2025-11-24
And deservedly so.
No, it was not an "in depth" inquiry, which would have asked the deep questions such as "Why were Prof Ferguson's Covid expected deaths modelling so vastly inflated"?
Was the supposition that the PCR tests worked infallibly true - to what extent was it not true? All tests produce "false positives" and "false negatives" - was this novel test for a novel virus actually accurate - or was the testing of the (largely asymptomatic) general population actually a good exercise to determine the real rate of "false positives"?
If a mere IT retiree such as myself could think to ask such simple but revealing questions, what does that say about the good Baroness Hallett?
Yes, the UK Covid Inquiry was garbage, fatally flawed by its unquestioning acceptance of falsehoods that were already publicly questioned back in the early days before the quaxxines came out.
Brownstone Institute makes the same point more formally.
Even so, more fundamental questions still should have been asked:
- What proof (as opposed to circumstantial evidence) existed that the Covid19 "disease" was actually caused by a virus, as opposed to, for example, the effects of radiation whose symptoms were broadly identical?
- What proof existed that the Covid "virus" was indeed contagious via respiratory infection?
They were not.
