MHRA Yellow Card data to 28th February: clues for case that vaccines damage the nervous system

Or “Covid-19 Vaccine” Adverse Reactions; Part Three: more AstraZeneca equals more damage

Further to:

Part One: Dropping Dead? (link)

Part Two: AstraZeneca Is Not A Safe Option (link)

The MHRA has released Yellow Card reporting data up to 28th February, and despite it showing that there is a correlation between the “Covid-19 vaccine” and adverse reactions that suggest that one causes the other, it presents an opportunity to understand the nature of medical invasion that seeks to create an immune system response. This discussion is going to be had in this article first, and then without a general conclusion being drawn, there is going to be an immediate transition to a discussion of the Yellow Card data, and a presentation of some tables.

That vaccines can cause injury is not actually a controversial proposal, and allopathic medicine recognises the reality of it. An article published at the British Medical Journal, How can vaccines cause damage?, discusses three ways by which it can occur.

These are:

[i] Live or attenuated virus vaccination… actually produc[ing] the infection that the vaccine is
supposed to prevent… [ii] damage… from neurotoxic materials found sometimes in vaccines… [iii, damage relating] to allergic reactions and the development of an autoimmune response, stimulated by the vaccine and its adjuvant.

It is this third type that is termed “probably the most important theory of vaccine damage”, and in fact it is the type that is perhaps most intuitive if one pauses for thought upon the matter. After all, it is the standard objective of this particular medical procedure to cause such a stimulation of the immune system, and although the stated intention is to make one of a lesser degree, it’s easy to see how a one-size-fits-all dose of stimulant will be too much for certain health terrains that it invades. It’s a concept that might not occur to bludgeoning allopathic technicians who dish out paracetamol for headaches and nausea – which are the most common side effect experienced by recipients of the “Covid-19 vaccines”, and which are shrugged off, but which might well actually be symptoms of autoimmune injury to the nervous system in unknown ways, perhaps in most cases signifying the storing up of trouble for later.

Previously, the author might have considered common post-vaccination side effects to be part and parcel of the general flu-like malaise that people experience, although this in itself posed a mystery that wasn’t, as far as he could see, being answered by orthodox apology. The church of allopathic medicine swears that no vaccine that isn’t live (as opposed to the sort admitted to be liable in the BMJ article) will cause the illness that it’s meant to prevent – and the Oxford-AstraZeneca product (with the Pfizer version being different technology) is one of these “dead” types. This is all very well, but it doesn’t explain how “dead” vaccine recipients in general become unwell with minor illness. The author used to wonder if it could be that the work a body did in terms of unnecessary immune reaction actually could create weakness, or the immune reaction itself cause imbalance so that dormant resident pathogen could cause a break out of ailment.

However, it now occurs after looking at the MHRA Yellow Card data that flu-like symptoms and supposedly transient and superficial side effects might be a result of the injury caused by this technology to the nervous system via its inherent immune system meddling.

If the reader will remember, there was some controversy in the AstraZeneca trial when at least one person suffered from, or was suspected of suffering from Transverse Myelitis (TM). [Adverse reactions to date: A: 6, P: 8]. Here is a well established example where autoimmune response might be damaging the nervous system, which is the brain and spinal cord (the central nervous system), plus the nerve cells of the peripheral nervous system.

What triggers acute transverse myelitis is unknown, but it may result from an autoimmune reaction—when the immune system misinterprets the body’s tissues as foreign and produces antibodies that attack and damage tissues. In the case of acute transverse myelitis, the tissues damaged are in the spinal cord.

The misinterpretation referred to in this extract from the MSDManuals (MSD is a top UK pharmaceutical company) is not necessarily about failure to recognise in whatever mechanism is being deployed, as is implied, but about problems with signalling that regulate deployment. Water in a river, to use an example to demonstrate the idea, can’t help but cover its banks when the level rises. If too much water is let out of the dam, it will automatically flood farmland, or conversely cause a draught. So, this is also about injury to the means by which signalling is achieved, and we do see lymphadenopathy – inflammation of the  lymph nodes – as a reasonably common adverse reaction (in the blood disorder category). Lymph nodes and the lymptatic system of vessels along which the nodes are stationed are for cleansing to prevent cause of disease – which is a helpfully simplistic view. However, the presentation of antigens to white blood cells in lymph nodes generate immune response.

