I have been having a bit of an e-mail discussion (for wont of a better word) with the MHRA and Pfizer documents:
And my follow-up start of e-mail exchange:
So I got back from them this:
I replied and asked for an internal review:
"Thank you for the information, it was very enlightening.
I was going to reply with a list of vaccines and other drugs that have been withdrawn from the market or refused licences due to a lot less deaths and SAEs than the covid vaccines have generated then I thought “why bother?
The MHRA know of them (or should) but still persist in the "safe and effective narrative as they are obeying political instructions from above”.
By your definition of both “safe” and “effective” the SARS-CoV-2 “covid” vaccinations should be halted immediately based on official figures in the public domain from the Yellow Card system and the ONS deaths data.
This is as per the ICH’s clinical studies guidelines that the UK is signatory to via the EMA. I suggest you look them up, the relevant bit is basically the first line. I can supply a copy if you cannot find it for yourselves, just ask.
Add in VAERS, the TGA system, the EU monitoring system, the lack of investigation into the mounting excess deaths since early 2021and your answer is verging on the nonsensical.
You also say "after a certain number of COVID-19 cases” - but as there is NOT a diagnostic test for covid-19 (neither PCR nor LFTs are a diagnostic tests, see the UK Government’s own documentation, and I have it in writing from the UK Government that at the time the covid vaccinations were introduced they had zero evidence that SARS-CoV-2 caused any sort of medical problems in humans, only the WHO’s word that it did so the efficiency of them cannot be ascertained.
I have read the PARS and there is nothing in any of them that justifies an EUA being issued such as a diagnostic test for the virus in question, the lack of long-term data i.e. longer than 3-6 months, and every section where it states that the information had not been supplied or the EMA was waiting for it.
Have any of the staff at the MHRA read the PARs you keep mentioning? Or have the knowledge, experience or intelligence to see what is wrong with them?
You stated "for example if a serious new side effect is established”.
Well in a previous e-mail exchange I supplied you with 2 Pfizer documents that you claimed the MHRA did not have in it’s possession at the time of the e-mails.
You have now as I supplied pdfs of them and also asked if you would ask Pfizer for these documents.
Did you ask Pfizer? Did you take into account these new lists of side-effects?
Yes or no?Thank you once again for the answer, it was most informative and I look forward to the answer to the questions highlighted in BOLD.
Regards"
I've just received back:
Thank you for your email.
As stated in previous correspondence, we consider data from a range of sources, including the Yellow Card scheme and global post marketing safety data from manufacturers, in our ongoing assessment of the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies have obligations to submit periodic reports of post marketing safety data to regulatory authorities for countries where their products are authorised. You can read more about the pharmacovigilance requirements placed on companies here Guidance on pharmacovigilance procedures - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) When an association with a new safety concern is established, the MHRA ensures that the product information for that vaccine is updated to reflect the risk. The current list of safety concerns considered to be possible side effects for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine can be viewed in the product information here: Regulatory approval of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine for COVID-19 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
So I've requested an internal review
Thank you for your answer but it did NOT answer the questions I asked.
Your answer was totally irrelevant to the main question asked. It is just nonsensical with regard to what information was requested and seems to be a deliberate attempt to obsfucate the issue and avoid supplying a valid answer.
Here is the relevant part of my e-mail request:
I supplied you with 2 Pfizer documents that you claimed the MHRA did not have in it’s possession at the time of the e-mails.
You have now as I supplied pdfs of them and also asked if you would ask Pfizer for these documents.
Did you ask Pfizer?
Did you take into account these new lists of side-effects?
Yes or no?
Thank you once again for the answer, it was most informative and I look forward to the answer to the questions highlighted in BOLD.
The main question that required to be answered was:
When you were made aware of a Pfizer document that the MHRA admitted they did not have in their possession did the MHRA request this document from Pfizer?
It is a simple Yes or No answer.
So is the answer Yes or NO?
The document in question, this one:
was released by the USA’s FDA as they were ordered to released documents by a court.
This is still ongoing and the released documents posted on here:
https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/
Yours sincerely
Wonder what they will come up with next?
I am not sure they ever had the plot or even cared about it.
The grown up word is Obfuscation. In my plain english. Cover up.
MHRA - Medical Hoopla Rubbish Association.