About the middle of May 2021, an individual attended the Greater Manchester Vaccination Centre to experience the Covid vaccination procedure, but without accepting an actual vaccination. The aim of the visit was to attend as an ordinary member of the public, after having booked an appointment via the normal NHS 119 Vaccine Appointment Line. The short video clip below records that visit. The recorded video has been edited to cut out waiting time in the vaccine centre queues, and the voice of the attendee has been changed to protect their identity.
To help the viewer understand conversations against high background noise and voice changes, a simple transcript of the conversations has been embedded in the video itself. Please watch the video in the box below, but please also read this article, which emphasises important points around the vaccination procedure, and, in particular, failures of the vaccination team to warn the attendee of the true scale and nature of the vaccine adverse reactions to which they may be subjected.
Vaccine adverse reactions to date of this article (late May 2021)
To date, some 822,845 vaccine adverse reactions have been recorded in the United Kingdom by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), together with 1,180 deaths. These figures are across all vaccine types, as detailed in the UK Column COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects analysis overview below. Please note that the UK Column summary data is a presentation of the actual data taken from the UK Government MHRA Yellow Card vaccine adverse effects data itself.
Unlike the deliberately confusing datasets presented by the MHRA, the UK Column dataset is presented in a clear and easily searchable database. It should be noted that where minor discrepancies in data entries occur, these errors exist in the original MHRA data entries themselves.
Greater Manchester Vaccine Centre staff warnings of adverse effects
In the video clip, viewers and listeners will hear the vaccination staff describing possible vaccine adverse reactions (side effects) in the following ways:
"Some people get a bit of an achy arm after the vaccination"
"Not everybody gets them. A lot of people get them during the night then they feel better in the morning"
"[The effect] really depends on you as a person"
"Although it's extremely rare, to keep you safe they have put on here the symptoms of a blood clot"
"It's about four in a million patients that have had these blood clots, so it is extremely rare"
"Everyone is really different … you know, I see thousands a week and I'd say about half have side effects from the first one"
"Read the information on blood clots on page 5 [of the leaflet given to the attendee]"
"Well, I mean, I had a headache and it's just like flu symptoms … so you are either going to get them or not"
"So the side effects that you would have from AstraZeneca are the same side effects that you would have from Pfizer or Moderna … it doesn’t matter which one you have"
"It affects everybody differently. You might feel a bit rubbish tonight and have a bit of a headache, or feel nothing at all. It’s the luck of the draw, I’m afraid."
"Fingers crossed, you won't get any side effects"
Failure of Greater Manchester Vaccine Centre staff to provide Informed Choice to those considering accepting a vaccination
It is clear that there is a huge output of UK Government media messaging encouraging people to be vaccinated. It is also now public knowledge that the UK Government has been using propaganda to ramp up fear in the public to increase adherence to the political policy promoting vaccination. Culpable within this programme was the Government's COVID scientific body, SAGE, abetted by the Behavioural Insights Team. The technique was to use applied behavioural psychology to instil fear and anxiety of the so-called COVID pandemic, so as to increase adherence to the political policy for vaccination.
In contrast to the push for widespread vaccinations on the back of COVID-19 fear and vaccination 'benefits', the Government made little effort to warn the public of the risks of vaccine adverse effects. Yet this calculated omission is directly contrary to the NHS Constitution's rules on providing patients with both the risks and benefits of any medication or vaccine.
Within its foundation constitutional document, the NHS (specifically for England) clearly states, in the section entitled Respect, Consent and Confidentiality:
You have the right to be treated with dignity and respect, in accordance with your human rights.
You have the right to be protected from abuse and neglect, and care and treatment that is degrading.
You have the right to accept or refuse treatment that is offered to you, and not to be given any physical examination or treatment unless you have given valid consent. If you do not have the capacity to do so, consent must be obtained from a person legally able to act on your behalf, or the treatment must be in your best interests.
You have the right to be given information about the test and treatment options available to you, what they involve and their risks and benefits.
