Archives

February 2023
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728  

Why does our MHRA love mRNA so much?

Thursday/Friday blog

This week the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) authorised the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA Covid-19 vaccine for use in babies and infants aged six months to four years.

This was in spite of receiving the letter below (in blue text) a couple of days earlier.

I’ll leave you to have a look at the letter sent to the head honcho at the MHRA and the letter’s long list of signatories and then decide whether you believe the MHRA decision was the right one.

Personally I’m feeling more than a little queasy about how mRNA vaccines are being pushed at us. I’ll just highlight two concerns:

Concern 1 – Profits before people: When the two main types of Chinese lab-leaked plague vaccines were launched, the traditional technology AstraZeneca (AZ) one was sold at cost (about £3 per dose) whereas the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines were supplied at about £16 ($19.50) per dose giving these companies a healthy profit. Almost immediately there was a massive campaign launched to discredit the cheap non-profit AZ vaccine using claims that it caused life-threatening blood clots. This was promoted both by mainstream media reports and by politicians like Macron and EU head honcho Ursula Fond of Lying.

Here’s Ursula with her big chum Alex Bourla the well-paid boss of Pfizer:

Since then, the AZ vaccine has been banned in at least 5 countries and its use reduced in many others. Following the virtual elimination of AZ as competition in many of its markets, Pfizer is reported to be considering charging between $110 and $130 per dose for its COVID vaccine Comirnaty when the U.S. transitions to a commercial model in 2023. If Pfizer was already making a comfortable profit at around $19.50 per dose, whacking the price up to $110-$130 is going to be eyewateringly lucrative.

Is mRNA the future? For more than two years, the mainstream media has been gushing over the wonderful scientific breakthrough represented by mRNA vaccine technology. Remember all the over-effusive articles about the ‘selfless’, reportedly billionaire couple credited with the mRNA vaccines?

Inside the hunt for a Covid-19 vaccine: how BioNTech made the breakthrough | Financial Times

And now we’re being told that mRNA vaccine technology is “the dawn of a new era” in treating cancer:

https://www.f’forontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2022.887125/full#:~:text=mRNA%20vaccines%20represent%20an%20important,to%20different%20diseases%20and%20patients.

So it would be utterly disastrous for Big Pharma if it was discovered that mRNA vaccines not only don’t do what is advertised but can even be more harmful than the diseases against which they are supposed to provide protection. A cynic might get the impression that our MHRA bosses (enthusiastically encouraged by the pharma industry which mostly funds the MHRA) are determined to force mRNA technology vaccines on us in spite a large numbers of practicing medics warning this may not be such a great idea.

Disastrous lockdowns, dodgy supposed vaccines, censorship of ‘harmful’ views that might offend someone, ludicrously economy- and freedom-destroying net zero – none of which we voted for, but all imposed on us supposedly for our own good. Am I the only person detecting a pattern here? Here’s a hint – the word begins with ‘total’ and ends with ‘itarianism’. One dictionary defines totalitarianism as “a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state”.

Anyway, here’s the letter to the MHRA supremo Dame June Raine:

Dame June Raine, CEO, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority

Cc:    Professor Lim Wei Shen, Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation; Professor Sir Munir Pirmohamed, Chair, Commission on Human Medicines; Rt Hon Stephen Barclay, Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care

4th December 2022

Dear Dame June,

Re: Conditional Marketing Authorisation for Covid-19 vaccines for 6 months-5 years

We understand that Moderna has applied for an extension of its CMA down to infancy, following agreement by the European Medicines Agency.

We are writing to strongly recommend against such an action and also against the possibility of introducing Covid-19 vaccines into the routine children’s immunisation programme, for the following reasons, many of which have already been shared with the FDA:

Firstly, as for other paediatric age-groups, the risks from SARS-CoV-2 infection is extremely low, with only 6 deaths in England in the 1-4s age group from Covid-19 in the whole of 2020 and 2021. Most infected toddlers remained asymptomatic or with trivial upper respiratory symptoms, even prior to the arrival of the much milder omicron variants. This alone makes it incomprehensible as to why any medical body would decide that a vaccine would be indicated.   

