Search This Blog

Wednesday 21 July 2021

Pharmaceutical Drug Regulation. It's primary task is to protect patients. Yet drug regulators do not do so. Why?

How do we know if pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are safe?

How can patients protect themselves from the harm caused by adverse drug reaction?

Ever since the Thalidomide tragedy in the 1970's every nation now has a drug regulator. Their primary task is to protect patients - you are me. Yet they don't. The last 50 years has seen a huge number of pharmaceutical drug and vaccines - approved by regulators - often used for decades - only to be belatedly withdrawn or banned because of unacceptable levels of patient harm.

Even the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines we are prescribed today have very serious adverse reactions. How do we know this? They are listed in the patient information leaflet that comes with each pack of pills, and each vaccine. They make is clear that today's drugs are no safer than yesterday's banned drugs.

One problem is that the reporting of drug/vaccine side effects is known to be a small fraction of the total number of people who have been harmed - estimated to be about 1%. I have written about this before, many times, see for instance The Under-Reporting of Adverse Drug/Vaccine Reactions.

What this means is that pharmaceutical drug side effects are under-reported - to the extent that the harm they cause is under-estimated by anything up to 100 times. 

Yet the under-reporting reporting systems (the 'Yellow Card' system in Britain) is not the only problem with drug regulators and their regulatory activity (or lack of it). What is becoming increasingly clear is that when large numbers of serious, life threatening, life altering adverse drug/vaccine reactions are reported - no action is taken by the UK's drug regulator, the MHRA. 

The MHRA, and drug regulators around the world are content to explain away patient harm; they discount adverse reactions; they seek to justify side effects. They do not warn the public that the drug can cause them harm. And they do so even when a drug or vaccine is know to be killing people.

Never has this been clearer than during the past 8 months, and the introduction of the various Covid-19 vaccines. To demonstrate my point I will highlight the weekly reports of MHRA (British Drug Regulator) on serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines that it has received. The latest data can be found on the UK's government website. Between 9th December 2020 and 7th July 2021 the MHRA states that it has received reports of 1,470 deaths, as well as severe allergic reactions (Anaphylaxis), blood clotting, Bell's Palsy, Thrombo-Embolic events with concurrent low platelets, capillary leak syndrome, menstrual disorders and vaginal bleeding, inflammation of the heart, delayed hypersensitivity reactions, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and "events with a fatal outcome".

It is important to remember that whilst this information is published on a relatively obscure government website, the full enormity of the patient harm these vaccines are causing has not been relaid to the general public - either by the government, by the medical authorities, or by the mainstream media (MSM). They continue to urge us to take the vaccine, threaten us with 'vaccine passports' and mandatory vaccination if we don't comply. The vaccines, we are told, are safe. 

So people who are being vaccinated do not know about this information; they are told for over 8 months, that the vaccines are safe. They are, therefore, unable to make an informed decision based on all the evidence.

So it is instructive to see how the MHRA presents this patient harm, and what action it is proposing to take to prevent this harm. Each week the number of reported serious adverse reactions, including "events with a fatal outcome", increases. So how is this drug regulator protecting us?

I will take you through the lengthy document in order to highlight this.


This starts with a reminder that over 128,000 have died of Covid-19. Bear in mind this figure includes anyone who died within 28 days of being tested positive with Covid; so it includes those who died "with it", and those who died "of it". This should be borne in mind. It goes on to describe the 3 vaccines that have been used in the UK, leaving us in no doubt that "vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from Covid-19"

Not much room for doubt there! Yet this is actually one of the more surprising statements. I am not sure that a drug regulator, when reviewing a drug, should tell us it is the best treatment. Their concern should be whether it causes patient harm; but for some reason this is what the MHRA wants to tell us

The MHRA goes on to state that all three vaccines have all been tested by the drug companies, and authorised by the MHRA, following "thorough review(s) of safety, quality and efficacy" - but failing to mention that these vaccines did not go through the full testing and review procedures, and have only been given 'emergency' approval.

However, the MHRA then says its role was to "continually monitor safety", and that they had "a proactive strategy" to do so. It introduces the Yellow Card process for the first time, before making the first attempt to discount the importance of reported side effects they will outline later in the document.

        "The nature of Yellow Card reporting means that reported events are not always proven side effects. Some events may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination. This is particularly the case when millions of people are vaccinated, and especially when most vaccines are being given to the most elderly people and people who have underlying illness."

