The heartbreaking account of Maddie de Garay, a 12-year-old girl who was seriously injured in the Pfizer covid vaccine trial; and how the regulators looked the other way
Having shared plenty of data in the context of covid vaccines, I thought it worth highlighting one particular personal story — that of a 12-year-old American girl, Maddie de Garay.1
Maddie’s extraordinary story is told in this 23-minute video3 put together by A Midwestern Doctor (whose writing I have featured here and here). It should be viewable merely by clicking on the “play” button below:
I was particularly struck by this section from 17:23-18:41:
[Maddie’s mother Stephanie] It’s been almost a year since [Maddie] got her first dose. Today she is in a wheelchair. She can’t feel from her waist down. She cannot walk. She can’t stand. She cannot feel the urge to pee… it gets to a point where it’s over-full. She can’t see. She has [??] this big on her phone. She has tinnitus. She still gets sick to her stomach even from being fed with [a nasogastric] tube. She still can’t swallow. Pfizer… the FDA… nobody has ever contacted us. Never. Not once. Not for an inquiry. Not for a “Hey, I’m sorry.” They’ve not paid for anything. They’ve done nothing. They’ve just basically pretended this didn’t happen.
I feel like I’ve failed her. You [try] to protect your kids and I thought I was protecting her with the vaccine. I thought [that] in a clinical trial that if anything happened they were going to do everything they could to figure it out. I thought that was the whole point. That’s why I wasn’t worried. But they didn’t do that. They just tried to make her look like she was crazy.
The additional comments from A Midwestern Doctorhere (click and scroll down a bit) are worth reading.
A longer video of Stephanie and Maddie de Garay telling their story can be viewed on YouTube and Rumble.
Don’t miss out — subscribe for free to receive new posts as soon as they are published (Substack sends only the posts, and no spam)
Interlude
It’s not easy to know how to follow that. Sadly, the situation is even worse than it might appear, as we shall see later.
But at this point I think it is important to say something about this sort of reaction to Maddie’s story:
“Maddie’s injuries are tragic. But they are rare. And unfortunately such injuries from vaccination are part of the sacrifice we have to make for the greater good.”
If such sentiments form even a small part of your thinking, please can I ask you to reflect on these questions:
Who might have an interest in pushing that sort of message, and why?
Where did most people — including doctors and nurses — get most of their information during the covid era?
In 2020/2021 our perception of reality was grossly distorted as the risk of covid was amplified systematically and relentlessly through sophisticated psychological manipulation, which included (and still includes) pushing covid injections on children:
And so, in relation to the second part of the earlier statement, no sacrifices were required. Especially those of healthy children.4
And while there is no doubt that sacrifices were made, they were emphatically not made for the greater good.
As ever, “cui bono?” and “follow the money” take us a long way towards the truth.
Covid vaccine injuries are not rare
And in relation to the first part of the earlier statement, covid vaccine injuries are not rare.
The extent of the harms is most reliably revealed by data from a wide range of sources, as discussed here (with recent updates in relation to prostate cancer and dementia):
The damage is also revealed by personal stories (not unlike Maddie de Garay’s), some of which are documented on websites such as this one, and social media accounts such as this one. (Please note that there are some graphic images at that second link.)
Many of the people who are pushing the lie that covid vaccine injuries are rare are the same people who pushed the lies that covid was an unprecedented threat and that only a “safe and effective covid vaccine” could save us. And of course the fact that the mainstream media fails to report something does not mean that it is not happening.
It is of course difficult for those who have so much invested in the covid vaccines — and I am not thinking financially here — to come to terms with what has happened. But denying reality5 does not change the fact that, across the world, there are literally millions of people, i.e. around 1% of the billions injected, whose lives have been seriously impacted by a covid vaccine injury. And that there is still by definition no long-term safety data or fertility data on the covid injections (although there are already grounds for concern re pregnancy and childbirth, and also male fertility6).
If you haven’t seen it, I recommend watching this song by Australian Christian singer/evangelist Kelly Newton-Wordsworth (featured in one of the first posts on this Substack):
There have also been similar displays in other parts of the world, including this one in Vienna and this one in London.
Returning to the story of Maddie de Garay…
How the regulators looked the other way
Pfizer and the FDA essentially ignored what had happened to Maddie de Garay
One of the most shocking aspects of what happened to Maddie de Garay is outlined here in this four-minute clip of heroic lawyer Aaron Siri (background in this post) answering questions from US Senator Thomas Massie7:
[Congressman Thomas Massie] Mr Siri, can you tell us about Maddie de Garay? Was she a participant in one of these trials? And how was her case reported?