Secondly, it is clear that the currently available vaccines have a very poor efficacy over time. For adults, this lack of durable efficacy has resulted in the need to recommend ongoing boosters, given every few months, with efficacy apparently reducing further for each new variant. This was largely predictable, since these are not sterilising vaccines, and provide no upper airway immunity, necessary to provide effective immunity against respiratory viruses. Vaccine efficacy also wanes more quickly after the paediatric dose (which is lower than the adult dose), with negative efficacy in 5-11s within only 6 weeks of the second dose of Pfizer. This weakness and brevity of protection negates any notion that adults will be protected by the vaccination of children. Adults will be better protected if children have natural infection, thereby deriving longer-lasting and broader immunity.

Thirdly, it is well established that young children have a much more effective innate immune system than adults and at this point the vast majority of under 5-year-olds have already been immunologically exposed to SARS-CoV-2 repeatedly, whether or not actively infected. Meeting these viruses early in life will allow protective immunity to develop for the decades ahead. A degree of immune imprinting has been recognised with the adult vaccines, rendering vaccine escape inevitable. Observed alterations in IgG responses with repeated doses have unknown implications for the developing immune system. Due to the lack of long-term data, concerns about antibody dependant enhancement (ADE) remain unanswered, making this an unacceptable future risk for children. 

Fourthly, the safety profile of the novel, gene-based mRNA vaccines is very far from perfect. The balance of benefit and risk, used to support the rollout of mRNA vaccines to the elderly and vulnerable in 2021, is inappropriate and inapplicable for healthy children in 2022, especially given the negligible hazard that the virus poses to them. In adults, adverse event reports in all official safety surveillance systems, eg VAERS, Yellow Card and EudraVigilance, have reached unprecedented levels, with the VAERS reporting systems showing reported fatalities after Covid-19 vaccines several-fold higher than any previous vaccine. Reports of myocarditis in adolescents have been shrugged off as ‘mild and settle quickly’, despite reports to the contrary. No evidence is available to support the confident assertion that the inevitable heart tissue scarring resulting from myocarditis will not lead to serious heart problems and dysfunction 5-10 years down the line. Indeed, Pfizer and Moderna are only now embarking on 5-year follow-up studies which should have been required from the outset. Adverse event reports in the US, where vaccination has already begun in the pre-school age-group, have tragically included 11 deaths in this cohort to date, likely to be an underestimate. There is evidence of a complex functional reprogramming of the innate immune response. Most concerning for a children’s vaccine is the total lack of any long-term safety data to rule out any unexpected negative impact on long-term health or fertility, which should make it unethical to even consider administration to healthy children.

Fifthly, these novel-technology gene products were given an exemption from standard reproductive toxicity, genotoxicity and carcinogenicity animal studies before being rolled out to humans, and indeed have not even had published biodistribution and pharmacokinetic studies. The manufacturers have provided no data on how much spike protein is produced by different people and for how long – this is of great concern as the dose of and duration of exposure to the spike protein may differ by orders of magnitude between individuals, resulting in huge variance in individual susceptibility to adverse events and harm. The initial claim that the vaccine would remain at the injection site is also, clearly, totally without foundation, which raises the concern that the mRNA lipid nanoparticles or the subsequently produced spike protein may cross the blood-brain barrier or placenta, resulting in inflammation and cell destruction in the brain or fetus by the host immune system. Also of concern, published studies have clearly shown that these products negatively affect T-cell function, and hence the ability of the body to fight not only infections but also to clear cancerous cells. At this point, there is far too much evidence of harm to multiple systems and organs to ignore, and we have an ethical duty of care to protect our healthy children from iatrogenic harm.

Finally, the research basis for the toddler vaccines was woefully inadequate. Follow-up was for a median of 70 days after the second dose; this is contrary to international guidelines which recommend at least one year follow-up. Efficacy was estimated at only 37% for 2-4-year-olds, bringing it far below what is usually considered an acceptable efficacy to justify use of a vaccine, and in the younger group prevention of asymptomatic infection at a mere 3.8% with confidence intervals from -111 to +53% should have made this vaccine a complete non-starter for this cohort.  The use of ‘immuno-bridging’ (presence of an antibody response) was relied upon as a proxy for preventing symptomatic disease and gives no real-world data to ascertain true effectiveness. Local and systemic side effects were common, especially after the second dose, with post-vaccine fever more common in those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Shockingly, several severe adverse events including a case of Type 1 diabetes, a lifelong, life-limiting disease, were hidden in the supplementary appendix, which brings into question the transparency of the data. 

