Printable View
Pharma publication celebrates 'new blockbuster heart disease market'
https://www.fiercepharma.com/marketi...myopathy-cases
Pfizer, Alnylam and BMS take note: The US is poised to see 'a staggering number' of cardiomyopathy cases this decade
By Ben Adams
Jul 8, 2022 10:00am
https://qtxasset.com/cdn-cgi/image/w...VDNwIj5Ih5je6V
_____________________________
Pharma publication celebrates 'new blockbuster heart disease market'
by: WorldTribune.com 07/13/2022 Source: WorldTribune.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dachsie
These people are evil.
https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/1/m...gv6aGQ2YvMHere is first half of aticle.
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...P05otgBYFg--~Dhttps://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...b-01e786147e8a
Important Summary of July 1 traunch of Pfizer data dump documents
07/14/22
•
COVID › News
More Deaths, Injuries Revealed in Latest Pfizer Vaccine Trial Document Dump
This month’s release of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine documents by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reveals three more reports of deaths among vaccine trial participants and more instances of Pfizer listing injuries as “not related” to the vaccine.
By
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
More Deaths, Injuries Revealed in Latest Pfizer Vaccine Trial Document Dump
________
This month’s release of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine documents by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reveals three more reports of deaths among vaccine trial participants and further instances of Pfizer downplaying serious adverse events sustained by participants and listing the injuries as “not related” to the vaccine.
Of the approximately 80,000 pages released this month, the most revelatory is a 3,611-page “confidential” document with no title — only the file name “fa_interim_narrative_sensitive.”
The document contains information about vaccine trial participants who died, who sustained adverse events during the trial or who contracted COVID-19 during the trial.
All participants listed in the document received the 30 μg dose of the BNT162b2 candidate vaccine, which the FDA in August 2021 granted Emergency Use Authorization.
The FDA on July 1 released the documents as part of a court-ordered disclosure schedule stemming from an expedited Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed in August 2021.
Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, a group of doctors and public health professionals, initially submitted the FOIA request.
Document details deaths of three trial participants
The “interim narrative” document contains reports of three clinical trial participants who died — and in all cases, the investigator ruled out the possibility the deaths were related to Pfizer’s vaccines.
One instance pertains to a 56-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID C4591001 1007 10071101), who suffered cardiac arrest on Oct. 18, 2021, and died three days later. She was vaccinated on July 30, 2020, and Aug. 20, 2020.
The “narrative comments” accompanying the report on the woman’s death stated her death could not have been related to the vaccine, due to the amount of time that had elapsed following her second dose:
“In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the cardiac arrest was related to the study intervention or clinical trial procedures, as the death occurred 2 months after receiving Dose 2.”
The woman’s medical history did not indicate any cardiovascular problems, although ongoing obesity, gastroesophageal reflux disease and sleep apnea syndrome were listed.
The second report of a death was that of a 60-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID C4591001 1162 11621327), who received one dose of the vaccine (on Sept. 10, 2020) and died sometime in the following three days of atherosclerotic disease.
According to the document:
“The study site received a police report indicating that the police visited the subject’s home to perform a welfare check on 13 Sep 2020 (Day 4) and found him dead.”
The participant’s medical history indicated ongoing autoimmune thyroiditis, obesity and depression, and a prior craniocerebral injury and prior hip arthroplasty.
According to the report:
“It was reported that the subject’s body was cold and had visible lividity. According to the medical examiner, the probable cause of death was progression of atherosclerotic disease. Relevant tests were unknown. Autopsy results were not available at the time of this report.
“In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the arteriosclerosis was related to the study intervention, concomitant medications, or clinical trial procedures, but rather it was related to suspected [emphasis added] underlying disease. Pfizer concurred with the investigator’s causality assessment.”
In other words, the participant’s death was attributed to a “suspected” cause, while the possibility that it was vaccine-related in any way, was dismissed.
___________________
go to next post for remainder of article
Rmainder of...
More Deaths, Injuries Revealed in Latest Pfizer Vaccine Trial Document Dump
The third death listed in the “fa_interim_narrative_sensitive” documents was listed under the section in the document listing reports from trial participants who withdrew, not those who died.
The report pertained to a 72-year-old Hispanic/Latino male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1152 11521497) who received one dose of the vaccine, on Oct. 7, 2020.
The subject sustained vasovagal syncope (a fainting incident) on Oct. 26, 2020, and was admitted to the hospital, causing him to miss his scheduled follow-up vaccination appointment on Oct. 28, 2020.
According to the document:
“The subject was transferred to the intensive care unit. Family medical history relevant to the syncope was unknown.
“On an unspecified date, the syncope resolved and the subject was discharged from the hospital.”
He was withdrawn from the study on Nov. 6, 2020. However, according to the subject’s sister, he died of “unknown” causes on Nov. 11, 2020.
