We continue reviewing the minutes of the MHRA’s ​​Commission On Human Medicines (CHM) COVID-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group meeting, which took place on 29, 31 December 2020, and 3 January 2021. 

Share

These secret meetings were devoted to the Oxford Astra Zeneca product, dealing with sensitisation issues. The minutes are tedious and complicated and relate to a vaccine that is no longer available. We will move on to the 13 January meeting, but those interested in each meeting can access the relevant files through the hyperlink.

On 13 January, the EWG examined safety data in those with prior COVID-19 infection recipients of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, the risk of anaphylaxis with Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, and got an update on the Safety Data for the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

“[For Comirnaty] The EWG were assured that low levels of lymphadenopathy were observed, and this event is listed in Section 4.8 of the SmPC. The EWG heard there were no cases of appendicitis”.

The text does not mention lymphopenia, C-reactive protein (CRP—an aspecific marker of inflammation), or thrombocytopenia. This does not mean the two were not discussed, but the minutes did not record them. 

Perhaps the most interesting statement can be found on page 4 of the document and para 2.5:

Two points stick out: 

First, this statement applies to all respiratory virus vaccine trials that rely on antibody response as a surrogate marker for field protection and, hence, effectiveness. Regulators have been well aware of this problem for decades but have primarily done nothing to address it.

Second, readers will see the interminable discussions around antibody responses if they go through the minutes. The validity of these discussions is only relevant to potential harms, as the statement we reported above undermines the significance of antibody responses in vaccines as a marker of effectiveness.

The MHRA were informed that 500 yellow cards concerning the AZ vaccine had been received, which they stated did not indicate any signals. While future steps ‘indicated that the content of the papers and proceedings of the meeting were strictly confidential and should not be disclosed,’ not one person around the virtual EWG table bothered to ask about the inadequacies of the Yellow Card System.

This post was written by two old geezers who understand why they are never invited to safety meetings.

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has responded to the last request we made under FOI.

This one asked how they define an infectious case of the bird F word. It has to be clear if they use our money to protect us from a threat.

Here’s the answer, short and sharp:

A respiratory virus is a threat if it is infectious, i.e., capable of spreading from A to B and, in this case, from a bird to a human being. If you do not have information on the definition of infectiousness, how do you know it’s a threat?

So we answered:

Let’s see what they come up with this time.

This post was written by two old geezers who want to know why we have to fork out more cash. It could be a lot more! The two old geezers will try asking xxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx or xxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx. Does anyone know who X is?

UPDATED ON 15 January 2025

In response to our challenge the UKHSA confirmed it did not hold the information requested so we have asked for an internal review.

OK, this is what will happen in the next couple of weeks.

Our correspondence with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) on their purchase of H5 avian influenza vaccines with our money will continue until we get an answer. Bloodletting a stone is more manageable, but we will keep at it. To keep traffic down, further updates, letters, evasions, “it won’t me guv”, “it was a plague of locusts”, etc. will be added to the original posts to keep our readers focused on the Houdinis of public health. So no extra posts, just updates and edits of the original ones. If there is substantial update e.g. the UKHSA has found a novel way to reply “buzz off” we will alert you with a brief note.

The EWG Covid vaccines series will finish after part 15, which is a summary post unless something astounding comes up, like Dr Fauci stops lying to Congress.

Talking of the US, our Letters for America series paused for want of juice will resume with a podcast, as the Congressional report is huge. We’ll also take a peek at the Covid Inquiry, which is now back up and running at a vast expense; module 4 hearings are looking at vaccines and therapeutics.

As Myra suggested, we will examine RNA things more closely and the properties of the H5 avian influenza winner of the UKHSA tender. However, it will be all secret between us, you, and the tens of thousands who read us around the globe. 

Deal?

All this is planned, but who knows, we may be swept away by a flood of Matt’s crocodile tears, as Alan Richards reminded us.

Write to the old geezers at xxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx or xxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx and tell us what you think.