You have the right of access to your own health records and to have any factual inaccuracies corrected.
You have the right to privacy and confidentiality and to expect the NHS to keep your confidential information safe and secure.
You have the right to be informed about how your information is used.
You have the right to request that your confidential information is not used beyond your own care and treatment and to have your objections considered, and where your wishes cannot be followed, to be told the reasons including the legal basis.
The key paragraph emboldened above sets out in terms that an individual has "the right to be given information about the test and treatment options available to you, what they involve, and their risks and benefits."
Contrary to that clearly-stated right to be told about the risks and benefits of vaccines, the public is simply not being told of the real risks of vaccines, as now recorded from the personal testimony of those experiencing vaccine adverse effects, and as also recorded by the MHRA, the regulatory and safety body, in their own Yellow Card vaccine adverse effects data.
Worse than not being told the real risks, the public is being deliberately misled with a government-orchestrated media and propaganda campaign promoting the false idea that vaccines are proven to be effective against COVID-19, whilst suggesting that vaccine adverse reactions are all minor and pose no real risks.
It is clear that the NHS and support staff within the Greater Manchester Vaccination Centre, as just one example, are promoting this dangerous and misleading government vaccine line—which equates to "Vaccines are safe, but you may get some very minor side effects."
That this skewed information is reinforced with a "Fingers crossed, you will not get any side effects" professional statement is shameful.
Alongside the tragic 1,180 deaths recorded thus far in the MHRA Yellow Card vaccine adverse effect data, the statistics show a frightening catalogue of serious and life-changing adverse effects.
COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects analysis: Blood Disorders
If we focus on the subject of blood clots, as were at least mentioned by the Greater Manchester Vaccine Centre staff, the MHRA data on blood clots (within the wider search category of Blood Disorders) as found via the UK Column COVID-19 Vaccine Analysis search engine indicates 11,409 total adverse reactions and 13 fatalities.
MHRA deliberately misleads the public over Yellow Card vaccine adverse effects
But we must also remember that the MHRA has stated in its article Yellow Card: please help to reverse the decline in reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions dated 17 May 2019 that:
2018 saw a fall in reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to the Yellow Card Scheme from key reporter groups, including GPs, pharmacists, and hospital doctors. Every Yellow Card report counts, and a few minutes taken by you or your patient to report can make a lifetime of difference for others — don’t delay, report today!
Don’t wait for someone else to report it
It is estimated that only 10% of serious reactions and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported. Under-reporting, coupled with a decline in reporting, makes it especially important to report all suspicions of adverse drug reactions to the Yellow Card Scheme.
So significant was this admission as to the failure of the Yellow Card vaccine adverse reaction reporting system that the MHRA recently attempted to further mislead the public over vaccine adverse reactions by adding the following paragraph to the "Don't wait for someone else to report it" text above.
This article was published in response to a decline in Yellow Card reporting in 2018. The reporting rate for adverse drug reactions is variable and can depend on a multitude of factors. These estimates should not be used as indicators of the reporting rate for COVID-19 vaccines, for which there is high public awareness of the Yellow Card scheme and the reporting of suspected reactions. For more information, see the COVID-19 vaccine weekly report.
This latest MHRA statement is a deliberately misleading statement, in that, firstly, the primary responsibility for reporting of Yellow Card vaccine adverse effects falls upon the GP or NHS clinician, and not the general public, and secondly, the Yellow Card vaccine adverse reaction reporting system has not been widely promoted by the UK Government, NHS or MHRA when promoting vaccines to the public.
Characteristically of this failure, the MHRA Yellow Card vaccine adverse reaction reporting was not mentioned by the Greater Manchester Vaccination Centre staff in the patient contact recorded in the video above, nor was it mentioned by vaccination or NHS staff in the case the tragic death of former Manchester police sergeant Peter Meadows following vaccination, as recounted by his daughters in their interview with the UK Column, A Good Man Down.
