SINCE April 23, 2020, I have had 117 exchanges with our drugs watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, about Covid-19 vaccines. Some were press releases letting me know the latest news on vaccine developments, others were emails from me to their press office desperately trying to find vital information on their protocols for adverse drug reactions. Most of the MHRA’s responses were politically correct, often vague, while some questions proved too awkward to answer.
There was a resounding silence after I discovered that the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) guidelines on Covid vaccine reactions say that if there are two or more, stop the programme and investigate.
In February 2021 Amar Jesani, editor of the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, began researching WHO guidelines after 19 Indian health workers died following Covid vaccination. The timescale for the deaths was between a few hours and five days post jab. Whether or not the vaccine was the cause should have been thoroughly investigated. The Indian government immediately denied a connection before any investigation had been done.
Jesani found some vital advice in the WHO’s Covid-19 Safety Surveillance Manual. Section 2.4 said that if two or more adverse events following immunisation (AEFIs) occurred after vaccination from the same vaccine batch, or due to the same reason, or were reported from the same place, group screenings must be undertaken. A Freedom of Information request shows that there are many batches with more than two reactions. The worst batch so far is Oxford/AstraZeneca’s batch number 4120Z003 with 7,394 adverse events recorded and 18 deaths.
We had a similar problem in the UK. It was December 8, 2020, when 90-year-old Margaret Keenan became the first to receive the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine at University Hospital in Coventry. Many frontline health staff received the vaccine on the same day. On December 9, the MHRA put out a press release warning of anaphylaxis, a serious allergic reaction which can have fatal consequences, after two NHS staff collapsed. Dr June Raine, chief executive of the MHRA, was clear. She said: ‘Any person with a history of anaphylaxis to a vaccine, medicine or food should not receive the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. A second dose should not be given to anyone who has experienced anaphylaxis following administration of the first dose of this vaccine.’ However the MHRA did not halt the programme in line with WHO guidelines.
On February 10, I asked the MHRA press office whether they intended to follow the WHO’s advice, alongside six other queries. I had no response until February 18. They answered the other six queries but said nothing about the WHO. I emailed again on February 23, and then on March 2. They apologised for not responding but never did answer my query.
By February 25, just two months after the vaccine rollout had begun, 343 deaths had been reported to the Yellow Card scheme, which very few knew about then, including doctors, and that the MHRA said receives only 10 per cent of adverse event reports. The numbers are now 2,500 deaths and 500,000 people have reported 1.5million adverse events, 75 per cent of which are serious.
I began reading the MHRA’s emails in April 2020. Their first trumpeted that they had approved Oxford University’s request to begin Covid-19 vaccine trials ‘in a little over one working week’. The email boasted of ‘a speedy approval process . . . part of the MHRA’s pledge to prioritise clinical trial applications submitted for Covid-19.’ The haste proved disastrous. AstraZeneca’s vaccine became known as the ‘clotshot’ because it caused fatal blood clotting problems.
AZ’s Vaxzevria is no longer part of the Covid-19 vaccine schedule and has proved to be the most dangerous with almost double the number of adverse events reported compared with Pfizer’s vaccine that has been on the market longer. The last AstraZeneca numbers reported by the MHRA were on October 26, 2022, with AZ’s fatalities standing at 1,327 and Pfizer’s at 844.
It was never approved for use in the US and in April 2021 was suspended by 18 European countries, but not the UK; Denmark dropped it altogether and it has now been effectively withdrawn. The harm it caused will cost taxpayers millions in compensation. According to official figures, the clot shot has killed around 73 but there could be dozens more.
On May 6, 2020, I wrote to the MHRA about an oral vaccine being produced by UK company Stabilitech Biopharma, now known as iosBio, which seemed promising. I had been commissioned by the Daily Mirror to compare it with the vaccine Oxford and AstraZeneca were producing. A vital difference being that oral vaccines provoked a better immune response with few to no adverse reactions, did not have to be stored at freezing temperatures and could be sent out by post if necessary. The only comment from the MHRA was that ‘we are aware of the vaccine’.
As the vaccine rollout drew closer, I contacted the MHRA on December 4, 2020, to ask if they would share Pfizer’s raw safety data as it was the first to gain emergency use approval. No one had seen this data and the British Medical Journal and The Lancet were both complaining that the only information was through a press release published in theNew England Journal of Medicine. This three-page report can be found through the Wayback Machine and it states that the vaccine is 95 per cent effective. We now know this is not true and the BMJ published an article saying it was only 52 per cent effective. The MHRA had not picked up on that fact, or if they had, did not mention it.
The MHRA did not respond to questions about safety until I prompted them on January 18, 2022, when they said: ‘You would need to approach Pfizer for the data they submitted to us.’ I approached Pfizer who declined to share. In the end, I put in an FoI request to the MHRA and was told that to share the raw safety information was not in the public interest. Thanks to a US court case and Dr Naomi Wolf, a team of doctors and scientists and Dr Wolf’s site, the Daily Clout, we now know the real effects of Pfizer’s vaccine. To date the Daily Clout has published 75 reports detailing catastrophic adverse events with a particular focus on fertility, pregnancy and abnormal menstruation.
Just before New Year, on December 30, 2020, the MHRA approved the Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid-19 jab which would go on to have almost double the number of adverse events, including death, than Pfizer’s jab. MHRA chief June Raine said: ‘We are delighted to announce the good news that the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine for Covid-19 is now approved for supply following a robust and thorough assessment of all the available data.
‘A huge collaborative effort and commitment goes into these assessments which include reviewing vast amounts of data. Our staff have worked tirelessly to ensure we continue to make safe vaccines available to people across the UK. No stone is left unturned when it comes to our assessments.’ If this were true, no one would have had to do their own investigation to find out the real damage the vaccine can do.
I am not the only one concerned by the MHRA. A group of doctors, academics and concerned citizens formed the Perseus Group to investigate the MHRA’s failings. They concluded: ‘The MHRA failed to meet its responsibilities in multiple ways. Failures that have caused or could potentially result in patient harm. The MHRA failed to perform adequate risk/benefit analysis before authorising the Covid vaccines. The Covid-19 vaccines were authorised without being fully tested, the MHRA promised “proactive vigilance”, but it has failed to provide this.
‘Independent analysis of Pfizer and Moderna’s raw data found a serious adverse event rate of 1 in 800, making the risks of the vaccine far more significant than the risk of the virus.’