We continue our review of the minutes of the meeting of the MHRA’s ​​Commission On Human Medicines (CHM) COVID-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group, which took place on 24 December 2020

The secret squirrel's considered evidence from three vaccines: Oxford ASTRA ZENECA’S AZD1222 Deployment Model, Quality assessment AND NON CLINICAL reproductive toxicity focus, PfizerBioNTech’s BNT162b2 dose interval and a non-clinical assessment for Moderna’s vaccine

For the AZ product, The EWG discussed the reproductive toxicity and the precautionary text that should go into the SmPC as the animal data is incomplete and whether the text should be aligned with that for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. 

SmPC stands for Summary of Product Characteristics in EMA speak and it tells you what the product is, how it works and how it should be used.

So, we don't know much about the thorny issue of reproductive toxicity based on rats and nought based on humans. We know the rat stuff isn’t generalisable to Homo Sapiens. There was mix up with doses in the AZ trial, so we are not sure how efficacious the stuff is, but let’s move on - THE EWG was - as per usual - reassured. 

On the BNT162b2 front, we are glad to report that the EWG agreed that the vaccine efficacy reported by Pfizer of 52% is likely to be underestimated since little protection is expected within 14 days of the first dose.

Although this is likely to be an underestimate as 

This is the first and last time we found mention of an independent analysis, although PHE the predecessor to UKHSA can hardly be called “independent”. The non decline in the level of protection is incompatible with persistent lymphopenia. As we have no access to the PHE analysis we cannot comment further.

Note the absence of any absolute measure of effect; it is an omission. However, in a placebo-controlled trial, if you have the data (as any regulator should have), you can quickly get the Risk Difference and, from there, calculate the number needed to vaccinate and the number needed to be vaccinated to harm. This gives a complete picture. This stuff is so easy to calculate that even Tom can do it.

Back to the topic of vaccinating pregnant women or those in the reproductive phase of their lives, 

With the systematic subversion of the precautionary principle underway, that probably means all of this age group. The statement also reinforces the concept of pregnancy as a dangerous disease and not a physiological process (if doctors can keep their hands off pregnancy and labour unless in dire need of an intervention, of course).

However, you’ll be reassured by the conflict  of interest policy for Invited experts

The Invited experts May be invited to all meetings, receive all the papers and presentations and are permitted to participate in discussions when asked by the Chair. However - somehow - the expert “does not contribute to conclusions and recommendations. ” 

This post was written by two old geezers who are reassured that “all is well” based on sketchy rat data and no data on humans.

This one asked questions on the rationale for using what UKHSA bought with our money.

Here’s the exchange:

It’s back to the contract finder to find out about the shelf life. However, the tender description does not have that information. 

And we cannot find it anywhere else. As for sticking to guidance, the amount purchased, and the modelling questions - the answer is dunno.

We have now requested an internal review of the decision and are awaiting an answer:

Apologies for the typo: “segment” should read ”statement”.

This post was written by two old geezers who want to know the shelf life and how much cash we have to fork out. The two old geezers will try asking xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx.xx. Please let us know if the number of Xs in the email is wrong. 

Share

The questions were not detailed in the minutes; they were all secret handshake stuff. Since we didn't think an FOI would provide the answer, we relied on a parliamentary question this time.

Here’s the answer:

Mr Gwynne hints that the EWG did receive some or all the answers to their questions. However, the message to the taxpayer is that you will take this stuff, pay for it, and not ask questions about any aspect of the vaccine's performance, contract, rationale for its use, or massive evidence gaps. 

You will do as you are told, as this is a democracy. If you think it may not work or be toxic, that’s your problem.

This post was written by two old geezers running out of strategies to answer their questions. Any advice about what to do next would be welcome. 

Share

We continue our review of the minutes of the meeting of the MHRA’s ​​Commission On Human Medicines (CHM) COVID-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group, which took place on 22 December 2020

This was the day after the EMA met and gave conditional market authorisations to PfizerBioNTech’s Comirnaty vaccine.

The first topic discussed by the EWG was the risk of anaphylactic reaction after exposure to BNT162b2.

There appeared to be a lot of roundabouts and circumlocutions, and here is some of the text:

“The EWG heard about two cases of anaphylaxis reaction on the first day of the UK vaccination campaign. 

The EWG recalled that polyethylene glycol (PEG) was previously considered a potential causative agent of the two allergic reactions seen in the vaccination campaign”.

