ON November 12, 2021, I wrote an open letter to Dr June Raine, head of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), asking her to investigate the unprecedented number of deaths and injuries occurring shortly after injection with the novel (I would say experimental) Covid-19 medications, as reported by the Yellow Card system. The letter was published in TCW. The weeks passed, and Dr Raine offered no response. ‘Oh well.’ I thought, ‘it’s getting on for Christmas, delays are to be expected.’ However, once we were well into the New Year I decided that it was high time I received a reply. Accordingly, I sent the following reminder:
Dear Dr Raine,
More than two months have passed since I wrote to you regarding your delay in looking into more than one-and-a-quarter million reports of adverse events suffered by members of the public following treatment with the novel medications which have been passed for emergency use only in response to SARS-CoV-2. I have received neither a reply nor an acknowledgement of my letter, a copy of which is enclosed herewith.
The number of reported deaths and injuries occurring after treatment with these novel medications continues to rise. Government records now show that no fewer than 1,414,293 adverse reactions involving 431,482 individuals have been reported to date, including 1,932 deaths; of particular concern are the abnormal numbers of miscarriages and stillbirths which have occurred post injection, yet it seems that you have still taken no steps to verify the Yellow Card data, or to assess the comparative risks they indicate for different sections of the population. Meanwhile, evidence regarding the inefficacy of the medications concerned is growing daily. Should even a fraction of the deaths and injuries reported be confirmed, the risk/benefit ratio requires that they be withdrawn immediately.
Your dereliction of duty is enabling the unfair treatment of those who are sensibly waiting until they are in a position to give their informed consent, as required under traditional medical ethics and the Nuremberg Code. Because of your failure to present them with the information which they need before they can give that consent, many of these prudent people are now facing state-dependency, as their employers, presumably unaware of the mounting counter-indications, are giving them the choice of either losing their livelihoods or submitting to an invasive medical procedure which may potentially cost them their lives.
As I pointed out in my previous letter, I am one of those relying on the MHRA, as the agency tasked with preventing my exposure to unsafe medications, to indicate the degree of danger I may face should I be coerced into accepting a medical treatment which has not undergone all the normally required stages of testing, and whose long-term effects are impossible to determine. If you have, in fact, been doing your duty and investigating the Yellow Card data with a view to advising the public, please tell me where I may access your conclusions. If not, please inform me of the reasons for your extreme vaccine-investigation hesitancy.
I await your early reply.
Yours sincerely, etc.
This letter was posted recorded delivery, and was delivered and signed for the next day. Whether it ever reached Dr Raine herself, I do not know, but this time I was in luck: just short of one month later (and how many trusting arms were injected and reinjected, I wonder, in those four weeks?) I received the following brief e-mail from Peter, of the MHRA Customer Experience Centre:
Thank you for your email and we apologise for delay. We have reviewed your enquiry and this has been passed on to our Vigilance Risk Management of Medicines colleagues for further input. Should you have any other questions or requests please feel free to call us . . . etc.
Hmm – a bit of a brush-off. And it seems that Debi Evans, nursing correspondent at the UK Column, received an identical email in response to this enquiry of her own:
‘Please can you tell me if there is an investigation ongoing with regard to the 2,010 deaths reported after Covid vaccines. Whilst I understand you cannot say if these SAR [serious adverse reactions] were attributable to the vaccines, until there is an investigation we will never know. What procedures do you have in place?
‘I note that after only one death from Doxycycline you and CHM recommend a thorough investigation. This drug has been around since the 1960s and has a good track record for safety. I’m concerned you may wish to withdraw this antibiotic based on one case whilst ignoring the thousands of SAR and deaths associated with the Covid-19 vaccine.’
Why are our concerns being fended off by the MHRA’s chief executive? Why are we receiving no direct answers to our very straightforward questions?
‘I’m writing direct to June Raine,’ says Debi, ‘and I’m asking her just a very simple question. Where’s the investigation of the serious adverse reactions? That’s all I want to know. Well, actually I would like to know what that investigation involves and what procedures they use. But the fact that June Raine can’t answer me and has had to side-step this is very suspicious, I think. I mean, why couldn’t she just answer the question? It’s a very simple question, don’t you think?’ (1:22:40 mins in.)
Yes, it is: a very simple question, which should be very easy to answer, if the MHRA has been diligently fulfilling its duties. So I’ve decided to try again, and have written once more to Dr Raine (who in the meantime, it seems, has become a dame). The following letter should even now be reposing in her inbox, with a hard copy following, recorded delivery:
Dear Dame June,
I am writing to you once more because a) my previous letters (attached) have been either ignored or side-tracked into a bureaucratic labyrinth; and b) my concerns regarding your apparent failure to discharge your duties continue to grow.
