Unveiling the Hidden Pfizer Report: Heart Risks and a Call for Transparency, By Richard Miller (Londonistan) and Brian Simpson
In a world where trust in institutions is already fragile, the revelation of a suppressed Pfizer report detailing increased heart risks in Covid-vaccinated individuals is nothing short of alarming. The U.K.'s medicines regulator, the MHRA, has been sitting on Pfizer's Interim Report 5, a Post Authorisation Safety Study (PASS) that paints a troubling picture: heart conditions are not only more prevalent among the vaccinated but appear to worsen over time. This isn't speculation, it's data from Pfizer itself, and the refusal to make it public demands our attention. The implications are profound, not just for those who received the vaccine but for public safety in high-stakes fields like aviation. It's time to demand answers and accountability.
Pfizer's Interim Report 5, dated March 12, 2024, analyses data from millions of patients in national healthcare systems, comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts matched for age and sex. The findings are stark: vaccinated individuals face significantly higher risks for several heart-related conditions. Acute cardiovascular injury is 23% more likely, arrhythmia 27% higher, coronary artery disease a staggering 40% higher, and myocarditis within 21 days post-vaccination shows a 130% increased risk, though not yet statistically significant. Heart failure and stress cardiomyopathy also trend higher, with risks growing over time from December 2020 to March 2022. What's particularly concerning is that these risks don't plateau, they diverge, meaning the gap between vaccinated and unvaccinated grows the longer we track the data. What's happened since 2022? Without transparency, we're left guessing.
These aren't minor ailments. Heart conditions can lead to sudden, catastrophic outcomes, and the fact that this data comes from Pfizer's own study makes it impossible to dismiss as fringe or anecdotal. The MHRA's decision to withhold the full report, despite earlier releasing similar studies, raises red flags. If the results are as worrying as they appear, the public deserves to know—now!
The implications of these findings extend far beyond personal health. Consider aviation, where a pilot's sudden incapacitation could spell disaster for passengers and those on the ground. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) bases its aeromedical standards on the general population's risk of sudden incapacitation, known as the "1% rule." If Pfizer's data shows a higher incidence of heart issues in the vaccinated, this baseline risk has increased, meaning more pilots could pass medical checks with subclinical heart problems that later manifest mid-flight. Yet, when informed of the report's abstract, the CAA shockingly misread it, assuming it described just 37 events across 12 million people rather than thousands of incidents across 37 types of heart-related events. This error, or denial, underscores a dangerous disconnect in how safety regulators are handling this data.
The broader safety culture clash is equally troubling. The MHRA views safety as relative, weighing benefits against risks, but fails to consult other regulators, like those in aviation, who deal in absolute risks. When Esther McVey MP raised this issue in Parliament, asking if the MHRA had shared the report with other safety bodies, the answer was a flat "no." The Department for Transport, meanwhile, dismissed any implications for aviation safety. This refusal to engage with the data is not just bureaucratic, it's reckless.
The MHRA's reluctance to release Interim Report 5, coupled with its vague promise to wait for Pfizer's final report before deciding on publication, smells like a delay tactic. If the data is as damning as it appears, withholding it undermines public trust and safety. The report's abstract alone, showing 23–40% higher risks for heart conditions, is enough to warrant immediate scrutiny, yet the full dataset, complete with detailed graphs showing worsening trends, remains hidden. This isn't transparency; it's obfuscation.
The public deserves to see the raw data, especially given the report's implications for younger populations, who were vaccinated despite low Covid risk and no long-term safety data. The abstract's hazard ratios are averages across all ages, but what if the risks are even higher for younger groups, as some suspect? Without the full report, we can't know, and that uncertainty is unacceptable when lives are at stake.
This isn't about fearmongering: it's about demanding honesty from the institutions tasked with protecting the public. The MHRA must release Pfizer's Interim Report 5 immediately, and the upcoming Covid Inquiry Module 4 must examine these findings thoroughly. Regulators like the CAA need to reassess safety protocols in light of this data, adjusting aeromedical standards to account for increased risks. Most importantly, the public deserves a transparent reckoning, not excuses or denial.
The truth, as the article's author Nick Hunt aptly states, will out. But how many more delays, missteps, or tragedies will it take? It's time to shine a light on this hidden report and ensure that science, not silence, guides our path forward. Let's demand the full truth!