Then it outlines the number of Yellow Cards it has received emphasising that the "data cannot be used to derive side effect rates or compare the safety profile of Covid-19 vaccines", and that most side effects "relate to injection site reactions (sore arm, for example) and generalised symptoms such as flu-like illness". Nothing too serious to worry about, then. We are further reassured. "These type of reactions reflect the normal immune response triggered by the body to the vaccines".

Severe Allergy

The MHRA informs us there were "early reports of anaphylaxis" so it has "amended its advice". They are "very rare" reports, and all of them are generally "associated with other vaccines". Nothing to worry about here either, then.

Blood Clots

These are "extremely rare" and the MHRA has undertaken "a thorough review". MHRA singled out the AstraZenica vaccine, stating that if a patient had 'difficulties' after the first vaccine the second should not be taken. There is no mention that other drug regulators have 'suspended' the use of this vaccine for this very reasons


This section just repeats that "the vaccines are the best way to protect people from Covid-19 and have already saved  thousands of lives". No problem there, then. The MHRA will review the vaccines; but they have already decided they are the best thing on offer!


Another description of the Yellow Card scheme, this time stating that the MHRA plays "an active role" in responding to the Covid-19 pandemic.

What is Yellow Card?

Yes, the Yellow Card scheme is introduced - yet again - this time followed by a long message, discounting the importance of the reports that are received from doctors and patients.

        "We ask for any suspicions to be reported, even if the reporter isn’t sure if it was caused by the vaccine. Reports to the scheme are known as suspected adverse reactions (ADRs). Many suspected ADRs reported on a Yellow Card do not have any relation to the vaccine or medicine and it is often coincidental that they both occurred around the same time. The reports are continually reviewed to detect possible new side effects that may require regulatory action, and to differentiate these from things that would have happened regardless of the vaccine or medicine being administered, for instance due to underlying or undiagnosed illness. It is therefore important that the suspected ADRs described in this report are not interpreted as being proven side effects of COVID-19 vaccines.

So they may be reported, but the MHRA is already set to discount and dismiss them.


Vaccine doses administered

This section stresses how many vaccine doses have been administered in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. It presumably sets us up to see how 'uncommon' and 'rare' the reported adverse reactions are, but nowhere mentions that usually only 1% of side effects are ever reported.

Yellow Card Reporting Trends

Again, this section begins by discounting the trends, even before we know what the trends are! Recall, the primary task of drug regulators is to protect the patient from adverse drug reactions (ADR's) not to support the drug or vaccine. 

        "A report of a suspected ADR to the Yellow Card scheme does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the vaccine, only that the reporter has a suspicion it may have. Underlying or previously undiagnosed illness unrelated to vaccination can also be factors in such reports."

This section provides us with the total numbers of reported ADR's in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.


In this section MHRA outlines the enormity of their task, "given the huge scale of the Covid-19 immunisation programme" and outlines what that task is. The first, it says, is "to rapidly detect, confirm, and quantify any new risks and weigh these against the expected benefits. We then can take any necessary action to minimise risks to individuals."

Absolutely right, except that the second task goes some way to undermining the first task, yet more discounting - even before we have any details of the ADR's. The MHRA is clearly preparing us for the worst!

        "... we need to very quickly establish if any serious medical events which are temporally-related to vaccination are merely a coincidental association. These associations are likely while we are still in the midst of a national epidemic, and because many of the millions of people offered the vaccine in the early phase of a vaccination campaign are elderly and/or have underlying medical conditions, which increases the likelihood of unrelated illnesses occurring soon after vaccination. As mentioned above, the nature of Yellow Card reporting means that reported events are not always proven adverse reactions, and some may have happened regardless of vaccination."

Overall Safety

This section begins with yet more prevarication, more discounting of the reports of patient harm it has received, more implicit support of the vaccines.

        "As with any vaccine, the COVID-19 vaccines will cause side effects in some people. The total number and the nature of Yellow Cards reported so far is not unusual for a new vaccine for which members of the public and healthcare professionals are encouraged to report any suspected adverse reaction."

And the majority of side effects are (of course) minor, "a sudden feeling of cold with shivering/shaking accompanied by a rise in temperature, often with sweating, headache (including migraine-like headaches), nausea, muscle aches and feeling unwell, starting within a day of having the vaccine".

Really? Nothing to worry about then. And we are now half way through the paper.......

