Evolutionary Biologist Dr Richard Ennos Calls for a Halt to the Covid Vaxxes By Brian Simpson

Dr Richard Ennos, a retired professor of evolutionary biology at Edinburgh University, has called for the immediate withdrawal of the mRNA Covid vaccines. “Glaring safety signals are apparent, indicating harm to the lymph system, the heart and to female reproduction.” The analysis is based on  detailed data collected by the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) through its Covid-19 Yellow Card vaccine adverse event database.  The agency finally agreed to release after stalling for more than 18 months, as all those sitting on the hot data tend to do.

https://summit.news/2023/01/18/top-scientist-on-covid-vaccines-withdraw-them-immediately/

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/01/covids-warped-model/   

“‘Is curing patients a sustainable business model?’ That’s what Goldman Sachs analysts asked in an April 2018 report on ‘The Genome Revolution’. The analysts didn’t think so, arguing that there was little money to be made on ‘one shot cures’. But there is endless money to be made from chronically injured people, they argued.

A recent report analysing Bureau of Labor Statistics in the US up to November 2022 by the Phinance Technologies Team shows a dramatic increase in disabilities in people aged 16-64 which coincides with the rollout of the vaccines. Treating those people will certainly be a viable business model for Big Pharma for the foreseeable future.

How does this relate to the extraordinary level of injury and death that experts say the Covid vaccines are causing?

Dr Richard Ennos, a retired professor of evolutionary biology at Edinburgh University, is the latest eminent academic to call for the immediate withdrawal of the mRNA Covid vaccines writing that ‘Glaring safety signals are apparent, indicating harm to the lymph system, the heart and to female reproduction.’

Dr Ennos came to this conclusion after conducting a thorough analysis of detailed data collected by the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) through its Covid-19 Yellow Card vaccine adverse event database which the agency finally agreed to release after stalling for more than 18 months. It claimed that it would be too onerous to pass on the raw data despite the fact that the raw data is sent immediately to Pfizer and Moderna.

Dr Ennos is scathing about the MHRA writing that its regular summary of Yellow card reporting has been ‘an exercise in defending the Covid-19 vaccines from criticism rather than defending the UK public from the Covid-19 vaccines’. He damns the reports as lacking any scientific rigour, not providing a single piece of statistical analysis to support conclusions and calls them ‘an affront to the huge number of individuals who have been injured or killed doing what they believe to be “the right thing”’.

Ennos dedicates his report to the innocent UK public and to the dedicated physicians who filed the Yellow Card reports, writing, ‘I would like you to know that your suffering and endeavours have not been in vain.’

The work of Ennos bookends an open letter sent by Dr Tess Lawrie in June 2021 to Dr. June Raine, chief executive of the MHRA, demanding the halt of the mass rollout of COVID vaccines after discovering a ‘high number of COVID-19 vaccine-attributed deaths and adverse drug reactions that have been reported via the Yellow Card system’.

Dr Ennos and Dr Lawrie are not alone. In the last fortnight Dr Joseph Fraiman, lead author of peer-reviewed research re-analysing the Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccine trial data, called for an immediate suspension of the vaccines saying, ‘We have conclusive evidence that the vaccines are inducing sudden cardiac death.’ Before him, prominent UK cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, who also conducted a peer-reviewed study of the vaccines, called for their suspension. Top US cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough has also called for an immediate suspension of the vaccines saying, ‘I’m going to be very clear about this. The vaccine is killing people and it’s killing large numbers of people.’

Masanori Fukushima, a distinguished oncologist, professor emeritus at Kyoto University, and Director of the Translational Research Informatics Centre, agrees. Together with other eminent Japanese professors he has called for an immediate halt to the use of the mRNA vaccines which he describes as ‘an unprecedented disaster’ saying he can’t imagine how many people have really died in Japan and the report of 2,000 deaths is just the ‘tip of the iceberg’.