As stated by the document (dated Nov. 22, 2020):
“The cause of death was reported as unknown. It was not reported if an autopsy was performed. A death certificate might be available at a later date.”
Nevertheless, this lack of information did not prevent the study investigator or Pfizer from dismissing the possibility that the participant’s death was vaccine-related. The document states:
“In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the syncope was related to the study intervention, concomitant medications, or clinical trial procedures.
“Pfizer concurred with the investigator’s causality assessment. Per Pfizer, the syncope was most likely coincidental and associated with underlying clinical conditions.”
The document contained no reports of deaths among trial participants who received the placebo.
Investigators attribute 4 serious adverse events to vaccine, Pfizer disagrees
According to the latest document release, investigators attributed the vaccine to serious adverse events in four cases, however, Pfizer disagreed with the investigators’ conclusions in three out of the four cases.
The incidents are:
• A 53-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1018 10181159), who developed “lower back pain and bilateral lower extremity pain with radicular paresthesia” on Oct. 20, 2020, which was ongoing as of the date of the document (Nov. 22, 2020).
She was vaccinated on Aug. 14 and Sept. 4, 2020.
The woman’s medical history did not indicate lower back or lower extremity pain, just ongoing migraines and a prior history including a right shoulder dislocation, fibrocystic breast disease and Vitamin D deficiency.
The study investigator and Pfizer disagreed on whether the serious adverse event she experienced was related to the vaccination. As stated in the document:
“In the opinion of the investigator, there was a reasonable possibility that the lower back pain and bilateral lower extremity pain with radicular paresthesia were related to the study intervention, but not related to concomitant medications or clinical trial procedures.
“Pfizer did not concur with the investigator’s causality assessment and considered that there is not enough evidence to establish a causal relationship with the study vaccine apart from a chronological association at this time of the report.
“Based on the information currently available, it was more likely that the lower back pain and bilateral lower extremity pain with radicular paresthesia was associated with the subject’s underlying known neurological condition.”
• A 71-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1142 11421247) sustained ventricular arrhythmias on Oct. 14, 2020 — the same day she received the second dose of the vaccine — and which continued until Oct. 21, 2020.
The woman received her first dose on Sept. 21, 2020. Her medical history indicated she was wearing a cardiac pacemaker and was experiencing ongoing atrioventricular block (complete), atrial fibrillation and supraventricular tachycardia.
Again, the study investigator and Pfizer could not agree as to whether this adverse event was related to the vaccination. The document states:
“In the opinion of the investigator, there was a reasonable possibility that the ventricular arrhythmia was related to the study intervention based on the temporal relationship since the arrhythmias began within 24 hours of Dose 2, but not related to concomitant medications or clinical trial procedures.
“Pfizer did not concur with the investigator’s causality assessment. Additionally, Pfizer commented that there was not enough evidence to establish a causal relationship with the study intervention apart from a chronological association at this time of the report.
“In absence of evidence for an inflammatory response to study intervention, it was more likely that the ventricular arrhythmia was associated with the subject’s underlying known cardiac conditions.”
Pfizer dismissed the possibility that the vaccine may have exacerbated the subject’s existing cardiac conditions.
• A 48-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1178 11781107), who received one dose of the vaccine on Sept. 4, 2020, and withdrew from the study on Sept. 25, 2020.
In the interim, the participant sustained right axilla lymphadenopathy, with “at least four enlarged lymph nodes” — a condition that was still ongoing as of the document date of Nov. 22, 2020.
Her medical history indicated ongoing positional vertigo, osteoarthritis, eczema, sinus headaches, seasonal allergies and a Pitocin allergy, as well as prior menorrhagia, uterine fibroids and a past hysterectomy. In addition, her body mass index (BMI) was listed as being 36.9.
Pfizer also in this case did not agree with the study investigator’s assessment:
“In the opinion of the investigator, there was a reasonable possibility that the lymphadenopathy was related to the study intervention. Pfizer did not concur with the investigator’s causality assessment.”
• A 30-year-old Asian female in the U.S. sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA).
The documents did not list any severe adverse events occurring in anyone outside the U.S., even though the documents contain reports from trials in Argentina, Brazil and South Africa.
‘Unrelated’ adverse event reports habitually dismiss possibility injuries were vaccine-related
The documents reveal a large discrepancy between the number of adverse events deemed to be related to the vaccination (four) compared to those reported to be “not related” (113 non-placebo participants).
The reports associated with each incident reveal an ongoing tendency to dismiss any possibility injuries were vaccine-related — even in instances where no alternative cause was identified or where patients had no relevant prior medical history.
In still other instances, the cause of the adverse event was attributed to itself, while in several other cases, pre-existing conditions worsened following vaccination.
A significant number of accidents and falls — and subsequent injuries — also were reported.
Instances where severe adverse events were brushed over as being “not related” to the vaccination, despite no relevant medical history, include:
• A 75-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1013 10131176), who was vaccinated on Aug. 13 and Oct. 7, 2020, sustained 13 adverse events between Aug. 29 and Sept. 16, 2020, many of which were ongoing as of the document date of Nov. 22, 2020.