However, we do not really know much about exposure to PEG in humans, so with a lot of warnings, the discussions petered out with a final appeal to the Yellow Card system and the statement: 

“The EWG was reassured that the signal of anaphylaxis does not appear to be strong”.

Next, EWG considered Bell’s palsy: 

The EWG heard about four reports of facial paralysis in the vaccine arm of BNT162b2, with zero cases in the placebo arm and one report of facial paresis in the placebo arm, with none in the vaccine arm. 

The EWG heard that the Yellow Card data includes one report of facial paralysis submitted by a healthcare professional and one report of facial weakness submitted by a patient”. 

These facial paralysis events were considered to be within the range of the background incidence rate—nothing to see here, then.

However, this statement contradicts the experience of our ophthalmologist reader, whose comment on the high incidence of Bell’s Palsy following immunisation triggered our Comirnaty series.

It also wrongly predicted what happened once the vaccine was rolled out. As with the Pandemrix story, one thing is immunising a few thousand people and another is immunising millions.  

Once again, we would like to see the case report forms for the Comirnaty registration trial as they contradict what actually unfolded. Will the New York Times or the BBC launch a campaign for the final full disclosure? 

We cannot see from the minutes what data the EWG used when they made such a statement.

Next, the EWG considered vaccine exposure in pregnancy and lactation and stated on page 11 of the minute:

It is limited in rats and non-existent in humans, as we have reported:

Even the rat data was open to different interpretations between the EMA and the MHRA.

However, as per usual at the EWG, all is well

This was on the basis of rat data, which indicated two months as the clearance time for the lipid nanoparticles. Yet, we now know that they do not stay around the vaccination site and that repeated administration of LNPs is likely to be highly toxic. 

It assumes  animal models are good predictors of human toxicity - they are not. The lack of correlation between animal models and humans is well documented. While they may be an adjunct to understanding mechanisms, they are no substitute for human trials - under no circumstances should animal models provide reassurance that all is well. 

The disconnect between animal and human predictors of effect is not new. A thousand years ago, the Persian physician Ibn Sina wrote, “Experiments should be carried out on the human body. If the experiment is carried out on the bodies of [other animals], it is possible that it might fail…” (See the James Lind Library). Clearly, the EWG were not students of history or willing to delve into the evidence of what is known about the use of animal studies and their limitations in ensuring safety.  

The basis on which the EWG was reassured is hard to fathom as there is no mention of the RNA clearance. What is the half-life of mmRNA in the elimination phase in different organs, and what happens to the mmRNA in humans in different organs was one of our fifteen questions that remain unanswered.

The last nine pages of the minutes are devoted to discussions of the Oxford Astra Zeneca and Moderna vaccines.

This post was written by two old geezers who were horrified that women who were pregnant or in the reproductive age group were pressurised into being vaccinated on the basis of XXXXXXXXXX [censored by secret squirrel ltd] data. 

Postscript 

The two old geezers are still waiting for the publication of the RCT on pregnant women

Share

Mr Colin Rix, a 90-year-old retired dental technician, died at the Norfolk and Norwich (N&N) University Hospital two days before Xmas. The Coroner ruled that the cause of death was hypothermia and influenza.

Mr Rix, who presumably lived alone, sustained a fall and lay on the floor for an unspecified time. By the time he got to N&N, he was beyond help.

We do not know whether Mr Rix’s heating allowance had been cut; maybe it had, or given his age, he was spared the consequences of one of the most disgraceful political decisions of current times. 

In November 2020, Public Health England estimated that around 35,000 excess deaths occur each winter due to cold homes leading to hypothermia, which is defined as a body temperature of 35 degrees Celsius or lower. Individuals who are isolated, frail, housebound, living on low incomes, experiencing fuel poverty, or homeless are at a higher risk.

Ages and ages ago we presented the evidence of the effect of cold homes on health:

Two points need to be borne in mind from this sad story.

First, no elderly person should be left without a guardian or an emergency system that alerts an appointed person that trouble is ahead. The final agony of Mr Rix probably was horrible: cold and alone.

Second, Carl found the story in the Norwich Evening News. This is not exactly a mainstream outlet, but one which, in this case, is more important than the BBC and not subject to the usual wokery, cancel and dreary politics that beset the current media.

