COVID Vaccinations Side Effects Increase By 61%
Like the previous reports from the Paul Ehrlich Institute, the 8th safety report tends to be semantic retouching. And unlike before, the paper was not published on a Wednesday or Thursday, but on a Tuesday. On Tuesday, March 23rd, 2021. The PEI did not bother to give an early notification of the publication.
Politically incorrect numbers of coronavirus side effects
PUBLISHED APRIL 6, 2021. A guest post by Gregor Amelung * from reitschuster(.)de/, Germany: Corona-Impfungen: Nebenwirkungen steigen um 61% – reitschuster.de
Like the previous reports from the Paul Ehrlich Institute, the 8th safety report tends to be semantic retouching. And unlike before, the paper was not published on a Wednesday or Thursday, but on a Tuesday. On Tuesday, March 23rd, 2021. The PEI did not bother to give an early notification of the publication.
A strange information policy, especially since the PEI itself says:
“Open communication of possible risks is a prerequisite for high vaccination acceptance in the population … In order to take this into account, the Paul Ehrlich Institute continuously gives information about all suspected cases of side effects reported in Germany … in safety reports.”
That’s it. No date when the next report could be expected (as of April 4, 2021).
The topicality of the numbers continues to decline
The 8th safety report now includes all reports on side effects from the start of the vaccination campaign until March 12, 2021. The difference from the last to the most recent reporting date is remarkable. It has been eleven days since the last safety report was issued:
Paul Ehrlich Institute Vaccine Safety Report Publication Dates
And the period of the AstraZeneca suspension (March 11th to March 15th) is almost completely omitted from the new report. Nevertheless, the nationwide fuss about the British-Swedish manufacturer’s vaccine has not escaped the PEI, which is why the 8th safety report explains: “Due to current events, this safety report includes reports of sinus vein thrombosis up to March 19, 2021.”
Adverse Events of Special Interest
Anyone expecting a detailed analysis of these thromboses probably caused by the AstraZeneca vaccine was disappointed. Only two meager paragraphs deal with the subject. They can be found on page 13 of the 16-page report under point 3: “Adverse events of particular interest“. This is a rather soft translation of the English term “Adverse Events of Special Interest“, which could also be translated as “Side Effects of Special Interest“.
Since the sinus vein thrombosis occurred partly in combination with “thrombocytopenia”, the report goes under point 3.1. first of all.
34 cases of thrombocytopenia
While thrombosis is a disorder of the circulatory system in which a thrombus, also known as a blood clot or plug, forms in a blood vessel, thrombocytopenia describes a lack of blood platelets. In principle, thrombocytopenia is an emergency. If it is severe, it can lead to so-called “spontaneous bleeding”. These manifest themselves in symptoms such as nosebleeds or bleeding into the skin or internal organs.
As of March 19, 17 such suspected cases of the vaccine had been reported by BioNTech, 2 by Moderna and 15 by AstraZeneca. Among them were two people, a 24-year-old woman and a 37-year-old man, who had developed cerebral haemorrhage. Both died.
Of the total of 34 cases of thrombocytopenia, new cases also included sinus vein thrombosis, also known as cerebral vein thrombosis. This is a blood clot in the brain that can cause paralysis or loss of vision. The PEI provides information on these thromboses under point 3.2. further information.
Cerebral vein thrombosis in the Astrazeneca vaccine
A total of 16 cases were counted. 2 related to BioNTech’s vaccine and 14 at AstraZeneca. The affected persons, all but one of whom were women, were between 20 and 63 years old. Two of them have died (as of March 19, 2021). The PEI is silent about the fate of the others, but it is important to them to mention what percentage of the “undesirable reactions” “had completely subsided at the time of the report”. Namely 41.2 percent.
By March 29, 2021, the number of sinus vein thromboses in connection with AstraZeneca rose from 14 to 31, according to the official data according to the Federal Ministry of Health. “The outcome was fatal in nine cases,” it continues.
With a normal approval process, we would have seen the side effects
So there were 17 more cerebral vein thromboses at AstraZeneca within just 10 days. Almost two cases a day. The immunotoxicologist Prof. Stefan Hockertz explained in a Reitschuster interview on March 19:
We know »that the European Medical Agency EMA … was pushed very hard by politics to get these vaccines approved. Now showing these side effects … And because of my training, I can say: We would all have seen these side effects … if we … had approved [the vaccines] as we normally approve vaccines within 8 to 10 years.“
And normal vaccine development takes so long for good reasons, because a vaccine is a drug, but not a drug that is administered to a sick person and whose side effects are tolerable in order to fight a disease. Vaccines are given to healthy people.