These adverse events included congestive heart failure, acute hypoxic respiratory failure, acute renal failure, aspiration pneumonia, anemia, hypokalemia, hyponatremia, leukopenia, sepsis, small bowel obstruction and mild concentric left ventricular hypertrophy.
The participant had ongoing gastroesophageal reflux disease, hiatus hernia, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension and constipation, in addition to prior small intestinal and knee surgery.
The report attributed the patient’s adverse events to his prior surgical history. The document stated:
“In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the abdominal adhesions, small intestinal obstruction, pneumonia aspiration, and acute respiratory failure were related to the study intervention, concomitant medications, or clinical trial procedures, but were rather likely related to subject’s previous surgery.
“Pfizer concurred with the investigator’s causality assessment.”
• A 73-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1079 10791246) sustained a “cerebrovascular accident” (stroke), as well as expressive aphasia, on Oct. 22, 2020. She was vaccinated on Sept. 4 and Sept. 25, 2020.
Her medical history listed osteoarthritis, seasonal allergies and being postmenopausal. Nevertheless, her stroke and aphasia were deemed to be “not related” to the vaccine, although no cause was listed. Instead, the document stated, “pending medical records” with regard to the cause of her adverse events.
• A 66-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique subject ID: C4591001 1021 10211190) suffered a stroke on Nov. 2, 2020, with ongoing symptoms as of the document date on Nov. 22, 2020. She was vaccinated on Sept. 10 and Oct. 1, 2020.
Her medical history indicated ongoing gastroesophageal reflux disease, seasonal allergies and postmenopause, as well as a BMI of 28.5.
Her stroke was dismissed as being “not related” to the vaccine, although no alternative cause was listed.
• A 68-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1092 10921015) sustained arrhythmia atrial fibrillation and elevated troponin on Aug. 26, 2020. He received his first dose on Aug. 19, 2020, and his second dose on Oct. 6, 2020, as it required “clearance from his cardiologist.”
His medical history did not specifically indicate heart conditions. Instead, it indicated ongoing basal cell carcinoma on his nose, as well as hypersensitivity, seasonal allergies, myopia, dyslipidemia, hypertension, actinic keratosis and gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Although the study investigator wrote, in reference to the cause of his injuries, that “medical records [are] being reviewed not able to answer at this time,” the report dismissed possibility that his adverse events were related to the vaccine.
• A 45-year-old Black male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1156 11561006) with ongoing Type 1 diabetes sustained deep vein thrombosis and a pulmonary embolism on Aug. 31, 2020. He received one dose of the vaccine, on Aug. 20, 2020, and was discontinued from the study on Sept. 8, 2020, “because he no longer met the eligibility criteria.”
Both adverse events were deemed as being “not related” to his vaccination, and were instead indicated as being “related to medical history of Type 1 diabetes mellitus.”
• A 67-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1178 11781015) sustained several adverse events on Oct. 10-11, 2020, including ascending aorta ectasia, diastolic dysfunction of the left ventricle and transient global amnesia. These conditions were ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020. He was vaccinated on Aug. 25 and Sept. 15, 2020.
The patient’s medical record indicated ongoing depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, hypertension, insomnia and neck pain.
While the cause of his adverse events was deemed as being “not related” to the vaccination, the study did state a cause, listing it as “possibly” having been hypertension.
• A 58-year-old Hispanic/Latino female from Argentina (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12313674) sustained adverse events including panlobular emphysema, pneumonitis, and left submaxillary sialadenitis beginning on Sept. 29, 2020. The first two conditions were indicated as continuing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.
She was vaccinated on Aug. 24 and Sept. 13, 2020. Her medical record indicated ongoing Sjogren’s syndrome and insomnia.
The cause of these adverse events was deemed as being “not related” to the vaccines, although for the first two adverse events, the stated cause was listed as “unknown,” while for the third, the cause was listed as Sjogren’s syndrome.
• A 56-year-old Hispanic/Latino female from Argentina (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12314001) was diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome on Nov. 8, 2020, which was still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020. She was vaccinated on Aug. 25 and Sept. 15, 2020.
Her medical history consisted of ongoing hypothyroidism, allergic rhinitis and asthma — but no coronary troubles.
Nevertheless, according to the study investigator, her condition was determined to be “not related” to the vaccination, although the cause was listed as “unknown.”
‘Cause unknown’ but no chance the vaccine was to blame
In other examples, adverse events were assigned no specific cause or only a “probable” cause, but investigators dismissed the possibility the vaccines may have caused the injuries.
For example:
• A 34-year-old Hispanic/Latino male from Brazil (unique subject ID: C4591001 1226 12261745) developed a Leydig cell tumor in his left testicle on Sept. 23, 2020. He received the first dose of the vaccine on Sept. 16, 2020, and second dose on Oct. 7, 2020.
