The Covid Inquiry appears to be “fundamentally biased” and is failing to examine the costs of lockdown, 55 professors and academics have warned. The Telegraph has the story.
In a letter to Baroness Hallett, the inquiry Chairman, the group of 55 professors and academics express their concerns that the process is “not living up to its mission” to evaluate the mistakes made during the pandemic, assess whether Covid measures were appropriate, and to prepare the country for the next pandemic.
They warn that a “lack of neutrality” means the inquiry “gives the impression of being fundamentally biased” and appears to have led to “predetermined conclusions, for example, to lockdown faster next time”.
In the letter, published on Tuesday, the group states that the inquiry is neglecting to hear evidence from those who suffered from the “negative effects” of pandemic policy decisions, or scientists who disagree with choices made by the Government.
As the second module of the inquiry comes to a close, they call for this to be urgently addressed and greater focus to be placed on the “economic and social cost of Covid policies to British society”.
The letter was organised by Dr. Kevin Bardosh, an expert in infection medicine at Edinburgh University and Prof. Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at Oxford University.
It comes as Richard Hughes, Chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility, warned on Tuesday that worklessness had become a “worrying trend” in the economy since the pandemic.
Mr. Hughes told the Treasury Select Committee that the economy had been growing as a result of net migration but now the it was suffering from a reversal in its workforce amid “rising levels of inactivity and a falling participation rate”.
He said: “It looks as though persistently high levels of inactivity seem to be a feature of the post-pandemic environment and one which is worrying from the point of view of human welfare.”
Worth reading in full.
The full letter with all signatories is reprinted below.
An open letter to Baroness Hallett, Chair of the U.K. Covid Inquiry
The Inquiry must urgently address its apparent biases, assumptions, impartiality and lack of evidence-based approach
We, the undersigned, are a group of U.K. public health scholars and academics in related disciplines, widely published in our fields, deeply concerned that the Covid Inquiry is not living up to its mission to evaluate the mistakes made during the pandemic, whether Covid measures were appropriate and to prepare the country for the next pandemic.
First, the Inquiry gives the impression of being fundamentally biased. The Inquiry originated in legal petitions brought by bereaved family groups. Yet there has been little opportunity for petitions to be brought by those who have suffered from the negative effects of pandemic policy decisions. This is preventing a more holistic assessment of impacts on population health and wellbeing. This lack of neutrality appears to have led to biased reasoning and predetermined conclusions, for example, to lockdown faster next time.
Second, the Inquiry is taking key assumptions for granted instead of examining and critiquing them in light of the evidence. The consensus position in pre-2020 pandemic plans was that non-pharmaceutical interventions, including lockdown, had weak evidence of effectiveness, and were predicted to cause substantial harm to society, especially if used for prolonged periods. This informed the initial response to Covid in early 2020. Yet, the Inquiry assumes that these measures are effective and appropriate. As a result, it downplays the harms to society caused by two years of emergency infection control mandates.
Third, the Inquiry lacks impartiality in the selection and questioning of expert witnesses. It has given preferential treatment to scientific advisers on SAGE, who have a vested interest in maintaining the justification for their policy recommendations. Very few scientists with an alternative position have been asked to testify, and the Inquiry has been confrontational rather than inquisitorial in its questioning of these views. The Inquiry has not seriously questioned the hypotheses and assumptions offered to government, especially from government appointed modelers, which were used to justify Covid policies. Neither has it seriously examined the social and economic costs of lockdown. It has also stuck to an agenda of UK exceptionalism failing to recognise the experience elsewhere in the world.
Fourth, the format of the Inquiry is impeding investigation into the key scientific and policy questions. The Inquiry has adopted a legal format that prevents a systematic evaluation of the evidence by biomedical and social scientists on the harms of restrictions to the British public, the impact on Covid from policies such as mandatory NPIs, and the state of evidence for best practice. It is focused on who did or said what, rather than asking fundamental scientific questions. Yet investigating the interplay between harms, benefits, and best practice is critical to preparing for the next pandemic. The Inquiry, as currently functioning, appears unsuited to this task of national importance.
Fifth, the Inquiry risks reducing public trust in the impartiality and independence of government accountability and oversight. Its size and cost (by some estimates £300-500 million) will make it the largest public Inquiry ever undertaken to date, and yet its shortcomings, if not addressed, risk compromising the credibility of future public inquiries.
We believe the Inquiry has a significant and important mission and we would like to see it succeed. However, if it is to do so, these shortcomings need to be urgently addressed. The Inquiry must invite a much broader range of scientific experts with more critical viewpoints. It must also review the evidence on diverse topics so that it can be fully informed of relevant science and the economic and social cost of Covid policies to British society.
