Quick Take…The Covid Inquiry’s (Incredibly Predictable) Findings

Kit Knightley | Off Guardian

The UK’s Covid Enquiry has published its second report, and its conclusion is as relevant as it is predictable. 

To quote Sky News:

The response of the UK’s four governments to the pandemic was a “repeated case of too little, too late” and tens of thousands of lives could have been saved had lockdowns been introduced faster, the COVID-19 Inquiry has found

That’s all they were ever going to say, and it’s all we really need to know.

The full report is over seven hundred and fifty pages across two volumes, a Tolstoy novel of irrelevance.

This is the point of formal inquiries, months of quasi-meaningless testimony whose only purpose is to eat up time until the public memory has faded, then lend verisimilitude to the pre-written revisionist conclusion.

We already know the truth, and it’s a truth too big a for single sentence conclusion, five years after the fact, to rewrite.

Read more

Covid response killed more children than covid, UK Covid Inquiry hears

Rhoda Wilson | Expose News

Earlier this month, Professor Steve Turner, a consultant paediatrician, gave evidence at the UK Covid Inquiry.  He testified that paediatricians learnt very early on that covid did not make children sick, the virus “bounced off” even the most severely sick children.

“Children who had kidney transplants, whose immune system was suppressed – we were really worried about them.  But the virus bounced off them.  So, we knew very, very quickly that this virus, for whatever reason, was not doing harm for the vast majority of children in whom we thought it would,” he said.

Professor Steve Turner, President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (“RCPCH”), provided evidence to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry on 8 October 2025, on behalf of the paediatric workforce.

His testimony focused on the impact of the pandemic on children, young people and their health services, highlighting that the de-prioritisation of children’s healthcare services persisted for too long and that the indirect effects on their health and wellbeing were not adequately recognised. 

Speaking of the most vulnerable children who had serious health issues and should have been at risk of falling victim to covid, as the official narrative had claimed, Prof. Turner explained that it was known very early on that this was not the case.

“When we started, we thought this [covid] could be really nasty, and there were three categories into which people of all ages were placed in terms of risk. But very, very, very, very quickly, our patients and their parents told us that if … children who have gone through heroic surgery, have life-threatening problems, are ventilated at night, when they get covid and the rest of the family gets covid, it was the parents and the carers who were [sick].

“Children who had kidney transplants, whose immune system was suppressed – we were really worried about them.  But the virus bounced off them.  So, we knew very, very quickly that this virus, for whatever reason, was not doing harm for the vast majority of children in whom we thought it would,” he said.

When asked what the Government and its advisors had not done well in responding to covid, Prof. Turner said: “There was not enough consideration given to the innumerable harmful indirect harm that was done to them as a consequence of the provisions made around covid.”

Read more

The Great Barrington Declaration At Five Years

Jeffrey A. Tucker | Zero Hedge

It was 8:45 a.m. and the date was Aug. 23, 2020. We were five months into the pandemic panic. The isolation and strangeness had become unbearable not only to me personally but to vast numbers. The businesses and schools were closed. Anthony Fauci of NIAID and all his media cheerleaders seemed to be the only narrative around.

Everyone was waiting for something. One day rolled into the next, marked by unbearable repetition, each turn of the clock nearly indistinguishable from the last one and the next one. Everyone seemed to be waiting for something to happen but it was not clear what that was.

I had been writing about pandemic planning for 15 years and knew that what was going on was a grave error. Indeed, from January 2020 I had warned that some people imagined that the way to battle a virus was through an elaborate duck-and-cover ritual that contradicted the whole history of public health. By mid-March, 2020, the experiment was on, and the world economy was being strangled.

The usual proponents of free enterprise and civil liberties fell silent. This was mostly for reasons of career protection. It was obvious at the time what everyone was supposed to say: listen to the science, we are all in this together, wear your mask, don't do your own research, stop longing for your "freedumb." Most everyone in the professional classes went along, partially because so many people enjoyed working from home and receiving vast sums from the government dropped directly in their bank accounts.

Desperate for allies in this struggle, I happened to notice a professor at Harvard was posting some sensible things. Not sure why this particular post made it through the censors but it did and I read it. I was thrilled, and decided to try my luck. That early morning, I dropped him a note on Twitter direct messaging. I invited him for dinner. He accepted.

That was the beginning of a long friendship that continues to this day. But it was also the beginning of the hardest years of our lives. Martin Kulldorff and I visited each other and I learned from him: about public health principles, natural immunity, the normal course of respiratory infection waves, how to deal with the many features of such pathogens, and so on.

It was Martin's idea to broaden the discussion. What if we invite a group of top journalists in and offer some expert commentary? This would surely help improve their reporting. Maybe then they would stop simply echoing the crazy claims coming from the CDC and NIH. That struck me as a good idea, so I went to work on logistics. The deadline was tight: two weeks.

The problems began immediately. Not a single reporter responded to my invitation. I could not understand why. Three of the world's top epidemiologists — Martin plus Jay Bhattacharya (now directing the NIH) and Sunetra Gupta — were coming together for their benefit. Why were they not interested in learning more about the subject they were covering for TV and newspapers?

The gathering took place anyway.  

Read more