Three participants in the Pfizer Covid vaccine trial died shortly after vaccination and their deaths were not fully investigated, it has been revealed.
The revelations come in a report from Pfizer released on July 1st by court order as part of the documents which the U.S. FDA relied on to grant emergency use authorisation for the Pfizer vaccine in December 2020. They add to worries that adverse effects of the vaccine in the clinical trials were not properly documented, giving a potentially misleading picture of the drug’s safety.
One of the deceased participants, a 56-year-old woman known as subject #10071101, was given two doses of the vaccine on July 30th and August 20th 2020 and died from a cardiac arrest two months later. In Pfizer’s report on the participant it says:
In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the cardiac arrest was related to the study intervention of clinical trial procedures, as the death occurred two months after receiving Dose 2. Pfizer concurred with the investigator’s causality assessment.
However, it’s not clear how the investigator and Pfizer can be so sure the death was unrelated to the vaccine when there was no autopsy and no thorough medical assessment. As Sonia Elijah, who has analysed the report and summarised parts of it for Trial Site News, comments:
The conclusion that “there was no reasonable possibility” the vaccine could have caused the fatal cardiac arrest because “death occurred two months after receiving Dose 2” is not only presumptuous but also lacks a robust medical assessment. This is evident by the further comment that “it was unknown if an autopsy was performed”. Why was there no follow up or inquiry into whether an autopsy was performed?
A second deceased participant was a 60 year-old man known as subject #11621327, who died three days after his first dose of vaccine, given on September 10th 2020. The report says that the “probable cause of death was progression of atherosclerotic disease”. However, the subject had no known history of the condition (though was reported as obese). While the investigator deemed there to be “no reasonable possibility” of a link with the vaccine, seeing that it happened three days after the injection and “autopsy results were not available at the time” of the report, again, it’s hard to see what that conclusion is based on.
A third deceased participant was a 72 year-old man known as subject #11521497, who received the first vaccine dose on October 7th and 19 days later, on October 26th, was admitted to hospital because “he fainted in the middle of the night”. Reported as a syncope (temporary loss of consciousness usually related to insufficient blood flow to the brain), 16 days later, on November 11th, he died. The investigator claimed there was “no reasonable possibility that the syncope was related to the study intervention” and Pfizer said the syncope was “most likely coincidental”. But again, it’s unclear what this assessment is based on as the cause of death was reported as “unknown” and neither the investigator nor Pfizer attempted to investigate.
There were also a number of serious but non-fatal adverse events among trial vaccine recipients, but oddly, in every case where the trial investigator deemed it to be possibly related to the vaccine, Pfizer “did not concur”, according to Sonia Elijah.
For example, a 71-year-old woman known as subject #11421247 developed severe ventricular arrhythmias in the evening following her second dose on October 14th 2020. The trial investigator wrote that “there was reasonable possibility that the ventricular arrhythmia was related to the study intervention [vaccine]”. However, Pfizer stated there was “not enough evidence to establish causal relationship”. This was despite arrhythmia being one of the adverse events of special interest (AESI) listed by Pfizer in its analysis of post-authorisation adverse event reports.
Another example is a 48 year-old woman known as subject #11781107, who developed lymphadenopathy with “at least four enlarged lymph nodes” in the period immediately after receiving her first (and only, as she withdrew owing to the adverse event) dose of the vaccine. The hospital oncologist stated the vaccine was the “most likely etiology [cause] for her lymphadenopathy” and the trial investigator said “there was a reasonable possibility that the lymphadenopathy was related to the study intervention”. However, once again, “Pfizer did not concur”.
This is another case where the adverse effect should have been anticipated, as toxicity studies in rats (contained in another of the Pfizer trial documents released under the court order) showed an “increased size of draining iliac lymph nodes”, meaning Pfizer was well aware of the possibility. Subsequently, a study published in Cell has shown that spike protein and mRNA from the Covid vaccines persist in human lymph nodes up to eight weeks post-vaccination.
These reports add to the accumulating evidence that adverse events in the trials were not fully or properly investigated and recorded, giving a potentially misleading picture of the vaccines’ safety. Such evidence includes the disturbing stories of Maddie de Garay, a 12 year-old girl who was left nearly blind and suffering daily seizures shortly after receiving the vaccine during the Pfizer trial, an injury which Pfizer recorded as unrelated “abdominal pain”, and Augusto Roux, who was hospitalised with heart inflammation which the hospital doctor wrote was an adverse reaction to the vaccine but which was recorded by Pfizer as unrelated “bilateral pneumonia”. In addition, Danish investigators have found that more people died in the vaccine arms of the mRNA trials than in the control arms. The need for proper investigation by the medical authorities into the safety of the Covid vaccines remains as urgent as ever.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Obviously quantitative easing and ultra low interest rates are terrible for long term economic prosperity but the idea that Mark Carney is the one who did it is ridiculous.
Every central bank in the world has been doing this, and not because they were following the lead of the Bank of England.
Don’t get me wrong, I have no respect and make no apologies for the technocrats and bureaucrats that deem to govern us. They’re all a bunch of puffed up, clueless, career chasers as far as I’m concerned.
But the real reason we have insane monetary policy is because we live in a debt ridden world that nobody wants to face up to. And as the ball of debt gets bigger and bigger, the policies just have to become more extreme.
Modern western societies are economically unsustainable. The state tries to offer far too many services that are economically unviable. Western populations are addicted to these unsustainable services and would revolt the moment anyone tries to take them away.
So we’re stuck with it until it collapses, coming up with ever more outlandish tricks to stay ahead of the growing snow ball of debt bearing down on us.
Quantitative easing and ultra low interest rates are such tricks, The idea this is Mark Carney’s doing is, as I say, ridiculous. It’s everyone’s doing. Mark Carney is just one of a number of self elevated people who are willing to do society’s bidding and pretend for a while he’s somehow doing something for us.
You have got to be kidding me. Seems JSO ( Just Sod Off! ) have changed their tactics. If these individuals aren’t banged up in a police cell by now then that’s further proof that the law is an ass.
https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1710687019389661205
Looks like the break down of law and order in the US is spilling over in the UK.
What is happening here? Are they destroying the pumps?
The failures by the police are deliberate. In this instance this is appears to be criminal damage so if plod fail to act then the question must be why.
The issue here is not necessarily a failure of the law but a failure of those paid to invoke it that is the problem.
I suspect that is the first time that floppy haired they/them has ever picked up a hammer.
NET ZERO harms everyone and everything. It is worse than the problem it is supposed to be solving. Yet here in the UK we have forced ourselves in law to do this with not a single question of cost/ benefit ever being asked. mmmmmmmmmm. A Cautionary Tale.
Most of the centre right challenger parties manifesto promise is to scrap Net Zero. They deserve our support.