There has been a stated concern from public health bodies about an increase in vaccine hesitancy. Rolling out a rushed pharmaceutical product with known short-term risks and unknown long-term risks to an age group that cannot benefit in any meaningful way can only fuel public doubt in the scientific rigour of the authorisation process. This could undermine the entire childhood immunisation programme and lead to further vaccine hesitancy. It can already be seen in the US that uptake for this young age is extremely low – parents are voting with their feet.

Until all these short- and long-term safety concerns have been rigorously investigated and ruled out, and a significant need and benefit for the vaccine in this cohort has been demonstrated, the precautionary principle and fundamental ethical principles of science and medicine must preclude any further authorisations.

Dr Rosamond Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant paediatrician, on behalf of members of CCVAC (Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council) and many others, including:

Professor Anthony J Brookes, Professor of Genomics & Health Data Science, University of Leicester

Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMedSci, Professor of Oncology, St George’s Hospital, London

Professor Richard Ennos, MA, PhD. Honorary Professorial Fellow, University of Edinburgh

Professor John A Fairclough, BM BS, BMed Sci, FRCS, FFSEM(UK), Professor Emeritus, Honorary Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

Professor Norman Fenton, CEng, CMath, PhD, FBCS, MIET, Professor of Risk Information Management, Queen Mary University of London

Professor David Livermore, BSc, PhD, retired Professor of Medical Microbiology

Professor Dennis McGonagle, PhD, FRCPI, Consultant Rheumatologist, University of Leeds

Professor Roger Watson, FRCP Edin, FRCN, FAAN, Professor of Nursing 

Professor Keith Willison, PhD, Professor of Chemical Biology, Imperial, London

Lord Moonie, MBChB, MRCPsych, MFCM, MSc, House of Lords, former parliamentary under-secretary of state 2001-2003, former consultant in Public Health Medicine

Dr Najmiah K Ahmad, BM MRCA FCARCSI, Consultant Anaesthetist

Dr Shiraz Akram, BDS, Dental surgeon

Dr Victoria Anderson, MBChB, MRCGP, MRCPCH, DRCOG, General Practitioner 

Julie Annakin, RN, Immunisation Specialist Nurse

Helen Auburn, Dip ION MBANT NTCC CNHC RNT, registered Nutritional Therapist

Dr Ian Barros D’Sa, BM, MRCS, FRCR, PGCMEd, Consultant Radiologist

Dr David Bell, MBBS, PhD, FRCP(UK)

Dr Michael D Bell, MBChB, MRCGP, retired General Practitioner

Dr Mark A Bell, MBChB, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, Consultant in Emergency Medicine, UK

Dr Alan Black, MBBS, MSc, DipPharmMed, Retired Pharmaceutical Physician

Dr Gillian Breese, BSc, MB ChB, DFFP, DTM&H, General Practitioner

Dr Emma Brierly, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Mr John Bunni, MBChB (Hons), DipLapSurg, FRCS, Consultant Colorectal and General Surgeon

Dr Elizabeth Burton, MB ChB, Retired General Practitioner

Dr David Cartland, MBChB, BMedSci, General practitioner

Dr Peter Chan, BM, MRCS, MRCGP, NLP, General Practitioner, Functional Medicine Practitioner 

Dr Marco Chiesa, MD, FRCPsych, Consultant Psychiatrist, Visiting Professor

Michael Cockayne MSc, PG Dip, SCPHNOH, BA, RN Occupational Health Practitioner

Mr Ian F Comaish, MA, BM BCh, FRCOphth, FRANZCO, Consultant ophthalmologist

James Cook, NHS Registered Nurse, Bachelor of Nursing (Hons), Master of Public Health (MPH)

Dr Clare Craig, BM BCh FRCPath 

Dr David Critchley, BSc, PhD, 32 years in pharmaceutical R&D as a clinical research scientist

Dr Jayne LM Donegan, MBBS, DRCOG, DCH, DFFP, MRCGP, Homeopathic Practitioner

 Dr Jonathan Eastwood, BSc, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Jonathan Engler, MBChB, LlB (hons), DipPharmMed

