During the House of Commons Parliamentary debate on the MHRA on 16 January 2025, Sir Cristopher Chope MP made an important remark that we need to bear in mind if we are ever to take back what is ours:
Was there not a third possibility as raised by Clare Craig and others, that the question put to Dame June was potentially very deliberately and carefully crafted to allow her to answer the way she did (about so-called process A and B) without telling any untruths about Process 1 and 2?
If this is the case then any attempts at subterfuge have been rather counterproductive, in that they have ended up highlighting the concern rather than making it appear that this question about process has been put to bed.
I guess even entertaining the third possibility shows how little trust we have in the inquiry, given their clear bias and pre-determined assessments. Wouldn’t it be great if we were at least paying for an inquiry where the questioners approached the whole thing with a willingness to hear unpalatable truths and face difficult questions openly. As many have pointed out, the Scottish Inquiry is doing a better job at that, though it remains to be seen whether the lessons learned will be any different
I think your third possibility is very likely, given the many instances I've seen of Hugo Keith KC "steering" the so-called "independent" inquiry in the as it were "correct" direction, and away from lines of inquiry which are - shall we say - "sensitive".
The most blatant of these was when Michael Gove - hardly an "undesirable" like the two old geezers - came out with some genuinely surprising, intriguing testimony about the belief in Govt circles, at a certain point, that the phenomenon was a deliberately bio-weapon attack. This was absolute dynamite: because whatever the truth of that belief, the fact that it was held (from when? until when?) seemed to be to potentially explain a whole lot of otherwise unexplained weirdnesses. And Gove seemed completely prepared to speak further. But Keith shut this whole line RIGHT down, immediately. And we never heard any more about it.
Clearly the inquiry is not intended to reveal what really happened, and what really went wrong.
Yes, I had that thought as I was replying to your comment. I'm not sure. Gove's revelation (he attributed the Govt belief in a deliberate attack to "friends" - we all know who that means!) opened up such a ray of hope in me, that I'm inclined to believe that on this occasion Gove may have genuinely gone "off-piste".
Genuinely, but possible not disingenuously. Gove is such a complex character that it's hard to discern his motives. Further questioning/encouragement to explore the issue would have made things much clearer: yet this is exactly what Keith explicitly and shamelessly ruled out.
I felt a ray of hope because I thought that the "inquiry" might finally start to look at the important question, or rather the question I think is important: why, and how, did all our institutions make the transition from a (relatively!) normal state into one of fixation on just _one_, blinkered course of action?
I don't discount the influence of malign actors who would gain advantage, before and after the "change of state"; that influence has been amply documented (if generally ignored). I'm more interested in what you could call the "systemic vulnerability" of institutions to such a destructive state change; from the point of view of a bit of cybernetics, a bit of Arendt (Origins of Totalitarianism), a bit of Desmet (who is clearly influenced by Arendt).
Gove started to shed a bit of light on this, but was then shut down.
This just proves what masks they wear. Hiding behind them. Totally taking you for fools. The problem is, liars should have good memories.. that is the problem.. they forget what they originally say.. then , backtrack. Do they actually think intelligent people like yourselves do not see exactly what is going on . They need removed from that dark place .. called.. cover-ups. Let the light shine brightly on them to reveal the truth. That would be the game changer for all of them. 😡
Matter of interest, have you read this paper? Might be a good topic for your next blog:
Peer reviewed study:
"Results: The analysis of claims data for 47,155 nine-year-old children revealed that: 1) vaccination was associated with significantly increased odds for all measured NDDs; 2) among children born preterm and vaccinated, 39.9% were diagnosed with at least one NDD compared to 15.7% among those born preterm and unvaccinated (OR 3.58, 95% CI: 2.80, 4.57); and 3) the relative risk of ASD increased according to the number of visits that included vaccinations. Children with just one vaccination visit were 1.7 times more likely to have been diagnosed with ASD than the unvaccinated (95% CI: 1.21, 2.35) whereas those with 11 or more visits were 4.4 times more likely to have been diagnosed with ASD than those with no visit for vaccination (95% CI: 2.85, 6.84).
