FDA director lied about COVID vaccine deaths

In November 2025, Vinay Prasad, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA claimed, "career staff have found that at least 10 children have died after and because of receiving COVID-19 vaccination." This statement was false.

What’s the truth of the matter?

“The final Dec. 5 memo, according to FDA employees with knowledge of the situation, states that under an established World Health Organization (WHO) framework, zero deaths were deemed "certain" to have been caused by COVID-19 vaccines, two were judged to be "probable/likely," while five were "possible."

 

“Probable/likely cases are those determined to have been "unlikely" due to another cause. But for the "possible" category, an alternative explanation was determined to have been equally likely, meaning that the chance that vaccines were responsible for those deaths was 50-50 at most.”

For reference, the FDA report covers over 138 million doses of the vaccine to children ages 12 and under, and millions more among teens (of the seven deaths in the report, the age range of investigated deaths was 7-16 years).

So Prasad claimed that the number of deaths was 200% to 500% of the number that the scientists he assigned to study the problem reported. It is left as an exercise for the reader why someone who works for the anti-vax Trump Administration would lie about COVID vaccination deaths.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/faustfiles/118980?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2025-12-12&mh=eb71348a5ff6ae370cc6759bc5dc3300&zdee=gAAAAABm4u1YoCP4y5SBTJUyUyqo9KxZhft26L1xeGdP0BzzQQN1Pb_ifR6vFqhFh-3U6Q_nU7DbA-EawzzXKxSRhMOwjrOGuOKbf7OE641eN0HfnK6eObE%3D&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Headlines%20Evening%20-%20Randomized%202025-12-12&utm_term=NL_Daily_DHE_dual-gmail-definition

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yes, the CDC can change its mind

The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?” This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment. I get it. I used to teach problem-based learning to first year medical students, and they often struggled with what to do with incomplete and ambiguous information, which is what physicians in clinics do every day. Sometimes, one cannot wait for all the tests to be completed and all the data analyz...
Read more

About that Trump lawsuit

So Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch for defamation because of the release of a salacious doodle. Nothing remarkable about Donald J. Trump weaponizing the legal system against his opponents, I know. But there are some things that do bear remark here: “ . . . he's suing Rupert Murdoch personally. But you know who he's not suing? Lachlan Murdoch, who's actually the chairperson of News Corp and Fox, who's actually the decision-maker. Rupert Murdoch has no official role there anymore. He's an adviser.   “So, I thought that was revealing in a lot of ways, because it isn't just about going after the entity. It's sort of this expansion spillover, trying to send as much of a message as you possibly can. He's sort of hitting every potential lever, not just against Murdoch and that empire, but then all the other media properties in the future. It's also about sending an example.” “HAYES: Yeah. That, to me, is the point here, is that these lawsuits are not lawsuits...
Read more

I agree with RFK Jr.

Though it feels weird to say it, RFK Jr and I agree on something: curtailing direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. “ The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending.   Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.   “The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to d...
Read more