“And yet instead of taking action, you are prodding around for reasons whilst rooted to the back of the class. You are completely immobile” - re number of vaccine injury reports
Isn’t this interesting, I’d found a way to speak with a SENIOR VACCINE PUSHER
Background
The further I read the MHRA’s answer to my original FOI request, the further their letter careened from the unsatifactory into the utterly absurd. I just wanted them to show me data on vaccine rollouts with usual and unusual numbers of injury reports so they could back their statement that the high numbers of Yellow Cards for the Covid-19 vaccine were or is “not unusual”. Sleeves were being rolled up by the tens of millions at this point. Despite a substantial response, they did not provide me with any of the information. In it’s place were reassurances including explanations as to why they could not provide what I asked for. Oh boy was that some read. The sheer lunacies which emerged to make the goings-on sound completely normal were like a wildebeest, untamable with boundless energy to keep bucking at any threat no matter how ridiculous the maneouvre. Highlights were these two glistening gems:
“However, the incident numbers, including fatal reports from previous vaccination campaigns, are not being used as a comparative measure for the data in the summary report.”
So they aren’t even comparing rollouts?? Or are they? Secretly? Like, what is that?
And:
“Overall, the MHRA considers multiple factors in addition to the volume of reports submitted; there is no exact threshold for the number of reports received that would change the total and nature of reports from expected to unusual.”
So they are saying that each rollout is unique, that there are just too many variables to define the categories of expected and unusual by numbers alone to then be able to use them to suspect something is wrong with the products in the first place? But it’s still okay to reassure the public with these brackets?? Isn’t that one of the most absurd and frustrating things you’ve ever heard?
I knew they tried to trick me with their response, it was shocking and disgraceful. I admit to being really saddened that this health agency looking after us wasn’t true. I wanted them to be real. I alerted various parties to their response and got my name onto a major report co-authored by Dr Tess Lawrie who pushed for my questions to be answered. I’m so greatful for that.
As far as I know their major report (which by the way was devastating) was never answered either and so I hatched my own plan. With the internal review I had available, I could convey choice comments which as a non-health professional, gave me greater leeway to do. I wanted to pull the MHRA’s pants down in front of everyone. For effectiveness, I chose major transport entities and unions as the main audience as well as some media outlets. I kept things on simmer for a while but at some point things broke loose, meaning really spicy! So keep reading until the end. Would they take it? I sent them the following:
Sent: 25 September 2021 14:54
To: Pharmacovigilanceservice <Pharmacovigilanceservice@mhra.gov.uk>
FOI 21/752 CSC 68790 COMPLAINT - URGENT HEALTH AND SAFETY
Communications Directorate,
4-T,
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
Re FOI 21/752
cc: Freight Transport Association
cc: International Transport Workers' Federation
cc: Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen
cc: British Airline Pilots Association
cc: The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers
cc: Nautilus International
cc: Unison
cc: Oxford Human Rights Hub
cc: Big Brother Watch
cc: The British Institute of Human Rights
cc: Various others
Dear MHRA
I am replying independently and in response to your answer to my own freedom of information request and the views expressed here are my own. I would like an internal review of my freedom of information request which asks for data you hold to back your statement:
"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"
I note that I am replying to your offered email address within your requested 2 month period; today being 25th September and your response date being on 27th July. Ideally I would have thanked you for your reply but I was very disappointed and quite frankly aggrieved that you had not provided the information which I asked for.
Your response was so lacking that I had to seek some help in finding a way to receive an adequate reply. Indeed, I now understand you have received a report from EbMC Squared CIC which was copied to Dr. June Raine of MHRA, Dr. Sarah Branch of MHRA, Professor Anthony Harnden of JCVI, Mrs Madeleine Wang, Ms Sara Payne and more, bearing details of your reply to my freedom of information request along with their complaint that you have not answered my question. The report can be found here: https://ebmcsquared.org/urgent-preliminary-report-of-yellow-card-data
Nothing has been forthcoming. I am therefore asking you again to reply under freedom of information laws of which any citizen would expect to receive the relevant information and in the hope that your response will be adequate.
I now understand from your reply that you are not comparing COVID-19 vaccines to previous UK vaccination campaigns, at least for the purpose of the Yellow Card Summary of Reporting but I actually asked you, the MHRA, for the data to justify your original statement in this report irrespective of which report it was being used for.
I can only conclude from your actions that you have obfuscated me which is not something I would expect from a public health agency and especially one bearing a profound responsibility at this time. My requests were clear and straightforward and based on the obvious notion which any citizen would conceive from your statement, that indeed you were or still are comparing death and injury figures from other vaccine rollouts and yet you have not provided this data.
I am now forced to find ways to justify my original request which should never happen under these circumstances and this is exactly the kind of problem of which freedom of information laws were designed to tackle but I understand that sadly, other people and entities have also encountered the same sorts of problems with you as I have.
Furthermore, not only have you not issued a retraction to your original statement "The total number and the nature of Yellow Cards reported so far is not unusual for a new vaccine" etc, to my surprise it is in fact still present in your Yellow Card Summary of Reporting which is being published week after week to members of the public and professionals alike. It has to be a grave concern that you are not being forthcoming with the data and so I'm here now writing this request which should have been completely unnecessary.
These are the following points which you've forced me to generate in attending to your obfuscation:
1) You have not stated that you, the MHRA, have not got the data I requested. Rather, you have stated that previous UK vaccine rollouts are not being used as a comparative measure for the purposes of the Yellow Card Summary of Reporting. I'm very concerned that you are tying my question directly to a specific use to avoid answering which has caused myself bewilderment into how I am supposed to obtain a straight answer from a health agency who does this.