On the MHRA's accountability, in January 2023 I lodged a formal complaint with the MHRA about its failure to investigate the death of my Mother from side effects of the Moderna Booster and the related mass ADRs of all her fellow care home residents who received the booster and the death of a second resident. After much obfuscation I discovered the MHRA does not have a complaints process for “non-administrative” complaints such as mine. Nor does the relevant ombudsman.
I asked the MHRA who or what body is responsible for adjudicating whether or not the
MHRA has fulfilled its statutory duty under the Proactive Vigilance for COVID-19
vaccines and its overall Pharmacovigilance responsibilities including under the
Human Medicines Regulations 2012 as regards this case of mass ADRs and two
deaths.
The MHRA replied:
“In the UK the MHRA is responsible for the monitoring of the safety of medicinal products,
including vaccines. While there is no external body specified in legislation [an oversight on oversight?] as being responsible for ensuring MHRA fulfils its duties in terms of safety monitoring, the legislation places obligations on the MHRA to ensure that we have a robust safety monitoring system and that we have effective, high-quality procedures and processes in place for the collection of emerging safety information (including reports of suspected ADRs) and the evaluation of this information to identify new or changed risks and determine what action may be needed
to minimise these risks.”
The MHRA went on to advise it is “an Executive Agency of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). The DHSC holds us to account for our performance, and we work in partnership to serve ministers and Parliament and to serve patients and the public. Details on our relationship
with DHSC can be found in our Framework Agreement.”
The Framework Agreement states that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is “accountable to Parliament for the Agency’s performance”. It goes on “If the Secretary of State considers that the Agency is underperforming or significantly failing in the exercise of its functions, he/she is able to intervene and require the Agency to take certain steps. Depending on the urgency and nature of the failing, the SDS [Senior Departmental Sponsor] would use the quarterly accountability meetings to assess performance and escalate to the Permanent Secretary as and when required; and steps will be taken to address the failing. If the Agency fails to comply, the Secretary of State may make arrangements for another body to help him exercise these functions on his behalf.”
The SDS “supports the Permanent Secretary in holding the Agency to account and providing assurance on its performance” and so seems to be a lynchpin between the MHRA and DHSC/Health Secretary in this respect. Who is this SDS?
The minutes of the quarterly accountability meetings might be interesting to see just how probing (or not) those involved in holding the MHRA to account have been ref the COVID vaccines and whether any matters have been escalated.
On paper, in theory, the MHRA could be held to account by the Secretary of State and ultimately Parliament. The fact this has not happened speaks volumes.
Of all the official bodies and persons with influence, including my own MP, that I have approached about this case, the only one – yes one – that has shown any interest and support is Sir Christopher Chope.
Another very pertinent quote from F. A. Hayek: The Road to Serfdom
“Everything which might cause doubt about the wisdom of the government or create discontent will be kept from the people. The basis of unfavorable comparisons with elsewhere, the knowledge of possible alternatives to the course actually taken, information which might suggest failure on the part of the government to live up to its promises or to take advantage of opportunities to improve conditions--all will be suppressed. There is consequently no field where the systematic control of information will not be practiced and uniformity of views not enforced.”
a part of me almost takes pity on Mrs Raine; she just looks woefully inept; as though subjected repeatedly to being promoted way beyond her competency; how could she let that be done to her; and how could others do that to her? The KC has wonderfully sinister air, does he not? Malice aforethought.
goodness; this was all 4 yrs ago: it is though she was asked this by a journalist in Dec 2020; still looking like a hedgehog caught in the headlights of a big truck;
she could have lathered her answer additionally with "we are committed to the highest standards of transparency, integrity and commitment to public service "
Will her testimony be taken as gospel? Will anyone produce the Pfizer trial data and will Mr Keith give a hoot if they do?
Dame June was head of MHRA; probably all she felt she had to do was wear the badge and copy-and-paste Pharma’s conclusions about safety and efficacy and honour would be satisfied.
Am presently off sick with a URTI and sore throat, feet up on sofa watching The Big Short. The take-away message from the film is that very few people actually kept an eye on what was happening in 2007/2008. Those paid to look after our interests are not earning their keep (unless they are looking after someone else’s interests, of course)
'Dame June was head of MHRA; probably all she felt she had to do was wear the badge and copy-and-paste Pharma’s conclusions about safety and efficacy and honour would be satisfied. '
Well it would be the safest direction for her continued political support.
