By the time cases of blood clotting in patients who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine had begun to emerge on the Continent (in March), Britain had already administered 11 million doses (the first ones having been given in January). No such adverse events had been reported publicly in Britain, but not for a lack of cases, according to the findings of a new investigation. Clotting cases were recorded in the UK’s Yellow Card database (a website for reporting adverse drug reactions) in January but were missed at first by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) – possibly due to the algorithms it uses to interrogate UK data. The Telegraph has the story.
On March 11th, the MHRA put out a statement saying it could see no evidence of a problem…
But the MHRA was, it appears, wrong. An investigation by the Telegraph has established that signals had been firing unnoticed in the UK’s Yellow Card database for at least a month, perhaps longer.
In January, a patient suffered a brain clot following their first dose of the AstraZeneca jab… Then in early February, two similar cases followed, including a death and a life-changing CVST clot in a young adult. All had low platelets and all were reported into the Yellow Card system.
On Friday, the MHRA told the Telegraph: “We are aware of thromboembolic events that occurred in January, however, our first report was received in the week commencing February 8th…. we cannot disclose information about individual cases to protect patient and reporter confidentiality.”
… The MHRA faces serious questions as to why it did not detect the signals sooner. The issue is not that it has been left looking flatfooted or even that earlier detection would necessarily have altered its advice, but that the delay left it unable to shape international policy and confidence in what remains a vital vaccine in the fight against Covid for the world.
Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychologist at the University of Bristol studying the rollout of Covid vaccines, told the Financial Times on Friday: “The MHRA was slow in responding to the emergence of a specific constellation of symptoms associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine and slow to communicate what they were finding – and I am not the only one who thinks so.”
This slow repose was caused, it is said, by algorithms which were not as sensitive as the ones used by European health agencies to sift through data.
From January 4th to March 14th, a total of 532 “blood system events”, including 20 deaths, came through the UK’s Yellow Card system relating to the AstraZeneca jab, according to an analysis of published MHRA data by Dr Hamid Merchant, a pharmaceutical scientist at the University of Huddersfield. There were thousands of non-blood-related reports besides.
Of the thrombotic events recorded, four related to CVST (but no deaths were recorded), 55 were non-site specific and there were clusters of 64 and 66 cases in the lungs and deep veins respectively. There were then 267 general bleeding events and six deaths, three of which resulted from cerebral haemorrhage. Finally, there were 60 cases of thrombocytopenia, including two deaths.
To sift such data, regulators build algorithms that must balance “sensitivity” against leg-work. The more sensitive the algorithm, the more warning signals it will throw up to investigate – and many of those labour-intensive investigations will prove fruitless.
It is not known exactly what parameters the MHRA set but it is clear they were not as sensitive as those used by some regulators in Europe.
The MHRA says it followed a principle of applying “statistical techniques which can tell us if we are seeing disproportionately more cases than we would expect to see based on what is known about background rates of illness in the absence of vaccination”. This is reflected in the regulator’s initial statement when it said clotting reports were not above normal.
But other countries turned the sensitivity gauge up to 11. “Our policy is if it is associated with a death, or very serious adverse drug reaction, we will look into it right away,” David Benee Olsen, senior advisor at the Norwegian Medicines Agency, told the Telegraph.
Reports suggest that the MHRA was more rigorous in its examination of data relating to the Covid vaccine produced by Pfizer. The Telegraph clarifies that “there is no suggestion whatever that the MHRA covered up the reporting of CVST with thrombocytopenia – it just did not spot the still unproven issue as early as others”.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: Canada has reported a second case of rare blood clots with low platelets after vaccination with AstraZeneca’s Covid vaccine in a week.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“missed”.
Ha!
Courtesy of @swedenborg reading newspapers and journals and posting here, we were all aware of this issue weeks ago.
They didn’t “miss” this information. They simply were deliberately looking the other way.
The article in the Telegraph tries to place the blame for the MHRA not spotting these issues on Brexit. But that argument doesn’t wash, since the EMA was also slow to react, and also for political, and pro Big Pharma, reasons.
More lies from the lugenpresse. And an attempt to belatedly retake control of the narrative on the “100% safe and effective” vaccines.
I don’t think it’s going to work.
