Saturday, May 21, 2022
HomeCOVID-19‘A job well done’ – blinkered verdict of vaccines’ one-year review

‘A job well done’ – blinkered verdict of vaccines’ one-year review

-

THE UK’s Human Medicines Regulations legislation was introduced in 2012 to cover both the manufacture, advertising, distribution and sale of medical products for human use, and the pharmacovigilance protocols necessary to monitor any subsequent safety and efficacy issues.

In October 2020 amendments were made to this legislation to help support the rapid rollout of the Covid-19 vaccines, namely regulation 174A: ‘The mechanism which allows for temporary authorisation of an unlicensed medicine, such as a vaccine, where such an authorisation is needed in response to certain public health threats, such as a pandemic’, and regulation 247A: ‘The mechanism that allows the expansion of the workforce who are legally and safely able to administer a Covid-19 or influenza vaccine under an approved protocol.’

These amendments were to be formally reviewed after one year to evaluate whether they had caused any adverse effects on either the medicines market or patient safety, and the report of that review has now been published. Unfortunately, and with grim predictability, for those still ethically intact after the public health psychological assaults of the last two years, the results make dire reading. Add it to the pile, then.

Regulation 247A allows healthcare professionals who do not normally vaccinate, and people who are not healthcare workers, to administer a Covid-19 or influenza vaccine – aka the Sun’s ‘Jabs Army’ of volunteers. 

I dare say that most of those who took up the offer of a Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ would have cared little about the employment history of those administering them, especially during the heights of some of 2021’s more hysterical national fits of fear. It could have been a doctor, a plumber, a chimpanzee or a machine inserting the needle. Any old delivery system will do when it comes to building the great impenetrable Vaccine Wall of Defence.

What is of concern, however – and doubly so as the rollout is extended to five-to-11-year-olds – is whether the actual national protocols for these vaccines were, and indeed continue to be, observed to the letter. I have a feeling not. 

The national protocols for the Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca vaccines explicitly state, for example, that patients must be provided with appropriate written material at their appointment, such as (among others) information on regulation 174A as it relates to the regulatory approval of the vaccine in question. How many people have actually been handed this information pre-vaccination? I personally don’t know of anyone. And if so, is its content reviewed before the jab, or is it merely handed out afterwards, along with a vaccination card and the What to expect after your Covid-19 vaccination pamphlet? Do any of Jabs Army even know what it is? 

The document in question, updated March 25, 2022, clearly states such things as:

‘The risk of myocarditis after a third dose of Comirnaty has not yet been characterised.’

‘The efficacy and safety of the vaccine has not been assessed in immunocompromised individuals, including those receiving immunosuppressant therapy.’

‘The duration of protection afforded by the vaccine is unknown as it is still being determined by ongoing clinical trials.’

‘The safety evaluation in Study 2 is ongoing’ (12-to-15-years cohort, after two doses), and:

‘The licensing authority has deferred the obligation to submit the results of studies with Comirnaty in the paediatric population . . .  This medicinal product has been authorised under a so-called ‘conditional approval’ scheme [174A]. This means that further evidence on this medicinal product is awaited.’ Etcetera, etcetera.

Depressingly, would having read any such information have changed the mind of someone who already had their sleeve rolled up anyway? I doubt it. But that’s not the point.

On regulation 247A the formal review concluded with little other than a sentiment of ‘Job well done: mission accomplished’, and that although there had been ‘concerns about whether all individuals involved in the delivery of vaccines under an R247A national protocol would have the appropriate knowledge, skills and competence, no respondents [to the review] were aware of any adverse consequences for patient safety’.

In fact one respondent (the report does not identify which organisation said what) felt the approach had allowed ‘the continuation of business-as-usual activities’ – an outright lie when you consider that the NHS suspended a huge amount of its services in favour of focusing on the booster campaign, for example, thus precipitating an alarming and record-breaking backlog unlikely to be cleared any time soon, if ever.

Business as usual? Killing and maiming is our new business: and business is booming. Congratulations, Jabs Army.

With more than 2,000 post-Covid-vaccination deaths and almost 1.5million adverse events having now been reported to MHRA’s Yellow Card system – figures which could be monstrously higher due to an acknowledged under-reporting factor potentially of ten – the dismissive review of regulation 174A is of most concern.

Held between November 2021 and January 2022, the review sought voluntary input from 28 organisations representing both the UK’s medicines, patient, and healthcare sectors, and their associated regulatory bodies – the MHRA, the JCVI, the UKHSA, the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, to name but a few.

On regulation 174A – the temporary authorisation of an unlicensed medicine – out of the ten organisations who bothered to respond to the review, ‘nine were not aware of any adverse consequences for patient safety’. One wonders if the MHRA even responded.

In fact one respondent went so far as to propose that due to a perception amongst a minority of the public that short cuts were being taken, the emergency mechanism may have in fact damaged public confidence in the vaccines and therefore, disappointingly, exacerbated vaccine-hesitancy; as if to suggest that in the future the public should not even be informed of any such regulation as 174A.

The answer is always the same these days – ‘We got the big calls right; the price was worth it’ – and one can’t help but feel that the chapter on vaccine-injury is now all but closed. 

I sense that such tokens as the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme and the Yellow Card reporting system – one refusing to pay out, the other seemingly unaware of the word autopsy – are nothing more than a barometer by which the architects of the post-Covid International Order may gauge exactly what degree of brutality and moral-slaughter they can get away with next time, be it when we face down another Disease X, as consequence of some cruel and deranged climate-based policy, or some Schwab-esque fusion of both.

I can’t help but be reminded at this point of two remarkably sinister quotes.

The first is from the Ministry of Defence’s vaccine-heavy ‘think-piece’ of May 2021 on the future of human augmentation – the somewhat blood-curdling: ‘Our moral tendencies to look after our kin and immediate future may no longer be fit for the modern, interconnected world.’

The second, and more recent, is from Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine pioneer Professor Dame Sarah Gilbert, who at March’s global Pandemic Preparedness Summit in London said that ‘the goal of having vaccines ready for use within 100 days in future does not allow for vaccines to be tested for safety and efficacy in Phase Three trials as they were in 2020, but will require a different approach to approvals for emergency use which is yet to be established’.

Will the true causes of death and injury catalogued within the MHRA’s own lengthening backlog EVER be established?

Recently, Parsons Pickles recalled its jars of mussels because of the potential presence of glass fragments; Lidl recalled some of its Culinea Paellabecause the cooking instructions were not written in English – just saying – and by October the government intends to restrict the in-store promotion of unhealthy foods.

Thou shalt not have two Cadbury’s Creme Eggs, but help yourself to five shots of Comirnaty. Quite literally, knock yourself out. 

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.