The more I repeat this lady’s name, the more she sounds like the femme fatale from a Bond movie. Have a go yourself...Say the name June Raine and try not to imagine her living in the bowels of an active volcano alongside Matt "The Heel" Hancock, Chris “dead eye” Whitty, and Claus “The Sith Lord” Schwabb. You can’t, can you?
The world truly is a stage and here we see our actors dutifully playing their parts while people like you and I are merely extras at best. We've no idea what’s written in the script and certainly no access to the director chair, that’s for sure. All we can do is speculate in an attempt to make sense of all this, hopefully before a fat lady waddles onto the stage and belts out the final tune.
If limited access is all we have, who can blame us for wanting to blag our way backstage and take a peek inside the VIP area. Maybe then we can at least try to make some sense of all this Covid madness. So, join me in this episode of Covid Agents as we take a look at the life and career of Dr. June Raine, head of the MHRA.
My reasons for focusing on June Raine are due to the powerful position she holds as Chief Executive of the MHRA, a position that affords her the ability to use that power for the benefit or detriment of society. Under the current circumstances, the MHRA is probably one of the most important organisations around and they alone seem to be the "independent" voice that could guide vaccine policy away from the suicidal(Some would say genocidal) path of which it is presently on. Personally, I do not think either the MHRA or June Raine have the nations best interests at heart and it is becoming undeniably apparent that June Raine no longer abides by the oath she swore by when becoming a Doctor, one in which all doctors swear to put individual patient safety before anything else. For reasons I will explain later, I believe June Raine has infiltrated the MRHA with a view to installing a policy dedicated to benefitting the collective rather than the individual.
As you can see, the role of the MHRA is supposed to be that of an overseer, a medical watchdog if you like. While also taking on the role of educators, supporters, and promotors, the MRHA’s overarching priority seems to be to ensure the safety of all medical interventions, be that equipment, medicines, logistics, research, the list goes on… To carry out such tasks it is the responsibility of the MHRA to investigate and assess the work/products of the medical industry.
Presently, Dr. June Raine is the CEO, and therefore it is her responsibility to assure that any medical interventions are safe for the general public.
Recent medical interventions
PCR and lateral flow tests have been the guiding light behind almost all Covid policies. A day has not passed where we haven’t been informed of how many Covid cases have been detected. In actual fact, these “cases” should actually be reported as “positive test results”, followed by some kind of advice that informs the public of the probability of false positives, after which a revised number of “cases” should be offered to the public. Obviously, this has not been the case, but maybe if Dr. June Raine had insisted on such a policy the general public wouldn’t have been terrorised by false accounting. It has been well documented that some UK PCR testing facilities are cycling these PCR tests up to 45 times. 25 cycles are the uppermost threshold where the PCR test picks up a reliable sample that could be classed as an active(infectious) virus. Therefore, anything found above that cycle load should be discounted as a false positive.
Here’s Prof. Carl Heneghan giving his expert opinion on how the UK government has misinterpreted the PCR test results.
Had a threshold of 25 cycles been set from the beginning, my guess is that the government would have had a tough job convincing the public that a pandemic was sweeping the country and therefore would have struggled in gaining compliance from the British public while implementing their disastrous lockdown policies.
The PCR test is a medical device and with that being so it is the responsibility of the MHRA to assess its reliability. This important point is something that has been brought to the attention of the MRHA and their response is surprisingly flippant…
“Diagnosis of COVID-19 is made on the basis of a test, the RT-PCR test, the results of which are frequently flawed. I questioned if the MHRA had approved the RT-PCR test and copied in a medical doctor friend of mine.
“Since the reliability of the RT-PCR test has been questioned . . . it is important to know that the MHRA has done its duty in protecting the public from potentially harmful health-care products. Please reassure me that procedures have been followed and that this product (RT-PCR test) has been approved by the authority. Thank you.”
Such tests require a self-declaration process undertaken by the manufacturer with no review of performance data by any EU Government Body or Notified Body and that MHRA does not approve such products.
