Are our medical regulators protecting children or the government?
TCW writer Gillian Dymond is on a mission to find out what the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) are doing to investigate the enormous number of adverse reactions to the Covid vaccines that have been reported under the Yellow Card scheme (nearly a million and half to date), and what risk/benefit analysis was carried out to justify rolling out the experimental gene therapy to under-18s. You can see the first two installments in her campaign here: www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-deafening-silence-of-dame-june-raine and here: www.conservativewoman.co.uk/home-truths-about-jab-victims
Today she returns to the fray with an open letter to the head of the MHRA, Dr June Raine.
Dear Dame June,
Please find attached a copy of the reply I have received from your chief safety officer, Dr Alison Cave, in response to questions which I put to her recently. I am addressing this reply to you, since, as chief executive, you must be held ultimately responsible for MHRA decisions.
I asked Dr Cave two questions. First: ‘What are the exact procedures performed and criteria required by the MHRA to validate a serious reaction to the (Covid) injections? On what basis would you reject a claim?’
I have read Dr Cave’s response carefully, and understand that reports of adverse reactions cannot be accepted at face value; that the MHRA monitor the Yellow Card system continuously, comparing the rates of the various diseases being reported after each injection with those that were normal for the same diseases prior to the drive for mass indiscriminate medication of the public against the SARS-CoV-2 virus; and that a number of other relevant factors must be taken into account in determining whether the serious reactions being logged are a cause for concern (an attention to detail which was considered over-fastidious, you will remember, when totting up the Covid death-count). I have to say that, even allowing for these provisos, I find it surprising that the number and nature of adverse events being recorded have not triggered your alarm system or led to withdrawal of the products in question, particularly when the deaths and injuries recorded may represent only a fraction of the ill-effects actually experienced following injection: GPs, perhaps loth to see their generous vaccine bonuses turning into blood money, are only too likely to shuffle off the tedium of filling in numerous time-consuming forms, while most of their patients do not even know that the Yellow Card records exist. Are these contingencies also factored into your analysis?
Dr Cave makes it clear that the MHRA’s role is to spot trends, not to adjudicate each individual case. Nevertheless, it is your agency which continues to insist on the safety of medications which were released for ‘emergency’ use only, under the Black Triangle label: medications which have now resulted in allegations of close to one-and-a-half million injuries and over two thousand deaths in the UK alone. At the very least, one would expect you to recommend a halt to the injection programme, so that the numerous reports of blood clots, myocarditis, menstrual disorders, stillbirths and blindness, to name only some of the more frequently alleged injuries, can be thoroughly investigated, with the help of autopsies and histopathological examinations in the case of deaths. Instead you have cast the net of jeopardy wider by approving the injection into children as young as five of a substance whose short-term, let alone medium- or long-term effects are not known: cannot possibly be known, since monitoring of the wider public has been taking place for considerably less than two years.
I have nine grandchildren, all of whom have now been made candidates for experimental treatment to protect them from an illness from which they stood in negligible, if any, danger: a treatment which they do not need, but which, in the opinion of numerous experienced and reputable doctors excluded from your deliberations, may seriously compromise their future health and their ability to have children.
It seems to me that you have made a serious error of judgement. However, perhaps there are facts I am not aware of to be considered.
I therefore have a further request.
Please send me the risk/benefit analysis with which you justify roll-out of the novel injections against SARS-CoV-2 for those under eighteen years of age.
My second question to Dr Cave was: ‘Will you set up a complete, easily navigable risk/benefit analysis of the injections on your website or, if not, pass on the necessary data to others happy to provide this service?’
In reply, Dr Cave states that the MHRA is now engaged in ‘implementing new systems for provision of data across all medical products, including vaccines, enabling us to produce an improved and more suitable format for publishing data in general’. She goes on to say that ‘This will enable the COVID-19 data to be published in such a way as to minimise the risk of misuse and through providing context to the data and clear guidance around what is being presented’ (sic). I look forward to seeing this data in the near future. However, it seems, from what Dr Cave says, that the presentation may be manipulated towards a particular interpretation of the evidence. Please keep it straightforward, Dame June. I think what we need is, quite simply, the facts, as requested by Dr Tess Lawrie of the Evidence Based Medicine Consultancy in her letter to you dated 9 June 2021. Sensible people, when presented with such things as age, gender, previous state of health, time of onset of symptoms in relation to first, second, third, or (heaven help us!) fourth injection, are fully capable of drawing their own conclusions.
Dr Cave goes on to make it clear that protecting the public from the potential dangers of an inadequately tested – some would say experimental – medication is not, in this instance, the MHRA’s overriding priority. These ‘new systems’, she continues, ‘will allow us to mitigate risks we have identified such as undermining the wider Government public health campaign for widespread Covid-19 vaccination and the subsequent risk to public health and safety’. This is a triumph of circular reasoning – ie, the remit of the MHRA is to protect public health by identifying rogue medications; to do this, they must ascertain the safety of new medications ‘offered’ to the public; however, in the case of the Covid injections, it is necessary to prove them ‘safe and effective’ at all costs in order to protect public health, since this is the MHRA’s remit: in short, the MHRA’s policy, in respect of the Covid injections, is based on the a priori assumption that public health can only be maintained by an all-out campaign for mass injection of the population.
Is the assiduous promotion of government policy, even when accumulating evidence suggests that the measures being imposed are wrong-headed and destructive, more important to your agency than the health of the nation and the future of its children? Who are you there to protect? Our children? Or the government?
Once again:
Please send me the risk/benefit analysis with which you justify roll-out of the novel injections against SARS-CoV-2 for those under eighteen years of age.
I look forward to receiving it within twenty working days.
Yours sincerely, etc
(By Gillian Dymond)
www.conservativewoman.co.uk/are-our-medical-regulators-protecting-children-or-the-government/