MHRA – Not Fit For Purpose
1 March 2022 - 3:08 pm
The UK Government Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is the regulatory body that is supposed to assess drugs for their safety and effectiveness before they are marketed and inflicted on the general public. We have shown previously how the MHRA is funded which means they cannot possibly be objective and free from conflicts of interest as their primary source of funding is the very industry they are supposedly regulating, plus the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also provides them with income, another major conflict of interests.
A Freedom of Information request submitted to the MHRA and responded to regarding their testing and analysis of the COVID-19 medical products …
According to this page on the NHS website the MHRA:
makes sure the vaccines meet strict international standards for safety, quality and effectiveness. Once a vaccine is approved, it’s closely monitored to continue to make sure it is safe and effective.https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/safety-and-side-effects/
Holding a vial up to a light or dark background to “observe particulate matter visible to the naked eye” does not sound especially “strict”, and given we are talking about microbiological products so small that electron-microscopy is required to “see” anything. A website page titled “Which is bigger, mRNA or the protein it codes for?” illustrates the generally misunderstood sizes of mRNA and actual proteins. The following image demonstrates that the mRNA that codes for myoglobin as a strand is considerably larger (as in the space it occupies is larger) than the actual myoglobin protein, which is approximately 5nm in diameter.
Given these strands are so tiny that using an electron microscope requires traced projection to make them visible, and due to the way electron microscopy works you are not seeing the actual object at any point, who in their right mind thinks a visual inspection where they never even open the vial is in any way adequate or scientific? How would they spot any genetic material that should not be in there?
According to this article titled “How big is the average protein?” there is an analysis of this topic that explains the difference in protein length and the folded size. Obviously there is a correlation between the length of the protein and its molecular mass, and there is some variation including some statistical outliers such as titin, the multifunctional protein that gives human muscles their elasticity, but the average length is around 334 amino acids (aa) and a folded size of around 10 nanometres (nm), To put that into some perspective, a human hair is between 80,000nm and 100,000nm wide.
Given the effects proteins can have on the human body, along with other genetic material and their respective sizes, the notion that a glance with the naked eye is some sort of test for the “strict international standards for safety, quality and effectiveness” is obviously balmy.
The conflicts of interest at play, if not outright corruption is everywhere in the pharmaceutical industry and all the Government regulatory organisations, not just in the UK but everywhere.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has agreements and understandings with the likes of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, describing an intricate and aligned set of values and goals. In any normal area of life and business, those kinds of pecuniary interests are either illegal, or considered so unethical people can lose their jobs over it even when there was no intent to gain. But when it comes to Government and especially “Public Health”, a totally different set of rules applies.
But let’s be clear, even if you are happy to accept the blatant financial overlaps and conflicts of interests these multi-billion-dollar corporations and foundations have with Government regulators, if you think that just because the possibility for corruption is there, the likelihood that it will happen is nil because these people are literally saints on Earth, here to save us all, you cannot possibly think that a quick glance at a vial constitutes “rigorous and robust safety testing”. The MHRA, along with all the other compromised regulators are just not fit for purpose.