How to take down a health agency in 5 minutes

Previously little known stash of FOI responses from the MHRA implode their own narrative

“The MHRA’s role is to continually monitor safety during widespread use of a vaccine. We have in place a proactive strategy to do this”

A total exposé. Please share this with anyone you know who thinks the authorities are actually looking after their health!!

1. Regulatory mandate and degree of under-reporting

Rewind 2020 and in the midst of Covid-19, an Expert Working Group was formed to advise the UK’s vaccine and drug regulator, the MHRA, on it’s safety strategy for Covid-19 vaccines. The following link shows a very important document because this reveals their plans for vigilance of the rollout. They were instructed:

"Because every passive surveillance system suffers from variable under-reporting, the MHRA will conduct sensitivity analyses based on a range of under-reporting assumptions"

Adverse drug reactions do happen and the MHRA already possessed an under-reporting formula as a rough guide to determine true injury rates. Despite the above instruction, not long into the vaccination campaign the MHRA purged it’s use but specifically only for the Covid-19 vaccines. They explained:

"It is estimated that only 10% of serious reactions and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported." and that "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."

So, what is the new degree of under-reporting then? That’s one hell of a loose end to leave is it not? To this very day, the MHRA have failed to replace the formula without explanation. The following FOI response reveals why the MHRA does not provide a new formula for Covid-19 vaccine injury reporting. Prefacing they said:

"In the letter attached there were some concerns raised regarding underreporting" followed by their reply that "The actual rate of reporting is unknown"

Wow, they don’t know what the rate even is. Can that really be a good enough excuse for the formula’s absence? Is the high public awareness of the Yellow Card scheme and reporting of suspected reactions sufficient reason for abandoning the old formula? Maybe they should get a new formula ASAP!

2. Yellow Card expectations

So prior to the rollout, the MHRA had an expectancy for how many Yellow Cards they would receive. They explained to a very concerned citizen 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"

When the campaign went live however, they were receiving rather different figures. In their 13th October 2021 report they commented:

"For the Pfizer/BioNTech, COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca and COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna the overall reporting rate is around 3 to 6 Yellow Cards per 1,000 doses"

Wow, that’s a much higher rate of Yellow Cards. Wait a minute, so they’re receiving way more injury report than they expected and these systems under-report?…..and they have NO idea how bad the under reporting is? Wow!!

But they still seem to think it’s all under control. They stated that:

"The total number and the nature of Yellow Cards reported so far is not unusual for a new vaccine for which members of the public and healthcare professionals are encouraged to report any suspected adverse reaction"

Not unusual? Okay then!!

3. Serious reactions

Moving onto serious vaccine reactions, throughout their reports in 2021-2022 they reassured the public with similar statements to this:

"For all COVID-19 vaccines, detailed review of all reports has found that the overwhelming majority relate to injection site reactions (sore arm for example) and generalised symptoms such as a ‘flu-like’ illness, headache, chills, fatigue (tiredness), nausea (feeling sick), fever, dizziness, weakness, aching muscles, and rapid heartbeat. Generally, these happen shortly after the vaccination and are not associated with more serious or lasting illness"

Yet in 2023, 74.5% of all Yellow Cards were revealed as marked serious with the release of their iDAPs, an extraordinary contradiction. Unfortunately, these iDAPs (interactive drug analysis profiles) consist of hundreds of thousands of reports for the Covid-19 vaccines. The following is a link to the AstraZeneca profile of which 77% of Yellow Cards were marked serious alone. Once on the page, you can click on overview to bring up the numbers.