‘Very rare’ but not related to vaccination
On March 19, the PEI had written in an official “safety assessment” of the AstraZeneca vaccine with regard to cerebral vein thrombosis: “This very rare coagulation disorder occurred more frequently among the vaccinated than would be expected numerically due to the rarity of this coagulation disorder without vaccination.” Nevertheless, this was pushed immediately after: “There is currently no evidence that the occurrence of these coagulation disorders was caused by the vaccine.” That sounded a bit like wishful thinking back then, because one cannot emphasize the rarity of an event on the one hand and despite the accumulation of these on the other Rarely, the connection with the vaccination with the reference to the lack of evidence to cash in.
The “Corona Blog” portal indicates the incidence of rare thromboses at 3 to 5 per million inhabitants per year. In the case of AstraZeneca, there were 14 cases per 1.47 million vaccinated by March 19 and 31 cases per 2.69 million vaccinated by March 29. From a purely mathematical point of view, the following relationships result:
The rate of this side effect is firstly quite stable and secondly it is more than 10 times the normal state.
Media attention as the cause of the many reports
A total of 7,663 suspected side effects or vaccination complications were reported for the AstraZeneca vaccine. »From the comparatively higher reporting rate of the AstraZeneca vaccine [compared to the other vaccines], however, it cannot necessarily be concluded that the vaccine has a higher reactogenicity [vaccination reaction], since the increased reporting rate also with the increased media attention for the vaccine and the different Age groups of the vaccinated people could be related «, so says the PEI at the beginning of its report on page 3.
On this quite unexpected analysis of the interaction between media attention and the rate of side effect reports, which doctors are legally obliged to do, the “Corona Blog” wrote, not entirely inaccurate: »The increased media attention is now to blame for the› accumulation of deaths ‹Or as the PEI puts it nicely, to be in the› higher reactogenicity ‹?«
The Corona Blog
Our eager observers also noticed that the PEI had left out a passage on deaths over 50 years for the first time in the 8th safety report. Previously, the PEI had always written about the over-50 deaths that their number did not exceed the statistically expected deaths.
Among other things, the Corona Blog had criticized the lack of sources and had come to a significantly different result in its own calculation: The number of deaths in the 50+ age group after the vaccination was around 52 percent higher than one would expect. It is interesting, according to the portal, »that this passage [on the statistically expected deaths] … has now disappeared. We are assuming that the PEI became aware of our evaluation and that it was recognized that their’s was not justifiable and that it does not meet scientific standards by far.
57 deaths with no vaccine information
A total of “351 deaths among vaccinated persons aged 24 to 102 years” were reported to the PEI by March 12th. 286 deaths related to the vaccine from BioNTech, 4 Moderna and 4 AstraZeneca. Whether the latter also includes deaths in connection with cerebral vein thrombosis up to March 19 or not cannot be clearly inferred from the formulations of the PEI. However, in 57 deaths it was not stated “with which COVID-19 vaccine had been vaccinated”.
In other words: 16 percent of the cases with a fatal outcome are missing in a very significant part of the report. In the previous safety report, the rate was slightly higher at 18 percent. At that time, information about the manufacturer was missing in 60 of 330 deaths.
122 serious cases without manufacturer information
The situation was similar in the serious cases. In 122 of 2,003 cases, the PEI did not know the name of the vaccine manufacturer, which corresponds to around 6 percent. In the newly published 8th Safety Report, there were “94 cases of serious reactions without specifying the trade name”, which corresponds to 5.4 percent.
Here are the figures from the 8th report by manufacturer, whereby the number of “serious” cases is part of all reported side effects before:
“Three quarters of the reports concern women. According to data from the Robert Koch Institute, this distribution is probably due to a higher rate of vaccinations among women «, according to the PEI on page 6. The vague adjective» probably «is surprising. Especially since the PEI had previously stated the exact vaccination rate itself: 64 percent women.
And between 64 and “three quarters” there are still 11 percentage points that you obviously couldn’t explain in a hurry. How such a word-number acrobatics fits your own claim – “Open communication, including possible risks, is a prerequisite for high vaccination acceptance in the population …” – remains a secret of the Paul Ehrlich Institute.
Reporting rate according to vaccination doses, not according to vaccinated persons
The reporting of the reporting quota according to the vaccination dose is similarly annoying, since every corona vaccinee automatically receives 2 doses.
In the end, you artificially push the reporting rate down. If you calculate the reporting rate for each person vaccinated, things look a little different:
The quotas at BioNTech and Moderna are calculated on the assumption that a vaccinee only reported side effects in rare cases, both with the 1st and 2nd vaccination. Because the PEI unfortunately states: “A differentiation of the side effects in relation to the administration of the first or second vaccination is not always possible, as the reports are sometimes missing information on this.”
Well, something like that can still be stated in the 1st or 2nd safety report – but not in the 8th, especially since the Paul Ehrlich Institute itself creates the form for the reports and works towards an explicit expulsion after the first or second vaccination could.
‘Serious side effects’ with medicines
For AstraZeneca, the result after vaccinated and not according to doses means: every 192th person who was vaccinated complained of at least one “undesirable reaction”. And one in 4,184 people had a reported side effect classified as “serious”.
