WHAT IS MHRA'S CONNECTION WITH HANNAH ARENDT'S WRITINGS ON TOTALITARIANISM?
Hannah Arendt's central argument in The Origins of Totalitarianism is that the survival of totalitarian rule depends on undermining objective truth and replacing it with a fabricated reality.
TTE is doing sterling work in exposing what appears to be the MHRA's consistent attempts to undermine objective truth and replace it with a fabricated reality.
Keep digging Carl and Tom. Your readers are grateful for your service to humanity.
What is sad is that real science won’t see the light of day when profit is in the mix. When questions are met with lies and obfuscation, it leaves a hole ready to be filled with some kind of answers whether they’re evidenced based or not. People are hungry for truth because things aren’t making sense. The trust in our institutions has plummeted and no corrections are taking place. It’s either silence when asked or some convoluted nonsensical round the Mayberry bush answer.
How much has it cost in time and money (for FOIAs) to get the data you have? That is a rhetorical question, we have an inkling of the time and effort you have put into this work. It is a scandal that the organisations we pay for withhold or delay giving data to anyone with an interest.
I am a long retired scientist with a PhD in Pharmacology. I cannot commend your work more highly so thank you so much for all you’ve done.
The comment in this report which to me is the £64k question : what is the evidence that vaccine induced antibodies correlate with protection?
I’m not an immunologist but I’d love for someone to critique the method the manufacturer uses to measure “neutralising antibodies”. The assay used does not use the virus but instead uses “pseudovirus” - an artificial (lab created) construct purporting to replicate the virus causing the disease. To me, just because people develop antibodies that bind to a protein that the manufacturer claims is causing disease, does not mean a) that the protein is involved in causing the disease and b) that antibody binding to the artificial pseudovirus means it will neutralise the agent causing the disease.
Can anyone put me right on this?
In addition, in my Big Pharma days, the FDA/MHRA were fearsome. You dare not make a False Claim about your product.
In the case of these respiratory vaccines, to my mind they are being sold under a False Claim. The Clinical Trials purported to show the vaccine PREVENTED Covid and importantly Covid could be defined as one symptom sometimes of indeterminate duration (!) together with a +ve PCR test. So the trials claimed the vaccines PREVENTED ANY SEVERITY of Covid - mostly mild.
But it soon became clear that the vaccine didn’t PREVENT MILD Covid so the narrative was fraudulently switched to : the vaccine works because your Covid symptoms are MILD. Another circular piece of nonsense.
thanks for this very good contribution on discussing antibodies; further, you say what many have felt; from controller; to regulator; to enhancer; to facilitator ........
They are not making mistakes. They are systematically lying and they are profiting accordingly. Its obvious. Its shocking how they can get doctors to lie on their behalf. My previous doctor is in complete denial.
Each Yellow Card generates a reference number (and presumably each reaction too). I discovered these reference numbers in the VAERS wayback machine and no, they didn't add up. I estimated at the time of my article 159,000 Yellow Cards potentially missing. This alarming figure actually increased to over a 1/4 million last time I looked at it. I wrote a popular Substack article a few years ago on it:
Dear Stephen, thank you for flagging up the Freedom Project. There seem to be many overlapping themes between TTE and the Round the Clock Red buttons. We will write to the Project and tell them about TTE and take it from there.
I came here for the sharp and critical and accurate analysis of Public Health Statistics. I stayed because it's really funny and the 'Ming the Merciless' reference was delightful. Public health is important, but it can also be very dull, and so it was always nice to find a couple of writers who can basically spice it up with irreverent comments and cultural references. We're not all boring geeks out here. We do care, but it doesn't mean we lack a sense of humour.
I do appreciate your meticulous approach and especially that we, your readers, are invited to be part of the conversation, irrespective of our background or experience, and whether or not you agree with any or all of our contributions. You are always respectful, never patronising, and importantly don't try to censor or moderate the discussion, which is refreshing.
We are told that xx millions of dollars are invested annually in initiatives aimed at increasing 'vaccine confidence' and addressing 'vaccine hesitancy', in order to increase vaccine uptake in what is now a multi-billion dollar pandemic industry. I would tentatively suggest to those who keep defaulting to the same old, same old patronising and stigmatising language ('conspiracy theorist', 'anti-vax', 'misinformation', 'debunking', 'pre-bunking' etc) and to those industry insiders who seem to have an obsessive fixation with social engineering and behavioural interventions, they might do well to spend a bit of time reading and absorbing your sub-stack analyses with an open mind. And then, just maybe, one day the penny will drop.
