The public is most certainly not getting the truth. This in fact seems to be the role of most ‘public inquiries’ - with very few exceptions, they appear to be mostly rigged to not tell the truth or, in another tactic, they are not held at all. Sadly, it can only be concluded from most of this that Government is at the heart of most of the evil which occurs in society. Please keep up the good work to expose all of this.
Howard, my view is if the public is NOT getting the truth what more do people want to hear though? Granted the media is not reporting this and the inquiries are biased towards certain narratives but that is not suprising. The truth HAS been told. Even in part at the UK COVID inquiry. It's been THE best time to be in the 'alt' media/freedom space and yet..... https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/scottish-covid-19-inquiryclosing
Why has the First Minister (Nichola Sturgeon) at the time, not been called upon to be questioned about the orders given, after all she was charge, and thats where the buck stops?
A day of 'Deflection' is what it will be. The Hallett Inquiry is a travesty. An Article in the Guardian is titled 'The pandemic reinforced existing inequalities -it was a magnifying glass:how Covid changed Britain'. It says "there is an omertà, or code of silence, around 2020 - a blind spot". The co-authored Article discusses a range of impacts on the economy, health, education, life ( eg lockdown hobbies), the Arts. The 'vaccine' programme is skated over as a reference to changing public attitudes to vaccinations. "Only 70% of UK adults said vaccinations were safe and effective in a 2023 study by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, down from 90% in 2028."
MSM will not delve into the 'whys' or 'hows' of the Covid-19 'vaccine', nor the harms. There is certainly an omertà about accountability, a wilful one. It is unlikely the 'actors' who rolled out the lockdowns, the jabs, the inhumane treatment of the elderly vulnerable and dispossessed will ever get punished. At least, through all these through reports from the Scottish Inquiry many do know what these b******* did.
There has still been ALOT of truths come out at the Hallett inquiry (and no doubt more to come with Module 6 care homes) so to be honest the real travesty is where people like me get hassle for pointing this out. Just a few examples below. NB: I sent Mencap and MANY other testimonies to 'Dr'John Campbell Youtube months ago. No reply which was disappointing but he covered Module 4 vaccines like a rocket ship when informed!
People would do well to remember the wilful side of things also applies to the 'alt' media 'COVID critics' and groups whom upon receipt of the Scottish evidence should have made it their life's work to expose what went on in 2020. Instead, almost nothing and without my coverage it would have died long ago. It appears to have been a tick box exercise at best aka 'saving face' and is actively resisted by those who could make the biggest difference! So in 2025 truth betold the ONLY real failure lies at the feet of those that actually know what took place and are doing sod all about it apart from ''speaking out'' and making some cash on the side too, that's handy. If only there was the same focus vs care homes as we've seen with the jabs the discussions would be where they need to be but instead that aspect has been managed very well.
The ghouls at The Guardian know everything, because I've been sending them stuff (all copied to the editor) for two or three years - including links to Maajid Nawaz, Katherine Watt, Sasha Latypova, Denis Rancourt and a whole lot more, and this site more recently. I certainly can't be the only one. Not that they needed to be told - Ofcom told all the MSM at the start of covid that if they contradicted the government narrative there would be trouble - that would have been enough of a red flag if these people were actually journalists rather than government agents.
"Five years ago, we were sliding towards the most expensive mistake ever made by a British government, a mistake that led to our financial ruin, the annihilation of our basic freedoms and the obliteration of public trust.
Never before had our civil liberties been so blatantly disregarded. We were subjected to house arrest on the basis of unsupported conjecture, our property rights were violated, our freedom of expression repressed, even our ability to leave the country denied.
Where were all the human rights lawyers when they were needed? Where were the Doughty Street types, so vocal in their defence of illegal migrants, convicts, and terrorists? The one time that there truly was a national human rights violation, they were cheering it on.
Meanwhile, the British state told lie after lie after lie. Just three weeks! Facemasks are dangerous! One more month! Facemasks are essential! Squash the sombrero! Young people are at risk! Just two more weeks! Wait for the vaccine! Wait for the second vaccine! Your jab protects others! It’s the third shot that really works! Dangerous new variant! One last lockdown! Just three more weeks!
As we approach the fifth anniversary, we don’t like to admit that we destroyed our economy, took away part of our kids’ childhoods, permanently aggrandised the state and indebted ourselves for a generation – all for nothing.
