The Most Important Moment Of The Covid Inquiry So Far
And how it caused a host of dissident MPs, peers, and experts to react...
Last week, we witnessed the most important exchange of the UK Covid Inquiry to date. It wasn’t a long-winded interaction. In fact, it lasted some 40 seconds.
As Hugo Keith KC, lead counsel of the inquiry, questioned our unelected Prime Minister Rishi Sunak over lockdowns, Sunak took a rather surprising turn. He openly cited QALY analysis.
QALY analysis, also known as Quality-Adjusted Life Year analysis, is essentially a tool for weighing up whether certain health interventions are justified.
Sunak’s reference to QALY was surprising because it contradicted his lockdown-supporting past. Even though Sunak voiced disapproval of lockdowns, when push came to shove, he always bowed his head.
Sunak faced immediate resistance when he brought up the topic. The moment lead counsel Keith heard the acronym, he swiftly jolted, murmured, and shut Sunak down.
“I don’t want to get into quality life assurance models”, Keith bluntly quipped, raising a hand.
Naturally, the censored experts threw up their arms. Here was a moment when the inquiry could undertake the meaty risk-benefit analysis it had promised, and the lead counsel didn’t just bottle it but openly resorted to evasion.
Even mainstream experts, including one of Britain's prominent oncologists Professor Karol Sikora, agreed. “Sunak rightly highlights the possibility that lockdown may have caused more harm than good, and is promptly shut down by Keith... Scandalous.” he posted on X.
The inquiry is currently in its second ‘Core UK decision-making and political governance’ module and it is not evaluating either central decision-making or political governance.
And so, a group of MPs and peers responded.
In a letter addressed to Sunak on Wednesday, over 20 MPs, peers, and scientific experts complained about proceedings.
They say that the inquiry is failing due to its prejudice. This was most clearly demonstrated by its confined discussion of whether pandemic interventions, like lockdowns, should have been more stringent rather than if they should have been enforced at all.
They additionally urge the Prime Minister to broaden the inquest and adequately assess the negative affects of lockdowns and school closures. Investigations into the government's secret disinformation unit, which allegedly censored critics, as previously reported by the Telegraph, was also requested.
Among the signatories are Lord Frost, Lord Goldsmith, Ian Paisley, Sammy Wilson, Sir Desmond Swayne, Sir Robert Syms, Philip Davies, Miriam Cates, Chris Gree , Danny Kruger, Baroness Foster, Baroness Fox, Lord Moylan, Lord Strathcarron, Lord Robathan, Professor Karol Sikora, Professor David Paton and Professor David Livermore.
The children’s rights campaign group Us For Them UK issued a warning to Baroness Hallett, Chair of the inquiry, about the possibility of a judicial review against any final findings if its course is not corrected.
You can read the open letter in full below:
Notable Events During The Inquiry So Far:
Covid inquiry Lead Counsel Hugo Keith KC claims Covid would have grown “exponentially” without lockdowns. (oh he’s “impartial” alright………)
Keith shuts down Michael Gove when the MP mentions the provenance of the virus.
Inquiry Chair Baroness Heather Hallett DBE recommends and offers free ineffective masks during hearings.
Hallet calls for Covid testing of participants, using wildly inaccurate lateral flow tests.
Counsels fail to challenge radical pro-lockdown activists, who seemingly influenced government policy, including Communist Party of Britain member Susan Michie.
Inquiry counsels allow Ex-Health Secretary Matt Hancock to call for “faster, harder” lockdowns with little challenge.
Critics slam Hallett for wasting time on irrelevant topics. One hearing involved talking about the increase in laboratories in 1965. Another (no joke) included lengthy discussions about Brexit’s relation to Covid.
Needless wokeism creeps into proceedings with Lee Cain, once Boris Johnson’s most loyal aide, spending a significant amount of time moaning about the “lack of diversity” in Johnson’s team. (Yes, because having less white people in the cabinet would have improved the response……… it’s honestly tedious at this point)
We can’t rest the entire blame on Keith and Hallett. Every major cabinet member’s seeming collusive attempt to suppress evidence is a large part of the problem. Some say this in itself proves that nothing of substance will come from the £160,000-a-day inquest:
Like shepherd guiding his herd, lead counsel Keith is guiding the British public towards what seems like accountability. But in reality, he is doing nothing of the sort, leading us instead, time and again into fields of inconsequence. While crucial issues, such as care home protocols, are relegated to the background if not disappeared entirely - kind of like those vanishing texts.
At least our concerns, thanks to the likes Us For Them UK, are now on the record. Maybe Keith will struggle to contain discussion as well on February 8th 2024. We can only hope...
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 the media parrot government narratives that lead to yet more invasive, authoritarian, censorious policy?
If you want to do something today to help change that, you can opt for a paid subscription and help citizens journalists like me attempting to stop it…