Freedom of Information requests shine a light on the dark

Exposing what was hidden and what was never there 

Plausible deniability can provide protection for those in authority who acted in harmful ways. However, things become much less plausible when Freedom of Information (FOI) requests expose just how much people did know. One notable recent such FOI has exposed a US official using Gmail in an express attempt to avoid FOIs. Another has exposed how CDC director Rochelle Walensky was communicating to colleagues about breakthrough infections in January 2021 before going on to make public claims that covid ‘vaccines’ gave absolute protection from infection. Other FOIs have revealed things that were NOT done or said. It is particularly galling to review the FOIs that expose the failure of safety regulation for the covid ‘vaccine’ products.

Many people are reassured by the claims that the covid ‘vaccine’ trials showed the ‘vaccines’ to be safe. However, there are a number of reasons why that is a false reassurance. The trials themselves did actually show significant safety signals. One in every 800 people in the ‘vaccine’ group of the trials had a serious adverse event (as defined by a group before rollout began based on biological plausibility). After 6 months Pfizer/BioNTech reported there had been 15 deaths in the ‘vaccine’ group compared to 14 in the placebo group. However, a later report to the FDA on the same 6 month follow up period reported that there were 21 deaths in the ‘vaccine’ group compared to 17 in the placebo group. If those four extra deaths were caused by the ‘vaccine’ that would work out as an additional death for every 5,000 people injected. The point of placebo controlled trials is to carry out exactly these kinds of measurements. It is impossible to know with confidence whether those deaths were caused by vaccine. This illustrates how even a trial of over 40,000 people was inadequate to provide confidence about safety.

The figures above were not available until March 2021 and the MHRA in the meantime was responsible for ensuring safety during the rollout. To do this they had in place their yellow card reporting system and established additional methods to quantify risks.

Individual reports

The Yellow Card reporting system allows for people with concerns about an adverse reaction to formally record their concerns. The MHRA was in a position to investigate particular reports in more depth to enable them to act on concerns as required. For example, reports on pregnant women or children or reports of deaths might trigger a thorough investigation.

MHRA have since admitted they have no process for investigating individual reports. They claimed that finding out how many deaths had been investigated would take too much work. They also admitted they did not know the age, medical history or batch numbers of those who had had a report filed after dying.It’s not just an issue in the UK. FOIs in the USA have demonstrated similar issues with the FDA. While, it might be reasonable to think that with a large number of reports a smaller percentage would be investigated with a “rapid response”, an FOI asking the FDA for information on the rapid responses carried out since January 2020 revealed that “A search of our records did not locate any documents responsive to your request.”

Quantifying risks

To quantify the risks, the MHRA set out a plan to measure safety during the rollout – what they called “proactive vigilance”. Their plan had four elements. 

  1. Comparing reports with previous reports to see if some conditions were more common i.e. looking at the ratio of events
  2. Checking for an increase in particular conditions by analyzing medical records
  3. Carrying out prospective surveys
  4. Formal epidemiological studies

Looking at ratio of adverse events compared to other vaccines

The MHRA reported on their work analyzing their reports to The Commission on Human Medicines. An FOI requesting that report has had no response.

They have since said that the covid ‘vaccines’ have caused so much distortion of the data that they have had to remove all the covid ‘vaccine’ data when assessing safety of other products. How can they claim the reports were all due to background coincidences if those same reports are of no use as a control group?

The CDC in the USA also claimed they were carrying out this ratio analysis – comparing reports for covid ‘vaccines’ to reports for other vaccines. Josh Guetzkow and Robert Kennedy, along with his charity the Children’s Health Defence, submitted an FOI on December 2021, asking for details of this work. After receiving no reply a legal letter was sent on 22nd March 2022. A response came on 25th March to tell them that the FOI had been rejected as too burdensome. 

On 16th July 2022 the CDC said no ratio analysis had been done. Only a week later, the head of the US adverse event reporting system (VAERS) said they had been performing the analysis since February 2021. Rochelle Walensky went on record on 22nd September to say they began doing this analysis on 25th March 2022 and continued until July. That means they began the work only three days after the legal letter was sent and well over a year after the initial rollout. 

Then the cover up began. From 1st April 2022 to August, thousands of reports were purged from the VAERS system. Most of that period overlaps the period where analysis was carried out. It all looks very suspect.

Analysing medical records to look for an increase in particular conditions

The MHRA committed to “continually compare the ‘observed’ vs ‘expected’ numbers to determine whether more events are occurring after the vaccine than we might expect by coincidence, and therefore whether it could signal a possible vaccine-related side effect.” They have never published their findings on this work. The process to collect this data was not set up until 2 months into the ‘vaccine’ rollout. At that point over 12 million injections had been given. Five days later the JCVI wrote “After considering safety data, JCVI advises that it remains acceptably safe to consider extending the programme to the remainder of the adult population aged less than 50 years old.”

Prospective Surveys

Prospective studies are an excellent way to measure harm. The MHRA have never reported on any survey or if they did in fact carry one out. However, reports on surveys from other countries have been published.

An Israeli survey showed serious adverse events that were not short term and recurred or worsened with further doses. The Israeli Ministry of Health then produced a report in an attempt to hide this data. Instead of showing the risk per person surveyed they calculated it per person ever vaccinated in the whole country. They even included men in the denominator for menstrual issues. 

Germany carried out a survey of over half a million people. Serious side effects were found in 1 in 142 people, for AstraZeneca to 1 in 500 for Pfizer-BioNTech. At the very least this shows that the AstraZeneca ‘vaccine’ was more than three times as dangerous as the Pfizer-BioNTech ‘vaccine’. Some of those will have been coincidences as every event that occurred was included. The German public health authorities said that 1 in every 3,300 patients injected resulted in a report of a serious adverse event being made. 

Epidemiological Studies

While there have been epidemiological studies looking at the incidence of particular adverse events none seem to have been commissioned by the MHRA. Those that have been published often have not presented the raw data in a meaningful way. For example, the rate of myocarditis after infection in the vaccinated and unvaccinated has never been presented.  

This review reveals deep concerns regarding the integrity and transparency of safety assessments for the covid ‘vaccines’. Lack of proper investigation into adverse event reports, failure to publish key findings, and apparent data manipulation obfuscate the true risks associated with these ‘vaccines’. In the interest of public trust as well as safety, it’s crucial that regulatory bodies urgently rectify these failings and ensure robust and transparent scrutiny of all available data.

Please follow and like us:
Visit Us