Pfizer Vaccine Reaction Report Shows 1,223 Deaths in First 90 Days
Damage control incoming. Lessons from the 1976 swine flu vaccine.
A group called Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency has obtained some initial documents from the FDA on the Pfizer vaccine after their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
The document you want to read is here.
As you can see from Table 1, a total of 1,223 fatalities were reported in 42,086 adverse reactions. We don’t know how many adverse reactions per shot given, because they’ve removed the number of vaccines given out. They have also redacted the exact number of staff members Pfizer brought on to handle the high numbers of reports.
A Twitter user @iGNORANTCHiMP got a lot of attention yesterday for commenting on these numbers – I checked the thread today and Twitter has already suspended the account. Boo hiss!
You can still read some of the replies to the thread here.
So what struck me about this Pfizer report was what they actually admitted about these numbers (emphasis mine):
Reports are submitted voluntarily, and the magnitude of underreporting is unknown. Some of the factors that may influence whether an event is reported include: length of time since marketing, market share of the drug, publicity about a drug or an AE, seriousness of the reaction, regulatory actions, awareness by health professionals and consumers of adverse drug event reporting, and litigation.
Because many external factors influence whether or not an AE is reported, the spontaneous reporting system yields reporting proportions not incidence rates. As a result, it is generally not appropriate to make between-drug comparisons using these proportions; the spontaneous reporting system should be used for signal detection rather than hypothesis testing.
So they actually know and acknowledge that adverse reactions may be underreported, but that they are giving us signals. So why isn’t anyone following up on these obvious signals?
Don’t just tell me they could be coincidental deaths. I want actual investigations, autopsies, and thorough follow up. Until you do that, pardon me for being skeptical and avoiding your shot.
Why the 1976 Swine Flu Vaccine Was Taken Off the Market
The 1976 swine flu vaccine was taken off the market quickly after reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome, and a number of deaths. So why aren’t the covid vaccines being pulled off the market?
I actually remember watching a news report about a vaccine victim who developed Guillain-Barré syndrome after the swine flu vaccine...probably back in the 1990s. The image of the young woman who could not walk without jerking around uncontrollably stuck in my mind, and it was honestly one of the main reasons I avoided a flu shot for 30 years.
(My mom also had a neurological reaction to the swine flu vaccine. Nothing life threatening or permanent, but I can say for sure those reactions weren’t all nothingburgers.)
But pro-vaccine forces have been trying to diminish this fiasco for years now. It’s hard now to find the actual number of potential deaths from the swine flu vaccines, and many so-called “neutral” articles will claim there is no connection between the vaccine and Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Here are some highlights of an analysis from the CDC Emerging Infectious Diseases Journal published in 2006 (emphasis mine):
Soon, however, NIIP received the first of 2 crippling blows to hopes to immunize "every man, woman, and child." The first was later in 1976, when instead of boxes of bottled vaccine, the vaccine manufacturers delivered an ultimatum—that the federal government indemnify them against claims of adverse reactions as a requirement for release of the vaccines. The government quickly capitulated to industry's demand for indemnification. While the manufacturers' ultimatum reflected the trend of increased litigiousness in American society, its unintended, unmistakable subliminal message blared "There's something wrong with this vaccine." This public misperception, warranted or not, ensured that every coincidental health event that occurred in the wake of the swine flu shot would be scrutinized and attributed to the vaccine.
Shortly after the national campaign began, 3 elderly persons died after receiving the vaccine in the same clinic. Although investigations found no evidence that the vaccine and deaths were causally related, press frenzy was so intense it drew a televised rebuke from Walter Cronkite for sensationalizing coincidental happenings.
What NIIP did not and could not survive, however, was the second blow, finding cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) among persons receiving swine flu immunizations…. When cases of GBS were identified among recipients of the swine flu vaccines, they were, of course, well covered by the press. Because GBS cases are always present in the population, the necessary public health questions concerning the cases among vaccine recipients were "Is the number of cases of GBS among vaccine recipients higher than would be expected? And if so, are the increased cases the result of increased surveillance or a true increase?" Leading epidemiologists debated these points, but the consensus, based on the intensified surveillance for GBS (and other conditions) in recipients of the vaccines, was that the number of cases of GBS appeared to be an excess.