Now, it turns out that symptoms of lymphadenopathy [A: 904, P 1931] are other adverse reactions of the “vaccines”, such as fever (pyrexia) [A: 18640, P: 5153 ], fatigue [A: 13202, P: 6438] and rashes (of various sorts) [A: 2435, P: 2240 ] – only it is quite possible that in some cases they aren’t directly related, but caused by injury to the immune system, which according to our theory will be attacking itself.  There is such a thing as autoimmune disease-associated lymphadenopathy, as a PubMed (nih.gov) paper informs.

The thing that makes the nervous system and autoimmune response idea so interesting is that connections occur with the most common adverse reactions. Take musculoskeletal pain (in extremity) [A: 4297, P: 3152 ]. A little research leads to a discovery that it is a nervous system disorder.

Here’s an extract from a paper on the subject published by the Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Journal:

There has always been a strong central nervous system (CNS) component for pain perception (eg, the Gate and Neuromatrix theories). However, what has substantially changed is that the development of chronic pain, which was once thought to be contingent on peripherally driven input into the nervous system, is now believed to be mitigated by changes inherent to the nervous system.

Likewise, Arthralgia [A: 6317, P: 2647 ] is joint pain, and Myalgia [A: 8308, P: 3888 ] is muscle pain. When one reads the likes of the following, which is from an article on the first ailment mentioned, one might become suspicious of it being caused in both of the ways described after a “Covid-19 vaccine” shot [the additional comments are the author’s]:

Pain in the knees can occur as a result of direct irritation of pain receptors [i.e. damaged sensory neurons?]. But most often arthralgia – evidence of an inflammatory process in the knee joint or surrounding tissues. Inflammation is a natural reaction of tissue to any diseases and traumatic injuries [i.e. caused by an autoimmune disease effectively created by the vaccine].

To be clear here, an autoimmune disease is a term for that condition under discussion where the immune system attacks the body’s own tissue.

The Wikipedia entry for myalgia actually says that it might be seen as a response to a vaccine, but this only gives a hint of the real mechanics. If the reader hunts for it, there are articles that explain that it is caused by a viral infection, or it linked with the body healing itself from influenza (at least, in the case of acute myalgia). At the heart of this discussion must be immune reaction. Chronic myalgia, the reader will find, is “the main symptom of musculoskeletal conditions and autoimmune diseases”.

Paraesthesia [A: 1413 , P: 840] is otherwise known as “pins and needles”, and the reader will find that lots of literature will blame the acute version on sustained pressure caused to the nerve. Chronic paraesthesia, reports one helpful piece of literature, “is commonly known to be caused by an underlying traumatic nerve damage or neurologic disease.”

Notably, there is a cause that lots of people will be familiar with, which is a herniated disc. So, the connection between the spine, and injury to or inflammation of it, and paraesthesia is something the reader will probably already have an intuition about. The connection with nerve damage is self-evident.

The most common of all adverse reactions can be split into two categories: they are of a gastrointestinal nature (diarrhoea [A: 2517, P 1547], nausea [A: 10498, P:4423 ], and vomiting [A: 3777, P: 1201]), and a neurological one (dizziness [main category; A: 5513 , P: 2534] and headaches [main category; A: 23454, P: 8571] ).

To deal first with the latter two adverse reactions, the church of allopathic medicine says that headaches are not commonly associated with nervous system disease. When one reads the literature on headaches, one nearly starts to believe that they are self-induced almost as an psychosomatic response, and forgets that actually, they’ll often be an environmental starting point for the ailment. For the author, cleaning chemicals sometimes bring on headaches, but there are other sorts of sensory triggers such as light conditions, and loud noises. Now, the reader may be surprised to hear that it appears that allopathic medicine has little idea how many types headache, not just those with a sensory cause, come to happen; instead, new conditions are invented: Chemical Headache Exposure Syndrome, for instance – although this particular type of headache must most strongly suggest involvement of damage to the nervous system. Unfortunately, the subject is hard to investigate because there doesn’t seem to be any will in those who practice and report on allopathic medicine to get past the tendency to shrug at common pain in the head.