Because we don’t want to accept such horrifying truths, we reach for excuses. We could only work on the basis of best-guess models, we tell ourselves. We followed the science as it stood. Who knows how much worse things might have been had we not locked down?
I’m afraid these justifications are, as the saying goes, pure cope. The careful protocols of our own scientific advisers, as well as of the World Health Organisation (WHO), counted for nothing when set against hysterical newspaper headlines, panicky opinion polls and feverish rants by Piers Morgan.
Five years ago this Tuesday, Jenny Harries, then the deputy chief medical officer, gave an illuminating, though now neglected, interview. It was not neglected at the time. On the contrary, it took place in No 10, and the interviewer was the prime minister himself, Boris Johnson.
Dr Harries – who has since become Dame Jenny, and been put in charge of the UK Health Security Agency – was impressively level-headed. She explained that, “for most people, it really is going to be quite a mild disease”.
She advised against wearing facemasks unless told otherwise by your doctor. She explained why Britain, unlike many countries in Europe, was not banning large meetings or sporting events. There was, she reminded us, a plan in place, and it provided for the gradual spread of the disease through the population in a way that would not overwhelm hospitals. Try to suppress the spread too vigorously, she said, and there would be a peak later on (which, indeed, is exactly what happened).
Dr Harries was absolutely right, but she was only repeating the global consensus. A little earlier, the WHO had looked at lockdowns and concluded that they were “not demonstrably effective in urban areas”. Its researchers had carried out a study of 120 US military camps during the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic, and found “no statistical difference” between the 99 camps that had confined men to quarters and the 21 that had not.
As recently as 2019, the WHO had declared that lockdowns as a response to respiratory diseases were “not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure, and there would be considerable difficulties in implementing it”.
Dr Harries knew all this. And so did Boris, who spoke what was, in retrospect, the most telling line of the entire interview: “Politicians and governments around the world are under a lot of pressure to be seen to act, so they may do things that are not necessarily dictated by the science,” he said. Dr Harries responded that she was proud that Britain’s response had remained scientific.
Five days later, Boris took to the airwaves to tell people “to stop non-essential contact and travel”. A week after that, we were in lockdown (a term borrowed from prison, which I held out against using for as long as I could). What changed? Well, on March 16, Neil Ferguson and the team at Imperial College published an apocalyptic report based on modelling that estimated that if no measures were put in place deaths over the following two years could reach more than half a million.
Why was Ferguson taken seriously? A quick Google search would have revealed that he had a history of making ludicrously alarmist claims, including over BSE and swine flu. His study, far from being a cutting-edge simulation, was a rehash of a model he had published in 2006 using rough and ready estimates (home quarantine would mean a 75 per cent reduction in contacts with a 50 per cent compliance rate, social distancing would mean a
75 per cent reduction in outside contacts, offset by a 25 per cent increase in at-home contacts, and so on).
The grisly truth is that we wanted to believe Ferguson. Although we sometimes now imagine that Boris wrenched our freedoms from our unwilling hands, it was the other way around. We have forgotten the “Go Home Covidiots” banners, the terrified phone-ins, the YouGov poll showing that 93 per cent of voters wanted a lockdown.
Not for the first time, people were demanding, against all reason, that their politicians do something – anything.
The pioneering psychologist and anthropologist Herbert Spencer had observed the same phenomenon in response to a cholera outbreak in 1851:
“Citizens look grave and determine to petition Parliament about it. Parliament promises to consider the matter; and after the usual amount of debate, says, Let there be a Board of Health. Whereupon petitioners rub their hands, and look out for great things. They have unbounded simplicity, these good citizens. Legislation may disappoint them 50 times running, without at all shaking their faith in its efficiency.”
Then again, in times of plague, citizens are driven by intuition rather than logic.
Human beings, like most mammals, are wired to be hyper-sensitive to disease. And so we reasoned backwards from our instincts, even as data came in that utterly disproved Ferguson’s model.
According to Ferguson’s forecast of March 2020, Sweden, which refused to lock down, should have suffered between 66,000 and 90,000 Covid fatalities by late summer. In the event, by the end of August, Sweden had recorded just 5,800 Covid deaths. Infections peaked and fell there in line with the countries that imposed lockdowns, and Sweden eventually came through, not only with an intact economy, but with one of the lowest (on one measure the lowest) excess mortality rate in Europe.
But, by then, no one wanted to look at numbers that challenged their prejudices. We were already in the grip of the sunk costs fallacy, and we’ve been stuck there ever since, unwilling to accept that the indignities and enormities we suffered were for nothing.
