A FEW weeks ago TCW‘s Sally Beck wrote to her MP Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood) to bring to her attention the Perseus Report on the Medicines Health products and Regulatory Authority’s (MHRA) systematic failures to ensure that the Covid vaccines are safe and effective. A copy had already been sent to every MP and Sally was responding to the authors’ request to people to contact their MP to ask if they had yet read it. The report’s key criticisms of the agency’s decision processes, or absence of them, specifically relating to Covid, should be of concern to them. These in brief related to:
- following up Yellow Card reports of fatal/serious adverse events
- its ’emergency authorisation’ decision
- licensing novel Covid mRNA therapies as vaccines (with lower regulatory requirements);
- failure to address manufacturing and quality control, leading to batch quality problems;
- using relative percentage benefit (a large number), not absolute benefit (a small change in a very small number), thus compromising informed consent;
- ignoring safety signals for withdrawing AstraZeneca Covid vaccine (or any other) following serious adverse events (other national Regulators responded and withdrew the vaccine within weeks);
- failure to follow through on its promised ‘4 strand Proactive Vigilance’;
- denial or minimisation of the unprecedented range and number of Covid vaccine adverse events from blood clotting, heart inflammation, neurological conditions, immune downgrading, to menstrual disorder.
The Perseus critique echoes many of the concerns we at TCW have voiced over the last two years in response to the MHRA’s Yellow Card updates and the agency’s decision to turn from drugs regulator to mRNA enabler. It also provides a comprehensive investigation of what lies behind these failings.
But instead of addressing any of this, Ms Hayes’s uttered all the correct clichés yet excused herself on the ground of the anonymity of the report’s authors. This prompted one of authors to explain the irony to TCW that why he had so little choice was down to the establishment’s hostility to any critics of the official narrative. His heartfelt plea for understanding follows the MP’s letter.
Thank you very much for sending me a link to the Perseus Report and other documents.
It is important that the safety framework around the development of new medicines and vaccines is subject to scrutiny to ensure that the benefits of new medicines and vaccines far outweigh the harms and that medicines and vaccines are only brought into use when they are safe. It is right that these issues should be debated, particularly in light of the changes in the technology for developing new vaccines which we saw during the Covid-19 pandemic.
I am concerned that the Perseus Report is anonymous. It is important that the source of the concerns is transparent so that its contents can be debated in the full knowledge of the expertise, and if relevant, the political views of the authors.
Thank you once again for writing to me about this matter.
With best wishes,
Perseus Report author’s response
Why does raising concerns about the use of novel vaccines, inadequately trialled with near to non existent safety data, and a growing bank of adverse event data, earn me an ‘anti-vaxxer’ label?
For that is the heart of the matter, this is what has forced me into anonymity.
The answer to that, Ms Hayes, is down, quite simply, to the government’s response to Covid since April 2020 which has encouraged fear and sanctioned intolerance; MPs across the political spectrum have been actively hostile to any critics who dared question its basic validity, enforcing conformity; dissent has been penalised formally and informally. Sceptics have been stripped of their confidence, have had their relationships with their families undermined, and are in constant fear for their livelihoods.
This is how it was and still is for me.
In early 2020 I watched with intrigue as the Covid story broke from China, clearly faked videos of people in China falling dead on the street (one even put their hands out to break their fall), then the Chinese lockdowns started. I remember reading a Guardian article in February 2020 stating how China’s approach to Covid breached their human rights, but that wouldn’t happen here in the UK. However courtesy of the BBC and panicking doctors through February and March 2020 the fear of Covid started to build in the population. I thought people were over-reacting and common sense would prevail. I studied the Diamond Princess information: if 14 people (seven in their 70s, four in their 80s, one in their 60s and two age unknown) died on a cruise ship with nearly 3,000 (primarily elderly) passengers plus 1,000 crew, this virus was of negligible risk and everyone was overreacting, as they did for swine flu. But no. One government press conference after another gave a quite different picture to that I saw via checking the Worldometer numbers every day along with any reports I could find. But British journalists failed to ask any of the right questions, only how bad was it really and could the hospitals cope.