In general, a »serious side effect« is defined in medicinal products as follows: »those which are fatal or life-threatening, require inpatient treatment or prolongation of inpatient treatment, lead to permanent or serious disability or disability …”
Decrease in reported deaths
While the total of all case reports has again increased significantly, there has been a decrease in the number of “serious” cases and, in particular, deaths.
This is also surprising because the number of people vaccinated increased from 3.9 million to 6.3 million from the 7th to the 8th safety report, i.e. by 2.4 million or 62 percent. The change in all reports on side effects corresponds pretty closely to this increase. They gained 7,279, or 61 percent.
The Corona blog is also irritated by the “only marginal increase in the number of people who died after the vaccination”. Especially since “the reports of deaths after the vaccination in the local press have increased significantly over the past few weeks,” according to the portal. And while one could still assume a coincidence in the event of a sharp decline in one segment, the simultaneous decline in the two sensitive areas – deaths and serious side effects – can actually no longer be explained by coincidence.
A comparison with the side effects of the swine flu vaccine
The WHO had already declared a pandemic due to swine flu (H1N1) in 2009. Then as now, a vaccine was developed at a speed unheard of before. One of the vaccines was called “Pandemrix” and came from GlaxoSmithKline. In 2018, Der Spiegel wrote:
“At least one serious side effect of Pandemrix has been pretty well researched. After the mass vaccinations, a noticeable number of people fell ill with narcolepsy, an incurable sleeping sickness. The problem only became known months after the end of the vaccination campaigns. “It was a” large-scale experiment with a vaccine that has not been adequately tested and is therefore unsuitable for a mass vaccination, “said the editor of the pharmacritical drug telegram, Wolfgang Becker-Brüser, at the time Mirror.
The “Corona blog” has compared the figures on the swine flu vaccination, which were also collected by the Paul Ehrlich Institute at the time, with those of the corona vaccination and comes to a worrying result. Here is the rate of side effects per 100,000 vaccine doses:
That means: The number of reported cases of Corona is 7 times higher and the number of serious cases 2 times higher than in the 2009/10 swine flu scandal, in which – and this is particularly worrying – the narcolepsy cases took months to resolve to stand out clearly as a side effect.
Comparison of the reports on the swine flu vaccination and the corona vaccination from the article “The secret scandal with the side effects of the corona virus vaccines” (screenshot corona-blog.net)
Overemphasis that there is no causal relationship
In spite of this experience, the Paul Ehrlich Institute and with it the national press emphasize, if they ever come up with the topic of side effects, that there is only a temporal, but not a causal relationship in the reported cases. The connection cannot be denied so loosely, as a look at the appendix of the 8th safety report under methodology on page 14 shows:
“Doctors are legally obliged to report vaccination complications, ie health complaints that go beyond the usual extent of a vaccination reaction and cannot be traced back to other causes …” This means that one does not even become suspected of a side effect or even worse on one’s own death in the registration statistics of the Paul Ehrlich Institute. One only becomes one when all other possibilities have been medically ruled out. The fact that, as many media write, there is no “proof” or “proof” for a causal connection is true in the matter. In the context of the corona vaccination, however, misleading and not in the lower range of the Richter scale. Rather, the pointer shows a clear deflection and is close to the red area of irresponsibility.
In Berlin over 60 percent of the ‘vaccination offers’ not accepted
Even before the official stop for AstraZeneca for the under 60s on March 30, it became clear how counterproductive the opaque public relations work and the reluctance of the major leading media are. On March 25, the Berlin Tagesspiegel ran the headline “Astrazeneca skepticism? – Hundreds of thousands of Berliners do not respond to their vaccination invitation «. Whereby the mistrust of the capital city dwellers not only relates to the vaccine from the British-Swedish manufacturer, but also to the other two. According to information from the Tagesspiegel, one million so-called vaccination codes had been sent in Berlin since December 2020. Vaccination authorization was associated with the codes. But by March 23, only 362,711 Berliners had made use of it. Over 60 percent hadn’t rolled up their sleeves.
Something similar happened in Lower Saxony. On Saturday, March 21st, 600 doctors and practice staff from the city and region of Hanover were to be vaccinated. But only around two hundred came. 66 percent didn’t roll up their sleeves. It looked a little better the following weekend (March 27th / 28th). Of the 700 invited, around 500 were vaccinated. 28 percent preferred to stay at home.
Instead of Easter eggs, there’s AstraZeneca
Despite this clear reluctance on the part of medical professionals, the press is now overturning on Easter weekend with reports of a run on the vaccination centers. According to ntv: »In North Rhine-Westphalia, people aged 60 and over can be vaccinated against the coronavirus with the AstraZeneca vaccine over the Easter days. The demand for appointments online is so high that the server collapses. “
Transparency notice
An earlier version of the article stated that one in 5,000 people had a side effect related to the vaccine classified as “serious” by AstraZeneca. Rather, this classification was made for one in 4,184 people. In the meantime the mistake has been corrected thanks to an attentive reader.