Suffered? No, we suffer them still. The tax hikes, the devaluation of our savings, the uncontrollable national debt – these things were inescapable consequences of paying people to stay home for the better part of two years. The rise in conspiracy theories, the belief that the world is run by Davos illuminati who aim to phase out cash, inject us with microchips and conscript us into the Ukrainian army: that came directly from the lies that we were told in 2020, above all the nonsense about vaccinating young people to prevent transmission.
For years to come, Britain will be poor, indebted and repressive because, in early March 2020, no one (with the exception of one brave Sunday Telegraph columnist, modesty forbids, etc) wanted to stand in the way of a stampede. We did this to ourselves."
Some people like to imagine that this was all deliberately engineered - and I think that some people like Prof Neil Ferguson did help to engineer it.
What still baffles me is that the public fell for it so comprehensively - hook line and sinker - with no serious resistance. In fact, much of this was probably bottom up, and not top down - groupthink - and this created a sort of 'perfect storm' of 'chaos theory' - you know, where a butterfly flaps its wings and starts a tornado.
I think many people do have deep fears and insecurities, and bashing pans for the NHS and chipping in a quid for Major Tom is genuinely meeting their needs for a kind of cohesive society that they feel is now lacking.
My Mother (bless her soul) died in 2019 - she was always predicting a massive global pandemic, and my guess is that she would have been gutted to know she missed it by a few months!
Next year: Zombie apocalypse, anyone, or Invaders from Outer Space?
Thank you as ever. Posted on Twitter
Thanks Ros.
The public is most certainly not getting the truth. This in fact seems to be the role of most ‘public inquiries’ - with very few exceptions, they appear to be mostly rigged to not tell the truth or, in another tactic, they are not held at all. Sadly, it can only be concluded from most of this that Government is at the heart of most of the evil which occurs in society. Please keep up the good work to expose all of this.
Howard, my view is if the public is NOT getting the truth what more do people want to hear though? Granted the media is not reporting this and the inquiries are biased towards certain narratives but that is not suprising. The truth HAS been told. Even in part at the UK COVID inquiry. It's been THE best time to be in the 'alt' media/freedom space and yet..... https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/scottish-covid-19-inquiryclosing
Why has the First Minister (Nichola Sturgeon) at the time, not been called upon to be questioned about the orders given, after all she was charge, and thats where the buck stops?
She is scheduled to appear at Scottish COVID inquiry as are other 'decision makers'. Expect more of the same dramatics as per UK COVID inquiry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsfV4Bof-bw
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-james-cameron-scottish-b1136115.html
It is clear that the so called GOV SCAMDEMIC INQUIRIES are in reality a COVER UP by SATANIC EVIL SCUMBAGS!
A day of 'Deflection' is what it will be. The Hallett Inquiry is a travesty. An Article in the Guardian is titled 'The pandemic reinforced existing inequalities -it was a magnifying glass:how Covid changed Britain'. It says "there is an omertà, or code of silence, around 2020 - a blind spot". The co-authored Article discusses a range of impacts on the economy, health, education, life ( eg lockdown hobbies), the Arts. The 'vaccine' programme is skated over as a reference to changing public attitudes to vaccinations. "Only 70% of UK adults said vaccinations were safe and effective in a 2023 study by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, down from 90% in 2028."
MSM will not delve into the 'whys' or 'hows' of the Covid-19 'vaccine', nor the harms. There is certainly an omertà about accountability, a wilful one. It is unlikely the 'actors' who rolled out the lockdowns, the jabs, the inhumane treatment of the elderly vulnerable and dispossessed will ever get punished. At least, through all these through reports from the Scottish Inquiry many do know what these b******* did.
There has still been ALOT of truths come out at the Hallett inquiry (and no doubt more to come with Module 6 care homes) so to be honest the real travesty is where people like me get hassle for pointing this out. Just a few examples below. NB: I sent Mencap and MANY other testimonies to 'Dr'John Campbell Youtube months ago. No reply which was disappointing but he covered Module 4 vaccines like a rocket ship when informed!