I think industry behaviouralists are probably realising that they need to change tack - I may be imagining it, but there does seem to have been a subtle rhetorical shift since healthcare worker vaccine uptake plummeted post-pandemic. I don't kid myself that this softening of language reflects a deepening respect for 'unvaccinated' minorities (or 'the unvaccinated' as they/we have at times been branded), or a desire to fully understand what motivates choice. Nevertheless, there are products to sell and drugs to consume. So if the industry-funded regulatory agencies really want to do more than pay lip service to 'Transparency to ensure Trust', then at some stage they will have to engage with experts like yourselves. You are doing your bit to open the door to dialogue.
"The EWG had one member who was involved in the development of Vaxzevria and another one who made the decision to fund its development."
this would be terrible if these were ordinary (benighted) human beings;
but these are god-like figures, doctors? who soar above ordinary mortals; supreme in their intellect and virtue; all-knowing and all wise; impervious to any and all earthly temptations or distractions.
In my day most people who chose Medicine as a career had a vocation.
Saving lives, helping people. Nobody at their medical school interview said "I want to work for Pharma"
What has happened is that people like Ian Hudson OBE give up their clinical career - in his case Paediatrics - and within no time are on the international stage as Director and Vice President, Worldwide Clinical Safety at Smith Kline Beecham and later their Acting Medical Director in Australia.
These grand titles open the revolving doors to government regulatory jobs and semiautomatic knighthoods etc.
Fame and fortune follow, hobnobbing with ministers and the like of Bill Gates.
"In my day most people who chose Medicine as a career had a vocation. Saving lives, helping people."
indeed; what a transformation in 50 yrs we now see. Ian Hudson seemed to move from being a paediatric registrar (senior?) to SKB; and as you say, career promotion. What drove him to move to this, one wonders; what dissatisfactions with paediatrics? too much call? too many late nights?
I thought the comment from the retired scientist (thank you Carol) was so pertinent
"In addition, in my Big Pharma days, the FDA/MHRA were fearsome. You dare not make a False Claim about your product."
some say that now that 86%? of their funding is from pharma, that things are different. Lawrence Tallon seems to have exciting ideas to move ahead to rapidly expedite; if you have really good surveillance, that would help; the latest FOIA would not reassure that they are on top of their game in this regard.
WHAT IS MHRA'S CONNECTION WITH HANNAH ARENDT'S WRITINGS ON TOTALITARIANISM?
Hannah Arendt's central argument in The Origins of Totalitarianism is that the survival of totalitarian rule depends on undermining objective truth and replacing it with a fabricated reality.
TTE is doing sterling work in exposing what appears to be the MHRA's consistent attempts to undermine objective truth and replace it with a fabricated reality.
Keep digging Carl and Tom. Your readers are grateful for your service to humanity.
What is sad is that real science won’t see the light of day when profit is in the mix. When questions are met with lies and obfuscation, it leaves a hole ready to be filled with some kind of answers whether they’re evidenced based or not. People are hungry for truth because things aren’t making sense. The trust in our institutions has plummeted and no corrections are taking place. It’s either silence when asked or some convoluted nonsensical round the Mayberry bush answer.
How much has it cost in time and money (for FOIAs) to get the data you have? That is a rhetorical question, we have an inkling of the time and effort you have put into this work. It is a scandal that the organisations we pay for withhold or delay giving data to anyone with an interest.
Whole tranches of MHRA FOI responses are/were being released on buried links so no one sees them.
I am a long retired scientist with a PhD in Pharmacology. I cannot commend your work more highly so thank you so much for all you’ve done.
The comment in this report which to me is the £64k question : what is the evidence that vaccine induced antibodies correlate with protection?
I’m not an immunologist but I’d love for someone to critique the method the manufacturer uses to measure “neutralising antibodies”. The assay used does not use the virus but instead uses “pseudovirus” - an artificial (lab created) construct purporting to replicate the virus causing the disease. To me, just because people develop antibodies that bind to a protein that the manufacturer claims is causing disease, does not mean a) that the protein is involved in causing the disease and b) that antibody binding to the artificial pseudovirus means it will neutralise the agent causing the disease.
Can anyone put me right on this?
In addition, in my Big Pharma days, the FDA/MHRA were fearsome. You dare not make a False Claim about your product.
In the case of these respiratory vaccines, to my mind they are being sold under a False Claim. The Clinical Trials purported to show the vaccine PREVENTED Covid and importantly Covid could be defined as one symptom sometimes of indeterminate duration (!) together with a +ve PCR test. So the trials claimed the vaccines PREVENTED ANY SEVERITY of Covid - mostly mild.
But it soon became clear that the vaccine didn’t PREVENT MILD Covid so the narrative was fraudulently switched to : the vaccine works because your Covid symptoms are MILD. Another circular piece of nonsense.
Might as well have a lemsip instead.
thanks for this very good contribution on discussing antibodies; further, you say what many have felt; from controller; to regulator; to enhancer; to facilitator ........
