Baroness Heather Hallett’s Inquiry into the covid “pandemic” requested written statements from four groups for the ‘UK Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4’ on vaccines and therapeutics, promising to publish them as part of the Inquiry – but then ignored them.Why?
These statements did not say what the Inquiry was pre-determined to conclude.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
UK Covid-19 Inquiry: Transparent or What?
By Health ethics Advocacy and Research Team (“HART”), 8 July 2926
Four dissenting groups, including HART, requested core participant status for the ‘UK Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4’ on vaccines and therapeutics. This was refused but each group was asked to submit a Witness Statement under Rule 9 which we all duly did.
Each one of us was initially asked not to publish our statements, as the Inquiry team wished to publish statements contemporaneously as the hearing progressed. We were assured that our statements would be used to inform lines of questioning. However, when the inquiry hearings were postponed from July 2024 to January 2025, we set up the People’s Vaccine Inquiry and published our statements, as we were unwilling to further delay placing all this information in the public domain.
In the event, none of the authors of these statements were called to give oral evidence but even then, it was suggested that they might be published at the end of the hearings or at the time of publication of the Module 4 Report.
The Module 4 Report was published in April 2026 and our witness statements have still not appeared on the Inquiry website. We enquired as to why they had not been published and were told, “The Inquiry only publishes witness statements and documents on its website if they are formally adduced during the hearings and/or when the Chair is preparing her report.”
In response to further questions from Dr. Ros Jones, the legal team graciously replied, “While CCVAC’s [Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council] witness statement was not formally adduced, we are grateful to you for taking the time to provide it. The Inquiry does not object to CCVAC sharing its witness statement publicly, should it wish to do so.”
Hence, we are reposting all four statements here on the HART website as a public record of those who spoke out to raise multiple concerns about the safety and efficacy of these products, and the regulatory and ethical failures.
In addition, on the People’s Vaccine Inquiry website is a long and detailed multi-authored statement from Doctors for Patients UK. All the co-authors of this document are clinicians working in front-line services throughout 2020-2025, with hugely concerning testimony about the changes they were seeing in their day-to-day work from 2021 onwards. Speaking out on this subject has been at great personal risk to their careers.
The failure to publish these and other statements was covered recently in The Telegraph. Camilla Turner elicited the following from an Inquiry team spokesperson: “The inquiry publishes witness statements that are entered into evidence during or after the inquiry’s hearings. The inquiry publishes evidence that the chair considers sufficiently relevant to its hearings and reports. It does not comment on material which is not sufficiently relevant to be published.”
Please do go to the People’s Vaccine Inquiry website, where you will find other witness statements not submitted to the UK Inquiry, and also links to conferences and presentations which we held to ensure the public could access all the information which Baroness Hallett has deemed irrelevant.
We invite our readers to judge for themselves whether our evidence is irrelevant. For example, is it irrelevant that the vaccines rolled out were different products from those tested in the clinical trials, or that southern hemisphere deaths started with vaccine roll-out, not covid, or that covid infection rates and cardiovascular problems were higher in the vaccinated, or that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) missed safety signals?
These were all ignored by the Inquiry.
- Part 1: Dr Clare Craig: Health Advisory Recovery Team
- Part 2: Dr Rosamond Jones: Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council
- Part 3: Mr Nick Hunt: Perseus Group
- Part 4: Dr Elizabeth Evans: UK Medical Freedom Alliance
- Part 5: Doctors for Patients UK
About the Author
The Health ethics Advocacy and Research Team (“HART”) is a group of highly qualified UK doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists and other academic experts who came together over shared concerns about policy and guidance recommendations relating to the covid-19 pandemic. The group continues to be concerned about the lack of open scientific debate in corporate/legacy media and the worrying trend of censorship and harassment of those who question the narrative.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, Latest News, UK News
Well, no surprise!
These people are paid to spread misinformation and maintain government policy.