Dan and everyone who has followed this saga so far: we have covered most of this in our 61 part series of posts on Comirnaty 95% of which are based on contemporary regulatory documents. The question for all of you is: should we run the series?
It’s work which is going to takes us away from our holidays in the Bahamas, but is it worth it given the MHRA’s panicked reaction to the series of posts?
Now that Justice is become an entirely historical reality and all Law is a duplicitous political weapon, your cataloguing and digging out the truth is most certainly worthwhile. Having said that, I'm reluctant to ask of you the sacrifice. We are embarked upon a 1,000 year battle to recover the dignity of the human spirit. I say this because Katherine watt has traced the legal origins of the events of the last 5 years to the late 18th century. I believe her. But this means we are not dealing with the selfishness of single lifetimes, nor the pursuit of power in the merely material but with spiritual evil. >200 years in the preparation to me equals 1,000 years to overcome.
I would think that if someone went through the series it's pretty evident what occurred.
I have been looking at various FOIA request results in the US and, honestly, I can't find anything that is substantially enlightening simply because of lack of follow up.
So....I would say walk on the beach as sanity must be preserved, it's a slow moving train wreck on the home front.
Your analysis of the expressions used is pretty devastating. However, for me the most important stumbling block is the 'advice by the chief secret squirrel', prohibiting note-taking of presentations. Every student of biological sciences got drilled into them that extensive note-taking is a must. I think the age of all those EWG squirrels allows one to conclude that they must have been taught this. I doubt very much that they all had such brilliant memories that they were able to recall precisely the data from those presentations. Obviously, with no notes and only recourse to something remembered one's arguments can easily be swept off the table: 'no proof', or 'that's not what was said' ...
So can we say that the EWG was a bunch of yay-sayers, engaged in not rocking the boat but giving a veneer of 'scientific endeavour' to the proceedings?
How much were they being paid for attendance, btw?
Interesting X-post by Esther McVey. Does she subscribe to TTE too?
She posted yesterday about a debate in parliament regarding the failings of the MHRA. Apparently the debate was last Thursday.
In the post she also refers to the disappearance of the minutes of the Vaccine Benefit Risk Expert Working Group. At least the debate will be recorded in Hansard….
(Does anyone know how to copy and part images in comments?)
I suspect you cannot do that. The work-around would be to put your image somewhere publicly available such as dropbox or google drive or nextcloud etc. and give a text link here.
Howdy Myra, the Rt Hon Esther McVey MP promoted a Parliamentary debate on the MHRA on the 16th. Carl is writing it up. I am writing another interesting exchange between the Rt Hon and Minister Gwynne. Watch this space.
Somehow, I doubt that this is unusual, when considering the Uniparty "Guvmint" and Uniparty "Loyal Opposition" at that time, not forgetting the huge nest of vicious Civil Serpents who did what passed for "work" at the time.
Here’s Rupert Lowe MP’s speech in last week’s debate. 4 minutes 30 seconds of good sense. The chamber was sparsely attended but he has rather more support than Andrew Bridgen did in the previous parliament. LinkedIn would previously have censored views like this
What interests me is how there are so many people involved in covering things up, when this is at the least a national scandal, at worst an international genocide. The joke used to be - making a mark each time -"I know, I tell you, thats 2, now you tell one, how many's that?" "Three". "No, III is a hundred and eleven"! How many people can have such a financial stake in this that they cannot afford to say anything even when they see the likely scale of the disaster? Surely there must be disgruntled employees lowerdown the food chain who at least know something was wrong? Perhaps they have said something but MSM has ignored them, reversed the whistle blowing, and they have been bought or threatened? Perhaps some have indulged or been indulged in various fantasies that are on video somewhere? The reluctance to hold a Rochdale enquiry might argue for the latter?
Do named MHRA individuals advise particular experts to make up the "Expert Working Group"? And are the conflicts of interest known of all those involved in these public institutions? Or are no names available?
"The toxicity of the LNP formulation and novel excipients ALC-0159 and ALC-0315 was assessed
in one species as part of the repeat dose study with the vaccine. Neither the mRNA nor the lipid
excipients of the LNP formulation are expected to have genotoxic potential. However, the
potential of the LNP or the vaccine formulation for complement activation or stimulation of
cytokine release was not adequately assessed in nonclinical studies. Further investigation (i.e.,
analysis of complement activation and cytokine stimulation) is recommended unless this
particular concern is addressed by clinical data. The absence of a repeat dose toxicity study in a
second species and genotoxicity studies with the novel excipients was adequately justified by the
Sponsor."
"There are no nonclinical objections to the provisional registration of the vaccine. Long term
immunity, vaccine induced autoimmune diseases were not studied in the nonclinical program
and should be addressed by clinical data post provisional registration. Nonclinical studies on
complement activation and stimulation of cytokine release are recommended unless these
issues are addressed by clinical data."
Page-11
"The dosing interval was not optimal given that the immune response peaks 2-3 weeks after dosing, and the clinical dosing interval is 3 weeks. In addition, the novel lipid excipients have long elimination half-lives. Repeat dose toxicity studies with a dosing interval of 2 or 3 weeks would be more appropriate for investigating the potential toxicity of the vaccine.
The Sponsor indicated that “As platform data was available, a shortened administration paradigm was used in the repeat dose toxicity studies in order to assess the toxicity of the vaccine with a shorten study timeline allowing more rapid transition into clinical trials.”
Dan and everyone who has followed this saga so far: we have covered most of this in our 61 part series of posts on Comirnaty 95% of which are based on contemporary regulatory documents. The question for all of you is: should we run the series?
It’s work which is going to takes us away from our holidays in the Bahamas, but is it worth it given the MHRA’s panicked reaction to the series of posts?