That's nothing. Here in Australia, the then Chief Health Officer assured the public that the injected material "stays in the arm". And because the active ingredient "is mRNA" it only lasts in the body a matter of minutes. I think he was speaking purely out of ignorance. However it was an ignorance born from the false view that he and his advisers were Very Clever People - while the general public were ignorant simpletons who needed to be patted on the the head and told not to worry.
"he and his advisers were Very Clever People - while the general public were ignorant simpletons who needed to be patted on the the head and told not to worry."
I’d really to pat that very clever person with a wake up call on the head……ignorance is no excuse under the law. Sorry your honour, I just didn’t know I should have declared that income to the Inland Revenue….yes perhaps it may catch on….several pink things flying by….
Does Pharma lie? Senator Cavanan Australia held Pfizer to account over claims that their product prevents transmission. Bourla, Pfizer CEO also tweet to similar effect. Pfizer turnover increased from circa $58bn to $100bn in the early covid era, Bourla is responsible for increasing shareholder value. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN4o3lJR0yM
" It was brought into the contemporary language by the UK Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong, who used the phrase during the Australian 'Spycatcher' trial in 1986."
Grounds for instant dismissal. How could the head of an organisation like that reveal an understanding which is so clearly ignorant and simplistic? Then to do this in public speaking on behalf of the organisation at an important enquiry! My brain is literally exploding!!
Looks like US is getting a grip on the situation - we wait to see if the same happens in UK, because I would like to be crystal clear that GoF is not being undertaken in UK, or if it is we know the location. etc.
Was there not a third possibility as raised by Clare Craig and others, that the question put to Dame June was potentially very deliberately and carefully crafted to allow her to answer the way she did (about so-called process A and B) without telling any untruths about Process 1 and 2?
If this is the case then any attempts at subterfuge have been rather counterproductive, in that they have ended up highlighting the concern rather than making it appear that this question about process has been put to bed.
I guess even entertaining the third possibility shows how little trust we have in the inquiry, given their clear bias and pre-determined assessments. Wouldn’t it be great if we were at least paying for an inquiry where the questioners approached the whole thing with a willingness to hear unpalatable truths and face difficult questions openly. As many have pointed out, the Scottish Inquiry is doing a better job at that, though it remains to be seen whether the lessons learned will be any different
I think your third possibility is very likely, given the many instances I've seen of Hugo Keith KC "steering" the so-called "independent" inquiry in the as it were "correct" direction, and away from lines of inquiry which are - shall we say - "sensitive".
The most blatant of these was when Michael Gove - hardly an "undesirable" like the two old geezers - came out with some genuinely surprising, intriguing testimony about the belief in Govt circles, at a certain point, that the phenomenon was a deliberately bio-weapon attack. This was absolute dynamite: because whatever the truth of that belief, the fact that it was held (from when? until when?) seemed to be to potentially explain a whole lot of otherwise unexplained weirdnesses. And Gove seemed completely prepared to speak further. But Keith shut this whole line RIGHT down, immediately. And we never heard any more about it.
Clearly the inquiry is not intended to reveal what really happened, and what really went wrong.
Could the Keith-Gove exchange be part of the same narrative steering? Just a thought.
Yes, I had that thought as I was replying to your comment. I'm not sure. Gove's revelation (he attributed the Govt belief in a deliberate attack to "friends" - we all know who that means!) opened up such a ray of hope in me, that I'm inclined to believe that on this occasion Gove may have genuinely gone "off-piste".
Genuinely, but possible not disingenuously. Gove is such a complex character that it's hard to discern his motives. Further questioning/encouragement to explore the issue would have made things much clearer: yet this is exactly what Keith explicitly and shamelessly ruled out.
I felt a ray of hope because I thought that the "inquiry" might finally start to look at the important question, or rather the question I think is important: why, and how, did all our institutions make the transition from a (relatively!) normal state into one of fixation on just _one_, blinkered course of action?
I don't discount the influence of malign actors who would gain advantage, before and after the "change of state"; that influence has been amply documented (if generally ignored). I'm more interested in what you could call the "systemic vulnerability" of institutions to such a destructive state change; from the point of view of a bit of cybernetics, a bit of Arendt (Origins of Totalitarianism), a bit of Desmet (who is clearly influenced by Arendt).