Masanori is a specialist in pharmacy-epidemiology, which he describes as the ‘study of stopping drug disasters’. He has been actively involved in evaluating the Covid vaccines and is planning to sue the Japanese government for refusing to disclose vital information that could save lives.

Masanori says he asked government officials to disclose Covid mortality in the vaccinated compared with the unvaccinated on 1 August 2022. After stalling for two months, they refused. Apparently, the government disclosed this information earlier and it had shown that in people under 65 years the mortality rate was lower for unvaccinated people than for vaccinated people. Masanori thinks this was embarrassing for the government so they have refused to disclose any further information.

Interestingly, from May to December 2022, the NSW government also disclosed Covid deaths by vaccine status and these statistics also showed a slightly lower rate of mortality for the unvaccinated compared with the vaccinated. Like Japan, NSW will also no longer disclose Covid deaths by vaccine status.

Yet when the Centres for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration investigated a possible link between Pfizer’s bivalent Covid/flu vaccine and an increased risk of stroke, they stated within days that it was ‘very unlikely’ that the vaccine was the cause. Yet as one pundit observed, the Securities and Exchange Commission repeatedly investigated Bernie Madoff without finding evidence of fraud.

Part of the problem appears to be regulatory capture on a grand international scale.

Dr Raine gave a speech in which she boasted that the MHRA had gone from being a watchdog to being an ‘enabler’ and that in regulating the Covid vaccines the MHRA ‘tore up the rule book’.

In the US, there is a revolving door between big pharmaceutical companies and the regulatory agencies of whom Scott Gottlieb is only the most prominent example. He worked at the FDA, then in the private sector, returned to be FDA commissioner and since 2019 has served on the board of Pfizer. Similarly, Stephen Hahn served as the head of the FDA from 2019 to 2021 before becoming the chief medical officer of Flagship Pioneering, the venture firm behind Moderna.

Another problem is the fact that the vaccines have been authorised under emergency use authorisation in the US and provisionally in Australia, giving pharmaceutical companies indemnity which appears to have made them indifferent to the harms vaccines have caused. And control of social media by the Biden administration in the US and the Trusted News Initiative internationally have shielded vaccine manufacturers from almost all criticism. So far, it appears to be a more sustainable business model than curing patients.”

“Dr. Richard Ennos, a retired Professor of Evolutionary Biology at Edinburgh University, has undertaken a thorough analysis of the U.K.’s COVID-19 ‘Yellow Card’ vaccine adverse event data and found it indicates “unequivocal safety signals” for adverse reactions caused by the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines affecting the blood, the heart and female reproduction. He concludes that: “There can be no question that the mRNA vaccines should be withdrawn with immediate effect.”

In the U.K., three COVID-19 vaccines – AstraZeneca (AZ), Pfizer (PF) and Moderna (MO) – have been used in a nationwide inoculation programme aimed at preventing harm from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. All three vaccines provide the genetic code that enables vaccinees to produce within their bodies the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the molecule associated with the pathology of COVID-19. In the AZ vaccine the genetic code for the spike protein takes the form of DNA, and is introduced into recipient’s cells by a genetically modified chimpanzee virus (DNA, adenovirus vector). For the PF and MO vaccines, the introduced genetic code takes the form of heavily modified RNA, and is carried to recipient’s cells within lipid nanoparticles (mRNA, lipid nanoparticle). There is no control over either the tissues to which the vaccines are transported or the length of time for which spike proteins are produced by those tissues.

All three vaccines rely on novel technology that has never before been used in humans. At the time of their introduction, they lacked any long-term safety data, and therefore required Conditional Marketing Authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). To monitor the safety of the three vaccines the MHRA established the COVID-19 vaccine Yellow Card reporting scheme (C-19VYC). This collates standardised reports of suspected adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines that can be analysed to detect safety signals and potentially trigger withdrawal of the vaccines. Here we show that a thorough analysis of the C-19YC data indicates unequivocal safety signals for adverse reactions caused by the mRNA vaccines PF and MO affecting the lymph system, the heart and female reproduction.