It’s a dictatorship, everything works and runs on time
This. It’s as if the 3 monkeys have been put in charge of vaccine rollout across the world. Only they missed a few countries that have good controls, like Norway.
Norway reported 23 vaccine related deaths (rising to 33 out of 55k vaccinated) in January this year.
All were frail and in nursing homes; while that was the Pfizer vax it should have sent alarm bells ringing about all the vaccines coming on stream.
Exactly.
We were all aware of this, and we are tracking these events in our spare time!
What are the MHRA playing at?
I think we know the answer. Politics and money. Not public health.
Yes you don’t find what you don’t (want to) look for
“… and confidence in what remains a vital vaccine in the fight against Covid for the world.”
Utter rubbish. None of the vaccines are vital as they will disover when they start using budesonide and/or ivermectin appropriately and any other ‘low cost’ treatments that are discovered.
Yes.
(a) We don’t ‘fight’ a virus. A stupid image
(b) The more important statistic is that any significant benefit from these jabs is hard to find at a calculated 1% risk reduction – gleaned from current experimentation, and the difficulty in finding these crucial figures is highly suspicious. A truly effective vaccine would have its significant ARR broadcast everywhere.
So:
Administering an ineffective but possibly harmful concoction is totally contrary to medical ethics.
The use of the words “fight” and “battle” are regularly used in conjunction with cases of cancer. Same thing. And when someone has died of cancer, they’re described as “having lost the battle” against it, which suggests that they’re just losers and didn’t fight hard enough, i.e. they’re at fault somehow. I blame the media who introduced this imagery, along with inflating any trouble that some Z-list sleb has had as “agony.” Hyperbolic b.s.
Even worse is ‘bravely fought’ leukaemia or whatever. Brave only comes into it if you have a choice.
how many of these people who “lose the battle” to covid or cancer actually died as a result of the treatments they were given? Yet you never see “he Fought bravely against the side effects of chemo but sadly died”.
budesonide looks like it might do some good and can be prescribed, not enough data about ivermectin yet, maybe later. how is it you trust budesonide and/or ivermectin more that you do vaccines?
Shedloads of confirmation of the effectiveness of Invermectin from Peruvian studies to c19 to meta studies.
Absolute reams of evidence in favour.
Why is it you trust Big Pharma more than independent physicians?
https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/01/17/is-ivermectin-effective-against-covid/
A non-comparison. Stick to comparing Apples & Apples.
I thought you said yesterday that you were ‘out’! Not permanently, then…
How much data do you need about Ivermectin? Dr Tess Lawrie and Dr Pierre Kory have presented barrow loads of it but if you won’t engage with it then you’ll never know.
Take the jab by all means; but personally I’d rather entrust my health to something that’s been around longer, and used on more subjects, than gamble on an irreversible concoction whipped out just 6 months or so ago.
So it was Alg O’Rithms what done it
Once again they try and blame everything on the Irish
Same as with that Nick O’Teen.
Being serious, I have noticed recently that any mistakes or discrepancies in data are now automatically blamed on magical ‘algorithms’. It’s become what used to be “Computer says….”. Basically, they’re euphemisms for human incompetence or error. ‘Algorithm’ is a fancy way of saying that some person somewhere made a decision that was wrong!
The algorithms don’t programme themselves. Someone has to create the programme and enter the search parameters.
In other words, they weren’t looking so they didn’t find…
Considering that sceptics were aware of problem day on, perhaps they should ask us first. We’re the wisdom of crowds, i.e. lots of us who can collate data together.
Indeed. My favourite phrase that they regularly come out with is “There is no evidence that….”. Absolutely meaningless but it convinces the masses that everything is fine. As you say, you can’t find what you don’t look for.
A prime example being ‘there is no evidence that Covid vaccines are unsafe for pregnant women’.
I’ve only recently become aware that a third category has been added to the in vivo/in vitro dichotomy, viz, in silico! Love it! Sums up the discovery of Sars Cov 2!
Anther thung.
Has the MHRA also missed the fact that EIGHT HUNDRED PEOPLE have died in the UK for a variety of reasons following vaccination, according to the Yellow Card scheme?
