Britain’s Top Dissenting, Censored Experts Launched Their Own Covid Vaccine Inquiry—The Key Findings
Their collective conclusion: the official inquiry is "framed to perpetuate the myth that the Covid vaccines were a resounding success".
In the wake of the Vaccine and Therapeutics (Module 4) hearings of the Covid Inquiry, which ran from January 14th to January 31st, the UK’s leading dissenting, censored experts gathered to host ‘The People's Vaccine Inquiry’.
They did so for one simple reason. Thus far, the Inquiry has been a whitewash, neglecting to ask the uncomfortable questions and seek the damning truth.
The People’s Inquiry, held on February 4th, featured an array of professionals with decades and decades of experience in their respective fields, including Dr Liz Evans, Dr Ros Jones, and Dr Clare Craig.
What follows is a breakdown of the arguments and evidence they presented—items that, by any objective measure, should have been addressed in the official £196 million inquiry.
Controlling the Narrative
From the start of Module 4, it was clear—discussions would be restricted in various ways to stop challenges to the efficacy of Covid vaccines or their blanket use as public health policy. All testimony was tightly controlled.
Caroline Pover, Chair of the Trustee for UKCV, a charity supporting those injured or bereaved by Covid vaccines, attested to this during her remarks.
“Any question we wanted to submit… had to be approved in advance,” she revealed. “A lot of people have asked why certain questions weren’t raised… Some were allowed… Others were not.”
The first half of the official Inquiry actually acknowledged vaccine-induced injuries. But then, something shifted.
Lead Counsel Hugo Keith KC became “dismissive”. He suddenly refused to use the correct terms to describe the agonising, life-altering conditions of the vaccine injured and bereaved.
Take vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), for example. Instead of calling it what it is, Keith watered it down, referring to it as Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS), scrubbing the jab link.
This was despite VITT being logged on the victims’ official medical records.
Censorship didn’t stop at pre-approved questions—it extended to shutting down testimony the moment it strayed from the script.
Dr Jonathan Engler, a medical doctor and barrister, recalled a telling moment. Baroness Hallett, chair of the Inquiry, cut off Kate Scott—whose husband Jamie suffered a near fatal vaccine-induced brain injury.
Kate was making a simple point: for 100% of her group, the vaccines were not safe. But before she could, Hallett intervened, insisting that discussions on the “science” must be left to the experts later in the Inquiry.
Yet, as Engler noted, when time came for the selected experts to testify, much was left unsaid. They instead reinforced “safety” claims.
Widespread Ethical Failures
The damage caused by Covid vaccines stems from serious ethical failures—yet Module 4 of the Inquiry ignored this fundamental issue.
Dr Elizabeth Evans, former NHS doctor and CEO of the UK Medical Freedom Alliance, delivered perhaps the most sobering reality:
“They (the government, the UK Vaccine Taskforce, Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), etc.) set out to vaccinate every person in the country with a novel vaccine with only two months of safety data, as quickly as possible, regardless of their risk profile.”
A major part of that ethical failure, of course, evolved around informed consent—or the lack of it.
Evans presented a slide detailing the information needed for a patient to make an informed decision. Yet, hundreds of vaccine centres failed to meet these basic disclosure standards outlined in medical Codes of Practice.
Considering Module 4 was supposed to cover “vaccine delivery, roll-out procedures, and public messaging across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland”, you’d think it’d cover such colossal negligence. It didn’t.
When former Health Secretary Matt Hancock admitted in Module 4 that monitoring systems for vaccine adverse reactions and effectiveness were “effectively like a Phase 4 trial”, it should have sparked serious scrutiny.
Instead, Keith KC glossed over the subject—a curious move, considering frighten-your-pants-off Hancock likely made more media appearances than anyone during Covid and never mentioned this fact.
Evans also cited the coercive tactics used by public health authorities to push vaccination. Fearmongering, blatant lies, and psychological pressure became standard practice.
Policies designed to combat “vaccine hesitancy” trampled the ability of Brits to make free, informed medical choices. The term “anti-vaxxer” was weaponised to silence legitimate concerns.
Then came overt medical tyranny—vaccine passports and mandates, not just to access certain social venues but for certain work, to make a living.
The Damage to Children
Children were clearly not affected by Covid to any significant degree. Yet government imposed restrictions without adequate research, which inflicted disproportionate harm.
It wasn’t just school closures. It was the relentless testing, masking, and fear-driven messaging—the “don’t kill your granny” guilt trip. Parents saw first-hand how lockdowns damaged their children.