The strength of the C-19VYC reporting scheme is that it is capable of generating an enormous amount of valuable information about adverse reactions to the experimental COVID-19 vaccines. Reports of suspected adverse reactions can be submitted not only by physicians but also by the recipients of the vaccines themselves, providing valuable feedback to the MHRA based on first-hand experience. This inclusive aspect of the C-19VYC reporting scheme has proved very successful, with nearly half a million adverse event reports submitted, roughly one for every hundred recipients of the COVID-19 vaccines in the U.K.

Despite this strength in terms of quantity of data, the C-19VYC reporting scheme has a number of serious weaknesses related to the nature of the data collected. These weaknesses place limits on the scheme’s ability both to detect and to measure safety signals. The first problem is that the scheme does not identify or include a control group of individuals, who have not taken the vaccine, against which to compare those who have. Other major weaknesses are that reporting is passive rather than planned and takes place at a single point in time. Thus, reporting relies on the sufferer of the adverse reactions or his or her physician making the connection between the vaccine treatment and the adverse reaction. As a consequence, many adverse events will go unrecorded, and this becomes more likely the longer the delay between treatment and the associated adverse reaction. Reporting rates of adverse reactions are also likely to represent only a fraction of actual cases because physicians or recipients may have too little time to fill out the onerous paperwork, may not have knowledge of the Yellow Card scheme, or may be unwilling to countenance the idea of harms resulting from a medication in which they have placed trust.

As well as being low, reporting rates are expected to vary substantially between different sectors of the population. Experience shows that females post roughly three times more adverse event reports than males, and the reporting rate for adverse reactions varies with age, dropping off in the elderly population where adverse reactions may be obscured by multiple forms of pre-existing chronic illnesses. In addition, reporting rates are likely to vary with the severity of the adverse reaction. Individuals are far more likely to have the motivation and tenacity to file a report if their adverse reaction is severe than if it is mild. On the other hand, if the adverse event results in death, grieving friends or relatives may be too preoccupied to file a C-19VYC report.

Recognising the limitations in the C-19VYC programme is a very necessary first step in exploiting the enormous volumes of data that it has produced. In its published summaries the MHRA is at pains to emphasise that the Yellow Card data cannot be used to calculate true rates of adverse effects or to compare the safety of the different vaccines, both because of the nature of the data and the existence of many confounding factors. I view the MHRA’s statements as a challenge. In the remainder of this article, I will endeavour to show that the MHRA’s view is overly pessimistic and that the enormous efforts of those who have submitted Yellow Card reports of COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects have not been in vain.   

In order to independently analyse the C-19VYC reports, it is essential to have access to the raw data. The first FOI request for access to the full anonymised C-19VYC data was made in June 2021. This, and subsequent FOI requests have been refused on the grounds that it would be too onerous to pass on the raw data, and that anyway the data would be published at a future date. However, it should be noted that the MHRA sends the C-19VYC data without delay to the companies that market the COVID-19 vaccines. Some 18 months after the first FOI request, the MHRA has at last released information gathered by the C-19YC scheme that is sufficiently detailed to allow independent analysis and calculation of safety signals.

A cursory look at the C-19VYC data indicates that the rate of reporting of serious and fatal adverse events is nearly three times higher for the adenovirus AZ vaccine (3.912 serious or fatal reaction reports per 1,000 doses) than for either of the mRNA vaccines PF or MO (1.341 and 1.344 serious or fatal reaction reports per 1,000 doses respectively). Although there has been no formal withdrawal of the AZ vaccine by the MHRA, the use of the AZ vaccine has effectively been discontinued, perhaps because of this worrying safety signal. With the discontinuation of the AZ vaccine, the most important question becomes whether serious safety signals can be detected for the remaining mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, PF and MO, that are still being employed.