Comments on Specific Reports

Only now does the MHRA move to more serious ADR's. But in doing so they make comments that undermine and underplay the seriousness of the reports.

Anaphylaxis. "The nature and frequency of these reports is in line with that reported in previous updates, and severe allergic reactions to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine remain very rare. The MHRA’s guidance remains that those with a previous history of allergic reactions to the ingredients of the vaccine should not receive it."

And what have the MHRA done? They have recommended that some people do not get the vaccine. They continue to monitor the situation. And the product information leaflet has been updated. Heavy stuff!

Bell's Palsy. "The number of reports of facial paralysis received so far is similar to the expected natural rate and does not currently suggest an increased risk following the vaccines. We will continue to monitor these events...." Heavy discounting here then, accompanied with minimal response! 

Thrombo-embolic events with concurrent low platelets. The MHRA discusses this in relation to young people, and with females. So there are concerns, but no concerns that require action because "on the basis of this ongoing review, the advice remains that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks in the majority of people" (my emphasis). So some harm to some people is acceptable, as long as most people are not harmed. The "risk-benefit" analysis is just a statement, of course, no published calculation! In several other countries it is these 'thrombo-embolic events' that has led to the ongoing suspension of one or more of the vaccines by some drug regulators.

Capillary Leak Syndrome. Only 8 cases have been reported; but remember that with 1% of side effects are ever being reported, this could mean 800 cases. As usual we are reassured, and minimal actions has been taken. "... 2 people had a history of capillary leak syndrome. This is an extremely rare relapsing-remitting condition and triggers for relapses are not well understood. As a precautionary measure, the MHRA is advising that COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca is not used in people who have previously experienced episodes of capillary leak syndrome. The product information will be updated to reflect this advice." 

Menstrual disorders (period problems) and unexpected vaginal bleeding. There have apparently been 22,981 reports received about this; so this is heavily discounted on the basis that this number "is low in relation to both the number of females who have received COVID-19 vaccines to date and how common menstrual disorders are generally". It would appear that the MHRA is taking no action at all about this. So, you women, just get on with it, suffer - there's a lot of it around! A little more will make little difference.

Inflammation of the Heart. Both Myocarditis and Pericarditis have been reported, and the MRNA admits that the numbers of reports is many more than the annual rate for this disease. It says that similar reports are coming from other countries following the vaccines. But we are not to worry! Of course not! "These reports are extremely rare, and the events are typically mild with individuals usually recovering within a short time with standard treatment and rest." And we are assured that the MHRA will continue to monitor the situation.

Delayed Hypersensitivity Reactions. If anyone gets this, they are advised to get medical advice, presumably from the same doctor who recommended the vaccine! Otherwise the MHRA is taking no action.

Guillain-Barre Syndrome. This syndrome, which is linked to many other vaccines, is being monitored but at this time, "based on the available evidence .... (the MHRA) are not able to confirm or rule out a causal relationship with the vaccine". And, needless to say, it is taking no action.

Events with a Fatal Outcome. Death is, of course, the ultimate "side effect" of every pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. This is the MHRA's first response - before it even tells us how many deaths have been reported following Covid-19 vaccines.

        "Vaccination and surveillance of large populations means that, by chance, some people will experience and report a new illness or events in the days and weeks after vaccination. A high proportion of people vaccinated early in the vaccination campaign were very elderly, and/or had pre-existing medical conditions. Older age and chronic underlying illnesses make it more likely that coincidental adverse events will occur, especially given the millions of people vaccinated."

 So death is an understandable result of medical treatment. The UK's drug regulator seeks to explain away vaccine-caused death before it does anything else. It goes on to defend the harm caused by medical treatment by comparing the Covid-19 vaccine death rates with 'natural' death rates. It comes to an inevitably conclusion. These people would have died anyway!

        "Based on age-stratified all-cause mortality in England and Wales taken from the Office for National Statistics death registrations, several thousand deaths are expected to have occurred, naturally, within 7 days of the many millions of doses of vaccines administered so far, mostly in the elderly."

Well, that's alright then. The MHRA finally tells us that there have been 1,470 reported deaths. And it leaves it there. No further explanation. No effort to discover a link between the vaccines and these deaths. 

This is literally an unbelievable response from the drug regulator whose primary task is to protect patients from harmful (not to say lethal) adverse reactions.


