---

A group of 56 professors and academics have written a letter to UK Covid Inquiry chairman Baroness Heather Hallett.

In the letter published on Tuesday, Collateral Global expressed their concerns that the Inquiry process is “not living up to its mission” to evaluate the mistakes made during the pandemic, assess whether covid measures were appropriate, and prepare the country for the next pandemic.

They warned 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.”

And goes on to say 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.

Collateral Global, a British think-tank which was set up to examine pandemic policies, includes academics from York, Durham, Bristol and Exeter universities as well as Imperial College London and King’s College London, in fields ranging from global health policy and medicine to ethics, law and statistics.

The letter was drafted by Professor Sunetra Gupta and Dr. Kevin Bardosh, and signed by a further 54 public health scholars and academics in related disciplines.

It identifies five shortcomings of the Inquiry:

1. it gives the impression of being fundamentally biased;
2. it is taking key assumptions for granted instead of examining and critiquing them in light of the evidence;
3. it lacks impartiality in the selection and questioning of expert witnesses;
4. the format of the Inquiry is impeding investigation into the key scientific and policy questions; and,
5. it risks reducing public trust in the impartiality and independence of government accountability and oversight.

Dr. Bardosh, who is director of Collateral Global, told The Telegraph ahead of the publication of the letter that he wanted to write to Lady Hallett before the list of “core participants” is drawn up for the next set of modules.

“The letter is an attempt to get the Inquiry to recognise that they have got some things wrong, they still have time to redirect it to be more impartial,” Dr. Bardosh said.

Regarding the second shortcoming, “taking key assumptions for granted,” the letter notes: “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,” they said.

In noting that the Inquiry “lacks impartiality” in the selection and questioning of expert witnesses, the academics said:  “It has given preferential treatment to scientific advisers on SAGE, who have a vested interest in maintaining the justification for their policy recommendations.”

SAGE is the Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies.

The signatories believe addressing the five shortcomings is an urgent national priority and fundamental to ensuring that future pandemic response is evidence-based and maximises the health and well-being of all.

You can read the full letter HERE.