Latest / UK Column Radio / Taking On The MHRA - HARM Enablement

Transcript

Taking On The MHRA - HARM Enablement · UK Column Radio

0:07
Hello. I'm Cheryl Granger and I am going to be discussing today the interactions
0:15
I've had with the MHRA, and I thank the UK column for allowing me
0:20
to do this presentation and I hope you find it interesting. I have met
0:26
quite a few of you before and you'll probably realize that my background is working
0:30
with Farmer and that is why I understood right from the start how illogical and
0:36
unscientific. The whole of the last four years has been. My work with
0:41
UK Column has taken me to investigate the MHRA and I want to go through
0:49
those aspects today. But I would like to say from the start the idea
0:54
of this is not to panic people. I think the strength that we have
0:59
is when we're of what is going on, so that we can see what
1:02
the problem is and hopefully then we can work out what should be done.
1:06
And the most important message is to stop any genetic therapies being used. So
1:11
first of all, I would like to talk to you about safe and effective.
1:19
Safe and effective is basically two terms that are described in the Association of
1:26
British Pharmaceutical Industries. That's a mouthful code of a practice. So this is
1:32
the code that pharma works by So in terms of safe, they define the
1:38
word safe must not be used without any qualifications, and that is a very
1:45
important aspect. Matt Honkok said, the data so far in this vaccine suggests
1:49
there will be no adverse reactions and so no liability. You can't state that
1:55
anything has no adverse reactions, So what he said was a nonsense. The
2:00
other point is that Dr Allison Cave who's the mhra's Chief Safety Officer, she
2:08
stated that patient safety is our highest priority and it gets approved after a rigorous
2:15
review of the safety, quality and effectiveness by the MHRA and the chn The
2:22
Committee on Human Medicines and the MHRA concluded that COVID nineteen vaccines were safe and
2:28
effective and the benefits outweigh any risks. And that's something that I challenged Alison
2:35
Cave on and we'll talk about that in a bit. So in terms of
2:38
effective, what does the Code of Practice state? It states that absolute risk
2:43
and relative risk refers only to the relative risk, especially with regard to risk
2:49
reduction, because it can make a medicine appear more effective than it actually is.
2:53
And we can see that from the Lancet study that was done to work
2:59
out what the mid marketing lie was in terms of the relative risk reduction that
3:04
was used by each of the manufacturers, and you can see the percentages of
3:07
effectiveness that were quoted at you. But in the Lancet study the absolute risk
3:13
was also calculated, and you can see there that the absolute risk reduction from
3:19
these jabs is so much lower and little more than one percent in some cases.
3:27
The absolute risk reduction is basically worked out from looking at the whole population.
3:36
So if you want to work out two groups, you might have a
3:39
thousand people in the vaccinated group and then a thousand people in the percibo group.
3:46
You might have one death in the vaccinated group and two deaths in the
3:51
perceibo group. You could say, and that would be the relative risk reduction
3:55
that the vaccinate vaccines are actually one hundred percent more effective than the placebo group
4:03
in terms of reducing death. But what you have to do in terms of
4:06
absolute is look at the whole group in total. So you looked at two
4:12
thousand people and you reduce the deaths by one, and that's how you get
4:15
an absolute risk reduction. Being a lot less but more realistic. I can
4:20
show you that this information has been used as the basis of the Asenica court
4:29
case that is looking at vaccine induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia. So the organization that oversees
4:39
the ABPI Code of Practice is actually a prescription medicine Code of Practice authority,
4:45
and they ruled that Astrasenica had actually breached both of these clauses that have just
4:50
gone through and the court case says the product because of that is defective when
4:57
you actually look at the Consumer Protection Act nineteen eighty seven. So we're talking
5:03
about VIITT. This was first identified back in March twenty one by Professor Scully
5:12
and she noted that she had three patients who had this most peculiar reaction.
5:16
The court case. Oh, by the way, Professor Scully had written to
5:20
notify Sir Patrick Balance and Professor Whitty as well as the MHRA about the existence
5:30
of this vaccine induced problem. So far, they list about four hundred and
5:35
forty five cases of VIITT and that has given unfortunately, up to eighty one
5:43
deaths, which means it's got a mortality rate of about twenty percent. But
5:47
the mainstream media is still saying that Astrazeneka is incredibly effective, and they go
5:55
on to save six million lives globally by this vaccine, which I disagree with.