Just as it started, just as it did consistently throughout, the conclusions drawn by the MHRA, the agency whose primary role is to protect patients from dangerous pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, defends the Covid-19 vaccines, regardless of the harm they are doing.  

        ".... over 128,382 people across the UK have died within 28 days of a positive test for coronavirus. Vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from COVID-19. A national immunisation campaign has been underway since early December 2020."

The MHRA, alongside other national drug regulators, has long been accused of being an arm of the pharmaceutical industry, and nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in this document.

It repeats that the vaccines have been tested; and states that "data is now available on the impact of the vaccination campaign in reducing infections and illness in the UK".

Most trains running from any two cities get most of their customers there safely. Most restaurants feed their diners safely. Most industries have a workforce that survive their working conditions. But none of them are allowed to kill 1,470 people - and do little or nothing about it! 

        "... all vaccines and medicines have side effects", they tell us.

Ask a train company, a restaurant, and all other industries, how much harm, injury and death they can cause before serious questions are asked, and decisive action taken. It would seem that the same rules do not apply to the pharmaceutical industry.

        "Following widespread use of these vaccines across the UK, the vast majority of suspected adverse reaction reports so far confirm the safety profile seen in clinical trials. Most reports relate to injection-site reactions (sore arm for example) and generalised symptoms such as a ‘flu-like’ illness, headache, chills, fatigue, nausea, fever, dizziness, weakness, aching muscles, and rapid heartbeat. Generally, these reactions are not associated with more serious illness and likely reflect an expected, normal immune response to the vaccines."

So all is well with the Covid-19 vaccines. There is nothing for us to worry about it. And the government agrees - because this is published on the government website. And as the mainstream media agrees because they have not told us about any of this. Everyone agrees.

So the message from the MHRA is implicitly clear. "We have a duty to announce these reported side effects, so here they are. But rather than do our duty and take effective action to protect patients, we will defend the drug companies, and the drugs and vaccine they market and profit from. Patient harm is an acceptable side effect". And perhaps they can do this because they know government, and the MSM, will not disagree with this assessment.

        "We take every report of a suspected ADR seriously and encourage everyone to report through the Yellow Card scheme."


Friday 16 July 2021

The Body is an Organism not a Mechanism. This is why Conventional Medicine has got it wrong! The important role of Natural Immunity to Health and Well-Being.

The human body is an organism not a mechanism. When dealing with our health this is an important distinction. The body is living, vibrant and adaptable; it grows and develops. If we look after it well it will keep itself fit and healthy. It thrives and is enhanced by exercise and activity. It is naturally programmed to respond to threats to health and our well-being. All it asks in return that we nurture and look after it sensibly.

Machines are quite different, they do not have the same abilities and characteristics. They do not grow and develop, they cannot look after themselves. We must look after them. They have no ability to fend for themselves, they require our regular input and attention. When we over-use them they wear out, they become less efficient; separate parts fail and need to be replaced.

This is what conventional medicine has forgotten about health and well-being. Their entire modus operandi clearly demonstrates that they treat the human body is a machine; it cannot look after itself, it can be maintained or enhanced only through regular medical input:

  • health comes from a bottle of pharmaceutical pills, forcing the body to behave correctly,
  • vaccines are the only way to combat germs and infections,
  • our body parts wear out and have to be surgically removed and replaced.

This is why conventional medicine has got things so fundamentally wrong; it is why chronic disease has been increasing for decades, now running at epidemic levels, and spiralling out of control the more we use and spend on pharmaceutical medical treatment.

This is why conventional medicine is unable to cope with epidemics: why thousands of people have died, or become very sick with Covid-19; why hugely restrictive public health policies have caused devastating social, economic and personal harm; and why it has failed, and continues to fail; why such uncertainty and fear remains about life ever returning to normal again.

The vast majority of people who have relied upon, and suffered the failure of conventional medicine's treatments, are understandably confused. Covid-19 has led to 18 months plus of hardship, in one form or another. We have been told to wash our hands, to wear masks, to keep social distance, to isolate and quarantine, to lockdown on all social activities. In general we have complied; and at the time of writing we are on our third wave of the virus.

Our confusion is heightened when we are told that conventional medical science now understands the workings of the human body in a way that was impossible 200 years ago. For instance, where once we knew little about the circulation of blood around the body, we now have intimate knowledge about how the blood circulates. Medicine now has a minute understanding about how the heart, liver, kidneys and other organs work.

