Tag: vaccine injury

Behind Closed Doors vs. Public Messaging: What Health Officials Knew—and What They Didn’t Say

The FDA knew the COVID shots would kill and maim countless Americans.

They kept injecting anyway.

One government employee tried to sound the alarm about “49 examples” of deadly side effects that conventional safety analyses weren’t detecting.

She was shut down.

Her name was Dr. Ana Szarfman.

On March 1, 2021, less than three months after the rollout of the COVID-19 injections, Dr. Ana Szarfman, an employee at CDER and safety data mining developer, warned that the FDA’s existing system could hide vaccine safety signals due to a flaw called “masking.”

She proposed a newer method developed by statistician Dr. William DuMouchel that corrected for this issue and, when applied, detected “49 examples of extreme masking” that the standard system did not.

These “49 examples of extreme masking” include not “minor” but serious adverse events:

• Bell’s palsy

• Cardiac failure

• Acute left ventricular failure

• Agonal rhythm (severe end-of-life arrhythmia)

• Pulmonary infarction

• Cerebral artery occlusion

• Aortic stenosis

• Sudden cardiac death

• Hypertensive emergency

• Basal ganglia stroke

When Dr. Szarfman proposed a new method, she was told to “hold off on creating and sending data mining reports and analyses.”

Later, they “made it clear” that she “needs to focus on her assigned work” and “should not be discussing or providing internal analyses externally.”

Keep reading

The Vaccine Safety Signal the Media Still Won’t Read

The serious-adverse-event signal found in the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Covid-19 vaccine trials has been in the peer-reviewed literature for nearly four years. Mainstream media outlets, on the rare occasions they address it, have treated it not as evidence to be weighed but as misinformation to be managed — dismissed on the authority of experts without relevant expertise, or simply ignored. A recent BBC Radio 4 broadcast is a near-textbook example.

The broadcast aired on Everything Is Fake and Nobody Cares, a BBC Radio 4 series hosted by Jamie Bartlett, whose stated purpose is to ask why, in so much of modern life, fakery is no longer punished but rewarded. It is a reasonable question. The most direct answer the series has produced to date appears inside one of its own episodes.

In the episode in question, Bartlett devoted his broadcast to Dr. Aseem Malhotra and Covid-19 vaccine safety. As part of that segment, he aired a specific claim about a peer-reviewed paper I led, published in the journal Vaccine in September 2022. To evaluate Dr. Malhotra’s on-air statements, Bartlett brought in Dr. Vicky Male, a reproductive immunologist at Imperial College London. Dr. Male told listeners that the authors of the paper had been “specifically told to make it clear this paper should not be used” to support the kinds of claims Dr. Malhotra was making.

That statement is not true. No one told us that. The paper does not contain such an instruction. I am one of its authors; I have the peer review correspondence; I know what the journal asked of us and what it did not. Anyone could have checked this in five minutes by reading the paper, which runs eight pages and is open-access online. Jamie Bartlett did not check.

On the basis of an unchecked false claim about a scientific paper, Bartlett told his audience that Dr. Malhotra was spreading false information — on a podcast whose central premise is that modern life now rewards exactly this kind of thing.

Whether that reflected willful dishonesty or plain incompetence, I cannot say. The case that follows lays out what happened in enough detail for readers to decide for themselves. Both possibilities reflect poorly on a national broadcaster. Only one of them would be excusable.

Keep reading

Senator Finds More Evidence Federal Officials Evaded FOIA

A U.S. senator and his team say they have uncovered additional evidence that federal officials worked to evade requests made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Several emails obtained by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) showed personnel with the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were aware of FOIA requests and sought to evade them. FOIA enables people to request records from the government. It requires officials to retain and produce requested records, subject to certain exemptions.

In a Nov. 26, 2022, missive, Allison Lale, a medical officer with the CDC, asked a colleague about receiving safety analyses of COVID-19 vaccination from the FDA.

Pedro Moro, a CDC epidemiologist, responded. “I think that because of the FOIAs we may have asked FDA to stop sending these weekly data mining outputs,” Moro wrote.