6:00
The pm PA also ruled another breach by PHISA. PISA actually breach Clause
6:10
three point one, and that was that you're not allowed to promote a product
6:14
prior to getting its license its marketing authorization. And the result of that was
6:19
it was ruled that PHISA had breached and they face a fine of thirty four
6:25
thousand and eight hundred pound and that represents seventeen seconds of revenue to somebody that
6:32
has been making vast fortunes from the PISA vaccine. Basically, we have the
6:40
different aspects that I have been working on through the MHRA. First of all,
6:46
a freedom of information that was sent out to try and obtain the Astrozenica
6:53
data. So this was sent out and signed by twenty six members of Heart
7:00
and it looked official. It was badged by PGH law, and what we
7:06
wanted to do was get hold of the astrasenica data that they had. The
7:13
MHR ad robustly as they keep using this word robustly reviewed for license to obtain
7:19
their marketing authorization. I was encouraged because the US had managed to get hold
7:27
of the PHISA and now the moderna data and seen as astrasenica was used throughout
7:33
the world and in particular in the UK, that is something that we needed
7:40
to see. So we're talking about transparency here. Transparency must be upheld.
7:46
Despite a billion doses of astrosenica vaccines are being used in one hundred and seventy
7:51
countries. The entire purpose of the Freedom of Information Act is to show government
7:59
transparency. And I've got a quote here from John McCain who's a US politician,
8:03
and he says, excessive administrative secrecy that feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the
8:09
public's confidence in the government. So perhaps that's where the conspiracy theories that we
8:16
keep being accused of has come from. So when I received a reply from
8:22
the MHRA, of course the response was a rejection, and this is an
8:28
S fourteen Section fourteen rejection that covers vexatious behavior, so that is governing the
8:33
scope of the request. And basically we're saying that inefficiency is a reason for
8:41
the burden we believe is not valid. But they still threw this rejection at
8:46
us. They also threw in disproportionate burden, So that's the public interest does
8:54
not outweigh the resource burden. So that means your interests, the public's interest
9:00
in finding out information about a product that's been injected in millions of people,
9:07
that does not outweigh the burden that we put on the MHRA asking for that
9:11
information, which I think is unforgivable. These are excuses and this can be
9:16
challenged. So let's remind ourself of what's happened. So the government has invested
9:22
millions of our taxpayers money, it's coerced a large percentage of the population to
9:28
be injected with a liability free vaccine, and we require complete government transparency to
9:35
see this information. It's basically true that a denial would show ut a contempt
9:41
for democracy, and the data should confirm whether astrozenica vaccine is safe and effective.
9:48
If they're behind that often phrase of safe and effective, why can't we
9:52
see the information? And the public paid for these products and takes on the
9:56
balance of benefits and harms vaccination, So we have a right to transparency of
10:03
the data. And the next thing that I got involved with was asking a
10:07
live question to the MHRA board, and this happened in March twenty three.
10:16
So I asked, why has one of the most important regulatory activities. So
10:20
that's pharma covigilance, the main reason for the existence of the MHRA, especially
10:26
over a period of two years of multiple injections given to millions of people,
10:31
has there been a contailment? And these are all the ways that the MHRA
10:35
are supposed to monitor pharma covigilance, including at the bottom there the listings of
10:41
freedom of information requests. They stopped listing for quite some time. So I
10:48
asked the question and Alison Kve, the Chief Safety Officer, had got a
10:52
prepared answer, and she went on and talked about again that word robust monitoring
10:58
that they've been doing. They had sourced additional data from academia, which of
11:03
course we know is paid for. We were told that they had changed the
11:09
reporting system to a monitor. They then had moved the yellow card to as
11:16
required publishing with the interactive drug analysis profile. This was due and this was
11:28
according to the Committee on Human Medicines due to a very stable safety profile of
11:35
the vaccines. They moved away from the yellow card to this as required publishing.
11:41
Every single adverse event was investigated, we were told, and the MHRA
11:46
had paid huge attention to detail and What they always assert is the benefit risks
11:54
remain positive. You might always talk about risk benefit analysis, but here in
12:00
the MHRA, we always talk about the benefit risk ratio, although we never
12:07
find out what the benefits are. So I say that there's regulatory failure happening
12:16
on a global scale. We're actually seeing wilful blindness on causation. They don't
12:22
see links the criteria for causality can be shown. The trust of the public
12:28
needs to be maintained, is one of the main cries of the MHRA,
12:35
as if they had trust in the first place, And we basically have lack
12:39
of trust in the ability to protect the public. And there's no evidence backing
12:46
any comment that Alison Cave actually gave, so her answers were uninformed and we
12:52
believe that she's not telling the public the truth. So let me just show
12:58
what Dr Tess Laurie actually stated. And this was by June twenty twenty one,
13:03
so we've been having injections for just over six months. She analyzed the
13:11
data. She's a director of Evidence based Medicine, and she said the MHR
13:16
now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow card system to declare the COVID
13:22
nineteen vaccines unsafe for humans, and that was in June twenty one. And
13:26
you can add to that what Dr Jessica Rose, the Canadian independent analyst and
13:31
researchers said by October twenty twenty one, she's analyzed a lot of the their's
13:37
data in the States. When evidence of harm appears, we need to follow
13:43
the evidence and immediately takes steps to mitigate risks. So after I asked my
13:50
question, and after Dr Allison Cave gave me her answer, I was then
13:56
asked by the chair, Steve Lightfoot, whether I had my question answered.
