This 18-minute film — available on YouTube — is well worth watching and sharing:
The narrator is John Bowe, an English actor best known for his roles in Emmerdale and Coronation Street.
A transcript is below, along with additional comments here and there.
Introduction
[Narrator] March 9th, 2025. A day of reflection set aside to remember the friends and loved ones lost to covid and the sacrifices that we all made.
Remember? Of course we do. But do not betray those who every day bear the consequences of a flawed vaccine rollout.
The vaccine injured have been marginalised, even scorned by the medical profession, the media politicians, the very people who persuaded them to take the jabs in the first place. They hoped that the covid inquiry would provide answers, some truth on which to build. Instead, they met a familiar brick wall:
[Hugo Keith, Lead Counsel for the Covid Inquiry] “What we cannot do is make precise determinations in relation to whether a specific vaccine is safe or determining matters of causation where death or injury has resulted from specific vaccines. Safety is a relative concept. And any determination, if it could be made, would serve no sensible purpose.”
That is a very long way from a confident proclamation of “safe and effective”
[Dr Clare Craig, Diagnostic Pathologist and author of Expired: Covid the untold story] “It’s outrageous what's happened with the UK covid inquiry. It’s turning into a whitewash and a complete waste of public money.”
[Narrator] Many issues could and should have been addressed, not least: “Were the public deceived over millions of AstraZeneca jabs which were actually a re-labelled Indian-made brand — Covishield — close to the expiry date?” We’ll investigate that shortly.
In any event, the outcomes of Baroness Hallett’s inquiry seemed pre-determined. Here’s the Lead Counsel speaking before any evidence had been heard:
[Hugo Keith, Lead Counsel for the Covid Inquiry] “The absolutely clear expert opinion of the leading pharmaco-epidemiologist instructed by the inquiry — Professor Prieto-Alhambra from whom we will of course hear in due course — is that the vaccines, those three covid-19 vaccines, were entirely effective.”
An interesting choice of words… “entirely effective”… rather than “safe and effective”. But where is the evidence for that? And why should we believe anyone making such a claim if they cannot provide the raw data to back up what they say?
[Dr Clare Craig, Diagnostic Pathologist] “It’s not really acting as an inquiry at all. The barristers have to submit their questions in advance, and they’re told that they’re not allowed to ask some of them. And then, on top of that, when witnesses are raising really important issues, the barristers are shutting them down and not letting them speak. And the vaccine-injured have just been deliberately excluded from the conversation.”
[Narrator] As a consequence, nobody was able to question that oft-repeated mantra that side-effects were “very rare”, despite the unexplained increase in sudden deaths.
[Narrator] Nor could they challenge the spurious claims of success.
[Hugo Keith, Lead Counsel for the Covid Inquiry] “The United Kingdom Health Security Agency further estimated in September 2022 that by September 2021 a year earlier, nine months after the rollout had begun, the covid-19 vaccines had prevented more than 23 million infections and 123,000 deaths in the United Kingdom.”
[Dr Clare Craig, Diagnostic Pathologist] “The claim that these products reduced infections was not based on evidence. And in fact, it’s not only that they didn’t reduce infections. They never could have done, because what these products do is produce antibodies in the blood. And what you need to stop an infection on the surface of your lungs is antibodies on the surface of your lungs, which these products did not produce.”
“There wasn’t any reduction in transmission either. And so they pivoted to saying it reduced severe diseases and deaths. But in reality those claims were based on computer models with false assumptions saying there’d be a huge tsunami of deaths that never would have occurred. If you make up some number to say, “This is what would have happened” then of course you can claim that you save millions of lives. But it’s a baseless claim.”
Personal stories
[03:51] [Narrator] The vaccine-injured see the stain of a cover-up rather than a forensic search for the truth. And still there is a disgracefully short list of names who’ve received compensation for vaccine injury — usually the bereaved, like Charlotte Wright, whose husband Stephen, a brilliant child psychologist died at the age of 32. Or the severely injured, like Alex Mitchell, who lost a leg, and very nearly his life. But thousands of others who experienced dramatic life changes immediately after taking the jab cannot get medical confirmation, let alone prove the 60% disability threshold for payment.
The UK government Vaccine Damage Payment website states clearly that: “Vaccine Damage Payments are not a compensation scheme.”