My first letter, dated 12 November, 2021, received neither acknowledgement nor reply. In response to my second letter, dated 24 January, 2022, which was once more addressed to you personally and which was sent, this time, by recorded delivery, I have received an e-mail from somebody called Peter at your ‘Customer Experience Centre’ stating that my ‘enquiry has been passed on to our Vigilance Risk Management of Medicines colleagues for further input’. There seems to be some misunderstanding. My questions do not require ‘further input’. What they require is some relevant output from you yourself, as head of the organisation entrusted with ensuring the safety of any new medications ‘offered’ to the public, and especially of those which have been ‘offered’ with a measure of coercion under emergency authorisation only. I would point out that I am not your ‘customer’. Along with the rest of the UK population who pay your salary, I am your employer, and at present you do not appear to be doing the job we pay you for.
The number of post-injection casualties being reported in relation to the novel injections against SARS-CoV-2 continue to grow. The present totals are 1,458,428 adverse effects recorded by 445,256 people. This includes 2,017 deaths. Your agency has acknowledged that only a small percentage of the actual injuries following vaccination are reported. We can therefore confidently conclude that these figures, even when potential false claims are discounted, fall short of representing the full extent of the harm being inflicted on the people of this country by the premature release and indiscriminate application of what seem to be highly dangerous pharmaceutical products. Since I last wrote, members of my own small circle have experienced unusual and disturbing symptoms in the wake of the injections. In particular, a friend has become blind after ‘doing the right thing’. According to reports logged in the official Yellow Card system, he is but one of over 500 people who have lost their sight after treatment with the experimental medications. In your own estimation (see above) there are likely to be several thousand more sufferers who either have not connected the onset of their disability with the experimental ‘vaccines’, or who do not even know that the Yellow Card records exist.
Blindness is only one of the devastating injuries being reported in connection with the medications which you have approved for ‘emergency’ use despite the absence of any satisfactory short-term, let alone medium- or long-term safety data, and despite the existence of tried and trusted therapies capable of satisfactorily treating Covid-19 in the early stages. Some one-and-a-half million allegations of adverse events notwithstanding, you appear to be looking the other way as the novel injections you have sanctioned are ‘offered’ to younger and younger children: healthy young human beings who are at greater risk from these ‘vaccines’ than from the disease itself. It is your duty to investigate the Yellow Card reports and present a reasoned and evidenced analysis of your findings to the public, including your grounds for continued endorsement of the products in question, not to brush unprecedented claims of serious adverse reactions aside as the unfounded superstitions of ignorant people. You have seen fit to dismiss the concerns of those afflicted and their friends and relatives. Others have not. Dr Arne Bernhardt, for instance, and other experienced and reputable pathologists carrying out histopathological examinations on behalf of the bereaved are now uncovering evidence which points to the ‘vaccines’ as a likely cause of death. No fewer than 2,017 bereaved families in this country require the same due diligence from you. It is not enough to say, ‘The MHRA takes all reports of fatal events in patients who have received a Covid-19 vaccine very seriously and every report with a fatal outcome is fully evaluated and kept under continual review etc, etc.’ Prove it. Make the evidence you are assessing public, so that it may be thoroughly examined and the conclusions you draw challenged, if they are found wanting, by those with the knowledge and experience to contest them. The fact that many highly esteemed doctors and scientists who have grave misgivings regarding the safety of the medications in question have been ruthlessly smeared, censored and silenced makes absolute transparency on your part essential.
Perhaps I am misjudging you. In order to clarify your position, it would help if you would respond to the following statements with a straight ‘true’ or ‘false’.
I, Dame June Raine, as CEO of the MHRA, and hence ultimately responsible for its decisions, am fully aware of the data recorded on the Yellow Card system in relation to the Covid-19 vaccines.
I, Dame June Raine, do not consider it necessary to present the public with a full written analysis of the 1,458,428 adverse events relating to the Covid-19 vaccines which are recorded by the Yellow Card system, or of my reasons for concluding that they are not, in fact, vaccine injuries.
I, Dame June Raine, do not consider the 1,458,428 adverse events recorded by the Yellow Card system serious enough to warrant immediate withdrawal of the Covid-19 vaccines.
I look forward to hearing from you within 20 working days. Should you fail to respond to the above statements, I shall assume that you corroborate them fully. Qui tacet consentire videtur.
Yours sincerely, etc.
It is time Dame June justified her recent elevation either by offering credible evidence that the novel injections pose no danger to the public or urging that they be withdrawn forthwith.