So it is puzzling that, despite this incredible knowledge of the workings of the human body, medical science has not been able to resolve the problem of ill-health and disease; that conventional medicine has been able to do little to reduce the severity of the Covid-19 pandemic. Why should this be?

There is a fundamental reason. Conventional medical science does indeed know a lot about the mechanics of the human body; but it has failed to understand the principles of maintaining health, and curing illness and disease. And this is largely because it treats the body as a machine.

  • If the carburettor in a motor car is faulty - replace it. After all, it’s a machine, and one carburettor works just like any other.

So when conventional science informs doctors about what the healthy human body it has an apparently simple solution. It can identify what is should, and should not be happening; so restoring health is to force the body back into compliance with what is considered to be normal - to make it do what it should be doing.

  • Pain? Get rid of it, kill it; with painkillers
  • Limb pain? Heart disease? Replace it, transplant a new limb or a new organ.
  • High Blood Pressure? Reduce it with drugs.
  • Cholesterol causing heart problems? Reduce cholesterol levels with Statin drugs.
  • Threatened by bacterial infection? Kill the bacteria with antibiotic drugs.
  • Subject to a viral attack? Chase the virus, hunt it down; or avoid it, run away; lockdown.

These are mechanical 'solutions' that might work if the human body was a machine, but which are almost inevitably ineffective. Indeed, they are positively harmful - once it is understood that the body is an organism

This reflects the fundamental difference between conventional medicine and natural medical therapies. The former sees the body as a machine that has to be forced back into health. The latter asks what is causing the body to be in pain, or what has caused high blood pressure, or high levels of cholesterol, and why the body has succumbed to a viral/bacterial infection.

  • It is these causal questions that has led natural medical therapies to safe and effective solutions.
  • It is the failure to answer (or even ask) these question that has to the ongoing failure of conventional medicine to deal with sickness and disease.

The Covid-19 pandemic should bring the difference between treating a 'mechanism' and an 'organism' more sharply into focus? 

  • Why did conventional medicine have no effective treatment for Covid-19 at the start of the pandemic, or now? 
  • Why did it decide to "chase the virus", only for it to be quite clearly be outrun and out-thought by the virus, and its alleged 'variants'?
  • Why does conventional medicine pay so little attention to the potential healing power of our bodies, to resist and help us to cope with the virus?
  • Why were we told that only a new vaccine would keep us healthy, and return us to normal life when the means of doing so was within us all the time'? 
And, in particular, why has conventional medicine forgotten about the importance of natural immunity? It knows so much about the intricate details of the working of the body; yet now it does not realise that our immune system is designed to enable us not only to live with viruses, but to help us avoid and cope with illness, and promote our well-being. 
  • If conventional medicine had been willing to work with the body as an organism doctors would have been telling the public about natural immunity, the way we could support and strengthen our immune system, and how it can protect us from the virus. Sadly it has rarely been mentioned.
  • If it had spent more time paying attention to the body's own defences we would not have had to spend £$billions on ventilators, intensive care, on ineffective drugs with serious side effects, or develop new, expensive and inadequately tested vaccines.
  • Instead it could have identify people with a compromised immune system, and who were most at risk of Covid-19. Such a policy would have focused attention on the vulnerable, those with 'underlying health conditions', whilst allowing the less vulnerable to get on with their lives, livelihoods, education, et al.

What natural medical therapists have done during the pandemic is what they always do - they have placed bacterial and viral infections into a natural rather than a mechanical perspective. We live with these 'germs' all the time; we always have done - long before we knew they existed. Most of the germs that cause human epidemics are not naturally dangerous. But when they come into contact with a host that is vulnerable they thrive, multiply, and cause a problem for that host.

In other words germs thrive on ‘poor soil’, that is, from a host that has become unable to cope with them. When germs find a vulnerable host they thrive, they cause major epidemics kill massive numbers of people. Throughout history epidemics have killed the weakest, and sickened to the weaker amongst. The only protection is a strong and healthy host - not pharmaceutical drugs or vaccines.

Major epidemics have always killed massive numbers of people. Yet even the very deadliest epidemics (the Black Death of 1346, the Great Plague of 1665, the plethora of 19th century epidemics, the Spanish flu of 1919) did not kill everyone. The fittest have always survived. The task of medicine is, or should have been, supporting and strengthening the natural immunity of the weaker.