[Narrator] Colin Wilks is one [example]. He was a fit and active 56-year-old living in Cornwall, and with his wife Julie enjoyed the outdoor life. Within days of a single AstraZeneca jab he began having multiple seizures.
[Julie Wilks] “At the beginning they were extremely frightening… I wasn’t sure really what was happening to him. As you can see, he’s got this tremor which is very apparent… visible. So it’s massively impacted his quality… to his life than what we had before. I’ve become more of a carer than an actual wife.”
[Colin Wilks] “It makes me feel guilty for being like this to be honest… things that she can’t do now that… because she’s here with me a lot and stuff… that makes me feel guilty.”
[Narrator] Colin had worked as a valet and driver of luxury cars — an impossible situation for a man with his condition.
[Colin Wilks] “The only outcome of that was [that] I had to be sacked, basically… dismissed on medical grounds…”
[Narrator] With Colin virtually housebound with no income, the Wilks had to borrow money to avoid losing their home before Colin eventually received disability benefits. He’s been diagnosed with functional neurological disease, but doctors still refuse to link it to the jab.
[Julie Wilks] Nobody wants to listen to our stories. Every source that we’ve tried to get our story out there… it’s just been shut down.
[Colin Wilks] Now I’m very angry towards the government. I feel they’ve let a lot of people down… and I think it’s about time that they came clean.
The Covishield scandal
[06:23] [Narrator] What Colin Wilks didn’t know was that the shot that he had received — which he thought was British — was actually made in India, and had been stockpiled for months before it went into his arm. His batch number was 4120Z003 which was responsible for a reported 7,511 adverse reactions and 18 deaths.
Here is an MHRA reply to a similar Freedom of Information request:
[Narrator] That’s more than any other AstraZeneca batch in the UK. according to MHRA figures obtained through a freedom of information request. Furthermore, its sister Indian batches -001 and -002 were also in the worst five. Between these three batches alone, there were 19,575 reported [adverse] reactions and no fewer than 54 [reported] UK deaths. And the real numbers are likely to be much higher because historically only a fraction of cases are reported.
…states that: “Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” [Emphasis added]
[Narrator] The three batches were made by the Serum Institute, the largest vaccine manufacturer in the world. From May 2020, the Serum Institute or SII [Serum Institute of India] had begun a partnership with AstraZeneca for covid vaccine development with Oxford AZ providing the technology virus seed and cell banks. Based on this, the SII produced the brand Covishield, and millions of doses would later be administered across the world, including from the aforementioned three batches.
Records from India’s National Control Laboratory show that these batches were manufactured in October 2020 in anticipation of regulatory approval. Note the expiry dates: March and April 2021.
Meanwhile, the first AstraZeneca vaccines, later to be called Vaxzevria, were approved in the UK on December 30th 2020. The rollout began five days later using British-made consignments. The campaign to drive all covid vaccines was both relentless and persuasive.
And don’t forget that UK church leaders — and Christian organisations such as the Evangelical Alliance, the Baptist Union, the Methodist Church, the Salvation Army, New Wine, Hillsong, and even Christians in Science — were among those pushing the injections:
Demand for AstraZeneca jabs was high, so, as confirmed by the government website, the three vaccine batches 4120Z001, -002 and -003 were imported from India and were assessed and treated as Covid-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca.
The sheer volume of adverse reactions from three imported batches should absolutely have been worthy of investigation, and there had been concerns as official documents show.
On February 15th 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) made a presentation on the batches to the Commission on Human Medicines Expert Working Group (EWG).
The minutes include the following excerpts [emphasis added]:
AstraZeneca has transferred manufacturing process and key analytical methods… to SII. There have been some changes to manufacturing, however with no material effect to the product.
The EWG… heard… that manufacturing and testing of the seeds/banks appear largely acceptable but some questions are raised re methods validation/missing reports. Questions have also been raised concerning testing for adventitious agents.
Currently, limited stability data is available for the drug product... the… batches were manufactured in October 2020, and therefore, MHRA would require additional assurance over stability before these batches can be accepted…
On that point, the EWG asked why these batches were available when countries like India would have a great need for vaccines.
The EWG was informed by MHRA-LD that the batches were coming to the end of their shelf life and run the risk of going out of date; it was considered that the UK, more so than others, have the logistics to deploy them quickly.
