BARONESS Hallett’s long-awaited Module 4 Report on Vaccines and Therapeutics, published on Thursday, declares the UK’s Covid-19 vaccination programme ‘an extraordinary feat’ and ‘a great success’ that ‘protected people against the most serious effects of Covid-19 and saved lives’. It acknowledges ‘the suffering of those for whom vaccines led to serious injury or death’ but insists ‘the risks of the Covid-19 vaccines were carefully managed and were far outweighed by the benefits’.
The report praises rigorous trials, prompt regulatory action on signals and robust surveillance systems, while calling for modest reforms to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme and better data linkage for future monitoring.
As the author of 3/11: Viral Takeover, I view Baroness Hallett’s verdict not as genuine accountability, but as another layer of institutional self-protection and a clear continuation of the official whitewash. Chapters 11 (Rush to Market), 12 (Beyond the Label), 14 (The Blind Watchdogs), 15 (Censoring Harms), and 16 (For Your Safety) lay bare how safety concerns were systematically sidelined from the very beginning. The absence of long-term safety studies, genotoxicity testing and any meaningful assessment of the novel mRNA platform meant that critical questions about potential risks remained unanswered before the vaccines were rolled out to the public.
Rushed authorisations and what regulators knew
The Module 4 Report claims expedited authorisation occurred without compromising safety. However, Chapter 11 of my book exposes the leaked European Medicines Agency emails from November 2020 (just weeks before Emergency Use Authorisation was granted for the novel gene-based products) showing senior regulators raising urgent concerns about manufacturing quality, high levels of truncated mRNA, impurities and inadequate stability data. These warnings were overridden in the rush to approve the vaccines.
Chapter 12, Beyond the Label, highlights critical regulatory failures, most notably the DNA contamination scandal. Independent laboratory analyses revealed not only residual plasmid DNA in mRNA vaccine commercial batches (fragments that should have been removed during manufacturing) but also the presence of SV40 promoter-enhancer sequences. Regulators were slow to acknowledge or properly investigate these findings. In response to a Freedom of Information request I submitted, the MHRA explicitly refused to test for this contamination, despite serious concerns regarding potential genomic integration, insertional mutagenesis, and long-term health risks.
Censoring harms: The systematic suppression of injury reports
Chapters 15 and 16 reveal the co-ordinated machinery that silenced discussion of vaccine adverse events. They document how government agencies, tech platforms, fact-checkers, and NGOs worked together to label reports of myocarditis, pericarditis, neurological damage, thrombosis and other serious conditions as ‘misinformation’ or ‘vaccine hesitancy’.
The Module 4 Report attributes lower vaccine uptake partly to ‘false information online’ without examining how official overstatements and the active suppression of real-world safety data eroded trust. It frames hesitancy as a problem of external misinformation rather than a rational response to emerging signals and the lived experiences of the injured.
My book documents the central role played by the Trusted News Initiative, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate’s ‘Disinformation Dozen’ and government-linked units (including the UK’s 77th Brigade and Counter Disinformation Unit) in flagging and removing content about vaccine injuries. Injured individuals who shared their stories were often stigmatised as ‘anti-vax’, compounding their suffering with a ‘second trauma’ of disbelief.
The inquiry heard testimony from groups like Vaccine Injured and Bereaved UK describing this dynamic, yet the final report presents the issue narrowly and avoids confronting the censorship apparatus that protected the ‘safe and effective’ narrative at all costs.
A pattern of minimisation
While the report includes voices from the injured and concedes the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme needs reform due to its strict thresholds and low pay-outs, it continues to portray harms as affecting only a small minority and insists the benefits of the covid shots far outweigh the risks.
3/11: Viral Takeover demonstrates that this minimisation was not mere oversight but part of a deliberate strategy to control the narrative, prioritise uptake, and silence dissenting data and personal testimonies. It provides the forensic documentation: the leaked EMA emails, manufacturing failures, data suppression by the UKHSA and the systematic censorship of harms that the official inquiry has avoided.
The UK Covid Inquiry had a genuine opportunity to deliver real accountability by examining what regulators knew, how risks were communicated to the public, and why serious harms were consistently downplayed or censored. Instead, it has delivered little more than a polished whitewash defence of the programme, offering only token reforms while carefully protecting the official ‘safe and effective’ narrative.
This article appeared in Sonia Elijah Investigates on April 16, 2026, and is republished by kind permission.
