Last week, we invited Daily Sceptic readers to submit suggestions of questions or topics that the U.K. COVID-19 Public Inquiry – which is presently consulting on its terms of reference, closing April 7th – ought to address. Here are some of the suggestions.
- How did the Public Health Act come to overrule basic rights?
- The classification of ‘cases’, Covid deaths, and the use of mass PCR and LFT testing in healthy people.
- Lack of cost/benefit analysis of measures, including not estimating the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost by everyone. Whether the three lockdowns were justified from a health standpoint and from an overall cost benefit standpoint.
- Divisive nature of Government policy, asking people to report their neighbours and discriminating against and demonising the non-vaccinated.
- The lack of a clear exit strategy when imposing the lockdown measures.
- The evidence for the claim that the ’vaccines are safe’ and for the quickly shifting goalposts of ages to be vaccinated.
- How can you claim it was for health when you locked down gyms and leisure centres? Particularly as some leisure centre gyms have GP referral schemes and are part of cardiac rehab phase 4.
- Did the Government consider the impact on the drop in tax revenue, which funds the NHS, as a result of business closures and people losing their jobs?
- How many people died because of the lockdowns, through delayed treatment, suicide and by other means?
- Why did the Government lock down when it had determined that COVID-19 was not a high consequence infectious disease?
- One of the worst aspects of Government restrictions was that power was given to thousands of managers, proprietors and other operators of businesses, which enabled them to dictate to their workers and staff just what should be done. That the measures were more often than not irrational and counterintuitive was ignored. With the various relaxations that have taken place, some of these people have continued to march, bark, hector and bully more or less unimpeded.
- Why were so few swabs available for sample collection in 2020?
- Why has the MHRA not made any comment or public report on the monthly Yellow Card adverse event record? Surely, its job is to examine this information to determine if it is reliable, understated or overstated, and to make recommendations as the regulator? If another medicine was producing these reports would they just keep logging numbers without any comment? And if they have been advised not to comment, by whom?
- How were mandates implemented without any scientific backing? I am thinking about the Rule of 6, not allowing sitting on a bench outside when walking, the scotch egg debacle, where you were only allowed to sit down in a pub when there was a substantial meal, the mask mandates overall, but in particular having to wear a mask when walking in the pub but being allowed to take the mask off when sitting down, etc.
- The use of the fear narrative by Government bodies such as Public Health England (now UKHSA).
- Why was the Coronavirus Act extended for so long each time?
- Writing as a doctor, I would like to know the veracity of clinical diagnosis of death ‘with Covid’. In my view, a review of all patient clinical notes and imaging by an independent panel should occur for a selection of NHS hospitals treating affected patients during 2020-2021. We should be absolutely clear whether Covid was the predominant cause of morbidity and mortality. The whole theatre of shutting down society was driven by irrational fear, in my opinion. A central issue is the over-emphasis on laboratory tests rather than clinical symptoms and signs of disease. I have contributed my experience of the time to Parliament.
- I believe the current terms should be extended to look at the adverse effects of Covid restrictions on children and young people. These include:
- The effect of face masks and other restrictions on the development and speech of babies and children.
- The impact on children with special needs and their families of the removal of support services such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy and respite care during the pandemic.
- The rise in mental health problems amongst children during the pandemic.
- The impact on young people who left school during the pandemic when there was a severe shortage of apprenticeships and employment.
- I think the inquiry should look at the following topics:
- The decision to ignore WHO guidelines on what should count as a Covid death and instead count any death within 28 days (initially 90 days) of a positive test. This makes the numbers look worse than they actually are by allowing deaths from other causes to count as Covid deaths.
- The decision to deliberately frighten the public into compliance and to bend the available information to fit that narrative.
- Whistleblowers contributing to the inquiry will need support and protection.
- There is only one question that needs answering in my view and that is “How should the next pandemic be managed?” This question needs to be answered for a range viruses with different transmission and death rates. The resulting plans should then be placed in the public domain.
- What is the infection fatality rate (IFR) of a virus that will lead to Government imposing future restrictions? There should be a bar set in law that is met before restrictions can even be considered in the future.
- The inquiry should look into the impact of lockdowns on the mental health on those who were single and living alone – especially given the fact that those in Government seemed to enjoy relative freedom to develop personal relationships during that period.
- Why did SAGE predict the first peak in June 2020, when it was very clear it would peak in April? That is key, because it was the prime cause of the panic which then ensued, and it raises the question: why on earth were people who got such a simple forecast so dramatically wrong allowed to continue to advise the Government?
- Why isn’t the inquiry looking at the moral problems posed by the pandemic? Why did politicians not articulate the rights of patients to refuse treatment? Why did no-one in the medical profession remind us that consent is the cornerstone of all medical practice? Why did the Government allow the denigration of ‘anti-vaxxers’?