We’d like as many answers as possible.
Best wishes, Tom
Now that Justice is become an entirely historical reality and all Law is a duplicitous political weapon, your cataloguing and digging out the truth is most certainly worthwhile. Having said that, I'm reluctant to ask of you the sacrifice. We are embarked upon a 1,000 year battle to recover the dignity of the human spirit. I say this because Katherine watt has traced the legal origins of the events of the last 5 years to the late 18th century. I believe her. But this means we are not dealing with the selfishness of single lifetimes, nor the pursuit of power in the merely material but with spiritual evil. >200 years in the preparation to me equals 1,000 years to overcome.
I realize that it was a rehash on my part.......
I would think that if someone went through the series it's pretty evident what occurred.
I have been looking at various FOIA request results in the US and, honestly, I can't find anything that is substantially enlightening simply because of lack of follow up.
So....I would say walk on the beach as sanity must be preserved, it's a slow moving train wreck on the home front.
If you and your families need the holiday then take it. The worst outcome of all is that you burn out.
Your analysis of the expressions used is pretty devastating. However, for me the most important stumbling block is the 'advice by the chief secret squirrel', prohibiting note-taking of presentations. Every student of biological sciences got drilled into them that extensive note-taking is a must. I think the age of all those EWG squirrels allows one to conclude that they must have been taught this. I doubt very much that they all had such brilliant memories that they were able to recall precisely the data from those presentations. Obviously, with no notes and only recourse to something remembered one's arguments can easily be swept off the table: 'no proof', or 'that's not what was said' ...
So can we say that the EWG was a bunch of yay-sayers, engaged in not rocking the boat but giving a veneer of 'scientific endeavour' to the proceedings?
How much were they being paid for attendance, btw?
Interesting X-post by Esther McVey. Does she subscribe to TTE too?
She posted yesterday about a debate in parliament regarding the failings of the MHRA. Apparently the debate was last Thursday.
In the post she also refers to the disappearance of the minutes of the Vaccine Benefit Risk Expert Working Group. At least the debate will be recorded in Hansard….
(Does anyone know how to copy and part images in comments?)
I suspect you cannot do that. The work-around would be to put your image somewhere publicly available such as dropbox or google drive or nextcloud etc. and give a text link here.
Howdy Myra, the Rt Hon Esther McVey MP promoted a Parliamentary debate on the MHRA on the 16th. Carl is writing it up. I am writing another interesting exchange between the Rt Hon and Minister Gwynne. Watch this space.
Best, Tom
Somehow, I doubt that this is unusual, when considering the Uniparty "Guvmint" and Uniparty "Loyal Opposition" at that time, not forgetting the huge nest of vicious Civil Serpents who did what passed for "work" at the time.
Here’s Rupert Lowe MP’s speech in last week’s debate. 4 minutes 30 seconds of good sense. The chamber was sparsely attended but he has rather more support than Andrew Bridgen did in the previous parliament. LinkedIn would previously have censored views like this
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rupert-lowe-mp-88774142_our-disastrous-covid-response-was-the-most-activity-7285717286408126464-Fc8I?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios
There is a chink of light in an open door and we need TTE to keep applying pressure to bust it wide open. Go Geezers Go.
What interests me is how there are so many people involved in covering things up, when this is at the least a national scandal, at worst an international genocide. The joke used to be - making a mark each time -"I know, I tell you, thats 2, now you tell one, how many's that?" "Three". "No, III is a hundred and eleven"! How many people can have such a financial stake in this that they cannot afford to say anything even when they see the likely scale of the disaster? Surely there must be disgruntled employees lowerdown the food chain who at least know something was wrong? Perhaps they have said something but MSM has ignored them, reversed the whistle blowing, and they have been bought or threatened? Perhaps some have indulged or been indulged in various fantasies that are on video somewhere? The reluctance to hold a Rochdale enquiry might argue for the latter?
Or All of the Above?
Do named MHRA individuals advise particular experts to make up the "Expert Working Group"? And are the conflicts of interest known of all those involved in these public institutions? Or are no names available?
My question is what they could have known? The assessment report from Australia (Pfizer submission) in 2021 is quite interesting in this regard.
https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/foi-2389-06.pdf
On page 5
"The toxicity of the LNP formulation and novel excipients ALC-0159 and ALC-0315 was assessed
in one species as part of the repeat dose study with the vaccine. Neither the mRNA nor the lipid
excipients of the LNP formulation are expected to have genotoxic potential. However, the
potential of the LNP or the vaccine formulation for complement activation or stimulation of
cytokine release was not adequately assessed in nonclinical studies. Further investigation (i.e.,
analysis of complement activation and cytokine stimulation) is recommended unless this
particular concern is addressed by clinical data. The absence of a repeat dose toxicity study in a
second species and genotoxicity studies with the novel excipients was adequately justified by the
Sponsor."
"There are no nonclinical objections to the provisional registration of the vaccine. Long term
immunity, vaccine induced autoimmune diseases were not studied in the nonclinical program
and should be addressed by clinical data post provisional registration. Nonclinical studies on
complement activation and stimulation of cytokine release are recommended unless these
issues are addressed by clinical data."
Page-11
"The dosing interval was not optimal given that the immune response peaks 2-3 weeks after dosing, and the clinical dosing interval is 3 weeks. In addition, the novel lipid excipients have long elimination half-lives. Repeat dose toxicity studies with a dosing interval of 2 or 3 weeks would be more appropriate for investigating the potential toxicity of the vaccine.
The Sponsor indicated that “As platform data was available, a shortened administration paradigm was used in the repeat dose toxicity studies in order to assess the toxicity of the vaccine with a shorten study timeline allowing more rapid transition into clinical trials.”