Far from this being a matter of isolated cases, the failure of NHS staff to report vaccine adverse effects to the Yellow Card system has been identified as the norm by individuals and families reporting both minor and serious vaccine adverse reactions to UK Column. Awareness of that failure is also increasingly being amplified by widespread comment across social media on Yellow Card reporting failures after vaccine adverse effect cases.
But What About The Millions of Vaccines Administered?
When faced with the Yellow Card vaccine adverse reaction and fatality statistics, many people are quick to retort, "But what about the millions of vaccines administered?" At first, this seems a logical rebuttal, because the total number of doses administered nationally, reported up to 22 May 2021, is 50 million—a vast number.
Yet the mind of the person asking this rhetorical question is already formulating the defensive argument that the vaccine adverse reactions statistics are very small compared to the number of vaccines given. This is, however, a false argument, since we are interested in the nature and accuracy of the Yellow Card adverse reactions statistics which the MHRA have collected. The efficacy of our analysis of that Yellow card data stands, whatever the total number of vaccines administered.
To put this simply, if the MHRA says that 822,845 people have had a range of adverse effects, from minor to serious, and including 1,180 fatalities (to 22 May 2021), are these figures accurate statistics for vaccine-caused adverse effects? If not, why not? And, whatever the accuracy of the statistics themselves, who is investigating just how many people have been seriously hurt or died as a result of vaccines?
In the MHRA's online article dated 17 May 2019, entitled Yellow Card: please help to reverse the decline in reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions, the MHRA freely admits that "only 10% of serious reactions and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported." That being the case, then, what are the true figures, and what action has the MHRA been taking to establish the true figures of vaccine adverse reactions?
The onus is, and must be, on the MHRA itself, as the safety agency for medicines and vaccines, to establish the true figures. After all, the Yellow Card data is their own data, and it relates to human beings suffering damage and/or dying after receiving a vaccine supposedly designed to protect them and their health.
Surely, the MHRA is assessing the accuracy of its own data in both scope and content?
To address that question, we need to bear in mind that the carefully-crafted new paragraph inserted in a previous MHRA article, as quoted above, blatantly attempts to undermine public confidence in the MHRA Yellow Card data collection process: firstly, by suggesting that "the reporting rate for adverse drug reactions is variable and can depend on a multitude of factors." The inference here is that because of its variability and the dependency on multiple factors, the data is suspect from the start.
Secondly, the MHRA reinforces the uncertainty it has caused by this first statement, by stating point-blank that its Yellow Card data—now described as "estimates"!—should not be used as indicators of the reporting rate for COVID-19 vaccines; the very purpose for which the MHRA has been maintaining the Yellow Card system within the COVID-19 vaccination programme.
Lastly, the MHRA tells a blatant lie when it states that "there is high public awareness of the Yellow Card scheme and the reporting of suspected reactions." Contrary to that claim of high public awareness, the public has little real awareness of the Yellow Card system, since it is not told of the importance of the Yellow Card system in any government or MHRA public briefings, nor within the wider media, and neither is the Yellow Card system highlighted by GPs, or the NHS Vaccine Helpline. Nor is it highlighted or used by many NHS staff when faced with likely vaccine adverse reaction patients.
Against this strangely opaque background to the MHRA Yellow Card system, we should remember that in November 2020 it was reported that "Software company Genpact UK has been paid £1.5m for an AI tool that will be used to process the adverse reactions of the COVID-19 vaccines."
The article informed us that:
The Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority (MHRA) has paid Genpact UK a tender of £1.5m to develop an AI tool to sift through the high volume of reports of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.
The government contract states that the AI tool will “process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine adverse drug reaction (ADRs) and ensure that no details are missed.”
At this stage, it is probable that the reader will be wondering, "But why would the MHRA work to undermine the validity and reliability of the very vaccine adverse reaction data that it established the Yellow Card system to collect in the first place, and for which it tendered a substantial IT contract to build the database?"
