Vaccine Roulette Part 2
Vaccine Roulette Part 2
More case reports where the patient was given dose #2 despite suffering an SAE following dose #1
Welcome to the Post-Nuremberg Ethical Apocalypse: Dose 1 Severe Adverse Event, Dose 2...? You'll have to get jabbed with Dose 2 to find out
To understand the ethical psychosis we are dealing with here, consider the following study:
Patients with post-COVID-19 vaccination facial palsy: To boost or not to boost?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36061346/
A possible association between Bell's palsy and COVID-19 vaccination has been suggested. While it is likely that COVID-19 vaccine recipients from the general population do have a slightly increased risk of developing Bell's palsy, there are little data regarding this risk in individuals with a history of disease. Gaining a better understanding of this association is particularly important for informing evidence-based recommendations regarding future booster shots in subjects who developed Bell's palsy as a side effect of vaccination, or as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We previously described the first case of COVID-19 vaccine-related Bell's palsy; here we report an 18-month clinical and electromyographic follow-up and discuss the implications of receiving further vaccine doses in patients with positive disease history.
Clearly, there is a mass psychosis amongst medical practitioners. In a sane world, even asking such a question would mark a doctor as morally ‘adventurous’. Not anymore.
Quick primer on the formatting:
I divided case reports into “Winners” & “Losers” based on whether dose #2 (or 3+) caused new or worsening of the SAE’s following dose #1.
Yes, sometimes the patient gets dose #2 without suffering any SAE, at least in the short term, hence the title “Vaccine Roulette”.
Obviously, surviving dose #2 without further injury does not suggest that it was a good idea to get dose #2 - this would be akin to claiming that playing real Russian Roulette is harmless because you survived.
Each report has the case report title, link, timeline of events, and some ‘commentary’; I also am including the excerpts from the case report describing the basic narrative of the case in a footnote placed at the end of the link
I have identified a few dozen of these case reports so far from the case reports that I have cataloged in detail, However, I have only cataloged about 350-400 or so out of the 2,470+ (and growing) that I have compiled to date.
☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠
Losers 😱
A Case of COVID-19 Vaccine Associated New Diagnosis Myasthenia Gravis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34709075/1
TIMELINE
82yo M: Day 1: Pfizer Dose #1 😍 Day ∼7-14: Neuro symptoms begin 😫 Day ∼28: Pfizer Dose #2 😱 Day ∼30: ER 😨 Day ∼70: Worsening symptoms, Myasthenia Gravis diagnosed 😫😕💣 Day ∼100: Treatment with improvement! 😇 Day ∼114: Develops eyelid droop 😱😰 Day ∼156: Hospitalized 😱😡 Day ?: Discharged from hospital to rehab 😰😥
This case report never explicitly acknowledges that “yeah, he was experiencing significant neuro deficits post dose 1 but we judged that dose 2 was vitally necessary”. You have to combine different statements in the case report to extrapolate this - that he presented to ER 2 days after dose 2 and 4 weeks after Dose 1, and that his symptoms began a few weeks prior to presentation - which means that symptoms began prior to dose #2.
Their conclusion: “This case highlights the need for clinicians to be aware of the uncommon presenting symptoms in late-onset myasthenia gravis and the possibility of vaccine provoked diagnoses of immune mediated diseases”
“highlights the need for clinicians to be aware of […] the possibility of vaccine provoked diagnoses of immune mediated diseases”
So the authors are essentially saying that clinicians are not sufficiently knowledgeable about vaccine misinformation, and are literally calling for this knowledge ‘deficiency’ to be remedied.
Maybe vaccinating the censors wasn’t a good idea, cuz boy do they seem to be Brandon-ing around.
Rest assured, we’re definitely in good hands.
*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*
A case of recurrent fixed drug eruption following two different coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination verified through intradermal and patch tests
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36062201/2
TIMELINE
50yo M: Day 1: AZ Dose #1 😍 Day 2: Lesions 😫 Day ∼62: AZ Dose #2 😱 Day 63: Return of the Lesions 😨😱😫 Day ∼245 Pfizer Dose #3 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱 Day 246: Lesion TRIFECTA!!💣💣💣💣💣💣💣💣💣
And there was also this:
Unfortunately, the intradermal or patch test with AZD1222 or mRNA-1273 was unavailable because of the Korean government’s regulations.