We, the undersigned, believe this is an urgent national priority and fundamental to ensuring that future pandemic response is evidence- based and maximizes the health and well-being of all.
Drafted by
Dr. Kevin Bardosh, Collateral Global; Division of Infection Medicine, University of Edinburgh.
Prof. Sunetra Gupta, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford.
Signatories, arranged alphabetically by surname:
Dr. Colin Alexander, Department of Journalism and Media, Nottingham Trent University.
Prof. David Betz, Department of War Studies, King’s College London.
Dr Carlton Brick, School of Education and Social Science, University of the West of Scotland.
Prof. Daniel Briggs, Department of Criminology and Sociology, Northumbria University.
Dr. Jennie Bristow, Department of Sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University.
Prof. Anthony J Brookes, Department of Genetics and Genome Biology, University of Leicester.
Prof. Garrett Wallace Brown, Chair in Global Health Policy, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Leeds.
Prof. David Campbell, Professor of Law, Lancaster University.
Prof. Karl Claxton, Department of Economics, University of York.
Dr. Robert Craig, School of Law, University of Bristol.
Prof. Charles Dennis, School of Business, Middlesex University.
Prof. Kevin Dowd, Durham University Business School.
Prof. Fionn Dunne, Department of Materials, Imperial College London.
Prof. Bill Durodie, Department of Politics, Languages and International Studies, University of Bath.
Dr. Ashley Frawley, Centre for Parenting Culture Studies, University of Kent.
Prof. Paul Frijters, Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics.
Dr. Alberto Giubilini, Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford.
Prof. Toby Green, Department of History, King’s College London.
Dr. Peter Grove, Former Chair UK Department of Health’s Senior Economic & Analytical Review Committee (IASRC).
Mr. Clive Hambler, Department of Biology, University of Oxford.
Prof. Philip Hammond, Department of Media & Communications, London South Bank University.
Dr Cheryl Hudson, History Department, University of Liverpool.
Prof Marilyn James, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham.
Prof. Lee Jones, School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of London.
Dr Nicholas Joseph, College of Arts, Humanities and Education, University of Derby.
Prof. David Livermore, Department of Medical Microbiology, University of East Anglia.
Dr. David McGrogan, Department of Law, Northumbria University.
Prof. Paul McKeigue, The Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh.
Prof. David Miles, Department of Economics, Imperial College London.
Dr. Jose Lingna Nafafe, Department of Hispanic, Portuguese and Latin American Studies, University of Bristol.
Prof. Yossi Nehushtan, School of Law, Keele University.
Prof. George Ogola, Department of Cultural, Media and Visual Studies, University of Nottingham.
Dr Jason L. Oke, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford.
Prof. Paul Ormerod, Alliance Business School, University of Manchester.
Dr. Matthew Owens, Department of Psychology, University of Exeter.
Prof. David Paton, Nottingham University Business School.
Prof. Allyson Pollock, Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University.
Prof. Peter Ramsay, Law School, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Prof. Matthew Ratcliffe, Department of Philosophy, University of York.
Prof. Mario Recker, Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter.
Dr. Andrew Shepherd, Chronic Poverty Advisory Network; Institute of Development Studies.
Prof. Karol Sikora, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Buckingham.
Sir Bernard Silverman, FRS, Emeritus Professor, Department of Statistics, University of Oxford.
Dr. Edward Skidelsky, Director, Committee for Academic Freedom; Department of Philosophy, University of Exeter.
Professor Michael Stewart, Department of Anthropology, University College London.
Dr Luke Telford, School of Business and Society, University of York.
Prof. James Tooley, Vice-Chancellor, The University of Buckingham.
Prof. Ellen Townsend, School of Psychology, University of Nottingham.
Prof. John Watkins, School of Medicine, Cardiff University.
Prof. Roger Watson, School of Nursing, University of Hull.
Dr. Stuart Waiton, Division of Sociology, Abertay University.
Dr. Meron Wondemaghen, School of Criminology, Sociology and Policing, University of Hull.
Prof. Simon Wood, School of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh.
Dr. Paul Yowell, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford.
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.
This is silly celebrity gossip for tabloids. I hope we are not going to start with this kind of crap on this website
You might be missing the point.
Russell Brand is constantly criticising establishment narratives and has a huge following.
He is someone who for better or worse stirs the public up and turns them against authority.
It is being suggested that he is going to be taken down for that with spurious allegations.
As they have done with others like Assange (rape), Bridgen (anti-semitism), Trump (insurrection).
