Hello and welcome to another UK column interview. My name's Debbie Evans and today I've brought my friend and expert back to speak to you, Cheryl Granger. Now the COVID enquiry has decided to postpone the module for the vaccine injuries until after the election. But we're not going to bury anything. We're not going to postpone talking about vaccine injuries and the data that Cheryl is currently seeing.
We're going to talk about it. And I expect most of you watching will either know somebody, a friend of a friend or perhaps a member of the family, or maybe it's you that's suffering from an adverse reaction. You know, a couple of years ago I received an e-mail from Cheryl and she told me who she was, that she was a self-employed pharmaceutical trainer and she was incredibly knowledgeable about all things pharmaceutical, but she was very shy about
stepping forward. And two years later, here we are and Cheryl is our Head of our Situation Room. Please go and look at that on the front page of the website.
Mike Robinson and Cheryl have done a wonderful job putting up the Situation Room, which gives all the latest data and reports from Pfizer and now Moderna straight from the USA, with grateful thanks to the Daily Clout and also to Professor Chris Flowers. And now Cheryl's come back to talk to us today to give us an update on the Situation Room and on some more reports that have come out.
And later on, we're going to be talking about the revolving doors, the corruption and the dealings with the MHRA. So please stay with us. But for now, Cheryl, welcome back and so glad to have you here. Thanks, Debbie. It was a pleasure to be speaking with you and I'm very grateful that the UK column has allowed all the FISA Madonna document analysis reports to be on site in the Situation Room. And what I wanted to do on a fairly regular basis is just update people.
Just a quick look at each of the reports over the last couple of months so that you can see the sort of detail that is being discovered. And obviously, if you want more information, you can go on the site and access that. Just to point out, clinical trials in this country come under the Clinical Trial Research Authority, which is part of the MHRA. So it's the MHRA overall that gives a tick to a clinical trial going ahead.
And it should actually be given a tick by the independent Ethics Committee as well to make sure it's not broke, breaking any ethical conduct. And then there's a good clinical practice international set of standards that it should also adhere to. So that as well as the declaration of Helsinki that the clinical trials are supposed to be working to shows that participants well-being takes precedence over the gaining of new scientific knowledge.
Bear that in mind as we go through this because the first slide that I want to show you is on report 89. Now report 89, we discussed with Doctor Chris Flowers a few weeks ago, and this is basically where there was improper delays in reporting deaths in the vaccinated group within the FISA documentation. And don't forget all these things that we're talking about. They're people. They're people who volunteered for the trials and the three months that they were followed up for.
And each serious adverse event is a person, and each death is a person. And bear that in mind when I tell you that in report 89 they found that Pfizer didn't report the 3.7 times the number of cardiovascular adverse event signals that they were finding. And they also delayed the
reporting of 38 deaths. Can you imagine if that was one of your relatives and it was basically done because they wanted to get the licence, they wanted to get the EUA as soon as they could and obviously because they hadn't accurately reported the side effects and the deaths. Then the EUA was based on inaccurate data and on top of that it's with data related negligence that we're talking about that negatively impacted on the health of total countless people in the world.
Just to interrupt you, for people that may be watching that don't know what EUA is, could you just briefly give us an explanation so that they can put it into context? Yeah, this is to hurry through a licence. So this is the emergency use authorisation of something that is deemed necessary because there's nothing else available to treat a particular condition in an emergency and they've played on that for quite some time.
This report from the Document analysis team has now been peer reviewed and it's been published. It's in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research. That's quite a mouthful. And what they've shown is that it's providing black letter evidence, which is direct legal proof of fraud in the trial by Pfizer, and that hopefully is something that can be used in
the future. So that's 89. If we can move on to report 90. This is the number of COVID infections that started happening when people have been vaccinated. And there were thousands of cases of COVID cases that were reported in the 1st 90 days, which is the post marketing surveillance period, so the 1st 90 days of vaccine rollout. They actually found that most of these infections as well in the vaccinated category was seen as
serious. So COVID-19 infections, 77% of them were serious adverse events, serious infection. There were 4.4% of them who died OK and 50% of those COVID related adverse events began within five days after they've been vaccinated. So they started to appear quite quickly and funnily enough within this report 90, it talks about unknowns. So when it looks at gender, there were 16150 females, there were 844 males and 573 who were unknown. I'm not being funny.
I'm just saying that those people, their data wasn't properly recorded and that is very worrying. And then the other thing that we need to point out is that in three different places the number of COVID-19 cases recorded was different. So it went from 19127 to 2211 to 2391 cases. So which one is correct? It's it's a mismatch of information that we keep being given within these reports. And don't forget, this is all the information that the FDA analysed.