[Aaron Siri] Maddie de Garay, who we represent — her and her family — was one of only about 1,100 children in the Pfizer 12-15 year-old covid-19 vaccine clinical trials… I pointed out earlier [that] you need to have a separate trial for children…
After her second dose she suffered a serious injury. She was in the emergency room [A&E]. She had a cascading adverse reaction. She ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. And the fact that the vaccine caused an injury — it happened, it’s tragic, but injuries from products happen.
But here… the real incredible part of this story is that when Pfizer reported her injury they reported it as functional abdominal pain. We know that from a FOIA production that we had to fight to get.
We then told the FDA in four separate letters, “Hey, Pfizer did not fully inform you about Maddie de Garay’s injuries. She’s in a wheelchair. She has a feeding tube. The only thing they told you was that she has functional abdominal [pain]… she has a tummy ache.
After four letters over 120 days later they finally responded. And what did the FDA say? They told her to file a VAERS report. She was in the clinical trial which… she had already done months earlier.
We then sued the FDA for all their communications regarding Maddie de Garay in the southern District of Ohio — the federal court. And when we finally got those documents, here’s what we found.
The FDA did finally ask Pfizer about Maddie de Garay, but it was only after somebody who’s very, very wealthy emailed Janet Woodcock… She then asked Dr. Peter Marks. And then Peter Marks asks that a request be sent to Pfizer. Pfizer responds, and this is the first time as far as we are aware, that Pfizer ever tells the FDA about Maddie de Garay’s injuries…
[Massie] What was the response of the FDA — of Peter Marks — when he found out that they had misled them?
He seemed unconcerned, and my understanding is he said, “Well, they’ve reported that she had a serious stomach ache. So, you know, they reported she had a serious injury.”
It was basically a whitewash. He sat, as I would expect, as a partner of Pfizer, defending them from their misconduct. He should have been outraged. He should have said, “Why didn’t you report this? Irrespective of whether you thought it was related you had an obligation to tell us about injuries. We decide later what to do with the data, but you [have] got to report it.”
They didn’t report it. I’m not aware of any penalty… any issue with Pfizer about it. And when you read the internal email chain… in the document we submitted… Pfizer’s paid Principal Investigator says he doesn’t “feel” — that’s what he writes — that the vaccine caused the injury. And it appears that Marks just accepted that.
[Massie] Whether the vaccine caused the issue or not, can you throw somebody out of a trial and not… say what happened to them…?
It corrupts the entire process. The idea is that you have a new product. You don’t know how it affects the human body, so you take in all harms that occur after vaccination. You report all of them. The causality assessment happens afterwards potentially. But you bring them all in, and it should, as I pointed out be a statistical comparison. Here basically, from what you look, if you look at the email channel it looks like Marks just goes, “Oh, Pfizer’s paid Principal Investigator says he doesn’t feel it’s related” And that goes in the chain of emails. And it looks like that’s how it dies. No reprimand to Pfizer… [Marks] takes no issue with them as far as I can tell.
Alexandros Marinos (who writes this Substack) summarises some of the wider context here:
The Maddie de Garay case is the one case that blows up the whole Pfizer vaccine story.
They misreported her injury in the 12-15 year-old children’s vaccine trial, because if it were reported, that would have represented a far worse outcome than the covid harms to those 1000 children, which were of course negligible, and therefore the benefits of the vaccine to those healthy children, which were of course negligible.
This is true especially considering that most children were naturally immune by that point. Pfizer lied and that lie presented a completely distorted image of what the outcome of the trial was, leading to Pfizer fraudulently securing further contracts, as well as the eventual inclusion of the covid shots in the children's vaccine schedule.
That inclusion, in turn… provides Pfizer with liability shielding due to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) [signed into law by actor-turned-President Ronald Reagan]. This law shields Pfizer of liability from that vaccine for injuries in any patient, so long as it is in the childhood schedule and it is also considered safe for pregnant women.
If this isn’t investigated thoroughly, nothing will ever be, but of course the story goes way too deep for it to ever be investigated properly. Once more, props to @RepThomasMassie and @AaronSiriSG for bringing this issue back to the surface.
The authorities “ran off the two top vaccine scientists at the FDA… because they said they would not skip steps to approve the vaccine”
What makes things worse is that it appears that two of the FDA’s top vaccine reviewers — who were essentially vaccine enthusiasts — suddenly both decided to leave the FDA around the time. Here is Thomas Massie again (transcript below):
…the Pfizer CEO [Albert Bourla] is a large animal veterinarian. And then the person who actually approved the vaccines at the FDA is a hematologist oncologist who ran off the two top vaccine scientists at the FDA — Marion Gruber and Philip Krause — because they said that they would not skip steps to approve the vaccine. And then they also had hesitation about the boosters. They said: “Not everybody’s going to need a booster, especially not eight months after they’ve received the vaccine.” But they were the vaccine experts working at the FDA who were removed of their responsibilities by a guy who didn’t replace them with vaccine experts. How do I know this? I was in a transcribed interview for seven hours with this gentleman from the FDA yesterday.