Others they debank, like Farage or Toby Young.
And Tommy Robinson!
Well perhaps you should go read the Mailonline . They have twenty articles on this cretin today
What’s silly is you not seeing the bigger picture…
Yep I see bigger pictures and you might and might not have noticed that in other comments I make. ———My point here is that I don’t want the Daily Sceptic to turn into the Mailonline, with celebrity gossip as the main headlines.
Looks like for a change I am suffering a heavy defeat on this one. Well you can’t win them all huh? But I don’t feel the need to support a cretinous goon just because he is supposedly perceived as some kind of anti establishment hero. I can find plenty of non cretinous goons to support.
Judging by the number of downticks you’ve gathered not everyone agrees with you! I must be in the minority as I agree that a scrote like Brand is not worthy of the DS.
Those downtickers should watch those cornflakes they are munching on this morning. I think they might be a bit tainted. ——-But then again it’s all down to personal taste what?
That’s freedom of speech in our democracy. You can say anything you want so long as no one is paying attention to you.
However, say something the establishment doesn’t like and you have a large audience, get ready to be taken down.
Anti-semetism and sexual abuse,are the goto methods of attack.
Let’s see what they’ve concocted for Brand.
Bang on! But like trump, this may backfire and make him even more popular! Here’s hoping
Yes – I hope so.
Trouble is, the sheeple glued to MSM will only remember him for the Andrew Sachs business donkey’s years ago, and lap up whatever C4 have scraped together.
I think we have to leave the sheeple grazing in the field of ignorance. They aim’t coming with us.
You mean misremember him for the Andrew Sachs business. Russell Brand was entirely blameless, it was actually all Jonathan Ross’s fault AND the BBC editors who allowed the programme to be broadcast without editing out the bits that were offensive to Andrew Sachs and his daughter.
It was not a live programme, so if it was so offensive, why did the BBC allow it to be broadcast twice?
Didn’t know the broadcast wasn’t live and I have only a vague recollection of the incident (as will thousands of others). If you are correct, then of course the BBC and JR must take their share of the blame.
Commenting on Sunday pm, it seems Sachsgate forms only a small part of this hit piece; all allegations and trial by social media.
RB has a past and it has come back to bite him on the bum, but I believe he has changed along with his ditching the booze and drugs. He’s certainly highlighted some journalism that MSM wouldn’t touch, and that makes him a prime target.
I think we can guess.
Many of the big ‘awake’ accounts who oppose the forthcoming transnational bio-digital-environmental tyranny are now calling for revolution as disenchantment in the ballot box grows.
Russell Brand is charismatic, honest and articulate with a loyal following far greater than C4, The Times and BBC News channel combined – he is the perfect focal point for the leadership of a revolutionary movement.
It has been decided that he has become too powerful and therefore must go.
Matrix attack…
Marxtrix attack…
Maastricht atteck
Corporatrix attack!
Not dissimilar to Che Guevara!
Che Guevera said this “Youth should learn to think and act as a mass. It is criminal to think as individuals!”
Would Mr Brand agree with that.
I think he has more of a Jesus type vibe to him these days.
They won’t be able to get away with this attack as easily as they have done with others in the past. I believe that Russel Brand’s supporters will push back relentlessly – as indeed will Brand himself.
This reminds me of that old saying that “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Can’t you find a non moron to lead your revolution?
This is so transparent though isn’t it? Russell Brand has had a target on his back for ages now because he’s intelligent and fearless in his approach to challenging the official narratives and establishment, ergo he’s clearly a threat to TPTB, especially given his huge audience. What’s happening to him is also further confirmation that we don’t really have free speech at all ( hence the net of online censorship continually tightening around our activity, even on this site ) and democracy is an illusion.
What I will say though, if any of these allegations turn out to be sexual assault then I will be *seriously* p*ssed off because that significantly undermines the plight of genuine victims of this crime and to think that ‘TPTB’ would sink so low as to fabricate some BS accusations with zero evidence, just to go all out in a coordinated character assassination and with the intent of destroying Russell’s reputation is incredibly sick and low. However, he has such a loyal following that nobody’s going to believe a thing that emerges and it all just smacks of desperation.
Is this the threat so many politicians, business leaders etc face today? Subscribe and pay homage to the narrative, do as we say, or expect to have your life destroyed?
These allegations are of events some ten years ago, why now? I believe we can be sure that had Brand not made crystal clear to millions the absurd, in our face, lying duplicity that passes for politics and news these days or interviewed those they sought to exclude and silence such as Tucker Carlson and Jordan Peterson, he would not be facing these allegations today,
ALEX BELFIELD , anyone ???.. add him to the list , as stated on here by Stewart , if you get too big an audience telling plausible truths against tptb you will be besmirched or worse !
