The Comirnaty Vaccine Files
Foreword
The COVID Inquiry bumbles on, holding hearings on vaccines and therapeutics at vast taxpayer expense. However, it has failed to request information to investigate the facts in several areas. Consequently, those responsible for patient safety make false statements that go unchallenged, ensuring the Inquiry will not uncover the truth.
Hugo Keith put it to June Raine, the CEO of the MHRA, that they “tested and authorised and certified a certain number of vaccines made by process, manufacturing process A, and then the manufacturers actually delivered vaccines to British population produced as a result of a different manufacturing process.”
In December 2020, the MHRA temporarily authorised a mass-manufactured vaccine process (P2) for Cominarty without requiring additional human trial data. The authorisation had been based on a more costly process (P1) deployed in the clinical trial.
June responded, “Well, my understanding is that the manufacturing process would have been the same.” Yet, anyone with basic knowledge of the approval process would know about the switch and the potential risks posed by the change in the manufacturing process—that is, anyone but June.
TTE’s MHRA Papers series has revealed serious shortcomings in the decision-making of the expert working groups (EWG) commandeered by the MHRA to keep us safe. Comparing the minutes of those withdrawn and reposted with further redactions shows that the primary purpose was to remove any mention of the manufacturing process and the batch identification and content.
So far, we have found a lack of evidence on the vaccine’s potential to interrupt transmission. We have seen that the selected subpopulations in the initial trials were not representative of the rollout population, and we uncovered persistent lymphopenia in trial populations, which could have devastating consequences. Several Comirnaty batches had quality assurance problems, and there were problems with some of the pre-release batches of Comirnaty, but few details were reported. Moreover, the meeting minutes gave the impression that despite the massive gaps in the evidence to use vaccines in - shall we say - extreme circumstances, it was business as usual when it comes to approving a novel technology.
Our response to obfuscation is to return to what we do best: return to the drawing board.
In April 2024, we began investigating the combined risks associated with the Comirnaty vaccines. We aimed to understand whether rare events could accumulate significantly when the entire population is exposed to them and if this exposure contributed to the 100,000 excess cardiovascular deaths since the start of the pandemic.
The more information is concealed, the more suspicious people tend to become. Given the controversy surrounding the Comirnaty vaccine and the allegations of a cover-up, we have decided to republish and update our previous paywalled posts on Exploring regulatory data sets of the vaccine and make them freely accessible. We will thoroughly investigate the matter and build upon our gathered knowledge, aiming to publish an update each Friday. We welcome your thoughts and comments on the Cominarty Vaccine FIles.
This post was written by two old geezers who know how to turn over stones.
Keep turning. I wrote a letter to "The Times" following its report of cancer being induced by inflammation.
"If, as your article today states, chronic inflammation is a driver for cancer, then any cause of such inflammation should be mitigated if possible. We know that the M-RNA vaccines against coronavirus are designed to induce the endogenous production of spike protein, which is a precipitant of an acute hyperimmune state that can result in serious inflammatory complaints such as myocarditis. We do not know how much spike protein is produced, nor how long for, as the research has never been done. It is possible that prolonged production occurs and may not only be the cause of Long Covid but, by inducing chronic inflammation, could also be oncogenic. The oncologist Angus Dalgleish has already suggested that covid vaccination can precipitate a sudden and explosive recurrence of existing cancer. It is vital therefore that long-term studies be conducted before subjecting the population to an undefined risk, and on that basis the M-RNA Covid vaccines should be withdrawn immediately."
Guess what? Not published.
In the 'old days' the people who published this sort of detailed investigation were called 'investigative reporters'. Now we rely on independent determined academics lurking on Substack. After we are all dead all this will make a great movie.