Today we are publishing Dr Clare Craig’s presentation delivered at the People’s Vaccine Inquiry press conference last week. Full details and videos of the event and additional presentations can be found here.
The first presentation, published on Monday, by Dr Jonathan Engler, explained why the People’s Inquiry was so necessary given Lady Hallett’s refusal to honestly address the vaccine injury disgrace. The second, by Dr Elizabeth Evans, published yesterday, focused on Hallett’s total disregard for the abandonment of medical ethics accompanying the vaccines’ authorisation and roll-out.
Dr Clare Craig, consultant diagnostic pathologist, who has carried out significant research into the covid epidemic as an individual, was the third speaker. She reiterated that the press conference is not about what was said at the inquiry. It is about what was not said, she said, not forgotten or overlooked; not missed, but deliberately excluded. She went on:
THE LEAD counsel, Hugo Keith, repeatedly interrupted anyone wishing to put forward narrative-challenging evidence. He made the predetermined position crystal clear before a word of evidence had been heard. He said: ‘The exercise of pronouncing the last word on the efficacy and safety of specific vaccines may prove to serve little purpose.’
Little purpose? To whom? These questions matter immensely – to the silenced, to the injured and to the bereaved. But instead of scrutiny, we got slogans. Instead of evidence, we heard echoes of certainty. Not a debate – it was doctrine. They worshipped the novel covid vaccines.
Shamefully, and without evidence, Hugo Keith talked about ‘entirely effective’ vaccines which were ‘undoubted successes’ with ‘lifesaving benefits . . . which . . . vastly outweighed the very rare risk of a serious side effect.’ Adding ‘without any doubt’, he even went as far as saying they offered ‘the promised land’.
Would he say that about other novel pharmaceutical products?
Other participants repeatedly claimed the vaccines were ‘undoubtedly’ beneficial, ‘an extraordinary achievement’, ‘world-beating’ and ‘saved millions of lives’.
Where was the evidence? Buried beneath a mountain of faith. This new faith was built on fantasy born of modelling and a statistical illusion.
I am a scientist. It is, in theory, possible to train the immune system to recognise pathogens. It must be possible to subscribe to that scientific fact but challenge when a particular example manifestly fails. A failed medicine is not a medicine. It is a cash machine.
The models created an illusion of benefit
- The models assumed a never-ending tsunami of infection and death without lockdowns and vaccines – numerous subsequent waves have disproved that.
- The models assumed vaccines prevented 90 per cent of deaths – so, of course, they ‘proved’ millions of lives were saved.
- The models ignored Omicron, which killed fewer people. Omicron stayed in the upper airway like a normal coronavirus. Omicron was half as deadly in the unvaccinated. Omicron the inquiry barely acknowledged.
No one dared admit that Omicron was less severe from the start.
The only mention of Omicron’s severity in oral evidence was from
Sajid Javid who farcically got the evidence – as a former Health Secretary, no less – completely wrong, saying, ‘We knew Omicron was a lot more severe’.
Now we come to thestatistical ‘cheap trick’(a phrase coined by Martin Neil and Norman Fenton to describe a phenomenon many of us have been trying to bring to public attention for years. The illusion of benefit):
- Only around 10 per cent of people are susceptible to each wave.
- The vaccine suppressed immunity for two weeks, triggering infections earlier in those susceptible.
- The two-week window after vaccination? They called it ‘unvaccinated’. A barefaced lie
- That made the vaccinated look safer –
- And the unvaccinated look doomed.
- A rigged game. A statistical illusion.
- Thereafter the unvaccinated continued to be affected but the vaccinated wave had finished early.
- When the next wave arrived – weeks or months later – they called this waning. It wasn’t waning. It was the washing out of a statistical illusion.
One tragic example was Peter Rossiter. He was 39. A pianist. A son. A life ahead of him. Four days after his second dose, he fell ill with covid. This is the danger period. The immune system is hammered by the vaccine in this period so people become more susceptible to infection.
His mother said at the Inquiry, ‘his white blood count was almost zero . . . he very sadly fell very seriously ill very quickly’.
Pfizer said:’He wasn’t fully protected.’They knew the two-week period was risky. But instead of admitting it they used these cases to prop up the illusion of benefit. Shameful.
In the real world it was clear in 2021 that the vaccines did not reduce infections. Afterwards, there was a pivot to claim they prevented severe disease and death. Different witnesses at Hallett still clung to different parts of this false narrative.
Chris Whitty was asked about vaccine mandates and clung to the fantasy that vaccine mandates could alter transmission by reducing infection, calling it ‘blindingly obvious’.
Drug safety expert Professor Prieto-Alhambra said: ‘They lost their ability to prevent transmission, we believe, because of this inability to prevent infection in the first place’.But he still kept up the illusion. He returned to the Imperial College model which is based on the original claims of a tsunami of cases and deaths, and claimed they had shown’that the vaccines saved over 14million lives globally’ and that they ‘helped to prevent long covid’. Claims based on such modelling are worthless and unscientific.