This is very much on my mind, on something I would like the TOGs to address specifically and directly
No need for light sabres….the force….your readers are with you. That why we head here daily to read rational, evidence based analysis.
They are not making mistakes. They are systematically lying and they are profiting accordingly. Its obvious. Its shocking how they can get doctors to lie on their behalf. My previous doctor is in complete denial.
Each Yellow Card generates a reference number (and presumably each reaction too). I discovered these reference numbers in the VAERS wayback machine and no, they didn't add up. I estimated at the time of my article 159,000 Yellow Cards potentially missing. This alarming figure actually increased to over a 1/4 million last time I looked at it. I wrote a popular Substack article a few years ago on it:
https://feldmans.substack.com/p/are-the-mhra-releasing-all-of-their
Also, UK Freedom Project found discrepancies week on week which seemed to infer massive numbers of hidden death reports. Worth contacting them direct.
https://ukfreedomproject.org/
Dear Stephen, thank you for flagging up the Freedom Project. There seem to be many overlapping themes between TTE and the Round the Clock Red buttons. We will write to the Project and tell them about TTE and take it from there.
Best, Tom.
I came here for the sharp and critical and accurate analysis of Public Health Statistics. I stayed because it's really funny and the 'Ming the Merciless' reference was delightful. Public health is important, but it can also be very dull, and so it was always nice to find a couple of writers who can basically spice it up with irreverent comments and cultural references. We're not all boring geeks out here. We do care, but it doesn't mean we lack a sense of humour.
I do appreciate your meticulous approach and especially that we, your readers, are invited to be part of the conversation, irrespective of our background or experience, and whether or not you agree with any or all of our contributions. You are always respectful, never patronising, and importantly don't try to censor or moderate the discussion, which is refreshing.
We are told that xx millions of dollars are invested annually in initiatives aimed at increasing 'vaccine confidence' and addressing 'vaccine hesitancy', in order to increase vaccine uptake in what is now a multi-billion dollar pandemic industry. I would tentatively suggest to those who keep defaulting to the same old, same old patronising and stigmatising language ('conspiracy theorist', 'anti-vax', 'misinformation', 'debunking', 'pre-bunking' etc) and to those industry insiders who seem to have an obsessive fixation with social engineering and behavioural interventions, they might do well to spend a bit of time reading and absorbing your sub-stack analyses with an open mind. And then, just maybe, one day the penny will drop.
I think industry behaviouralists are probably realising that they need to change tack - I may be imagining it, but there does seem to have been a subtle rhetorical shift since healthcare worker vaccine uptake plummeted post-pandemic. I don't kid myself that this softening of language reflects a deepening respect for 'unvaccinated' minorities (or 'the unvaccinated' as they/we have at times been branded), or a desire to fully understand what motivates choice. Nevertheless, there are products to sell and drugs to consume. So if the industry-funded regulatory agencies really want to do more than pay lip service to 'Transparency to ensure Trust', then at some stage they will have to engage with experts like yourselves. You are doing your bit to open the door to dialogue.
thanks; as always, appreciate deeply your always thoughtful and factual work
"The EWG had one member who was involved in the development of Vaxzevria and another one who made the decision to fund its development."
this would be terrible if these were ordinary (benighted) human beings;
but these are god-like figures, doctors? who soar above ordinary mortals; supreme in their intellect and virtue; all-knowing and all wise; impervious to any and all earthly temptations or distractions.
In my day most people who chose Medicine as a career had a vocation.
Saving lives, helping people. Nobody at their medical school interview said "I want to work for Pharma"
What has happened is that people like Ian Hudson OBE give up their clinical career - in his case Paediatrics - and within no time are on the international stage as Director and Vice President, Worldwide Clinical Safety at Smith Kline Beecham and later their Acting Medical Director in Australia.
These grand titles open the revolving doors to government regulatory jobs and semiautomatic knighthoods etc.
Fame and fortune follow, hobnobbing with ministers and the like of Bill Gates.
"In my day most people who chose Medicine as a career had a vocation. Saving lives, helping people."
indeed; what a transformation in 50 yrs we now see. Ian Hudson seemed to move from being a paediatric registrar (senior?) to SKB; and as you say, career promotion. What drove him to move to this, one wonders; what dissatisfactions with paediatrics? too much call? too many late nights?
I thought the comment from the retired scientist (thank you Carol) was so pertinent
"In addition, in my Big Pharma days, the FDA/MHRA were fearsome. You dare not make a False Claim about your product."
some say that now that 86%? of their funding is from pharma, that things are different. Lawrence Tallon seems to have exciting ideas to move ahead to rapidly expedite; if you have really good surveillance, that would help; the latest FOIA would not reassure that they are on top of their game in this regard.