This post was written by one of the readers of the Trust the Evidence Substack who would like to remain anonymous. The facts are as reported.
I reported the death of a dear friend to the MHRA’s Yellow Card Scheme back in March 2021. She had become immediately unwell following her first COVID-19 vaccination, a pain at the injection site spreading across her chest and leading to a minor heart attack nine days later. Eight days after that, she was dead.
A full 10 months elapsed before the MHRA finally got back in touch to request more details. I had assumed they were busy following up on my report, so I didn’t think to chase them.
I answered the questions as best I could. We didn’t know which vaccine brand or batch number had been administered, but the Yellow Card Service Team assured me they would contact our friend’s GP surgery and obtain those details. Once they had them, they said they would update me.
Weeks, then months, went by. I chased via email, and on April 12th, 2022, over a year since my original report, I was told they had sent a letter to the GP surgery. I waited a few more weeks before contacting them again for an update. This time, I was told:
April 27th, 2022
Unfortunately, the letter has not been posted out from the office yet. When someone from the team is next in the office it will be sent out. Please accept our apologies for the delay. If further information is received, we will be in contact.
I was astonished. Why was the Yellow Card Service Team not working in the office? This was clearly hampering their ability to respond to and thoroughly investigate suspected adverse event reports. What could be more important, at a time when extraordinary efforts were being made to induce even children as young as 5 to “grab a jab”?
I urged the Yellow Card Service Team to phone or email the GP surgery instead to speed up their investigations. To which I was told:
May 6th, 2022
We usually follow up on cases via email, however as only a postal address was provided we have written to the GP and are awaiting a response.
I supplied the GP surgery’s full postal address, website and phone number over a month before. An email address was just one click away. Were they being wilfully obtuse? Or did this illustrate the MHRA’s wholly careless approach to monitoring the safety of brand-new drugs rolled out to millions?The automatic reply from the Yellow Card mailbox said that if I was unsatisfied with the handling of my case, I could contact the Service Team Manager, Faiza Farooq. In June 2022, when my further emails and phone calls were unsuccessful, I decided to do just that. Much to my amazement, I heard from Faiza within five minutes.
June 14th, 2022
Thank you for your email. I will discuss this with my colleagues in the assessment team and get back to you.And then… nothing. More weeks and months passed. I periodically emailed but to no avail. At the beginning of October 2022, I phoned the MHRA. I was told the Benefit-Risk Team was looking into my case and should have an update within days. They did not provide an update.
I even contacted my friend’s GP surgery to see if they would tell me which vaccine and batch number our friend was given. They couldn’t. They also said they hadn’t received any correspondence on the matter, but in the MHRA’s defence, this turned out to be untrue.
I had the idea of submitting a Subject Access Request (SAR) to find out what data and information was being held on me, my adverse drug reaction report and efforts (if any) made by the MHRA to investigate my report. I submitted this on December 16th, 2022.
Their reply on January 30th, 2023 (two weeks after their response was due) was revealing.Firstly, the MHRA had incorrectly logged the age of our deceased friend on their system. Not a great start. More importantly, the SAR revealed the Yellow Card Team’s lacklustre attempts to investigate my report. They had only tried to contact the GP surgery twice – once by letter (in April 2022, after I had started to make a fuss) and once by email (October 11th, 2022, after further urging by me to do so). An email referred to someone’s intention to call the GP surgery, but as far as I can tell, it didn’t happen. Entirely missing was any attempt to contact the hospital where our friend was taken following the heart attack.
I decided to rattle more cages. After all, I’d come this far. Armed with the knowledge that they had indeed been approached, I contacted the GP surgery again. Finally, complete GP records were made available to the Yellow Card Team. After two years of trying, I finally learnt that our friend had been given AstraZeneca, batch AB0002.
I contacted the hospital and requested that complete records be sent; I was doing the MHRA’s job for them. Naturally, the hospital initially said that I would need to obtain our (deceased) friend’s written permission to proceed.