The secret to "the survival of the fittest" has never been paternalist governments intent on saving everyone. It has always been natural immunity. It has never been vaccines. Vaccines have never worked (see, for example, the failure of vaccines to treat measles). The current focus on so-called "vaccine-immunity" has arisen only because vaccines are immensely profitable for the immensely rich, influential and powerful pharmaceutical industry. The message 'only a vaccine can save us' is little more than medical promotion and propaganda.

To the contrary it is not profitable for drug companies to encourage people to support and strengthen their immune system.

Indeed, the impact that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines have on natural immunity might be the leading reason for the conventional medical establishment (CHE) being so intent on stopping us thinking too much about its importance. Most of those with the weakest natural immunity are those whose immune systems have been heavily compromised by pharmaceutical drug treatment.

It is definitely downright unprofitable for CHE to ask the question - why is Covid-19 killing people with 'underlying health problems' when it is realised that 'underlying health problems' are often caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Or when conventional medicine uses "immuno-suppressant therapy" to treat conditions such as cancer, and those with limb and organ transplants.

The failure of conventional medicine arises from this fundamental flaw in their understanding of health and well-being. It treats with organism with "anti-" drugs that "Block", "Inhibit", and Kill"  the normal functioning of the body. The function of these drugs is given away in the generic names of these drugs. 

This is why conventional medicine has little or nothing that works alongside the organism, little that enables and promotes harmony and health. This is why it has had little to offer us during this pandemic. This is why so many people are confused.

We have obeyed all the rules. 

Large numbers have accepted the vaccine. 

Yet normal life is still not returning. 

So is it any wonder that people are confused!

Friday 9 July 2021

Covid-19 Vaccines. The MSM Information Blight? A complaint to our 'Public Service' broadcaster, the BBC

I refer you to my previous blog to the UK's Department of Health in which I explain how medical authorities are not informing the general public about the serious adverse reactions, and patient harm, that is being cause by the Covid-19 vaccines. 

The same applies to the mainstream media (MSM) who are failing to inform us about what is being officially reported on the Government website by the UK's drug regulator, the MHRA.

This is the preamble, taken from yesterday's blog.

    "A large, and growing proportion of the UK population has now received either one or two doses of one of the experimental Covid-19 vaccines. I suspect that the vast majority of these people did so on the basis of what they had been told about them - by the Department of Health, the NHS, and the mainstream media (MSM) - that these vaccines were effectively safe, and would not cause serious patient harm.

    "Official statistics, data coming from the UK's drug regulator, the MHRA, and published on the UK Governments website, suggest that this is not the case.

    "The evidence is that the vaccines are causing serious patient harm, with over 1 million side effects being reported by nearly 300,000 patients. This includes reactions such as severe allergic reactions, anaphylaxis, Bell's Palsy, blood clots, cerebral venous sins thrombosis (CVST), Capillary Leak Syndrome, menstrual disorders and vaginal bleeding, Myocarditis and Pericarditis (inflammation of the heart), and fatalities. Indeed the latest MHRA data shows that there have been 1,403 reported deaths of patients shortly after they have been given one of the Covid-19 vaccines.

    "The weekly MHRA review consistently discounts the seriousness of these reported 'side effects', even though its primary function as a drug regulator should be to protect patients from drug and vaccine-induced harm. It is well known that side effects reported to the drug regulator represents only a small proportion of actual side effects - research has shown this to be somewhere between 1% and 10%. So 1,403 death could actually be 14,030 deaths, or as many as 140,300 deaths.

    "I cannot think of any other walk of life where such harm could be caused, or even suspected to be caused, without a serious and immediate "Health and Safety" response. An industry that causes serious harm to its workers, or its customers, would be subject to rigorous examination and inspection. A restaurant suspected of causing food poisoning would be closed down. A road junction where there had been numerous accidents would have been subject to increased traffic regulation.

    "But this does not happen when pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines cause public harm. "All drugs cause side effects" we are told blandly by doctors and drug regulators; and it is left at that. There has been no public warning from government, from the NHS, or from the MSM. They continue to tell us that the vaccines are safe; and urge everyone to take the vaccine, without informing us about these reported side effects.

The BBC is the UK's "public service" broadcaster. It has a primary responsibility to inform the general public, who also funds it through the licence fee, about important official statistics, perhaps more so than any other mainstream media (MSM) outlet. The BBC has totally failed to mention these officially reported 'side effects' for the last 6-7 months. Consequently I have complained to the BBC and asked them to respond to the following questions.