Be that as it may, the NHS says that one of the most common causes for having a headache is due to suffering from a cold or a flu, and so we have a clue of immune system  response – just as fever is indicative of.

As for the gastrointestinal disorders, a connection between an herniated disc and bowel movements is well established. Additionally, however, ongoing research is finding that something called the enteric nervous system (ENS), which is “two thin layers of more than 100 million nerve cells lining your gastrointestinal tract from esophagus to rectum” (the most complicated area of the peripheral nervous system), is in communication with the brain, in what has been dubbed the gut-brain axis; for instance, a psychological state linked with Irritable Bowel Syndrome may now have an explanation: “Researchers are finding evidence that irritation in the gastrointestinal system may send signals to the central nervous system (CNS) that trigger mood changes.”

But in fact, there’s much more going on, with activity in the gut having a bearing on immune system operation. The following is from an abstract of a paper entitled, The Enteric Network: Interactions between the Immune and Nervous Systems of the Gut:

The enteric nervous system (ENS) senses and reacts to the dynamic ecosystem of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract by translating chemical cues from the environment into neuronal impulses that propagate throughout the gut and into other organs in the body, including the central nervous system (CNS).

[The thought occurs to the author, reaching back for a moment to the previous discussion, headaches caused by food could be symptomatic of gastrointestinal disorders.]

In fact, another study discovers some of the mechanics involved:

The human gut harbors a complex community of microbes that affect many aspects of our health. Known as the gut microbiota, these bacteria help with metabolism and maintaining a healthy immune system.

The lining of the intestine forms a barrier that is crucial to containing gut microbes. If the lining is breached and a gut microbe is able to get into the bloodstream and nearby organs, it can cause disease. Despite the fact that the body has many ways to prevent the breach, microbes sometimes get through.

Previous studies have linked certain gut microbes to autoimmune disease, in which the immune system mistakenly attacks the body’s own tissues…

Analysis of cultures from nearby lymph nodes, liver, and spleen revealed the presence of a bacterium called Enterococcus gallinarum. When germ-free mice were colonized by E. gallinarum, the bacteria disrupted the gut barrier, moved into the lymph nodes and liver, and triggered an autoimmune response.”

To take a simple understanding away from all of this, damage to the gut can cause autoimmune response, and good gut health is linked to the nervous system. Again, a layman cannot say too much about exact linkage between a vaccine and nausea and vomiting because these adverse reactions are shrugged at by the people who should be understanding what they mean.

*             *             *             *             *

Today, which is the 18th March, there is news that UK Government is saying that there is a shortage of “Covid-19 vaccine”, and it appears that this is the AstraZeneca product that is being discussed (there is an all too evident effort to not name the Oxford jab in particular, for obvious cause). There are two reasons for a subsequent delay being cited: i) a supply problem, and ii) the need to retest the product.

Now, this is yet another chance to sort the wheat from the chaff of your alternative media, reader, and notice who is only covering the first point (which is an old issue which was dealt with at FBEL long before now – besides which, AstraZeneca has “refuted the claims and insisted last night that its UK supply chain was not experiencing disruption”) but won’t touch the second until it has to (for the sake of credibility with its faithful but gullible audience). It is the second part of this news that is huge, and should, if it is promoted properly, sink the UK Government’s vaccine project. For, here we have a product, which has been decreed safe by all the authorities that the public – the ovine section of it – trusts implicitly, that yet needs to have its stability verified.

The following is an account of Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care – and chief coronahoax criminal – conveyed by SKY News:

Explaining the reasons for the reduced number of vaccines in April, Mr Hancock told the House of Commons: “In the last week, we’ve had a batch of 1.7 million doses delayed because of the need to retest its stability.

“Events like this are to be expected in a manufacturing endeavour of this complexity and this shows the rigour of our safety checks.”

This is bombshell information, and yet it gets cursory mention in corporate-media.

