Two contributors described their experience of being at the inquiry, and from their descriptions the entire setup of the inquiry is faulty.
Questions had to be submitted in advance; many were turned down. Attempts by some witnesses to escape from the rigid format by asking their own questions, or elaborating on answers, were shut down. I hesitate to use the word ‘ruthlessly’ but it seems appropriate.
It became apparent to the above participants that their entire understanding of the inquiry was wrong; it was not designed to look at the scientific evidence (indeed at one point it was specifically prohibited) but designed to examine the official response to the pandemic predicated on the ‘truth’ that the vaccines were safe and effective. Although it was suggested that trust needed to be established, that aim manifestly failed (not least because of the now overwhelming evidence that the vaccines are neither safe nor effective)....<<<Read More>>>...
