Independent online lifts lid on data it claims was hidden from general public
A dogged struggle by an independent newspaper to investigate the after-effects associated with Covid-19 vaccines has revealed what it claims is the “scandalous tip” of a terrifying iceberg.
“It is not just (a few) lives that have been destroyed” as recent reports on national television (TVI and CMTV) have shown. “There are many people who have literally lost their lives in a fulminant way, the outcomes of which have been hidden by authorities, who are more interested in achieving maximum vaccination targets.
“As a result of a 32-month ‘fight’ against lawyers paid by INFARMED” (Portugal’s medicines authority) Página Um (an online newspaper that came to being during the height of pandemic restrictions) said it obtained a judgment from the Central Administrative Court of the South to access the RAM Portal database of adverse reactions to the vaccines rolled out with unparalleled speed at the end of 2020.
INFARMED, however, “doesn’t want to comply in full” insisting, says the paper, “on mutilating and omitting various variables”.
It has only made available, for example, data for the first year of the vaccination programme. “Even so what we can already see is frightening: not only have there been sudden deaths, some within minutes of the doses being administered, but authorities have neglected to ascertain the causes of many fatalities – and there is probably a high degree of under-reporting”, says Página Um founder and writer Pedro Almeida Vieira.
“The lack of relevant details on fatal outcomes in the Infarmed database is extremely serious, and it is not clear whether many other cases evolved favourably or unfavourably over time.
“What is certain is that in the period between December 27, 2020 – the start of the vaccination campaign – and December 6, 2021, when 27,220 adverse reactions were reported, of which 7,110 were classified as serious – not even cases of death were the subject of particular investigation.
“In fact, the database managed by Infarmed – which allows for subsequent updates by notifying doctors – indicates the occurrence of 104 deaths during the first year of vaccination, but in around four dozen cases the period between the administration of the vaccine and the fatal outcome is not even indicated.
“In several cases, absurdly fulminant deaths are indicated. For example, identified as case 23897, a woman in her 80s succumbed to a heart attack just two minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine (Comirnaty) on October 18, 2021.
“An elderly man in the same age group, identified as reaction 27033, lasted little longer: after also being administered the Pfizer vaccine (Comirnaty) on December 4, 2021, he died after 15 minutes of pulmonary thromboembolism.
“In just 30 minutes, a woman aged between 65 and 79, identified as case 8712, died after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine on April 6, 2021.
“Only an hour later, case 7486 ‘survived’: a sudden death ‘took’ a man aged between 65 and 74 after he was given a vaccine whose brand name, strangely enough, doesn’t even appear on the AMR Portal – and not even Infarmed seemed concerned to find out.
“In two hours or less, three more deaths have been identified: case 1062 (a woman aged over 80, due to dyspnoea, on January 21, 2021); case 5987 (a woman aged between 65 and 79, due to a heart attack, on March 30, 2021); and case 6675 (a man aged between 50 and 64, due to anaphylactic shock, on April 8, 2021).
“With fatal outcomes between two hours and less than two days, PAGE ONE counted a further 24 deaths, almost all associated with cardiovascular disorders.
“Also surprising is the lack of information collected on the deaths of minors” – or possibly it was simply withheld from PÁGINA UM by Infarmed, says Almeida Vieira.
In what he calls “the ‘mutilated’ file”, nine deaths of people aged between 25 and 49 are reported, a range where COVID-19 posed very little real danger. “However, in five of these deaths (cases 200, 11860, 13665, 25779 and 26408) the duration of the reaction until the fatal outcome was not even recorded.
It wasn’t even considered alarming that the first of these deaths in younger age groups, occurred in the first phase, killing a woman on the first day of 2021, with the only reference to it being “a sudden death”.
“In this group of younger victims, some of the causes of death are in line with certain disorders compatible with adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines confirmed by science over the last few years. For example, case 18448 concerns the death of a man in this age group who suffered from immune thrombocytopenia just 24 hours after being given the Janssen vaccine. A woman in the same age group died in August 2021 after suffering anaphylactic shock six hours after receiving a dose of the Pfizer vaccine”. She “eventually succumbed to a heart attack.
“Even more complex, and agonising, was the death of a man in this age group who, three days after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, was diagnosed with myocarditis, followed by a severe stroke and arterial thrombosis. He died three days later, on November 26, 2021, of a heart attack”.
Página Um guarantees that it “will continue to analyse the RAM Portal, put pressure on INFARMED to comply with the ruling of the Administrative Court in full, and survey the most serious adverse reactions caused by COVID-19 vaccines in Europe, through an exhaustive and rigorous survey of information from EudraVigilance, the database of the European Medicines Agency.
“It should be noted, however, that there is no other authorised medicine that currently has so many victims due to adverse effects”, Almeida Vieira recalls – “and there is still a strange lack of awareness of the need for an ethical and political analysis of vaccination programmes for Covid-19, including a cost-benefit assessment by age group and degree of vulnerability”.
There is also the issue of “transparency required for real (and unpressured) informed consent”. Remember, these vaccines were “quasi-imposed” on populations (whether through effective travel bans/ restaurant bans, or insistence by certain employers), yet the pharmaceutical companies that sold the vaccines were exempt from liability by the European Commission.
There is so much to unpack, explains Página UM, which signs off on its exposé explaining that its fight to get the information it has gleaned so far “has only been possible thanks to the individual support of readers, through specific donations to the LEGAL FUND.
As many may suspect, Página Um’s story is not being widely circulated by the more mainstream media in Portugal. But it is doing the rounds on social media. It is reaching people who already had deep misgivings about the way authorities acted during the pandemic – and it is based on data, so difficult to dismiss as a crackpot conspiracy theory.
Campaigning lawyer João Pedro César Machado warns there could be a great deal more to come: “after the most infamous, illegal and unconstitutional covid digital certificate, which came into force in July 2021, which was followed by an illegal and unconstitutional State of Calamity with no predetermined duration, on December 1, 2021, and which resulted in the biggest crime of coercion carried out by this regime and through which free, informed and informed consent, which is also a crime (articles 156 and 157 of the penal code), was shamelessly violated.
156 and 157 of the penal code), forcing the Portuguese to inject themselves with an experimental gene therapy, under penalty of not doing so, being barred from entering restaurants, all public and private spaces such as museums, bars, gyms, cinemas, wedding and christening parties, shopping centres, now comes an EU-sponsored pilot project by a supposedly private company, Euvabeco, which wants to introduce the European Vaccination Certificate.
“This pilot project will try to ‘measure the pulse’ of Portuguese participation and acceptance.
“The EU’s underlying idea is to introduce complete digital control, with all the metadata of European citizens.
“If the project succeeds in gaining popular acceptance, it will first be in the form of a ‘recommendation’ from either the European Parliament, the European Commission or the European Council itself, with no binding force (as was told to the Resident some weeks back), as stipulated in Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. But later, it will either take the form of a directive or a European regulation, and then it will be binding on everyone”, he warns.
The pilot project, which we indeed were told is ‘entirely voluntary’ will start being rolled out next week. Portugal is one of five European countries chosen for this exercise, against which a number of well-respected voices have already spoken out.