I think we should perhaps wait to see what the programme contains before getting too outraged.
If brand has to pre-defend himself ,then its not going to be anything good!
He has more than hinted about that in the video, by saying that he has been promiscuous in the past, but that all of his sexual encounters have been completely consensual.
I’ve never had much time for Brand; I don’t find him remotely funny, rather irritating, in fact. I’ve watched a few of his interviews with people I’m interested in, where he usually turns off the babble and listens.
Nevertheless, many others do like him; he’s got over 11 million followers on Twitter, well over 6 million on YouTube, and well over a million on Rumble. He spends his time challenging the mono-narrative. This paints a target on his back.
Lo and behold, arch-establishment defender of the progressive elites, Channel 4, and arch-establishment defender of the technocratic centre, the ToL, are apparently going to launch a full-scale assault on him later today.
Now, it’s entirely possible he is guilty of sexual offences; Twitter tells me that such allegations may have swirled around him for years, so we have to wait and see what they have. However, I am slightly puzzled as to why, if there is clear evidence, he has not been arrested and questioned and/or prosecuted for them in the past.
Something seems very off when Channel 4 go to the length of making a 90-minute programme about him to air their allegations. Why have they not gone straight to the police/CPS? Maybe they will, or the police will take an interest after making what I anticipate will be a full-on hatchet job and personality attack to undermine his message and poison public sentiment towards him.
Meanwhile, Epstein’s clients walk around, untroubled by any significant legacy media investigations. Strange, that.
Your first sentence describes exactly how I’ve always thought about Brand, I never understood the appeal. But then I just ignored him, never considered he should be cancelled or taken down, many other people clearly did like him.
I do know that he’s been showing some serious cajones in the past few years bucking the narrative, and by and large I’d probably agree with him (only saw a couple of minutes here and there). But exactly what you said – if any of these allegations are true, waiting till now just means they are out to get him, not that they care about any alleged victims or something as humdrum as the law. A mistake, I think it will fire up more people, if even someone like me who does not particularly care for him thinks this is very, very wrong and is already prepared to side with Brand. Let’s see if his colleagues have the balls to support him.
I’m curious to see who else is in the firing line, apparently it’s not just about him. I wonder if they’ll be going after Neil Oliver or Laurence Fox? Never thought I would be living in a 21st century version of Soviet Russia and Stalinist persecution, particularly in countries like the UK and the US.
Agreed but, ‘cojones’. ‘Cajones’ are drawers.
I know. You can only edit a post within a few minutes, and there’s no need to correct it in a separate reply, as some schoolmarm will come along to do it for you.
I am guilty sometimes of putting yours instead of your’s, but by the time I notice it it’s too late. ——-But like you I have never had much time for the likes of Brand. Just because he is seen as anti the authorities, people on here seem to sweep his despicable behaviours under the carpet. I can think of better people than this to listen to as my anti-establishment hero.
MSM want to shut Brand down, I think they will have the opposite effect
Maybe time to do a Huw and go into the Priory until it all dies down.
Has he come out yet?
I saw Brand live last year – not a big fan, but went along with a chum who has a major crush on him. I was struck, not so much with his edginess or comedy (although enjoyed the anti-establishment stream of consciousness thing he does), but by his almost painful personal transparency: he’s more open about his life and past transgressions than I am about my weekly shopping bill. He’s had a target on his back for a long time, and it looks like C4 drew the short straw for this particular hatchet job. They may well be taking on far more than they realise given the amount of global support Brand has – and I hope they reap their just rewards for doing so.
For those of a religious persuasion (as he is), a prayer or two in his direction wouldn’t go amiss.
You’re making a very good point – reality is chaotic, not algorithmic. No matter what the intentions of the PTB may be in humiliating him, this can go in all sorts of unpredictable ways. And as it happens, I feel that it just might.
Russell has been very vocal in his criticism of the ‘narrative’ and it has been very refreshing watching a ‘lefty’ slowly, or quickly realising there is some pretty bad stuff going on in the name of ‘being kind’ or ‘saving lives’ or ‘saving the planet’. Therefore the ‘Politburo’ are moving to de-person him. What were the chances of this happening?
Given Brand’s very serious, even disturbing, entanglement with the dark forces in the past, he has always been an easy target for a public take-down like the one that’s coming.
Charismatic and articulate as he is, and seemingly enlightened as he presents himself these days, it was a matter of time for this to happen.
