The Coroner conducting the inquiry into the death of Warren Mottley on Monday struck out the statements of two doctors that his passing was likely linked to the COVID-19 vaccine.
Magistrate Graveney Bannister made the ruling after attorney-at-law Faye Finisterre, one of the lawyers for the Mottley family, made an application for some of the evidence of Dr Damian Henry, lead investigator for vaccine adverse incidents with the Barbados Pharmacovigilance Division of the Barbados Drug Service, and Dr Sahle Griffith to be struck out because it was “more prejudicial than probative”.
“The evidence is far more prejudicial than probative. It is not supported by anything,” he said.
Giving evidence in a prepared statement recently, Dr Griffith, who was the surgeon responsible for Mottley’s care while he was at a private medical facility in 2021, said there was a possibility that complications from the COVID-19 vaccine led to the death of Prime Minister Mia Mottley’s younger brother.
Mottley passed away at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH) on June 29, 2021, a week after a routine colonoscopy at Surgical Solutions Inc (SSI).
Dr Griffith, the principal surgeon at SSI, had said he was “absolutely convinced” that Mottley died as a result of small bowel ischemia, and World Health Organisation (WHO) studies had reported that the condition could be caused by some COVID-19 vaccines. He told the inquest that Dr Henry also formed a conclusion based on the information he was presented with.
On Monday, the court halted its cross-examination of Dr Griffith to get evidence from Dr Henry.
The public health specialist told the No. 10 Supreme Court that Dr Griffith submitted an Adverse Reaction Reporting Form on the morning of October 25, 2021, with the information pertaining to the deceased.
He explained that if there is a fatality, the normal procedure is to request the postmortem report, and contact the physicians involved – in this case Dr Griffith and any other physician on the case – as well as the family.
Dr Henry said after going through the official channels, he made a request through his superior to contact members of the Mottley family but was told “to hold on that since things were going on.”
He spoke to Dr Griffith and the anesthesiologist involved in Mottley’s case between May and June this year.
“I have partial findings because I didn’t speak to his family, Sir . . . so the report is not conclusive,” Dr Henry testified.
The doctor said that according to the information received, Mottley received the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine on February 19, 2021, and the second dose on April 27 of the same year.
Dr Henry’s investigation began in April this year. He stated that he disagreed with the pathologist’s finding that Mottley’s likely cause of death was sepsis due to perforation of the small bowel caused by a surgical laparoscopic procedure.
“I am not in agreement with this conclusion because it does not follow established medical science. Based on Dr Griffith’s initial history and the findings of the postmortem, it is likely that sepsis existed way before the perforation . . . .
“. . . . The absence of damage to other organs at postmortem . . . clearly rules out disseminated intravascular coagulation and, therefore, it is highly likely that this case is probably linked to vaccination as there have been 367 similar cases in the global report.”
But Dr Henry made it clear that his report was “not conclusive as he had not spoken to the family as yet” and that investigations were ongoing as he had also not spoken to doctors at the QEH. He said he spoke to a nurse at SSI and the anesthesiologist and admitted that he spoke to Dr Griffith about his theory.
However, the Coroner questioned whether it wouldn’t have been better to wait until Dr Henry had all his information before coming to a conclusion.
“The impression given is that the vaccine caused his death,” Bannister stated.
Dr Henry responded: “As I said, Sir, the case was still ongoing and it was three cases that were reported simultaneously. . . . 367 [cases] were reported globally at the point of August 2021. What drew my attention to looking into the case as an investigator was that we had a cluster of three cases [in Barbados] . . . .
“Mr Mottley’s case was the last of the three, the two other cases . . . both of those cases did not succumb; they are alive.
“I am making [a] comparison based on information that I have, based on the other cases . . . and followed the . . . process, not only in Mr Mottley’s case but the other cases, so that is why I can come to that conclusion.
“My thoughts on the case was basically there is a strong likelihood that it may be linked, based on not only Mr Mottley’s case but the other cases that I would have investigated,” said Dr Henry who added that he had not sent his findings to the Advisory Committee for COVID Vaccine in Barbados “because it is not completed as yet”.
But Finisterre made an application for paragraphs 30 and 31 of Dr Griffith’s statement to be stricken out of the record and Dr Henry’s findings.
In responding to questions posed by attorneys Francis DePezia who appears for the doctors in the matter along with Michael Lashley K.C. and Sade Harris, the specialist disclosed that the cluster of three had increased to six, to date.
“The court cannot accept the evidence of Dr Henry who did not interview the independent witnesses but from his evidence tends to support or corroborate the evidence of Dr Sahle Griffith in paragraphs 30 and 31,” ruled Coroner Magistrate Bannister.
“The court cannot rely on neither Dr Henry’s assertions nor . . . [the] evidence in paragraph 30 and 31 of Dr Griffith’s statement without more, as they lead to a speculative conclusion on findings. I, therefore, strike both paragraphs 30 and 31 of Dr Griffith’s statement and the references by Dr Henry with regards to the vaccine causing the death of Warren Mottley and the findings re the 367 cases on the WHO database.
“The evidence is far more prejudicial than probative. It is not supported by anything. The reasoning and conclusion are drawn based on three cases, in my view, which are fundamentally flawed and cannot be accepted. The syllogism is faulty.
“So, after hearing his evidence, I cannot accept paragraphs 30 and 31 or evidence of this incomplete report from Dr Henry. So, that being the case, they are struck from the record,” Magistrate Bannister said.
fernellawedderburn@barbadostoday.bb