So when vaccines were pushed as the only way back to normal, parents weren’t spared from the pressure. The campaign was relentless.
The risk-benefit balance of Covid vaccination varied widely by age, making a one-size-fits-all approach indefensible, retired Consultant Paediatrician Dr Ros Jones said.
As the MHRA, JCVI, and Chief Medical Officers “debated” vaccinating children, evidence of vaccine harm was already emerging—but they ultimately chose to disregard it.
When it came to myocarditis, regulators admitted the risk and added it to the Patient Information Leaflet. But their experts misrepresented the data.
They claimed an Oxford study showed more myocarditis from Covid than from the vaccine. Yet even the study’s own results stated that for men under 40, the risk was six times higher after vaccination.
In Israel, where the first cases appeared, authorities alerted doctors and actively investigated, finding a 1 in 6,000 risk—not “very rare”, but “rare”.
In Thailand, researchers did what MHRA should have demanded from Pfizer and closely monitored schoolchildren before and after vaccination and found a 1 in 29 rate of clinical or subclinical heart damage.
By medical standards, that’s not “very rare”, “rare”, or “uncommon”, that’s very common.
MHRA did not conduct independent safety checks. They relied on Pfizer’s own data, then passed the decision to the JCVI, which the CMOs overrode after the Pfizer-funded Royal College of GPs advocated vaccinating children without disclosing their conflict.
In the US, most teenagers hospitalised with vaccine-induced myocarditis seemed to recover, but almost 90% still had abnormal heart scans after discharge.
The JCVI actually wanted to see their follow-up data before making a decision. Had they waited, they would have learned that 60% of cases still showed abnormalities six months later.
The Illusion of Benefit
To justify a product’s use, you need data to back it up. Instead, authorities relied on models and estimates rather than real-world evidence.
Dr Clare Craig, a pathologist and Chair of the Health Advisory & Recovery Team (HART) group, highlighted how these models—published by UKHSA and others—served two purposes: exaggerating Covid’s risks and overstating vaccine effectiveness.
Take the Omicron wave in 2021. Some models ignored its lower severity, treating it as dangerous as earlier variants, which skewed projections and inflated the threat.
The deception ran deeper when measuring vaccine effectiveness. Authorities baked high protection rates into the models. This ensured the results “proved” vaccines saved lives. Then they used what critics called a “statistical cheap trick”.
Here’s how it worked: anyone vaccinated was counted as unvaccinated until two weeks had passed. Data showed the vaccine temporarily weakened immune function in that period, increasing infection risk.
The trick, thus, flipped the narrative—cases in newly vaccinated individuals inflated the unvaccinated group’s numbers, making vaccines look more effective.
Later, when infections rose in vaccinated groups, officials blamed “waning immunity.” In reality, what they called waning was just the fading effect of their own statistical illusion.
Peter Rossiter’s story showed the real-world consequences. A 39-year-old pianist with a promising future, he fell ill with Covid four days after his second dose. His immune system, weakened in the post-vaccination period, couldn’t fight back.
His mother, testifying at the inquiry, revealed that his white blood cell count had dropped to nearly zero. His condition deteriorated rapidly. Pfizer’s response? He wasn’t “fully protected” yet.
Regulator Failures
The level of negligence and/or incompetence exhibited by MHRA during Covid is staggering—so vast and far-reaching that documenting it all would require an entire library.
To list a few of their botched jobs: they failed to investigate the safety of different vaccine batches produced through varying processes. They ignored concerns over DNA contamination. They sat on post-authorisation studies that showed a higher incidence of heart conditions among the vaccinated. They failed to uphold inspection standards in the vaccine supply chain. They blocked Freedom of Information requests and shut down citizens who questioned them on social media. It goes on and on.
However, it was what former senior civil servant Nick Hunt of the Perseus Group—a multidisciplinary team of experts—said towards the end of his testimony that really put their failures into context.
Unlike industries such as aviation or nuclear energy, where strict risk thresholds exist, MHRA operates without clear limits on unacceptable harm.
The agency supposedly approves drugs based on whether benefits outweigh risks but has never defined a point at which safety concerns would trigger a suspension.
Patient Information Leaflets for the Covid vaccines, for example, initially made no mention of the risk of death. AstraZeneca updated its leaflet in April 2021, Moderna in September 2023, and Pfizer in December 2023.
Similarly, the agency is not subject to independent safety audits. It undergoes a biennial quality review, but this only checks compliance with business procedures, not the extent of safety risks.