*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*
Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada Disease Exacerbation Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35326462/3
TIMELINE
46yo F: Day -20: "bilateral visual blurring and mild headache" 🤢 Day 1: Pfizer Dose #1 😕🤔 Day 3: Brutal eye problems 😨😰😫 Day 10: Partial Recovery 🤨😪😰 Day 24: Pfizer Dose #2 😱😱😱😱😱 Day 26: Even worse eye probs 💣😵💣😵💣😵💣 Day 29: Partial symptom/condition resolution 🙄😕😪😥
What happened to this poor woman? Did she ever recover? Did she get a booster?
All good questions.
And while the authors apparently felt that these questions were unimportant, they thought it was pertinent to conclude the following remarkable sentiments:
“Although it is difficult to determine causality, these cases raise the possibility of COVID vaccines being a trigger for VKH disease development, and this should be considered, especially in patients with vitiligo or previous history of the disease. Regardless, in all the reported cases, the patients responded to treatment and the benefit of vaccination probably outweighs the possible but very low risk of this side effect.”
“difficult to determine causality”???
Ummmm, I don’t know, that seems like a bit of a stretch here? We should stay tuned for the updated case report when she gets her booster, maybe then we’ll be better situated to assess causality.
“Regardless,”
They sure do seem to hold the possibility of vaccine injury in overwhelming disregard.
“in all the reported cases, the patients responded to treatment”
Let’s go apply that to, say, waterboarding!!
“in all reported instances of waterboarding prisoners, the prisoners recovered”
Alternatively, instead of waterboarding, we can just shine lasers in their eyes to do a bit of damage that we can treat afterwards, because apparently, that’s all that matters.
“the benefit of vaccination probably outweighs the possible but very low risk of this side effect”
That might depend on who you’re asking. This sounds like the case report that explained cardiogenic shock apparently “does not detract from the overwhelming benefit of vaccination from COVID-19”. Or at least reports of cardiogenic shock don’t detract from the sheer exhilaration of the literally heart-stopping excitement that is the vaccination experience.
*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*
Winners 😍
Third cranial nerve palsy in an 88-year-old man after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination: change of injection site and type of vaccine resulted in an uneventful second dose with humoral immune response
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35135792/4
TIMELINE
88yo M: Day 1: Moderna Dose #1 😍 Day 4: Cranial Palsy 😨😱 Day 10: Recovery 😇 Day 18: "no evidence" of antibodies from vaccine 🤔💣😱 Day ?: Pfizer Dose #2 😱😱😱 Day ?+: No adverse events from dose #2 😰😌
(I covered a separate dimension of this study in a different article.)
They certainly seem to be proud of their achievement here:
“We demonstrated the efficacy and safety of a second dose of Pfizer mRNA-BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccination performed in a different site in producing a protective humoral response in an elderly person having experienced a severe vaccine complication and no antibody response.”
See, the efficacy was an open question, since the treatment for the palsy involved immune-suppressing steroids. If you suppress the immune system, it won’t make immune cells like antibodies, which in effect neuters the vaccine. So if there was a recurrence after Dose #2, then it would have been for naught.
*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*☠*
Acute corneal endothelial graft rejection following COVID-19 vaccination
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34281760/5
TIMELINE
71yo M: Day 1: Pfizer Dose #1 😍 Day 8: Graft Failure 😵😵 Day 15: Mostly recovered 😪🧐 Day ?: Pfizer Dose #2 with steroid prophylaxis 🙄😱🙄 Day ?+: No adverse events from dose #2 😰😌🥴
Kudos to his doctors, at least they actually told the patient that he might get socked in his eye all over again with dose #2:
“We discussed with the patient the possibility of an association between the first dose of vaccination and the acute transplant rejection. Given his history of cardiovascular risk factors, it was decided to move forward with the second dose of the vaccine while keeping him on topical steroids q2 h.”
Not everyone who plays Russian Roulette ends up with their brain on the walls. Still a bad idea though.
An 82-year-old man with a history of laryngeal cancer status post hemi-laryngectomy 40 years previously, Barrett’s esophagus, and stage 3a chronic kidney disease presented in late February to the Emergency Department 4 weeks after receiving the first dose, and 2 days after receiving the second dose of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine reporting intermittent episodes of slurred speech. His symptoms had been present for a few weeks, occurring in the evenings, often during his dinner. His symptoms would last approximately 15 min then resolve spontaneously. He described his symptoms as his tongue “being in the way,” associated with a sensation of perioral numbness.
