UK Government Rejects Inquiry into Vaccine Injuries

ER Editor: We’re doing a two-fer here, one from The Expose and one from News Uncut.


UK Government Refuses to Look into Covid Vaccine Safety Because If You Don’t Look, You Can’t Find


Over 107,000 UK citizens signed a petition for the UK government to open a public inquiry into Covid “vaccine” safety. But the UK Parliament is doing everything it can to bury its head in the sand.

The petition, which was started in November 2021, stated:

There has been a significant increase in heart attacks and related health issues since the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccines…This needs immediate and full scientific investigation to establish if there is any possible link with the Covid-19 vaccination rollout.

It is the duty of the Government to ensure that the prescribed medical interventions of its response to Coronavirus are safe. We believe that the recent and increasing volume of data relating to cardiovascular problems since the Covid-19 vaccine rollout began is…enough…to warrant a full Public Inquiry.

UK Government and Parliament Petitions: Open a Public Inquiry into Covid-19 Vaccine Safety

At the beginning of this year, the Government responded to the petition:

The Government has commissioned a public inquiry into the Covid-19 pandemic and has no plans for a separate inquiry on vaccine safety. The safety of Covid-19 vaccines is monitored by the Medicines Healthcare and Regulatory products Agency (MHRA).

The MHRA has authorised Covid-19 vaccine supply following a rigorous review of their safety, quality and efficacy. The clinical trials of the vaccines have shown them to be effective and acceptably safe. [emphasis our own]

Government responded, This response was given on 5 January 2022

Axel McFarlane, who started the petition, and Mike Baker conducted a detailed and well-referenced analysis of the Government’s response:

The government-commissioned public inquiry into the Covid-19 pandemic would not appear to include any investigation into possible vaccine-related causes behind the latest observed data on the various reported Adverse Events, Non-Covid Excess Deaths, the rise in Cardio-Vascular issues or the recent sudden decline in Live Birth Rates.

The government’s attempted justification for refusing a public inquiry into vaccine safety simply serves to demonstrate why such an inquiry, properly constituted with representatives and terms of reference acceptable to all sides, is urgently necessary.

Our Response to the UK Government’s Response to the UK Government and Parliament Petition: “Open a Public Inquiry into Covid-19 Vaccine Safety”, Prof. Norman Fenton, 17 August 2022

When a petition to the UK Parliament gets 100,000 signatures it is considered for debate in Parliament. It received the requisite number of signatories in June and the petition was closed on 6 June. The debate was originally scheduled for 19 September but was postponed due to the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II. It was rescheduled and debated in Parliament on Monday, 24 October 2022.

“As the only member of anything pertaining to being ‘the Press’ in attendance [at the debate], I felt I was uniquely witnessing a historic moment. Once again, the mainstream media had shown no interest in or concern for what is one of the most urgent issues of our time,” wrote Kathy Gyngell of The Conservative Woman.

Joel Smalley sums it up succinctly.




Some MPs insist injections are safe and effective and have saved thousands – but others are challenging such claims


By Mark Sharman

A CALL for a public inquiry into Covid-19 vaccine injuries has been rejected at a Parliamentary debate – on the grounds that the subject is already included in Baroness Hallett’s overall investigation into the pandemic.

No doubt the result will frustrate the 107,000 people who signed the e-petition forcing the debate, but two outstanding and opposing talking points emerged:

1: The Government is holding the hard line that jabs are safe and effective and have saved thousands of lives, that deaths and injuries are extremely rare and that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) figures are accurate and trustworthy.

2: Certain Conservative MPs are listening to alternative views with care and compassion and will continue to challenge all of the above.

Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch), Danny Kruger (Devizes) and Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) have all taken up the cause of the vaccine injured and are questioning Government policy.

Mr Kruger, in particular, should have made national headlines when he publicly tweeted this section of his speech:

“I put on record that, in hindsight, I am particularly ashamed of my vote to dismiss care workers who did not want to receive the vaccine. I very much hope that the 40,000 care workers who lost their jobs can be reinstated and indeed compensated.*”

Mr Kruger also solicited a positive response from Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Dr Caroline Johnson, who confirmed that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JVCI) are to review the policy of vaccinating children against Covid which, he tweets, ‘never seemed proportionate to the risks and is now surely unnecessary’.

Both were ignored by mainstream media.

On the flip side is Elliot Colburn, the Conservative MP for Carshalton and Wallington who, in defending the Government, displayed a worrying intransigence. He based his evidence almost entirely on discussions with the MHRA, while admitting he does not listen to what protestors have to say.

Consider these exchanges:

Sir Christopher Chope:

“My honourable friend has obviously done a lot of preparation for the debate. Did part of that preparation include looking at Oracle Films’ “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion” (jointly produced by News Uncut) which was produced about a month ago and has already had more than one million views online? Most people think it highly persuasive.”

Elliot Colburn (above):

“I have not seen that publication, although I have read a lot of the significant amounts of material that have been shoved through my constituency office door by a large number of anti-vax protesters, who have flyposted my office on no less than a dozen occasions and intimidated my 18-year-old apprentice and the people who live above my constituency office. Given that the content of that literature includes climate change denial, moon landing denial and so on, I am inclined to ignore it completely.”


Danny Kruger: “My honourable friend talks about the independence of the MHRA and I very much hope he is right about that. Is he aware that it is overwhelmingly funded by the pharmaceutical companies that it regulates? Does he have any concerns about the objectivity of its work?” (A British Medical Journal enquiry states that 86 per cent of MHRA funding comes from the pharmaceutical industry).

Elliot Colburn: “No, I see nothing to concern me about the independence of the MHRA. Indeed, I saw a group of anti-vax protesters outside the House today, holding up signs saying, “Vaccines kill.” ….it seems a bit of a strange business model for a pharmaceutical company to kill off everyone it is trying to administer a vaccine to. I have seen absolutely nothing to concern me that the MHRA has any problems with independence.”


During the debate Sir John Hayes, Conservative MP for South Holland and the Deepings, pointed out that ‘while vaccination per se has saved millions of lives here and elsewhere, these vaccines are qualitatively different’, while Andrew Bridgen (below) referred to excess deaths of up to 25,000 in the UK in this year alone, both points highlighted in Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion.

Elliot Colburn merely praised vaccines in general as ‘safe and effective’ and a British invention, while it was stated that there was no evidence that Covid vaccines were linked to excess deaths.

And predictably, Dr Johnson, came up with the tried and tested line: “The UKHSA estimates that vaccinations had averted up to 128,000 deaths and 262,000 hospitalisations by the end of September 2021 and many more since then.”

News Uncut says once again that this is a figure plucked from thin air. It is impossible to quantify with certainty how many people might have died had they not been jabbed.

And on excess deaths, many reasons have been put forward, but never Covid vaccines. Surely any investigation worth its name would look at all suspects, even if only to eliminate them?

This substack is not against vaccines, but world-wide evidence is pointing to a possible medical disaster.

How much more damage may be caused before we can hold an eyes-open, honest debate with no pre-conceived views? Anything less adds weight to the theory: This is a cover-up.

*Further to Danny Kruger’s call on re-instating care workers, New York City has been ordered to reinstate a group of sanitation workers fired for refusing to get a Covid-19 vaccine. A state court judge ruled the mandate was unlawful. Workers will return with $40,000 each in back pay.



Published to The Liberty Beacon from


The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.