UK Column would suggest the answer is that the Yellow Card vaccine adverse data is merely a publicity exercise. The Yellow Card system is actually designed to deceive the public into believing that the MHRA is collecting vaccine adverse reaction data to protect the health and safety of the those individuals being vaccinated, by supposedly identifying and collating actual and perceived vaccine adverse effects.
In reality, the MHRA is not primarily interested in public health and safety. It is actually collecting vaccination data on behalf of Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, and, in due course, other manufacturers, in line with the MHRA 2020-2021 Business Plan, in which it states:
Our Agency Business Plan 2020-21 sets the direction for what the Agency will achieve over the next financial year. It is organised around five strategic goals:
1. Patients, Public and Health Service — to ensure information and advice is available to enable well-informed decisions by patients and healthcare professionals, by engaging proactively with the public, patients, health services, and health care professionals.
2. Innovation and Regulatory Science — to support the development of better, safer healthcare products for patients, underpinned by innovation, scientific evidence, and technology.
3. Lifecycle and Safety Management — to improve proportionate decision-making in the interests of patients
4. Data and Analytics — to enhance access to data, data services, and evidence-based data analysis to underpin our regulatory and science processes.
5. Governance and Partnerships — to develop reinforced governance, delivery capacity and partnership working.
Significantly, only point 1 suggests concern for the interests of patients. Point 2 introduces the idea of (drug, vaccine, patient) safety, but this is really a side issue to the development of "better, safer healthcare products" for the MHRA's real customers: the drug companies themselves, whom it partners, regulates and milks for fees. This is a "business plan", after all, and the Agency's name refers to "products". The document is not entitled MHRA Healthcare Plan 2020-2021.
Consider the Big Pharma business aspect of the COVID-19 vaccination programme, and we can suddenly see the need for a vast database. Hence—with circa 50 million doses already having been given, and with millions more younger adults and children to come—this substantial data processing load that required the specialist AI company Genpact to be engaged, for a fee of some £1.5 million.
How can we be sure that the MHRA is not assessing its own Yellow Card vaccine adverse effect data?
There are a variety of pointers which indicate that the MHRA is not assessing its own data to determine how many adverse reactions have been collected, how many missed, or how many adverse reactions relate to each individual, nor is it assessing the wider medical circumstances in which the vaccination adverse effects occurred.
The UK Column is very confident in reporting that the MHRA is not doing its job to protect the public, because—aside from the fact that they have not published any evidence to show that they are conducting safety checks on their own adverse reaction data—they refuse to answer questions on this critical subject. Significantly, their silence on the scale and accuracy of vaccine adverse data is mirrored by the MHRA's partner in crime, the NHS.
UK Column email to NHS England
On 26 March 2021 at 11:16, the UK Column sent the following email to NHS England to formalise an inquiry via their media team.
Vaccine Adverse Effects — NHS Due Diligence — Duty of Care
As a journalist, I am being contacted by a range of people reporting serious vaccine adverse effects experienced personally, and/or by relatives, friends and work colleagues.
The adverse effects include death, together with serious neurological issues, anaphylaxis and other severe medical conditions necessitating both Intensive Care and specialist hospital treatment.
The individuals state that at no time were they warned of such adverse effects before having the vaccine, and their claims appear correct in that neither the NHS nor the Vaccination Centre teams are warning of any adverse effects over and above minor vaccine site irritation and “feeling poorly” for 24 hours.
This tragic list of damaged individuals is the human side of the MHRA Vaccine Adverse Reaction data, which clearly indicates a vast range of both serious and more minor post-vaccine adverse reactions, as recorded to date.
The direct concerns of these individuals are reinforced by NHS professionals who are also coming forward to warn of the intake of vaccine-damaged patients.
As per our telephone conversation at 10:38 today, please provide a formal NHS England response to the following questions:
1. Who within NHS England holds responsibility for informing the general public of serious vaccine side effects so that the public can make an Informed Choice (in line with NHS policy) in their decision to be vaccinated?
2. Who within NHS England holds Due Diligence and Duty of Care for those patients now receiving specialist NHS treatment for the serious vaccine adverse reactions from which they are suffering, in view of the fact they were not warned of possible serious side effects in advance of their vaccinations?