Gove started to shed a bit of light on this, but was then shut down.
thanks; very well put
This just proves what masks they wear. Hiding behind them. Totally taking you for fools. The problem is, liars should have good memories.. that is the problem.. they forget what they originally say.. then , backtrack. Do they actually think intelligent people like yourselves do not see exactly what is going on . They need removed from that dark place .. called.. cover-ups. Let the light shine brightly on them to reveal the truth. That would be the game changer for all of them. 😡
In the Law, ignorance is no excuse. Lying or being ignorant is not what is needed from/in our public officials.
Sadly it appears they are to be held neither accountable nor responsible for their actions - which is a travesty.
Matter of interest, have you read this paper? Might be a good topic for your next blog:
Peer reviewed study:
"Results: The analysis of claims data for 47,155 nine-year-old children revealed that: 1) vaccination was associated with significantly increased odds for all measured NDDs; 2) among children born preterm and vaccinated, 39.9% were diagnosed with at least one NDD compared to 15.7% among those born preterm and unvaccinated (OR 3.58, 95% CI: 2.80, 4.57); and 3) the relative risk of ASD increased according to the number of visits that included vaccinations. Children with just one vaccination visit were 1.7 times more likely to have been diagnosed with ASD than the unvaccinated (95% CI: 1.21, 2.35) whereas those with 11 or more visits were 4.4 times more likely to have been diagnosed with ASD than those with no visit for vaccination (95% CI: 2.85, 6.84).
Conclusions: These results suggest that the current vaccination schedule may be contributing to multiple forms of NDD; that vaccination coupled with preterm birth was strongly associated with increased odds of NDDs compared to preterm birth in the absence of vaccination; and increasing numbers of visits that included vaccinations were associated with increased risks of ASD. https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/vaccination-and-neurodevelopmental-disorders-a-study-of-nine-year-old-children-enrolled-in-medicaid/
On the MHRA's accountability, in January 2023 I lodged a formal complaint with the MHRA about its failure to investigate the death of my Mother from side effects of the Moderna Booster and the related mass ADRs of all her fellow care home residents who received the booster and the death of a second resident. After much obfuscation I discovered the MHRA does not have a complaints process for “non-administrative” complaints such as mine. Nor does the relevant ombudsman.
I asked the MHRA who or what body is responsible for adjudicating whether or not the
MHRA has fulfilled its statutory duty under the Proactive Vigilance for COVID-19
vaccines and its overall Pharmacovigilance responsibilities including under the
Human Medicines Regulations 2012 as regards this case of mass ADRs and two
deaths.
The MHRA replied:
“In the UK the MHRA is responsible for the monitoring of the safety of medicinal products,
including vaccines. While there is no external body specified in legislation [an oversight on oversight?] as being responsible for ensuring MHRA fulfils its duties in terms of safety monitoring, the legislation places obligations on the MHRA to ensure that we have a robust safety monitoring system and that we have effective, high-quality procedures and processes in place for the collection of emerging safety information (including reports of suspected ADRs) and the evaluation of this information to identify new or changed risks and determine what action may be needed
to minimise these risks.”
The MHRA went on to advise it is “an Executive Agency of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). The DHSC holds us to account for our performance, and we work in partnership to serve ministers and Parliament and to serve patients and the public. Details on our relationship
with DHSC can be found in our Framework Agreement.”
The Framework Agreement states that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is “accountable to Parliament for the Agency’s performance”. It goes on “If the Secretary of State considers that the Agency is underperforming or significantly failing in the exercise of its functions, he/she is able to intervene and require the Agency to take certain steps. Depending on the urgency and nature of the failing, the SDS [Senior Departmental Sponsor] would use the quarterly accountability meetings to assess performance and escalate to the Permanent Secretary as and when required; and steps will be taken to address the failing. If the Agency fails to comply, the Secretary of State may make arrangements for another body to help him exercise these functions on his behalf.”
The SDS “supports the Permanent Secretary in holding the Agency to account and providing assurance on its performance” and so seems to be a lynchpin between the MHRA and DHSC/Health Secretary in this respect. Who is this SDS?
The minutes of the quarterly accountability meetings might be interesting to see just how probing (or not) those involved in holding the MHRA to account have been ref the COVID vaccines and whether any matters have been escalated.
