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 Jonathon’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.
If anyone would like any further information about anything they hear today, do not hesitate to contact us at The People’s Vaccine Inquiry