Thank you for your prompt reply to these most serious medical safety issues.
The reply has been silence. A telling response, especially when seen against the C1156 NHS Covid-19 Vaccination Programme Standard Operating Procedure, Management of COVID-19 vaccination clinical incidents and enquiries dated 26 February 2021. Page 16 of the document, supplied to the UK Column, is entitled COVID-19 vaccines adverse events: how to report.
The NHS COVID-19 Standard Operating Procedure is very clear that vaccine side effects should be reported to the Clinical Advice and Response Service (CARS). The guidance is very clear: "Significant adverse events and reactions to COVID-19 vacines must be reported to CARS."
The NHS SOP adds that "following initial investigation and, if appropriate, you may be directed by CARS to complete the following online forms:
Allergic reactions and other serious immediate adverse events, e.g. cardiac arrest, hospitalisation, etc. (event within 72 hours of vaccination)
Yellow Card Reports — Please note you should still report to the MHRA Yellow Card System"
It is evident that the Yellow Card report is a key required report.
UK Column email to MHRA
On 10 May 2021 at 10:53, the UK Column sent the following email to Dr Sarah Branch in her capacity as MHRA Director of Vigilance and Risk Management of Medicines.
URGENT: FOR PERSONAL ATTENTION DR SARAH BRANCH: VACCINE SAFETY DUE DILIGENCE
Your MHRA colleague was kind enough to suggest I emailed you direct to obtain an answer to my question below concerning post-MHRA Yellow Card Report follow-up investigations and actions.
To date, and as Run Date of 29 April 2021, you are reporting the following MHRA COVID-19 Yellow Card vaccine adverse reactions:
Pfizer: 154,776 of which 364 were fatal
AstraZeneca: 598,985 of which 722 were fatal
Moderna: 1,996 of which 2 were fatal
Brand Unspecified: 1,807 of which 14 were fatal
The data sum is 757,564 COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Reactions and 1,102 fatalities.
Against these shocking statistics, I am aware of a growing public concern whereby those already adversely affected and suffering from COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions, and/or those who have family, friends and colleague adversely affected, some of whom have died, are asking what action MHRA is taking to investigate these incidents and prevent future harm.
Despite calling the MHRA Yellow Card Helpline today, I have been unable to establish what, if any, formal investigations MHRA is conducting concerning the immense number of vaccine adverse reactions logged, so as to prevent further damage to the public.
Most importantly, I have recently been given evidence showing that your department is taking weeks to even respond to reports of vaccine adverse reactions, even those resulting in deaths.
My formal question, therefore, on behalf of injured and harmed members of the public, is:
Due Diligence: As MHRA Director of Vigilance and Risk Management of Medicines
What Due Diligence action(s) have you taken, and indeed is MHRA taking, to fully investigate the 757,564 COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions and the 1,102 deaths logged thus far, so as to warn and fully protect the public from further future harm from known minor, serious and fatal COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions, of the type, but not limited to, those recorded to date by MHRA?
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response, which you will appreciate is of immense public interest.
The reply has been silence.
Should the British public be concerned at the MHRA silence on COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions?
Should the British public be concerned that the MHRA has not seen fit to reply to a clear question concerning public health due diligence with regard to COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects and deaths?
We believe that, based on the substantial vaccine adverse reaction figures and deaths recorded by the MHRA, it is essential that the public knows:
a. The true figures and categories of vaccine adverse effects;
b. The true figures of vaccine-related deaths and their causation.
Without this accurate data, the public cannot make an informed choice with regard to the risks and benefits of a COVID-19 vaccine. Nor can they make an informed choice between the Pfizer, AstraZeneca ("Vaxzevria") and Moderna options, or any future vaccine options.
Moreover, the MHRA's failure to conduct appropriate due diligence and provide the accurate vaccine adverse reaction data also places young people and children at risk, since they have been clearly identified as the next government vaccination target.
