Us For Them accused the Counsel to the Inquiry of failing to put the case against lockdown—expressed by many dissenting scientists—to other experts and raised concerns that conflicts of interests held by witnesses were not being disclosed.
Their letter questions the selection of witnesses allowed to address the inquiry and claims that anti-lockdown scientists have been treated differently to those who support the government’s handling of the epidemic or those who claim lockdown should have been implemented sooner and more strictly.
“In order to satisfy its terms of reference, it is essential that the inquiry does not take lockdowns as a given—as a starting point—but engages inquisitively with the merits of that policy decision, including by examining international comparators, and Sweden in particular.”
It claims the selection of core participants and witnesses “has given rise to the impression among members of the public and a significant element of the UK print media that the Inquiry has consistently selected and favoured those who support lockdown policies.”
It refers specifically to the treatment of Professor Carl Heneghan, one of the first scientists to speak against lockdowns, who was told while answering questions for the inquiry that his opinion did not count as evidence.
The letter, drafted by JMW Solicitors, says that videos played to the Inquiry are “extremely emotive” and focus on care home deaths, the Covid-bereaved and “long Covid” sufferers, but do not give the same attention to those harmed by lockdown—such as children, domestic violence victims, those who lost their livelihoods and those whose mental health suffered, including suicide victims.
“Us For Them wishes to record its view that this practice is highly prejudicial to the perceived objectivity of the inquiry—and certainly not appropriate for any inquiry process intending to weigh and fairly assess the relative harms and merits of key policy decisions.
“In summary, Us For Them holds serious concerns that the approach of the inquiry to date gives rise to the appearance of predetermination in relation to a number of critical issues, and at times to an apparent absence of fairness in its witness selection and fairness.”
The letter calls for the terms of reference of the Inquiry to be widened so that harms other than deaths recorded as Covid-related are taken into account, and for quality of life lost to also be considered.
It also demands an “independent and thorough” review of all data with respect to non-pharmaceutical interventions—which would include masks, social distancing, travel restrictions, testing and all limits on mixing such as the “rule of six,” as well as lockdowns.
The campaign group is asking the inquiry to look into the government’s use of censorship during the lockdown period and how official agencies “engaged in the suppression of commentaries and opinions perceived as casting doubt on the government’s pandemic policy decisions.”
The organisation calls for at least one of the authors of the Great Barrington declaration—an anti-lockdown proposal by scientists—to give evidence to the Inquiry, and asks for “even-handed” treatment of witnesses going forward.
Finally, the letter calls for an examination into the ethics of some of the government decision making throughout the lockdown period, particularly in its public communications campaigns.
Us For Them said if its concerns are ignored and the terms of reference not widened, it could challenge the final outcome of the long-running inquiry, which is chaired by Baroness Hallett and has so far cost around £145 million.
Speaking to the Epoch Times, Us For Them co-founder Molly Kingsley, who has a background in law, said, “The main issues are about the failure to examine cost benefits, and this very unequal and unfair treatment of witnesses.
“There have been things said about anti-lockdown scientists, such as Sunetra Guptra, and they’re not even there to defend themselves.”
She added: “The other main issue we have is there are people being allowed to take to the stand who are often conflicted in their interests. There is a clear conflict of a personal, institutional or financial nature.”
Ms. Kingsley gave the examples of Professor Jonathan Van Tam, who became a senior consultant at vaccine-manufacturer Moderna after playing a key role in the government’s role-out of the jabs.
“He just was not questioned about this at all, (when he gave evidence), which is just absolutely astounding,” she said.
“And ditto, we had (Professor) Neil Ferguson, who works for Imperial (College London), who are known to have taken large amounts of money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but no questions were asked.”
Last year, Us For The was one of several organisations to successfully lobby the inquiry to widen its original terms of reference to include the impact of pandemic policies on children and young people.
A spokesman for the Covid Inquiry said it will take into consideration lockdown harms.
“We are in regular contact with Us For Them and they have received information from us as recently as last week about looking into the impact of the pandemic on children.
“We are surprised they are asking the same questions again. As we have only just received this letter, it would not be appropriate for us to respond to it via the media.
“The UK Covid-19 Inquiry rejects any suggestion that it has pre-determined its findings.”