The MHRA was supposed to have analysed the EMA. They would have all got the right the same information. And they should have noticed the things that the Pfizer and Moderna document analysis team are being able to find. Cheryl, let me get this straight. This report is saying that thousand, there were thousands of COVID cases in the 1st, 90 days after roll out. And of course the public were being told that a vaccine, and I say that in inverted commas there's a vaccine, is meant to
prevent something. You you traditionally you would have a vaccine if you were going to another country and there was yellow fever, you would have a vaccine to prevent you from getting yellow fever, right. You wouldn't take a vaccine to prevent, you know, your colleagues or the NHS. So actually what we're saying in this report, am I right, is that we have heard from other sources that this injection was neither
safe nor effective. But this is cast iron proof surely that this is not effective and never was. Yeah, yeah. And they had a habit of hiding people's information if they didn't like the results they were getting. So if they tested people and they started proving positive, whatever you think to the test, then they kind of disappeared. They were disappeared. They weren't included in the figures.
So that meant that the unvaccinated group, the control group, was showing bigger figures than the vaccinated group. And this all tried to be information to help prove that it was effective when they hadn't included all the data. I'll add the caveat there because you led me into that nicely Cheryl that the tests just for anybody watching that might be thinking or what are they saying about this are that are they really saying the tests
were both safe and effective? No, we're not saying that. We we know that the tests were completely unreliable and we should never have had those tests rolled out. So I just wanted to say that before people wrote in and said, whoa, what are your thoughts on the tests? But we know that the tests were neither effective and that many of the results that were coming back anyway were false positives. That's very true.
Yeah, very true. So if we move on to Report 91, this is headed Moderna substitution because what has started to happen with this report is the Moderna information is now coming through. There's been 2 reports. This is the the second one on Moderna analysis. And what they did is that they didn't have bio distribution studies on the drug, which they
should have before license. So what they asked was whether they could put in this different bio distribution study for a different mRNA drug, as if all mRNA drugs would be the same. And so this is for the cyclomegalovirus. And what they did is they looked at the bio distribution study in rats and the mRNA sequence, the genetic sequence for the cyclomegalovirus is actually a different size to the COVID-19
mRNA. And that means that the fatty bubble, the lippy nanoparticle that you wrap the mRNA in will be a different size and that size will be then completely giving you different distribution and clearance once it gets within the body. So it can't be a comparative study, it can't be a study that's any use to anybody.
But this is what they use for bio distribution in the Moderna documentation and as it states there, the substituted bio distribution study itself, the one they used didn't show that it was actually safe in the with the Cyclomegalovirus mRNA. So why on earth would you use this anyway? And the other thing was, it was a rat study, but it was only
done on male rats. So what they showed was it was distributed within this study to 12 of 13 organs that they tested by the blood, and it got into those tissues very quickly, within 2 to 8 hours after injection. And of course, because there was no female rats included, they didn't even look at the female organs, because there weren't any. Just wanted to add, well whilst whilst you've been talking there, Cheryl, because I just wanted to just talk a little bit about Cytomegalovirus.
So I've looked on the NHS website as you've been talking and what they say is that Cytomegalovirus is otherwise known as CMV. It doesn't usually cause any symptoms, and most people don't even realize they've got it. But when you do have symptoms of Cytomegalovirus, and they're like flu symptoms, so you know, you get the high temperature, the aches, the the whole feeling of flu, maybe feeling a bit sick, you could get some swollen glands. So some people may not even know that they've got it.
But there are there can be complications with cytomegalovirus, with babies in particular. So for anybody wanting to have a look at Cytomegalovirus, we'll pop a link in the paragraph beneath this video video for you to go and have a look at. That's good, Debbie, that you're pointing that out. The thing is, it's a completely different thing. It's not any other type of coronavirus. It's a different size
completely. And that, as I say, affects the lipid nanoparticle, which affects the ability to get into the tissue and what have you. So it was a very silly one to actually offer as in your defence for bio distribution, why would you use something that proved it wasn't safe and obviously had the distribution in lots of tissues? And if you suggest in mRNA go through all those issues, why did you actually keep telling everybody that it stayed in the
arm? So again, very difficult to understand why they actually did that or perhaps we're allowed to do that without anybody questioning it. I've just seen on your slide, Cheryl, apologies if I'm jumping the gun here, but you talk about the lipid nanoparticles on on this particular report, Report 92. I didn't know if you were going to just very briefly explain the dangers actually of the lipid nanoparticles because we were
always talking about mRNA. But of course, we've got to remember that that comes as a package with the LNPS as as you've put them there. Yeah, so the lipid nanoparticle is basically 4 fats, 4 different fats, two of which are are toxic. One PG is something that quite a lot of people have allergic reactions to, and these are charged ions as well, which can have effect on the balance of the the ionic balance within the body and can cause very many
side effects in their own right. But because it's a fat, it can get through the cell membrane and that means that the mRNA, which wouldn't get through into the cell on its own as a carrier to carry it through. But there are side effects from the mRNA and there are side effects from the lipid nanoparticles which are not generally advised for humans and animals. So hopefully that's answered your question. Yeah.
Is that all right so much. The vaccine associated enhanced disease comes in in report 92. That's a mouthful isn't it? So that's when you get a more severe clinical presentation of a disease than normal once you've been vaccinated against that disease. So hopefully that makes sense. And what this report did was it showed that there were hundreds of possible VAD. That's what it gets reduced down to in the first three months again after the Pfizer roll out.
