Pharmacovigilance
What are the personal and legal consequences faced by COVID vaccine trial participants who experienced adverse reactions?
Brianne Dressen's experience as an AstraZeneca vaccine trial participant illustrates the devastating personal impact that adverse vaccine reactions can have on individuals and families. After participating in the trial, she suffered chronic injuries that left her permanently disabled, transforming her from a Utah mother and preschool teacher into a patient advocate fighting for recognition and accountability. Her response to these challenges demonstrates remarkable resilience and purpose. Rather than remaining silent, she co-founded React19.org to support others with similar experiences and authored "Worth a Shot" to share her story. Most significantly, she became part of the first COVID vaccine-related lawsuit in the US, taking legal action against AstraZeneca. This case highlights broader issues of transparency and accountability in vaccine trials, raising important questions about how trial participants are supported when things go wrong and the responsibility of pharmaceutical companies to those who volunteer for medical research.
Watch clip answer (00:51m)
VICE News
00:48 - 01:39
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 are the legal challenges and prevalence of adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines based on clinical trial data?
Brianne Dressen explains that vaccine injury cases face unique legal obstacles due to the PREP Act, which provides robust protections for vaccination programs. Unlike typical injury cases that would be "open and shut," vaccine-related lawsuits encounter impenetrable legal barriers because vaccines are held to different standards in the United States. Regarding prevalence, Dressen cites two key studies showing significant adverse event rates. Freeman and Doshi's analysis of clinical trial data found serious adverse events occur at a rate of 1 in 800 participants. Additionally, the German government has officially recognized "post vaccine syndrome" as a severe multi-system condition occurring after COVID vaccination, with rates similar to long COVID at 2 in 5,000 cases. These findings highlight the gap between reported adverse events and actual clinical trial data, raising questions about transparency in vaccine safety reporting.
Watch clip answer (02:17m)
VICE News
33:42 - 35:59
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 legal protections do pharmaceutical companies have against lawsuits from COVID vaccine injuries, and what recourse do injured individuals have?
Pharmaceutical companies are protected from COVID vaccine injury lawsuits through the PREP Act, which provides blanket immunity under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). This protection extends beyond COVID vaccines to other treatments like remdesivir and monkeypox vaccines, leaving injured individuals with no legal recourse against manufacturers. Currently, over 100 legal challenges to the PREP Act have failed, making Brianne Dressen's AstraZeneca case potentially the first to succeed in challenging this protection. Injured individuals are essentially on their own, with no established support programs or dedicated research into addressing vaccine-related harms. The situation highlights a significant gap in accountability, where those harmed by vaccines have limited options and must often rely on informal networks of other injured individuals to find information and support, creating an urgent need for legal and policy reforms.
Watch clip answer (01:36m)
VICE News
31:40 - 33:17
What was the government and institutional response when COVID vaccine trial participants reported severe adverse effects from the AstraZeneca vaccine?
When Brianne Dressen and another participant reported identical severe neurological injuries from the AstraZeneca vaccine trial, the NIH responded within 24 hours to their reports. Despite acknowledging these injuries, government messaging continued to promote vaccine safety, telling people to "go get your shot" while claiming they were just working on FDA paperwork. Ten days after the reports, two significant actions occurred: AstraZeneca was pulled from consideration in the United States, and the National Institutes of Health initiated a formal study to investigate neurological complications following COVID vaccines in general. This response highlighted the disconnect between official safety messaging and the serious adverse events being documented by trial participants.
Watch clip answer (00:47m)
VICE News
16:28 - 17:15