UK COVID-19 inquiry|28 Jul 2025

Stunning revelations from Paul Featherstone. Founder. National Association of Care and Support Workers.

NB: The following contains disturbing details.

This is the final week (5) of Module 6 care homes which has bore witness to some of the most explosive evidence at the hearings. The following no exception.

See witness statement.

Sadly, the 50 mins of oral evidence excluded almost all harms evidenced from front-line staff related to lockdowns, masks, ‘vaccine’ mandates, DNACPRs etc and focused predominantly on mandatory registration for care workers and IPC measures.

Introduction

Paul Featherstone is Chair and Founder of the National Association of Care Workers ("NACAS") and has himself been a care professional for the past 11 years. NACAS is an independent, passionate advocate for care and support workers across the social care sector. Mr.Featherstone cared for his mother with dementia during lockdown.

‘‘The pandemic proved that if you are ill, you are a problem to eliminate, not to treat. At some point it was a super excuse to not provide immediate care."

-NACAS member-Paragraph 145 of statement

‘‘The social isolation caused by lockdowns led to mental and physical deterioration in recipients of care.’’

One Survey Respondent reported that;

"People who could walk and drive pre Covid are in wheelchairs post covid, it deteriorated their quality of life dramatically."

-Paragraph 54 of statement

"In many cases this DNACPRs was forced upon patients', and 'it was applied indiscriminately and unfairly.’

‘‘A further member referenced a blanket DNACPR policy saying: ‘‘I feel care homes were locked down in the expectation that most residents would not survive. GP services withdrawn. Told not to ring for an ambulance as they would not attend. Told to get DNACPR for all residents.’’

-Paragraph 151 of statement

Testimony highlights

• ‘Terrible’ staff shortages.

‘‘There were two carers and one nurse on nightshifts for 48 residents for MORE THAN a year.’’

‘‘Were those practises widespread from your experience?’’

-Alice Hands. Junior counsel to the inquiry.

‘‘I would concur that was fairly widespread.’’

-Paul Featherstone

Visiting restrictions

• Draconian and extreme.

• Residents with dementia harmed the most.

• Impacts on staff.

‘‘I think to restrict visiting into a care setting is a draconian measure.’’

‘‘It’s fundamental you’d want to be close to a loved one…especially at end of life care.’’

‘‘To restrict access to loved ones into care home i think was EXTREME.’’

Statement highlights

One Survey Respondent commented:

"I feel did not have enough time to explain to my client as to why I could not work the fulltime hours that my client was accustomed to, and it was so sudden that i was forced to only work only eight hours a week, which meant..

..my client was not being supported for an extended amount of time, which i felt was a hazard to his health, especially living alone.’’

-Paragraph 52

‘‘Care professionals were concerned about the detriment to their clients' wellbeing caused by the lockdowns. One Survey Respondent commented "how could i leave my clients very lonely without help?"

In discussions with NACAS members, one domiciliary care worker described their service users as being "vulnerable and isolated' and commented that "you would see people standing outside windows, but there is a need for human touch."

-Paragraph 53

‘‘NACAS considers that the rigid visiting restrictions…the impact on residents was so damaging that a blanket ban on families visiting in hospitals or care homes was, in NACAS' view, disproportionate.’’

-Paragraph 55

‘‘This reflects the view of the wider membership; in response to the question "what was the impact of rules limiting or banning visitors for people you cared for?" of the 126 who responded, 120 mentioned the visiting restrictions as causing loneliness and/or having a physical and/or mental health impact on those in care.’’

-Paragraph 56

‘‘One NACAS member commented that it led to "significant decline in the mental health of people cared for."

-Paragraph 56 (a)

‘‘Another Survey Respondent stated that: "it was very stressful, confusing and traumatic for the people I cared for. They did not understand why they could not see their loved ones and that impacted their health."

-Paragraph 56 (b)

‘‘Another observed that "visiting restrictions massively impacted care recipients in their mental and physical health."

-Paragraph 56 (c)

‘‘One NACAS member went so far as to say that;

"residents health and wellbeing declined, they failed to recognise loved ones when eventually allowed to see them. Social isolation further advanced cognitive and physical decline…

..The rules were an absolute nonsense..."

-Paragraph 58

‘‘Several NACAS members have commented on the devastating impact of visiting restrictions on the individuals who were dying and were prevented them from seeing their loved ones in their last moments.’’

-Paragraph 59

‘Survey Respondents have commented as follows:

‘‘Clients were in a depressed state which in turn effected their general wellbeing and health."

-Paragraphs 60 (a)

‘‘Studies have estimated that there was a reduction in care professionals of between 14,000 and 19,000 following the vaccination mandate coming into force.’’

-Paragraph 65

‘‘A significant number of NACAS members expressed considerable frustration about requiring vaccination as a condition of deployment. Some Survey Respondents considered that they were discriminated against for not having the vaccine - one reported being "marginalised and pointed at because i refused the vaccination."