14:03
And I was building up as I sat there to decide what to ask,
14:09
and my response was to ask for more information, and I asked whether they
14:13
give me more information on why we are seeing one serious adverse event for each
14:20
of four hundred and twenty six doses that are given. And this can be
14:24
shown on the table of the total number of doses, the number of deaths
14:28
and the number of serious adverse events that were getting for every four hundred and
14:35
twenty six doses. And when I was fobbed off, I got rid of.
14:39
I felt that I was dismissed and was told that it's not a meeting
14:43
to talk about specific details. When can we talk about specific details is what
14:48
I would like to have asked the chair of the board. So we've got
14:56
a look at the MHRA and how it does its data analysis. We know
15:03
from I CAN that's the Informed Consent Action Network in the state. They have
15:09
a lawyer Airon Siri who he heads a series of lawyers who constantly write freedom
15:16
of information requests. And they asked of the FDA to release the Pfiser data
15:22
which is now four hundred and fifty one thousand pages, and the MODERNA data
15:28
at a later date, which very very surprisingly is four point eight million pages.
15:35
These documents, these common technical documents, will be the same that are
15:39
given to every regulator. And these documents used to be delivered by truck to
15:46
the offices of the MHRA before we had everything digital. So here we're talking
15:52
about a unique source. It's a primary source of documents and data and these
16:00
have been analyzed and will come onto that in a little while. But let's
16:04
just think back to the MHRA and then being sent the common technical document.
16:11
So we have the three vaccines used here, Astrazenkapzer, BioNTech and Maderna.
16:19
Those are the dates when they receive the data and they completed it. So
16:25
think back to how many pages of data they were supposed to SIV through during
16:30
that time, and you can see that it took no more than three months
16:36
to review each of them, and most of this was going on at the
16:40
same time. It's very strange because trials were always done on animals first,
16:45
and then you went through phase one, two, and three, and then
16:48
you got your license, and then phase four happened when you were out in
16:52
the community, when obviously a lot more people were given the drug that was
16:56
based on passing the clinical trials. These trials were done in steps so that
17:03
you could see if there were any safety and efficacy issues, because the cost
17:08
of developing a drug is enormously high a billion pound plus, and therefore you'd
17:15
want to stop any treatment from going any further into expensive trials if it wasn't
17:21
getting anywhere. But in this case, there was no problem with actually funding
17:26
the development of these vaccines, and the Rolling Review was employed by the MHRA
17:33
so that he could get all the data as it came available and roll through
17:37
it. I'd also like to point out that at this point the MHRA had
17:45
staff working from home because we were in lockdown. In an answer to one
17:51
of my freedom of information requests, I was told that the computers keep crashing.
17:56
That's why it was difficult to actually send me the results of my freedom
18:00
of information request. And also they were about twenty percent down on staff at
18:07
this time in twenty twenty. They also had digital contractors, so staff were
18:14
coming in and were employed from outside staff that they did manage to recruit.
18:21
They tell us that many MHRA board meetings were actually very inexperienced and therefore that
18:27
takes time to get the experience to be efficient in your role. And of
18:32
course, in terms of the manufacturing units, they did virtual inspections, which
18:38
means that they were not going in and seeing how manufacturing unit was actually working
18:47
face to face. So let's see what Dame June Rain, the CEO of
18:52
the MHRA, has actually taught to us about over the time. I asked
18:59
the question, does she actually believe what she says? What she's actually telling
19:03
us? First quote, there our assessors have worked around the clock reviewing hundreds
19:08
of pages of data. Well we know there are thousands of pages of data,
19:14
and it takes a lot longer than they had allowed to get through it.
19:18
All. She also said we approved the vaccine trials within about a week,
19:22
sometimes shorter. I'd suggest that that was very difficult to do. The
19:26
MHRA got the COCHM involved with their specialist committees in order to analyze this data.
19:34
So again, how on earth did they do that within a week.
19:38
They spent long, long hours, weekends and evenings spent looking at data as
19:44
soon as it appears that's part of the rolling review, rushing through everything.
