. However, we must maintain the capability we had in place in 2019/2020 to enable us to fight the next pandemic. We must not allow it to wither.”

Oh dear, that does not bode well.

And from the People’s Vaccine Inquiry?

As we predicted, this module has been a complete whitewash and, from the start, was set up to conclude that the “safe and effective” covid vaccine rollout had been a fantastic success. We were right in assuming that none of our witness statements would be included on the Inquiry website, and we would urge readers to look back at what we wrote in our statements 2 years ago. Over the next few days, the individual groups involved in the People’s Vaccine Inquiry will be responding to the relevant sections of the report and we will publish these as they arise.

In addition to listening to Baroness Hallett’s interpretation of events, it is vital to listen to the numerous witnesses and their direct evidence. Follow Biologyphenom’s Substack for numerous links. In today’s episode and one he published on April Fool’s Day, he highlights that censorship is still alive and well.

Without questions, where is science?

Featured image: Baroness Heather Hallet, a retired British Court of Appeal judge and a crossbench life peer in the House of Lords, led the inquest into the 7/7 bombings and is the Chair of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry.  Source: BBC