And yet whenever you heard anybody speaking about this, they didn't use vaccine associated enhanced disease. What they did was talk about breakthrough cases and that reduced it minimised the severity of the cases and what the Brighton collaboration all that is, is a list of criteria. It's actually is a system by which you can classify different
bits of information. And what the Brighton collaboration said on Vaed is that it's difficult to separate vaccine failure, which are the breakthrough disease category from the Vaed vaccinated individuals. And what it suggests that all cases of vaccine failure, in other words when you get an infection after vaccination, should be investigated to see if it's this severe clinical presentation. Vaed and the previous report of the 2391 cases that were suspicious of Vaed that should
be investigated. Pfizer in their study admits that only 75 were actually severe cases. So it covered up the fact that it didn't investigate the breakthrough cases just to see if they were vaccine associated enhanced disease. And it's now difficult to do any proper assessment of these cases because we've got rid of the control group. The control group is no more because they've all been offered vaccination. So again, things aren't quite right with all these studies and
all this information. Before we move on to the next slide Cheryl, on that one where we're talking about VAED and you're right, it is a, it is a mouthful. Some people that are watching are going to be vaccine injured themselves or know that someone's vaccine injured. So what actually throws them over that because I mean many are saying that they've actually got a diagnosis which says that they are vaccine injured. Does that qualify as VAEDS? Does that throw them over like a a threshold?
Does that open a door for them? Well, yes, it does do. I mean it's like you're vaccine induced thrombolytic thrombocytopenia, it's vaccine induced. So if the name actually leads it back to what's caused it, then you know it is the vaccine that has caused it. And yes, that gives them more of a case for reporting the fact that they have been injured by what they've been asked to take. So we now need to move on to the 93rd.
I'm up to, aren't I? Yes, there are 94, so we've only got two more to go. So hopefully I'll get through these as quickly as we can. As I say, I just wanted you to be aware of the type of data that has forensically been analysed so that you can see how poor it was. So 93 is looking at concealed data as well as manipulated data and this again is the post marketing surveillance.
So this is the first 90 days after the vaccine was rolled out and it shows that Pfizer manipulated data and wrongly tabulated adverse events and that can lead to them being concealed. So what you have from the Brighton collaboration that we mentioned before where they put all the side effects into classes, into groups so that it's easier to handle the mammoth number that they had, you put them into system organ classes, which again gets abbreviated because everything does into SO CS.
And what Pfizer did was it played miss assignment games, so it concealed data. It had unexplained causes of death, so that didn't fit into any category. It had discrepancies of counting adverse events and discrepancies of assigning adverse events to inappropriate groups. And I'd just like to give you a few examples of that because I think it's stunning. I think it's very interesting as
to how bad this got. So with the hematological, with the blood per organ category, they omitted 192 adverse events and that meant that you know where any of those deaths, but there were things that were definitely blood disorders that weren't included that they found. When we come to the stroke category, they found a buried case of post vaccination stroke in a 7 year old girl, but that wasn't deemed worthwhile as to be included and be reported.
There were 300 side effects listed, sorry, 2300 side effects found but only 292 were listed. So everything they did dilutes the signal, in this case the stroke signal that they're actually showing. And then there were 25 cases of myocarditis and 32 cases of pericarditis that instead of being in the cardiac cardiovascular group which you'd expect them to be in, they were actually in the immune mediated autoimmune category. So they didn't come under the cardiovascular problematic cases.
And then neurological diagnosis, which we know is a very big class and they had 12125 cases that they split up into three different categories, so 41%. So the largest group were neurological, listed as neurological, but 37% went into facial paralysis and 22% were put into stroke. So that diluted the neurological category of diagnosis. Very surprisingly, there was no gastrointestinal category.
So there was about 6000 side effects within that GI category that you could have put into that GI category that weren't listed. But there are only 70 cases that got into a hepatic, so into the liver category and that only contained within that Category 1 diagnosis. And that was for a liver injury of which there were 70 cases reported, but the rest of them weren't included because there was no category to put them in. And then we've got the
hematological. So going back to the blood category again, that also contained the gynaecological bleeding disorders. So you probably have heard that there's been quite a lot of menstrual bleeding problems throughout the whole of this period of vaccination. Pfizer didn't create a gynaecological and reproductive category. Why would they not do that? So these things were hidden in the wrong category.
And also fatalities that were listed varied from 726 depending where you looked to 100 and 1223. So they lost 497 deaths. How would you feel if that was one of your relatives? I've just got to come in.
I mean, I'm just listening to you and my jaw is dropping because I'm going right back to the beginning of our interview where you very poignantly, incorrectly said each one of these statistics is a person, is a loved one, is somebody's relative, and according to this report, they've never existed. They've disappeared, they've vanished, They've literally vanished off the system. Is that right?
