“No Known Cure” - Vaccine Injured: The Battle Against Big Pharma and The Government | PBD Podcast
In this episode of the PBD Podcast, personal accounts from individuals like Brianne Dressen and Kyle Warner detail the severe neurological and autoimmune reactions they experienced after receiving COVID-19 vaccines. The discussion examines the challenges faced by those reporting vaccine injuries, including insufficient government support, lack of proper compensation programs, and legal immunity granted to pharmaceutical companies.
While bodies like the NIH initially investigated vaccine adverse events, many vaccine-injured individuals feel abandoned as research efforts waned. The podcast explores the uphill battle they face in seeking medical answers and adequate compensation, shedding light on a complex issue often overshadowed in the mainstream discourse on vaccine safety.
This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Jul 19, 2024 episode of the PBD Podcast
Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
1-Page Summary
Personal experiences of vaccine injuries
The article details severe adverse reactions reported by individuals like Brianne Dressen and Kyle Warner after receiving COVID-19 vaccines.
Brianne Dressen
Dressen, a preschool teacher in the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine trial, developed debilitating neurological symptoms like tingling, vision issues, and sound sensitivity immediately after vaccination. Despite extensive testing, no diagnosis emerged. Dressen founded React 19, connecting over 36,000 Americans with similar post-vaccination issues.
Kyle Warner
Former professional mountain biker Warner experienced heart inflammation after the Pfizer vaccine. Warner and Dressen note cases of concerning neurological and autoimmune reactions in the "vaccine-injured" community, including paralysis - more common than officially acknowledged.
Government and pharma company responses
NIH initially studied vaccine injuries, then stopped
The NIH began researching serious vaccine adverse events in January 2021, with Dressen as patient #1. However, the NIH eventually ceased communicating with patients and halted support, privately aiding some while publicly downplaying prevalence, according to Dressen.
Pharma companies unresponsive to vaccine-injured
Dressen, the first to sue AstraZeneca over her injuries, claims they offered her insufficient payments to avoid obligations. AstraZeneca cited "low demand" rather than safety issues when discontinuing their vaccine.
Challenges seeking compensation
The CICP compensation program lacks due process
The government's Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) has rejected 99.5% of claims - including Warner's for being a day late - and offers no legal representation, appeals, or hearings. In contrast, federal employees have a 23% approval rate.
Pharma companies protected from liability
Vaccine makers like AstraZeneca have legal immunity under the PREP Act. This has spurred lawsuits challenging the CICP and PREP Act's constitutionality, but courts remain lenient on pharma liability.
1-Page Summary
Additional Materials
Counterarguments
- The adverse events described are rare and the vast majority of people vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines do not experience serious side effects.
- The NIH may have ceased communication due to a lack of new findings or evidence suggesting that the adverse events were not as widespread as initially feared.
- Pharmaceutical companies are required to follow strict reporting and compensation guidelines, and their responses may be limited by legal and regulatory frameworks.
- The CICP's high rejection rate could be due to stringent criteria designed to ensure that only claims with clear evidence of causation by the vaccine are compensated.
- The 23% approval rate for federal employees may reflect differences in the nature of the claims or the evidence provided, rather than an inherent bias in the system.
- Legal immunity under the PREP Act is intended to encourage vaccine development during public health emergencies by protecting companies from excessive litigation, which could otherwise hinder rapid vaccine availability.
- Courts may be lenient on pharma liability to balance the need for vaccine development with the rights of individuals, considering the broader public health context.
Actionables
- You can educate yourself on vaccine injury reporting systems to make informed decisions by researching the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and understanding how to report potential side effects. This knowledge can help you advocate for yourself or others if you encounter adverse reactions, ensuring that such events are documented and can be reviewed by health professionals.
- Create a personal health journal to track any changes or symptoms following medical procedures, including vaccinations. Note dates, symptoms, and severity to provide a detailed account to healthcare providers if necessary. This can be crucial for identifying patterns that may warrant further medical investigation.
- Engage with local community health initiatives to raise awareness about the importance of transparent communication between patients and healthcare providers. By participating in community health forums or local health advocacy groups, you can contribute to a culture of open dialogue, which can help ensure that concerns about medical treatments are taken seriously and addressed appropriately.
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Personal experiences of vaccine injuries
The article details the harrowing experiences of individuals who have reported severe adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination, specifically highlighting the stories of Brianne Dressen and Kyle Warner.
Brianne Dressen, a preschool teacher, participated in the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial and experienced severe neurological symptoms shortly after receiving the shot.
Dressen felt privileged to participate in the clinical trial, believing in vaccines due to her background in health and science. Immediately after getting the shot during the AstraZeneca clinical trial conducted by Velocity Clinical Research on November 4th, she developed tingling in her arm, which rapidly progressed to significant symptoms including blurry and double vision.
Brianne immediately developed tingling, vision issues, and sensitivity to sound that worsened over time, leaving her bedridden for months.