We give a fig, as no one in a civilised society should die in these circumstances. If they do, the story and similar ones should be told in the national media. As we have little faith that government departments can be made to look away from their spreadsheets and fundraising dinners, we ask our readers to use the TTE comments space to report any similar local stories of cold and neglect, as we know you care as much as we do.

This post was written by two old geezers who would like to pay their respects to the late Mr Rix and his family.

This one asked questions on the indications for using what UKHSA bought with our money.

Share

It is again worth reproducing the exchange:

So, the UKHSA has purchased a vaccine. But it has no clue what to recommend for pregnant women. Did they not get the instructions for use? Beyond that, we also have no clue whether it is safe in pregnancy.  So, dear readers, shall we go ahead and ask the MHRA at xxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx?

Being obedient citizens we have done exactly what the UKHSA suggested and on 10 January we wrote to the regulator/facilitator/enabler and got an ackowledgment:

We patiently await an answer.

This post was written by two old geezers who know what they want to buy when they go into a shop: we want white toothpaste, not the red twirly one.

We continue our review of the minutes of the meeting of the MHRA’s ​​Commission On Human Medicines (CHM) COVID-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group, which took place on 17 December 2020.

This very well-attended meeting (lots of secret members on the secret list or secret squirrels) discussed all three vaccines in contention for the prize of first to get the conditional market authorisation.

The Pfizer BioNTech vaccine batches did not appear very stable, with the mmRNA going off to do its own stuff in the vials:

Potency was different between what the manufacturer measured and what the National Institute for Biological Standards & Control measured. Why that arose is impossible to say: the assay used is secret (i.e. its name is redacted at the end of page 5 of the minute). 

The EWG then considered how to benchmark the risk of anaphylaxis and waffled on about comparing anaphylaxis to the background rate of adrenaline use in Canada according to a 2002 paper or perhaps comparing it to the rate following influenza vaccination.

 Next, the EWG considered the Oxford Astra Zeneca’s AZD1222 trial data. 

Dosing was discussed, and “effectiveness” data met the WHO standards, but further on the EWG suggested there was uncertainty between antibody response as a correlate of protection.

Also 

And: 

There was also a lack of information on the interruption of transmission from asymptomatic cases. But apart from the lack of data, everything else was OK.

A final paragraph mentioned the Moderna vaccine undergoing testing in the US.

This post was written by two old geezers who think the lack of crucial data on a slide to conditional approval may be - a bit of a - problem.

This is a polite letter from two old geezers.

You are probably part of a team in a large public body that answers endless requests under the FOIA, which you may regard as irritating and thankless. You probably have a crippling mortgage or probably want one to get out of renting at exorbitant rates. We sympathise with you as we’ve been there too.

Share

You probably desire your boss’s job and car. You probably regard us as pains in the nether regions because we will not let go and keep asking questions. We understand as you would be right to think that.

You are probably writing what your boss has told you to answer. We sympathise with you, but we have not been there too.

You probably do not like being ridiculed by two old geezers. We sympathise, as you should have been taught to proofread and logically check what you publish in public. However, you have not, probably because your boss does not think it necessary.

You have also likely been told to use padding in your answers, for example, explaining in five or six boilerplate paragraphs what a PCR or a vaccine is. We sympathise with you, as you do not realise that you may sound very patronising to folks who have been around much longer than you have. They realise you are padding, and that adds to the ridicule.

You have also been told to say “no” in five or six different ways, using standard commercial in confidence or sensitive security excuse phrases.

Again, we sympathise, dear xxxxxxxx.

But we beg you to stop and think: Your writing is public. Your answers can be quoted anywhere, and you involuntarily make a fool of yourself every time you answer publicly.

You need to recognize that the wind is changing. While some people may wish to forget or want others to forget their actions and statements, many have endured so much that a growing number are wholly disillusioned with the behaviour of public servants. They believe that these servants have come to see themselves as the bosses, colluding with unnamed plotters, while the public—who should be served—has been reduced to being fleeced.

It's possible that you or your bosses see questions that express concern about public actions as silly or pointless. While they may seem that way, the last five years have caused some people to feel uneasy. So, please acknowledge their concerns, as they are genuine, whether they seem reasonable or not.