19:49
So how are they doing this when they weren't used to working from home,
19:53
when they weren't used to the computer systems that they had kept crashing. We
20:00
had very comprehensive data, and there was no doubt that the vaccine was highly
20:04
effective and the safety profile was one we could have anticipated. Could they not
20:10
have worked out the efficiency data that I showed you when I started talking about
20:18
this. Did they not have enough information to work out the relative risk ratio
20:22
and the absolute risk ratio? But right from the start they've been talking about
20:26
highly effective and the safety profile being fine. So I'd like to state that
20:33
these MHRA answers that we've been given since the start of the vaccine rollout have
20:42
not been informed. They've not been telling us the truth. They've lost the
20:48
ability to protect the public from harmful substances. Their role is pharmac vigilance.
20:53
They're supposed to protect the public from harmful substances. So I believe that the
20:59
MHRA has demonstrated duplicitous and disingenuous behavior and therefore you can conclude that it's demonstrated
21:08
Malfison's in public office and this is something that they have to be challenged on.
21:14
What we can do is we can compare the MHRA with the EMA,
21:18
so the European Medical Agency. So when we completely left exit in terms of
21:26
the EMA, we actually had separation on the first of January twenty twenty one,
21:33
so that was right at the start of the vaccine rollout. The MHRA
21:38
produced from analyzing the data, public assessment reports, which don't tend to be
21:45
very detailed. They don't contain references, and the strange thing is they don't
21:52
actually ask or challenge anything within them. The EMA they produce open assessment report
22:00
and they are more detailed, and we have seen analyzes of these, and
22:04
one of the best analysis that I've seen is by DODR Vanessa Schmidt Kruger.
22:12
She was originally on the Corona Investigtive Committee being interviewed by Dr Ryan A.
22:19
Fiulmick, And what you can see from what she's written is an analysis of
22:26
all three vaccines. And one of the first things to point out you might
22:32
have heard of process one and process too in terms of PISA, but two
22:37
processes have been used for each of the vaccines. So the process is the
22:42
manufactured product that is used in clinical trial and perhaps a different manufactured product that
22:49
is then rolled out and is the commercial product that is used by the public.
22:56
She describes Pfizer having P one P two, astra Zeneca for clinical had
23:03
P one through to P three and the commercial product was called P four.
23:07
And with Maderna they had gale a to initial B and then a final scale
23:14
B as the commercial product. All these things were different from each other,
23:18
and the EMA at least queried this and said that they needed to see equivalent
23:26
data between the two processes. Let me point out that the EMA did ask
23:33
many questions, but the end of the day they didn't actually get any answers
23:37
from what we can tell, So why do they do this? Well,
23:41
if you are then going to move from clinical trial to mass production, it
23:47
can be very expensive to produce it in the same way, so we might
23:52
want to lower cost by having a different commercial process. What we've got is
23:56
inconsistency of product in the the products that have been produced. Perhaps that's due
24:03
to the virtual inspections that have been done. We have considerable deficiencies in the
24:10
products, and we've also got contaminants that are making ineffective products, as well
24:18
as contamination with DNA, ecoli microbes and then RNA'SS which is the enzyme that
24:25
breaks down the RNA. We've also got the sterility of the product, because
24:32
obviously anything that's going to be injected into a body has to be sterile.
24:37
And of course good manufacturing practice GMP seems to have been ignored. If you
24:42
talk to Headley Reese, he will tell you that none of the rules that
24:45
are set about manufacturing have been followed over the last four years. We had
24:52
certain issues that were worrisome. So in the trials, the clinical t there
25:00
were three weeks between the doses given of the first and second vaccines. Then
25:06
when they rolled them out, it didn't seem to matter which vaccine you were
25:08
given for the first and second and the boosters. They were mixing vaccines when
25:15
we first started rolling things out, the vaccinated had to sit for fifteen minutes
25:19
to make sure there was no anaphylaxis or other side effect that presented itself very
25:25
quickly. The whole thing was supposed to be under strict temperature control. What
25:30
happened to that where were the trucks that were able to transport these vaccines at
25:36
the temperatures that they were supposed to transport them When it came to mixing,
25:41
because for example, with the fires a vaccine, it came as a powder
25:45
that was frozen in a vial, and there was no standard operating procedure to
25:51
actually mix tell you how to mix. A lot of people were looking things
25:56
up in the administration centers on Google. What happened was you had to defrost
26:03
the frozen stuff in the vial. You then had to add in the saline,
26:11
and then you were supposed to turn it ten times very slowly because it
26:15
gets affected by vibration, and of course with vibration there are problems with transportation
26:22
and perhaps squeezing things through needles. So there were lots of things that we
26:26
didn't know about before these were all rolled out, And the main concern was
26:33
that instead of being a genetic therapy intervention, these were actually called vaccines and
26:38
therefore the testing is different, and lots of things like the effects on DNA
26:47
and the genes and the infertility and pregnancy and what have you, was all
26:56
ignored. It wasn't done. So let's go back just quickly to summarize this.
