My question is quite straightforward. It relates to the establishment of an independent, non-statutory Covid evaluation committee. Why was that route taken, rather than a statutory inquiry similar to other jurisdictions like the UK, Australia and America? Everybody in the House would agree that the greatest wealth we have is health. In this week of the World Economic Forum at Davos and the concerns over Mercosur, we must not forget the people. We are human beings, not human doings. Up to 100 years ago, anecdotal evidence was the norm, the gold standard. There were numerous systems of medicine from Ayurvedic medicine to homoeopathy. Modern medicine, where we have empirical evidence, clinical trials, data gathering and so on, has only evolved in the last 100 years.
I am going to bring the Taoiseach some information that has been given to me in my role as a pharmacist, as a family member, as a friend and from constituents. What I am observing anecdotally includes stage 4 breast cancers in young women; an increase in prostate cancer in men, where previously it would have been in those aged 70 and over; stage 4 glioblastomas; and pancreatic cancers. These are in people who would not be considered to have underlying health risks. We have cardiovascular problems; sudden death in young men and women; strokes and aneurysms; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; neurological illnesses; and more diagnoses of Parkinson’s, MS, motor neurone disease, Bell’s palsy, Guillain-Barré syndrome, immunological illness and so on. Shingles was something that only ever occurred after multiple courses of antibiotics, generally after Christmas when pressure was off people. Sepsis, eye problems – I could go on.
There have been studies done. Professor Angus Dalgleish in the UK, a leading oncologist, has dug deep. There are Japanese studies. I previously asked a parliamentary question about whether our State bodies are looking at these studies and possibly changing practices accordingly. I previously raised with the Taoiseach the issue of a protected disclosure, No. 17 of 2025 if memory serves me correctly, which relates to these matters. Because the terms of reference of the Covid evaluation committee are quite limited in scope, and the document is only three or four pages, these matters are not being brought up. We need an inquiry.