This brings us to our main point: The secrecy you unwittingly try to protect and perpetuate is incompatible with the use of public funds. People worldwide are increasingly frustrated with this approach. Secrecy breeds suspicion and leads people to think you are hiding something far worse. At the same time, you are concealing what you were instructed to hide: the incompetence or greed of third parties.

So dear xxxxxx, this short note will help you understand a few basics you can pass on when you become sympathetic old geezers like us.

Yours ever,

Oldgeezer1@old.geezer.com

Oldgeezer2@old.geezer.com

.

As time passed, we realised that powerful people had witch-hunted us, so we decided to expose a few by naming them. Pride of place - of course - went to the former UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock, who regarded folk like us as enemies.

We looked at the evidence on various topics, told stories, made the odd joke or two, and injected a bit of irony into what we felt were appalling situations. Examples included referring to members of the  MHRA’s ​​Commission On Human Medicines (CHM) COVID-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group as “secret squirrels” and making up press conferences based on President Biden’s plentiful gaffes. 

Our controversial jokes started in September 2020, when in the Daily Mail, we referred to the “Dad’s Army of highly paid individuals with little experience of the job at hand” advising the PM, Boris. For which we got into all sorts of trouble.

Share Trust the Evidence

We ran educational series like the one on John Snow. We also let off steam as the need arose. Strangely or not so strangely, letting off steam and speaking with emotion were among the most liked of our offerings.

We invented what we hoped would be our trademark: the two old geezers. The other morning, my wife was suddenly woken up by me laughing as a reader sent something that said, “When I grow up, I want to be an old geezer.” It was 3 a.m., but after the H5 post, our phones never stopped buzzing. I wonder which old geezer he wants to grow up into.

Unexpectedly, we have built up a large following, including politicians, zillionaires, rock stars, media and those of you who keep commenting on our stuff, which we appreciate. 

There are a few downsides: some of the work is hard, reading regulatory documents is difficult, and we have made mistakes. These are not intentional, but piecing together the jigsaw is a poisoned chalice. We do not have the mainstream media support we had while working on Tamiflu. We also checked some of the output of public bodies and reported on relevant court battles.

One aspect of all this surprises me; honestly, it irritates me intensely. A few times through third parties, we have received messages asking why we have not looked at this or that. The latest concerns the Scottish Covid Inquiry. The answer is twofold.

First, we lack the resources. Only four of us are in the office: the two old geezers and our dogs (one each). Despite this, many are unwilling to part with tuppence for a post, even if they are swimming in cash. Then, some use our posts for their business—we have some visibility of who the latter are.

Second, we are not John Wayne (he wore a wig) or Clint Eastwood (I am better looking). We do not go into each town with guns blazing to kill all the baddies. We are not sheriffs; we are clinical epidemiologists trying to keep a balanced view and refusing to be dragged into drawing hasty conclusions.

We like to present facts. Maybe comment, but leave any conclusions for our readers. If we do not know or do not understand, we say so. We also like to explain how we put those facts together. These are called “methods” in science-speak, but we try to keep the mumbo jumbo to the minimum. However, when we see poor-quality work, we say so.

I do not speak to mainstream media after an episode in the summer of 2020. A journalist from the Italian broadsheet Repubblica interviewed me on SARS-CoV-2. This used to be an OK outlet, but it has followed the BBC, NYT, and most of the MSM down the pan. 

The guy asked me if I knew where the “virus had come from”. My reply was: “I have never met it; if I do, I shall ask and tell you.” The Next day, the headline screamed, “Expert says Covid does not come from China”. Bizarrely the story is still around - I found it on a weather forecast app a few days ago.

What a wonderful catch for character assassins feeding the Encyclopedia of Character Assassinations, formerly known as Wikipedia.

I have since met “it” (yes, it’s an “it”) several times and posed the question but did not get an answer. So I still DO NOT KNOW. 

By the way of viruses, a heads up: the MSM is now taking an interest in a respiratory virus called Human Metapneumovirus (HMPV), which has been, around for decades (probably even before I was born). The next thing you need to keep an eye on is the sudden separate reporting of HMPV in surveillance systems (similar to what happened to RSV). Or if they have been doing so already, say, since the 2010s, look out for the sudden appearance in the reports of a paragraph devoted to HMPV. These are sure signs that something is brewing—no prizes for guessing what. 

