2023-06-17
"Nearly four months after my FOI, and after two complaints to the ICO (here and here) including the threat of legal action, MHRA eventually sent me its report. It’s quite technical but it makes very interesting reading"
Nick Hunt - "retired ... Senior Civil Servant in the Ministry of Defence responsible for the safety and effectiveness of ammunition used by the Armed Forces"
To you and I, were we to be charged with the responsibility to ensure the safety of vaccines distributed throughout the nation, we would (apart form trembling in our boots!) subject the said vaccines to a thorough review by the best qualified personnel that we could persuade to assist us. After all, the downside risks could be unthinkably high and the upside benefits need to be correspondingly both significant and certain.
Off the top of my head, if I were in the hot seat ...
- I would subject the clinical trials analyses to independent review by (more than one group of) qualified statisticians and medial men to establish
(a) that the claimed safety was well-founded
(b) that the claimed efficacy was well-founded and
(c) that all necessary and appropriate targets had been properly investigated and none missed.
If and only if the above exercise demonstrated with reasonable certainty that the benefits to adverse effects ratio was sufficiently positive, I would plan the roll-out.
- I would order follow up checks using statistical sampling methods devised and implemented in tandem with the phased roll-out to ensure that those claimed safety and efficacy targets were being achieved and to further investigate any marginal factors.
After all, everybody accepts that vaccines cause damage, hopefully mild and rare enough that the benefits outweigh the damages, but if that benefits-to-damages ratio strays too far from target then we would want to adjust or even pause the roll-out.
To be sure of our facts, we would want to use all available datasets. - Statistically speaking, we would perform random sampling on the vaccinated at appropriate intervals after vaccination to follow up on their status (did they suffer adverse events, did they suffer Covid infection, did they infect others (more difficult to prove but worth assessing). Random sampling is important as it defends against the possibility that self-election in the sample may distort the results.
To cross-check the findings: - We would also investigate NHS consultation / treatment / admissions statistics,
- and the Yellow Card reporting system designed and implemented for the specific purpose of flagging up adverse events.
Given that there turned out to be a great many of these, statistical sampling could have been undertaken to follow up the number necessary to get a measure of how valid the yellow card analysis might be overall, by follow-up investigation of whether the report was valid, and if not, what the report should have indicated.
The results from these three separate and independent approaches could then be compared to provide an overall assessment of whether or not the roll-out was achieving its purposes.
Given that the vaccines were "using novel technology" and "developed at warp speed" to a radical timescale an order of magnitude shorter than all previous vaccines, if I could not have proceeded as above then I would not have taken the job. But what do I know? I'm just a graduate who did basic stats at college and spent most of his career in IT. This is not statistical "rocket science" in principle.
Is there evidence that the MHRA (and its associated committees) did all or some of the above? If not, why not?
Always bear in mind though that all of the above is likely a "Great Distraction", since there is to my knowledge no proof that the PCR test worked (Kari Mullis who invented the PCR process claimed that it should never be used to diagnose infection), whilst there is plenty of evidence that the PCR test as implemented would not be reliable, and the WHO itself (eventually) admitted that in an asymptomatic population it would return too many false positives to be useful.
Covid symptoms being generic to many illnesses (even radiation sickness), the test is critical. No test, no pandemic - and no excess deaths from all causes (as was the case prior to the vaccine roll-out).
I deduce therefore that the WHO is responsible for the biggest hoax ever (with the possible exception of the "Climate Emergency") either through incompetence or mendacity.
The WHO has to go.
We must also suspect that the MHRA JCVI SAGE etc (and judging by their subsequent behaviour, the government and perhaps many or most UK MPs) are very probably to some extent complicit, especially in view of their stalwart reluctance to investigate the excess deaths evident post vaccine roll-out.
Logic and evidence will not go away, no matter how long the Metropolitan Police can prevaricate.