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/exclusiveuk-covid-inquirydnacpr-experiences?utm_source=publication-search
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/newuk-covid-19-inquiry-28-oct-2024-8d6?utm_source=publication-search
People would do well to remember the wilful side of things also applies to the 'alt' media 'COVID critics' and groups whom upon receipt of the Scottish evidence should have made it their life's work to expose what went on in 2020. Instead, almost nothing and without my coverage it would have died long ago. It appears to have been a tick box exercise at best aka 'saving face' and is actively resisted by those who could make the biggest difference! So in 2025 truth betold the ONLY real failure lies at the feet of those that actually know what took place and are doing sod all about it apart from ''speaking out'' and making some cash on the side too, that's handy. If only there was the same focus vs care homes as we've seen with the jabs the discussions would be where they need to be but instead that aspect has been managed very well.
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/newpandemic-limited-focus-of-debate
The ghouls at The Guardian know everything, because I've been sending them stuff (all copied to the editor) for two or three years - including links to Maajid Nawaz, Katherine Watt, Sasha Latypova, Denis Rancourt and a whole lot more, and this site more recently. I certainly can't be the only one. Not that they needed to be told - Ofcom told all the MSM at the start of covid that if they contradicted the government narrative there would be trouble - that would have been enough of a red flag if these people were actually journalists rather than government agents.
Democracy.
they are still rabbiting on about Long Covid at the Grauniad ...
They came out with this desperate piece today or recently:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/five-years-on-from-the-pandemic-the-right-s-fake-covid-narrative-has-been-turbo-charged-into-the-mains
'Five years on from the pandemic, the right’s fake Covid narrative has been turbo-charged into the mainstream"
These people are beyond words.
of course
https://telegraph.co.uk/gift/964492e53ffaf687 Daniel Hannan
"Five years ago, we were sliding towards the most expensive mistake ever made by a British government, a mistake that led to our financial ruin, the annihilation of our basic freedoms and the obliteration of public trust.
Never before had our civil liberties been so blatantly disregarded. We were subjected to house arrest on the basis of unsupported conjecture, our property rights were violated, our freedom of expression repressed, even our ability to leave the country denied.
Where were all the human rights lawyers when they were needed? Where were the Doughty Street types, so vocal in their defence of illegal migrants, convicts, and terrorists? The one time that there truly was a national human rights violation, they were cheering it on.
Meanwhile, the British state told lie after lie after lie. Just three weeks! Facemasks are dangerous! One more month! Facemasks are essential! Squash the sombrero! Young people are at risk! Just two more weeks! Wait for the vaccine! Wait for the second vaccine! Your jab protects others! It’s the third shot that really works! Dangerous new variant! One last lockdown! Just three more weeks!
As we approach the fifth anniversary, we don’t like to admit that we destroyed our economy, took away part of our kids’ childhoods, permanently aggrandised the state and indebted ourselves for a generation – all for nothing.
Because we don’t want to accept such horrifying truths, we reach for excuses. We could only work on the basis of best-guess models, we tell ourselves. We followed the science as it stood. Who knows how much worse things might have been had we not locked down?
I’m afraid these justifications are, as the saying goes, pure cope. The careful protocols of our own scientific advisers, as well as of the World Health Organisation (WHO), counted for nothing when set against hysterical newspaper headlines, panicky opinion polls and feverish rants by Piers Morgan.
Five years ago this Tuesday, Jenny Harries, then the deputy chief medical officer, gave an illuminating, though now neglected, interview. It was not neglected at the time. On the contrary, it took place in No 10, and the interviewer was the prime minister himself, Boris Johnson.
Dr Harries – who has since become Dame Jenny, and been put in charge of the UK Health Security Agency – was impressively level-headed. She explained that, “for most people, it really is going to be quite a mild disease”.
She advised against wearing facemasks unless told otherwise by your doctor. She explained why Britain, unlike many countries in Europe, was not banning large meetings or sporting events. There was, she reminded us, a plan in place, and it provided for the gradual spread of the disease through the population in a way that would not overwhelm hospitals. Try to suppress the spread too vigorously, she said, and there would be a peak later on (which, indeed, is exactly what happened).
Dr Harries was absolutely right, but she was only repeating the global consensus. A little earlier, the WHO had looked at lockdowns and concluded that they were “not demonstrably effective in urban areas”. Its researchers had carried out a study of 120 US military camps during the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic, and found “no statistical difference” between the 99 camps that had confined men to quarters and the 21 that had not.
As recently as 2019, the WHO had declared that lockdowns as a response to respiratory diseases were “not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure, and there would be considerable difficulties in implementing it”.
Dr Harries knew all this. And so did Boris, who spoke what was, in retrospect, the most telling line of the entire interview: “Politicians and governments around the world are under a lot of pressure to be seen to act, so they may do things that are not necessarily dictated by the science,” he said. Dr Harries responded that she was proud that Britain’s response had remained scientific.