Now quiet down, old geezer, before you give up all the tricks you have learned since being a physician to Caesar’s legions.

No, a last indicator: I was asked to write a chapter on HMPV for a book on the topic. I declined since I have not met “it” either (to my knowledge), so I DO NOT KNOW much about it.

We have come to the end of my steam release. I hope you enjoyed it. Please be good or I shall send Matt Hancock after you.

An old geezer - which one (?) - wrote this post.

Here are all questions in the original post:

For the record, here is the first set UKHSA replied to:

and the second answer:

The third set asked questions about the performance of what UKHSA bought with our money.

It is worth reproducing the exchange:

So, dear readers, how did the UKHSA adjudicate the tender if they do not know what they bought?

Do you have any comments for us that you would like us to feed back? Could you also enlighten us and how we contact xxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx. If the number of Xs matters, is it by any chance MHRA@mhra.gov.uk?

UPDATE:

We have done what the UKHSA suggested. On 10 January we wrote to the regulator/facilitator/enabler and got an ackowledgment:

We patiently await an answer.

This post was written by two old geezers who know what they want to buy when they go into a shop.

If you listen to the headlines, you’d think it wasn't safe to leave the house.

Share Trust the Evidence

However, the National Flu and COVID-19 surveillance report for week 2, based on data up to January 5, paints a different picture.

The UKHSA states that “influenza activity showed a mixed picture, with some indicators suggesting that activity may have reached a peak.”

Yet again, the UKHSA seems not to understand the data: Take a look for yourself - classic Farr’s law.

So, in the community, just as it does every year, Influenza will disappear as quickly as it emerged.

Thirty-hour waits in A&E have nothing to do with the winter surge in acute respiratory pathogens. They reflect a system that can’t shift tasks and mobilise some 1.5 million workers onto the frontline to relieve pressure. They also reflect a lack of will to investigate and reduce hospital-acquired viral infections and a hierarchical NHS structure that seems incapable of solving the predictable problem of winter surges in demand.

However, the good news—based on the latest data—is that the headlines will disappear within a week or two. This is until next year, when regular winter service will resume.

This post was written by two old geezers who note the sad decline in the reliability of mainstream media. Their addiction to eye-catching, dramatic nonsense titles is proving to be their undoing.

Before continuing our review of the minutes of the meetings of the MHRA’s ​​Commission On Human Medicines (CHM) COVID-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group, we need to remind you of the history of abuse that some of us had to put up with during the Covid saga. 

We do not do this to appear victims, there were many of those but not the two old geezers. But there is one particularly vile form of abuse that is so base, to be considered criminal. That was suffered by Dr Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist from the University of Guelph in Canada and his family. We have covered the story in part in our Comirnaty series:

Dr Bridle’s crime was to warn substackers that the technology at the basis of Comirnaty was largely untested, as the Japanese regulator PMDA warned. Dr Bridle went on to state two other important points: the lipid nanoparticles once injected in rats went everywhere, especially liking rats’ ovaries (true), AND the lipid nanoparticles evaded immunity delivering their mmRNA, everywhere undisturbed (also true as lipids are not usually recognised as antigens). So that we are clear this is the description of Dr Bridle’s activity:

“The Bridle lab is harnessing their expertise in making potent cancer vaccines and combining this with their interest in anti-viral immunity to develop vaccines to protect against infectious diseases such as those caused by highly pathogenic coronaviruses.”

The guy is an expert in this field - uhhh dangerous guy!

Dr Bridle wrote his analysis and gave some radio interviews around 2021-2.

The reaction was swift, violent and, at least in one case, criminal. Dr Bridle was prevented from working and teaching and a group of very nice people thought it a good idea to steal his identity and impersonate him on a fake website putting out nonsense in his name.

We kept an eye on the story as the abusers turned out to be some of the same who abused us calling us “Dr Mengele” for suggesting that challenge studies with SARS-CoV-2 should be carried out. Remember this, accusing us of wanting to cage and infect humans?

The social media harassers were so ignorant of virology that two months after the tweet was posted the first SARS-CoV-2 challenge study duly appeared, giving us important insights into infectivity (as most challenge studies do).

