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:
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:
When the campaign went live however, they were receiving rather different figures. In their 13th October 2021 report they commented:
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:
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:
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.
Here’s another couple of big ones, Pfizer and Moderna
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:
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:
And another particularly troubling response:
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:
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?
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?
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:
If it heals less than it poisons…..
Quick Summary
They don’t know how much under-reporting is occurring
They experienced massive numbers of injury reports at a radically higher than expected rate for a new vaccine.
They are experiencing a very high percentage of serious reports
They proceed with a lack of any follow up on the vast majority of injury reports
They deceive the public
They draw very premature conclusions in their own favour
They deliberately fail to discover valuable insights
They use highly dangerous safety thresholds
They have no defined criteria to withdraw a defective product
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!
Yes but they saved us all from Night Nurse, Sudafed and Nurofen which had been on the market for 30 years. They must have killed millions!
https://www.gov.uk/drug-device-alerts/class-2-medicines-recall-various-marketing-authorisation-holders-pholcodine-containing-products-el-23-a-slash-09
https://news.sky.com/story/some-cough-cold-and-flu-medicines-are-being-taken-off-shelves-as-a-precaution-heres-the-list-12833417
Brilliant. You should send your article on to Debbie Evans of UK Column news.