His medical history listed only ongoing allergic rhinitis.
While the study investigator claimed that the adverse event was “not related” to the vaccination, the cause was listed as “unknown.”
• A 19-year-old Hispanic/Latino female from Brazil (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12311281) with no indicated medical history was diagnosed with acute appendicitis and QT interval prolongation — a heart condition — on Sept. 18, 2020. She was vaccinated on Aug. 15 and Sept. 4, 2020.
These conditions were deemed to be “not related” to the vaccination, although the causes were indicated as “unknown.”
• A 41-year-old Hispanic/Latino female from Argentina (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12311315) was diagnosed with anemia and malignant melanoma on Sept. 25, 2020, with symptoms continuing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.
She was vaccinated on Aug. 15 and Sept. 3, 2020.
The adverse events were indicated as being “not related” to the vaccination, but instead due to a “probable relationship with [a] vaginal tumor under study.”
• A 44-year-old Hispanic/Latino male from Argentina (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12312854) was diagnosed with supraventricular arrhythmia on Sept. 17, 2020. He received the two vaccine doses on Aug. 21 and Sept. 11, 2020.
His medical history listed only ongoing sleep apnea syndrome and a BMI of 50.4.
According to the study investigator, the arrhythmia was “not related” to the vaccines, but instead “probably” corresponded “to an accessory intraventricular line.”
• A 56-year-old mixed-race male from Brazil (unique subject ID: C4591001 1241 12411825) was diagnosed with acute pyelonephritis on Nov. 2, 2020, and hypochromic anemia two days later. Both conditions were still listed as ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.
The participant was vaccinated on Sept. 17 and Oct. 8, 2020. His medical history listed ongoing hypertension.
According to the study investigator, these adverse events were “not related” to the vaccination. Instead, his acute pyelonephritis was due to a “possible” bacterial urinary tract infection, while the hypochromic anemia cause was “to be clarified.”
Worsening of pre-existing conditions ‘not related’ to vaccine
In other instances, participants experienced a worsening of pre-existing conditions. However, in all instances, no relation to the COVID-19 vaccine was determined.
For instance:
• A 72-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1092 10921187) sustained congestive heart failure on Oct. 1, 2020. He received his first dose of the vaccine on Sept. 15, 2020, and his second dose on Oct. 6, 2020.
The participant’s medical history included ongoing coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes, asthma, obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, insomnia and seasonal allergies. Moreover, he had previously had a defibrillator installed.
The cause of his adverse event was simply indicated as “progression of cardiovascular disease” unrelated to the vaccine. The possibility that the vaccine may potentially have precipitated the worsening of his heart condition was not considered.
• A 73-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1111 11111095) was reported as having sustained an “undiagnosed mental disorder” on Sept. 25, 2020, which was still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020. She was vaccinated on Aug.11 and Sept. 1, 2020.
The participant’s medical history did not indicate any prior mental disorders or conditions. Nevertheless, the cause of the adverse event was indicated by the study indicator as being “not related” to the vaccination and instead simply due to “mental instability.”
• A 58-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1109 11091387), who sustained worsening osteoarthritis of the right knee on Oct. 14, 2020, and later also experienced deep vein thrombosis on Oct. 20, 2020, which was still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.
The participant’s medical history indicated ongoing osteoarthritis, ongoing hypercholesterolemia, hypothyroidism, sleep apnea syndrome, rosacea and an enlarged prostate. A prior knee surgery was also listed.
Both adverse events were deemed to be “not related” to the vaccination and instead attributed to the patient’s prior knee surgery and “previous medical history.”
• A 70-year-old white female from the U.S. (unique subject ID: C4591001 1127 11271023) experienced a worsening of her asthma on Oct.1, 2020. She later also developed malignant invasive ductal carcinoma in her left breast, on Nov. 5, 2020. Both cases were still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.
She received her two doses of the vaccine on July 30 and Aug. 18, 2020. Her medical history, aside from ongoing asthma, also indicated a recurrent urinary tract infection and ongoing bronchitis, seasonal allergies, myopia, migraines, hypothyroidism, hypertension, insomnia, hyperlipidemia, osteoarthritis, bilateral deafness and postmenopause.
According to the document, both adverse events were “not related” to the vaccination, and instead were attributed to an “allergy” and to a “malignancy,” respectively.
Reports of multiple adverse events ignored
Other examples include cases where patients sustained multiple adverse events, many of which were entirely ignored by the study investigators’ assessments.
These include:
• A 61-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1114 1114108), who sustained 10 vaccine injuries beginning on Sept. 12, 2020, after he received the first dose of the vaccine on Aug. 24, 2020, and his second dose on Sept. 30, 2020.
The adverse events he experienced included acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, chest pain, left ventricular hypertrophy, mitral valve regurgitation, bilateral hand pain, pulmonary hypertension, skin avulsion on his left finger, a Staphylococcal infection and tricuspid regurgitation. Several of these conditions were still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.
