In September 2020, I became one of the first U.K. doctors to speak out about damaging Covid policy. Since January 2021, I have co-chaired the multidisciplinary HART group, publishing evidence-based analysis on Covid issues in an attempt to educate the public.
In 2021 it became clear that it was very challenging to persuade people face-to-face that the Government had chosen a dangerous path with its Covid policies. If someone listened long enough to understand one crucial point, the conversation would end with them in cognitive dissonance, unable to reconcile their other beliefs with what they had just learned.
The obvious answer to requiring someone’s attention for a little longer was to write a book. The challenge was to write in a way that ensured no reader would feel angry or foolish. The result was, Expired – Covid the untold story, a book that tackles 12 key Covid myths related to virus spread, lockdowns, asymptomatic infections and the efficacy of masks. Each one is addressed from the starting point of what was the dominant belief system before showing where the arguments did not fit. Each of these beliefs is interspersed with chapters which investigate the psychology of our beliefs, why we believe what we believe, the impact of fear and what it takes to change our minds.
It is a readable book for a layperson and consequently it is not the maths book that many people expected me to write. Instead, it is a summary of what the evidence shows and leaves the details to be referenced elsewhere. It is rich with metaphors and analogies to ensure that even complex concepts are digestible. It also covers far more than just science and psychology. To fully understand the issues requires a history lesson, a bit of religion and plenty of understanding of human failing!
A central theme is the significantly overlooked role of aerosols in exhaled breath – a crucial factor in virus transmission. A comprehensive understanding of this sheds light on why lockdowns and other restrictions failed to yield expected results. However, the physicists specialising in aerosols, despite their expertise, were disregarded and silenced by the medical community, which was tenaciously holding on to a misinformed belief about aerosols that almost unbelievably centred on the wrong number being used in a textbook.
Complicating the matter, the medical community still held onto echoes of a 150 year-old debate between germ theory and miasma theory, causing physicians to dismiss the possibility that microorganisms could be airborne via aerosols, despite a substantial body of evidence supporting this.
The irony is that the proponents of germ theory, who had to fight fiercely for their views to be accepted, adopted some beliefs, specifically about close-contact transmission and asymptomatic transmission, which were not supported by empirical evidence. Because these ideas had been entrenched in medical education and textbooks, they were perceived as fact and seldom challenged.
I have always enjoyed reading non-fiction but was always in awe of how much work the authors must have put into their books. It turns out I was right about just how much work such a book takes! The meticulous research meant that I learnt a lot on the way too so I hope that even if some of the story is familiar to you, there will be plenty for you to learn too.
More than any of the above, Expired is a call to action to reinforce the ethical principles that have guided Western societies for centuries, highlighting the damage done by overriding them during the pandemic and the urgent need to restore them.
Now that the fear and panic era of Covid is finally dissipating it is time for a rational and calm reanalysis of events. The Covid Inquiry is years away from reporting on political decision-making and so far there is marked evidence of bias in the approach being taken. Expired makes sense of the real-world evidence and exposes how ‘The Science’ was based on flawed assumptions that led to devastating policy.
I thoroughly explored avoiding Amazon altogether and using independent publishers, warehousing and shipping but it was simply not economically viable. It is therefore available exclusively on Amazon. It is available as a paperback, on Kindle or as an audiobook (read by me). The reviews so far have been overwhelmingly positive and I would really appreciate your feedback too.
Dr. Clare Craig is a diagnostic pathologist and co-Chair of the HART group. She is the author of Expired – Covid the untold story.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
You are so ignorant of the law, its laughable.
On the contrary as a constitutional lawyer and knowing the workings of the courts the article could never be closer to the reality. Given your obvious arrogance, can u confirm to the great unwashed and unlearned in your estimation what did Meenan specialise in whilst at the bar. I’ll give u a clue… it wasn’t judicial review. Your as ignorant in ur reply with no perception of the reality of the behaviour of the judiciary as you claim the writer of the article is relative to his knowledge of the law. Jackass.
Well said sir. Ignorance is indeed bliss.
Well said Christy. This what our country is dealing with, if you bring the consitution up your a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.
The media are rotten to core in this country, not in any MSM News outlet would you see this very well written article, non existent.
Most of the population have a perception which has been created by the totally biased media.
Yes this article is very ignorant of the law and is equally flawed as the arguments posited in court by waters and Gemma. Dare to read on
One, judicial review seeking certiorari requires that you first have a Leave hearing to determine locus standi. They were advised to take it to a plenary hearing and stated they were happy with their decision to seek Review.
Meenan J agreed they had standing with respect to several grounds. I myself think they could have had good arguments for a few but it’s nigh on impossible to strike down an entire piece of legislation.
Looking to Cahill v Sutton and Mohan judgements the nature of their cases is irrelevant it’s the precedent established with respect to having an arguable case and an argument that has a reasonable likelihood of succeeding.
They did not achieve that.
Yes it is correct in law to state that proportionality should take place. What’s more is that there is a Hierarchy of Rights and a doctrine of Harmonious interpretation. The applicants arguments did not clearly make a case or seek to Demonstrate how the above doctrines May impinge in their submissions or to justify their case before the Court.
It was incredibly weak and often featured rolls of the tongue separate to the pleadings before the Court. If in doubt read all of the transcripts. To be fair Waters tried, Gemma did rant.
If leave was granted they then must overcome the presumption of constitutionality (see Pigs Marketing Board v Donnely) which applies deference to the oireachtas in their law making function under Art 15 of the Constitution and then they must pass a double construction test.
These are all well known and documented in the case law. Had they even gone to a law student they could have been armed with a more deeper knowledge and likely a better case.
They didn’t – Meenan was correct – if they really cared and had real nouse they would use what they learned from all of the transcripts and ruling to their advantage but they won’t.
“All rise!
Enters Lord Sumption
“Is this true?
“Britain is unusual in that it has an ‘unwritten’ constitution: unlike the great majority of countries there is no single legal document which sets out in one place the fundamental laws outlining how the state works… It has been suggested that the British Constitution can be summed up in eight words: What the Queen in Parliament enacts is law. This means that Parliament, using the power of the Crown, enacts law which no other body can challenge.”
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/what-uk-constitution/what-uk-constitution
It is true that there is no written constitution in the UK.
Parliament works off of the Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy, in effect meaning what Parliament says goes coupled with legislation, case law and precedent. The impact of EU law would have caused some conflict with this and is one of the reasons parliamentarians, in particular, could have argued a genuine reason to leave the EU not some of the hyperbole that was thrown around.
If interested look up AV Dicey, he was the main man when it came to British Constitutionalism
“Parliament works off of the Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy…what Parliament says goes…”
So this is why the esteemed leaders of the UK have essentially been able to place the population under house arrest, ruin peoples livelihood, interrupt children’s education and stop people from being close to their loved ones all because a seasonal viral infection is floating around that is less fatal than SARS and MERS….Hmmm
The whole purpose of the “lockdown” may have been to #ProtectTheNHS, however my understanding is that the Mental Health Services are part of the NHS and it doesn’t take a tertiary education to predict that this already under resourced part of the Health Care sector is going to be
overrun in the very near future.