“Oh interesting,” Lale said. She added that during calls for a CDC-managed program, “we used to just verbally mention” that certain terms had not triggered safety signals, or signs vaccines were causing problems.

“But we could also leave it out if that [sic] this creates more hassle,” she added.

In a separate email chain, FDA officials were told by an FDA vaccine safety analytic expert, Dr. Ana Szarfman, that the approach they were using to analyze the safety of COVID-19 vaccines was faulty. The information sparked a long discussion, during which officials considered asking the expert to contact an outside expert on the matter.

“Before we potentially reach out to Ana, we should meet internally – many considerations not suited to email…” David Menschik, an FDA official who distributed the data mining reports, wrote on April 15, 2021.

“Sounds good,” Bethany Baer, another FDA worker, responded. “Happy to meet and discuss anytime open on my calendar.”

Keep reading

COVID Vaccine Hearing Exposes Deliberate Blind Eye to ‘Overwhelming Evidence of Harm’

For four years, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) has wondered how US health officials could ignore “overwhelming evidence of harm” from the COVID vaccine.

“Now I know,” he says.

The truth is, health officials didn’t “ignore” safety signals. They buried them instead.

And now we have the receipts:

The US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations investigated what federal health officials knew and when they knew it—and dug out a timeline that would make any American furious.

This is not a fringe “conspiracy theory.” It was revealed by the government’s own investigation—and it’s a story they don’t want you to read.

According to VAERS, the US’s vaccine adverse event reporting system, more adverse events and deaths have been reported following COVID vaccines than from all other vaccines combined over the system’s 30+ year history.

More dangerous than ivermectin. More dangerous than hydroxychloroquine (which turned out not to be so dangerous after all).

It was 55 times more deadly than the flu vaccine (0.46 deaths vs 25.5 deaths per million doses).

And even more dangerous than Remdesivir, which earned the nickname “Run Death Is Near” after it wreaked havoc on the kidneys and livers of tens of thousands of COVID patients in the hospital.

But still the question remains. How did US health officials miss a safety signal this big?

Keep reading

‘An Obvious Cover Up,’ as Biden Health Officials Ignored COVID-19 Shot Safety Concerns

Officials at the Food and Drug Administration were well aware of serious safety issues associated with COVID-19 shots in early 2021, yet they intentionally overlooked these concerns.

During a Senate hearing on April 29, at minute mark 17:14, a bombshell interim report was made public by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), who serves as the Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI). The 39-page document is titled “Unmasked: How Biden Health Officials Purposely Turned a Blind Eye Toward COVID-19 Vaccine Signals.”

In the hearing, Sen. Johnson challenged listeners to “determine for yourself how the title is as accurate as it is incriminating.” He said the report includes “evidence of how federal health officials avoided creating a paper trail to prevent transparency and public disclosure in discussing how they’ve been warned of a major limitation of the FDA’s data mining system.” Because of this hearing, indisputable evidence has now emerged that FDA officials were concealing what they already knew.

Thanks to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Sen. Johnson said, “a clear picture of an obvious cover-up by federal health officials.”

Keep reading

Leaked FDA Memo Shows Feds Masked Sudden Cardiac Deaths in Our Children Says Senator Ron Johnson

Senator Ron Johnson raised concerns during an exchange with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. regarding a memo he said originated from a senior official within the Food and Drug Administration, describing findings tied to child deaths following COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations.

Johnson said the memo was “apparently from CBER director, Doctor Prasad,” and referenced its contents as part of an FDA review.

He stated the document described an internal analysis involving “96 autopsies of child death following the covid mRNA injection.”

According to Johnson, the memo included language he described as significant in acknowledging outcomes tied to the vaccines.

“In that memo, Doctor Persad writes, this is a profound revelation,” Johnson said.

He continued, “For the first time, the US FDA will acknowledge that covid 19 vaccines killed American children, healthy young children who face tremendously low risk of death.”

