Here are the 2 Pfizer documents the UK's MHRA claimed they did not have in their possession
Wonder if they ever asked Pfizer for them
While in a FOI exchange with the MHRA I asked them if they had received certain Pfizer documents I had found on the internet in 2021.
They said “NO we don’t have them” (see previous posts as it’s mentioned in one of them that is about the vaccines) so I sent them to the MHRA’s specialist team:
Pharmacovigilance Service Team
Vigilance and Risk Management of Medicines Division
Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU
Email: pharmacovigilanceservice@mhra.gov.uk
Here are the documents:
Enjoy the reads - the biodistribution report just shows how pisspoor the standard of the studies and safety trials were and I wondered hoe any regulator who had a basic intelligence let alone specialist knowledge would approve these chemical concoctions especially bearing in mind these statements:
7. Pharmacokinetic drug interactions
No pharmacokinetic drug interaction studies have been conducted with this vaccine.
8. Other pharmacokinetic studies
No other pharmacokinetic studies of this vaccine have been conducted.
And in the document 5.3.6:
Reports are submitted voluntarily, and the magnitude of underreporting is unknown.
only those having a complete workflow cycle in the safety database (meaning they progressed to Distribution or Closed workflow status) are included
This approach prevents the inclusion of cases that are not fully processed hence not accurately reflecting final information.
Due to the large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports received for the product, the MAH has prioritised the processing of serious cases, in order to meet expedited regulatory reporting timelines and ensure these reports are available for signal detection and evaluation activity
And look at how many reports they had and it is only in the 2 months or so after the mass jabbings started:
This document provides an integrated analysis of the cumulative post-authorization safety data, including U.S. and foreign post-authorization adverse event reports received through 28 February 2021.
the System Organ Classes (SOCs) that contained the greatest number (≥2%) of events, in the overall dataset, were General disorders and administration site conditions (51,335 AEs), Nervous system disorders (25,957), Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (17,283), Gastrointestinal disorders (14,096), Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (8,476), Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders (8,848), Infections and infestations (4,610), Injury, poisoning and procedural complications (5,590), and Investigations (3,693).
Case outcome:
Fatal 1223
Unknown 9400
I get the impression that the follow-on scrutinising bodies, such as MHRA in the UK and the EMA in Europe, made the rather lazy but totally understandable judgement that as the FDA in the US had granted Emergency Use Authorisation - with all the caveats, disclaimers and suspension of controls and liability this implies - the heavy lifting had been done so they didn’t have to look too hard at the data, but could just hang onto the FDA’s coat tails.
Unfortunately it’s become clear that the FDA didn’t look that hard at the data either, and according to its Director Rochelle Welensky the CDC in turn got its confidence in the mRNA vaccines from the Pfizer press release via CNN. Add in political pressure and bad modelling from academic institutions it’s no wonder authorities are doubling down on the dogma and no one dare raise their hand and accept that things may not have been handled that well.
I appreciate I have been a bit sweeping in my generalisations but this seems to be the gist.