It is now nearly 11 months since Gillian Dymond started asking Dame June Raine, head of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA), to explain what the organisation is doing to investigate the deaths and injuries occurring shortly after Covid-19 vaccination, and this open letter is her latest attempt to get an answer. You can read previous instalments in the saga here, here, here, here and here.
Dear June Raine,
You have not replied to any of the previous letters I have written you regarding the nationwide rollout of novel medications against SARS-CoV-2. I suppose I should simply accept your confident public assertion that these injections are, indeed, ‘safe and effective’: but how can I, when this is contradicted by so many disturbing post-injection reactions among my friends and family? So please excuse me for writing to you again. I am writing because I want to understand. I want to understand why you are doing this. I want to understand why you think it is right to enable the mass prescription of pharmaceutical products whose short-term testing was questionable, and whose medium- and long-term effects are entirely unknown.
You enjoyed an Oxford education, and I want to understand why, with your academic training, you are choosing to ignore the caveats of numerous high-quality experts by giving these injections your blessing. My own experience of university was that an essay which failed to take a balanced overview of any question would receive short shrift. Why, my tutor would ask, had I not considered this or that other important fact or perspective, this or that other authority, before drawing my conclusions?
You are a doctor, and I want to understand why you continue to authorise the emergency use of inadequately tested medications despite the availability of successful protocols involving the early use of tried-and-trusted treatments. I want to understand why, after the emergence of viable alternatives to the novel injections in the summer of 2020, well before any ‘vaccine’ came on to the market, you chose to risk violating the basic requirement of the Hippocratic Oath, ‘First do no harm’, by blacklisting these safe and effective treatments and advocating ‘emergency’ use of the questionable and the unknown.
Of course, both as an academic and as a doctor, you have done no more than fall into line with the vast majority of your peers. From your point of view, it would certainly have been a bad career move to announce that the new pharmaceuticals produced at such speed and such expense had proved to be unnecessary. For ordinary doctors, things were even worse: they faced disgrace and expulsion from their profession if they failed to jab as required. As for academics, even those unblinkered by ideology kept their heads down and played along with censorship of their few dissenting colleagues, on pain of jeopardising valuable funding. Only those who had already retired, secure in an unblemished record and a reliable income, had nothing but comparatively harmless attacks on their reputations to fear when they questioned the ‘settled science’ – indeed, the very idea of ‘settled science’. No wonder the institutions dishonoured by so much mindless kow-towing to the state-sponsored authorities who ordered them to betray their raison d’être have fallen into widespread contempt! How is it possible to respect an academic who acquiesces in censorship? How is it possible to respect doctors who fail to ensure informed consent prior to the injection of a potentially dangerous substance, or who refuse to see their unmasked patients face to face?
But, June, you are not just an academic and a doctor; you are not even just a civil servant; like me, you are a mother: and it is as a mother, above all, that I cannot understand why you have authorised the rollout of these inadequately-tested concoctions to children as young as five; children who stand in far greater danger from the injections than from the illness itself. How do you reconcile the fact that nobody has the least idea of the long-term effects of these treatments with your insistence that they are ‘safe’? How can you be sure that the risks are outweighed by the benefits, when the benefits are proving ever more debatable and the risks of long-term, potentially devastating, injury are unknown? Your own children must be well into adulthood, but would you really have advised your pregnant daughter or daughter-in-law to be injected? Perhaps you have young grandchildren. If so, have you urged them to roll up their little sleeves and be jabbed, without any qualms regarding their future health and reproductive ability?
Perhaps you are, indeed, as enthusiastic about the alleged life-saving qualities of the new medications in your private life as you are in public: in which case, given the mounting evidence against them, I sincerely wish to understand why. What do you know that is sufficient to countermand the indications of the Yellow Card scheme and justify the accumulating tragedies of those suffering serious adverse effects? Presumably you have really convinced yourself that the computer models (rubbish in, rubbish out?) are right, and that your emergency authorisation of the novel injections has saved billions of lives. If so, I would like you to help me understand why.
This issue does, after all, have wider ramifications. It is not a one-off. You have made it clear that the current roll-out is merely a precedent to similar population-wide prescriptions of mRNA medications to similar population-wide prescriptions of mRNA medications, and that the MHRA is busy ‘transforming’ itself into an enabler, rather than a regulator, of new medicines. At the very least the public deserve to be made aware that your agency is now working with the pharmaceutical industry to speed the entry of new drugs on to the market within 100 days of any proclaimed ‘emergency’, using the public as guinea pigs in ‘real-time’ testing. Since very few of us watch MHRA board meetings, and no mention is made of such a transformation in the highly selective news bulletins fed to the public by the mainstream media, this strange departure from the precautionary principle is, like the long-term effects of the medications which will be ‘offered’ to us, largely unknown. If it were better publicised, the public might well insist that the MHRA take its place openly as an ancillary of the drug manufacturers, and demand that a genuine regulatory body, working on the time-honoured principles of long-term testing and ‘First do no harm’, take its place.
It seems to me that your transformation into an ‘enabling agency’, on the back of the ‘pandemic’, is a transformation for the worse, to the point of being a threat to the lives and health of the population. Covid-19 was struck off Public Health England’s list of high consequence infectious diseases on February 19, 2020, even before the first lockdown. Off-label remedies were speedily found to treat the illness successfully. The ‘pandemic’ existed only because it was redefined as such by the WHO and industriously promoted and kept alive by government misinformation. I want to understand why you, an intelligent woman, so easily accepted this misinformation; I want to understand why you chose to abandon academic rigour and the provisions of the Hippocratic Oath when no emergency required you to do any such thing; and I want to understand why you are proposing to repeat this recklessness in relation to a steady stream of future products.
Please enlighten me.
Footnote: The now monthly (formerly weekly) Yellow Card report is a week overdue from the well-funded (by drug manufacturers, the World Health Organisation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well as the Department of Health and Social Care) and well-staffed MHRA.