COVID vaccine deaths
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has opened an expanded review into deaths possibly linked to COVID‑19 vaccines after an internal memo said the agency had identified "at least 10" pediatric deaths and later expanded to adults; the memo’s claims have not been published with supporting data and outside experts express skepticism [1] [2] [3]. Reuters and other outlets report the memo was based on an initial analysis of 96 deaths from 2021–2024 and that the FDA says it is conducting a "thorough investigation" across multiple age groups [4] [1].
1. What the FDA said and what it didn’t provide
The FDA’s chief vaccine official, Vinay Prasad, circulated a memo asserting COVID‑19 vaccines "probably contributed" to at least 10 children’s deaths; the agency subsequently said it is investigating deaths across multiple age groups but has not released the underlying data or detailed findings to the public [2] [1]. HHS and FDA spokespeople say a review is underway, yet they declined to disclose what specific data sources are being used or the analytic methods applied [5] [6].
2. How many deaths are being examined — and where the numbers come from
News organizations report the preliminary analysis reviewed 96 deaths recorded between 2021 and 2024, from which the internal memo drew its conclusions about pediatric cases; Reuters specifically cites that 96‑case review as the basis for the memo’s assertion [4]. Other reporting indicates different tallies in follow‑up internal analyses — for example, one account says an FDA staff analysis found seven pediatric deaths "possibly/probably" linked to vaccination, a lower number than the memo’s claim [7].
3. Why experts and journalists are wary of the memo’s claims
Multiple outlets and independent experts say the memo made "extraordinary" assertions without presenting supporting data, and outside scientists stress they would need detailed case information, autopsy reports, and standardized causality assessments to accept causation claims [2] [3]. PBS and Stat report that neither Prasad nor other FDA officials provided the necessary case details, and that some public‑health experts remain skeptical given the lack of peer‑reviewed evidence [3] [2].
4. Context: vaccines, myocarditis and prior safety monitoring
Reporting notes that serious adverse events such as anaphylaxis and myocarditis have been rare and that COVID‑19 itself has been linked to higher myocarditis risk than vaccination in some age groups in earlier studies; PBS cites research showing myocarditis risk is higher after COVID infection than after mRNA vaccination, and that vaccine‑associated myocarditis in kids generally had favorable outcomes in earlier studies [3]. The agencies maintain that COVID vaccines were extensively tested and continually monitored since 2020 [5].
5. The politics and institutional framing behind the inquiry
Coverage frames the issue as unfolding amid a change in health‑policy leadership and heightened scrutiny of vaccines; NPR and other outlets note critics view the release and emphasis of the memo as aligning with broader political pushes to tighten vaccine oversight and question mRNA vaccine safety [8] [9]. Reuters and The New York Times report the probe expanded to adults as agencies responded to public pressure and internal assertions [4] [1].
6. What the investigation could — and cannot — show publicly soon
Available reporting indicates the FDA intends to release documents "soon" outlining its framework and data, but as of publication the agency has not produced peer‑reviewed analyses or detailed case information necessary to establish causation [9] [1]. Until the FDA publishes the underlying evidence and methods (or external investigators do), public assessment of whether vaccines "caused" these deaths remains unresolved in available reporting [1] [2].
7. How to read conflicting numbers and statements
Different outlets have reported varying figures (10 children, seven children, analyses of 96 deaths); those discrepancies reflect stages of internal review, differing definitions of "possibly/probably linked," and incomplete public disclosure [7] [4] [2]. Journalists and scientists quoted in the coverage urge caution: preliminary internal memos are not equivalent to published causal findings [2] [3].
8. What to watch next
Follow whether the FDA releases the full staff analysis, case‑level data, and a transparent causality framework — those documents are the only path to independent assessment of the memo’s claims, according to reporting [9] [1]. If the FDA publishes peer‑reviewed work or detailed case summaries, outlets like Reuters, The New York Times and STAT are likely to analyze and compare methods and conclusions [4] [1] [2].
Limitations: Reporting to date is based on internal memos and preliminary staff analyses; none of the cited articles present a complete, peer‑reviewed dataset proving causation [2] [4]. Available sources do not mention final, publicly released autopsy reports or adjudicated causality determinations.