Calling for the urgent arrest of Dr June Raine and senior MHRA staff

Outrageous new FOI admission is just too stupid to let go - We cannot let this continue

In my previous posts, the notion that the MHRA are adequately regulating Covid-19 vaccines from many different perspectives has been thoroughly shattered. Of course, never in the first place should their authorisation have occurred but if there is anything outstanding, it’s their wafer thin shred of plausible deniability they could use to defend themselves against claims they realised the products were dangerous shortly after rollout.

However, a new FOI response has arrived which is so devastating, it makes their remaining outpost indefensible. I’m going to describe that last bastion here briefly before revealing the big takedown.

There’s two important points here, the staggering number of Yellow Cards and secondly, the degree of under-reporting. Given their statement before the rollout that "Our past experience with other new immunisation campaigns is that we tend to receive around 1 Yellow Card report per 1,000 doses administered and we are preparing our surveillance systems on that basis” and instead, between 3 and 6 reports per 1000 arrived through over 90 million injections, that put the MHRA in a real corner.

Of course, they went on to completely ignore this and what they did to defend themselves was to recenter the problem away from the sheer number of Yellow Cards received and instead place the problem onto the degree of under-reporting. They convieniently addressed this on a separate page away from their very positive weekly reports on the Covid-19 vaccines (which are no longer regular), basically hiding the problem.

On that page, their warnings strongly implied that the number of Yellow Cards were high because under-reporting was lower. Their prior estimates themselves were that “only 10% of serious reactions and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported”. With over 360,000 injury reported marked serious, that presented a problem.

Their key statement here is that “The reporting rate for adverse drug reactions is variable and can depend on a multitude of factors. These estimates should not be used as indicators of the reporting rate for COVID-19 vaccines, for which there is high public awareness of the Yellow Card scheme and the reporting of suspected reactions”

What that entails is that 3.6 million actual serious reactions would be accepted to have occurred under the old formula, an awful look for them but their excuse for that not being the case? The high public awareness and reporting of suspected reactions. People were not being injured in these huge numbers according to the MHRA, they were just reporting more and that was enough justification to keep the campaign rolling despite the huge influx of reports.

A new FOI recently challenged this reasoning for which their entire campaign hinged on.

The MHRA replied on 9th Feburary 2024. So how were they going to support their overall position that the high public awareness and the reporting of suspected reactions explained the number of reports?

They replied that the high public awareness and the reporting of suspected reactions “was inferred from the number of Yellow Cards received reporting suspected side effects to the COVID-19 vaccines.”

They simply just inferred it from the high number of reports?! Nothing else? No way!! That’s truly stunning!!

If I were too put that a bit more soberly, the takeaway is that the MHRA believe that high numbers of reports equates to high awareness, somehow, ergo less under-reporting. Of course there is no way any health agency would just infer it in this manner, but here it is! Additionally since they apparently needed inference, it stands to reason they did not have an inherent dataset on the matter, at least one which is current. So what do they have which could justify their belief? What rabbit are they going to pull out of their hat this time around?

When asked for documentation to justify this particular reasoning for which the whole campaign hinged on they replied that “The MHRA do not hold a specific document for disclosure that could be provided in response to this request”

So they have absolutely no obvious documentation which could explain their usage of this reasoning. Wow!! It really does look like their reasoning has been produced out of thin air.

This is bad, really bad…..and it’s about to get worse.

Didn’t they also reveal that the reporting rate “can depend on a multitude of factors.” ? They did. How about this factor revealed then in FOI 22/019? Regarding the number of Yellow Cards, the MHRA said that “Actual volumes are dependent on the reactogenicity of the vaccine used” (etc)

Very interesting. Here’s a couple of definitions of reactogenicity - “Reactogenicity refers to a subset of reactions that occur soon after vaccination, and are a physical manifestation of the inflammatory response to vaccination”

and

“In clinical trials, the term reactogenicity refers to the property of a vaccine of being able to produce common, "expected" adverse reactions, especially excessive immunological responses and associated signs and symptoms”

The same document also demonstrates how reactogenicity can be graded from absence of the indicated symptom all the way to life-threatening but warns that “Reactogenicity describes the immediate short-term reactions of a system to vaccines and should not be confused with the long-term consequences sequelae”

It is clear that reactogenicity pertains to some serious adverse events, even if the parameters seem restricted. Myocarditis occurring within a short time frame seems to fit those parameters.

It begs the question as to why if they admit that product reactogenicity is a dependent factor on Yellow Card rates, they have now excluded this possibility? It was there for the taking.

And how about this. They couldn’t be secretly working off the degree of under-reporting as a secondary parameter as they have already stated that "The actual rate of reporting is unknown".

Additionally, they had a chance to discover that degree of under-reporting as they ran The Yellow Card Vaccine Monitor, with active reporting of 25,000 or so people. An analysis of that data here places Covid vaccination injury at only 2% reported, the worse end of the old scale. If only the MHRA had bothered to find that figure, they didn’t. The MHRA never bothered to differentiate between serious and non-serious injury in that study either.

How about simply reasoning that the Covid-19 vaccine is causing very high numbers of Yellow Cards because it is causing very high numbers of injuries? Straightforward?

Conclusion

The MHRA’s reasoning is utterly ridiculous and cannot be believed. It is clear that by adopting the riskiest explanation with the injection happy approach that it entails, with no apparent basis for it to stand on their reasoning must therefore be selective. The MHRA’s one line of reasoning caused over 140 million dangerous injections when it should not have been there.

The high public awareness and the reporting of suspected reactions was not inferred, it was chosen. Their narrative has now been demolished. It is now time to hold the MHRA and their staff to account.