Who regulates the regulator?

Young people in the Covid-19 vaccine trials had some alarming reactions which have never been reported in the mainstream press.

Jonathan Weissman has spent the last year investigating the safety, efficacy and strategic viability of the Covid-19 vaccines which he describes as “experimental genetic drugs.” He has recently supported a legal challenge against treating children in Northern Ireland with these novel vaccines. Now he has concluded that he has been dealing with “a rogue industry and regulators too passive to intervene”

Dr John Campbell, host of a podcast with a regular audience of over 200,000 viewers about Covid-19, was shocked at the adverse reaction information released by Pfizer after a US judge had to force their co-operation with a Freedom of Information request by a team of doctors

Do you remember the fanfare and excitement in late 2020 that greeted the new vaccines, capable of instructing our cells to produce a protein found on the surface of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2?

Propelled by President Trump’s Operation Warp Speed, these vaccines were praised for being cutting edge: a feat of human ingenuity. But with innovation in drug development should also come caution, cool heads and careful analysis.

As a cybersecurity professional, I am used to identifying risks and so for the past year, I’ve simply reapplied the same kind of scrutiny to the Covid-19 vaccines.

In support of a recent legal challenge, I studied Pfizer’s clinical trial data for adolescents aged 12 to 15. Only 1131 adolescents were exposed to the vaccine during the blinded study, [1] where participants were “blind” to knowing if they received the actual vaccine or a saline placebo. Prior to the data cut-off date of 13 March 2021, a further 49 youngsters from the placebo group turned 16 and received the vaccine during the open-label study. [2]

The trial report confirms there were no cases of severe Covid-19 disease, thus providing no direct evidence that the vaccine prevents adolescents from being hospitalised with Covid-19. The study also did not prove that viral transmission was reduced. However, the small treatment group of just 1180 youngsters suffered some very significant adverse events within 15 days of a vaccine dose:

a related life-threatening fever of 40.4C that took two days to resolve [1]
a related life-threatening anaphylaxis reaction [3]
a related with “reasonable possibility” myopericarditis (heart inflammation) hospitalised a boy, advised by a cardiologist after two months to conduct only “limited activity” [4]
Four hospitalisations for depression, including one of life-threatening severity [3] [5]
a catastrophic cascade of injuries in one girl who still suffers life-changing injuries, mislabelled “as gradually improving” by the European medical regulator, the EMA [3]

Maddie de Garay is the girl whose injuries are so devastatingly severe, she has spoken out. After immediately suffering pain at the injection site, she then suffered extreme chest and abdominal pain and numbness within the first day. [6] Her sorrowful mother, Stephanie de Garay, testified to Senator Ron Johnson at the Senate hearing into vaccine damage.

Maddie’s condition significantly deteriorated; now wheelchair-bound, she can now only eat liquid food through a nasogastric tube. However, little more than two weeks after the data cut-off date, on 31 March 2021, Pfizer’s press briefing on their adolescent trial announced “positive topline results” and boasted their treatment was “well-tolerated”. [7]

It is the critical job of the UK’s medical regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority (MHRA), to keep the manufacturers in check by only ever approving safe and effective medicines. If the regulator fails in their duty, it is then up to ordinary doctors, scientists and citizen researchers to speak up in warning.

The MHRA cited a World Health Organisation vaccine report from as far back as 2005 to justify skipping safety studies on chemical toxicity, cancer and genetic damage to cells

The MHRA have provided their justification to temporarily authorise the Covid-19 vaccines in public assessment reports (PARs). In their rush to rubber stamp these vaccines, the MHRA acted brazenly. In Pfizer’s PAR, the MHRA cited a World Health Organisation vaccine report from as far back as 2005 to justify skipping safety studies on chemical toxicity, cancer and genetic damage to cells. [8] The Covid-19 vaccines on the table since 2020 are nothing like those deployed in 2005. Safety risks were undoubtedly taken to avoid slowing down the approval process.

We are being asked to trust a regulator who still will not sound the alarm, despite 2000 deaths already recorded in their Yellow Card Scheme as “suspected side effects”

The goal of the pharmaceutical industry is to develop medical products that prove some type of benefit in their clinical trials, so they can ultimately sell them to as many of us as possible. Like any major business, they have shareholders to please.

Pfizer's ‘heavily redacted’ list of raw ingredients [3.2.P.1-1], released for Jonathan Weissman’s freedom of information request — Pfizer’s ‘heavily redacted’ list of raw ingredients [3.2.P.1-1], released for Jonathan Weissman’s freedom of information request

In February 2021, the Japanese medical regulator (PDMA) released a Pfizer study showing how widely the vaccine distributed across the bodies of rats.

Within 48 hours, 16% of the vaccine concentrated in the liver, 1% in the spleen and up to 0.1% in both the ovaries and heart. In the real-world rollout, this may explain serious adverse events observed in different organs. In tissues far from the injection site, cells may express the spike protein inducing antibody, inflammatory and cytotoxic immune responses.

Recent peer-reviewed research proves that, under transmission electron microscopy, the spike protein produced by the vaccine circulates in the bloodstream for months following injection. [10] The spike protein is strongly suspected to cause the blood clots sometimes observed in severe Covid-19 cases.

The precise composition of all the vaccines is a trade secret. [11] Despite this fact, the MHRA have tried to reassure the public that all the ingredients are known by citing a legal duty the pharmaceuticals have to disclose the ingredients in a document filed with the MHRA, the SmPC. [11]

However, the MHRA are not explaining that some of these ingredients are anything but pure, containing residual impurities from complex manufacturing processes. Pfizer’s novel lipids, ALC-0159 and ALC-0315, have never been included in any licensed drug before and have undisclosed quality control standards. [12] [13]

This is truly the “black-box” approach to drug safety. We are being asked to trust a regulator who still will not sound the alarm, despite 2000 deaths already recorded in their Yellow Card Scheme as “suspected side effects” from the Covid-19 vaccines.

Pfizer’s raw ingredients table 3.2.P.1-1 released for Jonathan Weissman’s freedom of information request is heavily redacted [11]

This exemplifies the behaviour of a rogue industry and regulators too passive to intervene. Both need to be first rebuked and then utterly reformed before any more innocent people are harmed through their reckless actions.

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.” Ephesians 5:11

Jonathan Weissman is a cybersecurity professional and part-time independent researcher in biosecurity, operational research and theology. He has written a fully independent biosecurity risk assessment on #AllTheRisks of the experimental genetic vaccination campaign across toxicology, molecular biology, virology, immunology and epidemiology, which he hosts at alltherisks.com. It includes 211 academic-style references.