2) A regulatory health agency such as yourselves would have a safety first imperative. With such an imperative, with other vaccine rollout death and incident figures available, a very lack of investigation would automatically present the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines as either expected or unusual through Yellow Card reporting numbers even if in a crude or rough sense, until any concerns, differences or disparities which may arise, could be resolved through investigation as to whether or not they would remain true. Therefore it is not conceivable that you wouldn't hold such information.
3) If you understand reporting figures are higher for COVID-19 vaccines, then you must know the difference between what is expected (usual) and what is unusual. A specific threshold would not be needed to differentiate between these two terms as per your implication that it would as further investigation would resolve this situation as per your safety first imperative. Therefore with your statement contained in the Yellow Card Summary of Reporting in view, I believe you have this data.
4) You would not have been able to generate the statement under my query in the Yellow Card Summary of Reporting without possessing the numbers of deaths and injuries from other vaccines, would not have failed to issue a retraction and would not have left it still in your report week after week.
I understand that the larger scale of the programme, increased public awareness, substantial efforts to engage healthcare professionals and members of the public and also a press release, are most of your reasons provided to me for a higher Yellow Card reporting number which you have admitted. These conceivably would increase the number, I agree. In regards to your advancement of these reasons as an explanation however, I have to say, I don't believe you. A rate of death reporting nearly 30 times higher per dose than for influenza vaccines and you would like a member of the public to believe these reasons accommodate this? EbMC Squared CIC found this vastly important rate yet with no figures to compare with, you won't be able to.
There is something very very wrong here. Your voice in the letter comes across as subdued in a way as to not draw too much attention. I should be hearing conviction behind what you are saying in showing confidence for your course of action but it's not there. In fact, I'm not getting any impression that you have a direction. Anyone worth their salt would have known to take a product off the market after a handful of Yellow Card death reports but you don't seem to be able to do that do you? 1645 death reports later and the best you can do is to advance hypothesis instead of taking regulatory action? That's not a possible scenario with a safety first approach. That's not a possible course of action for any public health regulator. You should know CLEARLY what's what. That is what the public expects of you. If somebody was told in the street that a product was generating death reports, the first thing they would ask is if it had been withdrawn, it's human instinct. But 1645 times over, I'm not getting any feel for yours. Who knows how many out there have really been killed? Yellow Card reports are known to provide only 10% of the true number and professional analysis already sent to you indicates that figure is still a gross understatement. Booster jabs are coming. And yet instead of taking action, you are prodding around for reasons whilst rooted to the back of the class. You are completely immobile.
I can give you a reason for you why death reports are this much higher and do you know what that is? It's because you've sat there and done nothing! You may answer that you switched to Pfizer and identified Myocarditis, Capillary Leak Syndrome, Menstrual disorders and all these other problems which these COVID-19 vaccines seem to cause but no matter how many problems you identify, those death reports just keep piling up don't they? A product cannot be rectified without the ability to act upon it and that is precisely what you are not doing. There is no way a public health agency would ever court such disrepute. It just isn't possible.
As a health agency that works for the public, there's nobody at home is there? You've got nothing behind you and it's clear that there cannot be any effective regulation. I don't believe in you. You are not a public health regulator, you are just some people operating their machinery to put on a front to the public. I can see you.
And now I've got two questions for you which you should already have answered responsibly:
"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"
1. Fitting the above statement, please provide both death and incident figures along with vaccine types and nations of the vaccine rollouts you are referring too as the basis of comparison for coronavirus vaccine Yellow Card reporting not to be unusual.
2. Please provide a list of those vaccine rollouts, including death numbers, incident numbers and nation, fitting your above statement which demonstrated unusual numbers of reporting.
You are not capable of an adequate reply of course. The Information Commissioner has already been contacted in advance and as a result of your conduct, many more contacts are continuing to be made by concerned citizens. My understanding is that you place no limit on the level of death and injury from these vaccines which you will accept. It is up to us therefore to make our own choices now.
Stephen Feldman
From:
mhracustomerservices@mhra.gov.uk
Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 10:45
Internal Review of FOI 21/752
Dear Stephen Feldman,
Thank you for your internal review request of 25 September 2021.
Having reviewed the handling of your request we acknowledge that whilst reference was made to previous UK vaccination programmes, we did not direct you to information about these. There is information available at the links below regarding Cervarix (HPV vaccine) and Swine flu vaccines, which we should have directed you to in our initial response, we apologise for not having done so.
HPV:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/852386/Cervarix__HPV__vaccine_update_on_UK_safety_in_the_first_2_years_of_the_HPV_immunisation_programme.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547307f540f0b6131200003d/con213228.pdf
Swine flu:
We do not have anything further to add to the response of 27 July, which we believe provides background to the statement and what is meant by it.
If you remain dissatisfied, you may ask the ICO to make a decision on whether or not we have interpreted the FOIA correctly in dealing with the request and subsequent internal review. The ICO’s address is:
The Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely
MHRA Customer Service Centre
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
“And what is meant by it”?? That sounds like…...an emotional reaction!
BUSTED THEM UP!!
Perhaps it didn’t matter that I didn’t get an enormous reponse at my end, the MHRA have been shown in uncertain terms that people will stand up to them and not take their shit. I also noticed this change in their report around about the same time:
“The total number and the nature of the majority of Yellow Cards received 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.”
They can’t be helped can they? If you want more absurdity, check out their original reply below. I hope you enjoyed this and I hope it inspires you to keep fighting the good fight!!
The MHRA are funded by the Big Pharma crime cartel, so getting the truth out of them will be difficult or impossible.
Ha ha they must love you Stephen! 😂Good for you 💪👏👏👏