Johnson added that these children were “coerced at the behest of the Biden administration via school and work mandates to receive a vaccine that could result in death.”

Johnson said the memo raised questions about the impact of pandemic-era mandates. “In many cases, such mandates were harmful,” he said.

Keep reading

Elon Musk Reveals COVID Vaccine Injury After Former Pfizer Official Admits Shots Likely Killed Tens of Thousands in Germany

In an X post that went viral Sunday, Elon Musk said he “felt like I was dying” and almost went to the hospital after taking his second COVID-19 vaccine.

Musk was responding to an X post about how Dr. Helmut Sterz, Pfizer’s former chief toxicologist, admitted last month during a German COVID-19 Inquiry that an estimated 60,000 people have died in Germany from Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, Comirnaty.

According to Sterz, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, Germany’s regulatory and research institute for vaccines and biomedicines, has received 2,133 reports of death following Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

He said, “These spontaneous reports likely have a high number of unreported cases due to underreporting. The true number is therefore much higher.”

“In the U.S., it is assumed that there is an underreporting factor of 30 by which the registered cases would have to be multiplied. For Germany, this would correspond to 60,000 deaths from the vaccination,” Sterz said.

Sterz told the German commissioners that Pfizer’s post-marketing report mentioned 1,200 suspected deaths within just two months of the shot’s approval.

“At that point, Comirnaty should have been withdrawn from the market,” Sterz said.

Pfizer skipped key safety studies due to ‘time constraints’

Sterz also testified that “due to time constraints,” Pfizer didn’t conduct vital safety checks on its COVID-19 vaccine before rolling it out to the public. For instance, the vaccine maker skipped carcinogenicity studies that would have examined whether the shots had cancer-causing properties.

Pfizer also failed to study the vaccine’s impact on pregnancy.

Sterz called for a new and independent scientific review of the COVID-19 vaccines’ long-term effects. “We need proper independent safety studies to understand what really happened. Without full transparency, people will not trust the conclusions,” he said, according to GB News.

He said the high number of negative side effects associated with the vaccines warrants pausing them, and other vaccines that use similar technology, until independent studies show they are safe.

Keep reading

MHRA study on covid vaccine injuries: The numbers buried inside it deserved rather more attention

One in seven. That is the proportion of people in the MHRA’s own actively recruited surveillance cohort who reported a medically serious adverse reaction following covid vaccination. Over half reported at least one reaction of any kind. The data were collected between 2020 and 2022. They were not published until September 2025, and only then because Cheryl Grainger, through a Freedom of Information  (“FoI”) request and subsequent Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) appeal, forced it out.

The paper that eventually appeared, in the journal Drug Safety, was not written as a safety paper. It was written as a description of the digital platform used to collect the data – a methods paper published five months after Dame June Raine left as chief executive, nearly three years after the data were locked. The actual adverse reaction rates are reported but not analysed. The one stratification that could determine whether those rates are real was not performed.

The numbers buried inside it deserved rather more attention.

What the Data Show

The Yellow Card Vaccine Monitor (“YCVM”) was the MHRA’s premium data source. It was one of four pillars of its covid vaccine safety surveillance strategy. Unlike the passive Yellow Card scheme, where people report voluntarily and sporadically, the YCVM actively recruited people and followed them up at set intervals. The MHRA itself described it as a tool to “rapidly detect, confirm, characterise and quantify new risks.”

Of the 30,281 individuals who reported receiving a vaccination, 15,764 (52.1%) reported at least one adverse reaction. 4,134 (13.7%) reported a reaction classified as medically serious under the MedDRA system. This is a regulatory classification that includes events deemed medically significant by an internal MHRA panel and is broader than the lay meaning of “serious,” but not a trivial threshold. It encompasses hospitalisation, disability, life-threatening outcomes and death, but also other events judged clinically important.

However, the 13.7% might include people who volunteered for the monitor becausethey had been injured. The MHRA did not exclude people signing up afterthey had their vaccine.

The key question is how representative this cohort was. Any voluntary cohort, even an actively recruited one, may over-represent people who experienced problems. Other active surveillance systems internationally have reported lower rates, though none has been free of similar methodological limitations. The true rate is unknown – which is precisely the problem.

The YCVM was meant to be designed to quantify risk in a way passive surveillance could not because of reporting bias. However, the key simple analysis to enable interpretation was not done. The question is not whether 13.7% is the true rate of serious harm. The question is why the MHRA did not do the work to find out what the true rate is.

The Cohort It Did Not Analyse

The paper reports 35.6% registered before vaccination and 47.5% after. A further group registered on the same day, but the paper does not quantify it. Even allowing for this, the categories as presented account for only 83.1% of the cohort, leaving 16.9%, over 5,000 people, unclassified. The paper does not explain the gap.

The pre-vaccination and same-day registrants are the key group. They signed up before or at the point of vaccination, not in response to a bad reaction. Their data is substantially less vulnerable to post-event selection bias, which is the main challenge to the headline figures. The criticism that people with bad reactions were more motivated to register does not apply to them. They were already in the system.

The obvious analytical step is to separate these registrants and compare their Adverse Drug Reaction (“ADR”) rates to those who registered afterwards. If the prospective cohort shows substantially lower rates, the selection bias interpretation is supported and you would want to say so. If the rates are similar, the overall figures are validated and you would want to say that too. If the rates are lower, then that is the rate that is of interest and should be published. In any case, the comparison is critical and should have been presented.

The MHRA did not present the comparison. In a 21-page paper with 13 tables, this stratification – the single most important analysis for interpreting the headline findings – does not appear. I have submitted an FoI request for this data.

Keep reading

Possible Link Between RSV Vaccine During Pregnancy and Health Problems: Study

Pfizer’s vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) may be associated with certain health problems in pregnant women, including hypertensive disorders, researchers said in a study published on April 21.

Ashley Michnick, a research scientist at Harvard Medical School, and researchers with Pfizer and other entities analyzed data from five systems, including CVS Health and Kaiser Permanente Northwest.

They analyzed pregnancies that occurred from Sept. 22, 2023, through Aug. 9, 2024, and found that pregnant mothers received Pfizer’s vaccine between 32 and 36 weeks of gestation. The number of included pregnancies was 13,619.

Compared with pregnant women who received a different vaccine, such as an influenza shot, during the same gestational weeks during the study period, the women who received the RSV vaccine were more likely to have pregnancy-associated hypertensive disorders, such as inpatient gestational hypertension.

The risk was also higher when the RSV vaccine recipients were compared with women who had given birth in previous years, or a historical comparator group.

The researchers also recorded an elevated risk for premature rupture of membranes among RSV vaccine recipients.

Keep reading

A Reckoning Is Underway At The FDA

For months, a quiet battle has been unfolding inside the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

It began with an analysis of child deaths after Covid vaccination, followed by strategic leaks to major media outlets, and has now erupted into the open with a memo from the regulator’s own vaccine chief.

In September, it was reported that FDA officials had privately investigated 25 paediatric deaths following Covid vaccination — the first systematic review of such cases since the rollout began.

The findings were meant to be presented to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). But the presentation never came. The meeting passed without a word. Something had happened behind closed doors.

Now we know what.

On 13 November 2025, STAT published an extraordinary insider account describing a tense internal meeting in which FDA scientist Dr Tracy Beth Høeg presented evidence of young people who had died after Covid vaccination.

According to STAT, her findings triggered pushback from career FDA regulators who feared the implications of acknowledging fatal cases.

Now, comes the explosive memo from FDA vaccine chief Dr Vinay Prasad, confirming — for the first time — that US regulators have formally attributed at least 10 of these children’s deaths to Covid vaccination.

Prasad called it “a profound revelation” with far-reaching implications for American vaccine policy, adding that the true number is “certainly an underestimate.”

Here, I’ll take you through the memo, the leaks, the internal rebellion at FDA, and what this means — not just for Covid vaccines, but for all vaccine approvals going forward.

This story marks a turning point in US vaccine regulation.

Keep reading