Tag: vaccines

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“At that point, Comirnaty should have been withdrawn from the market,” Sterz said.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

Canadian gov’t admits it kept data on COVID jab deaths from public over ‘privacy’ concerns

The Canadian federal government has tacitly admitted that key death data relating to the mRNA-based COVID injections were withheld from public reporting, citing supposed privacy concerns.

The Public Health Agency of Canada is defending its decision to withhold the data relating to how those who received the COVID shots and died as a result were tracked.

The revelations come from Conservative MP Dean Allison’s Order Paper Question Q-849. The health agency said it did not publish weekly COVID death counts, as connected to one’s jab status. The agency claimed the numbers were low and posed “privacy” risks.

Because of this, Canadians were denied key information which could have better informed them on the risks associated with the COVID shots, which were heavily promoted at all levels of government.

The Public Health Agency said it tracked COVID jab outcomes from the start, in December of 2020, when the shots were officially approved. This means that the raw data of those who died or were injured following the COVID shots should exist.

Canada’s public health officials claimed that the December 2020 date provided a “consistent starting point” for tracking jabs.

Despite this, the agency instead chose to showcase statistical modelling, through the federal COVID-19 Epidemiology and Surveillance Division, when comparing non-vaccinated people to those who had taken the jabs.

The agency claimed that it followed the World Health Organization and U.S. public health authorities’ guidance models, instead of utilizing and sharing Canada-specific data.

Canada’s government continues to purchase the COVID shots, although its own data show that most Canadians are refusing a COVID booster injection.

Canada’s Public Health Agency (PHAC) recently took over the nation’s vaccine injury compensation program, changing the name from the Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) to the Vaccine Impact Assistance Program (VIAP). The agency had admitted the COVID shots have caused harm to no less than 10,000 people.

Keep reading

FOIA Data Reveal Adverse Event Patterns in New RNA Dog Vaccine

Details from a FOIA request to the USDA have revealed severe adverse events following injection of the Nobivac NXT canine flu H3N2 vaccine, the first self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) vaccine widely used in the US for pets. The aftermarket reports received by The HighWire show the first 1,012 pages of 1,888 total pages of adverse events from September 2024 through July 2025. There were 296 cases involving the Nobivac RNA vaccine as a suspect product: 152 were adverse reactions, and 76 were listed as cases of lack of efficacy, meaning the dogs developed respiratory illness or cough after receiving the vaccine.

The dataset shows that there were four canine deaths and one feline death following vaccine administration, but two of the dog cases had significant confounding factors. The other two cases involve dogs that collapsed shortly after receiving the vaccination. In addition, three dogs were euthanized following the vaccine.

-41 cases involved neurological issues

-30 cases of anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity

-52 cases involved vomiting

-19 cases had an injection-site mass/lump/panniculitis/fibrosis/surgery

-26 cases of diarrhea

-5 cases of collapse/shock-type presentations

-4 cases of bloody diarrhea

A 4-year-old golden retriever collapsed 10 minutes after the vaccination, before going into complete cardiac arrest and dying. Merck added anaphylaxis to the report later. A 7-year-old Yorkshire Terrier collapsed 70 minutes after receiving the vaccine, and life-saving care was attempted, but the dog passed away. Diphenhydramine and dexamethasone sodium phosphate were given to the terrier because of previous unspecified vaccine reactions. In addition to the Nobivac flu shot, the 7.33-pound terrier received the Nobivac Canine 1-DAPPvL4 and Nobivac Intra-Trac3 vaccines.

An 8-year-old Shih Tzu was lethargic and vomiting shortly after receiving the vaccination. She was diagnosed with renal failure six days later and euthanized. The event narrative explains that she had received several vaccinations before, including non-Nobivac flu vaccines, but had never received the Nobivac NXT canine influenza vaccine, which is the first approved saRNA vaccine in the country. Merck evaluated this case and said the vaccine was unlikely to be the cause.

saRNA vaccines have limited long-term safety data, much as mRNA vaccines did before they were rolled out to the general public in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These vaccines are marketed as “innovative, adjuvant-free, non-live vaccines” by Merck.

The first vaccine of its kind was approved by the USDA in 2024 and received limited coverage, but Nicolas Hulscher, MPH of the McCullough Foundation, criticized the lack of safety testing and the manufacturer’s level of transparency.

