This presentation talks through all my interactions with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) in its capacity as the British regulator of Covid–19 "vaccines".
I. FoI Request on MHRA's "Safe and Effective" claim
The Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries (ABPI) Code of Practice 2021 states in clause 6.4:
It must not be stated that a product has no adverse reactions, toxic hazards or risks of addiction or dependency. The word 'safe' must not be used without qualification.
But the MHRA continues using the word "safe" in relation to Covid–19 injections. Dr Alison Cave, Chief Safety Officer, MHRA, stated:
Patient safety is our highest priority. The Covid–19 vaccines were approved after a rigorous review of the safety, quality, and effectiveness of the vaccines by the MHRA and the CHM. The MHRA concluded that the Covid 19 vaccines were safe and effective, and the benefits of the vaccines outweigh any risks.
In terms of efficacy, the relative risk ratio (RRR) is an exaggeration, and the absolute risk ratio (ARR) is true and relevant. Pfizer RRR = 95% (what we were told); ARR = 0.84% (what we should have been told).
II. FoI request for AstraZeneca Data for Licensing
This request was refused due to the request being vexatious due to its scope and the disproportionate burden it would place on the MHRA. Unbelievably, when at least 58% of ADRs and deaths were listed in yellow card as linked to the AstraZeneca "vaccine", the answer came back (emphasis added):
We appreciate that there remains a strong public interest in Covid–19 vaccines, however, we do not feel that the public interest outweighs the resource burden required to meet your request.
My concluding remarks are that the Government has invested millions of taxpayer's monies to develop and market the AstraZeneca Covid–19 injection and has coerced a large percentage of its population, to be injected with a liability-free product; and therefore we require complete government transparency, not suppression of information.
III. "Live" question at MHRA Board Meeting
I stepped forward to ask the MHRA an important and intelligent question on air. I believe that the board members' answers are uninformed, and therefore that they are not telling the public the truth. This occasions a lack of trust in their ability to protect the public from harmful substances. Lack of trust in the MHRA develops because of its duplicitous and disingenuous behaviour, demonstrated at its board meetings and appearances on other platforms. I believe that the MHRA has demonstrated malfeasance in public office.
IV. MHRA and Analysis of the Data
Every regulator globally would have received the same data in a Common Technical Document (CTD) for each of the Covid–19 vaccines. The US obtained some of this data—it can be seen as a benchmark.
The MHRA analysed 451,000 pages of Pfizer data and 4.8 million pages of Moderna data, plus the AstraZeneca data, within two to three months.
This happened over lockdown, when staff worked from home ad their computers kept crashing, during a 20% reduction in staff, with inexperienced staff newly employed, or digital contractors.
Regulatory capture of the MHRA: Dame June Raine, CEO of the MHRA, speaks of how the agency introduced ‘flexibility’ into its regulatory process to accelerate approval of the vaccines. 86% of the MHRA’s funding is from industry. US and UK vaccine advisory committees have financial ties to the vaccine manufacturers.
Dame June Raine said:
We had very comprehensive data and there was no doubt that the vaccine was highly effective, and that the safety profile was one we would have anticipated.
V. MHRA and EMA's Assessment Reports of the Data
Analysis of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) assessment reports for licensing shows much more information than the MHRA's Public Assessment Reports.
None of the specific objections and recommendations made were answered before the licenses were issued.
Dr Vanessa Schmidt-Kruger's assessment of this information was done in early 2021, when she told us about the two processes of manufacturing for clinical trials and commercial use, inconsistency of product, deficiencies, variations, contamination, and sterility. Her conclusion was that the use of these vaccines was criminal, unbelievable and gruesome.
VI. An Analysis of a Dr June Raine Presentation
In November 2022, Dr June Raine gave a lecture entitled Making Medicines Safer.
She talked of the MHRA being "an enabler" and "an impulse for rushing things through is a belief that we mustn't keep the patients waiting." She was aware of 300 cases of Vaccine-Induced Thrombolytic Thrombocytopenia (VITT) and was keen to record the DNA from these cases to find out what is wrong with the patient—as it cannot be the vaccine(!) She even thinks Paxlovid (over 600 drug interactions), is safer by means of the MHRA anticipating the results.
Look up Safety Connect, Clinical Practice Data Research Datalink, Pharmacogenetics, Personal Prescribing and Genomic Mapping to understand what happens to your personal data.
VII. FoI Request on Yellow Card Vaccine Monitor (YCVM)
Taking the MHRA to task over not releasing the full results of the Vaccine Monitor on pregnant women. This Freedom of Information request has gone through both Internal Review and Information Commissioner's Office review and is now going through a First-Tier Tribunal Appeal. The request for information has been refused throughout due to an intention to peer review and publish in a scientific journal. It is now three years since the Interim Report was released.
The Commissioner (ICO) submits that:
the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the factors in favour of withholding the information. The Commissioner considers that there is stronger public interest in allowing the MHRA to publish the requested information to its planned schedule.
Do you think they should sit on real-time pregnancy data?
VIII. Dear Dr Alison Cave (by Letter)
Dr Cave, Chief Safety Officer, MHRA states:
“No medicinal product is completely risk-free". What are the risks?
"The role of the MHRA is to ensure vaccines meet applicable standards of safety, quality, and effectiveness." What are the safety standards?
"[…] medicinal products being “safe and effective” refers to the balance of benefits and risks remaining positive”. What are the benefits?
"Vaccines are the best way to protect people from Covid–19 and have already saved tens of thousands of lives". Have they prevented infection as license states?
What evidence does the MHRA have that any live has been saved?
Her letter in answer poses more questions than it answers.
IX. Pfizer/Moderna Document Analysis
Pfizer/Moderna Document Analysis (P/MDA) is the result of court orders on the US regulator, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to release documents submitted in the application for licensure of Pfizer/Moderna Covid–19 vaccines. The data and information released is continuing to undergo forensic analysis by 3,250 analysts and 250 lawyers.
- This work is UNIQUE.
- This is the ONLY group working with the PRIMARY DOCUMENTS.
- No conflicts of interest; analysis is entirely INDEPENDENT of Pharma.
- Every report is based on analysis of the PRIMARY DATA.
There are now 99 reports and growing, based on "Pfizer’s own words, data and physicians".
X. Situation Appraisal
Gene therapy, multi-system Serious Adverse Events, Immune Dysfunction, Risk-benefit analysis, Unacceptable harm: Reward, Quality control of Manufacturing, Toxic Liquid Nanoparticles (LNPs).
Dr JJ Couey, Biologist, states:
Giving an intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intention of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Implying that the incredibly irreducibly complex immune system is sufficiently understood that they can augment this system by injecting a genetic signal in a toxic envelope is audacious, crazy, and extraordinary.
The result will be to make your biology behave differently and confuse your immune system.