Five days later, Boris took to the airwaves to tell people “to stop non-essential contact and travel”. A week after that, we were in lockdown (a term borrowed from prison, which I held out against using for as long as I could). What changed? Well, on March 16, Neil Ferguson and the team at Imperial College published an apocalyptic report based on modelling that estimated that if no measures were put in place deaths over the following two years could reach more than half a million.
Why was Ferguson taken seriously? A quick Google search would have revealed that he had a history of making ludicrously alarmist claims, including over BSE and swine flu. His study, far from being a cutting-edge simulation, was a rehash of a model he had published in 2006 using rough and ready estimates (home quarantine would mean a 75 per cent reduction in contacts with a 50 per cent compliance rate, social distancing would mean a
75 per cent reduction in outside contacts, offset by a 25 per cent increase in at-home contacts, and so on).
The grisly truth is that we wanted to believe Ferguson. Although we sometimes now imagine that Boris wrenched our freedoms from our unwilling hands, it was the other way around. We have forgotten the “Go Home Covidiots” banners, the terrified phone-ins, the YouGov poll showing that 93 per cent of voters wanted a lockdown.
Not for the first time, people were demanding, against all reason, that their politicians do something – anything.
The pioneering psychologist and anthropologist Herbert Spencer had observed the same phenomenon in response to a cholera outbreak in 1851:
“Citizens look grave and determine to petition Parliament about it. Parliament promises to consider the matter; and after the usual amount of debate, says, Let there be a Board of Health. Whereupon petitioners rub their hands, and look out for great things. They have unbounded simplicity, these good citizens. Legislation may disappoint them 50 times running, without at all shaking their faith in its efficiency.”
Then again, in times of plague, citizens are driven by intuition rather than logic.
Human beings, like most mammals, are wired to be hyper-sensitive to disease. And so we reasoned backwards from our instincts, even as data came in that utterly disproved Ferguson’s model.
According to Ferguson’s forecast of March 2020, Sweden, which refused to lock down, should have suffered between 66,000 and 90,000 Covid fatalities by late summer. In the event, by the end of August, Sweden had recorded just 5,800 Covid deaths. Infections peaked and fell there in line with the countries that imposed lockdowns, and Sweden eventually came through, not only with an intact economy, but with one of the lowest (on one measure the lowest) excess mortality rate in Europe.
But, by then, no one wanted to look at numbers that challenged their prejudices. We were already in the grip of the sunk costs fallacy, and we’ve been stuck there ever since, unwilling to accept that the indignities and enormities we suffered were for nothing.
Suffered? No, we suffer them still. The tax hikes, the devaluation of our savings, the uncontrollable national debt – these things were inescapable consequences of paying people to stay home for the better part of two years. The rise in conspiracy theories, the belief that the world is run by Davos illuminati who aim to phase out cash, inject us with microchips and conscript us into the Ukrainian army: that came directly from the lies that we were told in 2020, above all the nonsense about vaccinating young people to prevent transmission.
For years to come, Britain will be poor, indebted and repressive because, in early March 2020, no one (with the exception of one brave Sunday Telegraph columnist, modesty forbids, etc) wanted to stand in the way of a stampede. We did this to ourselves."
Thanks Rob alot of good stuff there but in 2025 for anyone to believe it was all just a mistake really isn't paying attention. 'Lessons are being learned'. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/looking-back-5-year-later-were-lockdowns-worth-it/
Some people like to imagine that this was all deliberately engineered - and I think that some people like Prof Neil Ferguson did help to engineer it.
What still baffles me is that the public fell for it so comprehensively - hook line and sinker - with no serious resistance. In fact, much of this was probably bottom up, and not top down - groupthink - and this created a sort of 'perfect storm' of 'chaos theory' - you know, where a butterfly flaps its wings and starts a tornado.
I think many people do have deep fears and insecurities, and bashing pans for the NHS and chipping in a quid for Major Tom is genuinely meeting their needs for a kind of cohesive society that they feel is now lacking.
My Mother (bless her soul) died in 2019 - she was always predicting a massive global pandemic, and my guess is that she would have been gutted to know she missed it by a few months!
Next year: Zombie apocalypse, anyone, or Invaders from Outer Space?
no one there but turrists
i was there not va soul
no onethere thhe heart sikkes have gone look at bbcload of crap