27:04
We basically have the three companies that produced the vaccines, and with the
27:11
open Assessment reports, those were the number of objections and recommendations that the EMA
27:18
made and they were all due dated. So in the Open Assessment Report,
27:22
which was written in January twenty one, the EMA specified these objections and recommendations
27:32
that it wanted answers to and it was due dated July twenty twenty one,
27:36
and we don't believe that they ever came back. So they were licensed before
27:41
we got the answers to questions that were very obvious to ask. So Dr
27:47
Vanessa schmid Krueger's assessment basically was that it's criminal, it's unbelievable, and it's
27:52
gruesome that they allowed these to be licensed and used. June Rain Basically,
28:00
as stated in her presentation to the All Wales Therapeutic and Toxicology Center, that's
28:07
a bit of a mouthful. She made this presentation on the seventeenth of November
28:12
twenty twenty two and it was called making Medicines Safe, and within this she
28:18
made the classic comment of being an enabler, and she called herself instead of
28:23
a regulator, instead of a controller, watchdog, policeman, she is now
28:29
the enabler the mhr anda enable products to be released. And the quote that
28:33
I found very troubling was that she had an impulse for rushing things through.
28:40
Is a belief that we mustn't keep the patients waiting, So we got to
28:45
rush medicines to the public and look at the safety when they are in use.
28:48
That's what she was telling us. She talked about the Proportional Reporting Ratio,
28:55
which looks at way of assessing data and when Norman And looked at the
29:00
CDC information on pr R, he stated that we should halt the vaccines immediately
29:07
because of the signals that were shown. Safety Connect is looking at sixty million
29:15
registered people looking at their data. We've also got the Clinical Practice Research Data
29:21
Link, which looks at three billion consultations that have been done with in general
29:25
practice pharmacogenetics, which is looking at the changes by drugs on genes. They
29:34
talk about personal prescribing which have just been announced has being rolled out for cancer,
29:41
and basically that all depends on what people are prepared to put up with.
29:45
So are you prepared to put up with more side effects if you are
29:48
being treated for cancer? And then also genetic mapping. I found this particularly
29:56
worrying. So with the VAC induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia patients, she said at that
30:04
time they had about three hundred they were aware of. They'd started genetically assessing
30:10
them. They'd started looking into their genes to see what was wrong with them
30:15
in order to determine why they were getting a side effect. So it's not
30:21
the drug's fault, it's not the vaccine's fault. It's the patient's fault that
30:25
there's something genetically different about them. She also mentioned pax Loavid, the anti
30:32
viral treatment, and pack's Loavid. She said was is safer by means of
30:37
the MHRA anticipating results, well, I don't believe this. Six hundred and
30:44
forty three drug reactions are listed for pax loavid, and two hundred and thirty
30:48
nine of them are actually major drug interactions, which means they will cause problems
30:56
if taken at the same time. And of course the other thing is it's
30:59
a do be an anti viral. But twenty percent of patients put on paxslavid
31:04
actually get a rebound of COVID and that is one in five. That isn't
31:11
acceptable. So the MHRA are either not doing the COVID vaccine surveillance that it
31:18
promised to do, or the MHRA are doing the surveillance and it's not making
31:23
the results public available, and that is not what their remit asked them to
31:30
do. They are supposed to be transparent and let us see the data.
31:37
So part of this information that is assessing the data involve the Yellow Card vaccine
31:48
monitor, and this is something that June told us at the same meeting.
31:53
But first of all, let me just say about pregnancy, because this is
31:56
the part of the vaccine monitor that amparticular interested in. So in April twenty
32:01
twenty one, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunology, the JCVII stated that
32:10
benefits outweigh the risks in pregnancy. Yeah, benefits against risks again and advise
32:16
that pregnant women should be offered COVID nineteen vaccines and boosters, and I suggest
32:23
that that is misinformation. The NHS that was stating that the evidence shows that
32:30
most pregnant women we COVID nineteen who need hospital treatment are unvaccinated and it is
32:37
safe to have the vaccine during any stage of pregnancy. And I believe that
32:43
that is misinformation. So do mention the Yellow Card Vaccine monitor. And she
32:50
mentioned it in particular with pregnant ladies, and that is because she said that
32:57
the vaccine monitor allows to have a denominator. So the denominator means that she
33:04
said there were two thousand pregnant ladies, and we could see the information very
33:07
clearly from that. What she didn't go on to say, apart from telling
33:13
us that there was a presentation that was reported to the Pharmaceutical Expert Advisory Group
33:20
in July twenty one, that actually showed when we managed to get a copy
33:25
of the interim report, that were thirty thousand people registered in this monitor.
