Has The UK MHRA Been Hiding Evidence Of ‘Vaccine’ Harm?
Way back in 2022, Dame June Raine the now retired CEO of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), did a presentation in Wales covering the four “pillars” of their safety monitoring
She mentioned that in the Yellow Card Vaccine Monitor (YCVM), there were over 2,000 pregnant women and she was excited as this real-time data gave them a denominator, making the information more valuable.
….and then we heard nothing.
There is a special case for drug use in Pregnancy. Pregnancy should be significant to the MHRA. Thalidomide and the teratogenicity caused, forced governments and medical authorities to review their pharmaceutical licensing policies.
The resulting 1968 Medicines Act, eventually lead to the formation of the MHRA in 2003. An important change was that drug trials for substances marketed to pregnant women, had to provide evidence that they were safe for use in pregnancy.
There was no safety data on the Covid-19 “vaccines” in pregnancy.
It was unprecedented that in 2021 a novel treatment (Covid-19 “vaccines”) had been rolled out to the pregnant, at the same time as those who were not pregnant.
MHRA describes the Monitor as:
- Real-time, targeted active monitoring of vaccinees.
- Enrolment prior to vaccination, recording of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) at set intervals.
- Helping to estimate the frequency and long-term outcomes of side effects.
- A novel technology and methodology
MHRA states, “The YCVM has played a role in our strategy to rapidly detect, confirm, characterise and quantify new risks, communicating on these as necessary.” And yet on Page 2 of the report it says, “The primary purpose of the YCVM was not to detect safety signals or identify rare risks.”
The Monitor data should be more accurate than information randomly received via Yellow Card Reports.
- Yellow card data was produced every 2-weeks on the MHRA website – so why weren’t the more accurate Monitor results reported?
- How can it be right to take 4 years to publish the Monitor data, by its very nature more accurate than Yellow Card data, when it is showing very strong patterns of ADRs in high percentages of patients?
The method used was biased. Participants self-selected both as to whether they would get vaccinated AND whether they would volunteer for the survey. There is a lot in the research literature showing that these two things can individually and together bias a study and further biased by prioritising people of particular regions or ethnicities.
This self-selection bias is “hidden” behind an untrue “we randomly selected them” claim.
They selected women of breeding age – so they were initially selected based on an immutable characteristic – and invited them via letter. Almost all the people, of which more than half are women, were registered and responding BEFORE the vaccine was available to pregnant women and two-thirds before it was generally available.
Either the numbers tabulated are bad, or they are all healthcare workers who in this case come with an innate bias in favour of health treatment (vaccination).
The Monitor had run for two years till December 2022, and 36,604 participants had agreed to take part. Curious to know what the pregnancy data showed, I filed an FOI (23-280)in April 2023, asking the MHRA for the Monitor’s pregnancy data via a series of questions.
The MHRA refused on the grounds of s22 which was their intension to peer review and publish (with no date given). This led me through the full FOI process ~ a laborious, inefficient system – that took two years.
Along with my refused FOI Request I was sent an Interim Report (July 2021). This was a presentation by MHRA, concerned with drug safety to PEAG (Pharmacovigilance Expert Advisory Group), a sub-group of the CHM, concerned with risk assessment of medicines.
SAFE & EFFECTIVE
The MHRA continues using the word “safe”. Dr Alison Cave, Chief Safety Officer MHRA, an author of the Monitor stated: “Patient safety is our highest priority. The Covid-19 vaccines were approved after a rigorous review of the safety, quality, and effectiveness of the vaccines by the MHRA and the CHM. The MHRA concluded that the Covid 19 vaccines were safe and effective, and the benefits of the vaccines outweigh any risks.”
And this mantra has continued into its 5th year even though they have YCVM evidence of harm.
CONCLUSION
Given the well documented SAEs and unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio, governments should be urged to endorse and enforce a global moratorium on these modified mRNA products.
We should take great interest in the MHRA, who are responsible for the pharmacovigilance of the Covid–19 “vaccines”, a brand-new experimental technology. We should be particularly interested in the recording of information surrounding these liability-free vaccines.
As members of the public, we should have substantial interest in reviewing the monitoring of these vaccines by the MHRA, introduced via an untested, accelerated review process.
I believe there is a very strong need for the public to be made aware of this available data and it should be used to update the advice given especially to those who are pregnant.
The MHRA are not telling the public the truth. I stepped forward to ask the MHRA important and intelligent questions. I believe that their answers are uninformed, and therefore, that they are not telling the public the truth.
This occasions a lack of trust in their ability to protect the public from harmful substances. Lack of trust of the MHRA develops because of its duplicitous and disingenuous behaviour, demonstrated at its board meetings and appearances on other platforms. The MHRA has stated in board meetings that it believes it has the public’s trust.
Only through full and transparent disclosure of the complete data set can meaningful independent assessment take place. Without such disclosure, there remains a significant risk that the data could be biased, incomplete, or otherwise misinterpreted, potentially undermining public trust in the MHRA and its conclusions.
Do you believe the MHRA has demonstrated malfeasance in public office?
I conclude with a quote from the British Medical Journal, editorialised in January 2022:
“Pharmaceutical companies are reaping vast profits without adequate independent scrutiny of their scientific claims. The purpose of regulators is not to dance to the tune of rich global corporations and enrich them further; it is to protect the health of their populations. We need complete data transparency for all studies, we need it in the public interest, and we need it now”.
See more here substack.com