A nuclear plant, an airline, or a car manufacturer would never be allowed to self-regulate without independent scrutiny. Yet for some reason, MHRA operates with less scrutiny despite “overseeing” arguably more consequential products.
The True Extent of Vaccine Harm
Despite the long list of now acknowledged vaccine side effects, one remains off-limits—not just in the media, but in scientific circles and, of course, in the official Inquiry.
Speaking at the People’s Inquiry, Dr. Angus Dalgleish, one of Britain’s eminent oncologists, revealed findings that challenge the current narrative on mRNA vaccines and cancer.
With over 70 book chapters, five co-edited medical books, and a position on the European Commission Cancer Board, Dalgleish stands as one of the country’s most experienced doctors. He is also no outsider to mRNA technology—he previously sat on the board of CureVac, an mRNA vaccine company.
When his team first examined a possible connection between Covid vaccines and cancer, they did not expect to find one. But as booster doses rolled out, a pattern emerged. Patients with melanoma—previously stable for years following immunotherapy—began relapsing.
After rigorous investigation, the evidence pointed to T-cell suppression as the cause. Rather than strengthening immunity, repeated Covid-19 booster doses appeared to weaken it.
Dalgleish’s research found that cancer patients experienced suppressed immune responses post-booster, leaving them vulnerable. Many long-term cancer patients—who had been in complete remission for up to 18 years—were now seeing their disease return.
Unlike earlier vaccines like AstraZeneca, which were not used as boosters, mRNA vaccines pose unique risks. Evidence now suggests they may not only contribute to cancer recurrence but act as a direct tumour creators.
One alarming discovery is the presence of SV40 sequences in mRNA—sequences with known oncogenic potential. Dalgleish warned that these could drive cancer development, particularly in immuno-compromised individuals.
Further investigation revealed that the vaccine-induced spike protein binds to critical tumour suppressor genes such as P53, BRCA, and MSH. Mutations in such genes dramatically increases the risk of breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancers, as well as conditions like Lynch syndrome.
Contrary to official claims, mRNA is not rapidly cleared from the body. Post-mortem studies have found vaccine-related genetic material embedded in multiple organs and tumours.
Dalgleish also highlighted another major concern: chronic inflammation and abnormal clotting. These factors do not just contribute to cardiovascular issues—they also fuel the spread of cancer cells. Aggressive cancers, such as pancreatic and prostate cancer, have long been linked to abnormal clotting.
Simply put, mRNA Covid vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) may have created a problem far greater than the one they were designed to solve. And the worst part is, we have yet to quantify how extensive the damage may be.
As Dalgleish rather hauntingly said at the end of his talk:
"If you read coronavirus vaccine history, not one of them has ever even worked. So why on earth did we do that? I'm just going to leave it at that because that’s the real scientific evidence on why these vaccines are going to cause cancer. And honestly, I don't want to depress you, but I don't think we've started yet because the suppressor gene interference takes several years before it will manifest."
Final Thoughts:
The official Covid Inquiry might just constitute the greatest limited hangout of any inquiry ever held in British history. Evidence was ignored. Witnesses were gagged. And they appear to be actively fabricating a false record.
Perhaps, like Primodos—the heavily flawed hormone-based pregnancy pill test—the issue will resurface in parliament in a few decades and victims will finally receive their formal apology. But it’ll ultimately be too little too late.
It’s easy to forget, but these mRNA products are still being used. Last autumn, the JCVI advised offering Covid vaccines to adults aged 65 years and over, and individuals aged 6 months to 64 years in “clinical risk groups”.
I highly recommended reading Ben and Molly Kingsley’s breakdown of the official inquiry here; Nick Hunt’s in-depth analysis of the Inquiry’s failure to hold MHRA accountable here; and Dr Angus Dalgleish’s report on the link between the Covid vaccines and cancer progression here.
Do you think if things stay the way they are our best days are ahead of us?
Are you going to sit down and watch as our media parrot narratives that lead to yet more invasive, authoritarian, censorious policy?
If you want to do something today to help change it, you can opt for a paid subscription and help citizen journalists like me attempting to stop it… for about the same price per month as a coffee.
No such thing as 'Omicron' variant. Variants were all part of the hoax to keep us fearful.
Thank you for this. I refused the jab, refused it for my kids, and they were never tested or masked. This makes me so angry. I know so many lovely folks who had these jabs for various reasons, and they now effectively have a death sentence hanging over them. It's dreadful. 💔