The patient’s medical history indicated ongoing peripheral neuropathy, type 2 diabetes, anxiety, depression, asthma, Staphylococcal infection, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and a prior leg amputation.
According to the study investigator, “the staphylococcal infection” was “not related” to the vaccine, but instead was connected to the patient’s hypertension, musculoskeletal causes and an “infection.” No mention was made in this assessment as to the probable causes of the other adverse events.
Some adverse events ‘caused’ by … the adverse event
In still other cases, the “cause” of participants’ adverse events was indicated as being the same as the adverse event itself.
Examples include:
• A 68-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1095 10951204), who was diagnosed with bladder cancer on Nov. 2, 2020. He was vaccinated on Sept. 2 and Sept. 21, 2020.
According to the document, the participant’s ongoing medical history included hypertension, benign prostatic hyperplasia, hypercholesterolemia, angina pectoris, coronary arterial stent insertion, coronary artery disease, erectile dysfunction and osteoarthritis.
However, the cause of his bladder cancer was attributed as “cancer” and deemed to be “not related” to the vaccination and “most likely coincidental and associated with the underlying clinical conditions.”
• A 48-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1124 11241106) sustained an acute myocardial infarction on Sept. 27, 2020. He previously received two doses of the vaccine, on Aug. 26 and Sept. 16, 2020.
His medical history indicated ongoing high cholesterol, gastroesophageal reflux disease and back pain.
According to the study investigator, the adverse event sustained by the participant was “not related” to the vaccination, but instead “related to cardiovascular risk,” with no further elaboration provided.
• A 73-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1223 12231159) was found to have a pancreatic mass on Nov. 5, 2020. She was vaccinated on Sept. 10 and Oct. 1, 2020.
Her medical records indicated ongoing osteoarthritis, menopause, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia, hypothyroidism, Eustachian tube dysfunction, prophylaxis, irritable bowel syndrome, osteoporosis and benign monoclonal hypergammaglobulinemia.
The cause of her adverse event, which was indicated to be “not related” to the vaccination, was listed as “new development of pancreatic mass” without any elaboration as to the factors that may have caused it to appear.
‘Cause unknown’ but no chance the vaccine was to blame
In other examples, adverse events were assigned no specific cause or only a “probable” cause, even as the possibility that they were related to the vaccination was dismissed.
For example:
• A 34-year-old Hispanic/Latino male from Brazil (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1226 12261745) developed a Leydig cell tumor in his left testicle on Sept. 23, 2020. He received the first dose of the vaccine on Sept. 16, 2020, and second dose on Oct. 7, 2020.
His medical history listed only ongoing allergic rhinitis.
While the study investigator claimed that the adverse event was “not related” to the vaccination, the cause was listed as “unknown.”
• A 19-year-old Hispanic/Latino female from Brazil (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12311281) with no indicated medical history was diagnosed with acute appendicitis and QT interval prolongation — a heart condition — on Sept. 18, 2020. She was vaccinated on Aug. 15 and Sept. 4, 2020.
These conditions were deemed to be “not related” to the vaccination, although the causes were indicated as “unknown.”
• A 41-year-old Hispanic/Latino female from Argentina (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12311315) was diagnosed with anemia and malignant melanoma on Sept. 25, 2020, with symptoms continuing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.
She was vaccinated on Aug. 15 and Sept. 3, 2020.
The adverse events were indicated as being “not related” to the vaccination, but instead due to a “probable relationship with [a] vaginal tumor under study.”
• A 44-year-old Hispanic/Latino male from Argentina (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12312854) was diagnosed with supraventricular arrhythmia on Sept. 17, 2020. He received the two vaccine doses on Aug. 21 and Sept. 11, 2020.
His medical history listed only ongoing sleep apnea syndrome and a BMI of 50.4.
According to the study investigator, the arrhythmia was “not related” to the vaccines, but instead “probably” corresponded “to an accessory intraventricular line.”
• A 56-year-old mixed-race male from Brazil (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1241 12411825) was diagnosed with acute pyelonephritis on Nov. 2, 2020, and hypochromic anemia two days later. Both conditions were still listed as ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.
The participant was vaccinated on Sept. 17 and Oct. 8, 2020. His medical history listed ongoing hypertension.
According to the study investigator, these adverse events were “not related” to the vaccination. Instead, his acute pyelonephritis was due to a “possible” bacterial urinary tract infection, while the hypochromic anemia cause was “to be clarified.”
Other explanations for participants’ vaccine injuries include:
• A 78-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1097 10971011), who suffered from pneumonia between Sept. 20 and Oct. 5, 2020. He had previously received two doses of the vaccine, on Aug. 20 and Sept. 9, 2020.
According to the document, the cause of his pneumonia was “not related” to the vaccines. Instead, the listed cause was “pt [patient] contracted pneumonia from somewhere.”