“Total number of reports of suspected ADRs 248,834” and “Total number of reports of suspected ADRs which were serious 192,823”

Here’s another couple of big ones, Pfizer and Moderna

“Total number of reports of suspected ADRs 177,860” and “Total number of reports of suspected ADRs which were serious 125,965”

“Total number of reports of suspected ADRs 43,075” and “Total number of reports of suspected ADRs which were serious 31,178”

All considered, there are over 360,000 Yellow Cards for the Covid-19 vaccines marked serious with an additional 2,596 marked as fatal, all these with the caveat of being “suspected”. Confusingly, what also appears is the following supplemental text:

"Our new format categorises reports as serious based on the reporter's assessment, which includes if advice was sought from a healthcare professional or if one of the terms within the report may be serious. This includes some of the reactions that reflect the normal immune response triggered by the body to the vaccines. Generally, these happen shortly after the vaccination and whilst the reporter may have sought medical advice they are not associated with more serious or lasting illness and resolved within a day or two"

So these reports are “serious” but not actually serious? Yet they state no figures for this new way of calculating serious reactions. Presumably, their main justification for writing these off as not serious is because the adverse reactions resolved in a couple of days. However, it's highly unlikely they could know this because of the following FOI response in March 2023:

"Of the first 1400 UK spontaneous Yellow Card reports submitted to the MHRA by healthcare professionals or patients and their representatives, 176 were followed up for further information by the MHRA"

And another particularly troubling response:

"the MHRA is unable to comment on the number of people left disabled as a result of a COVID-19 vaccination as Yellow Card reports do not detail functionality outcomes for patients, particularly in the medium to long term, to be able to assess the level of disability for any patient that might have been experienced adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination"

So it is clear they don't follow up on the vast proportion of injury reports. Perhaps they gathered a sample of reports and projected serious numbers from there? Well they did run a sample. They ran the Yellow Card Vaccine Monitor, an active monitor of nearly 30,000 people of which one of the goals was to “estimate the frequency of common reactions” but sadly couldn't even be bothered to categorise any of the reported 12,932 adverse reactions in their last known update into serious or non-serious. No wonder then that they still don’t know the degree of under-reporting for each category for which they were supposed to “conduct sensitivity analyses based on a range of under-reporting assumptions".

So they have received a massive numbers of injury reports way beyond their expectation, they don’t know how bad the under-reporting is, a high majority of the reports are serious and it is now clear that they don’t follow up on the vast majority of them. Isn’t all this completely awful?

And we’re not done yet!!

4. Safety thresholds

It would be easy for anyone to assume that the vaccination campaign continued it’s expansion because of the success of those very products. On the other hand, here is their definition for a safe medicine:

“For a medicine or vaccine to be considered safe, the expected benefits will be greater than the risk of having harmful reactions”

Wait wait let’s back up for a second - so the benefits need only be greater than the risk and need only be expected? What risk would they accept then when the agency believes the following?

It has been estimated that up to 26 September 2021, the UK vaccination programme prevented between 23.9 and 24.3 million infections and between 123,600 and 131,300 deaths

So isn’t this leeway to permit side effects to cause the deaths of not just 10 people, not just 100 or even 1,000 but 120,000+ people? And they get to call it safe too! Now it becomes understandable why they didn’t stop the rollout in order to rectify the products. These definitions are currently operating silently worldwide which I wrote about in more depth here.

But perhaps the MHRA are just trying to keep things simple?

“There is currently no defined threshold or criteria at which a medicine or a vaccine would be suspended or withdrawn by the MHRA as many factors must be taken into account”

So simple it seems, that they then can’t develop any criteria for withdrawing a product except for the one criteria in the hearts and minds of their staff, seemingly thinking on their feet, in the same FOI reponse came this line:

“In order to withdraw a vaccine from the market, the risks of being administered that vaccine would need to outweigh the benefits for the majority of people”

If it heals less than it poisons…..

Quick Summary

1. They don’t know how much under-reporting is occurring

2. They experienced massive numbers of injury reports at a radically higher than expected rate for a new vaccine.

3. They are experiencing a very high percentage of serious reports

4. They proceed with a lack of any follow up on the vast majority of injury reports

5. They deceive the public

6. They draw very premature conclusions in their own favour

7. They deliberately fail to discover valuable insights

8. They use highly dangerous safety thresholds

9. They have no defined criteria to withdraw a defective product

10. They carry on as if this is all normal

What would you do about this?

Is this an absurd way of doing medicine to you? If your answer is yes, help spread the word!

Before I go, I want to share my appreciation for all those wonderfully inquisitive individuals who helped make this post possible. Thank you!