33:30
It's a bit like the VSAFE in the States, only they had ten million
33:34
people on that. But it was basically people were asked if they would register
33:38
and therefore be asked questions on a regular basis as to what side effects they
33:44
might have been seeing what effect the vaccine had had, so they were contacted
33:47
on a regular basis after vaccination. In fact, June was wrong. There
33:52
were thirteen hundred and sixty six maternal exposures by the thirtieth of June twenty twenty
33:59
one, and we know that five hundred and sixty five adverse reactions were seen,
34:05
but they'd only got eight live births at that point, so most people,
34:08
most women were still pregnant as of the ninth of the seventh, twenty
34:13
one. And I believe this is signals that should be flashing at everybody.
34:19
So here we have got if you look at the whole group, the thirty
34:22
thousand one or more adverse reactions were seen on average in fifty three percent of
34:30
the body of people. And if you look at the number of people who
34:34
are pregnant Astrazeneka sixty six percent got an adverse reaction, fires A thirty eight
34:40
percent and Moderna sixty one percent. And we have known this information now for
34:47
three years. Okay, we know that the fires from maderna document analysis that
34:53
I'll say a bit more in a moment, that has six reports that look
34:59
at the known effect that they knew before they licensed the product that the regulators
35:02
would have seen within the data on fertility, pregnancy, embryos, and offspring
35:08
development. So this is something that has been known and this monitor confirms that
35:15
they were seeing adverse reactions in pregnant women and they won't publish the data.
35:24
So what we have done is sent off another freedom of information to try and
35:31
get the monitor data that was rejected as a section twenty two, and that
35:38
means that it's going to be peer reviewed and then it's going to be published
35:42
in a scientific journal. And we were told that it was going to be
35:46
published late twenty three early twenty four. It hasn't been. And when we
35:52
complained and said that this was wrong, they upheld this ruling by internal reff
36:00
view, and then when we went to the ICO, the Information Commissioner's office,
36:04
they also upheld the ruling. And therefore we now have no alternative but
36:10
to go to tribunal, and so we're appealing this ruling again through the ICO
36:15
system. And these questions that have to be asked, why do they think
36:21
this is a novel technology and methodology that's safe in pregnancy. Why is a
36:28
peer review needed? You don't need to peer review real time data Why is
36:31
the MHRA not acknowledging these high levels of adverse drug reactions? Why is it
36:37
acceptable for pregnancy data not to be disclosed, And what happens if this data
36:45
never gets published? How long do we leave it before we go back and
36:47
complain again? And why is the MHRA stating the pregnant still to be vaccinated
36:53
when their monitor shows harms. This is all very troubling, and it's troubling
36:59
because the MHRA basically came out of committees that were developed on the back of
37:07
the Medicines Act nineteen sixty eight, and that came into being after the Lidamite
37:13
with two key changes with drugs intended for human use. So they stated that
37:19
they could no longer be approved. Drugs could no longer be approved purely based
37:23
on animal testing, and the drug trials for substances marketing to the pregnant women
37:30
had to be had to provide evidence that they were safe for use in pregnancy.
37:36
So we got the MHRA, which replaced the MCA and the MDA in
37:39
two thousand and three, and that was the basis that they were set up
37:44
on. So can we just look at the question that I asked to the
37:51
MHRA board, and I asked this in November twenty three, and eventually three
37:59
months later, in February twenty four, I got an answer. So anything
38:02
they don't want to ask at the board meeting gets put into a department within
38:07
the MHRA, and eventually three months later they answered it. My question was
38:14
with the CEO and CSO Chief Safety Officer like to retract the often repeated label
38:20
that they have associated with the vaccines of safe and effective, always without qualification.
38:25
So Dr Allison Cave stated, the MHRA concluded that the COVID nineteen vaccines
38:30
were safe and effective and the benefits of the vaccines outweigh the risk. I
38:35
told you i'd come back to that statement she made that I showed you at
38:38
the beginning. So doctor Cave answered me, and she said, no medicinal
38:43
product is completely risk free. And she also said the mhra's role is to
38:47
ensure vaccines meet applicable safety standards of safety, quality, and effectiveness. We've
38:54
never seen their safety standards, We've never seen the risks that they are talking
38:59
about in relation to these vaccines. Safe and effective refers to the balance of
39:06
benefits and risks remaining positive. What are those benefits. What can she list
39:10
that's a benefit of taking these vaccines? And the vaccines are the best way
39:15
to protect people from COVID nineteen, and they've saved thousands of lives. They
39:21
don't prevent or protect against the infection. They don't prevent transmission, they don't
39:30
prevent hospitalization, they don't prevent death. So how are they matching their license
39:38
which says that they protect against infection and what is the evidence they've got that
39:45
they say thousands of lives? Going back to this subject of absolute risk ratio,
39:54
so the effectiveness of the treatments that she talking about here, the senior
40:01
lecturer in evidence based practice quoted to me that the absolute risk reduction concealment is
40:08
known as outcome reporting bias and it's a misrepredentation of health information that has misled
40:15
the public about the risk benefit ratio of the COVID nineteen vaccines, and concealing
40:21
this type of information and silencing and centering of the discussion is actually illegal.
