The Covid Inquiry has faced accusations of suppressing evidence that questioned the ethics of the vaccine rollout during the pandemic, according to several doctors and medical professionals who submitted witness statements. These contributors say their input regarding the use of gene-based vaccines in healthy children was omitted from the inquiry’s latest report on vaccines, raising concerns of selective reporting.
The controversy centers on the Module 4 report, which addresses the vaccine programme. Critics argue that evidence challenging the justification for administering novel vaccines to children without long-term safety data was excluded from the report. Dr Ros Jones, convenor of the Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council—a group of health professionals who questioned the Government’s approach to vaccinating children—submitted a statement asserting that “there was never any justification for authorising or recommending the use in healthy children of novel technology gene-based vaccines with no long-term safety data.” She added that vaccinating children primarily to protect vulnerable adults constituted a breach of ethical duty. Despite being invited to provide evidence, Dr Jones’s statements were neither referenced nor published alongside the official report.
Dr Jones told the news organization that the inquiry appeared to have engaged with dissenting voices only to “shut us up,” suggesting a reluctance to incorporate alternative perspectives. She explained that the inquiry’s policy is to publish witness statements only if they are formally introduced during hearings or used by the Chair in preparing the final report. Statements that do not meet these criteria, she said, are excluded from public disclosure.
Similarly, Dr Elizabeth Evans, chief executive of the UK Medical Freedom Alliance, which advocates for medical ethics and informed consent, asserted that her witness statement raising ethical concerns about the vaccine rollout had vanished into a so-called “black hole.”
This is not the first time the Covid Inquiry has come under scrutiny. It has previously been criticised for a perceived bias favoring lockdown policies and for defending the Government’s covert surveillance of lockdown critics as “lawful, necessary and proportionate.” The inquiry has also faced threats of legal action alleging it holds a predetermined view of Britain’s pandemic response.
An inquiry spokesperson responded by clarifying that individuals who provide witness statements are free to publish their statements independently once the relevant hearings are complete. The spokesperson did not comment specifically on the omission of certain evidence in the Module 4 vaccine report.