Pick of the Week – 17 December 2023

A selection of articles we think are worth the time 

All HART articles also on Substack. Please consider a PAID SUBSCRIPTION so we can continue our work. Comments are open so you can join in the conversation.

🔗 “I Don’t Want to Get Into That”: Covid Inquiry Shuts Down Prime Minister When He Points Out Lockdown Did More Harm Than Good Carl Heneghan & Tom Jefferson, Trust the Evidence, 14th December:

Is there any possibility that the Inquiry team even understand the word ‘Inquiry’? It certainly appears that they don’t want to inquire into anything that might challenge the ‘lockdown sooner, harder’ narrative. The Prime Minister was attempting to tell the Covid-19 Inquiry about an important study which attempted to measure the costs of lockdowns (a question the government itself should surely have considered), but the KC was having none of it.

As Mr Hannan points out in The Telegraph, The Covid Inquiry has become a show-trial. Mr Sunak started to tell the Inquiry about a study suggesting that lockdowns caused more harm than good. “But even as the PM spoke those devastating words, Hugo Keith KC, the showboating lead counsel, was leaping in to interrupt him: “I wasn’t aware of that, but I don’t want to get into quality life assurance models [sic]”.

If Keith doesn’t know what a QALY* is, he has no business leading the interrogations. If he does know, but is deliberately refusing to consider the question, then the whole farce should be wound up. A QALY analysis is in fact the only measure by which we can judge the lockdowns. Yet here is the chief inquisitor, not merely failing to ask the question, but expressly ruling it out of consideration.”

*For Mr Keith’s benefit QALY=Quality Adjusted Life Years and is a standard measurement tool for assessing the overall health benefits of different medical procedures.

HART readers are invited to add your signatures here

🔗 Japan approves self-amplifying (saRNA) COVID vaccine!?! Meryl Nass, 13th December

The obvious question: ‘What could possibly go wrong?’ Especially, when you read that, ‘The replication machinery is taken from a naturally occurring virus, a mosquito-borne pathogen known as Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus’. It is viruses like that which preclude you from giving blood for 4 months after returning from visiting South America!

🔗 As Side-Effects of Covid Vaccines Piled Up, the MHRA Expanded its Advice Lists But Took No Action Nick Hunt, Daily Sceptic, 15th December

Nick Hunt, lead author of the Perseus Report, ferrets out yet more damning information on how the MHRA has failed in its brief on safety. Look especially at the patient information leaflet for AstraZeneca in December 2020 compared to November 2023. Numerous risks added but no consideration of revoking the licence. The policy seems to be ‘Just send supplies to Africa and hope the Brits won’t notice’. 

🔗Parents Could Sue the £145 Million Covid Inquiry for “Ignoring” the Impact of Draconian Lockdowns on Children Mark Hookham, Daily Mail, 17th December

Molly Kingsley and colleagues from parents’ campaign group UsForThem have written a swingeing letter to Baroness Hallett, chair of the Covid-19 Pubic Inquiry. There are more details in The Telegraph but unfortunately behind a paywall.

The letter states, “UsForThem emphatically supports the inquiry’s stated objective to learn lessons that will inform future pandemic responses in the UK. But it also now bears serious concerns that the inquiry’s current approach is not only failing adequately to identify those lessons, but risks entirely undermining the validity of its future findings by perpetuating the impression that it holds a predetermined view of both the nature of the pandemic and of the desirability and effectiveness of the UK’s particular response.”

UsForThem says the inquiry appears to be “failing to consider whether there was any alternative to the lockdowns that were imposed in this country”

The letter adds, “If the course of the inquiry is not corrected then we reserve the rights of UsForThem in due course to challenge any final outcome of the inquiry on the basis of any or all of the issues raised in this letter.”

Please follow and like us:
Visit Us