So it appears the MHRA have taken the word of the manufacturer about the legitimacy of their product and, more importantly, the way in which they use that product. But hey, that’s ok, I’m sure they have our best interest at heart…
Letting things slip when it comes to testing is one thing and with so much going on for the MHRA I guess there has to be a margin of error. However, if they have taken their eye off the ball when it comes to testing, one would hope that was because they’re busy hawking over other more important issues. With new and experimental vaccines being rushed onto the market I’d happily sacrifice some due diligence if it meant that Dr. June Raine we’re exchanging it for extra scrutiny towards the data coming out from the vaccine trials. Sadly, even that is too much to ask from the UK’s primary medical regulators…
The statement above came directly from the MRHA after a freedom of information request was submitted by a member of the public. Thankfully, this shocking admission was publicised by UKColumn News, 21st May 2021. and it’s a statement that should be taken very seriously. Just think about what that means… The Pfizer vaccine company is looking for emergency approval of an experimental RNA-vaccine, the like which has never been trialed on humans before, and the MHRA grant that approval without even bothering to scrutinize the trial data. Instead, Dr. June Raine reads the summary written by Pfizer, no doubt insisting there were few side effects and 99% effectiveness, and just takes their word for it. PFIZER! The company that paid a $2.3 billion fine for the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice…. PFIZER! The company against which Nigeria filed a lawsuit for $8.4 billion in damages due to a drug test in which about 200 children were either killed or deformed.. PFIZER! The company made to pay $458 million for covering up safety risks associated with its Celebrex and Bextra pain-relieving drugs. PFIZER!…OK OK, I think you understand what I’m getting at here. Pfizer has one of the most corrupt track records in the industry which, considering the competition, makes you about as trustworthy as Crueller DeVille. And with the knowledge of Pfizer’s reputation along with the general concerns surrounding the use of spike proteins, it seems insane that Dr. June Raine and the MHRA would approve Pfizer’s experimental vaccine without taking a look at the trial data…
Now, I’ll give you all a moment to allow that to sink in, and then we’ll move on to June Raine’s thoughts about vaccinating our kids…
"This follows a rigorous review of the safety, quality and effectiveness of the vaccine in this age group."
"An extension to the current UK approval of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine that allows its use in 12- to 15-year-olds has today been authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). This follows a rigorous review of the safety, quality and effectiveness of the vaccine in this age group by the MHRA and the Government’s independent advisory body, the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM).
Dr June Raine, MHRA Chief Executive said:
“We have carefully reviewed clinical trial data in children aged 12 to 15 years and have concluded that the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective in this age group and that the benefits of this vaccine outweigh any risk.
“We have in place a comprehensive safety surveillance strategy for monitoring the safety of all UK-approved COVID-19 vaccines and this surveillance will include the 12- to 15-year age group.
“No extension to an authorisation would be approved unless the expected standards of safety, quality, and effectiveness have been met.
“It will now be for the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) to advise on whether this age group will be vaccinated as part of the deployment programme.”
With the before-mentioned matadoring by the MHRA of the original safety trials, the comments above hold little reassurance as to the real-world risks posed to children. However, some of this data has been allowed into the public domain and once you've seen it for yourself you'll be left with little doubt as to Dr. June Raine's complete unwillingness to carry out any due diligence in her role as medicine regulator.
Now, before we go any further, I would like to remind you all of the video posted in the first episode of Covid Agents. In this video, we hear the heartbreaking testimony of a mother who had allowed her 14-year-old daughter to participate in the Pfizer vaccine trials resulting in devastating consequences.
I think a moment of recalibration is in order. As stated in the Pfizer trial data above, it clearly says "there were no vaccine-related serious adverse events", while also bragging about a "favourable side-effect profile". Maybe it's just me, but a vaccine trial that leaves a participant in a wheelchair unable to talk or feed herself seems pretty severe to me, but I guess I must be wrong because I'm not an expert...
As we've already covered Pfizer's history, I suppose it shouldn't come as too much of a shock to know they do not categorise a life-changing, debilitating injury as severe. However, this is exactly why we have regulators and the least the public would expect is for something like this to be challenged by an independent body acting impartially...or so you'd think...
Below is a letter signed in wet-ink by Dr. June Raine, herself. Therefore there can be no doubt as to who's words and opinions are contained within this reply.
(Please view this episode of UKColumn and skip to 53mins 30Secs for a full breakdown of the Pfizer trial and June Raine's reply)
Sorry, what was it that the MHRA stands for? "Ensuring that medicines meet applicable standards of safety, quality and efficacy"...Doesn't appear that way to me! But I guess it's all subjective, right? Maybe this is another case of me having to recalibrate and adjust to an "Experts" perception of risk. I mean the MHRA does state that there were "no NEW adverse events in adolescents"...But what about the known adverse events, should we be worried?
Again, maybe my perception of "unsafe" differs from Dr. June Raine's because it seems that 460 fatal events aren't something to worry about.
"Nothing new to see here, ladies and gents. Now grab your kids and bring them along to get jabbed...what’s the matter? Oh, are you one of that vaccine-hesitants? Well, don’t worry, it's totally safe"
“Err…no it isn’t”, says the JVCI
For now, it seems the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has stalled the efforts of those pushing for child vaccinations against Covid-19, giving parents like myself a chance to breathe a sigh of relief. Unfortunately, the JVCI's decision seems somewhat weak-handed due to promising to review the situation once more data becomes available.
