Data Transparency
What specific health complications were observed in COVID-19 vaccine trials that were not adequately communicated to the public?
According to vaccine trial participant Brianne Dressen, neurological complications were the primary health issues observed during COVID-19 vaccine trials. The data also revealed that vaccines did not prevent Long Covid as expected, and in many cases, actually made existing Long Covid symptoms worse rather than providing improvement. Most concerning was the apparent disconnect between what researchers and officials knew internally versus what was communicated publicly. Trial participants and the broader public were not fully informed about these complications, despite clear evidence of neurological side effects and the vaccines' limited effectiveness against Long Covid. This highlights critical issues around informed consent and transparency in vaccine safety reporting, particularly regarding the gap between private knowledge and public health messaging during the pandemic.
Watch clip answer (00:25m)
VICE News
18:49 - 19:15
What happened to Brianne Dressen after participating in the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine trial, and how did the trial organizers respond to her adverse reactions?
Brianne Dressen experienced severe adverse reactions within hours of receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine during a Phase 3 trial. Her symptoms began with tingling in her injection arm on the way home, followed by blurred and double vision, distorted hearing, and eventually a slumped left leg that caused her to walk into doorways. Despite the trial contract promising medical and financial support for research-related injuries, Dressen received no response when she called to report her symptoms the morning after the injection. As a preschool teacher during COVID-19, she prioritized her students' need for stability and continued working despite her debilitating symptoms. Her experience highlights critical gaps in vaccine trial participant support systems and raises important questions about accountability and transparency in clinical research, ultimately leading her to co-found React19.org to advocate for other vaccine-injured individuals.
Watch clip answer (02:32m)
VICE News
05:00 - 07:32
How have government and social media platforms collaborated to control public discourse around COVID-19 vaccine safety concerns?
Based on the discussion, there appears to be systematic collaboration between government entities and social media platforms to suppress information about vaccine injuries and side effects. This censorship particularly affects individuals like vaccine trial participants who experienced adverse reactions, preventing their testimonies from reaching the public. The suppression of scientific data and personal accounts creates significant transparency issues in public health discourse. When legitimate concerns about vaccine safety are censored, it undermines public trust in health organizations and creates an information environment where only certain perspectives are allowed to be shared. This collaboration has broader implications for future pandemic responses, as it establishes precedents for controlling health-related information and potentially limits the ability of the public to make fully informed decisions about their health care.
Watch clip answer (00:03m)
VICE News
56:28 - 56:32
What motivated Brianne Dressen, a Utah mother and preschool teacher, to participate in the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine trial?
Brianne Dressen was motivated to participate in the vaccine trial by multiple converging factors. She had healthcare professionals in her family who expressed serious concerns about COVID-19's initial variant, reporting alarming cases of clotting disorders and heart attacks in young people at hospitals. This personal testimony from trusted medical sources created genuine fear about the pandemic's severity. Additionally, the media environment amplified these concerns with apocalyptic messaging about potential societal collapse. As someone who was fully vaccinated along with her children, and married to a PhD chemist, Dressen viewed participation as following science and fulfilling civic duty. She was already predisposed to get vaccinated and saw the trial as an opportunity to help society emerge from the pandemic with minimal damage. Her decision was further reinforced when friends successfully participated in Moderna trials, making her receptive when AstraZeneca's clinic contacted her directly for screening.
Watch clip answer (04:23m)
VICE News
00:14 - 04:38
What happened to Brianne Dressen during the COVID-19 vaccine trials and how is she responding to her experience?
Brianne Dressen, a healthy school teacher and mother of two, volunteered to participate in COVID-19 vaccine trials but experienced severe traumatic side effects that dramatically changed her perspective on vaccines. Her negative experience was so significant that she transformed from being a vaccine proponent to becoming a critic and advocate for vaccine safety. As a result of her ordeal, Dressen is now pursuing legal action by filing a groundbreaking lawsuit against AstraZeneca that could potentially reshape the vaccine industry. She has also become an advocate through React19.org, working to raise awareness about vaccine injuries and pushing for greater transparency in public health decisions and policies.
Watch clip answer (00:48m)VICE News
00:06 - 00:54
What systemic failures occurred when government health agencies handled COVID vaccine injury reports during the trial phase?
Brianne Dressen reveals a troubling disconnect between private acknowledgment and public statements by health agencies. While the FDA and NIH were holding regular meetings and confirming COVID vaccine injuries in trial participants, these same officials simultaneously appeared in public media denying knowledge of such reactions. This represents a significant failure in transparency and accountability. Government agencies were internally documenting serious neurological complications from vaccine trials while publicly maintaining that vaccine safety concerns were unsubstantiated. The system allowed for the suppression of legitimate injury reports, creating a barrier between clinical evidence and public health communication. Such dual messaging undermines public trust and highlights the need for greater accountability in vaccine safety monitoring and reporting processes.
Watch clip answer (00:44m)
VICE News
41:59 - 42:44