“It appears that Merck is attempting to camouflage the fact that this product is self-amplifying,” Hulscher wrote. “The primary product description only indicates that it uses ‘revolutionary RNA particle technology.’ However, the novel platform works by RNA particles targeting dendritic cells, where they self-replicate and result in sustained antigen production.“

Keep reading

Application Denied: Another Dive into the Failures of Military Bureaucracy and COVID-19 Mandate Relief

On September 23, 2021, an active-duty Air Force officer who has served for 18 years submitted a request for a religious accommodation for the COVID-19 shot mandate. Four and a half years later, there is still derogatory paperwork in his personnel file, leaving him ineligible or significantly disadvantaged for all career advancement and more.

This story provides an update on developments from September 2025 and March 2026, reinforcing J.M. Phelps’ assertion that the Board of Correction of Military Records (BCMR) is “ineffective” and frequently highlights the widespread “bureaucratic malfeasance” within the military institution, providing little more than a “half measure” to service members, as in the case of Air Force Captain Anthony Monteleone.

Furthermore, concerning Air Force BCMR (AFBCMR), the situation underscores how their decisions are a direct affront to the goals of President Donald Trump and Department of War (DOW) Pete Hegseth to restore the military.

Case in point: On April 3, 2026, AFBCMR issued a “finding” that flatly denied any relief whatsoever to Capt. Monteleone. Given the overwhelming mountain of evidence reviewed by J.M. Phelps and provided to the Board, one can only conclude that the Board continues to undermine the efforts of President Trump and his appointees within the Department of War. This bureaucratic obstruction appears aimed at continuing the denial of mandated relief to those who suffered under the military’s unlawfully enforced COVID-19 shot mandate, which was rescinded in January 2023.

Mr. Richard Anderson, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserves, representing the AFBCMR and operating under the full delegated authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, stated that when it comes to Capt. Monteleone’s case, “the [AFBCMR] determined there was insufficient evidence of error or injustice. Accordingly, your application is denied.”

Sadly, for the author of this article, Mr. Anderson’s statement brings to mind the idiom, “If I had a dollar for every time I heard that.”

The Board’s stated reasoning behind this decision was that, although the entire mandate was ruled unlawful, the guidance from Undersecretary of War for Personnel and Readiness, Anthony Tata, to the branch BCMRs did not specifically state that all [emphasis mine] service members harmed by the entire COVID-19 mandate must be granted relief. Instead, in their interpretation [emphasis mine], his guidance indicates that only those punished for solely refusing the order to take the shot itself were eligible for remediation under the guidance.

Keep reading

Appeals court upholds West Virginia vaccine mandate, denies religious exemption

A federal appeals court ruled that West Virginia can enforce its school vaccine mandate without offering religious exemptions, overturning a lower court decision that had allowed an unvaccinated student to remain enrolled in an online public school.

In a 2-1 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit found the state’s vaccination requirement does not violate the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom.

The case was brought by Anthony and Krystle Perry on behalf of their daughter, who was enrolled in West Virginia Virtual Academy but was later disenrolled after officials determined she was not fully vaccinated. The parents argued vaccination conflicted with their Christian beliefs and sought a religious exemption, which state law does not provide.

West Virginia is one of a small number of states that do not allow religious exemptions for school vaccine requirements.

A lower court had previously sided with the family and issued an injunction allowing the child to continue attending school while the case proceeded. The appeals court reversed that decision, ruling the parents are unlikely to succeed on their constitutional claim.

Legal experts cited in the case said the ruling does not reflect what they describe as a shifting legal landscape around religious exemptions. They pointed to recent Supreme Court decisions that they say require courts to apply a higher standard, known as “strict scrutiny,” when evaluating such claims.

Keep reading

Pro-Vaccine Panelists: ‘We’re Losing the PR and Communications Battle’

The medical industry is losing control of the vaccine narrative, according to participants in a webinar moderated by Chelsea Clinton and organized by Unity Consortium — a group of pharmaceutical companies and pro-vaccine organizations.

Vaccine makers GSK, Merck and Sanofi, along with Big Tech platforms Reddit and Snapchat, and Spanish-language media giant Televisa Univision sponsored Wednesday’s event: “Who Influences Young People’s Health Choices? The New Conversations About Vaccines.”

Unity Consortium lists Pfizer, Merck, GSK and Sanofi among its members. Vaccine inventor Dr. Paul Offit is a member of its board of directors.

During the hour-long conversation, Clinton and the panelists criticized the growing number of parents and teens who are starting to question the safety of vaccines. They blamed the trend on increased access to what they characterized as online “misinformation” — and on organizations like Children’s Health Defense (CHD).

“What’s different today … is that people have access to a lot more information,” said Dr. Margot Savoy, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Family Physicians. “The part that makes me nervous is that, more and more, we’re getting into this odd space where people are feeling a little more polarized.”

Jessica Steier, founder and CEO of Unbiased Science and author of “The Playbook Used to ‘Prove’ Vaccines Cause Autism,” said pro-vaccine voices are “losing the PR and communications battle.”

Elisabeth Marnik, Ph.D., executive director of The Evidence Collective and author of “I Grew Up Unvaccinated. Now I’m an Immunologist,” said the circulation of and public access to such information is “one of the hardest parts about social media.”

“The more somebody sees these false claims circulating, the more likely they are to start to question their own understanding. And that’s one of the dangers of social media,” Marnik said. She said that parents’ decisions not to vaccinate their children are “a product of [this] information ecosystem.”

Clinton suggested that the ecosystem acts as a barrier to sustaining trust in the medical profession and public health. “The algorithms are part of the challenge of both … the corrosion of trust and … the barriers to replenishing and sustaining that trust,” Clinton said.

According to Marnik, the public health establishment is losing public trust because “public health and science aren’t always good storytellers.” The “anti-vaccine side” is “really good at spreading these stories that are really compelling and very scary and [that] can motivate people in ways that are harmful.”

Keep reading

There are no exemptions to informed consent

On 16 March, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and President of the National Vaccine Information Centre (“NVIC”), gave a presentation on informed consent ethic to Florida Department of Health employees. 

Titled ‘The Informed Consent Principle: A Guide for Public Health Policy and Medical Ethics’, Loe Fisher began her presentation with a video of a debate she had with a medical doctor from Johns Hopkins University about mandatory vaccination in 1997.

The text of her presentation has been published on the NVIC website HERE. The following are some highlights from the presentation.

The 1997 debate Loe Fisher had with a medical doctor was the first time the subject of informed consent to medical risk-taking was discussed on national television.  It was also the first time it was suggested that there is a possible link between the administration of multiple vaccines in early childhood and increases in chronic disease and disability among children.

The US vaccine safety and informed consent movement was launched in 1982 by parents of DPT vaccine-injured children.  The world of vaccines has changed dramatically since 1982: there are more college-educated parents today who conduct their own research and so are aware of the risks of vaccination, particularly during the response to the covid pandemic, where they were exposed to lockdowns, mandatory masking, online censorship about the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and mandatory use of an mRNA biological product that was labelled a vaccine.

The covid vaccine not only failed to prevent infection, but it is also associated with an enormous number of suspected injuries.  The covid vaccination campaign resulted in over 1.6 million covid vaccine adverse event reports, including heart and brain inflammation and death, being made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (“VAERS”), Loe Fisher said.

Despite this, many doctors still dismiss vaccine reactions as “normal” or “coincidental” and unrelated to the vaccination just given.

It’s no surprise then that there isa serious crisis of trust in public health policy and law, with public perception of the safety and effectiveness of vaccination and the wisdom of mandatory vaccination laws being challenged at the grassroots level.

It’s not just covid vaccines that are being eyed by the public with scepticism.

“There are questions about whether atypically manipulating the immune system to mount inflammatory responses over and over again by giving multiple doses of vaccines in early childhood and throughout life could be an important co-factor in the rise in chronic disease and disability in our society,” Loe Fisher said.

“There are unresolved issues discussed in the medical literature, such as asymptomatic infection and transmission of pertussis and measles in highly vaccinated populations that give evidence for waning immunity and also the evolution of microbes into vaccine-resistant strains.

“These facts are being debated even as efforts by-industry backed corporations to censor those conversations in the digital public square continues in this country and in Europe.”

She then explained why measles vaccines are ineffective and unnecessary, which we haven’t gone into here.  You can read about this beginning with the section of her presentation titled ‘Reported Cases of Measles: There’s More to the Story’.

Keep reading