Meanwhile some witnesses were still leaning heavily on the claim that it protected from severe illness and deaths. Dame Kate Bingham, head of the Vaccine Taskforce, said they were ‘very effective at controlling serious disease and death but they don’t block transmission. They’re not durable. They’re expensive’.
Lord James Bethell, who signed the authorisations, said: ‘The vaccination programme had delivered, for most of the population, a really good protection, certainly from severe disease and death. It didn’t stop transmission, it didn’t stop long covid, it didn’t work for absolutely everyone.’
Matt Hancock repeated the trope that covid ‘after a vaccine . . . tended to be much milder’.
And they kept parroting the 14million-lives-saved myth. A number plucked straight from models but untouched by real-world evidence.
There were contradictions on death prevention. Professor Wei Lim, JCVI [Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation] chair, claimed: ’99 per cent of covid mortality is in Phase 1 groups’ – those targeted for the very earliest jabs. Yet the UKHSA insisted only 14,000 deaths were prevented by June 2021. Then, somehow, over the summer time, by September they magically saved 109,000 more.
Reality says otherwise.
- UK, Portugal and Ireland were outliers, but the USA and the rest of Europe saw no benefit from vaccines in 2021.
- Deaths kept coming in line with virus in the sewage and people developing antibodies.
And the clinical trials? The authorisations were all based on only a single claimed placebo covid death in the trial evidence. This is science by cowboys. Millions are being spent on the lawyers for this inquiry who let this pass without challenge.
Representatives from AZ, Pfizer and Moderna were all questioned. Dr Justin Green from AZ claimed that on the basis of only one death in the placebo group.
He said ‘that gave us a really good indication that we had an excellent product here that was going to be really effective’. Even the US trial safety board condemned the ‘misleading’ press releases that quoted 100 per cent effectiveness against death on the back of this one death. Yet no one at the inquiry dared to question him. Dr Green went on to opine about how ‘amazing’ it would have been to have real world data collection systems in the future ‘that also had really deep and rich safety data’.
The Moderna rep, Mr Darius Hughes, was asked: ‘So no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions during the trials?’ He concurred. On oath. Whereas the head of the Commission on Human Medicines, Professor Munir Pirmohamed, said there had been a facial paralysis signal from Bell’s Palsy (which can be lifelong), from ‘the beginning’.
Other mentions of clinical trials were forbidden.
When Ruth O’Rafferty of the Scottish Vaccine Injured group brought up the critically important differences between the trial product in the lab and the mass-produced product in the vats, Hugo Keith interrupted her saying, ‘I’m so sorry, I’m going to have to interrupt you there, we don’t have the time or the wherewithal to be able to go into some of these areas in this sort of detail.’
When Charlet Crichton of UKCV Family mentioned participants being vaccine injured in the trials and their data being scrubbed from the reports he said, ‘All right, I’m going stop you there . . . We can’t be looking at individual cases.’That was a rule that did not apply to those with a covid label. Nor did Charlet in fact mention an individual case. She was talking about fundamental corruption in the only reliable measure we have of vaccine safety, and the counsel to the Inquiry simply did not want to know. Nor did the Chair intervene to find out more.
When Ruth O’Rafferty brought up regulatory failures outlined in a 2005 parliamentary report, the recommendations of which have not been implemented, he said ‘All right. We’re in danger of veering off.’
There were other banned topics.
- Lipid nanoparticle risks? Not discussed.
- Cardiac risks and sudden death? Ignored.
- How much spike is produced, in which organs and for how long? Off-limits.
- Different doses of Pfizer vs Moderna? Not explored.
- Morphine and midazolam, antibiotics, vitamin D, budesonide? Not relevant.
But the word rare? That was everywhere.
Hugo Keith said: ‘I must emphasise the rarity, more often the extreme rarity, of the serious adverse effects that were suffered.’And he really did emphasise it. They said the word ‘rare’ 134 times: ‘rare, very rare or extremely rare’ – repeated again and again.
Yet excess deaths, working-age disabilities and heart disease soared after spring 2021. This was true everywhere – including Singapore and Australia which had had minimal covid but were vaccinated at scale along with everyone else.
- In the trial the risk of an important serious adverse event was 1 in 800 risk for mRNA vaccines and 1 in 550 for Pfizer.
- There is evidence that the Pfizer mass-produced vaccine had two to at least 13 times the reported adverse reactions of the lab version used in the trial.
- 3 per cent of mRNA recipients have evidence of heart damage.
That is not rare.
This was no inquiry – this was idolatry. They worshipped the vaccine narrative. They silenced the blasphemers. They cast out the apostates. Even five years later, questioning these myths is heresy.
The twin pillars of the covid era are:
- The myth of an unstoppable tsunami of death.
- The myth that vaccines saved us.
Both are false.
The benefits were an illusion. The harms were real. And those who dared to speak out have been attacked.
History will not look kindly on those who refused to listen.