"I told you … about Pfizer's abstract of its Interim Report 5, showing at least 23-40% higher risk of some heart-related conditions in the vaccinated, but that the MHRA, the U.K. medicines regulator, was withholding publication of the full report. As I said at the time: "In summary, if, as I suspect, MHRA is worried by the results in Pfizer's 'Interim Report 5' then no wonder it is sitting on it."
Well, MHRA is still sitting on the report but I've managed to obtain a copy. It looks like I was right – the detailed results in the full report are even more worrying than the Hazard Ratios in the abstract which I reported last time (below).
To recap: this is a report of a Post Authorisation Safety Study (PASS) of Pfizer's Covid vaccine. National regulators routinely require pharmaceutical manufacturers to conduct PASS studies as a condition of authorisation of most new medicines. The regulators provide data to the manufacturer covering millions of patients registered in national healthcare systems. The manufacturer then conducts analysis, matched for things like age and sex, to determine whether the medicine has increased the risk of specified health conditions.
Let's dive straight in. Below are some heart-related cumulative incidence graphs from Pfizer's full 'Interim Report 5'. You will immediately notice that the incidence for each type of condition is significantly greater in the Covid vaccinated (bad) – but we already knew that from the Hazard Ratios in the abstract. What's worse is that the curves diverge over time, i.e., the relative incidence between vaccinated and unvaccinated increases over the time period of the data in the report (December 8th 2020 – March 21st 2022). I wonder what happened subsequently.
Acute cardiovascular injury (23% higher in the vaccinated and getting worse; page 130):
Arrhythmia (27% higher in the vaccinated and getting worse; page 138):
Heart failure (2% higher in the vaccinated and getting worse, though not quite statistically significant at this point; page 146):
Stress cardiomyopathy (30% higher in the vaccinated and getting worse, though not yet statistically significant; page 153):
Coronary artery disease (40% higher in the vaccinated and getting worse; page 160):
Myocarditis (21 days) (130% higher in the vaccinated, though not quite statistically significant; page 168):
No wonder MHRA is still sitting on the report. Perhaps it is hoping that Pfizer can spirit away these horrendous results from its Final Report (apparently still in preparation).
These results don't just affect Covid vaccinated individuals. They also have wider safety implications for, say, aviation where the third party consequences of sudden pilot incapacitation from a heart condition can be catastrophic for passengers and those on the ground – especially for single pilot operations.
As I said in my last article, I wrote to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) about this in October, sending it a copy of Pfizer's abstract of its report. CAA's reply was a tragic comedy. It thought that Pfizer's report was describing 37 events in 12 million people so it was completely dismissive. Apparently, at that rate, "if all U.K.-licensed commercial pilots received the vaccine, we would expect fewer than one to have experienced significant adverse effects".
Sadly for the CAA, Pfizer's report is actually describing 37 different types of events (and thousands of them) and the relative incidence for each type of event between 12 million vaccinated people and 12 million unvaccinated people matched for things like age and sex. I replied pointing out that:
§Pfizer's abstract of its Interim Report 5 (March 2024) shows a higher incidence of heart problems in the Covid vaccinated population.
§CAA's aeromedical regime for pilot licensing is based on the rate of sudden incapacitation in the general population.
§CAA's aeromedical regime was never 100% effective – there was always residual risk of a pilot passing the medical with a subclinical heart problem which later manifests during flight. It calls this residual risk the "1% rule".
§Pfizer's report means that the rate of sudden incapacitation in the general population has increased, so proportionately more pilots will pass medicals with subclinical heart problems which, in turn, increases the risk of sudden pilot incapacitation in flight.
§It is axiomatic that CAA needs to adjust the periodicity and depth of its aeromedicals.
I await CAA's further reply.
There is one other thing which has happened in the background: Esther McVey MP has asked a couple of Parliamentary Questions about Pfizer's report of increased heart problems in the Covid vaccinated:
§The first asked if MHRA had consulted other industry safety regulators about Pfizer's report. The answer was no. It seems to me that there is clash of safety cultures: MHRA think safety is relative ("safe equals benefits greater than risk") so it probably didn't even occur to its officials to consult other industry safety regulators who actually deal in absolute risks.
§The second question asked the Department for Transport what implications Pfizer's report had for CAA's aeromedical regime. DfT denied that it had any implications at all. It seems to me that DfT/CAA is ignoring the obvious.
So where are we now. We've got MHRA not consulting other industry safety regulators about the obvious wider safety implications of Pfizer's report of increased heart problems in the Covid vaccinated, and CAA unable to read Pfizer's report properly or being in denial.
This is, quite literally, deadly serious. The truth will out."
Comments