That amounts to about 1 in 45,000 people who have been vaccinated. A far bigger and wider problem than just CVST. Where is the investigation? Where is the media coverage? Where is the LS coverage for that matter?
Tumbleweed.
1 in 250 people have died of Covid-19.
That’s the tradeoff. Do you want a 1 in 45000 chance, or a 1 in 250 chance of dying?
Of course the chance of dying from Covid-19 varies with age, but that means if you are over 40 the vaccine is still your best chance of avoiding death.
Getting to herd immunity requires the same number of people to be immune to the virus. It’s only ever a question of how you’d like to acquire that immunity.
My point exactly. I am in my early 30s and unlikely to die of Covid. Why, therefore should I risk the vaccine?
0.4% Covid 19 deaths? B*ll*cks!! Where do you get these fake stats from? FYI:
As well as BF Finlayson’s comment re 0.4%, you have also assumed that the figures reported to the Yellow Card scheme are representative figures but it is very likely that these are underreported if the CDC / VAERS Harvard study is anything to go by.
The CDC estimate the IFR for under 50s to be 1/5000, 1/20 of those people don’t have comorbidities. I make that 1/100000 IFR in my situation. The vaccines are considerably more dangerous than covid. If I was 82 with 2.6 comorbidities, the median for covid death, I would happily take a vaccine, if I was able to give consent. I intend to make a living will to ensure that should I be unable to give informed consent due to dementia, for example, I am to be left to die peacefully and never to be vaccinated.
Just a little point, the Jabz don’t confer immunity?!
“ The issue is not that it has been left looking flatfooted or even that earlier detection would necessarily have altered its advice, but that the delay left it unable to shape international policy and confidence in what remains a vital vaccine in the fight against Covid for the world.”
So the main takeaway here is not that the authorisation was rushed or politically motivated, or that more, longer, better trials were needed, but that they didn’t have time to spin/cover up/explain away the problems.
Have we learned nothing from that idiot Ferguson and his computer ‘models’? It’s rubbish in, rubbish out. Given the trillions the government has chucked at covid, why couldn’t they put actual PEOPLE on to this? If I can look at the Yellow Card data and see that there is a very serious problem, then why couldn’t the MHRA?
This is only the very tip of the iceberg.
It’s hard to see something when you are looking the other way!!!
Also “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
It is strange that the regulator wasn’t looking much harder for potential blood clot effects, given that they have been associated with the adenovirus viral vector (in previous applications of the technology) and that there’s evidence for anti-coronavirus-spike antibodies being responsible for the blood clotting problems seen in severe covid-19.
Because they didn’t want to jeopardize the vaccine rollout. If you don’t look for problems you won’t find them until they come up and slap you in the face.
Shove in the snake oil.
Hang the consequences.
Ok. I want to go mow the lawn, (honestly, I do). But I just can’t keep seeing these articles and not say something. I’m impressed and somewhat humbled by the DT’s (and LS’s) picking up and running with this story, (which is a measure of how hard it is to be vaccine sceptical, that I’ll take even this acknowledgment that my distrust in the pharmaceutical industry and government is justified), But this has got naff all to do with Brexit, or indeed algorithms. They tendered for a specialist software provider to cover what they knew would be an avalanche in ADRs. They were perfectly well aware that Coronavirus vaccines have a strong record of killing their recipients when they come into contact with wild virus. They were also perfectly well aware that gain of function could be a result, too, hence the hysteria about all the variants and our being locked down. What they didn’t know was if it would kill the vaccinated or the unvaccinated. If the unvaccinated, it’s ok as to their simple minds that’s a couple of old farts, a load of disabled liggers, and some tin foil hatters fewer. Win-win. But, as has always been the… Read more »
Top marks!
They seem to miss a few things.
If we think back to the first day of the rollout, we might remember that 2 nurses suffered serious allergic reactions. Both had a history of allergies. I’m not sure why they were allowed to take the vaccine since the Pfizer trial specifically excluded anyone who had previously experienced allergic reactions.
It was stated clearly on Page 2 of the Pfizer Trial protocol document.
I don’t suppose it helps if the MHRA receives funding from- “The MHRA is funded by the Department of Health and Social Care for the regulation of medical devices, whilst the costs of medicines regulation is met through fees from the pharmaceutical industry. This has led to suggestions by some MPs that the MHRA is too reliant on industry, and so not fully independent”..(Apparently).
