This presentation talks through all my interactions with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) in its capacity as the UK regulator for Covid -19 'vaccines'.
I. MHRA’s FOI Request for “Safe and Effective” Claims
Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) Practice code 2021 Conditions in Section 6.4:
Products must not state that they are free of side effects, risk of toxicity, risk of addiction or dependence. The word “safety” should not be used without qualification.
However, the MHRA continues to use the word 'safe' in relation to Covid -19 injections. Dr Alison Cave, MHRA Chief Safety Officer, said:
Patient safety is our top priority. The COVID -19 vaccine was approved after a rigorous review of the vaccine's safety, quality and effectiveness by the MHRA and CHM. The MHRA has concluded that vaccines for Covid 19 are safe and effective and that the benefits of the vaccines outweigh the risks.
From an efficacy perspective, the relative risk ratio (RRR) is an exaggeration, while 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 as onerous because of its scope and the disproportionate burden it places on the MHRA. Incredibly, the answer came back when at least 58% of ADRs and deaths were listed on the yellow card as linked to the AstraZeneca “vaccine” (emphasis added):
However, while we appreciate that there remains a strong public interest in vaccines for Covid -19, we Don't feel that the public benefit outweighs the cost to resources necessary to fulfill your request.
My concluding remarks were that the government invested millions of taxpayers' money to develop and sell the AstraZeneca Covid-19 shot, coerced large parts of its population, and injected a product for which it was not responsible. That's what it means. Therefore, we need full government transparency, not information suppression.
iii. “Live” Questions at MHRA Board Meeting
I went ahead and asked the MHRA important and intelligent questions on the air. I am uninformed by the board members' answers and believe they are not telling the public the truth. Due to this, there is a lack of confidence in the ability to protect the public from harmful substances. A lack of trust in the MHRA has developed due to its duplicitous and dishonest behavior and is demonstrated in its board meetings and appearances on other platforms. I think the MHRA has demonstrated misconduct in public office.
IV. MHRA and data analysis
Globally, all regulators received the same data for each of the Covid -19 vaccines in a common technical document (CTD). The United States obtained some of this data. It can be considered a benchmark.
Within two to three months, the MHRA analyzed 451,000 pages of Pfizer data and 4.8 million pages of Moderna data, as well as Astrazeneca data.
This was at a time when staff were working from home, while staff continued to operate computers, staff was reduced by 20%, new inexperienced staff were hired or digital contractors were acquired. It happened.
MHRA’s regulatory capture: MHRA CEO Dame June Raine talks about how the agency has introduced “flexibility” into its regulatory process to speed up vaccine approval. 86% of MHRA's funding comes from industry. The US and UK Vaccine Advisory Committees have financial relationships with vaccine manufacturers.
Dame June Lane said:
We had very comprehensive data and there was no doubt that the vaccine was highly effective and the safety profile was what we expected.
V. MHRA and EMA Data Evaluation Report
An analysis of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) assessment report for licensing shows much more information than the MHRA's public assessment report.
No specific objections or recommendations were made before the license was issued.
Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Kruger's review of this information was conducted in early 2021 and spoke about manufacturing processes, product inconsistencies, defects, variations, contamination, and sterility for clinical trials and commercial use. It was done when. Her conclusion was that the use of these vaccines was criminal and incredibly horrifying.
vi. Analysis of Dr. June Rain's presentation
In November 2022, Dr. June Lane gave a lecture qualified Make medicine safer.
She said the MHRA was an “enabler” and that “the urge to rush things is a belief that patients should not be kept waiting”. She knew of 300 cases of vaccine-induced thrombolytic thrombocytopenia (VITT) and wanted to record DNA from these cases to find out what was wrong with the patients. 600 drug interactions) are safer with MHRA predicting outcomes.
Explore safety connections, clinical practice data research data links, pharmacogenetics, personal prescribing, and genome mapping to understand what happens to your personal data.
vii. Yellow Card Vaccine Monitor (YCVM) FOI Request
Leading the MHRA to the task of not releasing the full results of the Pregnant Women's Vaccine Monitor. This freedom of information request has undergone both an internal review and an Office of the Information Commissioner review, and is currently subject to a first-tier tribunal appeal. Request for information has been denied due to intent to peer review and publish in a scientific journal. Three years have passed since the preliminary report was released.
The Commissioner (ICO) submits that:
The public interest in disclosure is outweighed by factors favoring withholding information. The Commissioner believes that there is a stronger public interest in allowing the MHRA to publish the requested information on a planned schedule.
Do you think they should sit on real-time pregnancy data?
viii. Dear Dr. Alison Cave (by letter)
The MHRA states:
“No drug product is completely risk-free.” What are the risks?
“The MHRA’s role is to ensure that vaccines meet applicable standards of safety, quality and effectiveness.” What are the safety standards?
“(…) “Safe and effective'' drug products refer to a balance of benefits and risks.'' What are the benefits?
“vaccine It is the best way to protect people from Covid-19 and has already saved tens of thousands of lives.” Did they prevent infection as a licensed state?
What evidence does the MHRA have that the gig was saved?
Her answer letter raises more questions than it answers.
ix. Pfizer/Modern Document Analysis
The Pfizer/Modanya Document Analysis (P/MDA) is the result of a court order regarding the U.S. regulatory authority, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to release documents submitted to the application for license of the Pfizer/Modanya Covid-19 vaccine. The published data and information continues to undergo forensic analysis by 3,250 analysts and 250 lawyers.
- This work is unique.
- This is only group to work with primary document.
- There are no conflicts of interest. The analysis is completely independent Pharma's.
- All reports are based on analysis of primary data.
There are currently 99 reports and growth based on “Pfizer's own words, data, and doctors.”
X. Situation assessment
Gene therapy, multisystem serious adverse events, immune dysfunction, risk-benefit analysis, unacceptable harm: compensation, manufacturing quality control, toxic liquid nanoparticles (LNPs).
Biologist Dr JJ Couey said:
It is absurd to give intramuscular injections of any combination of substances with the intention of boosting the immune system.
It means that we understand enough about the incredibly irreducibly complex immune system that we can enhance this system by injecting genetic signals into its toxic envelope.
The result is that it causes your biology to behave differently and confuses your immune system.