Hancock, of course, is not being honest. The need to retest is undoubtedly due to the suspension of the dispensing of the AstraZeneca product in too many countries to count because of safety concerns. The main complaint is that the product seems to cause blood clotting* to an extent that several regulators around the world have become nervous. However, there appears to be a lot more wrong with the AstraZeneca product than that when we look at the Yellow Card data, and when the AstraZeneca product is compared with the Pfizer one.

The Yellow Card data to the 28th February, as it is tracked from a previous date of 14th February, shows the proportion of adverse reactions per dose of Pfizer product equalizing, which is something we might anticipate if we understood that this particular product was only typical of its kind: these medical procedures do cause injury, it’s the acceptable extent to which they do this that is always the issue as for as their manufacturers are concerned. On the other hand, as the AstraZeneca doses have increased, so has the proportion of adverse reaction. This must be indicative of a direct relationship between the product and the reaction. In fact, and this applies to the Pfizer product too, if these vaccine products were wholly unrelated to the reactions, then we really perhaps should expect to see a dilution of the ratios between doses and side effects (meaning the percentages noticeably lowering) as more doses are administered.

The following tables generally show that the ratio of Yellow Card reports and the number of suspected reactions they involve in relation to the number of first doses given, for both vaccine products being dispensed in the UK, is either narrowing or stabilising. To put it another way, the percentage of  Yellow Card reports, and the number of suspected reactions they involve, in relation to the number of first doses given, is not decreasing (as they are tracked) in a way that we might expect to be the case if there was no correlation whatsoever.

Just to demonstrate that it doesn’t matter that there is no accounting in the tables below for second doses (the details regarding to whom which product was dispensed are not supplied), the total number of Pfizer and AstraZeneca doses (both first and second) dispensed at 24th Jan was 5.4m + 1.5m + 0.5m (2nd doses) = 7.4m, and at 14th Feb was 8.3m + 6.9m + 0.6m = 15.8m, and at 28th Feb was 10.7m + 9.7m + 0.8m = 21.2m. Of these doses, the total number of reactions (70,504, 191,832 and 296,431 respectively) can be expressed in these percentages: 0.953%, 1.214% and 1.398%, which again represents the general increase in rate of injury.

Again, as most of the second doses will be of the Pfizer product, there is no mitigation to be expected for the performance of the AstraZeneca product.

* As it now comes to light, this blood clotting, which should be putting a wrecking ball through any good reputation that yet lingers for the AstraZeneca product, is happening on the brain, and headaches are a symptom. This much can be gleaned by MHRA guidance released today.

In the following tables, the list of categories is not complete, but is selected to account for total deaths, and to show the types which most commonly involve reactions (and also as a matter of interest pertaining to the purposes of the article). The percentages are in respect of number of reactions per first doses.

‡ One case of death classified as “Premature baby” not included in the tally.

† A case of a death involving dermatitis allergic has disappeared in the updated print.

‡ 1 death in Neoplasms category not included

‡ Now also not accounting for a death from a renal & urinary disorder, and a surgical & medical procedure.

Additional, 18:57, date as published:

The MHRA has also today released Yellow Card reporting  up to 7th March. This table shows the essential analysis:

The appraisal given in the body of this piece still applies, and with the better Pfizer performance discovered at 28th February proving to be a blip (with the same thing likely happening to the AstraZeneca performance this time), it is true to say that there is a tendency for narrowing ratios. Thus, the claim that there is a definite relationship between the vaccine products and adverse reactions still stands.

The new percentage for number of reactions in relation to all first and second doses is 1.395%, but it should be noted that this is based on a guess that there have been 1 million second doses administered. Following the tendency of UK Government departments to be coy about information regarding second doses, this time the MHRA is very casual with its “around one million second doses” to explain the quantity of this product dispensed.†

† Update, 25th March, 2021: In fact, closer inspection reveals that the MHRA cover literature does refer to the official source of the figures (UK Public Health Agencies), and cites an exact number, in this case 1,142,643. Interestingly, the MHRA still talks in terms of estimations, for reasons that are not clear, and this would fit in with the rough number that it provides.