Oh, and BG sends them money too..
Well gosh! No conflict of interest there, then! Phew.
They were ignoring the warning signs because nothing was going to deter these psychos from injecting us!
The independence of the MHRA was compromised the minute they entered into a ‘partnership’ and took cash from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
MHRA awarded over £980,000 for collaboration with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Health Organisation – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Committed grants – Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
They sell themselves pretty cheap.
Pertinent to this article is the following 2 quotes from a longer statistical analysis in TCW. https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/vaccine-risks-versus-rewards-what-your-gp-wont-tell-you/ While the MHRA somewhat disingenuously points out that ‘the total number and the nature of yellow cards reported so far is not unusual for a new vaccine’ it’s worth pointing out that yellow card reporting represents only 3-6 reports per 1,000 doses (0.3-0.6 per cent), whereas in clinical trials – such as they were – adverse reactions were at 10 per cent while King’s College Zoe App (from a pool of 700,000) recorded adverse events from the AstraZeneca vaccine at 31.9 per cent increasing to 52.7 per cent for those with prior immunity. To put it another way, the low reporting rates don’t necessarily reflect the safety of the vaccines,ONS data shows that deaths in the healthy under-65s ‘due’ to Covid-19 in 2020 numbered 1,549. Across all age groups (not including babies) this would mean for a healthy child under ten, the chance of dying of Covid-19 is 1 in 4million (or 1 in 1.3million for a child with co-morbidities). For healthy ten-to-19-year-olds the chance of dying from Covid-19 is 1 in 2.5million; 20-20 year-olds 1 in 576,000; 30-39-year-olds 1 in 164,000; 40-49-year-olds 1 in 46,242 and for… Read more »
The ‘Yellow Card’ system is rubbish. It relires on others to report. When giving an emergency use injection the onus of follow up of every single case should be on the people injecting.
The rest of this is twaddle. Oh it was my algo, naughty algo!
So they’re going to use algorithms to pass the buck for their crimes. How convenient. Here we have a Gates Foundation funded part of the British national apparatus deceving the public in order to deflect attention from its criminal, reckless vaccine approval which is clearly a product of deep corruption, not scientific rigour. It’s also a perfect recipe for genocide and they know it. We know about Antibody Dependent Enhancement or Vaccine Enhanced Disease now. The cat is out of the bag. We have the documents to prove that in history, 100% of attempts at making a Coronavirus (including SARS mk1) vaccine have failed due to serious health complications in animal trials including high rates of death, due to enhancement of disease from vaccination when challenged with the “wild virus”. 100% failure record. This is also the case for mRNA therapy, it has never been licenced, because of serious complications during trials and development. This is highly controversial, experimental technology. An mRNA Coronavirus vaccine…..what could possibly go wrong? They’ve injected 60% of the population of the UK with this shit being fully aware of this and being fully aware of all the gaping holes and serious historic issues in testing… Read more »
The Telegraph article is one of the strangest I have read for some time. The mood is of the various apologias issued for backing the Iraq war. And the “clarification” that the MHRA did nothing wrong – against all evidence – is remarkable. Let’s just take a couple of points This is the MHRA’s JOB. This is their day job. This is what they are meant to do. And you do not need complex AI to analyse a few thousand yellow card reports – you look through them. Again: this is their job. Like NICE they appear to have totally failed to do their jobs and the media, government and opposition seem to be fine with that. This is a new vaccine with no longitudinal safety data – maximum phamarco-vigilance is supposed to be in place. See point 1. This is their job They found more than 20 cases down the back of the sofa, once HCPs came to them and said, we are seeing AEs. This is the precise opposite of what is meant to happen. HCPs, media, patients and foreign agencies came to MHRA and said, we are seeing something odd, aren’t you? And THEN they “found” these… Read more »
Wouldn’t it be a breath of fresh air if just one, just one medic spoke up about their experience of adverse events post COVID vaccine. Why does it take one brave psychologist to talk about the elephant in the room. A disgrace. I will never forgive our medics for ignoring this. It is unforgivable.
How could anyone trust the MHRA after they made such serious mistakes?