So, they want us all talking about Russell Brand for a week or so whilst something else is happening. Maybe the signing of the Pandemic Treaty or The G20 Digital ID agreement or something WW3 related.
So why did C4 not pass on their “information” to the Police, if it is so damaging?
I think that’s pretty obvious.
They’ll use this to smear by association. There’ll be lots of footage with him talking to Jordan and Mikhaila Peterson, Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan and others that TPTB don’t like.
Saw a hit post on RB looking at X over wife’s shoulder ( I’m not on it ) saying he’s a mate of Klaus & a Mason of sorts ! Surely not
Also – please has anyone got the dirt on Belfields conviction ! Was it right & proper ??.. 5 years !!!…
Brand’s challenges and exposure of the globalist cabal and complicity of the main stream media is clearly getting through, and his audience is getting big enough to require a hatchet job and likely lawfare against him as is the modus operandi of the Blob against those to be silenced and excommunicated who haven’t actually done anything wrong, but claims and accusations tie them up in defence – and the ‘no smoke without fire’ slur will stick.
noticed no comments on the daily mail article
No comments allowed on any of the many Mail pieces on him today. And they usually allow comments on pretty much everything!
To the woke down thumber..
Why has it taken 15 years and the efforts of a woke media organisation for these allegations to come to light???
Please answer.. If you can
I downvoted you, Jon, because it sounds an awful lot to me like you’re describing and legitimising rape. That’s why I’m asking you to clarify your post. Are you being sarcastic?
I think you need to define what you mean by “taken by force” because you’re sailing very close to the wind with language like that and you’ve ran out of editing time. I know what my interpretation of that is, and it’s definitely nothing positive, but I’d like you to clarify your post before I jump to conclusions.
You’ve already jumped to conclusions….
Well here we have the point Mogs… You’ve jumped right in..
basically calling what occurred between 2 consenting adults as rape
Point made
It doesn’t matter what OUR definition of “force” is.. What’s that got to do with anyone else???
We were consenting adults, she enjoyed a bit of rough sex and so did I occasionally….
Sounds like you need to grow up and realise these things happen in the real world…. Have you never taken drugs Migs?
“I know I’ve taken my partner by force before in certain relationships…” How is any woman meant to interpret that? Well keep it as is if you like but I’d ask the DS team to remove it as it’s definitely open to misinterpretation, in my opinion.
This is the point….. Can’t you see why I posted what I did..
Your “interpretation”….. Channels 4 interpretation..
The courts interpretation…. About 2 adults having sex 15 years ago..
How ludicrous can society get
My post is getting to the exact issue about Brand here, it’s a personal experience, so why would you wish it taken down..
I hoped this forum was woke free
So you can’t bear to hear /read something that doest align with your personal ideology and want it removed..
You know what Mogs.. I’m done and you should go work for Channel 4 and try your hardest to get Brand convicted..
I’m sure you’d be happy then… Well that’s after getting my post removed
“Sounds like you need to grow up..” Yeah, says the man who presumes all women like to be “taken by force” and if they don’t they’re liars. Very dodgy territory there, Jon.
No I didn’t say that…
So you think you can dictate what 2 consenting adults can and can’t do in the bedroom.. Where on earth are you at
Mogs, have you ever heard of Bondage?
I feel for Brand, it’s going to be extremely difficult to fight these allegations in this feminised world we live in
Consensual sex becomes rape 15 years later….
People need to realise various sexual activities occur in the bedroom,, It’s not all missionary position…. Some are into Bondsge.. even….wow!
I see you got your wishes and had my posts removed Mogs..
Can’t be having a serious accurate debate can we now
I don’t know what your post was, but there was a post yesterday (can’t remember the name of the poster) from a man who said he’d forced himself upon women in the past and was asking whether that was rape!!!! Incredible. And, yes, for any men left in the country who don’t understand, that is rape.
And, I’m not a young woman. I’m 65. Somehow, in 40 years, my husband has managed never to do that to me.
Are you saying we a have complaints department on here and that your posts have been removed because a complainer complained?
Yea yea yea, we know the narrative…
Can’t be a man anymore it’s all “toxic masculinity”
So Brands a narcissist and liked shagging around…
I have mixed feelings here…I’ve always found RB rather odious and cringe-making, but people I know and love are fans. The allegations made on the programme last night were certainly dreadful and the clips of his stage acts did nothing to improve my opinion of him. On the other hand, BBC Internet News is headlining a ‘testimony’ from an (alleged) victim that includes this ‘I swear to God…his eyes had no more colour…they were black, like a different person literally entered his body’. I mean…what?!