MHRA Board Meeting 15/11/2022

My thoughts on the MHRA Board Meeting which was held on Tuesday, 15 November 2022.

After the previous meeting I'm hopeful this will be more productive as June Raine had no answers at all previously and citing "it's a work in progress" repeatedly was frustrating to say the least.

June Raine and others repeatedly covering mentions of new products with "impressive science" works being carried out doesn't sound encouraging which is backed up by the fact that most of the governing body's funding provided by big pharma.

How can this actually be allowed to happen if the key idea is to be on the side of the patient and be aiming for impartiality?

"Delays in reporting won't undermine the publics safety concerns" Ms Raine states, "We've learnt valuable lessons on supply chains and vigilance" and the "FDA and Health Canada are helping to provide us a Golden opportunity to buddy up and use A.I. in future treatments communications strategy."

How is it that jargon rules the waves and that the bigger the word the better almost as if it's a competition between departments when the goal should be to actually to provide clear and concise results to treatments and the safety controls in place.

I found it so insulting when a question was raised on patient safety whereby the room then all burst into laughter. How ignorant to all those listening in who'd trusted a government department when they stated their "vaccine" was safe and effective on hearing this and certainly not a laughing matter.

I now have serious concerns that our thoughts weren't being taken seriously today as many people have been harmed and killed by these treatments.

"We have rigorous timelines and schedules but it is very much a work in progress." Again with this frustrating narrative that means no progress made whatsoever and actually is in conflict the statement of a schedule being in place.

My question to the board - "I am an AstraZeneca vaccine injured on 22/2/21 and to battle for recognition and acceptance from many government departments is disheartening. I've had very little responses from the MHRA apart from a casual "have your completed a yellow card report" in reply to sharing my injury story. Where's the trial data that vaccines are "safe and effective" which drove jab take-up?"

"Benefit risk evaluation is difficult as yellow cards skew the data trends and How do we make patients understand how benefit risk works as it's a complex area", is it? I thought it was a very obvious to see and to ignore the yellow card reporting is a way of fudging the data in favour of the pharmaceutical industry and then putting patients at risk.

My Question to the board - "Why would anyone remove yellow card reports? It was admitted to being done as they skew data but they are a vital record of harms being done to vaccine injured and of those who've died as a direct result of vaccination. It's criminal to hide these records results, is it just to protect vaccine uptake?"

"So far, it's very interesting how anyone could just ignore these crucial points being raised and I'm not the only one being blanked here by the MHRA board. Please hear us!" I stated on the MHRA board's chat function.

"We want safe data access but we don't want to stifle innovation" stated Puja but I'm sorry, it sounds like taking risks with people lives by not taking into account harms is actually acceptable. "Using a TRE model means we'll have data quality and which that the public won't be able to manipulate", this sounds like no matter what is submitted to the reporting scheme will then be skewed by the MHRA.

"Our Vaccine expertise is world class and our behavioural science advisory group provides cutting edge reports." In my opinion, reports don't really offer much in the way of substance sadly, whereas actions do and again this meeting is full of statements of reviews, actions and "wonderful work" being done but little evidence of to be seen.

"Congratulations to all over the vigilance platforms bringing a digital integration with Safety Connect coming soon."

Sadly, It's all very much a congratulatory exercise of every ones work so far what I'm hearing and I feel angry that people were being invited to effectively take part albeit via online questions but no real substance of this happening, sadly.

Notifications of public questions not covered during the meeting but by personal response isn't very ideal or satisfactory and to wait around 7 days hardly gets the questions heard by a public hearing body.

There's "champagne on ice" was mentioned by board members to huge laughs again but it hardly instills me with any confidence that this wasn't anything but a box ticking exercise to the public that they're working for their money.

So to round off the meeting there were acknowledgements that 6 questions were being answered by online attendees by the board at the end.

My question on a lack of impartiality by the MHRA being mostly funded by the pharmaceutical industry was acknowledged, however not actually answered with "a fee paid doesn't mean a favourable outcome" whereas where's the proof of safety and effectiveness data being carried out?