While Covid started off as a data analysis challenge, it quickly became a fight for freedom.
The vaccines came along in late 2020; again I thought little of them to begin with given that the rhetoric was all about protecting the vulnerable. However that autumn I became increasingly concerned about the short cut nature of trials (unprecedented). I remembered Pandemrix. When the vaccines were granted emergency approval I read the Public Assessment Reports with real interest. How had they done everything in time? I was surprised and concerned to see that new technologies appeared to have gone through so few tests. But they were meant for the vulnerable so maybe . . .
But very quickly the tone changed to ‘15m jabs to freedom‘; suddenly these vaccines were to be our passport to freedom (exit) from lockdown, the ticket out. The pressure on vulnerable groups to take the vaccines came and went. But the warp speed roll out down the age groups did not pause. For anyone and everyone it became their public duty, or suffer social pariah status. Refuseniks kept quiet and kept their heads down.
As this went on I kept a close eye on the Yellow Card data. I quickly noted that AstraZeneca had a much higher (reported) death rate than Pfizer. Media reports of ‘vanishingly rare’ deaths started occurring, far too many to be rare (I remember an article stating ‘death following AstraZeneca Covid vaccine as rare as being struck by lightning‘; two people a year die from lightning in the UK, but several had already died from the vaccines in three months).
Once European countries started suspending batches of AstraZeneca, restricting age groups and in some cases suspending them entirely primarily because of blood clotting amongst young to middle aged people, my antennae were fully alerted. It was then I got my text message for my AstraZeneca vaccine. Was it possible that I was being recommended to take something that was clearly a higher risk to me than hospitalisation or death from Covid?
The propaganda was relentless: ‘You must have the vaccine to protect others’; soon it was no longer OK to discuss adverse reactions and anyone who came out on their refusal to have it was called an anti-vaxxer, quite regardless of their prior vaccination history. It was no less than coercion. The MSM was running vituperative articles about what should be done to the wicked ‘anti-vaxxers’.
At the company I work for, which is heavily reliant on pharmaceutical clients, a senior manager told me: ‘If I find any anti-vaxxers I will do everything I can to get them sacked.’ Greeted with a vaccine disclosure form every time I logged into the HR system I was in constant fear that I’d be asked to fill in the form and in ‘coming out’ would lose my job. The only place I could find people who sympathised were on Twitter. I couldn’t, like many other men I know of, even discuss this with my wife.
In fact the most difficult discussion I had was telling my wife that I was choosing not to take this vaccine over spending Christmas with my family abroad. My parents-in-law had told me I was unwelcome to visit them unvaccinated, and my own family didn’t want me either. My unvaccinated status (and principles) cost me not just holidays, weddings and funerals but my family relationships.
That is why I have kept all my public critiques anonymous, not to destroy them further. But there still remains a downside. Any Covid data sharing communication, anonymous or not, draws relentless attacks online that imply offline threats. So yes, I live in fear that losing my anonymity may give these trolls more ability to attack me; hackers have already doxxed many of my online friends, even their children.
I am in constant conflict. At Truth be Told rallies for the vaccine-injured, I find myself skirting around people with 5G or depopulation banners, concerned that I may be captured on camera and have ‘conspiracy theorist’ or ‘far right’ tagged on to me as well. Yet, I know that by remaining anonymous I am letting myself succumb to the very weapon that is used to silence critics.
So should I do the right thing to help promote the cause I believe and hope that MPs would then take the report I co-authored more seriously? Or is that wishful thinking? Should I take a personal risk on that hope, or remain in the shadows and perhaps damage the credibility of the projects I am involved in? This conflict, between doing the right thing and the personal risk it would expose me to, keeps me awake at night.
It really should not be like this, Ms Hayes, in a free and democratic society. The report stands or falls on its merit, not on the name or status of the authors.