The MHRA rubbishes its own Yellow Card data
But our analysis of the MHRA Yellow Card data does not end here, for the MHRA has not been entirely silent on vaccine adverse reactions in the wider UK media.
Strangely, MHRA CEO Dr June Raine was recently prepared to be quoted in a Daily Mail article under the banner headline:
From losing teeth to flatulence: The bizarre reactions Britons claim to have had after getting AstraZeneca's Covid vaccine (and how unexplained crying is FIVE TIMES more common than deadly blood clot)
Supported by Dr June Raine, the Daily Mail's immature Deputy Health Editor, Sam Blanchard, ridiculed the UK public by accusing them of entering inappropriate data into the MHRA Yellow Card system.
His puerile article gloated of Yellow Card entries of "teeth lost and flatulence", whilst unpleasant side effects of headaches, fevers and muscle pains were dismissed as "normal" and likely to clear up on their own.
Blanchard seemed to be particularly ignorant of the links between headaches and blood clots—a risk which the MHRA had deemed great enough to ask in their formal government briefings for the public to report headaches.
Sickeningly, the Daily Mail's Blanchard dismissed more serious health problems of death, stroke, heart attack and sepsis as not being linked to the jab. He had no evidence to dismiss this link, because—as the UK Column has revealed—the MHRA has not released in their Yellow Card vaccine adverse effect data any evidence of the role that vaccines have, or have not, played in the conditions reported.
Blanchard's worst claim was that:
This type of monitoring [MHRA Yellow Card data] allowed the MHRA to respond quickly last week to claims the jab causes blood clots and it could prove they weren't happening unusually often.
Having done no proper investigatory journalism, nor interviewed those affected by adverse effects, nor having consulted with the grieving relatives of those that have died, Blanchard lamely repeated the unsubstantiated vaccine safety claims put out by the MHRA—an organisation in the happy position of being vaccine poacher and vaccine gamekeeper in one house.
At this point, we need to highlight the vacuous comments by Dr June Raine carried in Blanchard's article. She claimed that:
The reports are continually reviewed to detect possible new side effects that may require regulatory action, and to differentiate these from things that would have happened regardless of the vaccine or medicine being administered, for instance due to underlying or undiagnosed illness.
At first glance, this statement appears reasonable. The reality is, however, that the MHRA is simply not investigating the medical circumstances around reported COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects. Nor is the MHRA investigating and rectifying the issue of the woefully poor proportion of vaccine adverse effects being submitted as Yellow Card data, assessed by the MHRA itself to be as low as 10% for serious adverse effects.
The duplicitous nature of Dr June Raine does emerge, however, in one particular comment. She states that:
The suspected reactions described in this report are not proven side effects of Covid vaccines. But they are kept on record in case any later do turn out to be linked.
Dr Raine knows full well that the longer the MHRA fails to investigate notified adverse reactions after vaccination, the less likely is the chance that a connection with the vaccine can and will be found.
When members of the public report that the MHRA has failed to investigate fatalities and has instead reversed the designed burden of proof, asking family members to provide the MHRA with the medical evidence demonstrating that the vaccine is responsible—as was done in the case of UK Column's A Good Man Down—we can be sure that the MHRA is not telling the truth.
We have two last questions on the MHRA and its Yellow Card vaccine adverse reactions data.
1. Why would the MHRA set up a Yellow Card system to collect vaccine adverse reactions and then fail to collect the necessary data, and fail to analyse its own data, and fail to report that analysis to the public to demonstrate it is fulfilling its public health safety role?
2. Why would the MHRA participate in a Daily Mail article undermining the provenance and accuracy of its own Yellow Card vaccine safety data?
Our considered answer is: because the MHRA simply does not care about public health safety. It is far more interested in its unhealthy partnership with organisations promoting vaccinations, particularly when those organisations provide the MHRA with fee income.
For more and deeper analysis of the MHRA and its dirty work, please look for Part 2 of this article in the coming days.