I have spent the past few days sitting with Module 4 of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, the section dealing with vaccines and therapeutics. Many people expected it to amount to very little — to sidestep the hard questions, reinforce the existing narrative, and leave the most uncomfortable territory untouched. That instinct was partly right.
But it was not wholly right. There are things the Inquiry handled properly. It acknowledged the speed of vaccine development, some effort to adjust for age-related risk, and the surveillance systems that identified important signals such as myocarditis and vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia. It recognised vaccine injury in principle. It accepted communication failures. And it moved, however modestly, towards improving compensation for those who can prove harm.
Once I moved past those positives, though, I kept returning to the same thought: the Inquiry still did not go far enough into the questions that actually explain what happened. That matters. If you do not understand mechanism, you do not really understand outcome. And if you do not understand outcome, you end up managing narratives rather than improving science.
Read Module 4 recommendations into vaccines and therapeutics >
1. The First Mistake Is Always the Same
One of the most consistent problems in medicine is the temptation to treat before we understand. I have said for years that this is bad science. If the disease process is unclear, every intervention sits on unstable ground.
That is why my first challenge to the Inquiry is the absence of serious emphasis on pathology and autopsy analysis. We knew myocarditis was happening — eventually that became undeniable. But knowing a condition exists is not the same as understanding its biological context. What was actually happening in the myocardium? In the vascular lining? What role did microclotting play? What did re-exposure to the virus look like in a primed immune system? What was occurring in organs where damage was subclinical rather than dramatic?
These are not peripheral questions. They are basic scientific ones. Histology and organ pathology should have been central, and instead remained strangely distant from the main conversation. That is one of the Inquiry’s deepest weaknesses. I do not say it casually. I say it because I have spent years looking at changing disease trajectories and asking the same question: if the pattern is changing, what is the mechanism? You cannot answer that without tissue-level investigation.
2. The Missing Variable in Risk-Benefit Thinking
The second issue still bothers me: prior infection was never properly integrated into vaccine risk-benefit decisions.
During the pandemic we began using the phrase “hybrid immunity” as if it were routine. But the fact that we needed a new phrase should have made us pause. In most other infections, a durable immune response from prior disease matters profoundly. It is not something to brush aside. Yet in Covid, prior infection was often treated as a weak modifier rather than a central biological fact.
If someone had already mounted a strong immune reaction to the virus, particularly after moderate or severe Covid-19, then their immune history mattered. The question was not simply whether another dose might raise antibody levels. The real question was whether further spike-related immune stimulation was biologically neutral in a system that had already shown a tendency toward overreaction.
That should have been studied aggressively. What happened to those who had significant Covid early on and were then vaccinated later? Did their outcomes mirror those with no prior infection? Did their risk profile differ? These are not fringe questions. They sit at the core of how personalised public health should have been approached.
3. When the Message Keeps Changing, Trust Changes With It
The third issue was obvious to the public because they lived through it. First it was two doses. Then three. Then four. Then five, six, seven, eight, nine, depending on group and timing. Even when there were scientific reasons for revising recommendations, that pattern inevitably damaged trust.
The problem was not simply that advice changed. Science changes. The problem was that the public was never given a coherent explanation of why it changed, what had been learned, and what uncertainties remained. The repeated adjustments created the impression that the system was improvising while pretending it was not.
Covid was often handled as though it were another influenza-like problem requiring periodic boosting as strains evolved. But this was never influenza. The cytokine storm told us that from the beginning. The severity of immune dysregulation told us that. The vascular complications told us that. When the biological problem is fundamentally different, the public eventually senses that standard messaging does not fit reality. Once that happens, trust erodes.
4. When Questions Become Misinformation
The fourth issue damaged science as much as it damaged policy: genuine public health concerns were too often treated as misinformation.
I experienced this personally. Ask reasonable questions, and you could quickly find yourself labelled an anti-vaxxer or dismissed as spreading harmful narratives. That is not science. Science does not panic when an unexpected signal appears. It investigates. When clinicians begin reporting adverse outcomes, the correct response is not to silence them but to look more closely and determine whether others are at risk.
We saw this with myocarditis. Early concern was treated in some circles as an attack on vaccination itself rather than a legitimate safety issue requiring open analysis. That reflexive defensiveness is corrosive. It tells the public that institutions are more interested in protecting a programme than in following the evidence. The long-term damage from that is not limited to one vaccine. It spills into confidence in science, medicine, and public health more broadly.
5. Recognition Without Pathways Is Not Enough
The fifth problem is that support for the vaccine injured remains far too weak. Recognition in principle is not the same as practical care. Clinical pathways are still insufficient, compensation remains difficult to access, and long-term follow-up is inadequate.
Worse, many who may be vaccine-injured do not even know that possibility exists. They simply know they are unwell. They know they have not recovered. They know too many things began to go wrong in a pattern that does not feel random. Clinically, I have seen enough recurring patterns to recognise that this problem is larger than official systems are prepared to admit.
And again, it circles back to the same scientific gap. If you are serious about helping the vaccine injured, you do not stop at sympathetic language. You build the pathology, histology, and mechanistic research required to define the problem. Without that, concern becomes performance rather than solution.
6. The Fine Balance in Children
The sixth issue is childhood vaccination. The Inquiry acknowledged that the risk-benefit balance in children was very fine. That point should have been made much more forcefully.
The more we learned, the clearer it became that healthy children generally faced lower direct risk from Covid than initially feared. So the question became sharper, not softer. If the disease risk is relatively low in the average healthy child, and if transmission blocking is incomplete, then what is the threshold for recommending repeated immune exposure in that population? For children with substantial comorbidity, the discussion is different. But for the healthy average child, the case was never as straightforward as it was often presented.
This again reflected a poor grasp of the immunological stakes. If you do not properly understand the disease and the immune dysregulation it can trigger, you are more likely to underestimate the significance of intervention in a lower-risk group.
7. Mandates and the Cost to Public Health
The seventh issue may be the most socially important: the long-term cost of mandates to trust in public health.
This was never only about vaccines. It was about what happens when coercion enters a space that depends on professional judgment, personal trust, and moral legitimacy. Healthcare workers and carers were not abstract numbers. They were experienced people, many of whom had worked through the worst stages of the pandemic before any vaccine existed. Then some were told to comply or leave.
That decision carried enormous cost. In the care sector especially, people left and did not come back. Those losses were not easily replaced, because caring is not a commodity. You cannot plug in another number and assume the same skill, commitment, and human value returns with it.
What disturbed me most was not the policy alone but the absence of clear apology afterwards. If a step of that magnitude damages trust, fractures the workforce, and imposes suffering on people who had already carried the system through crisis, it deserves more than passing acknowledgment. It deserves honesty.
The Deeper Lesson
Stepping back, my conclusion is simple. The Inquiry was better than some feared, but still too shallow where depth mattered most. It recognised signals without going far enough into mechanism. It acknowledged communication failures without fully confronting how trust was lost. It gave some recognition to the vaccine injured without building a framework for understanding and helping them. It admitted the fine balance in children without the necessary force. It touched the issue of mandates without reckoning with the damage they caused.
The wider lesson here is not anti-vaccine and it is not anti-science. It is the opposite. Science only deserves public trust when it is willing to examine its own blind spots without fear.
If we want to do better next time, we need less slogan and more mechanism. Less defensiveness and more curiosity. Less assumption and more pathology. That is how medicine learns. And unless we learn at that level, we will keep repeating the same mistakes under a different name.
Vejon COVID-19 Review is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
