DOH-FDA Reports of Suspected Adverse Reaction to Covid-19 Vaccines as of 31st October 2022.

By 31/10/22 the DOH Tracker reported 187.86 million while the DOH-FDA reported 168.4 million doses administered. The FDA reports 110,027 AEFI of which 10,184 were serious and included 2,741 deaths.

The Philippines FDA has moved to monthly release of AEFI reports. These are now scheduled for release 10 working days after the close of each month. The AEFI report for 31st October 2022 is now released.

Interestingly, there is a discrepancy between total doses administered as shown on the DOH Covid-19 Tracker as of 31st of October 2022 (19.4 million more doses) and those reported as administered by the FDA AEFI Report. This discrepancy requires clarification.

Since the prior 30th September 2022 report, there have been 1,929,609 additional doses of Covid-19 injectables given, 92.2% of which were Comirnaty (Pfizer). There are 1,056 additional reports of AEFI of which 172 were serious, and 37 new deaths. There are now 2,741 reported deaths following Covid-19 Injections, representing 27% of the Serious Adverse Events.

Despite the 110,027 reported suspected reactions, of which 10,184 were serious there are very few tracked adverse reaction outcomes reported, and even fewer of these acknowledged as related to the received injections. This certainly raises the question on how the 10,184 serious reactions, including cause of deaths for the fatal cases, are categorized and evaluated!

• The mean age of the reported deaths dropped to 59.26 years (from 59.32 on 30 September 2022).

• Hypersensitivity reactions increased to 1.94 / million doses (from 1.92/million doses).

• Hospitalization increased to 4.24 / 100,000 doses (from 4.23/100,000 doses).

• 32 cases of Bell’s Palsy (+2 cases); 9 product-related, 2 indeterminate, 2 coincidental, 19 under review.

• 30 cases of GBS (+3 cases), 10 product-linked, 5 indeterminate, and 15 under review.

• 13 cases of Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (+1 case), all under evaluation for causal link.

• 19 cases of inflammation of the heart (+2 cases), of which 5 cases of myocarditis were judged product related and the remaining 14 cases of myocarditis and 2 cases of pericarditis are under review.

• 1 cases of capillary leak syndrome, indeterminate, with insufficient information to determine the vaccine caused the reaction.

• 9 cases of immune thrombocytopenia (+3 cases); 3 product-related, 3 indeterminate, 2 coincidental, 1 under review.

• There were 4,749 Covid-19 cases reported, of whom 256 died (66 new cases and 3 new deaths).

  The report maintains that all of the Covid-19 cases and deaths were due to ‘natural covid-19 infection’. I would suggest though that the infection can never be “natural’ after the immune intervention of the Covid-19 injection as the immune system has been irrevocably changed by that very intervention!

The Report Summary cautions that report interpretation should only be made by concluding benefits versus risks on the products use.

On page 23, there is a statement on risk-benefit evaluation.

I scoured the report and while I found descriptions of adverse reactions, I could not find any further descriptions or statistics of any kind supporting benefit outweighing risk. There was nothing pertaining to benefit at all except that sole statement! This will need to be requested from the FDA!

There is risk stratification of Covid-19 for different age groups and population susceptibility groups. Surely the DOH-FDA would have also conducted their risk-benefit analyses accordingly!

The public may need to demand this information from the health authorities! If this information is not available and/or cannot be provided, very hard questions on WHY need to be asked!

There is no excuse, after more than 31 months of Covid-19 “pandemic”, more than 21 months after start of rollout of these jabs for not having population outcome data available and under intense scrutiny by the very best and most critical scientific minds.

Medical ethics requires informed consent free of all pressure and coercion. Coerced consent is deprived consent. Informed consent can only be given if complete and clear information on both risks and benefits is provided.

Philippines does have an act covering medical rights, excerpt on informed consent extracted.

There are some exclusions to informed consent as shown above. Does b. override the requirement for written informed consent? Apparently not, because all recipients of the Covid-19 injectables are required to sign a consent document. C. does not apply, because there is no law mandating these products.

Informed consent is even more critical in the context of experimental EUA products, which by their very nature have (at least some) unknowable outcomes. Does the lack of complete information make the signed waivers recipients were made to sign invalid? These will be questions for the lawyers and medical ethicists. Who will be accountable?

Meanwhile, the DOH continues to reassure that public that these products are safe and effective.

It is time for the presentation of cold hard data presented to prove this!