Within an hour of the injection, Dressen experienced tingling down her arm, vision problems and heightened sensitivity to sound. Over time, she became unable to walk and isolated in her room, bedridden for months, living with symptoms so severe that they prevented her from eating and sleeping. Dressen became the first case examined for adverse reactions by the NIH but despite extensive medical tests, no clear diagnosis emerged. When she reported her injury, she was promised support that never materialized, leading to refinanced house and hired assistance.
Despite extensive medical testing, no clear diagnosis was found, and Brianne struggled to get answers and support from the vaccine trial organizers and medical professionals.
Dressen has now connected with over 36,000 Americans through her organization, React 19, who face similar issues post-vaccination. Her ongoing symptoms lead her husband, a PhD chemist, to consult with scientists globally for explanations.
Kyle Warner, a former professional mountain biker, also experienced adverse reactions like heart inflammation after receiving the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
Warner, after experiencing heart inflammation that he suggests may have been due to his immune system going into hyperdrive, raises awareness for vaccine injuries along with Dresse ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Personal experiences of vaccine injuries
Additional Materials
Counterarguments
- The experiences of individuals like Brianne Dressen and Kyle Warner, while significant and deserving of attention, are anecdotal and may not represent the overall safety and efficacy profile of the COVID-19 vaccines, which have been administered to millions of people worldwide.
- Adverse reactions such as those described are typically rare, and the benefits of vaccination in preventing COVID-19 infection, transmission, and severe outcomes are well-documented.
- The medical community continues to study and monitor vaccine safety, and while some individuals may experience side effects, these instances are closely tracked through systems like VAERS in the United States to ensure that vaccines remain safe for the general population.
- The lack of a clear diagnosis in Brianne Dressen's case does not necessarily imply causation by the vaccine, as correlation does not equal causation, and other underlying factors could be at play.
- The term "more common than officially acknowledged" regarding neurological and autoimmune reactions is subjective and would require robust epidemiological data to substantiate, which may not be provided in the tex ...
Actionables
- You can document your health experiences in a personal journal to track any changes following medical procedures or vaccinations. By keeping a detailed record of your symptoms, their onset, and progression, you create a valuable resource for healthcare providers to reference, which may aid in diagnosis and treatment. For example, note the date and time of any new symptoms, rate their severity, and describe how they impact your daily life.
- Develop a personal emergency plan in case of unexpected health issues, including a list of contacts for healthcare professionals, a summary of your medical history, and any medications you're taking. This plan can be shared with family members or close friends so they can assist you quickly and effectively if you're unable to advocate for yourself. For instance, create a card with essential information to carry in your wallet or save an electronic copy on your phone.
- Engage in community forums or support groups onlin ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Government and pharmaceutical company responses to vaccine injuries
The response of the government and pharmaceutical companies to vaccine injuries, as experienced and recounted by Brianne, a vaccine-injured individual, reveals issues of transparency, acknowledgment, and support for those affected.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) initially worked with Brianne and others to study the vaccine injuries, but eventually stopped the research and data collection.
Brianne Dressen was part of an NIH study that began in January 2021, focusing on serious adverse events related to the COVID vaccines, with Dressen as patient number one. This study involved thorough evaluation, testing, and treatments and included patients from all vaccine brands. Suddenly, NIH representatives stopped communicating with the support groups and ceased their support, leaving the patients without further assistance.
Brianne and others felt the NIH was privately helping some injured individuals while publicly maintaining that vaccine injuries were rare.
The NIH was providing private assistance to severely affected patients on a case-by-case basis. Brianne and a group of affected individuals felt that while the NIH was actively involved in researching and treating them, the agency did not publicly acknowledge the extent of the vaccine injuries. She describes the NIH’s request to delay publicizing concerns, promising to disclose information to the public appropriately.
The NIH's lead researcher on the study, Dr. Avinder Nath, acknowledged Fauci's awareness of the research into vaccine injuries.
Dressen implies that Dr. Anthony Fauci was aware of the NIH study through Avinder Nath, a researcher below Fauci in the chain of command. An email obtained through FOIA shows discussions involving Francis Collins, the head of the NIH at the time, and references to conversations with "Tony," about the potential public release of the study's findings.
Pharmaceutical companies like AstraZeneca have been accused of being unresponsive and unhelpful to those experiencing adverse reactions.
AstraZeneca has been portrayed as distancing itself from ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Government and pharmaceutical company responses to vaccine injuries
Additional Materials
Counterarguments
- The NIH may have halted the research due to a lack of conclusive findings or a shift in research priorities as the pandemic evolved.
- Public health agencies often have to balance between not causing public alarm and providing support for those affected; the NIH's public statements might reflect this balance.
- Awareness of research by high-level officials like Dr. Fauci does not necessarily imply endorsement or agreement with preliminary findings.