Yes. So if you go to the Madonna information that they've just got on top of that they got the Pfizer for the 12 to 15 year old group. And I don't know whether you've ever come across Maddy de Gary who was I think a 13 year old when she and her family that they volunteered to go into the clinical trial. And I remember seeing a video of her doing cartwheels down the
driveway. She was very active girl and after straight after she had the vaccination, she had terrible movement problems, she had gastric problems and she now has a permanent gastric tube and she is in a wheelchair and she's very unwell and it was her parents who were part of the case to get that data. So at least they've been able to help with that, although for a very terrible reason that their daughter is very severely injured.
But they as soon as she got the injury, which is very close to the vaccination, they phoned up, as you would do to report it, to actually get some help, to actually tell the the people who are running the trial to see what they should do next. And she was dropped, she was dropped and it wasn't recognised. So she will probably be one of the gastro people, gastro category of side effects that wasn't included. Sorry I got off.
It's a tangent there, but it's just a terrible story that illustrates the what's been happening. And that's the reason. I know it seems deadly boring to go through all these reports, but there's some facts that people should know it it has been very badly done. And I can only say thank you to you, Cheryl Fir, because I need to remind people before we go on to the the final report, I need to remind people that Cheryl does all of this for nothing and
she works. I can't begin to tell you how many hours liaising and getting the information to bring it to you. So I mean, huge thanks Cheryl, really, because I know, I mean we have hours and hours on the phone behind the scenes just letting you all into a secret. We do speak for hours on the phone and we're constantly brainstorming and Cheryl works so hard.
So thank you for bringing this to us because you're right, we need to know and they are hard facts and some of them are going to be very hard for the vaccine injured to hear. And I get that and I appreciate that and I thank you for listening. And I'd ask people to share this information because although it is stark and it's hard to hear, it needs to be heard. So with that said, Cheryl, do you want to take us on to, I think it's report 94 we're on
now. Yeah. So I mean, I only checked the other day. This is the last report that's up on the Daily Cloud site at the moment and obviously has been included in the UK column, Situation Room listing. But this last one is to do with heart damage in the 5 to 15 year olds. Think about that, that's 5 to 15 year olds with heart damage. And what the data showed was that Pfizer secretly studied heart damage and they did this by looking at troponin one.
And troponin is something that gets released into the blood when there's been damage to the heart tissue. And they looked at this in 5 to 15 year olds that had had the COVID-19 vaccination in 2021. And the they did this because the Israeli Ministry of Health, they'd alerted the CDC in the States to a myocardial safety signal.
So they were saying myocarditis is actually happening and by April 2021 after the second dose, they got 35 cases of myocarditis in children and heart problems were developing in males under the age of 30. So they actually flagged this up and by May 2021, they were seeing these troponin levels showing myocarditis in teens and young adults.
So definitely with all the reports that came through, by April 2022, Pfizer and the FDA were aware of the myocarditis because doctor Arnie Burkhart who was a wonderful pathologist who unfortunately died. I can't exactly remember when now, but it wasn't too long ago, which was very sad because he done a lot of autopsies to find out what had happened to these poor people who'd been died after the vaccine, and he'd found spoke protein in the myocardium of people who died
when he did autopsies. So the thing that has been raised and got Naomi Wolf very excited when she she talked about this was that they had a Freedom of Information done by Ed Berkovich. So as well as having 3250 analysts looking at all this data, doing this forensic analysis, they've got 250 lawyers on the case as well and he's one of the lawyers. And on the 23rd of May 2021, his
FOI was answered. And at the back of it they got 42 pages that somebody had put there that I don't know whether it'd been put there on purpose or by accident, but they were heavily redacted emails that had been added to the answer that had been sent to this FOI. And what it showed was that most senior leaders all the way up to the White House knew about heart damage linked to the MAMRNA vaccines, yet they colluded behind the scenes to conceal the side effect from the American
people. So the the e-mail showed the panic, the meetings that were held, the emails going back and forth to work out what they were going to say about this myocarditis that was being seen. And so the public health announcement was that myocarditis might result from COVID-19 infection. And what do you advise? You actually push for more COVID vaccinations because of the infection risk. And it was right the way up to the the White House. And that's the thing that's
quite telling. Couple of things there. I mean it's hindsight, isn't it all makes sense now. But I think for people that don't know myocarditis unless it's diagnosed, if somebody doesn't know that they have myocarditis and they might think that a quick jog around the block or some exercise might do them some good. Actually that's the worst thing that anybody can do with myocarditis. And the advice is always to
rest. So it's always concerning when people are, we're hearing of people going into hospitals and they're complaining that they've got issues with their heart, that they believe it's their heart, They've got a racing heart, they feel palpitations, they're feeling faint, all sorts of different symptoms. And yet people are just being fobbed off. So many are going undiagnosed.
And the myocardium, the mark that the heart, we must remember that the heart is a pump, That's what it is and it makes this sound, we all know it. The lubbed up, the lubbed up as it's contracting like a pump. And the myocardium is the middle muscular layer of the heart. So that's what really sort of makes it have that pumping action. So if that becomes inflamed, if that becomes damaged, then you know, there are serious consequences and people will say, oh, you know, heart attacks.