Had H1N1 influenza been transmitted at that time, the small apparent risk of GBS from immunization would have been eclipsed by the obvious immediate benefit of vaccine-induced protection against swine flu. However, in December 1976, with >40 million persons immunized and no evidence of H1N1 transmission, federal health officials decided that the possibility of an association of GBS with the vaccine, however small, necessitated stopping immunization, at least until the issue could be explored. A moratorium on the use of the influenza vaccines was announced on December 16; it effectively ended NIIP of 1976.
In short, they removed the swine flu vaccine from the market in part due to public concerns thanks to media coverage of adverse reactions, and decided that the risk of the flu wasn’t great enough to justify the risk of the vaccine.
A lot of things have changed since 1976. Note how the press was actually reporting on the vaccine reactions then whereas they ignore, downplay, or censor them now.
What has changed?
In 1997, FDA rules for advertising pharmaceutical drugs on broadcast television were greatly relaxed.
While the trend towards more drug advertising had already begun prior to 1997, this decision opened up the floodgates.
I’m old enough to remember TV before drug ads. It was actually a bit shocking when they first started to appear. The list of side effects quickly spoken at the end of the commercial soon became a common joke.
Now, turn on any major network, especially a 24-hour “news” outlet like CNN, and you’ll see a large portion, if not the majority of their ads, are from big pharma.
While I’m generally not in favor of censorship, I really think this rampant drug advertising has destroyed press impartiality and is facilitating our current medical dictatorship.
Fact Checking the Fact Checkers
When I searched for “swine flu vaccine deaths” on Bing1 the first result was a “fact check” page from an organization called “Full Fact,” who claim to be “independent fact checkers.” Here’s their verdict:
Full Fact could not find a confirmed number of deaths reported after a swine flu vaccine in 1976, but reports suggest that a number of the deaths could not be directly linked with the vaccine. The rollout was halted because of a number of reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome, and the fact the swine flu cases never reached pandemic levels.
Their conclusion is mostly true, because the precise number of deaths has since been obfuscated or removed from the Internet (my take on my brief research). This is not the same, however, as saying no-one died. They are right in the reasoning behind the removal of the vaccine. But wrong everywhere else.
However, here’s the BS reasoning they use to downplay potential issues with the vaccine:
GBS is a rare condition that affects the nerves, causing problems such as numbness in the limbs, and can in some cases be life-threatening. It is thought to be caused by an issue with the immune system where the body mistakenly attacks and damages the nerves—especially after an infection such as flu, or food poisoning.
A different article, available on the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) site says that by 22 October 1976, 41 deaths amongst people who had been given the vaccine had been reported by the CDC, but there was “still no known connection to [the] vaccine”.
Deaths without a proven link to the vaccine became the focus of intense media coverage. Another article on the NCBI site points to the intense media activity surrounding the death of three elderly people who received the vaccine at the same clinic. There was no evidence the deaths were caused by the vaccine.
This is utter nonsense.
“There was no evidence” is fact check speak for “there may be some evidence, but it doesn’t come from sources we approve of, and because it’s absolutely impossible to go back in time and prove what went wrong with a human body, we can safely say it didn’t happen.”
Guillain-Barré syndrome is most definitely associated with vaccination, likely due to the adjuvants used to pump up the immune system in the vaccines. Adjuvants basically make your immune system spike in activity, which means if you have any tendency for autoimmunity, where your immune system attacks your own cells, then you could have a reaction thanks to the adjuvant. Duh.
And you want people to put mRNA into their bodies that make their cells produce the antigen that their own body is then supposed to build an immune response to? Along with an adjuvant? And you think this is going to be 100% safe? Are you crazy?
Here’s a very conservative analysis on the risk of vaccines, Vaccine Adjuvants: from 1920 to 2015 and Beyond:
In 2009, mass vaccination with new adjuvanted pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccines started in Europe. The potential risk of GBS for these new vaccines was unknown, prompting studies in Europe and internationally to assess the risk of GBS after vaccination with adjuvanted pandemic vaccines [78,79,80]. The results of these studies showed a non-statistically significant increase in GBS risk after vaccination, or an excess risk of one to three cases per million vaccinees, confirming the favorable benefit-risk profile of the vaccine.