And what we also found out is that the FDA — whose role is to regulate the manufacturers, to make sure what they say is true, that the claims can be verified — the FDA itself was going out and making one-minute videos saying things that, not only did the vaccine manufacturers not claim, for instance that their vaccines could stop or slow the spread… but [that] the vaccine manufacturers never asked for approval of… to be able to say… [things for which] the vaccine manufacturers would’ve gone to jail… The FDA would have probably arrested somebody if they had made the claims that the FDA itself was making...”
The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial was fraudulent
Moreover, and as noted in this post, the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial was fraudulent. For those interested in the details, the most comprehensive summary that I have seen re the fraud is here:
Those from the UK speaking out about this include David White, a retired UK GP, in this video…
And Carl Heneghan, Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, e.g. here:
There are so many issues here. Not least, why should we trust any of what we have heard about the covid vaccine trials — let alone believe that the injections are “safe and effective”?
Indeed why should we trust what we have heard about any vaccine trials, and any supposedly “safe and effective” vaccines? Particularly when, as discussed here, the MHRA’s own guidance for the Advertising and Promotion of Medicines in the UK states that (p34):
I am reminded of US doctor Peter McCullough calling for a complete moratorium on childhood vaccines as discussed in this post. Is it any wonder that more and more parents are “going natural”?
Concluding thoughts
The MHRA looking the other way
Lest we in the UK are in any way complacent, it is worth noting that the MHRA did not fare much better than the FDA, as detailed e.g. in the Perseus report…
…which concludes:
Politicians looking the other way
I wonder how many people have noticed the lack of discussion of the covid injections during the General Election campaign? As Dr David Livermore observes:
…[covid] vaccines were touted as great achievements by Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock, Rishi Sunak, the BMJ, and the press at large. The Financial Times— no friend of Boris — wrote in February 2021 that vaccines gave the then PM a second chance. Ahead of the May 2021 council elections Keir Starmer opined that the vaccine rollout gave Boris a “very significant boost”. Developers and deployers received public honours.
As late as February 2023 the PM began his response to a Parliamentary Question (apropos a vaccine-injured constituent) by saying, “It is important to start by recognising the importance of vaccines in protecting us all, not least the fantastic roll-out of the Covid vaccines across the U.K.”
Now, come the election, no candidate hails the vaccines or the rollout. Nary a word. This is odd, to say the least. This Government hasn’t much to crow about. So, you’d think it’d highlight what, three years ago, was hailed as a world-beating success? Is it an admission it has all gone sour?
Often it is what politicians (and others) do not say that is most revealing.
Mainstream media journalists looking the other way
But it is not just the regulators and the politicians. It is also mainstream media journalists.
This is hardly surprising in the context of e.g. this post:
And on the subject of PR, former Telegraph cartoonist Bob Moran recently stated, in the context of TV doctors being paid to push vaccines, that “I’ve heard about news presenters and journalists who also took huge wads of cash from PR firms to promote the [covid] jabs every day. They should also be exposed.”
It’s not as though journalists have been unaware of what is actually going on. In this recent interview (from 5:45) UK cardiologist Aseem Malhotra speaks not only of the recent contact mentioned in the post but also of a journalist he has worked with for many years who was ready to break the story of the scandal of the covid vaccines 18 months ago:
Church leaders looking the other way
And it is not just the regulators and the politicians and mainstream media journalists. It is also church leaders.
Where are those prominent clergy and other influential Christians who pushed the covid injections in 2021? It’s not as though they are unaware either, not least because I have shared this article with many of them:
Closer to home, how often have we heard prayers being said for the many victims of covid vaccine injury — as distinct from those apparently suffering from covid, or “long covid” (which in many cases would be more accurately described as “long vaccine”)?
I do not know how many covid vaccine-injured people there are in our own congregation. But I am sure that the number is more than most people think.8 And I know that it is not zero.
And yet it seems that we do not pray for these suffering people. At church services, at prayer meetings, or via the prayer diary. Even when such prayer is suggested.
I wonder what it will take to turn the tide. I hope and pray that this sharing of the personal story of Maddie de Garay may have helped.
Thank you for reading. You are welcome to subscribe for free to receive new posts.
Beware drawing conclusions based on the title or abstract of any paper, including the one linked here; it is important to look at the actual data, which is sometimes hidden away in the appendix/supplementary information, and to bear in mind that during the covid era articles that were deemed to risk causing “vaccine hesitancy” would often not be considered suitable for publication
Not least because many people have not even considered seriously the possibility that their recent decline in health could well be due covid injections — perhaps partly because of what their doctor (who might well have recommended and/or given the injections) has told them