I wrote to the MHRA Chief Safety Officer, Dr. Alison Cave. In the March 2023 board meeting, I was surprised to hear Cave claim that “every single serious adverse event to a vaccine is interrogated and analysed extremely carefully” and that there is ”huge attention to detail and careful analysis of every single report that comes through”.I sent her an account of my experience and urged her to reflect on the issues I raised. She defensively replied two months later, “Our follow-up procedures are robust, and we will further enhance our ability to extract this information in the future.” She also told me about their “proactive strategy” for monitoring the COVID-19 vaccines and that “I consider that we have fulfilled our responsibilities set out under this strategy.” You can read Dr. Cave’s response by downloading the letter here.
I exchanged a few emails with the Director of Nursing at the hospital where our friend had been treated. She was helpful (if slow) and kept me updated as the wheels of MHRA pharmacovigilance slowly creaked into life. Three more months went by. Then the Director of Nursing emailed to say that a verbal discussion had occurred with Phil Tregunno, MHRA Deputy Director of Patient Safety Monitoring, no less. Two years and three months after the original Yellow Card was submitted, something vaguely resembling the ‘analysis’ of my report was finally happening.
Two things stood out from the details I was sent: firstly, the case was discussed verbally, with no records (including scans) being sent via email. Secondly, the MHRA usually requests details of concurrent medication and medical history at the time of administration and not post-administration. I assume that means they aren’t interested in any symptoms experienced after administration, which seems absurd.
This saga had a few more minor twists and turns, but you get the gist. I will just mention that the GP records show our deceased friend was invited back via text for a second jab six weeks after the first one, which potentially killed her. You couldn’t make it up.I can only conclude that the MHRA is hopelessly inept or wilfully blind. I suspect both. The Yellow Card system is supposed to “rigorously” and “continuously” “monitor information on suspected safety concerns” – ready to sound the alarm as an early warning system at the first sign of a problem. It seems pretty clear they aren’t doing even a basic evaluation of suspected lethal side effects. I’d bet my experience is not a one-off.
I wrote to a doctor with cardiac expertise to get his take on what happened to our friend. He wrote back: “It sounds more than likely the vaccine may have triggered myocarditis and led to her death. But you are never going to be able to prove this. The system is big and powerful and wants no vaccine-related deaths to mess up the ‘vaccines are wonderful’ narrative. I think you will only drive yourself nuts looking for answers here.”
I don’t think I’ve driven myself nuts quite yet, but I have accepted that we will never know for sure whether the COVID-19 vaccine killed our friend or whether the timing was simply a coincidence. There were no hugs or kisses the last time we were together because she wanted to be sensible and maintain ‘social distancing’. I think about that often. Do those who work for the MHRA ever spare a thought for the real human beings at the other end of a Yellow Card report? I doubt it.
Our friend was previously healthy and not on any other medication, so when she became immediately unwell after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine and died 17 days later, the least I would expect is that such a report would be adequately and thoroughly investigated as a matter of urgency. The fact that it was not is disturbing. The MHRA’s bombastic and repeated claims about what a good job they are doing could not sound more hollow.
This mess needs sorting out, but who in government has the power and the inclination to do it? From where I’m sitting, I see no one who fits that bill.
Dr. Carl Heneghan is the Oxford Professor of Evidence Based Medicine and Dr. Tom Jefferson is an epidemiologist based in Rome who works with Professor Heneghan on the Cochrane Collaboration. This article was first published on their Substack, Trust the Evidence, which you can subscribe to here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Being a globalist has nothing whatever to do with faith. I did noit know Schapps was jewish and I don’t care, he was incompetent as Transpiort Secretary and he has been disruptive fopr a long time. He has always valued a press release or interview higher than doing his job. Maybe that is why DVLA performed so badly under his watch.