• An 84-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1097 10971084) contracted pneumonia on Oct. 7, 2020, symptoms of which were still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020. He had previously been vaccinated on Sept. 1 and Sept. 23, 2020.
Similar to the patient above, the cause of the participant’s pneumonia was indicated as being “not related” to the vaccination. The narrative comment instead stated that “Pt [patient] contracted pneumonia from unknown source.”
Very few severe adverse events — and no deaths — were reported in other countries, although Argentina, for instance, was home to the largest of the Pfizer vaccine trials in 2020.
The next 80,000-page cache of FDA documents pertaining to the FDA’s authorization of the vaccine is set to be released on Aug. 1.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...-pace-slow.jpg
Greg Hunter did a painfully truthful "vaccine" segment on his weekly wrap-up show.
War Coming, More Die “Unexpectedly,” Record Inflation, Drought Disaster
By Greg Hunter On July 15, 2022 In Weekly News Wrap-Ups
https://usawatchdog.com/war-coming-m...ught-disaster/
https://usawatchdog.com/wp-content/u...022/07/1ab.jpg
"Vaccines" commentary alone worth the price of admission
begins about 17:40,
and ends about 26:59
embedded video
57:25 video runtime
also on Rumble HERE
https://rumble.com/v1ccjtj-war-comin...-disaster.html
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/a...m_source=email
The UK government's official data shows they made a huge mistake
They should EITHER admit their data is garbage or that the vaccines should be IMMEDIATELY halted for ages 10 to 14. Ideally, they admit BOTH. Practically speaking, they will do NEITHER.
Steve Kirsch
11 hr ago
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/...c_1049x496.png
UH OH!!! The UK government now has a huge problem. A triply vaxxed child is 45 times more likely to die than an unvaccinated child. That makes the vaccine the biggest child killer ever deployed by any government and makes COVID deaths look like rounding error (45X vs. 0.05X).
Executive summary
I was inspired by this article in the Expose to take a look at the latest UK numbers.
The numbers can be found by downloading the latest dataset (the May 2022 numbers) found on the official UK ONS site.
When I did that, two things jumped out at me:
The “UK numbers are garbage” is confirmed once again by this dataset.
If you believe the UK numbers are right, then you should be jumping up and down and IMMEDIATELY BE DEMANDING a halt to the vaccines for ages 10 to 14.
Details of both claims are explained below.
But here’s the punchline: there is simply no way out of this for the UK government. They must pick either 1 or 2. They must either confirm their numbers are garbage or they must call an immediate halt to the vaccines for 10 to 14.
The UK press should force them to choose which way they want to have their credibility decimated.
My suggestion: They should come clean and admit to both.
Here are the details for each of my assertions.
The UK numbers are garbage
First of all, compliments are due to the UK government for exposing the data. The US government doesn’t expose any data nearly this detailed so it’s impossible to do the proper analyses on the US data because there is no data to use.
The UK government seems to be not including the most interesting metrics to assess safety and efficacy. The Expose points this out; it seems when the numbers work against them, they either stop reporting the data entirely, stop breaking it out, or in this case, not doing the calculation of the deaths per 100K person years so that only more motivated people will take the time and see that there is a huge problem.
For your convenience, you can download my annotated version here. Go to Table 6. My annotations are in Column G. The important numbers that we’ll use below are in red.
We see that the all-cause mortality (ACM) rate for ages 20-24 is reduced by a factor of 2 (compare G21 vs. G28).
That’s impossible! The vaccine isn’t a fountain of youth. It is only claimed to reduce death from COVID, not eliminate deaths from all known diseases.
According to the unvaccinated Row 21, only (43/378) = 8.3% of the deaths are from COVID. So if you have a PERFECT vaccine, ACM can only go down by 8.3%. It cannot go down by 50%.
This is similar to what Professor Norman Fenton has pointed out in his July 13, 2022 article: the COVID vaccines aren’t a fountain of youth but that’s exactly what his analysis found as well.
This is no surprise and isn’t new. I noted this in my May 5, 2022 article when I tried to use the UK data in calculations I found most of the UK ONS data was unusable because it simply made no sense. This is why I chose the row that I did in that particular analysis.
Producing garbage data and then using that garbage data as a basis for public policy is a huge embarrassment for the UK government.
So therefore, their official response will be to label me and Professor Fenton as misinformation spreaders and ignore us. Problem solved!
Well, not so fast.
Because if the UK data is accurate then…
Kids aged 10 to 14 are dying at a rate 45 times higher than normal
If the UK numbers are accurate, they need to halt the vaccines for ages 10 to 14 immediately because it is raising ACM for kids by a factor of 45 (G12/G5).
In other words, the vaccines are the most dangerous intervention in human history for this age group. It makes COVID look like rounding error:
COVID: 5% ACM increase
COVID vaccine: 4400% ACM increase
Some “experts” could “explain” this by claiming that only the kids who were most at risk opted for the third shot and that explains the higher ACM. Only those with an AVERAGE of a 45X higher rate of death opted for the third shot? Show me the evidence please!
