The Hallett Inquiry is at last under way, and before even a day has passed there has been widespread criticism of its structure, preconditions (such as an apparent requirement for participants to wear masks and have lateral flow tests) and already there is a suggestion that the result will be a foregone conclusion because it is following the government’s agenda. I hope not.
To me the Inquiry modules seem reasonable, although there will be substantial overlap between them, which will make it difficult for witnesses to get across their full message. My initial concern is that the thing has started upside down. While I have enormous sympathy for the grieving relatives of those who died I fail to see any benefit in a long queue of people holding photographs, hoping to recount their stories at length. We have already heard many of them before, and while they are distressing they add nothing to the thrust of what the Inquiry should be, as they are a consequence and not a cause. All they can contribute is an emotional catharsis, not a scientific judgement.
Was there sufficient planning for a pandemic? Yes. It was done at length over ten years ago. Was the plan implemented? No. The hysteria induced by stories and videos from China and later Italy, amplified by the media, provoked panic along our politicians, who adopted a “me too” approach and locked down. Did lockdown work? No. There were too many exclusions. It was always going to be too late; by the time it was appreciated they there was a major problem the virus was out there and unstoppable. Hospital patients were discharged untested to care homes, thus upping the risk in these, to which was added the movement of staff between care homes.
What was the response of the health service? Panic again. Once the virus was in hospitals nothing short of body suits and respirators would stop spread. Standard masks were useless, not least when worn on the chin. The presumption that serious illness was just a pneumonic issue was a serious error and ventilation probably killed more people than it cured. The predictive experts or modellers were wildly off – perhaps unsurprising as their track record in previous epidemics was appalling. – but policy was based on worst case prophecy and not real data. Adjustments to death certification made the death rate look far worse than it was, despite requests to distinguish with COVID from from COVID. Testing was inappropriate and improperly policed, with the PCR test being interpreted differently in different labs, without regard for the oversensitivity causing non infectious people to be forced to isolate.
While the roll-out of vaccines was impressively speedy hindsight has shown (although it might have been predicted from previous attempts to vaccinate against respiratory viruses) that the programme was flawed. There is little point in vaccinating those at no risk of serious disease. Vaccination did not produce longer-term immunity, nor did it affect transmission. Despite repeated requests for caution, especially when some apparently significant side-effects occurred, those who counselled greater care and outlined porr pharmacovigilance – sacrificed in the name of speed – were vilified as “anti-vaxers”. One effect of both the virus and the vaccine was to cause myocarditis (a function of the immune response to introduction of the spike protein) but the official narrative ignored this and continued to maintain that vaccination was safe (which is probably isn’t in some cases) and effective (which it certainly isn’t). Another worrying subject is what is actually being injected; it is not an antigen, but an RNA sequence which, once in a cell, promotes the production of an antigen to which the body then mounts an immune response. So it is not a vaccine in conventional terms but a form of gene therapy. Furthermore there is evidence that the RNA sequence is not the only introduced element, but subcellular components or plasmids containing DNA accompany it, and these can persist. If so – and there is no evidence either way – this might explain the development of “Long Covid”, which itself appears to be no different from other postviral fatigue syndromes.
With the mindset of “Settled Science”, which is in itself an oxymoron, much of the debate on all of this has been suppressed and indeed it now transpires that a government group, the Counter-Disinformation Unit or CDU, deliberately arranged the censorship of critics. Science is never settled. New research provides new explanations and hypotheses; old research is subjected to critical analysis that may disprove a conclusion. Ventilation is a case in point; it is now clear – and should have been if based on sound physiological principles – actually contributed to severity and death.
Can any of this influence future planning? Of course not. After the First World War immense planning was undertaken by the French to avoid a further invasion in the building of the Maginot Line, but it was incomplete and the Germans anyway went round the back. We have no idea what form any future pandemic might take; respiratory, neurological, gastrointestinal etc. So I recommend that no future planning takes place until we know what the enemy really is. It reminds me of the NHS planning for a nuclear war in the mid-1970s, when it became apparent that the logistics of inter organisational communication were impossible, so we decided to await the reality rather than speculate on imponderables. One might add that “modelling” – which is little better than prophesy by the Delphic oracle, has proved utterly useless in every infectious disease scenario in which it has been employed. For planners to continue to rely on the discredited would be a big mistake.
As for treatment… I have done to death my explanation for serious illness. But no one listened. No one had read the seminal textbook. None of the “experts” were clinicians, which makes it all the more incomprehensible that they didn’t listen to those who actually treated the patients. This for me is the nub of the problem. If a virus doesn’t kill people it is of no consequence. If it does, then the reasons why need to be understood and the right treatment instituted. Forget isolation and vaccination; they are unnecessary, not least if they don’t prevent spread (they don’t) or diminish they risk of serious illness (they don’t).
A group of US physicians got the treatment right in March 2020. I sent my own, similar recommendations to the DoH in May 2020. Nothing happened, except someone hypothesised that steroids might be a good idea, and a trial was set up, which was completely unnecessary as they were of proven success in other forms of hyperimmune state, as was tocilizumab. I had recommended both. The trial proved what was already known but resulted in a six month delay in institutional use, by which time the virus had mutated and the risk of serious illness markedly reduced. One might therefore argue that if the correct treatment had been correctly deployed in the fist wave against a virulent and dangerous organism then many deaths would not have occurred – and the later reductions in hospitalisations and death had more to do with diminished virulence that any preventative measures.
The Inquiry must not be led up a blind alley over risk factors. Certain ethnic groups are genetically predisposed to develop hyperimmune states as a result of different triggers. This predisposition is chromosome related. Social circumstances may influence acquisition but not severity. Obesity possibly increases risk through hormonal mediation. Leptin, produced in fat cells, is a pro-inflammatory substance. There is no actual or theoretical reason to presume that deaths were due to inequality, deprivation or racism. I believe that any contributor to the Inquiry should, as a prerequisite, read “Cytokine Storm Syndrome” by Cron and Behrens. Failure to do so condemns their evidence to be dismissed as junk.
The Wry Observer 
Thank you! As usual, excellent, clear writing. J
What the inquiry should have started with is answering the questions “what did they know?” and “when did they know it?” By end February 2020 the Diamond Princess had shown that the disease was not remarkably infectious and was not deadly for healthy people of working age i.e. the crew. It may well have played a part in the death of a few of the old passengers, probably amongst the frailest ones.
By the same date Lombardy and Spain must have shown that healthy babies, infants, school children, and university students were effectively immune.
So by the end of February 2020 everything of first order epidemiological importance was known – it was clear that this was not remotely a major health crisis. Almost everything done subsequently by governments in the “advanced” world (bar the Swedes) was reckless folly. The result has been horrible levels of damage to life, health and happiness. An enormous crime was committed.
Once my ideal inquiry had established this (a week or two?) it could move on to other matters, perhaps (a) iatrogenic deaths in hospitals and care homes (were any murder?), (b) treatments forgone (your patch, doc), and (c) the vaccines. The whole thing could be wrapped up in, say, three months. The main lesson would be, of course, that HMG should have stuck to the strategy that had been published as government policy in 2009. After all, the Swedes consciously adopted that very policy.
Agree entirely, although my Inquiry would conclude after two days (though it might take a little longer to write up).