40:28
So all this is obviously very troubling. I've mentioned the Phiser and Maderna document
40:37
analysis and you can see the whole of this on the UK column Situation Room
40:44
where we have ninety eight and more summary reports that are linked to the full
40:49
reports. So this was basically carried out by the daily clout and three two
40:58
hundred and fifty research and two hundred and fifty lawyers who forensically studied all those
41:05
pages of information that I can manage to get hold of some months ago.
41:10
And we know from this about what PISA knew because the first lot of information
41:16
looked at was PISER. There's been a couple of reports Amaderna, but more
41:20
to come. Obviously, this sifting through millions of documents at the moment.
41:24
So what PISER knew. They knew that the mRNA did not work. They
41:29
knew that the efficiency claims were based on one hundred and seventy out of forty
41:35
thousand participants in the trials. We knew that the actual efficiency was much less
41:42
than fifty percent. We knew that clinical trial data basically had strong conflicts with
41:49
the real data that we were seeing once it was used. In those first
41:52
three months of rollout, there were thirty two, seven hundred and sixty injuries
41:58
in six months and twenty percent of the reports before developing COVID itself. Fifteen
42:06
percent of those COVID cases were severe and it actually COVID infection was third on
42:10
the list of adverse reactions from taking the vaccine. And we know that two
42:15
hundred died from COVID in the post marketing study, which is that first ninety
42:19
days after rollout. So that was a summary of some of the efficacy and
42:23
all these things. You can look up on the situation room and if you
42:28
want more detail, once you've clicked on the right subject to see the condensed
42:31
report, you can then link into the full report. And then with safety,
42:37
we knew it traveled in blood across the blood brain barrier, and we
42:43
knew it produced spike over an undeterminate amount of time in men. In the
42:49
clinical trials, the criteria was abstinence from intercourse or using two forms of contraception.
42:54
Why did they say that In the three months of the study, we
43:00
had two hundred and seventy pregnancies, So despite saying do not get pregnant,
43:06
there were pregnancies, two hundred and seventy pregnancies, but they only followed up
43:10
thirty two of these and twenty eight babies of those, thirty two actually died.
43:16
They also mentioned shedding, so this will be skin to skin inhalation and
43:21
through bodily fluids and intercourse. By early twenty one we knew that the myopericarditis
43:30
existed, and that was before the EUA, the Emergency Use authorization was used
43:38
or allowed in teenage children. They eliminated the control group, the CEBO group
43:45
after four months and out of the vaccination. There were manufacturing concerns within the
43:52
data, and they talked about process one or two. There were missing patients
43:58
that were discussed within the data. There were processes that were missing, They
44:05
concealed, manipulated and delayed death data. And again you can look this up.
44:10
They had effects of the pseudo uridine, which was the replacement in terms
44:16
of the modified RNA. So the modified mr and A replace urcil with pseudo
44:25
uridine and that has effects in its own right because the body doesn't recognize it.
44:30
There were lots of assumptions, there were misinformation, there were protocol violations,
44:35
there were vax failures that were analyzed, and then there were substitution in
44:40
MODERNA trials. In one of the reports done, MODERNA, because it didn't
44:45
have this vaccine, actually assessed actually used another mRNA product to actually prove a
44:55
point and that was accepted when that mRNA content was more than in the Maderna
45:04
vaccine, and it also meant that it had more lipid nanoparticle wrapped around it.
45:08
So it's very strange how they ran their clinical trials and don't forget this
45:17
information, which is prime data. It was asked by the FDA to bury
45:25
it first of all for fifty five years, and then they upped it to
45:29
seventy five years, which is why they went to court and with court ordered
45:31
to release it. And when you come to the later reports, so report
45:38
ninety five, ninety six, and ninety eight actually discusses the fact that it's
45:43
a gene therapy and not a vaccine and therefore should have been put to the
45:47
right committees to actually analyze this data, not the vaccine safety committees, but
45:53
the genetic product safety committees. Moving on to the situation appraisal, the lessons
46:05
that we've learned is an article that is written by Stephanie Senna Fan others,
46:10
and it basically says that this is a gene therapy but it hasn't been tested
46:15
as such, which we've just been saying and can be shown from the document
46:20
analysis. It talks about side effects that are seen in the cardiovascular system,
46:24
the neurological system, the reproductive system, and the hematological systems in particular.
