Why were Ingredients Associated with Clots Permitted in Covid Injections?: the British Regulator Stonewalls

Why were ingredients known to be associated with clots permitted in Covid injections?: the British regulator stonewalls

By John Stone

This is a matter I first wrote about a year ago: as reports began to accumulate of clotting in recipients of the Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid injection a well-known biochemist pointed out to me that adenovirus component present in this product (as well as the Johnson & Johnson and Sputnik) had been a known risk for thrombocytopenia for two decades before these products were assembled at breakneck speed in February 2020. This presented a simpler issue than the mRNA products of Pfizer and Moderna where many of  the potential risks – though not all – were relatively speculative, since our governments had apparently authorised these products either knowing exactly what was likely to occur, or with alarming incompetence having failed to spot it. Back in April last year was the first time I asked had the MHRA (the British regulator) done due diligence.

Ultimately, in November 2021 I wrote to the CEO of the MHRA, June Raine, asking her point blank:

‘Can you explain why the MHRA permitted the use of adenovirus in Covid vaccines bearing in mind that it was known to be associated with clots?’

I did not hear back for a long while, and then on  22 February 2022 I received the following acknowledgement from someone signing himself “Peter”:

Read more: Why were Ingredients Associated with Clots Permitted in Covid Injections?: the British Regulator Stonewalls