Dr Elizabeth Evans, MA(Cantab), MBBS, DRCOG, Retired Doctor, Director UKMFA

Dr Chris Exley, PhD FRSB, retired professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry

Dr John Flack, BPharm, PhD. Retired Director of Safety Evaluation at Beecham Pharmaceuticals

 1980-1989 and Senior Vice-president for Drug Discovery 1990-92 SmithKline Beecham 

Sophie Gidet, RM, Midwife

Dr Ali Haggett, Mental health community work, 3rd sector, former lecturer in the history of medicine 

Mr David Halpin, MBBS, FRCS, Orthopaedic and trauma surgeon, retired

Mr Anthony Hinton, MBChB, FRCS, Consultant ENT surgeon, London

Dr Renee Hoenderkamp, General Practitioner

Dr Andrew Isaac, MB BCh, Physician, retired

Dr Keith Johnson, BA, D.Phil (Oxon), IP Consultant for Diagnostic Testing

Dr Pauline Jones MB BS retired general practitioner 

Ancha Bala Joof, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Timothy Kelly, MB BCh BSc, NHS doctor

Dr Gemma Kemp, MBBS FRCPath, Consultant Forensic Pathologist

Dr Tanya Klymenko, PhD, FHEA, FIBMS, Senior Lecturer in Biomedical Sciences

Dr Sheena Fraser, MBChB, MRCGP (2003), Dip BSLM, General Practitioner

Dr Caroline Lapworth, MB ChB, General Practitioner

Dr Branko Latinkic, BSc, PhD, Molecular Biologist

Dr Theresa Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD, Director, Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, Bath

Dr Felicity Lillingstone, IMD DHS PhD ANP, Doctor, Urgent Care, Research Fellow 

Katherine MacGilchrist, BSc (Hons) Pharmacology, MSc Epidemiology, CEO, Systematic Review

 Director, Epidemica Ltd

Dr C Geoffrey Maidment, MD, FRCP, retired consultant physician

Mr Ahmad K Malik, FRCS (Tr & Orth), Dip Med Sport, Consultant Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgeon

Dr Ayiesha Malik, MBChB, General Practitioner

Dr Imran Malik, MBBS, MRCP, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Kulvinder S. Manik MBChB, MRCGP, MA(Cantab), LLM, Gray’s Inn

Dr Fiona Martindale, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Mr Ian McDermott, MBBS, MS, FRCS(Tr&Orth), FFSEM(UK), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

Dr Graham Milne, MBChB, MRCGP, DRCOG, General Practitioner

Dr Scott Mitchell, MBChB, MRCS, Associate Specialist, Emergency Medicine

Dr Alan Mordue, MBChB, FFPH (ret). Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Epidemiology 

Margaret Moss, MA(Cantab), CBiol, MRSB, Director, The Nutrition and Allergy Clinic, Cheshire 

Dr Claire Mottram, BSc Hons, MBChB, Doctor in General Practice

Dr Greta Mushet, retired Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy. MBChB, MRCPsych

Dr Angela Musso, MD, MRCGP, DRCOG, FRACGP, MFPC, General Practitioner  

Dr Sarah Myhill, MBBS, Dip NM, Retired GP, Independent Naturopathic Physician

Dr Rachel Nicholl, PhD, Medical researcher

Dr Christina Peers, MBBS, DRCOG, DFSRH, FFSRH, Menopause Specialist

Rev Dr William J U Philip MB ChB, MRCP, BD, Senior Minister The Tron Church, Glasgow, formerly physician specialising in cardiology 

Anna Phillips, RSCN, BSc Hons, Clinical Lead Trainer Clinical Systems (Paediatric Intensive Care)

Dr Angharad Powell, MBChB, BSc (hons), DFRSH, DCP (Ireland), DRCOG, DipOccMed, MRCGP, General Practitioner 

Dr Gerry Quinn, PhD, Microbiologist 

Jessica Righart, MSc, MIBMS, Senior Biomedical Scientist

Mr Angus Robertson, BSc, MBChB, FRCSEd (Tr & Orth), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

Dr Susannah Robinson, MBBS, BSc, MRCP, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Jon Rogers, MB ChB (Bristol), Retired General Practitioner

Mr James Royle, MBChB, FRCS, MMedEd, Colorectal Surgeon 

Dr Salmaan Saleem, MBBS, BMedSci, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Alia Sarwar, MBChB, General Practitioner