And while you’re at it, show me the evidence that ONLY kids with a 15X higher rate of death decided to stick with just 2 doses.
Some people could say “oh the numbers are small for dose 3.” Fine, even if we combine all the numbers for Dose 2 and Dose 3, the ACM death rate doubles for the vaccinated kids. It is supposed to slightly decrease (and for 20-24 year olds it was cut in half as we noted above). Instead it doubled.
Then the excuse will be that the Dose 3 data “skewed” the result… you should only look at the Dose 2 data.
But that doesn’t work either. Kids who just took Dose 2 are also much more likely to die than kids in the unvaccinated group.
There is only one conclusion you can draw from this:
Someone made a huge mistake in approving these vaccines for kids
They had insufficient data to approve these vaccines in the first place since there were no child deaths FROM COVID, there cannot ever be a positive risk benefit.
But now they HAVE data from the real world and it is clearly negative. So what do they do? They ignore it because it makes them look bad.
There is no way you can spin this data as supportive of the vaccine.
The UK government and all governments throughout the world will ignore this because it is inconvenient to talk about it.
Similarly, nobody in the mainstream media will write about it. I’d be willing to bet big money on it (and I’d be thrilled if I lost the bet). Any takers?
Summary
The UK government can’t have their cake and eat it too. They have to make a decision. They must decide whether their numbers are garbage or whether to stop the vaccine for ages 10 to 14. Either way they decide, it’s a huge embarrassment for the UK government.
The right decision is to admit the truth that both are true. That’s what I would do if I were in charge.
What will they do? I know exactly what they will do. They will ignore my analysis and hope that nobody finds out about it. For sure, the mainstream media will never ask them about this data.
That is why it’s important for you to share this article everywhere on all your social media platforms. I adjusted the headline to reduce the risk of censorship.
Share
119 likes
58 Comments
Jill
4 min ago
This isn't a mistake, it's a genocide. If it was a mistake the injections would never have been approved as they cannot work and pfizer data showed they were dangerous. After the initial run showing many deaths and injury (exactly like the side effects in the FDA presentation before the original approval), any pretense that they had no way of knowing how dangerous these injections are is gone.
I really think it's important to admit this isn't a mistake. There is criminal intent to maim and kill children and adults.
You are certainly correct that these injections should be stopped and you have shown a lot of data to prove that point!
ReplyGive giftCollapse
John Raymond
Writes Great Apostasy, Covid Depopulat…
6 min ago
Why don't they just herd us into boxcar?
Lot less hypocritical.
Btw, fuck the parents... Jewish parents tried to find parents who would care for their children... (heartbreaking to think of this, but they tried to Save their children....
Not get a Twitter op)
ReplyGive giftCollapse
56 more comments…
Bhakdi/Burkhardt pathology results show 93% of people who died after being vaccinated were killed by the vaccine
The vaccine was implicated in 93% of the deaths in the patients they examined. What's troubling is the coroner didn't implicate the vaccine in any of…
Steve Kirsch
Dec 28, 2021
1,396
1,229
New studies show that the COVID vaccines damage your immune system, likely permanently
The vaccines are making it more likely you'll be infected with Omicron 90 days after you are fully vaccinated. To keep vaccine effectiveness high…
Steve Kirsch
Dec 24, 2021
1,096
799
Unprecedented: Deaths in Indiana for ages 18-64 are up 40%
This is huge. Something is killing healthy people at an unprecedented rate. It isn't COVID. Could it be the "safe and effective" COVID vaccine? I think…
Steve Kirsch
Jan 3
1,330
1,209
See all
Ready for more?
https://static-3.bitchute.com/live/c...Fu_320x180.jpg
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ShXhR8VnUNFu/
‘Doctors & Scientists’ Ep 37 with Mike Yeadon: ‘It Could Not Have Worked, and They Knew It’
First published at 13:55 UTC on July 15th, 2022.
Jim Fetzer
INCREDIBLY GOOD interview with Ex-Pfizer VP, Dr. Mike Yeadon!
“Hundreds of thousands of people have definitely been killed [by the “vaccines”] and unfortunately, it’s probably 10 times that who have been injured, so far, in a non-lethal way — myocarditis, blood clots, some people have lost limbs, many have had strokes, vision loss, blood clots in the lungs are tremendously common, deep-vein thrombosis in the long vessels in the legs. And there is also the suggestion that people’s immune systems have been damaged in a way that leaves them prey to getting a series of infections — they never quite feel well again, it’s quite a common refrain.” ~ Dr. Mike Yeadon
[Yeadon says that he heard the representatives of the international regulatory agencies for drugs say something to this effect:]
“We can anticipate that, in the future, there might be a need to make “amended,” “adjusted” Covid-19 vaccines, and if the drug companies should do that, the position we anticipate taking is to say that, because the amended vaccines are so similar to the first generation, we won’t require them to do new clinical trials, or to require ANY clinical trials.”