- Given the track-record of Professor Neil Ferguson over many years, of which the low point was perhaps the cull of several million farm animals, what was the justification for canvassing and heeding his advice in this case?
- My general practitioner declined to issue me a prescription for ivermectin and it quickly became impossible to source this treatment online. Who made this policy and why was this not made public at the time?
- Why was it thought necessary to ban several substances that had been approved for decades and with good safety records, thus potentially allowing people to die while waiting for the ‘panacea’ of the vaccines to arrive? Even if those treatments had been useless, what harm would have come of their potentially prophylactic use?
- How can supposedly democratic countries guarantee they are actually democratic? Democracy stands on the foundations of free speech and opinion, yet both of these core values were coarsely trampled over during a tyrannical overreach of elected officials.
- How is the responsibility of the state defined versus the responsibility of the individual? Is the onus of responsibility on state or individual? What is the limit that state can dictate to individual?
- How can the news media be guaranteed to be balanced? Permitting one voice, one opinion, is not balanced.
- Why were established scientific guidelines – including those espoused by the WHO prior to the pandemic – suddenly rewritten with no justification? This includes the rationale behind imposing a single clinical model of treatment rather than exploiting the diversity of medical and scientific resources worldwide in order to establish both the actual severity of the pandemic and possible prophylactic and clinical treatments.
- The accuracy of scientific modelling and to what extent if any, that models were updated and corrected by actual outcomes. The reasons why SAGE models used were not just badly wrong, but always wrong in the same direction. The role of scientific modelling in guiding Government policy.
- The descriptions given to modelled outcomes (e.g. ‘reasonable worst case’) and how those descriptions came to be interpreted by the media.
- The use of out-of-date data by the Prime Minister and his advisers to support policy.
- The failure to model or consider financial or any other medical outcomes besides Covid.
- The actual data which were used to justify the wearing of face masks and the resulting impacts on adults and children of compulsory face masks.
- The actual data which were used to justify or support lockdowns.
- The allowance of SAGE members to make regular media appearances to push, support or influence policy.
- The role of OFCOM in shutting down opinions on media at variance with Government policy. The role of the media – particularly television – in maintaining a substantial element of fear of Covid among the population. The actual or implied requirement to publish daily Covid data on television – ignoring deaths from all other causes – and therefore missing context. The role of the media in failing to challenge NPI’s other than to demand that they should have been stricter and sooner.
- The failure of the Government to allow a ‘devil’s advocate’ or ‘red team’ approach within its policymaking.
- The failure of the various financial support schemes to interrogate basic Companies House, HMC&E and Bank records to minimise the predictable large scale fraud which occurred
- The (continuing) failure of GP surgeries to conduct an acceptable level of face-to-face consultations.
- A full breakdown of who benefited from the PPE and other contracts and by how much.
- The glacial emergence from restrictions in spring 2021 when infections were extremely low.
- Why the Downing Street civil service thought it was acceptable to party at a time when the populace couldn’t see their dying parents.
There’s still time to submit your responses to the inquiry consultation. You can do so here.
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.
“ I suppose their explanation was superior to stating that their dog had eaten the raw data.”
Very good.
The problems with modelling for political purposes are replicated with horrific effect upon Western Civilisation through the Climate Crisis Hoax. It has become fuel for the most criminal power grab in human history and excised the most destructive forces upon human freedom and prosperity ever seen.
Sorry but this statement is bullshit:
population starting to distrust other vaccines and protective healthcare in general – this could end up with many people suffering serious illness or even death from the scourges of humanity’s past, such as measles, diphtheria and polio
Utterly freaking wrong. Typhus/dipth from horse shit,fecal matter spread by flies or ingestion. Polio is from arsenic and chemicals in food / water. Measles IFR is close to zero and always has been. There is zero proof that the stabs did anything vs sanitation.
Please read Turtles all the way down for more info, there is an entire elucidating chapter on polio which shatters the myth of quacksine science.
They all contain poisons.
Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of vaccines in general and vaccines that are in common use, on which I am not qualified to pronounce, I think that people developing a strong scepticism for anyone who tells them “this is for your own good” must be a good thing rather than a source of regret.
Quite. Hygiene, sanitation and clean water have saved ANY more number of lives compared to jabs.
http://vaccinepapers.org/
It’s an interesting debate for sure. I’m certainly no expert, but have listened to both sides of the argument and find it very difficult to wholeheartedly agree with one side or the other. I certainly do think that vaccine harm in general is underplayed. My gut instinct is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, which it usually does, in that there may be some vaccines that have a net benefit, but that the gradual improvement of sanitation and healthcare has played a significant hand. I don’t believe that the ridiculous child vaccination schedule can do anything other than net harm. That’s just my gut though.