At follow up in primary care in early April he reported ongoing symptoms of slurred speech and difficulty chewing during dinner and a new symptom of trouble spitting when brushing his teeth at night. He continued to deny daytime symptoms and symptoms with earlier meals.
Neurology started treatment with pyridostigmine and speech therapy in early May, and the patient noted initial improvement in his speech and swallowing. However, in late May, within 2 weeks of starting treatment, he began to develop eyelid droop. In late June he reported return of difficulty with meals after a dental extraction. In mid July, while on vacation, he developed significant generalized weakness and was hospitalized for a severe myasthenia gravis exacerbation treated with IV pyridostigmine, IVIG and steroids. His hospitalization was complicated by aspiration pneumonia, requirement for ventilator support and inability to swallow requiring PEG tube insertion. He recovered and was discharged to a rehabilitation facility where he continued to improve clinically.
A 50-year-old man presented with a 2-week history of pruritic, well-defined, purpuric-to-hyperpigmented annular patches with central blistering on the nape, trunk, both extremities, and penis (Fig 1 , A-C). The lesions initially occurred 24 hours after the first dose of AZD1222 in March 2021 (Fig 1, D), then recurred 2 months later at the same sites 24 hours after the second dose of AZD1222 (Fig 1, E), and 8 months later, 24 hours after a booster dose of mRNA-1273. The patient denied concomitant symptoms, including fever and myalgia. His history of medications and allergic reactions to medications or vaccines was unremarkable. A punch biopsy of the blister area revealed confluent necrotic keratinocytes and eosinophilic infiltration of the epidermis (Fig 2 , A). A biopsy from the patch area showed a hydropic change in the basal layer, pigment incontinence, and perivascular lymphohistiocytic mixed infiltration with eosinophils and melanophages in the upper-to-middermis (Fig 2, B). Diagnosed as FDE, the patient was treated with systemic and topical corticosteroids for 3 weeks. The lesions improved, leaving noted postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, and new lesions did not appear following corticosteroid tapering.
A 46-year-old woman consulted our Service of Ophthalmology in Santiago de Compostela, Spain, because of bilateral visual blurring and mild headache. Ten years earlier she underwent a LASIK procedure in both eyes but had no other relevant ocular history.
Three weeks later she received her first dose of mRNA COVID-19 (Comirnaty, Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine and two days later she presented at the emergency service complaining of photophobia and worsening of her initial ocular symptoms. Best corrected visual acuity (VA) was 20/32 in both eyes, and intraocular pressure was 11 (OD) and 10 (OS) mmHg. Significant aqueous flare, keratic precipitates, iris nodules and cells in the anterior vitreous were present in both eyes. Poliosis was present. Pigment epithelium alterations were observed in the periphery of the eye fundus in both eyes (Figure 1).
Topical corticosteroids were prescribed and the patient was referred to the Uveitis Unit where a systemic examination revealed vitiligo and bilateral hypoacusis.
Topical corticoids were continued and a week later the VA recovered to 20/20 in both eyes, no aqueous flare was observed, but cells in the anterior vitreous were still present.
The patient received her second dose of COVID-19 vaccine 23 days after the first one, and four days later presented again at the emergency service complaining of visual loss, and severe headache that started two days earlier. The patient had impairment of her dysacusis. VA was 20/32 in both eyes. Aqueous flare, keratic precipitates, iridocapsular synechiae, and vitreous cells were observed in both eyes. Optical coherence tomography (OCT, Heidelberg Engineering, Spectralis-OCT) of the macula and the peripapillary area showed retinal and choroidal folds (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Choroidal thickening with no T-sign present was observed in the 20 MHz B-mode ocular echography. A further OCT (Topcon, Triton DRI-OCT) showed choroidal thickening and subfoveal neurosensory retinal detachment (Figure 4).