As I have emphasised earlier, the data available from the Yellow Card scheme are the result of passive reporting. This means that any detailed analyses based on absolute numbers of reports of adverse reactions are problematic. However, a well-established protocol, known as proportional reporting rate analysis (PRR) has been devised for detecting safety signals using passive reporting data such as those collected by the C-19VYC scheme. The principles underlying the PRR protocol are explained below.

Suppose that we wish to see whether a novel vaccine substantially increases the frequency of a particular adverse reaction, say severe headache. If there is no connection between administration of the vaccine and the frequency of severe headaches, then the proportion of all adverse reaction reports that are severe headache should be the same for the novel vaccine as for the established and thoroughly tested vaccines. However, if administration of the novel vaccine does cause severe headaches, there will be a higher proportion of all adverse reaction reports that mention severe headaches for the novel vaccine than for the established vaccines. By dividing the proportion of adverse events which mention severe headache in the novel vaccine by this same proportion calculated for the established vaccines, we obtain a measure of the strength of the safety signal for severe headaches caused by the novel vaccine, the proportional reporting rate or PRR.

A safety signal is formally detected if three conditions are met. First, there must be a substantial number of reports of the chosen adverse reaction in the novel vaccine database. Second, the proportion of all reports that mention the chosen adverse reaction must be statistically significantly greater for the novel vaccine than for the established vaccines. This can be established using a simple ‘chi squared’ test. Thirdly, the proportion of adverse reactions calculated for the novel vaccine must be at least twice that calculated for the established vaccines (PRR>2).

To apply this PRR methodology to detect safety signals for the novel mRNA COVID-19 vaccines PF and MO, we make the very conservative assumption that the AZ vaccine does not increase the frequency of the particular adverse reactions that we are investigating. The AZ vaccine thus takes on the role of the safe, established vaccine in the PRR analysis. Therefore, we use data from the AZ vaccine to calculate the proportion of the chosen adverse events that we would expect in an established, safe vaccine. We then calculate the proportions of the chosen adverse event reports that occur in the PF and MO data, and compare these with the figure that we have calculated for AZ to obtain the PRR. If there is a significantly higher proportion of the chosen adverse event reports in the mRNA vaccines than in the AZ vaccine, and the PRR for the mRNA vaccine is two or more, this constitutes a strong safety signal requiring investigation and appropriate action.

In December 2022, MHRA released two data files from the C-19VYC scheme for each of the three COVID-19 vaccines. The first file contains an identifier for each Yellow Card report, the sex and age of the individual involved, and a classification of the severity of his or her adverse reaction – non-serious, serious or fatal. The second dataset includes the report identifier and various medical classifications of the adverse events suffered (there may be more than one adverse event per report). Perhaps the most accessible classification for the layman is based on the tissue type affected by the adverse reaction e.g. muscle, nerve, blood. By marrying up the two datasets, it is possible to create a single file for each of the COVID-19 vaccines that includes the report identifier, the sex and age of the patient, the tissue type affected by the first adverse event listed in the report (to avoid pseudo-replication of the reports), and the severity of the adverse reaction.

Data in the file described above are used here for PRR analysis to detect and measure the strength of safety signals associated with the adverse effects of the mRNA vaccines PF and MO on blood (harm to the blood and lymph system), the cardiac system (harm to the heart), and reproduction in females (harm to the menstrual cycle). The analysis has been confined to severe adverse reactions (serious plus fatal) to avoid the possible charge that the adverse reactions we are analysing are of little consequence to those they affect. To acknowledge the fact that reporting rates vary with both age and sex, the reported PRR values have been calculated in samples that are matched for both age and sex. This allows vulnerability to particular adverse reactions to be compared between age groups, and between females and males. It should be noted that when the analysis is conducted in the manner described, it yields minimum estimates of the strength of the safety signals because it assumes that the AZ vaccine does not increase the rate of the adverse reaction being studied. If this is not the case, the estimated strength of the safety signal associated with the mRNA vaccine concerned will be greater than we report."