The numbers reflect the latest data available as of Feb. 12 from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System website. Of the 929 reported deaths, about one-third occurred within 48 hours.
According to new data released today, as of Feb. 12, 15,923 adverse reactions to COVID vaccines, including 929 deaths, have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since Dec. 14, 2020.
VAERS is the primary mechanism in the U.S. for reporting adverse vaccine reactions. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a determination can be made as to whether the reported adverse event was directly or indirectly caused by the vaccine.
The latest VAERS data show that 799 of the deaths were reported in the U.S., and that about one-third of those deaths occurred within 48 hours of the individual receiving the vaccination.
As is consistent with previous VAERS data reports, 192 of the reported deaths — or 21% — were cardiac-related. As The Defender reported earlier this month, Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist, warned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in December that mRNA vaccines like those developed by Pfizer and Moderna could cause heart attacks and other injuries in ways not assessed in safety trials.
Of the 929 deaths reported since Dec. 14, 2020, the average age of the deceased was 77.8 and the youngest was 23. Fifty-two percent of the reported deaths were among men, 45% were women and 3% are unknown. Fifty-eight percent of the deaths were reported in people who received the Pfizer vaccine, and 41% were related to the Moderna vaccine.
States with the highest reported number of deaths were: California (71); Florida (50); Ohio (38); New York (31); Kentucky (41); Michigan (31); and Texas (31).
Reports of deaths among elderly people after being vaccinated for COVID continue to surface, including the article published this week by The Defender about 46 nursing home residents in Spain who died within one month of receiving the Pfizer vaccine.
According to the latest data, 3,126 “serious” adverse reactions have been reported. Adverse reaction reports from the latest CDC data also include:
- 34 miscarriages and pre-term births
- 917 anaphylactic reactions, 70% of which were reported after a Pfizer vaccine and 30% after the Moderna vaccine
- Bell’s palsy (Pfizer 75%; Moderna: 25%)
So far, only Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — approved for emergency use, but not fully licensed — are being used in the U.S.
AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine, which does not use mRNA technology, was approved for emergency use this week by the World Health Organization, paving the way for some countries to start using it. However, as The Defender reported this week, some nations have said they won’t use it, citing safety and efficacy concerns.
FiercePharma reported today that the FDA may reject the AstraZeneca vaccine over concerns relating to efficacy, especially against new COVID variants, and manufacturing issues.
News reports indicate that a growing number of people, including nearly 30% of healthcare workers, now say they don’t want the COVID vaccine, citing safety concerns.
Meanwhile, the FDA has not yet implemented systems to monitor the safety of the experimental COVID vaccines. FDA officials told The New York Times they don’t expect the systems to be up and running before the Biden administration reaches its goal of vaccinating 100 million Americans — nearly one third of the U.S. population.
As of Feb. 19, about 56.3 million people in the U.S. had received one or both doses of a COVID vaccine.
While the VAERS database numbers may seem sobering, according to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study **, the actual number of adverse events is likely significantly higher. VAERS is a passive surveillance system that relies on the willingness of individuals to submit reports voluntarily. …
** “Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf
by Glenn Greenwald
For the third time in less than five months, the U.S. Congress has summoned the CEOs of social media companies to appear before them, with the explicit intent to pressure and coerce them to censor more content from their platforms. On March 25, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will interrogate Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, Facebooks’s Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s Sundar Pichai at a hearing which the Committee announced will focus “on misinformation and disinformation plaguing online platforms.”
The Committee’s Chair, Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), and the two Chairs of the Subcommittees holding the hearings, Mike Doyle (D-PA) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), said in a joint statement that the impetus was “falsehoods about the COVID-19 vaccine” and “debunked claims of election fraud.” They argued that “these online platforms have allowed misinformation to spread, intensifying national crises with real-life, grim consequences for public health and safety,” adding: “This hearing will continue the Committee’s work of holding online platforms accountable for the growing rise of misinformation and disinformation.”
House Democrats have made no secret of their ultimate goal with this hearing: to exert control over the content on these online platforms. “Industry self-regulation has failed,” they said, and therefore “we must begin the work of changing incentives driving social media companies to allow and even promote misinformation and disinformation.” In other words, they intend to use state power to influence and coerce these companies to change which content they do and do not allow to be published.
I’ve written and spoken at length over the past several years about the dangers of vesting the power in the state, or in tech monopolies, to determine what is true and false, or what constitutes permissible opinion and what does not. I will not repeat those points here.
Instead, the key point raised by these last threats from House Democrats is an often-overlooked one: while the First Amendment does not apply to voluntary choices made by a private company about what speech to allow or prohibit, it does bar the U.S. Government from coercing or threatening such companies to censor. In other words, Congress violates the First Amendment when it attempts to require private companies to impose viewpoint-based speech restrictions which the government itself would be constitutionally barred from imposing….