Sorrel Scott, Grad Dip Phys, Specialist Physiotherapist in Neurology, 30 years in NHS

Dr Rohaan Seth, Bsc (Hons), MBChB (Hons), MRCGP, Retired General Practitioner

Dr Haleema Sheikh, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Magdalena Stasiak-Horkan MBBS, MRCGP (2017), DCH, General Practitioner

Natalie Stephenson, BSc (Hons) Paediatric Audiologist

Marco Tullio Suadoni, RN, BSc (Hons) Adult Nursing, MSc, Specialist Palliative Care Lead

Dr Mashhood Syed, MBChB, DRCOG, MRCGP(2018), LFHom(Med)

Dr Noel Thomas, MA, MBChB, DObsRCOG, DTM&H, MFHom, Retired Doctor

Dr Stephen Ting, MBChB, MRCP, PhD, Consultant Physician

Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt, PhD, NHS Clinical Scientist

Dr Fodhla Treacy, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner 

Dr Helen Westwood, MBChB (Hons), MRCGP, DCH, DRCOG, General Practitioner

Dr Carmen Wheatley, DPhil, Orthomolecular Oncology

Mr Lasantha Wijesinghe, FRCS, Consultant vascular surgeon

Dr Ruth Wilde, MBBCh, MRCEM, AFMCP, Integrative & Functional Medicine Doctor

Dr Lucie Wilk, MD, MRCP, Rheumatologist

Dr Julia Wilkens, FRCOG, MD, Consultant in Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Dr Ruqia Zafar, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner 

6 comments to Why does our MHRA love mRNA so much?

  • Carolyn Hill

    Frankly I find the whole business deeply sinister. Given the recent stream of articles against the vaccine I couldn’t believe my ears when they told me on the radio this morning that they’d given the go-ahead for 6 month to 4 year olds. WHY?!!

    Perhaps they’ve had such a low take up of the latest booster they’re looking to get rid of the millions of unused vials by pushing them into pre-school children? From what I’ve been reading the mRNA is next to useless in tackling covid and is actually harmful in other respects. As you say what the hell are the MRNA thinking? Can they think?

    Just another example of the morons in charge in this country. I’m heartily sick of the lot of them. Take Ed Milliband tonight on the tv nearly in tears because they’ve given the go ahead for a new coal mine. He hasn’t got the brains of a rocking horse!

  • Stillreading

    I too find the whole business sinister. I remarked in a response here many months ago that the lockdown and associated “covid” restrictions and requirements affecting everything we did, everywhere we went, everyone we met for more than two years, provided the Government with an immediate answer to any doubts they may have harboured as to the ease with which an entire population of around 65,000,000 could be corralled by fear into compliance with any dictats emerging from on high, right down to letting our beloved parents and even our own CHILDREN, die alone, in the hands of strangers, thinking they had been abandoned. We are already witnessing the next step in population control. Oxford Council is about to implement limitations throughout the city on how many times per year residents of any specific arbitrarily designated zone may leave that zone by car in order to enter another zone. This despite said residents having purchased Road Fund licences for their vehicles which, as far as I am aware, permit a vehicle free access to the road system of the UK, essential road and service works, one-way streets, tolls, pedestrianised areas, the deplorable about-to-be-extended ULEZ and the wretched bus lanes excepted. (Actually, looking at that lot, we’re fairly restricted already aren’t we?) If Oxford residents do not rebel loud and long against this, it will spread faster than the covid plague to other areas. Then when they’ve got us accustomed to that, there will be local lockdowns when the “climate catastrophe” zealots determine there to be “too many local emissions”. It’ll be never ending. We are slowly, relentlessly, being robbed of more and more of our freedoms. We are the frog being so slowly boiled to death that it doesn’t perceive its fate until it’s too late. Had we known what was coming, we’d have leapt out of the pot the instant we felt the first touch of the boiling water. As it is, the temperature is being increased to lethal level, degree by degree, in the hope that we shan’t notice. As for jabbing BABIES with the mRNA concoction, the long-term effects of which cannot yet be known and which possibly just could adversely affect the health of the individual for the remainder of that individual’s life, it is nothing short of evil in my view. Finally, though, more and more researchers and practising doctors are emerging from the protective burrows to which, deplorably, the condemnation of their own professional governing bodies as well as “social media” consigned those who dares to raise voices in protest. I remain optimistic that given time a few currently similarly silenced physicists and climatologists may dare openly to emerge and challenge the “anthropogenic climate catastrophe” nonsense.