I can see no reason whatsoever why jewish people would not value the independence of the country as much as anyone else in the UK. Globalisation is not free trade (which I support with few restrictions or qualifications) but globalisation has come to mean:
1 surrendering our self government to unelected, unknown, international socialists who develop theor policy at our expense in secret.
2 unlimited mass migration of poor ill educated masses to places which have evolved greater social infrastructure and a capacity for greater output per head, which the poor in the recipient countries are expected to suffer for.
Neither did I. He’s such an unimpressive individual that none of us know the first thing about him!
So true!
Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab are the two names most people would cite when asked to describe a Globalist.
I don’t believe that either man is Jewish.
Both could do with a little chop , if they haven’t already
I wasn’t aware that being a lackey of the WEF and following an agenda that uses climate change as the rationale for eradicating cash payments, eroding basic freedoms and giving governments and corporations almost unlimited power over citizens, had anything to do with Judaism or any other religion.
There’s a Jonathan Miller joke from the Sixties that comes to mind…
Now go away and get our shrubbery or we shall say “anti-Semitic” at you again.
Ah, “the age old anti-Semitic trope that sees the Rothschilds running the world’s media and the global banking system.”
Why is that anti-Semitic? It’s clearly assumed as a given in the article. The Rothschilds had inordinate influence in the banking systems of their day and were instrumental in the relationships between governments and private banks through their so-called independent central banks. They brought the model to the US through their non-Jewish counterparts Morgan and Rockefeller and eventually established the Federal Reserve on Jekyll Island. This same cabal of bankers control the world’s money supply through the IMF, World Bank, central banks in each country and the fractional reserve system which allows them to create debt money out of nothing and give it to their cronies through quantitative easing. These are age old dynastic banking empires that bear the names of their patriarchs in the firms they operate under. One of the big names happens to be Jewish.
What does this have to do with being anti-Jewish or having anything against the Jewish race? Few of the top banking families today are actually Jewish, especially at the top. Why does the name Rothschild allow our whole system of financial corruption to be shrouded by the fig leaf of the Holocaust?
Or are we really that easily discouraged from asking?
Sadly ‘anti-semitic’ has become a catch-all defence against any threats to the status quo, easily invoked because some Jews inevitably occupy positions of power. Regrettably this is also a strategy used by Israel whenever anyone criticises its policies. It’s a dangerous game; both cheapening and normalising anti-semitism, crying wolf, and running the risk of creating greater hostility and mistrust for the very group it pretends to defend.
yes before the first world war the Rothschilds were influential. when I started working in the City they were one of a number of merchant banks, all of whom were even then lightly capitalised by international standards, and of no particular reputation except for their name.so when Rothschilds are so often still mentioned when discussing international finance one must wonder whether the writer does not know the names of any others or it is intended to be anti semitic although it is debateable how many of the present lot of that family regards themselves as Jewish having married out so much
I think there is a perception that Jews are over-represented in international finance and have a tendency to be clannish. Whether that’s true or not I don’t know but there are plenty of instances of particular races being over -represented in particular sectors and probably behaving clannishly which is a natural human trait. If we can’t discuss whether these things are true or not and whether they matter then it’s hard to talk about the world in any sensible manner, while at the same time being conscious of where such reasoning might lead – but that can’t be an excuse to shut down debate and silence people you don’t like.
An antisemite is someone who proposes, implements or agrees with an antisemitic policy, ie one targetting Jews because they’re Jews. That’s the only sensible definition of the term. Any use other use of it is just another case of the tried and trusted American (of course) tactic of substituting (hysterical/ alarmist) name calling and guilty-by-association fallacies for political arguments. In the given context, it basically means Farrage is A Really Evil Guy[tm] and as All Good People Must Shun Really Evil Guys[tm] unless they want to become really evil guys themselves, what he actually said doesn’t matter anymore.
As a Jew, I would like an explanation of the opening sentence, ‘As a Jew that observed the Corbyn years with horror, I’ve developed a hair-trigger sensitivity to resurgent anti-Semitism.’