Back to Dr Bridle. He did not take the abuse lying down and made a legal challenge in the Toronto Superior Court of Justice. The facts are presented here and here and here. You can hear the story from his own lips here.

Dr David Fisman the University of Toronto professor, the guy who called us “Dr Mengele” is cited as a promoter of “hate science”.

So that’s it? Nope. At the end of 2023 Peel Police Department investigated the case and concluded that:

And the report names a few of the persons named in Dr Bridle challenge. And then:

So these “colleagues” of Dr Bridle are now under criminal investigation for identity fraud. We know of a few people whose association with the false Dr Bridles is typified by brutal personal attacks, character assassinations and lobbying.

At present it looks as if Dr Bridle has dropped the lawsuit against his university, perhaps settling out of court.

This story is important as it shows the climate that those trying to carry out fair research and express their opinions on their own work have been subjected to for the construction of the prevailing narrative. This, being based on smoke and censorship, will not survive the test of time.

TTE will continue to assess the relationship between all the actors in the scene but please do not wait for the BBC or the New York Times to cover this story.

It is in this context that the deliberations of the EWG should be read and interpreted in the following posts.

This post was written by two old geezers who impersonate themselves.

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has responded to one of our requests under FOI.

The first group of questions regarded the purchase of the H5 vaccine(s) or platform.

We asked:

The answer was to send us here (or rather, they gave us a generic answer instead of hyperlinking the page), where we found the tender dated 17 June 2024. Here is a short description:

But where is the contract? To remain focused, do our readers think the UKHSA answered our three simple questions 1a to 1c?

Is it a bird or a man?

This post was written by two old geezers who dislike being subject to runarounds as they pay their taxes.

THIS POST WAS UPDATED ON 15 January

We now have a (redacted) purchase contract here. The UKHSA forgot to put in the link in their first response.

If any of you would like to comment on the contract content please share it on TTE.

 We continue our review of the minutes of the meetings of the MHRA’s ​​Commission On Human Medicines (CHM) COVID-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group.

Share

 On 7 December 2020, the EWG considered the comments by a former Pfizer scientist and vice president without naming him, and this could only be Dr Mike Yeadon. 

Dr Yeadon rose to prominence and was duly demonised as he was a co-signatory of a petition to the EMA to halt the vaccine trials because of the risk of infertility. While the DHSC promptly called the claims “false, dangerous and deeply irresponsible”, the EWG apparently devoted most if not all of its 7 December meeting to “managing” Dr Yeadon’s multiple comments. They seemed concerned that anyone of its secret squirrel population should break the secrecy.

Along the way, they also remarked that the Oxford Astra Zeneca vaccine trials population was much younger than the target population.

TTE explored the pharmacokinetics of Comirnaty in the relevant series of posts starting from post number 9

In the series, we reported the comments made by Dr Bridle, a Canadian viral immunologist, which appeared similar to Dr Yeadon’s. As we shall narrate in a later post, Dr Bridle paid a hefty personal price for these comments.

Dr Bridle was surprised that the biodistribution of Comirnaty in rats was widespread. The vaccine went all over the rats' organs instead of mainly staying in one place (the injection site) like all other vaccines.

This brings us back to the 10 December EWG meeting in Any Other Business. The EWG  discussed the biodistribution of the Comirnaty vaccine, which did precisely what Dr Bridle said: it went everywhere in rats. The EWG received - the all too familiar - reassurance from the manufacturer that everything was OK.

So there you are. Oh, and it’s all secret. Are the two old geezers the only ones to perceive a hint of worry in managing the message (read censorship) by the EWG?

One last thing. What was a [name redacted] consultant from Accenture doing at the meeting as an observer? In contrast, the minutes allow the identification of Dr Mike Yeadon - you might call that double standards. What was discussed was not only secret but also off the record, suggesting they were worried about what he was saying. 

This post was written by two old geezers who don’t like to be managed, probably because they are unmanageable, even by Accenture. 

Share

In a video announcing these changes, Zuckerberg admitted that their efforts to address this issue had created more problems than they resolved. 

He stated that he would be replacing fact-checkers with community notes, similar to those used o…

Read more

Read more