The MHRA Files - Part 1

For almost every week the MHRA would publish Coronavirus vaccine - weekly summary of Yellow Card reporting, a document released ostensibly as part of their transparency efforts to the UK public. It was a very important document because it contained detail of the positions they actually held on the matter and still continue to do so - albeit positions which shall we say, are rather interesting. Such is the confidence held in the MHRA, a rather penetrative FOI request sought to establish whether their CEO - Dr June Raine, that given the sheer avalanche of adverse injuries reported in the summary week after week with no discontinuation of the rollout in sight, was even aware of what was unfolding. Was she even aware of their own publication?

As it turns out, with all the trust of a nation invested in her, that indeed she was and that after amendments authorised by Alison Cave, such as the ones proposed below, ultimately she was the one who would sign it off.

So how on earth could the MHRA justify never before seen numbers of adverse reactions to the public from a product which they are charged with regulating?

Rewind back to 5th February 2021. Around 10 million shots had been administered at this point and the first injury report received on 9th December 2020 was nearly 2 months prior. It was on this date that the MHRA published their first summary.

Reading from the start, after a bit of background and justification for the rollout, they then proceeded to characterise each product. For the AstraZeneca vaccine:

Clearly, they held dose 2 reactions compared to dose 1 as a value (which they should) and the reactions from this AstraZeneca viral vector vaccine diminished on the second dose. However the results for the Pfizer trial were rather different - an mRNA product. Young children had not yet been vaccinated at this point but in their growing study report, Pfizer stated the following sorts of phrases highlighted in blue:

That sounds like a problem.

So how did the MHRA portray their trial to the UK public?

Can you see it yet?

No, because the MHRA left it out. The UK public were not told.

A couple of months later, the MHRA had this to say about the Moderna vaccine trial, another mRNA product released.

So it all looks very linear and anyone reading would assume that dose 1 would be the same as dose 2 and yet we had this safety study from Moderna

They even stated that "The severity of the solicited systemic events increased after the second dose in the mRNA-1273 group". It couldn’t be missed.

But the MHRA did apparently. Local reactions, although not as important, even rose too. On 9th December 2021, their AstraZeneca second dose statement was purged. All three vaccine characterisations became uniform with no indication that differences could exist between doses.

Not knowing has consequences. It only takes 2 data points to identify a trend and so it must have been a complete surprise for the MHRA to then discover increased myocarditis in younger males on the second dose as stated in their Information for Healthcare Professionals on Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on 25th June 2021:

And an even bigger surprise to them that a bit of rest wasn’t enough for a heart condition as this far more serious update of their description emerged a whole 6 months later on the 24th December where they also admit to the first dose signal:

If you don’t know that injuries will rise dose on dose, then you will always be left surprised and you will end up dangerously behind the knowledge curve with severe consequences for those who rely on you, children in this case. Like anyone can with a bad product bought from any good retail store, and even better in this case, the MHRA could have taken regulatory action and sent the products back for rectification. They didn’t. But let’s be fair, who could have known?

However, let’s propose something really devilish. Hypothetically, let’s say they actually did know. With the second dose adverse injury towers pushing the heavens, wouldn’t a third dose then be a tad over-optimistic? Furthermore with Booster shots only weeks away, wouldn’t there be a bit of nerves around as to how many injury reports they would receive this time, given the torrent of them already? After all, it might show up.

With such crucial information missing on the very first page, crucial information with far-reaching implications, if they have deliberately hidden it from the public it begs the question, is there anything the MHRA wouldn’t do?

If you are interested in FOI, you can use this site or even email privately. It’s really easy and the main points are that you should be polite, should put in a request for recorded information and not ask for something which could take more than 24hrs worth of work to gather. It’s free and it doesn’t need only be a single request. Certainly, the MHRA couldn’t make this member of the public go away. What is going on inside these agencies?

Share Stephen’s Substack