It seems that all of these issues were resolved at speed. The Serum Institute provided a robust corrective action plan on February 19th. According to evidence given by the head of the MHRA, Dame June Raine. The MHRA could therefore implement what it had told the EWG:
If all the RFIs — requests for information — are resolved (some immediately, some as a commitment), these batches could be approved and labelled as AZ batches.
In summary, there are no concerns about the safety of Covishield and its reactogenicity is broadly comparable to that of AZD1222.
Accordingly, a certificate was issued on March 3rd, and two days later a consignment arrived in the UK, as posted on Twitter by India’s external affairs minister. And within less than a week, 4.5 million doses were deployed across the UK.
Alex Mitchell received his single dose on March 20th, and collapsed with multiple blood clots within days. Colin Wilks was jabbed on March 27th. Nobody who received the jabs knew they were getting Indian-made Covishield.
This is an example of a patient’s documentation clearly stating the manufacturer as AstraZeneca instead of the Serum Institute:
The product is named as Vaxzevria, the batch 4120Z001, and the date, March 12th 2021.
And NHS documents state:
The government has confirmed that no Covishield vaccines have been administered in the UK.
[Dr Clare Craig, Diagnostic Pathologist] One of the fundamental issues throughout this whole thing has been informed consent, and it was trashed in three different ways. So, first of all, the environment of fear was created such that people weren’t thinking rationally. And then they were told what were frank lies about the products that could never have been true.
And lastly, they were actively coerced. And of course giving people one product while telling them it’s another one is simply fraud, and can’t be defended at all.
[Narrator] So why were the doses re-labelled as AstraZeneca? The shocking truth is that the brand Covishield was not licensed in the UK, and never has been. We didn’t even recognise Covishield as a valid vaccination for travel — even from India — until months later.
The government line is that AstraZeneca and Covishield are one and the same vaccine. But how can they be identical products when the MHRA itself uses terms like “changes to manufacturing”, “largely acceptable”, “broadly comparable”. And when the two versions were made thousands of miles apart.
[Hedley Rees, pharmaceutical supply chain expert] “Well they can’t… If they are made by different companies with… different manufacturing processes they’re going to be different products. There’s a mantra in the industry that says, “The process is the product.”
Everyone knows this in biologics. Every process produces a different product because these are so sensitive to the vessels they are made in, the tubing used to transfer them into different vessels… and the temperature, conditions… all sorts of different aspects, so they cannot claim that.”
“The other question is about MHRA claiming they tested these injections. That’s impossible, because the companies themselves have to test these products. What MHRA have to do is visit these companies, examine their processes, and make sure they are capable of testing to the right standards. It beggars belief that both AstraZeneca and the MHRA take such a cavalier approach to patient safety.”
[Narrator] There are many more questions:
Did the MHRA rely solely on the Serum Institute’s own implementation of the “robust corrective action plan”? How robust were any checks?
How were these corrections applied to the three batches manufactured almost five months earlier?
Were the batches independently tested after the MHRA’s concerns were answered? If so, when and where?
How significant were the approaching expiry dates?
Did the MHRA see any correlation between the batches and the high volume of adverse reactions? If not, why not?
It seems these subjects are beyond the remit of Baroness Hallett’s inquiry. So don’t expect any answers when she publishes her report in the months and years to come.
That is alas consistent with other revelations about the Inquiry as discussed in this and subsequent posts:
[Narrator] And unfortunately, the Covishield story is part of a much wider issue.
All covid vaccines administered in the UK have produced side-effects which are far more common than the authorities would have us believe. And while AstraZeneca has finally withdrawn its product, many physicians fear ongoing health problems, particularly from Pfizer and Moderna mRNA jabs.
So, as we reflect on the consequences of covid-19, let’s pray that future investigations dig deeper than the stilted Hallett inquiry perfectly summed up by Dr Andrew Bamji [a retired Consultant Rheumatologist who was President of the British Society for Rheumatology from 2006-8]:
“An inquiry led by the wrong experts (lawyers) asking the wrong questions of the wrong experts (mainly politicians, civil servants and non-clinical doctors) is not only ignoring medical and scientific evidence but, by the way it limits witnesses, actively suppressing it.”
He is not wrong.
A few years ago, I think I might have expected journalists to be falling over themselves to report this sort of story. But then that was before the Trusted News Initiative came along…