And the medical term for a heart attack is a myocardial infarction, which means a death of part of the myocardium, the middle muscle layer of the heart. And you know, I've spoken to many cardiac nurses and they've said to me they very rarely see a young person on their wards, on their cardiac wards. And if you do see a young
person, it's extremely rare. However, now it seems it's become almost normalised and that we're seeing more and more youngsters on cardiac wards, which is not where they should be. So the fact that this is happening, happening with young people and children is extremely worrying. And as Report 94 says, it all, doesn't it really? I mean, everything's been hidden in plain sight, pretty much, Cheryl.
Once you've damaged it, once you've had inflammation and it's changed the tissue, you've got no stem cells in your heart. That's it. Your tissue will not repair itself. And if you listen to eminent cardiologists like Doctor Peter McCullough, he will say that in his career he's probably only seen two or three cases of myocarditis and he's been practising for quite some time. And in America there was 2200 to 400 cases in a year recorded.
So that is now been replaced by thousands of people, especially younger people, especially people who are athletic. And that's good that you did that warning about not doing exercise if this is diagnosed. But of course you've got people who are athletic and they're wanting to get on with life, are full of life, and this has stopped them in their tracks. And those who had wanted careers that are linked to athletics
can't do it anymore. And it's a very sad situation to find yourself in at such a young age. It's absolutely tragic and as most people will maybe remember that we did interview Matt Leticia because he's always been championing the cause for he's never seen so many athletes, footballers, well from all all areas of sport, literally collapsing and dying and the list is growing and growing and growing and more and more young people. So yeah, it's but I can't, I can't even.
It's wicked and Cheryl, it's just absolutely wicked and we need to be talking about it. Is there anything else you want to tell us with regards to these reports or any more that might be coming up? I know the Moderna documents have been released, but I know there are millions of pages and it's going to take ages to analyse.
But is there anything else that you wanted to update us perhaps before we go on to the MHRA and looking at the revolving doors and and everything else, is there anything you want to say about any reports or what's going on in the Situation Room or the daily clout before we move on? No, I think everybody's up to date. The Situation Room is up to date. But the thing that I think is good about the Situation Room is like, I've got the title at the top of each of these slides.
It takes that title. It takes the subject matter for each of the ports and lists It's all 94 listed in a long column and you can click on each one that you're interested in. So if you're for example interested in anything to do with pregnancy, then you can pick out. There's about 5 reports that look at pregnancy and you can click on those reports quite easily because you can see what the subject matter is. So it's very easy to find your way to the information that you want.
And then if you want the full report, you go through to daily clout back via a link and we're going to add in the control group information that will allow people to do their health records and get a health card. And on top of that, we're going to start putting on some information about things you can do to help yourself. But I think my main message is this is ongoing and it's ongoing because people have kept having vaccinations and the thing to do is not have any more of these
vaccinations. It's a cumulative effect. Don't have any more. Just say no. Yeah. And I think it's just say no on all vaccinations, isn't it and all, I mean we've got so many mRNA products coming down the pipeline, Cheryl. I mean you've told us about hundreds coming down through the Moderna pipeline for example. So everyone's got to keep their
ears and eyes open. But I think also, you know another time we'll talk antivirals and monoclonal antibodies because that's a whole new subject, which actually does segue us nicely into the second part of our chat today. And I'm going to introduce you to a little bit of video now just to just to get everybody in into the mood for what we're going to be talking about next.
So this is Doctor Peter Gutcher, and I'll allow him to introduce himself, But please bear in mind that this video was filmed eight years ago, so before mRNA, before all these new genomic and biological drugs that we're seeing coming down the pipeline. So let's have a look at what Doctor Peter Gutcher said eight years ago about the Pharmaceutical industry.
My name is Peter Gutcher. I'm a director of the Nordic Cochran Centre in Copenhagen and professor of research, design and analysis at the University of Copenhagen. Two years ago, I found out that our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer. Our drugs kill around 200,000 people in America every year, and half of these people die while they do what their doctors told them. So they die because of the side effects. The other half die because of
errors. And it's often the doctors that make the errors because any drug may come with 2030 or 40 warnings, contraindications, precautions, and so on. No doctor in the world knows about all this. So they give patients drugs that they should not have given them, that interact dangerously with other drugs or food items or so on, and then the patients die. That's the other half. So the other thing I found out two years ago was that much of what the drug industry does fulfils the criteria for
organized crime in U.S. law. And they behave in many ways like the mafia does. They corrupt everyone they can corrupt. They have bought every type of person, even including ministers of health in some countries. So there is a huge amount of corruption. Well, I mean, what more can I say? Organised crime, the mafia. Cheryl, you've got some pretty
scary statistics, haven't you? Which will take us nicely into talking about the MHRA, because are we looking at the MHRA as being part of an organised crime circle? Are we looking at the Pharmaceutical industry now being the mafia? I think perhaps your statistics might give people cause for concern, shall we say. Yeah. If we can move to the the next slide, please. So that's what I've headed it
exposing the MHRA. What you've got to think about is how much information they were supposed to look through in a short space of time to get. We didn't have an EUA, we had a conditional licence given to these products which was the equivalent of an emergency use authorisation. So we've got the Pfizer data that we've just kind of been going through with. The analysis is 451,000 pages. The Moderna data with the Pfizer to 15 year old data, the 12 to 15 year old data is 4.8 million pages.
