British Drug Regulator (MHRA) Develops, Manufactures and Sells Its Own Biological Products Including Vaccines
(UPDATE) It is disturbing to have confirmed by Megan Redshaw’s article in The Defender yesterday (June 27) that it will be the Gates/WHO/MHRA polio vaccine which is being rolled out in the UK which according to Dr Mark Bailey is not “proved” or in layman’s language “experimental”. Obviously, the Salk oral polio vaccine has not been in use for many years and his comparison is misleading and inappropriate , and we do not know why this product is preferred to the standard inactivated product (IPV).
This is a follow on to a UK Column Report last week with excellent analysis by retired nurse Debi Evans and News anchor Brian Gerrish which focused on the board meeting of the MHRA of Tuesday June 21. There were many disturbing features in the report which runs from 1.06.50 on the link, but one really surprising fact which emerged - and I have been following the MHRA closely since at least 2004 - is that they combine purported role as a regulator of the biologics industry with developing its own biological products and trading with the industry: this happens through its subsidiary since 2013 the National Institute of Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) though it’s not immediately clear how long NIBSC has traded its own biological products.
Of particular relevance is that coincidentally with this meeting a new polio scare was being launched in the UK - no one as of this present time has been diagnosed with polio but polio has been detected in a North East London sewer. It is therefore fascinating to follow the conversation (which I have transcribed as best I can) between to the interim director of NIBSC, Mark Bailey, and Stephen Lightfoot, Chairman of MHRA (at 1.22.18):
Significant investment by NIBSC and also its partners the Gates foundation and of course its part of the WHO lab in (indecipherable) and of course basically premiere eradication. There are three strains of polio and the team at NIBSC developed three different vaccines. It happens that strain two is the one that has been deployed most in clinical trials in Africa and it's listed product by the WHO which mean it can be used in emergency situations even though it is not proved. We are now moving to clinical trials with the other two strains as well, so it's very exciting: it's a huge huge combination: its effect is that this vaccine cannot revert. So the Salk vaccine which was used with most of us as kids there was always a low chance of it reverting back to wild type which means things like polio begins to appear in the population. This is a great leap forward here because it can't revert so basically its much safer.
Again I think this is a great example of how the MHRA is different from other regulators around the world because we have NIBSC or National Institute for Biological Standards and Control where do some basic looking at fundamental research and this is a good example of the work that we are doing in that area and the public health benefit it can have internationally and not just in the UK so I think actually as regulator we've got some really important you know constituent parts that actually make us a very strong and capable organisation.
The reality of this is if the MHRA ever was functionally a “regulator” it has abandoned this role to facilitate business, it even trades with industry in Coronavirus spike-protein. This was emphasised in an earlier UK Column report when MHRA CEO June Raine excruciatingly discussed transforming the MHRA in 2020 from being “a regulator to an enabler” (at 47.30). And of course it is a whole different level of concern if the MHRA not only received research funding from the Gates Foundation as has previously been identified but is actually in business with them (and the WHO). Of course, the pretext was that there was an emergency and this was in the most formal bureaucratic terms an outright lie.
Back in December 2020 the British public were being assured that the MHRA was “fiercely independent” by the Health Secretary Matt Hancock which was manifestly untrue even then as I pointed out but thanks to the labyrinthine nature of the government pharmaceutical complex no one had identified that the agency had a direct financial interest.
And of course the trouble is that when governments refuse to acknowledge such absolute conflicts it is impossible for the public to judge whether they are actually newly at risk from polio or whether they are just being “had” again.