Note the careful wording here: non-statistically significant increase vs. statistically insignificant increase. In other words, there is an increase in risk, but it’s not statistically that much different. Not quite the same as being a zero difference in risk.
However, if you are one of those three people who just got whacked with Guillain-Barré syndrome and had your nervous system destroyed, this word parsing will be of little comfort.
Who’s Funding the Fact Checkers? (Who Are Not Neutral, BTW)
Who the frell are these fact checkers anyway? Well, for one thing, it’s a lie that they are “independent.”
Right off the bat, we have a problem, because how can you possibly trust an organization blaring that “we’re independent” when their top corporate donor is FACEBOOK. Google is also a big donor.
Do y’all think we’re idiots? C’mon people.
Another top source of money for these disingenuous people is a glossy foundation, Luminate, started by one of eBay’s founders, Pierre Omidyar. From their About page (emphasis mine):
Look beyond the headlines and the past decade has delivered significant social progress. Global poverty levels are down and life expectancy is up. Hate crimes have fallen while progressive attitudes to equality are increasingly prevalent.
Trust in experts, institutions, and the media has been eroded. The spread of misinformation and the devaluation of truth have created echo chambers that are entrenching views and polarising communities. Populist politicians are exploiting this, leading to a rise in authoritarian governments and the greater prevalence of insular, nationalist perspectives.
Luminate actually claims to be working for freedom of the press. On their page about independent media:
Changes in the media market are contributing to the crisis. Dominant ad-driven models reward tech platforms such as Google and Facebook over publications and journalists. Driven by clicks, these models often favour sensationalism over considered reportage, contributing to declining trust in the media, the spread of misinformation, and the increasing polarisation of communities.
OK...so you claim to be about press freedom and despise clickbait while funding fact checkers who are beholden to censoring big tech companies like Facebook. Got it.
At any rate, these so-called independent fact checkers at Full Fact, who claim to not be taking sides, are actively taking sides. They claim to be objective while only citing sources that are pro-vaccination and skeptical of concerns.
That’s not neutrality. That’s advocacy.
Here’s how “neutral” they are. They are literally encouraging pregnant women to be vaccinated. Full Fact has set up an actual hotline to “inform” women about covid vaccines. The page includes ridiculous assertions that “There is no evidence that Covid vaccines are causing miscarriages” and “There is no evidence that Covid vaccines affect fertility.”
I dunno...it seems like the actual miscarriage data in the CDC VAERS database flies right in the face of this “no evidence” assertion.
They write this BS and then claim they aren’t telling people what to do. Riiight.
So...conspiracy or stupidity or both? I actually think the people at Luminate might believe in what they are doing. When it comes to Full Fact, I can’t tell if they are cynically manipulating everything or just so naïve and incapable of deep analysis that they can’t see past their own biases.
Thus, you can expect these blind and dumb “fact checkers” to carry water for Pfizer and totally write off the document that was just released. Hmm..1,200 deaths you say? Can’t be definitely linked to the vaccine, so no problem. That’s what they’ll say.
So predictable. And sad.
PS Thank you to my generous subscribers! This article took me a few hours to research and write up. If you would like to contribute, I have the cheapest yearly subscription set up at $30. My covid articles will remain available to the public so it’s simply a way to support my work. Also, if you like my articles, please share them. Thank you!
Free Medical Qigong & Spiritual Healing weekly at LearnItLive
Covid Vaccine Freedom Channel on Telegram
Holistic Healing Channel on Telegram
Holistic Health & Wellness Community at Locals
Uncensored Holistic Healing Community at MeWe
I’d like to note that I use Bing for most of my banal work searches simply because I can get gift cards from them...they had been a lot more neutral than Google up until recently. I’m now noticing a lot more medical propaganda in their search results. If I really want to go on a deep dive of the net, I’ll use DuckDuckGo and/or Yandex.