The UK covid inquiry has garnered plenty of attention in the mainstream media, but reservations have been expressed about how it is been conducted, not least in relation to the treatment of Prof Carl Heneghan:
The “Covid 19 Inquiry” article above references a scathing piece (below) by UsForThem, an organisation that has spoken out consistently on behalf of children since 2020, arguably doing something that church leaders (and members) should have been doing as a matter of course. UsForThem has similar concerns to that of HART (and many others) and concludes that:
The Inquiry is now hopelessly compromised by the seemingly presumptive words of its own Chair and leading lawyers and its failure to ask the right questions. It is setting us up for a doom-loop of catastrophic errors we cannot afford to repeat. It has become an embarrassment to the legal profession and is jeopardising the reputation of the English legal system. Its exorbitant costs already cannot be justified, and there is only worse to come. It should be abandoned.
Among the most succinct comments I have seen come from oncologist Prof Karol Sikora. He has expressed similar sentiments, describing the UK covid inquiry as “a total sham” with “politicians using it to protect their reputations” and “a pro-lockdown establishment closing ranks, in a desperate attempt to justify the unjustifiable”:
But the main purpose of this post is not to focus on the UK covid inquiry. Instead I want to draw attention to two other inquiries:
…it is astonishing to discover that during lockdown from March 2020 many care home residents were cut off completely from all medical care and 90% in one home were placed on ‘‘just in case’’ end-of-life medications by a GP without being seen and regardless of illness. Was consent applied? Unlikely. If not, this should be referred to as euthanasia, which is illegal in all four nations of the UK, and typically treated as murder [or manslaughter].
‘‘Euthanasia has no particular status under the law in the UK, and cases of euthanasia are typically treated as either murder or manslaughter depending on the circumstances. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.’’
Many residents who died from maltreatment would later (no doubt) go on to be labelled as ‘COVID’ deaths justifying the need for further restrictions on the whole of society and eventually the need for fast tracked experimental mRNA/DNA injections.
It is also stated by managers [that] blanket DNACPRs [Do Not Attempt CardioPulmonary Resuscitation orders] were in place in some homes because they ‘‘would not be going to hospital if they became unwell’’. Complete bans on paramedics and ambulances arriving at care homes [are] also mentioned which was agreed to be without precedent.
Some comments from people at the inquiry:
“People wanted their care escalated but were told by GPs they couldn’t get it.” — Madeana Laing
“Even when residents who maybe didn’t have COVID just became unwell it was very much a cut and dry (decision by NHS?) they weren’t going to hospital when you could clearly see if they went to hospital they had a really good chance of improving, of getting over what was making them unwell in the first place… it was almost like you were playing God… NO you can’t go.” — Madeana Laing
In response to the Junior Counsel to the inquiry asking: “In your understanding the lack of ability to access an ambulance, paramedics or hospital was the reason for these DNACPR decisions put in place?” the reply was: “Yes”
“In one of our homes we received DNACRPs for all of our residents that hadn’t already got one in place.” — Peter McCormick
“There was a restriction in terms of access to care for people in care homes — a decision that must have been made by the NHS. That was not a discussion held in the full public light.” — Peter McCormick
“Family members became concerned… [asking] why is my relative not going to hospital?” — Madeana Laing
Ms Laing goes on to explain it was ‘‘quite a long time’’ before any residents were able to go to hospital — around 9 months. It is further explained this has very likely led to many preventable deaths. How many of these were labelled as ‘COVID’?
“Some residents would have got better had they had the opportunity to go to hospital” — Madeana Laing
As if these revelations were not shocking enough…
“9 times out of 10, regardless of what the resident’s symptoms were, they were prescribed ‘just in case’ medication [by the GP]… We really, really struggled [to get medical attention] — it was months and months before we got a GP into our home” — Carol Anne Currie
[Update: an 11-minute summary of the closing statements can be viewed here]
2. The Australian covid inquiry
And here is a sample of submissions to the Australian covid inquiry:
From the article:
Australia’s “COVID-19 Response Inquiry” recently published the submissions at its webpage.
Astoundingly, these submissions are not packaged in a way that enables batch download. Whether by oversight or design, this will inevitably hinder comprehensive public scrutiny of the submissions, a substantial majority of which are scathing of the Federal Government’s response to the pandemic.
So, we set about the exhaustive process of downloading these submissions and will make them available as .zip file and a combined .pdf document in due course.
The initial analysis, relating to cardiovascular issues, can be found in the Substack article highlighted above. Further articles are in the pipeline, and I plan to add links in updates to this article.
Extracts below (a small fraction of the accounts in the article):
The narratives within these submissions not only recount the serious health consequences experienced by individuals, but also reflect the broader impact on their families, friends, and colleagues.
Many of these submissions detail the significant and lasting injuries people have personally experienced from COVID-19 vaccination, in many cases resulting from coercive vaccination mandates.
Their stories relate the experiences of their family members, friends and colleagues who have ongoing medical complications, who are medically retired, who have been gaslighted by their doctors and abandoned by their government for “doing the right thing” as they thought and were told.
Let the horror stories from these individuals speak for themselves.
We present the following submissions [among many others] without further discussion or comment.
Myocarditis
Submission # 55
Submission # 253
SSubmission # 639
Submission # 698
Submission # 765
Submission # 792
Submission # 793
Submission # 878
Submission # 1002
Submission # 1043
Submission # 1052
Submission # 1116
Submission # 1242
Submission # 1372
Submission # 1502
Submission # 1565
Submission # 1643
Submission # 1689
Submission # 1756
Submission # 1759
The other submissions using the word “myocarditis” not included here were made by individuals/organisations who were aware of the significant and growing volume of empirical evidence, and that published in academic literature of the causative role of COVID-19 “vaccination” for myocarditis.
