We are writing to you, as when Professor Heneghan was leaving the stand on October 18th, you stated, “if there are other matters that you wish me to explore, by all means submit them in writing”. Professor Heneghan’s oral evidence lasted precisely one hour and, of the 12 points he was asked to prepare for and address, his views on the Great Barrington Declaration were discussed. This was the last issue on the list.
As we have already provided a 75-page submission, we are going to summarise some of the points and make observations on the day’s testimonies.
Firstly, we are deeply disappointed by the level of detail and tone adopted when Professor Heneghan gave evidence. In the preceding exchange with Professor Edmunds, both Mr. O’Connor and Professor Edmunds appear to have identified Professor Heneghan as a target for foul language, while the transcript mentioned someone else entirely without you intervening. Was this an arranged exchange? The text mentioned X, and Mr. O’Connor asked the witness, “does that refer to Y?” and the witness answered, “Yes”.
The tone of Mr. O’Connor’s questions was fawning and leading, but when Professor Heneghan gave evidence, the tone changed instantly and was adversarial. You had the chance to explore some of the basic scientific questions based on events. This opportunity was lost by allowing the KC to ask questions which had nothing to do with Professor Heneghan’s contribution to clarifying the contradictions, harms and uncertainty on the basis of events.
To remind you, here is the transcript of one of the exchanges:
In Professor Gupta’s evidence, she stated: “I was invited to attend with Carl Heneghan, Anders Tegnell, John Edmunds and Angela McLean. Other than John Edmunds, all invitees were broadly in favour of the ‘Swedish’ strategy outlined by Tegnell.”
So, if Professor McLean considered Heneghan a “f*****t,” why did she later agree with the approach of Professor Heneghan, the author of the Great Barrington Declaration, and that of Sweden as proposed by Dr. Anders Tegnell?
Having reviewed the WhatsApp messages, the timings of Professor McLean’s expletive (we were let into the Zoom meeting at approx. 17.35, and the profanity occurred at 17.48) suggests she was making assumptions before listening to any of Prof. Heneghan’s evidence. If, indeed, she was referring to Professor Heneghan.
She subsequently changed her mind to follow Sweden. Professor Heneghan can verify that Professor McLean supported Sweden’s approach at the end of the meeting (some two hours after the expletive). Is there not something illogical about the whole exchange worth investigating?