For me and many other parents, the idea of vaccinating healthy children shouldn't even be on the table, especially considering that children are in no danger from Covid-19 and, as evidence has proven, pose little risk of infecting others. With such a limited amount of long-term data surrounding the risks of administering these experimental "vaccines" to both young and old, it appears caution really has been thrown to the wind. Furthermore, it is incomprehensible just how many reports have been recorded on the Yellow Card scheme in such a short period of time, a situation that would have undoubtedly called a halt to every other medical trial to come before this unprecedented pandemic. Likewise, in every other country, the same reactions to the vaccine roll-out are being witnessed, although not every country is as forthcoming with its own safety surveillance data. Nonetheless, countries less willing to confront these issues are also beginning to come under pressure from the public. All over the world, we can see protests growing exponentially and I feel it is only a matter of time before medical and scientific experts begin speaking out in deafening numbers.
To defeat Big-Pharma we will most certainly need the medical and scientific community to come to their senses and speak out before it's too late. Many scientists and doctors have already taken the leap and are working tirelessly to educate the general public about the possible threats we are all vulnerable to if we persist with the current agenda. The most recent whistleblower to step away from the government-controlled narrative is none other than Professor Christian Perrone. As is with every prominent expert who speaks out against the Covid vaccine drive Prof. Perrone has found himself an outcast from the institutions that once made use of his expertise. Consequently, the professor has joined the ranks alongside other outcasts, such as Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Prof. Michael Levitt, Prof. Dolores Cahill, Prof. Mike Yeadon, and many many others, the list just keeps growing.
Speaking in a recent interview with UKColumn, Prof. Perrone was asked if the unvaccinated population should be afraid of current variants and coming variants, a theory that has been heavily touted by government advisors. Answering this question, Prof. Perrone stated the following; "It is exactly the reverse. The vaccinated people are at risk of contracting the new variant and of transmitting them. They(the vaccinated) should be placed on the frontline and should be isolated from society. This has become evident in Israel as they are now dealing with huge numbers of vaccinated people becoming ill from the new variants".
During the interview, Prof. Perrone also stated how his earlier hypothesis, about how the MRNA vaccine is harmful to humans, has been proven to be correct, something he warned the French government about some time ago. "They may be called genetic modifiers, which is not an exact term from a scientific point of view, but when you inject messenger-Rna to produce a huge amount of spike protein and a fragment of the Coronavirus, you don't control the process. The problem is that in human cells we know that RNA may go back to become DNA".
The full interview with Prof. Perrone has not yet been released onto the UKColumn website, however, I would insist that anyone concerned to keep an eye out for when this becomes available. Besides this particular interview, the UKColumn has a wealth of information you won't be able to access through the MSM. More and more world-renowned experts are using this platform to speak out and I strongly recommend tuning in to their website.
It is well documented how the MHRA has been compromised by a revolving door that connects the pharmaceutical industry to that of the regulators.
Dr. June Raine seems in no rush to warn the public of any of the thousands of adverse reactions being reported through the Yellow Card system and instead insists on rolling out the vaccine program towards the young and healthy. As I sit here typing today, there is still no independent data coming out from the MHRA to suggest they have bothered to investigate even the more severe side effects of any Covid vaccine. Moreover, June Raine refuses to acknowledge any concerns coming from her professional peers, continuing the corrupt scientific dogma which threatens to drag us all down this destructive path.
On vaccine adverse reactions, Dr. Raine is stubborn in her stance that the benefits outway the risks. On the subject of using MRNA vaccines and the process of producing spike proteins, Dr. Raine remains silent against the evidence that proves it to be harmful. When questioned about the reliability of the PCR test, Dr. Raine remains steadfastly ignorant. To the victims of her gross negligence, Dr. June Raine has offered not one word of sympathy.
Dr. June Raine, head of the MHRA, has forsaken her Hippocratic oath for reasons only known to a select few. It is clear to see that neither she nor the MHRA are any longer fit for purpose and for that reason I will give the last words of this post to the victims of this tragic conspiracy and to those who are willing to sacrifice in order to reveal the truth.
Former Greater Manchester police sergeant Peter John Meadows trusted the UK Government's Covid-19 vaccination policy. The decision cost him his life. It has taken his two brave daughters, Louise and Lisa, to expose what took place from the time he was vaccinated until he died. Despite collecting vaccine adverse reaction data via their Yellow Card system, designed to keep the UK public safe, the UK Government's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has taken no investigatory action to protect the UK public from future such fatal vaccine reactions.
The scientific evidence clearly shows that GcMAF is potentially the most effective cancer treatment ever discovered. At David Noakes trial Judge Nicholas Lorraine-Smith made it clear that GcMAF was not on trial. He accepted that Noakes had acted out of a genuine desire to treat people; he noted that GcMAF had been instrumental in successfully treating people who had been written off by the medical profession and added that he was looking forward to GcMAF being made available to the public. He then sentenced David Noakes to prison. Judge Nicholas Loraine Smith had little choice, and was compelled to make the required legal decision. He clearly felt uncomfortable and gave David Noakes just 15 months instead of the fourteen year sentence the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) were seeking. The difficulty he faced was highlighted when he stated, during the trial, that the court was not a court of morality but rather a court of law.
Thank you for reading this post and I hope you found it interesting. Please join me for the next installment of Covid-Agents!