46:31
It talks about malignancies and autoimmunity problems. It talks about the effect of multiple
46:37
boosters which have been rolled out over the last three years as leading to immune
46:44
dysfunction, and it talks about the benefit risks, so the perceived benefits outweighed
46:50
by disabling life threatening harms not very good. And it also talks about safety
46:58
and quality control. So the process too, as we've mentioned, was not
47:02
child it was just rolled out for commercial use. And then we've got contamination
47:07
with the DNA and the SV forty, which is a cancer precursing gene.
47:14
The risk benefit that we talk about is the contraindications from further injections and the
47:22
result of unacceptable harm to reward. Means that all this totted up together in
47:29
terms of the lessons learned by this great body of scientists shays that we should
47:34
endorse and enforce a global moratorium. And in terms of the action of lipid
47:42
nanoparticles, there's a whole list of descriptions that come out of the studies that
47:47
are done on lipid NANA particles, And I asked you this question. If
47:52
you saw this list describing the product that was just about to be injected into
47:55
you, would you take it? Potential harmful, the damage to DNA,
48:01
increased cancer risk, systemic toxicity, immune activation, safety in toxic concerns,
48:07
highly inflammatory lung injuice clotting, unacceptable toxic risks. And they're all taken those
48:15
statements from the studies that have been done on lipid nanoparticles. So prior to
48:24
twenty twenty, Bioenttech had focused on mRNA cancer treatments and all its trials failed,
48:35
but the results are actually a secret. So how did they believe that
48:40
this was not going to be a problem when they actually injected it to so
48:46
many people, not just cancer patients. Peter McCullough Dot Peter McCullough states that
48:52
this is a code for potentially lethal spike. There's no control over the quality
48:58
and duration that that manufacturing persistsful, and there's no means of getting rid of
49:04
the pseudo uridine that we mentioned, So you get an uncontrollable amount of spike
49:08
for an uncontrolled time, and it's complicated by many shots. You get a
49:14
cumulative effect and DoD jj Cooey makes you think he's actually said implying that the
49:22
irreducibility complex immune system is insufficiently understood. That they can augment this system by
49:30
injecting a genetic signal in a toxic envelope is audacious, crazy and extraordinary.
49:37
And the result of all this is the biology behaves differently in the body and
49:42
the immune system is very confused, and it's a very worrying aspect that we
49:51
don't know the future with any of these, but we need to start working
49:57
on ways of getting rid of the the toxicity that's been put into our body.
50:07
And just to finish off, just to remind you of the mortality rate
50:10
in twenty twenty, we actually had the twelfth best year in our history,
50:17
and we basically can show that the mortality rate in twenty twenty wasn't much of
50:24
a problem compared with what happened over time. And we know from what Dowd
50:31
discussed with us in his Finance Technology data that actually tables from life insurance companies
50:39
have shown that particular cohorts of people working, people under the age of fifty
50:50
have been greatly affected by these vaccines. And this actually is so bad that
50:57
it goes to a black Swan event, which is a very unlikely event happening
51:02
naturally. We've also got other things that we can look at, and he's
51:07
looked at it, an American telling us about our own data. So the
51:13
NHS sickness absence, right, So these are the people who work in the
51:16
NHS, which employs about one point eight million people, what their sickness rates
51:22
are, and that has gone through the roof, which means that again we've
51:27
got since twenty twenty one a black Swan signal coming through, and therefore the
51:32
quality of healthcare is going to be affected because people be working while they're disabled
51:38
or sick at probably fifty to seventy five percent capacity. So that's having an
51:44
effect on the NHS itself. And then the PIT data, which is our
51:47
disability data, something that Debbie knows a lot about, that again has gone
51:54
through major increases, especially in certain classic of organs. So for example,
52:01
hematological there's been a five hundred percent increase and that's twenty five standard deviations if
52:08
anybody knows anything about statistics. And then finally we've got the UK excess death
52:15
rates, which the Ons have tried to fiddle about with new formulas to try
52:19
and change, but the rise, especially in younger people, is a very
52:24
worrisome thing. And that is really my summary about what is happening and what
52:30
is happening with the MHRA and what we need to be aware of. And
52:37
we hope over the next few months to start talking more about the things that
52:42
people can do if they have taken the vaccines to help to do a detox
52:49
and that is something that hopefully will bring to you as soon as we possibly
52:53
can. Thank you very much for listening.