So just think about that, that's a lot of, a lot of reading to be done. And I've given you there the three vaccines for COVID-19 when the data was submitted to the MHRA and when it was approved. So it could actually be used and it meant with AstraZeneca they took about three months to review it, with Pfizer they took about two months and with Moderna it was just a little over two months that they took before the licences were were given the licence to be able to
use the the product. But of course that wasn't three months plus two months plus two months. It was actually all done roughly at the same time as you can see from the dates on the on the slide. And what we have to remember is that they would have been given this amount of data within the MHRA.
And when we look at the amount of people it's taken to analyse this amount of data that was achieved in the states through a Freedom of Information. We've got 3250 researchers that have analysed these 451,000 pages and they've been doing that since March 2022. So that's how much time it's taken them to actually look at this data.
If you look at the MHRA, the MHRA in 2019-2020 had about 13124 staff, but not all of those people will be analysts and I haven't found out how many of them were working on analysing the data that was coming through, but that's how many they had. I mean, in comparison, the FDA who increased their staff when they saw the amount of side effects that were coming through at 18,000 staff and they have a budget of $6 billion. So that's how they stack up in
terms of numbers. But the MHRA in every board meeting Debbie and I have listened to have been moaning about them being down on staff numbers. And when this was all going on, when they were given all this information, don't forget we were in lockdown. And there is information from one of the board meetings that talked about the majority of staff working at home and they didn't return to work until May 2021, which is when they tried
to encourage them to come back. So the majority of staff were at home. They were 20% down on staff about this time and the people that they said in the board meetings, the people they said they were recruiting, were inexperienced. They had to train them up. So how effective was the analysis that they were doing?
And in one of my my Freedom of Information to try and get the AstraZeneca data, when I actually had an internal review done, one of the comments that they made was it all be so difficult to get the information out because when they was using all this information, the computers kept crashing. It hasn't happened with the American researchers who, not just American, but these 3250 Pfizer Moderna analysis
researchers. They've developed designed new programmes to be able to cope with the amount of data and the way that it has been given to them, Which has been a bit odd, Which is why they're now prepared to look at the Moderna data, being that it's so big they can handle it. But with our dear old MHRA, their computers kept crashing and that was obviously if people are analysing things at home, that was remote analysis as well.
The other thing that they didn't do at this time in terms of making sure everything was OK was go out to labs and manufacturing units and make sure everything was OK because that's their job to make sure that we've got good laboratory practice, good manufacturing practice happening though now at this point we're doing virtual inspections and that's how they continue to go, very difficult to do a virtual inspection accurately I would suggest of a manufacturing unit that's trying
to show you what they want you to see. So the other thing was if you look at the the MHRA left, the EMA kind of completely severed their their contacts with the EMA in terms of working as part of one unit in January 1st of January 2021. So this all happened when really they still had connections with the EMA. The EMA reports have been very detailed.
So the EMA does an open assessment report and that has actually done what it was supposed to do and come up with a whole load of objections and recommendations on the clinical trials and what have you. And they set a date by which that information was supposed to come back to them. I don't think the information was ever provided. But they asked the questions. MHRA in their public assessment reports have not asked any questions.
They've just accepted the data because I think they were told to accept the data, so I asked the questions. I was just going to clarify that EMA is the European Medicine Agency. So the EMA is the equivalent to the MHRA only in in Europe. And I mean I'm listening to this and I mean I remember the days of the board meetings right at
the beginning. I've watched every single one of them right from the get go when they were all on Zoom and even when they were on Zoom, you know, none of them were sitting around a meeting table, obviously, because it was locked down. So they were all on Zoom and the connections kept going and then somebody couldn't connect to the meeting or somebody lost reception or somebody was muted. So, you know, it was very confusing at the best of times.
And when you say that these, these documents, you know, remotely they're going to get remote inspections and remote analysis. You know, half the time when you're doing analysis and when you're doing research, the whole bit is to discuss it with other people. And that's why being with other people in a laboratory or in an office or wherever is very useful, because you talk to other people, whereas they were all isolated.
