This is the second MHRA board meeting that has exclusively been posted online by UK Column before appearing on the regulator's own YouTube channel. The prior exclusive, September 2022, is here (since uploaded to the MHRA's YouTube channel).
UK Column Nursing Correspondent Debi Evans' video report on the 15 November 2022 MHRA board meeting commences at 51:47 in the 16 November news episode.
Scrutiny of the MHRAS is essential at this time, especially since pharmaceutical developer Sasha Latypova is on record as saying that medical regulators in Western countries are under no contractual obligation to evaluate the adverse effects of drugs, following 'liberalisation' of the market. Her comments were made towards the end of the first half-hour of her second interview with Jesse Zurawell (her first is here). UK Column has now also interviewed Sasha.
Exceeded expectations
At 10 am on 15 November 2022, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) met for its monthly board meeting. It was chaired by Stephen Lightfoot, who was appointed in September 2020; he is the successor to a post once held by Sir Alasdair Breckenridge. Regular UK Column viewers and readers may remember Dame June Raine, the CEO of the MHRA, paying homage to Sir Alasdair's pioneering work on the Yellow Card scheme whilst she admitted in the same lecture that reported serious adverse reactions from the Covid-19 injection had exceeded the agency's forecast of 100,000 several times over.
Mr Lightfoot has a thirty-year career in life sciences and the pharmaceutical industry. Whether this involves any conflicts of interest with his new role is an issue that calls for examination.
The meeting was observed by 127 people: 25 from industry, 75 members of the public, 4 journalists, 16 MHRA staff and 7 healthcare staff. What the Board may not have been aware of was that many of the members of the public watching were those with vaccine injuries from Covid-19 injections. Had they known, they might have conducted themselves more decorously.
Throughout the two hours and forty minutes of the meeting, those with vaccine injuries were ignored and disrespected. Any mention of those with vaccine injuries was simply trivialised as though they were not real people. They were laughed at. In this exclusive recording of the latest MHRA board meeting, witness for yourself all the agency’s board members basking in their own self-laudation for a job supposedly well done. As the champagne chills on ice (a prospect that you will hear being relished in this meeting by Chief Technology Officer Claire Harrison), the MHRA admits that it has had to remove the Covid-19 injection serious adverse reactions from its overall Yellow Card data, as they ‘skewed’ it.
The Chief Executive’s report to the Board by Dame June Raine was short and sweet and can be found at the beginning of the meeting. The agenda appears to be vaccines, more vaccines and yet more vaccines. Also on her radar this month was cancer diagnostics, gut microbiomes, and what impressive life sciences are at her fingertips. What she omitted to reveal was that the MHRA had just given approval for the latest children’s vaccine to be added to the already lengthy British schedule: Vaxneuvance (PCVI5), which is claimed to protect children—healthy children included—against pneumococcal disease.
MHRA Chief Safety Officer Dr Alison Cave announced the advent of Safety Connect, the agency’s new ‘safety system’, which is contracted to last until 2027 (in layman’s terms, that means barcoding). According to Dr Cave, every fatality as a result of a Covid-19 ‘vaccination’ is personally investigated by the MHRA. That is news to UK Column Nursing Correspondent Debi Evans, and news to many who have tragically lost loved ones after the injection. According to Dr Cave, there will be a ‘pregnancy prevention plan’ and a ‘patient’s champion network’. Notably, a ‘medicine adherence protocol’ is also forthcoming, as is an in-house behavioural scientist for the agency, soon to be appointed. Can we look forward to SPI-B's (and now the WHO's) Professor Susan Michie joining the agency’s next board meeting?
With MHRA staff leaving in their droves, vacancies are difficult to fill; headhunting is at the top of the MHRA’s priorities list. According to Dr Cave, there is nothing for anyone to worry about.
Failure of empathy?
The MHRA executives are aware that they are being watched; however, they appear to lack empathy, understanding and sensitivity for the vaccine-injured. Moreover, they seem entirely unaware that those whose lives have been devastated by Covid vaccine adverse reactions are watching the MHRA at work—unless it is that they simply do not care. Our nursing correspondent, Debi Evans, assesses their behaviour at this board meeting as cruel and shameful.
At the time of writing, 460,000 serious adverse reaction reports pursuant to Covid-19 injections have been sent to the agency, yet no-one is bothering to help the victims in their dire need. UK Column can report that the reactions of the vaccine-injured to this footage were anger and utter disbelief, as they witnessed their lives being effectively erased from the meeting, their experiences appearing to mean nothing to those around the table. The reality of the callousness and contempt shown for them was tangible.
UK Column News has been reporting on MHRA board meetings for over a year. In her 16 November video report (link in middle paragraph of italic rubric above), Debi Evans reveals the huge volume of questions that were submitted to the November board meeting by members of the public, professionals and those with vaccine injuries. These questions were neither answered nor acknowledged. According to MHRA protocol, all questions posed must be answered within 18 working days.
The MHRA is 70% funded by the pharmaceutical industry; yet this is not deemed to be a conflict of interest. Unsure of its own status, the agency cannot make its mind up as to whether it is a regulator or an enabler (the latter term has been proudly used by Dame June Raine in praising her agency’s recent work). One would be forgiven for mistaking the MHRA for a glorified sales team for Big Pharma.
For the vaccine-injured—those who have been harmed as a result of trusting the MHRA and ‘the science’, who expected safety to be prioritised and to be heard after being seriously harmed—the meeting was distressing and even traumatising to observe. Those with vaccine injuries are not gleefully popping champagne corks, as some of the members of the Board admit to be doing.
UK Column will continue to report on the publicly-displayed attitude of the MHRA and those who work within it. Clearly, to those of us who look on in horror, it is not fit for purpose and the agency appears to revolve not around safety but around acting as a foil for discontent with drug manufacturers. Somewhere over time, the medical mantra of First, Do No Harm appears to have been forgotten by seniors at the MHRA. UK Column will continue to push the MHRA for answers, accountability and help for those with vaccine injuries, and will regularly analyse the agency’s board meetings for as long as they are held in public.