Several Survey Respondents reported feeling..

.."forced" or "bullied" into having the vaccine.’’

-Paragraph 67

‘‘One Survey Respondent reported experiencing difficulty wearing PPE due to anxiety and not receiving support or reasonable adjustments from their employer: "! have panic attacks all day on and off due to anxiety and wearing a mask and I get threatened with my job."

-Paragraph 111

‘‘Several NACAS members have commented that wearing PPE made communication with recipients of care much more difficult, and at times caused distress.’’

-Paragraph 113

‘‘A big problem for dementia clients was the wearing of a face mask by their carer as they couldn't understand why it was necessary, or in fact what Covid was. All of a sudden they were unable to read expressions and battled to understand what was, leading to challenging behaviour in some instances and extra stress on carer."

-Paragraph 114

‘‘The blanket ban (on visits) had a disproportionate impact on the physical and mental health of care recipients.’’

-Paragraph 147

‘‘Issuing a DNACPR raises issues surrounding Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and, in many ways, goes against all instincts of a care professional wanting to do everything they can to help the person in their care.’’

-Paragraph 149

‘‘One study of data from 23 English NHS Trusts cited a 30% increase in the issue of DNACPRs in the 'first wave' of the pandemic (23 March 2020 to 1 August 2020) and an 11% increase in the 'second wave' (1 October 2020 to 31 January 2021) as compared to equivalent pre-pandemic periods.’’

-Paragraph 150

‘‘A number of Survey Respondents expressed concerns about the pressure to use DNACPRs. One NACAS member said;

"They were being given and put on clients and their families as soon as they became unwell. There was a clear push to get them signed which was wrong and immoral."

-Paragraph 151

Another NACAS member explained:

‘‘I was present when one of my clients was called at home by the GP. The client had her on speaker phone as she couldn't hear her well. My client answered a raft of questions and i was mortified when the post arrived to see that this had been turned into DNACPR when at no point was that specifically discussed with my client. I advised her son of my concerns. How many people would have sleepwalked into that decision being made for them over that period?"

-Paragraph 153

‘‘NACAS has particular concerns about the decision to pause in-person inspections and the impact it had on protecting vulnerable people from harm.’’

-Paragraph 158

‘‘All four inspectorates paused routine in-person inspections between March to May 2020.’’

-Paragraph 160

‘‘Such changes to the inspection regime at the outset of the pandemic inevitably placed care home residents at greater risk of harm at a time when they were particularly vulnerable.’’

-Paragraph 161

‘‘Staff were completely mentally and physically exhausted..

..some were crashing cars falling asleep at the wheel..’

..others had physical problems such as back pain, others on medication for various reasons"

-Paragraph 178

‘‘A notable number of Survey Respondents opposed mandatory vaccination. Language such as "forced', "manipulation", "bullied" and "blackmailed" appear across a number of responses from the Survey Respondents. A number of Survey Respondents considered that mandatory vaccination was contrary to their human rights.’’

-Paragraph 196

‘‘Some Survey Respondents reported that they were reluctant to take the Covid-19 vaccine but felt they had to do so because they could not forgo their income. One member stated, "I left my job" and "lost all my life savings" because they did not want to have the vaccine.’’

-Paragraph 197

‘‘Some NACAS members who refused to have the Covid-19 vaccination reported being dismissed from their employment.’’

‘‘One stated that two people from their workplace "walked out because they would not have the vaccine." Another stated: "that was a joke.’’

-Paragraph 198

Thoughts

Yet more irrefutable evidence of catastrophic lockdown policy health harms not viral i still cannot get any of this acknowledged by the big accounts in the UK ‘alt’ media and freedom influencer arena.

‘‘Covid-19 Professor Carl Heneghan from the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence- Based Medicine confirmed in his evidence to the Inquiry that "homes were also not advised to isolate patients discharged from hospital from other residents. By seeding Covid-19 into care homes, government policy vastly increased the risk for the most vulnerable despite the known risk."

-Paragraph 77 of statement

The following is a chilling predictor of what is likely to come under ''assisted dying' when implemented UK wide.

‘A NACAS member said:

"In my experience, these were often put in place without consultation with clients or representatives, on discovering the DNACPR clients have been outraged and lost confidence in the treatment they might get, often describing this to me as 'they've written off ' won't be treated fairly now, I'm too old''..

..why don't they just give me a pill to get it over with if they can't talk with me about my own death."

-Paragraph 152

Thanks for your attention.

HART UK Medical Freedom Alliance World Council for Health Denis’s Substack Joseph Hickey Dr Mike Yeadon Martin Neil Norman Fenton Tom Jefferson Maajid Nawaz Mary Talley Bowden MD Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH Robert W Malone MD, MS Tess Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD​ Lioness of Judah Ministry Jerm

End