- AstraZeneca's response to vaccine injuries could be constrained by legal and regulatory frameworks that dictate how pharmaceutical companies must handle adverse event reporting and compensation.
- The payments offered by AstraZeneca might be part of a standa ...
Actionables
- You can educate yourself on vaccine safety and reporting by exploring independent research studies and databases such as the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to form a well-rounded view of vaccine safety profiles.
- By doing this, you'll be able to make more informed decisions regarding your health. For example, you might compare the incidence rates of adverse reactions reported in VAERS with those discussed in various studies to see if there are discrepancies or patterns that concern you.
- You can reach out to patient advocacy groups that specialize in vaccine-related issues to share experiences and get support if you or someone you know has had an adverse reaction to a vaccine.
- These groups often provide resources and can help navigate the medical system, which can be particularly useful if you feel that pharmaceutical companies or health institutions are not adequately addressing your concerns. For instance, you might find a local support group that helps individuals connect with specialized medical professionals or legal advice.
- You can dive ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Challenges in seeking compensation and support for vaccine injuries
The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) set up by the government is under scrutiny for its low approval rate and maximum payouts, raising concerns about the system's adequacy to support those who suffer from vaccine-related injuries.
The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) set up by the government to provide compensation has an extremely low approval rate and maximum payouts.
Patrick Bet-David and Kyle Warner discuss the inefficiency and inadequacy of the CICP in compensating vaccine injuries. Warner points out that the CICP has processed around 2,800 claims with a staggering 99.5% rejection rate. He shares his personal experience of having his claim rejected due to being postmarked one day late, despite accumulating medical bills over a full year. Warner contrasts the public's high rejection rate with a 23% approval rate for federal employees under the American Rescue Plan Act.
Warner also reveals that the CICP has only paid out for 43 claims in its history, including 13 COVID-19 vaccine claims for a total of $48,000, highlighting that the largest claim for myocarditis from a COVID-19 vaccine was under $9,000, compared to $323,000 for myocarditis from the smallpox vaccine. This is exacerbated by the CICP spending $26 million on administrative costs. Additionally, it is pointed out that React 19, a non-governmental entity, has paid out over $850,000 to vaccine-injured individuals, starkly overshadowing the government's compensatory efforts.
The program offers no right to due process, legal representation, or appeals, making it very difficult for the vaccine-injured to receive fair compensation.
Further stressing the lack of due process in the CICP, Warner explains that the program does not offer the right to due process, appeal, or legal representation for claimants, compounding the challenges faced by them. Aaron Siri testifies that the CICP program lacks transparency, offering no hearing opportunity, and the trier of fact remains unidentified to the claimant.
Vaccine manufacturers like AstraZeneca have legal immunity from liability for vaccine injuries through the PREP Act.
This legal framework has made it extremely challenging for the vaccine-injured to pursue lawsuits or other avenues for compensation.
The PREP Act's liability protection for vaccine manufacturers like AstraZeneca creates a significant barrier for those seeking compensation for vaccine injuries. Patrick Bet-David and Kyle Warner highlight that in both the U.S. and the UK, taxpayers end up compensating for vaccine injuries through government programs, due to the legal immunity granted to pharmaceutical companies.
Warner is advocating for the repeal of some of the PREP Act provisions to potentially open vaccine ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Challenges in seeking compensation and support for vaccine injuries
Additional Materials
Counterarguments
- The CICP's stringent approval process may be designed to ensure that only valid and verifiable claims are compensated, to prevent fraud and misuse of government funds.
- A high rejection rate could indicate that many claims do not meet the strict criteria set forth for compensation, which may be necessary to maintain the integrity of the program.
- The comparison of payouts for different vaccines may not account for differences in the prevalence of injuries, the severity of the conditions, or the specific circumstances of each case.
- The administrative costs of the CICP could be reflective of the complexity and due diligence required to process claims and manage the program effectively.
- React 19's ability to pay out more than the government may be due to different operational structures, funding mechanisms, or criteria for awarding compensation.
- The lack of due process and appeals in the CICP could be intended to streamline the process and avoid the lengthy and costly litigation found in traditional legal systems.
- Legal immunity for vaccine manufacturers under the PREP Act may be necessary to encourage the rapid development and distribution of vaccines, especially during public health emergencies ...
Actionables
- Educate yourself on vaccine injury compensation by reading the actual statutes and legal documents. Understanding the legal language used in the CICP and PREP Act can empower you to make informed decisions about vaccination. For example, you can access the text of the PREP Act and related amendments online, then use resources like legal dictionaries or free online law courses to help interpret the complex terminology.
- Create a personal risk assessment for medical decisions, including vaccinations. Consider factors such as your health history, potential side effects, and the legal recourse available if you were to experience an adverse reaction. You might use a simple spreadsheet to weigh the pros and cons, assigning values to different outcomes based on your research and personal values.
- Support organizations advocating for vaccine-injured individuals by donating or volunteering. While you ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Create Summaries for anything on the web
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser
