Comment // Health

Debi Evans Blog: 24 May 2023

What an interesting week it has been. Firstly, I would like to focus on the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulation Agency (MHRA). To date, I have viewed all the MHRA Board meetings since the start of the broadcasts on YouTube. Please note that the word HARM can be found in the letters of the MHRA, which is ironic seeing as this is an agency that should be strictly adhering to the imperative Do No Harm. The MHRA are not the only ‘regulator’ not fit for purpose—OFCOM, OFWAT and OFSTED are three others that I can think of that share that infamous badge of honour. So who regulates the regulator? Perhaps none of our so called ‘regulators’ are fit for purpose.    Before I start, I want to thank the UK Column audience who have taken the time to attend the MHRA Board meetings. I would also like to thank everyone who has clicked into their Board meetings to record their view. Many of our viewers who do register to attend then send me their views and observations; some of them are vaccine injured, so I cannot imagine how any of them feel while watching. It is, however, very reassuring to know others are witnessing what I am watching too. So thank you for being there with me.    It is also worth remembering that the MHRA receives 86% of their funding from the pharmaceutical industry. I don’t consider that to be independent, I consider that to be corrupt.   The Board meeting held on 16 May 2023 was unique for many reasons, not least that it exposed them for under-performing. Performance featured a lot in this Board meeting, and what a ‘performance’ it has become. As the months have gone on, they have become more scripted and choreographed. Clearly, the members of the Board have had some type of training in how to look at the camera and how to speak directly to the public. It was never like that at the beginning.   The MHRA are struggling; the attitude, mood and body language have changed—it appears to show a far more defiant, defensive and, in my opinion, dangerous MHRA. A few ‘love in’s’ were observed but nowhere near as ‘gushy’ as on previous occasions. The mood appeared sombre.   In Wednesday’s news I reported on the latest MHRA Board meeting that it has become a regular date in my diary for the last two years. I'm very much a veteran. So much so that I know when to apply for the free tickets in order to attend. I am aware of the meeting agenda, I know to ask questions in good time and lastly, and I have become used to receiving the virtual joining link 4 days prior to the meeting. However, when I didn’t receive a joining link this time, it took one phone call and four emails to eventually receive it the afternoon prior to the meeting. Were they hoping I would forget? Or perhaps they were hoping I wouldn’t notice?   The meeting takes place around a horseshoe shaped table and all Board members are introduced by the Chair Stephen Lightfoot. It struck me immediately that this Board meeting was going to be different from all the others I had attended. It didn’t take long to find out why. Out of nowhere, a message popped up in zoom chat. I don’t normally bother to open chat messages, usually because they’re just a general welcome to the Board meeting. However, after receiving four messages in quick succession, my curiosity got the better of me and I clicked on them. The last message was of particular interest. It said:  
You are reminded that consent is only sought for the MHRA to record the meeting for the purpose of publishing on GOV.UK. No consent is provided for anyone to take screenshots or photographs of this meeting. Recordings of the meeting must not be downloaded, copied, or distributed to any other location.
  I must stress, I have never received such a message before. Why all of a sudden is this rather abrupt and unfriendly warning being sent? Could it be connected to how UK Column have been reporting on their meetings—with original footage? I would never dare to presume, it is for the public to decide. However, if we were in any way responsible, it would be a badge of honour that I’d wear with pride.   Fortunately for me, my mother insisted I complete a Pitman’s typing and shorthand course. I resented her determination at the time, but she said it would be a skill to ‘fall back on’ if I flunked out of my nursing training. She never believed I would complete 6 months of training, let alone the full 3 years and go on to qualify. Sad she didn’t have more faith in me, but proud that I proved her wrong. I digress. Unsure of the legality of such a ‘no recording’ request at such short notice, my pen fired into action. Since the meeting, I have checked my joining details and also emails from the MHRA, but I see no mention of such a restriction in any of the correspondence. Neither did I hear any mention of this in Stephen Lightfoot’s opening comments which include the traditional ‘housekeeping’ of introductions and order of business. In fact, I believed the meetings were a way of the MHRA maintaining transparency, encouraging members of the public to observe how they work. The meetings are held in public to enable as many of the public to view as possible. Now I have to ask the question; are the MHRA editing the original footage of the Board meeting?    Perhaps their interpretation of transparency is different to mine. To be clear, this is a verbatim transcript of Stephen Lightfoot’s opening comments.  
Welcome. If you haven’t attended a Board meeting before, I must remind you that this is a Board meeting held in public, it is not a public meeting.   It is also important to explain this Board is responsible for agreeing the strategic direction of the agency maintaining high standards of corporate governance and also scrutinising the performance of the MHRA, but it is equally important to say this Board does not make any regulatory decisions on any individual medicines or medical devices, and that is because the regulatory decisions themselves are made by Ministers in Department of Health and Social Care, on the recommendations of the MHRA officials who themselves are civil servants, with the additional independent advice from our expert advisory committees such as The Commission for Human Medicines.   In today’s meeting I must make you aware we are recording the meeting so we can publish the video on our website to provide opportunity for as many as possible to observe what Board does. Today there are 79 registered to attend, 45 members of the public, 19 from Industry, 4 from Media outlets and 11 members of staff.
  After obligatory apologies and clarification on new potential conflicts of interest, the meeting got underway. However, noticeable by her absence (always very vocal) was Raj Long, Non-executive member of the Board, Jack of all trades master of none, dementia guru extraordinaire. Maybe she was busy elsewhere, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or the UKHSA of where she is also a Board member. Who knows and who cares? We do.   It is now apparent that the MHRA are the key element to success in the UK Government’s Life Sciences plan, the ‘piece de resistance’. Without a ‘regulator’, big pharma are powerless. Without power, they are nothing, and without sick people, pharma have no customers. Without sick people, doctors have no job. Far from a National HEALTH system, it is a National Illness system. So it is in the best interest of the MHRA to keep us as unhealthy as possible.   However, it appears all is not going according to plan. The driving force to achieve world domination in pharmaceutical regulation is DATA. With a dense and diverse population of over 67 million and only one compulsory healthcare system (NHS), each piece of data is another jewel in the UK life science’s crown, the MHRA are under intense scrutiny and pressure to ‘perform’ and hit their targets. Data = dominance, power and control.   Many of our audience will remember me reporting on the importance of the CPRD and its vital links with GP’s. But what is the CPRD?  
The Clinical Practice Research Datalink is a real-world research service supporting retrospective and prospective public health and clinical studies. CPRD research data services are delivered by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency with support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), as part of the Department of Health and Social Care.
  In simple terms, your GP (if enrolled in the CPRD register) will be sharing your data with the MHRA. Did you consent to big pharma holding your data? Have you opted out of sharing data? Please note, there is not one opt out clause that will cover everything in the NHS. Many individual services use an opt out scheme, eg: opting out of organ donation, opting out of blood transfusions, opting out of GP sharing data, opting out of NHS sharing data, and the list goes on. Using psychological nudges and behavioural science it has been found that ‘nudging’ someone to opt out is far more productive than nudging them to opt in. Reliant on public laziness and disinterest, no one is expected to take the time or the trouble to opt out. How many of us have been caught by schemes that ask us to sign up for a free 30 day trial on the agreement we provide our bank details, only to find 30 days later we have forgotten to ‘opt out’ after the ‘free trial’? Amazon Prime and certain news publications come to mind.   The MHRA are clearly under performing. Eager to reach their targets, please their Ministerial masters and obey their owners (big pharma), they appear to be letting the side down. We know, from previous meetings and select committees, that the MHRA want data from 60 million of us—and much of it will be taken from the NHS App. Do you want it on your device?   With only 37% of GP’s currently signed up to CPRD, panic is starting to set in. Dr Alison Cave is keen to enrol as many GP practices as possible. However, although the MHRA need our data, it appears the British public have wised up and are not too keen on sharing data with agencies belonging to the King’s Government and globalists. The same story goes for clinical trials. Eager to enrol as many healthy, altruistic, ‘virtue signalling’ people as possible onto an array of accelerated clinical trials, it appears these numbers are not stacking up as hoped either. The 100 Day Mission strategy cannot survive without it. This lack of patient participation and engagement can be explained in a number of ways:  
  1. Lack of clinical trial applications being received from industry to UK. This could explain AstraZeneca’s recent decision to move their new operation to Dublin, disenchanted with the UK Tax laws.
  2. People are not volunteering readily for clinical trials.
  3. There is not enough staff at National Institute Biological Standards to process applications.  
  4. Awareness of data sharing, more choosing to opt out.
  5. Increased mistrust of the MHRA from members of the public.
  6. An inability to meet targets because of poor retention of staff at MHRA.
  MHRA Board meetings always end with questions from the public, Stephen Lightfoot’s favourite part of the meeting, although I am not sure he felt that at the last Board when our good friend Cheryl Grainger had a question accepted. Finding herself just a screen away from the Board, she bravely put them on the spot. Sadly, this time we didn’t get anyone asking a question live on screen. Perhaps Cheryl spooked them last time.   Director of Communications and Engagement at MHRA, Rachel Bosworth, delivered the first question from the public which was poignant and well timed given the chat box message I had received earlier (informing me not to record the meeting). Again, the following is verbatim, thanks to my shorthand skills.   Question from the public: “Does the Board consider the performance of the MHRA to be adequate in respect of transparency and openness?   Dame June Raine:  It is a good question, thanks to the questioner. Really, the important point is how seriously we take our performance, in being open and transparent about everything we do, because as we have just discussed in the context of the corporate plan, it’s the bedrock of public trust.   I’d secondly say we’ve made great strides when we think about, even today, performance statistics regularly published every month, the fact that evidence on which we make decisions is made available after a new product comes through the decision making process and in terms of that decision making, opening it up to patient involvement so there is a real differentiation in a number of levels in which we believe transparency and openness are absolutely key to the safe use of the medical products we regulate.   Having said all of that, the substantial progress there is a lot more to do, we are on a journey. We have talked in the last minutes about having the corporate plan first pillar, we are looking to build trust. We want to be able to do much more in terms of involving the public in hearings, for example, and I do think in terms of the evidence and information we hold, the interactive use of our vaccine safety data, all of which is geared to helping individual judgements of benefits and risks.   So we see this as a really important area, and there is more to do, and we are doing it with a purpose, which is ultimately these individual decisions on benefit/risk that we believe we want to support in the best way possible.   Stephen Lightfoot asks Michael Whitehouse:  “Are we doing enough around the theme of transparency and openness and is there more we can do?   Michael Whitehouse“Yes we are a transparent organisation. All the documents we produce are very clear about what we are seeking to achieve”. (He also added)…. “There is more to do but internationally compared to others I think we are transparent.   Do you believe them? I don’t.   The MHRA are part of the Access Consortium. A collaboration of countries; Canada, Switzerland, Australia and Singapore formed the group in 2017. The MHRA, keen to “optimise synergies and reduce duplication of work”, joined the original four in 2021.   Stephen Lightfoot closed the meeting with:
I conclude the MAIN session (why is there another one we don’t get to see?) for Board. Thank you everyone. I remind you the purpose of the MHRA is to protect and improve public health and we will continue to do that by ENABLING scientific innovation, by ACCELERATING patient access to new safe and effective products and to strengthen our patient safety and SURVEILLANCE systems.