And and I'm just trying to picture, and I think it's important we try to picture what these documents would look like because there's hundreds of thousands and of course millions in the case of Madonna. I mean, you imagine that piled up in your front room or piled up in your inbox, emails in your inbox. And June reigns talking about a
week. She's talking about making fast decisions, asking no questions whatsoever and priding herself because I've watched her and she prides herself on the speed and she let she's trying to say that her staff were working around the clock 24/7 for maybe a week, 10 days, two weeks and then they felt they had enough evidence to approve it And and she's really proud of this achievement and it just I mean those what you're
saying is is shocking, shocking. If somebody could throw back at us, well, the 3250 researchers aren't working in a building together. They're not. They're all over the place. Some are in different countries but they have a very good person in Amy Kelly, who's so organised with everybody, who puts them into teams as group people together, they have group meeting teams, meetings to actually discuss everything. Everything is analysed.
Chris Flowers gets involved in analysing a lot of what is being reported and making sure that everything is tested and tested again so that they're not making anything up. And the the salient point is that Pfizer haven't sued them over anything they've said in 94 reports, because it's an
analysis of their own data. I think we should actually remind everybody watching this is Pfizer's own data and and that the reason that Amy Kelly's team and Professor Flowers and all of his researchers can do the job that they're doing is because they're reading the papers, they're taking the time. There's thousands of them, there's thousands of them and
they're all reading the papers. And I know from speaking to Professor Flowers, as you've done on many occasions, you know, he said that they're literally working around the clock because they're in every country. So when Australia are asleep, we're awake, working and vice versa. And they all get together at crazy times of the day and night to discuss and they back everything up. So this research cannot be challenged because it's Pfizer's own.
Yes, that's very true. And and you see Madonna, I'm fascinated to see what happens or what their data shows because they're three times the dose of Pfizer and if the effects are dose related then it's going to throw up some very important points that we need to know. Yeah, let's qualify that Cheryl, because you brought up a really good interesting point here.
And it's something that I tell people that if you to go into a vaccination centre and there were two people sitting next next door to one another and one was having a Pfizer vaccine and the other was having a Moderna. The one that's having Pfizer is having 33 zero micrograms and the one that's having Moderna is having 100 micrograms. So one person is having three times more the dose than the person sitting next to them. And many people I say that to are absolutely staggered.
But that is the truth of the matter, isn't it, Cheryl? It is. And if you think about a child sitting next to an adult with the child, Moderna is 25 micrograms as opposed to 30 in the adult Pfizer. So the Moderna child's dose is virtually the same as the Pfizer adult dose. The Pfizer child dose is 10 micrograms. So that's another thing to consider as well. But that's obviously data that we'll come to in time as they go through the Moderna information.
So what I asked was, does June Rain believe what she says? Because she keeps coming out with things like our assessors have worked around the clock. As you said, they'll be reviewing hundreds of pages of data. We approved the vaccine trials within about a week, sometimes shorter. And I think that was in Breckenridge. That's it, Breckenridge. It was his memorial speech that June Rain did that. She stated that. So these are things she said out
loud on camera. And she said it took long, long hours, weekends and evenings spent looking at data as soon as it appears. And that's how she got through 451,000 pages in a period of no longer than three months. So basically, the MHR as answers are not informed answers. Whenever you ask them a question, as I did at the board meeting, you don't get any information that is useful. They're not telling the truth. They've lost the ability to protect the public from harmful substances.
Pharmacovigilance is our assessment of a drug to see whether we should be able to be be given it, whether it is safe and effective. The MHRA have demonstrated duplicitous and disingenuous behaviour, and I believe they've demonstrated malfeasance in. Public office. Wow. Well, I mean, I have to say, I would probably agree with you there, Cheryl, on all counts. And you asked the question, does June Rain believe what she's
saying? And I think I'm not going to ask you the question because I think I'm going to know the answer. But I'm going to ask our audience, Do you believe June Rain? Do you think June Rain has lied to you? And that's a question for everybody listening. So yes, thank you for that, Cheryl. And you're going to bring us on to something else now too, aren't you? I am just to to kind of pull everything together. I suppose I should have done this first.
This is something that Nick Hudson put together in terms of what we went through in a month. So this is the development of our our last pandemic, the 30th of December 2019 through to the end of January, the 30th of January 2020. And I believe that they've lied about spreading this risk pathogen. So on the 30th of December 2019, there were reports that there was an atypical pneumonia in China. And then it took about 5 days to the 5th of January for them to start saying they got 44 cases
of atypical pneumonia. And that was of the unknown etiology, unknown cause. And then by the 7th, 2 days later, they declared we know what it is now it's a new SARS virus that's causing it. And then the 9th. So again, another two days on it now got 65 cases. OK, So from the 5th to the 9th in four days they got 20 more cases in the whole of China. And then on the 12th of January, we knew that PCR kits to test for this new thing had started to be shipped from the manufacturers.
They started being sent out and at that time the first gene sequence that the PCR kit was supposed to be based on had been published the 14th, which again is another two days. This is when The Who came in and accepted publicly the Josten. So Christian Josten, the German who developed the PCR protocol that was used in the test, The Who accepted that as being OK and then we get to the 23rd of January.
And this is when the PCR protocol that The Who had already accepted was then peer reviewed. And so unfortunately it went into the Euro surveillance publication and Christian Drosden was an editor there of the place that had reviewed, peer reviewed his protocol and unbeha unbeknown before it was published within 27 hours. And then by the 25th of January, New England Journal of Medicine had published the Chinese study on COVID symptoms.