Brain CT was normal but MRI showed some high intensity small spots located in the white matter of both frontal lobes and in the right parietal lobe. Differential diagnosis with sympathetic ophthalmia, primary B-cell lymphoma, posterior scleritis and uveal effusion syndrome was made and the condition was finally diagnosed as a complete VKH syndrome, following the revised Diagnostic Criteria for VKH disease [8]. Intravenous methylprednisolone (500 mg/day) for 3 days followed by oral prednisone was given. Two weeks later the condition improved. Ocular examination showed VA 20/20 in both eyes, no aqueous flare, some cells in the anterior vitreous, and some residual synechiae. Macular OCT, OCT-angiography, and fundus autofluorescence were normal, but the peripheral pigment epithelium alterations were still present.
An 88-year-old man attended the emergency department with incomplete palsy of the right third cranial nerve 3 days after the first administration of Moderna mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.
Two weeks of oral steroids led to the patient’s recovery, but without evidence of humoral immune response to vaccine. Thus, full immunisation with a dose of Pfizer mRNA-BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in a different site was attempted. This was uneventful and followed by a robust antibody response. Empirical change of site and vaccine brand may represent a tailored option to obtain full immune protection in selected patients, after vaccine AEs.
The choice to adopt a lower dose of steroids was undertaken in consideration of the age of the patient and in order to try not to blunt the vaccine response. However, serum antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD), performed by luciferase immunoprecipitation system (0.24 arbitrary units (AU)) and by routine assay (<0.4 U/mL),5 6 resulted negative 2 and 3 weeks after vaccination, respectively. On the other hand, T cell proliferative responses to the SARS-CoV-2 S protein were detectable (Stimulation Index (SI): 19), along with normal proliferative responses to mitogens (PHA, anti-CD3) as well as to other viral antigens (Cytomegalovirus, Varicella-Zoster virus, Herpes simplex virus). This suggested that, in the presence of a normal T cell response, the steroid course may have had mainly blunted the humoral responses.
Given the fragility of the subject and his high-level risk of COVID-19, the treating physician considered a positive benefit–risk ratio in favour of a full immunisation with a second dose of a different vaccine to decrease the risk of an AE recurrence.
Empirically, a dose of Pfizer mRNA-BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in the left quadriceps femoris, contralateral to the first vaccine site and nerve paralysis, was administered, in order to reduce the risk of proximity to a potential inflammatory/immune reaction. In point of fact, the second vaccine administration was uneventful and resulted in a further increase of T lymphocyte proliferative response specific to the SARS-CoV-2 S peptide (SI: 45). Of note, a robust IgG titre to RBD (272.8 AU) and spike proteins (S2 474.3 AU) was also detected 3 weeks after.
A 71-year-old male patient with a history of high blood pressure, smoking, coronary artery disease and endothelial decompensation after phacoemulsification underwent DMEK of the right eye. Surgery was uneventful and was followed by an uneventful postoperative course. His best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) two months after DMEK was 20/30+ and remained stable on further visits.
Five months after surgery, the patient presented to the eye clinic for a sudden painless decrease of vision in the right eye that started on the morning of his presentation to our department. BCVA was 20/125 in the right eye with no improvement with pinhole. The examination revealed 1+ conjunctival injection and diffuse corneal edema (Fig. 1a and b). The central pachymetry was 714 μm (Fig. 2a). No neovascularization of the host or donor cornea was noted. On further questioning it was revealed that he received his first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 (BioNTech/Pfizer) 7 days ago.
The diagnosis of acute endothelial rejection was made and the patient was administered topical Dexamethasone sodium phosphate 1 mg/mL every two hours (Dexafree; Laboratoires Théa, Clermont-Ferrand, France) and oral valacyclovir 1000 mg TID.
We discussed with the patient the possibility of an association between the first dose of vaccination and the acute transplant rejection. Given his history of cardiovascular risk factors, it was decided to move forward with the second dose of the vaccine while keeping him on topical steroids q2 h.
The patient received his second dose. The graft remained clear and the visual acuity remained stable three weeks after the second dose. It was decided at that point to taper the topical steroids progressively over four weeks to reach a maintenance dose of twice a day.
The best though are the reports that try and favorably spin the immunological data while the data clearly shows the opposite. I can’t decide if it’s psychosis/cognitive dissonance or if the authors are desperate to get published and feeling enough guilt to try and send smoke signals.
I spoke to a man in his 70s in late 2021 who had achy breaky heart after the second one, so his quack gave him a third!