1. Can the BBC confirm that MHRA statistics, relating to Covid-19 vaccines and published on this Government website, comes from official government source, and does not constitute "anti-vaxxer" disinformation?

2. Can the BBC confirm that, up to 23rd June 2021, the MHRA, the UK's drug regulator, has received over 1 million reports of serious side effects, including 1,403 reports of patients dying shortly after receiving one of the Covid-19 vaccines?

3. Can the BBC inform me how many deaths and/or serious adverse reactions, either caused or suspected to be caused by a pharmaceutical drug, it considers necessary before it takes action to inform the general public?

4. Can the BBC tell me when, and how it has been informing the general public of these serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines as reported by the MHRA? In particular, can the BBC provide me with the information it has given to its viewers, listeners, readers about these MHRA statistics during the last 6-7 months?

5. Can the BBC tell me how knowledge of these official statistics has modified the BBC's stance on the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines, and its decision to promote them as entirely safe to the general public?

6. How does the BBC seek to ensure that the general public, and licence fee payers, are in future provided with full information about the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines before it recommends and promotes them, so that its viewers, listeners and readers are able to make a balanced and informed decision?

7. Can the BBC inform me about any action it has taken to verify and investigate these serious adverse vaccine reactions, and in particular to interview the family and friends of those people who have died shortly after the Covid-19 vaccination?

8. Can the BBC assure me that before more people receive a Covid-19 vaccine it will begin to inform the general public and licence payers about official reported adverse reactions, and in particular that 1,403 people have died shortly after after taking the vaccine?

Doubtless it will take several weeks for any response to be forthcoming from the BBC. When this is received I will immediately reproduce their response, here, in full; alongside my response to their response!

So watch this space!

14th July 2021

Thank you for watching this space! I have now received a response to my complaint from the BBC, and as promised I am reproducing it here, in full.

    "Thank you for contacting us with your concerns about BBC News coverage of Covid-19 vaccines. We have published a number of articles about the common side effects, such as the one below. The article also contains further links to earlier pieces we have written about side effects:

Another article we'd like to highlight is the one below from 3 April. On that day the MHRA published its weekly yellow card report and did not include the data on deaths. We pressed them for further information and it was only then that they revealed that seven people had died after receiving the Astra Zeneca jab and we reported this:

Yellow card reports of serious side effects have to be investigated and it isn’t always possible to establish a link with vaccinations. When there is evidence that serious side effects are considered likely to have been caused by the vaccine, we have reported the risks clearly and responsibly.

This piece outlines that it isn’t always easy to establish if a serious illness is coincidence or caused by a vaccine:

As we have imported, a member of BBC staff is suspected of dying from vaccine-related causes:

You might also be interested in these articles:

We do value your feedback about this. All complaints are sent to senior management and we’ve included your points in our overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the company and ensures that your concerns have been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future content.


So they thanked me for 'sharing my views'. So as I also promised I will now respond to their response! You will see that the BBC Complaints unit has not answered most of my questions.

Q1. The BBC did not confirm that the MHRA statistics came from an official government source, and did not constitute "anti-vaxxer" disinformation.

Q2. The BBC did not confirm that that the MHRA has received over 1 million reports of serious side effects, including 1,403 reports of patients dying shortly after receiving one of the Covid-19 vaccines. They say they knew of 7 deaths in April 2021: but by then the MHRA had reported many, many more than 7 deaths.

Q3. The BBC did not inform me about how many reported deaths and/or serious adverse reactions were necessary before it took action to inform the general public. It appears that they are content that they reported on 7 of the 1,403 deaths.

Q4. The BBC's response outlines what they have done to to inform the general public about these serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines. It is clearly inadequate. They referred to 7 published articles which I hope you will take the time to read: not because of the information they contain, but the lack of information, the lack of any understanding of how serious the problems are, and how they constantly discount the seriousness of the data - always content to use the arguments of the conventional medical establishment (CME). The BBC has clearly NEVER the accumulating MHRA statistics on deaths and serious adverse vaccine reactionsthat have been available to them during the last 6-7 months.

  • They reported on a BBC staff member who died following a Covid vaccine: please note that they stated in this article (May 2021) that her death would be 'probed': two months later there has been no evidence of any probe!
  • They have reported on just one death in Northern Ireland.
  • They reported on just three deaths in Scotland.
  • For each of these the BBC articles have argued that (i) there was no proven link to the vaccine, (ii) the benefits outweigh the risks; (iii) it was still important that people got the vaccine -  and of course they have continued to support and promote the vaccines on behalf of the drug companies.
  • They continue to discount the seriousness of the potential link between the vaccines and patient harm, content to accept and repeat at face value the usual arguments of the CHE.

Q5. The BBC did not respond to whether MHRA's official statistics had modified the BBC's stance on the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines, or its decision to promote them as entirely safe to the general public. So it quite clearly has not done so. According to the BBC the Covid-19 vaccines are safe, and MHRA data does not change their opinion on this.

Q6. Nor did the BBC response say how it sought to ensure that the general public were in future provided with full information about the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines before continuing to recommend and promote them so that people were more able to make a more balanced and informed decision.

  • The BBC's response suggests that they believe these 7 articles, published over a period of 8 months, have been sufficient to inform the general public about 1,403 deaths, and over 1 million reports of side effects.
  • Indeed, the BBC seems content to discount any patient harm caused by the vaccines, and regardless of MHRA data, to continue urging everyone to take the vaccine.

Q7. The BBC did not inform me about any action they had taken to verify and investigate the serious adverse vaccine reactions revealed by the MHRA statistics. Even in the 7 articles they referred to the main focus was clearly to heavily discount even the few deaths, and adverse reactions they have mentioned. Each one of these 'statistics' is a human tragedy, but they have not seen fit to verify, publicise, or investigate the trauma 'side effects' cause; they have made no attempt to interview grieving families, or the friends of the people who have died following vaccination.

Q8. The BBC's response has failed to assure me that it will begin to inform the general public about officially reported adverse reactions - before more people suffer from them.

  • When I wrote my complaint 1,403 people had been reported as dying shortly after after taking the vaccine. Since then this figure has risen to 1,440 - with another report due to be made in two days time. So 37 more people have died unaware that the official data that the BBC refuses to publicise.
  • The BBC is still informing us, each and  every day, about deaths caused by the virus (or more accurately deaths that follow within 28 days after a positive Covid-19 test). They do not discount this figure - no suggestion that most of these deaths are people who had serious underlying health conditions - no caveat linking these deaths to the virus.

There is nothing in these 7 BBC articles that constitutes an adequate warning to the general public that 1,440 people have been reported as dying shortly after the vaccination, that far from the vaccine being safe 'death' was a possible side effect. And no mention either that it is well known that only 1% of adverse drug/vaccine reactions are ever reported!

There is nothing in the BBC's response to my complaint that suggests they are aware, or even want to be aware, of the seriousness of this situation. The response is disinterested. It defends their stance without any attempt at justifying it. The BBC are clearly satisfied with the dismissive explanations of the CHE.

The BBC regularly and exclusively interviews and quotes members of the conventional medical profession - the "experts". Yet these "experts" are the very same people who support these vaccines; who encourage people to get vaccinated; who are culpable of telling us that the vaccines are "safe". What, then, is the likelihood of any of these "experts" performing a volte face, agreeing that the vaccines they said were safe are not safe, that they have serious side effects they have not told us about, that 1,440 people have been reported as dying from these 'safe' vaccines?

There is a further concern about the BBC's handling of the pandemic - their feeble acceptance of CME excuses for not informing the general public about official MHRA data. In what other walk of life would the BBC be aware that 1,440 people have died, and many others have suffered serious harm, without looking beyond the explanations given by those who are closely implicated to the situation? There appears to be one rule for the CME, and another for every other industry.

This BBC response to my complaint  is confirmation that it has become the mouthpiece of the CME, the willing promoter of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Conventional medicine can kill, it can cause serious illness and disease; but the BBC meekly accepts any explanation/excuse the CME comes up with. It does not question. It has failed to ask members of the CME who have an alternative (more critical) view. It declines to interview the victims, or their families. It just carries on justify and promote harmful/lethal medical treatments.

I will respond to the BBC's response, but without any expectation that this 'public service' broadcaster will change its mind, and accept its responsibility to the general public. After all, this would mean they would not have to do the same thing as our doctors - admit they have been promoting unsafe, experimental vaccines, that they were wrong, that people have suffered, many have died. And that this has happened as a direct consequence of the BBC's failure to tell us what we needed to know.