After enduring the fantastical claims in the Module 4 video statement released by Baroness Hallett on 16th April 2026 (UKMFA’s video response here), I have finally ploughed through all 288 pages of Baroness Hallett’s official report on Module 4 (Vaccines & Therapeutics) of the Covid Inquiry, whose hearings were held from 14 January – 31 January 2025.
What I read confirmed my worst fears: that the Covid Inquiry is nothing more than a smug, self-congratulatory propaganda exercise, affirming the “safe and effective” narrative by presenting dogma and lies as facts. The establishment have been enabled to mark their own homework; gaslighting the public, rewriting history and silencing any dissident voices.
They repeat the same nonsense claims based on computer modelled junk science, that 475,000 lives were saved by the jabs in England and Scotland alone. With a population of 64 million, this assumes a 0.74% mortality rate for EVERYONE and 100% susceptibility of population. Then went on to claim 7000 lives were saved in Wales. With a population 3 million, this assumes a 0.23% mortality rate for whole population - which does not even correlate with their England and Scotland nonsense figures.
HART’s Dr Clare Craig and Dr Ros Jones have challenged these outlandish figures in a letter of complaint to the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR), and Oxford University’s Prof Carl Heneghan and Dr Tom Jefferson have urged the OSR to open an inquiry into the Covid Inquiry’s misleading use of “questionable modelling” data.
How was the Report Framed?
From the introduction to the report and Baroness Hallett’s video, it is clear how the Inquiry has framed this module. These are some key quotes from the Introduction, showing the Inquiry’s clear biases and dogmatic beliefs:
- “…vaccination programme was an extraordinary feat…overall the programmes were a great success”
- “For the vast majority…the vaccines protected people against the most serious effects of Covid-19 and saved lives…important role in reducing the spread of the virus… taking pressure off the healthcare systems.. this helped to reduce the need for lockdown restrictions”
- “…a small number of people in the UK declined to take up the offer of a vaccine and we explore the reasons for this vaccine hesitancy…a global issue driven by the sharing of false information online and fuelled by the fact that the vaccines were new.”
- “Inquiry acknowledges the suffering of those for whom vaccines led to serious injury or death.”
- “There were…effective systems in place to assess the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines…included rigorous trials and regulatory approval processes and the taking of prompt action when any problem was identified.”
- “On any objective analysis, the risks of the Covid-19 vaccines were carefully managed and were far outweighed by the benefits.”
- “…there must be appropriate financial support for those rare cases of people suffering side effects. The current system of payment for those injured as a result of having a Covid-19 vaccine requires reform.”
What Leapt Out of the Report
Several themes were apparent as I read the full report:
Self-congratulatory – The Covid decision-makers and so-called “experts” have effectively marked their own homework and the Inquiry the validates everything they said. There is lots of mutual back-patting such as Professor Sir Patrick Vallance calling the MHRA “a strong independent regulator”!
Dogmatic Statements are peppered throughout the report e.g.
o “Vaccine confidence must be encouraged”.
o “There will be another pandemic”.
o “Covid vaccines saved millions of lives worldwide”
o “Rates of myopericarditis are higher in those who get Covid than vaccination”
o “NO evidence that Covid vaccines caused increase in excess deaths”
Blasé re Vaccine Safety – The Inquiry’s insists that expediated trials in no way compromised safety. In fact they even claim it may have increased safety and oversight! The same “concurrent” approach to trials is recommended next time.
They knew before rollout that vaccines were not tested for effect on transmission, yet they allowed the “Get vaccinated to save Granny” coercive propaganda and messaging to be pedalled ad nauseum without challenge.
Repeated claim that vaccines are “Acceptably safe” – while admitting that the only had 3 months safety data at authorisation and knew there would be Serious Adverse Events (SAEs). Implying that they accepted the public would be guinea pigs in a Phase 4 rollout “trial”.
Refused to take view on vaccine risks to individuals – Baroness Hallett stated that “it is neither proportionate or practicable for the Inquiry to reach a view on the safety of particular vaccines or on causation in specific cases of alleged injury of death, or to attempt to quantify the precise risks of vaccination” and that the Inquiry would only examine and analyse systems and processes. As a result, the individual voices of the vaccine injured and bereaved are mainly absent in the report.
Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) is failing badly and needs urgent reform - The amount awarded (for 60% disability or more) is completely inadequate at £120,000. Fewer than 2% of claims for Covid vaccine injury were successful with an average 18-24 month wait for a decision. Before Covid there were on average 80 claims per year (for all vaccines). From January 2021 to January 2025 there were 17,519 claims for Covid vaccines alone. At the beginning of the rollout they only had 4 staff to deal with the avalanche of claims - which was eventually increased to 80 - a wholly inadequate number for the volume of work.
Desire to include pregnant women in future vaccine trials – MHRA are apparently working on a global framework to enable this.
Vaccine Safety Experts Prof Stephen Evans and Prof Daniel Prieto-Alhambra are given undue weight in report. They are the main voices minimising or denying safety issues and parroting the “safe and effective narrative”. Often claiming that serious vaccine side-effects which are recognised can be “caused by Covid” anyway. And even, unbelievably, praising the “Appropriate and timely responses” of the MHRA to safety signals.
Boris Johnson is reported as pushing hard for Care Home/NHS vaccine mandates and to rollout the jabs to children aged 5-11 years as quickly as possible.
Mandates were sought when only 6-8% care staff had refused jabs – The report admits that it was a failed policy as it was not supported by public or healthcare professionals and probably increased “vaccine hesitancy”.
“Vaccine hesitancy” was defined by the Inquiry as “indecision about whether to vaccinate”. Not as a valid decision to refuse a medical intervention, otherwise known as medical choice or informed consent! In the end, only 13% of the whole population >12 years refused all Covid jabs.
MHRA Yellow Cards were submitted for around 1/300 doses - Yet the Inquiry claimed the Yellow Card scheme “worked really well” and Baroness Hallett has refused to recommend to make Yellow Card Reporting mandatory.
Eye-watering sums of taxpayers money has gone directly to Pharma.
Hubris – The Inquiry expresses enthusiasm and support for CEPI’s “100 Days Mission” for future novel vaccine rollout in a future “pandemic”.
Push for joined-up Digital Health Records – The report expressed much excitement about Wellcome’s recent £600 million investment in a new health data research service, in partnership with the UK Government, and the NHS’s dystopian 10 Year Health Plan, transitioning the NHS from an analogue to a digital, AI-driven service.
Covid Inquiry Module 4 Recommendations
These were the main recommendations pushed by the Inquiry:
Increased Public-Private Partnership between Government and Pharma – including financial incentivisation for pharmaceutical companies with Government (taxpayer) investment e.g. in 2025, the UK Government signed a 10 year partnership with Moderna costing the taxpayer £50 million, and in the same year paid £129 million to BioNTech to support their 10 year investment in the UK.
Increase Vaccine Uptake – with minimal acceptable targets for public health.
Give MHRA direct access to patient healthcare records – to help post-marketing safety surveillance
Reform the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme - by increasing the £120,000 payment immediately, in line with inflation, and then yearly going forward. And introducing multiple levels of payment commensurate with the degree of injury suffered.
UK Medical Freedom Alliance freely offers this video and article. However, a donation will help us continue to expose the truth and uphold our medical rights and freedoms.
To make a donation, please scan the QR code below or visit our website here.
Thank you for this. Here is a writeup on the same backslapping coverup from:
The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Report is Out & It's Ugly—Important Sharable Slide Deck Inside: https://tritorch.substack.com/p/the-select-subcommittee-on-the-coronavirus
Lies sitting on top of lies. With lies all the way down.
Strange, strange days when a public inquiry can - from the outset - deliberately design and work toward a deceitful outcome. What kind of person is Baroness Hallett that she can preside over, promote and stand by this sham.
Our democratic systems of governance and accountability are being dismantled, How is it possible
If Baroness Hallet were a doctor I suspect she would be struck off and deservedly so.
How can we make the Department of Health pay for bringing the public inquiry system into disrepute and not fit for purpose?