And by the 30th, so that was five days later, again the New England Journal of Medicine had published on asymptomatic transmission that wonderful way of transmitting without having a cough or a sneeze amongst you. So that was the asymptomatic transmission of spread. So that was a month's worth of creation. And what Nick Hudson goes on to stay in summary is that it established A compressed time frame of just one month. We've got new clinical manifestation that's caused by a virus.
This virus has the following sequence that they made known. It is a test which is the gold standard in identifying the primer that we are going to use all over the world. It's now peer reviewed and it's published and this description of the clinical features of this new disease is known. And so Nick Hudson, after he got to the end of this creation story, he said every single one of these steps was a complete, well, I'll just say both and B premeditated.
And what he also says, which I think you have to think about in terms of a planned pandemic in the future, is the truth about pandemics. Pandemics are not increasing. We don't get any more than we, we've, we've seen before. Pandemics are not getting worse because for something to be able to spread it doesn't kill the person very quickly. That has got it. I mean, Ebola puts people in their bed and they die fairly quickly before they can pass it on. So pandemics are not getting any
worse. Human contact with wildlife is not increasing. In fact, as we live more in towns and cities, we're getting further away from wildlife. And the large historic outbreaks were probably bacterial, which is what they think the Spanish flu that turned into bacterial pneumonia. And obviously when they weren't antibiotics in 1918, a lot of people ended up dying
unfortunately. So just some things to consider as to why we ended up with all these vaccines that are now being analysed in all the documentation, why we actually ended up with this pandemic and do you believe that all that could have happened within a month? When you put it like that, it's very sobering, isn't it, When you see it and you hear it like that.
And you know, one of the red flags that always struck me was a pandemic historically normally burns itself out three to four years and vaccine development take up to 10 years, you know, So what would be the point? I always thought what would be the point of going for a vaccine when it's going to burn itself out eventually, you know, after three to four years. So that was always one of my red markers. But you know, they say what is it?
They say the bigger the lie, the the easier it will be for people to believe it. And this is just lie after lie. This is corruption. This is fraud and I just want to thank you so much for keeping us updated because you're bringing information to us direct from the daily Clout, Dr. Naomi Wolfe, Professor Chris Flowers and it's coming exclusively to
the to the column to UK column. So I really would say to people, please go to the front of the website because the Situation Room has been set up by Mike Robinson and together Cheryl and Mike are updating it. Regularly, so all the reports will come and and be shown after after it's been on the clout, they'll come straight to the situation room and as Cheryl said, very easy to find in the search bar.
So just put what it is that you're looking for in particular and it'll flag up the relevant reports. Cheryl, before I throw to you for your last word for the final word, is there anything else you want to say with regards to either what we've just discussed about the MHRA or the reports that you've so kindly gone through today? I just want people to be aware, be aware of what's happening
around them. I mean if you look at that month worth of development of our pandemic that we've just had, all those items were on our our news. We constantly, it seemed like every night we were being told about the number of cases and what have you. It was developing in front of our eyes and when the vaccine started coming out, we were told a story. We were told a line. And I want to open people's eyes
as I say, so they say no more. And I hope to develop the Situation Room with some more information in that will be helpful to people, especially people who are worried as a result of things that I might have said today. There is help, there are things that can be done and we'll bring that information to people as soon as we can. Yeah. And I think that is really important, Cheryl, that you know, for anybody watching, and please don't get worried, don't get scared.
There are plenty of protocols that you can do and we've got on all of Cheryl's interviews. If you just go into the search bar, you'll see lots of interviews with Cheryl and also a bunch, a bunch of flowers for Pfizer with Professor Chris Flowers where he talks about protocols as well. So please, please don't be. Don't be worried. And before I throw to you for the last word, I think I'm just quickly going to have the last word as well.
I'm going to have my own last word for a change and my last word is going to be addressed to Dame June Rain. Dame June Rayne, you obviously haven't and couldn't have read all of the evidence and the reports that Pfizer and Moderna have sent to you and your clinical assessment team. So my question to you, Dame June Rayne, is are you now listening to the evidence? Because we won't allow this evidence to be buried. And we will carry on.
We will report on the serious adverse reactions and we will speak to those who are vaccine injured and we will hear those stories because you won't. And on that note, Cheryl, I want to thank you again so much for all that you're doing and it's over to you for the last word. Thanks, Debbie. Thanks for giving me this opportunity to bring this to people's attention. And I always thought it was strange that the MHRA could be juggled about and it actually
spells harm. And they're supposed to protect us from harm and they haven't done that at all. If she says once more that they did a robust review, I'm probably going to screen because there's nothing robust about the review that they did. They're still using safe and effective. We've even had the Prime Minister say these vaccines are safe, and it's a word that they're not supposed to use about medications anyway.
But at the end of the day, we need to let people know exactly what they should have been told in the beginning.