While I disagree with your statement, I very much accept that it is a point that you’re entitled to bring up. There’s far too much ‘bow to authority’ in medicine, and some of the rationale behind some (too many) of the recommendations is rather weak.
I suggest that medicine is going to have a lot of work to undo the harm that has been caused over the last 3 years. Hopefully this will lead to some robust studies into the effectiveness of many of the medical products that have been thrust upon society over the decades.
All this flipflopping smacks of desperation.
Implausible Modelling behind climate & covid Claims
Yellow Freedom Boards – next event
Friday 11th November 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A327 Arborfield Rd &
Eastern Relief Rd,
Shinfield,
Wokingham RG2 9EA
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
We are now seeing signs of the population starting to distrust other vaccines and protective healthcare in general …
Yep, that’s me. I’ll never trust a doctor or medical professional again. Sorry, they’ve earned it.
A profession without a shred of credibility.
Anyone want to argue the opposite?
“A profession without a shred of credibility.”
Talk about a profession, indeed a whole industry being hollowed out. This 100 year old medical pharmacology business is shortly to enter its death throes and not before time. Holistic and nature based medicine is needed now more than ever.
My branch of medicine, sports and exercise medicine, deals primarily with lifestyle.
I no longer work with professional sportspeople and focus on lifestyle, diet, as well as musculoskeletal disease and injury.
I rarely prescribe drugs, and frequently cease people’s medications, improving pathology with a healthier lifestyle.
Not rocket surgery, though amazing how 99% of the profession resets to pills first.
99% of the profession resets to pills first
Yep, that’s what I’ve seen – and can’t think of any instances where it’s done any good.
Seriously though – as a doctor – don’t you think the profession is now reputationally broken? I don’t see how it recovers from this, inside of a generation.
Sports medicine: in my experience one of the biggest problems is over-training, leading to immune system depletion and musco-skeletal injuries.
I swim a fair bit – so not much risk of significant musco-skeletal injury. One problem though can be outer ear infections. I’ve had loads. Years ago I’d go to the doctor who’d prescribe anti-biotics, which worked for a few days then as soon as the course finished the infection would come back. And so more anti-biotics …
Then I discovered rubbing alcohol. Now I treat ear infections myself and cure them much quicker than any doctor I’ve ever dealt with. Even vinegar can work. Presumably whisky or brandy might as well. I guess any actual doctor would be horrified.
“Seriously though – as a doctor – don’t you think the profession is now reputationally broken?”
Yes.
Regarding overtraining – agreed that it can be an issue, at times with major consequences.
Hence my avoidance now of elite spert.
Amateur sport avoids this, as well as gambling and doping.
Ethically much more rewarding.
Yes.
Well thanks for being so candid.
Do you think anything can be done about it? Society needs health care it can trust, so something has to be done.
I suppose that implicit in my question is what has gone wrong with the profession?
Two potential explanations spring to mind.
First, doctors, intelligent and well-educated as they clearly are, lack capacity for critical thinking.
Second, they just don’t care.
I don’t think no. 2 can be entirely true (although it might be in some individuals). So I’m left with no. 1. But has doesn’t seem satisfactory either. How can well-educated, intelligent people be so dumb??
I’m struggling with this. Anyone think of anything else?
Always good to hear the opinions of medical professionals and pharma employees on here btw.
And I always imagined over-training was more of a problem in amateur sports, as generally amateurs don’t have coaches observing them to see when things are going awry, but I’d stand to be corrected on this. I suspect a lot of dark things go on in professional sports, that don’t make the back pages or TV screens. And from what I’ve seen once elite athletes drop out of professional sports they are on their own, not always with happy consequences.
My son may move in that direction. He’s currently a GP but doesn’t see that as a long term job any more.
It’s the protocols and pills that I see as an unattractive part of the job and the lack of individualisation nowadays. The sad thing is that many people just want to take drugs but not take charge of their own health.
The sad thing is that many people just want to take drugs but not take charge of their own health.
Yes, I think that’s spot on.
The even sadder thing is that their sense of entitlement extended to expecting others to take an untested gene therapy such that they didn’t need to take responsibility for their own health.
Same here.
Not for a moment TJN, who could blame you?
I rejected the jabs and I won’t be having any vaccines or “vaccines” in the future. I stay away from the medical profession as much as I possibly can …. which (although I’m in my early 60s) is most of the time since I take care of my own health.
If I had young children I would be VERY particular about the vaccines / “vaccines” they would have.
Something is driving the huge increase in autism-spectrum amongst children and I strongly suspect it is the amount of chemicals that are being injected into their young bodies at a very young age.