  • Ed P

    Before Covid, all previous attempts to use mRNA gene therapy (spoiler: it’s not a vaccine) failed 100%. These were all animal experiments – all the tested animals died.
    Now humans are dying worldwide, not from Covid, but allegedly as a direct result of these gene therapies. So now our insane ‘leaders’ decide to inject babies with it…
    There are not enough lampposts to bring justice to these murdering, callous bastards.

  • A Thorpe

    There is another way to look at “profits before people” and that is who is paying Big Pharma these prices. It is mainly governments and a free-market is not working. Would people be willing to pay these prices from their own pockets, especially if they were given the risks and benefits of the vaccines, and were able to understand them. We have no idea in the UK because of the welfare state.

    The letter refers to only 6 child deaths from Covid in a two year period and seems to suggest that is perhaps acceptable. I wonder whether the parents would think that if a vaccine was available and hadn’t been offered. On the other hand what would they think if they had decided on vaccination and that killed their child. They would be looking for somebody to blame and that would be the government and they would expect compensation. But in the UK nobody was forced to have the Covid vaccine although there was a lot of pressure to do so. There is one message in this and that we must accept responsibility for our own lives and that means taking it away from the government. But we also need an education system that allows us to understand the issues and that is also failing in its purpose due to the government. Further we have to understand that life is full of risks and we cannot eliminate them, as a majority seem to think today.

    Princess Diana had a name for her step-mother – Acid Raine. It seems we now have another deserving of the same. I’m not impressed with this letter. It is far too vague and lacking in supporting information. One issue that stands out to me is the continued use of “efficacy”. What does it mean? When 95% efficacy was used for the vaccines, it was assumed wrongly that 95% of people would be protected from infection, but the trials arriving at that figure did not even prove that. It was related to relative risk reduction but it is the absolute risk reduction that matters, which is our individual risk of infection and that was not even mentioned in any of the published trial results. The problems with the trials and with the experimental nature of the mRNA vaccines was there to see from the start and many recognised them. Did any of the signatories to this letter speak out before the vaccines were rolled out? It is too late now if they are as damaging as claimed after billions have been vaccinated. There are some who did speak such as virologist Prof Sucharit Bhakdi, who has reported from the start why these vaccines could not work and were dangerous. He explained how the vaccines would cause heart damage two years ago.

    On a completely different issue, today has been perfect in probably every region of the UK for observing the science of climate change. There was frost everywhere slowly melting in the heat of the sun, but in all the shaded areas there was not a sign of the back-radiation from carbon dioxide having any influence on the frost.

  • Eric Legge

    I received the following email from the OpenVAERS website.

    We are alarmed to report that as of November 18, 2022, VAERS has stopped sharing the free text field information in connection with vaccine injury reports from Europe and the UK. Prior to this change, the highest per capita number of VAERS reports came from the UK. To our knowledge it was not formally announced, instead, a strange disclaimer appeared at the bottom of the VAERS Data Sets landing page:

    “Disclaimer: At the request of European regulators, CDC and FDA have removed certain data fields (country codes; reported symptom case narrative free text; diagnostic laboratory data free text field; illness at time of vaccination free text field; chronic conditions free text medical history field; allergies free text field) from foreign VAERS reports which were submitted to VAERS and may not comply with European regulations. Domestic (U.S.) VAERS reports are not affected by this process.” [ https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/datasets.html%5D

    As you can imagine, this change makes it very difficult to assess the safety of Covid-19 shots. Some of the totals and charts published by OpenVAERS relied upon data from these fields. While the domestic US data remains unaffected, other charts throughout the site are impacted. See this comparison that we prepared (and notice that the scales are different between the two charts because there are so many fewer reports as a result of this change):

  • epiphyte

    David I would also suggest you look at the way Valneva were treated by our government. Their contract to supply 100 million of their traditional “dead” vaccine shots was summarily cancelled, costing the government £120million for breach if contract. No reason was given for the cancellation but I’m sure Pfizer had influence behind the scenes. Valneva were the only company working on this type of vaccine.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>