“So, when I heard that, I’m afraid my conclusion was, “So THAT’s why they’ve used genetic vaccines that have never been used before — it’s because they’ve got an intended purpose for them.” And they just voted on it last week — there’s no requirement for any safety efficacy studies in humans for the “variant vaccines,” which means that a drug company’s computer, that can form any code they damn well like — [just] press ALT-PRINT and manufacture a billion doses of something the FDA’s not going to check and stick it into a billion arms.
“So if, like me, you conclude that, whatever is going on and whoever is doing it, they are completely malign and evil — there’s no possible good side to this whatsoever.” ~ Dr. Mike Yeadon
https://rumble.com/v1c9s0r-doctors-a...y-knew-it.html
Tweet
See new Tweets
Conversation
Five Times August
@FiveTimesAugust
Also aged like milk... but hey, trust the experts!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FXrhvd5V...jpg&name=small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FXrhv9JU...g&name=360x360
Rand Paul
@RandPaul
"Using a three-dose vaccine in 992 children between the ages of six months and five years, Pfizer found no statistically significant evidence of vaccine efficacy.”
Nevertheless, the CDC went on to recommend 3 vaccines for children.
https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/15475...jpg&name=small
12:55 PM · Jul 14, 2022·Twitter for iPhone
Rand Paul
@RandPaul
·
Jul 14
Replying to
@RandPaul
"It seems criminal that we put out the recommendation to give mRNA Covid vaccines to babies without good data," a CDC physician added.
Rand Paul
@RandPaul
·
Jul 14
"Referring to Pfizer’s vaccine efficacy in healthy young children, one high-level CDC official—whose expertise is in the evaluation of clinical data—joked: “You can inject them with it or squirt it in their face, and you’ll get the same benefit.”
Rand Paul
@RandPaul
·
Jul 14
"One subject these doctors and scientists feel passionately about but feel they cannot bring up is natural immunity. Why, they wonder, are we insisting on immunizing children who already have some immunity to the disease due to having contracted Covid?"
Rand Paul
@RandPaul
·
Jul 14
"The official public health response to Covid has undermined the public's belief in public health itself."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...d-science.html
Health experts are quitting the NIH and CDC in droves because they’re embarrassed by ‘bad science’ – including vaccinating children under 5 to ‘make their advice palatable to the White House,’ doctors claim
The NIH and CDC are reportedly facing staffing shortages as low morale drives away employees
Decisions like the closure of schools and then requiring face masks once they reopened led to many questioning leadership
Lately, the authorization of COVID-19 vaccines for children four years old of younger has confused some in America’s top medical agencies
Both agencies, along with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been mired in controversy throughout the pandemic for inconsistent messaging and for decision-making that didn’t seem to line up with available science.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/e...m_medium=email
Excellent SHORT educational videos on the COVID shots
The CDC should be distributing these videos because they help people understand how the COVID shots work and the science behind them. But I seriously doubt that will ever happen.
Steve Kirsch
7 hr ago July 15, 2022
Steve Kirsch's newsletter
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/...78_999x739.png
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/...78_999x739.png
Videos for your friends
Here are two excellent videos to consider watching and sharing with your friends. In fact, the second video was so good that sharing it got Dr. Robert Malone banned from Twitter:
Stop the shots (15 minute video and slide deck)
More harm than good (video slides)
I wish the CDC would re-distribute these videos so that the American public is informed as to how the shots work.
But as you know, they don’t want anyone to know that for obvious reasons.
Videos for you
If you’d like a better understanding of how the shots work, I recently ran across some videos from Wishcraft8121 who is one of my followers on Truth Social. He’s been banned from Twitter multiple times which means he’s telling the truth.
The material is excellent and the videos are both just a few minutes long (you’ll likely need to stop the video because it does go FAST):
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/...68_558x433.png
Lethal by Design (3 minutes)
The use of PEG in the COVID vaccines (2 minutes)
Excess deaths caused by the COVID vaccines (3 minutes)
Lethal by Design (17 minutes)
You’ll need a Truth Social account to view the first 3 videos because Wishcraft hasn’t figured out Rumble permissions, but you can expand the screen once you start the video. The last video is a direct Rumble link. This is Wishcraft’s Rumble channel where you can also view his videos on both COVID and Ukraine.
I love the PEG video because we talked about this in the DarkHorse podcast video with Bret Weinstein and Robert Malone. PEG is required to get the mRNA into the cell. But the problem is that it gets it into cells everywhere in your body, including inside your brain (it allows the vaccine to penetrate the blood-brain barrier).
How did this happen?
We now know the FDA colluded with Moderna to bypass the normal safety checks. See Moderna colluded with the FDA to bypass the normal safety testing.
Are you surprised?