I would like to know what resurgent anti-semitism the author is referring to. What I observed was a relentless politically-motivated and very obvious smear campaign against a politician who, for all his manifest flaws, is categorically not anti-semitic. Reluctant to read the rest of the article with that ill-informed opener.
Yes I can’t stand Corbyn or his politics but that particular accusation against him never seemed all that credible to me.
His brother Piers on the other hand is carrying out sterling work on our behalf regarding upholding our rights and freedoms.
“RESIST DEFY DO NOT COMPLY!!!”
For god’s sake, let’s get this whole anti-semitism out in the open shall we? It is not anti-semitic to dislike someone of Jewish origin or to insult someone of Jewish origin. It IS anti-semitic to dislike someone because they are Jewish or insult someone because they are Jewish. There is a huge difference. The term anti-semitic is explained in the actual words used in the term as in ‘against semites’. So, it follows that it’s not anti-semitic to support the right for Palestinians to have their own country – something that is often cited as an extreme form of anti-semitism. It’s not, it’s just a way that Jewish nationalists prevent a large body of people (potential enemies now) having their own country on one’s own doorstep – having systematically taken away those people’s lands since 1948 in the first place. That’s not anti-semitic, by the way, that’s what actually happened. I personally didn’t like the way it happened but I have no problem with people being Jewish. It is what is done in their name that I don’t like and then the way that that is weaponised so no one has the right to criticise the state of Israel, which is absolute nonsense. Everyone has a right to a homeland as the Jewish people did when they carved out the state of Israel. For Jewish groups to pounce on Nigel Farage for being anti-semitic for calling out Grant Shapps as a ‘globalist’ is just ridiculous because Shapps IS a globalist who also happen tp be Jewish. Farage didn’t call him out for being ‘Jewish’ did he? Case closed.
I think it should be stronger than that: An antisemite is someone who wants to persecute Jews, who is persecuting Jews or who believes that Jews ought to be persecuted. That’s more than a mere dislike. Eg, I dislike football and football fans. But I’m perfectly ok with the the fact that both exist.
Fair enough, better description, RW.
No one ever thought about the slippery sh1thouse,s religious beliefs he’s just plain dodgy ! Didn’t he have an alias at some point intertwined with some nefarious business deals ! Actually he’d make a great MP , oh hang on …
It was from the infamous Alex Jones decades ago where I first heard the term globalist being used as a description and catch-all for the hidden hand running the gears behind the scenes. I guess I’m more interested in why these connections are becoming more frequented in the mainstream, usually the tactic was to simply ignore and leave it to the depths of the internet where any potential progress in the narrative never really gained traction or a critical mass of exposure to genuinely change perceptions, so why we’re now witnessing these powerful institutions running defence is the more pertinent question in my opinion.
Catherine Austin Fitts calls “them” Mr Global doesn’t she and I’m pretty sure she’s referencing the same elitist cartel pulling the strings. How any of this is anti-Semitic though I’ve no idea – it’s almost as if the propagandists are starting to believe the conspiracy narratives they told us were dangerous and ignore for our health themselves. What’s next – any criticism of the Israeli government to be considered anti-Semitic?
Along with many, I didn’t know anything about Shapp’s religion. He’s been one of many Transport Ministers, but one should note that Ministers in that department have to behave like steering a massive ship. Trying to get it to change course is hard work, with most of it’s policies built in under the direction of the Permanent Sec et al.
Schapps sounds vaccinated to me.
resurgent antisemitism from the Corby years, there’s a trope for a start
If people don’t want to be called Globalists, perhaps they shouldn’t behave like one.
Schwab’s book on the Great Reset singled out Brexit Britain and Trump US for criticism, while praising the EU, CCP, WHO and UN.
“Fascism, Nazism, Communism and Socialism are only superficial variations of the same monstrous theme—collectivism.” – Ayn Rand