On paper, in theory, the MHRA could be held to account by the Secretary of State and ultimately Parliament. The fact this has not happened speaks volumes.
Of all the official bodies and persons with influence, including my own MP, that I have approached about this case, the only one – yes one – that has shown any interest and support is Sir Christopher Chope.
Another very pertinent quote from F. A. Hayek: The Road to Serfdom
“Everything which might cause doubt about the wisdom of the government or create discontent will be kept from the people. The basis of unfavorable comparisons with elsewhere, the knowledge of possible alternatives to the course actually taken, information which might suggest failure on the part of the government to live up to its promises or to take advantage of opportunities to improve conditions--all will be suppressed. There is consequently no field where the systematic control of information will not be practiced and uniformity of views not enforced.”
a part of me almost takes pity on Mrs Raine; she just looks woefully inept; as though subjected repeatedly to being promoted way beyond her competency; how could she let that be done to her; and how could others do that to her? The KC has wonderfully sinister air, does he not? Malice aforethought.
goodness; this was all 4 yrs ago: it is though she was asked this by a journalist in Dec 2020; still looking like a hedgehog caught in the headlights of a big truck;
she could have lathered her answer additionally with "we are committed to the highest standards of transparency, integrity and commitment to public service "
Will her testimony be taken as gospel? Will anyone produce the Pfizer trial data and will Mr Keith give a hoot if they do?
Dame June was head of MHRA; probably all she felt she had to do was wear the badge and copy-and-paste Pharma’s conclusions about safety and efficacy and honour would be satisfied.
Am presently off sick with a URTI and sore throat, feet up on sofa watching The Big Short. The take-away message from the film is that very few people actually kept an eye on what was happening in 2007/2008. Those paid to look after our interests are not earning their keep (unless they are looking after someone else’s interests, of course)
'Dame June was head of MHRA; probably all she felt she had to do was wear the badge and copy-and-paste Pharma’s conclusions about safety and efficacy and honour would be satisfied. '
Well it would be the safest direction for her continued political support.
That's nothing. Here in Australia, the then Chief Health Officer assured the public that the injected material "stays in the arm". And because the active ingredient "is mRNA" it only lasts in the body a matter of minutes. I think he was speaking purely out of ignorance. However it was an ignorance born from the false view that he and his advisers were Very Clever People - while the general public were ignorant simpletons who needed to be patted on the the head and told not to worry.
"he and his advisers were Very Clever People - while the general public were ignorant simpletons who needed to be patted on the the head and told not to worry."
indeed
I’d really to pat that very clever person with a wake up call on the head……ignorance is no excuse under the law. Sorry your honour, I just didn’t know I should have declared that income to the Inland Revenue….yes perhaps it may catch on….several pink things flying by….
Does Pharma lie? Senator Cavanan Australia held Pfizer to account over claims that their product prevents transmission. Bourla, Pfizer CEO also tweet to similar effect. Pfizer turnover increased from circa $58bn to $100bn in the early covid era, Bourla is responsible for increasing shareholder value. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN4o3lJR0yM
dare one suggest Mr Osborn was being a tad "economical with the truth"; as so personified by Sir Robert Armstrong, way back 40 yrs ago? https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/127700.html
" It was brought into the contemporary language by the UK Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong, who used the phrase during the Australian 'Spycatcher' trial in 1986."
some would suggest the two processes were entirely different; poor Mrs Raine; no-one let her in on the secret; and she never thought to ask; as head of a regulatory authority: how did the poor lady end up there? Was this like Barry Womble's wedding? https://rutles.fandom.com/wiki/When_You_Find_the_Girl_of_Your_Dreams_in_the_Arms_of_some_Scotsmen_from_Hull
Grounds for instant dismissal. How could the head of an organisation like that reveal an understanding which is so clearly ignorant and simplistic? Then to do this in public speaking on behalf of the organisation at an important enquiry! My brain is literally exploding!!
Trump likely to issue an Executive Order to pause Gain of Function research.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGNFSH988XY 10min video
Looks like US is getting a grip on the situation - we wait to see if the same happens in UK, because I would like to be crystal clear that GoF is not being undertaken in UK, or if it is we know the location. etc.
Have you seen this Nature paper showing SARS Cov 2 inability to transmit human to human?https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-024-01765-z