  So there you have it, in a nutshell. The MHRA are, in my humble opinion, angry and exposed. Angry for being found out? Angry for not achieving their precious targets? Angry for upsetting their sponsors and funders? Angry for underestimating the intelligence of the British public? Angry people can be unpredictable. What will the MHRA do next to entice us into their web of corruption? I am not sure there is anything they can do to entice any of those reading this. Sadly, there are still millions willing to purchase snake oil from snake oil merchants. However, the people are speaking and the MHRA hear us. Angry they may be, but angry reveals the true nature of the MHRA when the mask slips.   I carried out my own small poll on twitter. I asked Do you trust the MHRA to deliver and approve safe medicines in the UK?” The results are in. In total, 487 took part over 24 hours; 97% said no they did not trust the MHRA, with only 3% saying they did trust the MHRA.    To starve the MHRA of power and ambition to become the gold standard of global regulators, I have a few suggestions. I believe we must refuse to enrol in clinical trials and refuse any tests if we are healthy. Lastly, we should check with our GP to ensure our data is not being shared with anyone. These are my suggestions, but everyone needs to make their own informed decision.    As Stephen Lightfoot gets closer to his final day with the MHRA, after stepping down to ‘spend more time with his grandchildren’, I wonder how long it will be before we see others following his example. Rats and sinking ships come to mind. Remember, the MHRA need US more than WE need them. By refusing to share your data, you are disabling them.   

DIY Dentistry in the UK

There is a silent crisis in our almost non-existent dental service. If you can get an appointment with an NHS dentist, you are in a tiny minority. Most people I hear from can’t even get an appointment with a private dentist. Prophylactic dental care is essential in order to prevent further work being required. Since the ‘plandemic’, many have not been able to access dentists for check-ups, let alone work. For those fortunate enough to access an NHS appointment, they will find a dramatic increase in prices.   The Chronicle report:  
The cost for an NHS check-up at the dentist has risen to £25.80 this week, as dentistry fees rise by 8.5% across the board. [. . .] More complex treatments, such as crowns, will now cost £306.80 (up from £282.80) after the charges rose for the first time since December 2020, when they were frozen due to the coronavirus pandemic. [. . .] Dental treatment is charged in 'bands', with higher charges for more complex dental work. You should only pay once for each course of dental treatment, so the maximum you should pay is £306.80.
  Another report in the i newspaper warns that the “dental crisis has become a public health issue”, and a postcode lottery. Rising costs, long waiting lists and lack of available NHS routine check-up appointments have all contributed. 47% of people in Glasgow were unable to access an ‘emergency’ appointment when in severe pain.   Toothfairy is a mobile phone app that allows dentists to diagnose patients and prescribe medicine over a video call. It’s interesting that the only form of treatment through this AI generated app is ‘medicine’. As a subscriber service, it will be you examining your own mouth, taking your own pictures, using your camera and it will be you saying “Aaaah” in front of a camera—not a human dentist.    How long can you take medicine before needing a filling, root canal work or an extraction? I guess pharmaceutical companies won’t care as long as their products are offered first, heaven forbid anyone looks for the cause! Even more worryingly, some patients have been in so much pain they have become ill after overdosing on paracetamol. It is worth remembering that according to a report in the Mail Online, a third of accidental overdoses happen in desperation to alleviate dental pain.    Whilst reversible issues such as gingivitis and early gum disease are being ignored, many dental conditions worsen over time and often lead to root canal work and/or extractions. One in four are being turned away, and more than a million patients are without a dentist. A YouGov poll revealed that 1:10 Britons have performed DIY dentistry on themselves. Others have been forced to spend £1,600 on emergency dental treatment. The news moving forward does not look promising. With the NHS dental system in total collapse in some areas, and dentists shutting up shop and leaving in their droves, we can only assume the situation is set to get worse before it gets better.   

And finally

New plans for the NHS under a Labour government are unveiled this week; Wes Streeting, Shadow Health Secretary, will be making announcements. I will be watching closely. And as we speed towards the end of another week, keep an eye on space, the sun and the weather. It looks as though El Nino is on the way, so electric fans and pet cool mats could be in big demand. Common sense is all you need to deal with warm periods; keep hydrated, out of direct sun, stock up on ice pops and keep your sunhats and caps at the ready. Try not to travel without water in the car, and remember the animals need hydrating too. However, keep an eye on what sunscreens you are putting on your skin to protect yourself—not all is as it may seem. More on that another time.    Until next week, stand firm, join your own dots and keep smiling. God Bless  Debi    John 5:24 KJV Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.