The U.S. Food and Drug Administration
and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention jointly run and,
allegedly, monitor the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)
for safety signals.
Both agencies have been blatantly derelict in their duties in this
regard, as the safety signals in VAERS have been screaming for attention
since the first quarter of 2021. Yet both the FDA and CDC claim they’ve
found nothing of concern. Nothing at all.
They’re so unconcerned they even added the COVID jabs to the
childhood vaccination schedule, with the first jab series to be given to
toddlers and babies as young as 6 months. Meanwhile, data from around
the world, including data in VAERS,1 V-Safe and the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), suggest these shots are the deadliest in the history of vaccines. No other product comes even close.
CDC Invents Facts to Drive a Narrative
In the video above, Megyn Kelly interviews Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
about the difficulty in determining how many lives may have been saved
by the COVID shots, versus how many lives have been lost because of
them, and highlights some of the outright false statements issued by the
CDC.
For example, the CDC has publicly warned that COVID is one of the Top
10 causes of death in children aged 5 to 11, yet when asked to produce
the data, they admitted they never conducted an analysis for that age
group.
So how did they conclude that COVID is a top cause of death in an age
group they’ve never analyzed mortality data for? The rational
conclusion is that they just made it up.
As noted by Kennedy, the CDC is also
discouraging autopsies of people who die post-jab, and they’re engaging
in a whole host of other obfuscation tactics that make good data hard
to come by, and this has been going on since the very beginning of the
pandemic.
FDA Is Withholding Crucial Study Findings
The FDA is also guilty of massive data obfuscation. In a recent BMJ article,2
investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi discusses the FDA’s failure to
follow up on and release data showing an increase in serious adverse
events in elderly individuals who received the Pfizer shot:
“In July 2021 the US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) quietly disclosed findings of a potential increase in four types
of serious adverse events in elderly people who had had Pfizer’s
COVID-19 vaccine: acute myocardial infarction, disseminated
intravascular coagulation, immune thrombocytopenia, and pulmonary
embolism.
Little detail was provided, such as the magnitude of
the increased potential risk, and no press release or other alert was
sent to doctors or the public. The FDA promised it would ‘share further
updates and information with the public as they become available.’
Eighteen days later, the FDA published a study
planning document (or protocol) outlining a follow-up epidemiological
study intended to investigate the matter more thoroughly.
This recondite technical document disclosed the
unadjusted relative risk ratio estimates originally found for the four
serious adverse events, which ranged from 42% to 91% increased risk.
(Neither absolute risk increases nor confidence intervals were
provided.)
More than a year later, however, the status and
results of the follow-up study are unknown. The agency has not published
a press release, or notified doctors, or published the findings by
preprint or the scientific literature or updated the vaccine’s product
label.
The BMJ has also learnt that the FDA has not publicly
warned of similar signals detected in a separate observational cohort
study3 it conducted of the third dose (first booster dose) in the elderly ...
[Nor] has the agency publicly acknowledged other
published observational studies or clinical trial reanalyses reporting
compatible results. Experts spoke to The BMJ about their concerns about
the data and have called on the FDA to notify the public immediately.”
Serious Side Effects in Seniors Are Being Hidden
As explained by Demasi,4
the July 2021 findings came from a surveillance system called Rapid
Cycle Analysis (RCA), which provides “near real-time” monitoring of 14
“adverse events of special interest.” Like VAERS and other surveillance
tools, the RCA cannot establish causality, but unlike the others, its
strength lies in detecting potential safety signals more rapidly.
The FDA’s protocol document for the planned follow-up study indicates
that a manuscript of the original RCA study is being prepared, but more
than a year later, neither the original RCA study nor the follow-up
study have been published. Why?
The FDA is also hiding other studies. Buried inside yet another study
protocol, the FDA discusses findings from “a cohort study of the third
dose safety in the Medicare population where historical controls were
used.” In that Medicare study, the FDA found:
“... a statistically significant risk for immune
thrombocytopenia (incidence rate ratio 1.66, confidence interval 1.17 to
2.29) and acute myocardial infarction (IRR 1.15, CI 1.02 to 1.29) among
people with prior COVID-19 diagnosis as well as an increased risk of
Bell’s palsy (IRR 1.11, CI 1.03 to 1.19) and pulmonary embolism (IRR
1.05, CI 1.0001 to 1.100) in general.”
Why were those results buried in a study protocol and never published
or announced to the public? As noted by Dr. Joseph Fraiman, an
emergency medicine physician in New Orleans, “If the FDA is stating
publicly that they’re collecting [data], then they should be publicly
reporting it. They shouldn’t be burying the results in protocols as
they’ve done.”5
Dutch epidemiologist and president of the International Society of
Drug Bulletins, Dick Bijl, agrees, telling Demasi that any warning
signals found in July 2021 “should have been analyzed and published
within months.”
Reanalysis of Trial Data Confirms Safety Problems
Fraiman is particularly concerned as his team recently reanalyzed
data from the Pfizer and Moderna Phase 3 trials, finding results that
match those that the FDA are now hiding.
Their reanalysis,6 which focused on serious adverse events highlighted in a World Health Organization-endorsed ‘priority list7
of potential adverse events relevant to the COVID-19 shots, found
Pfizer’s shot was associated with an increased risk of serious adverse
events at a rate of 10.1 events per 10,000. The rate for Moderna’s jab
was 15.1 events per 10,000.
Fraiman’s analysis stressed that this level of risk for a
post-injection event was significantly greater than the risk reduction
for COVID-related hospitalization found in both trials, which was only
2.3 per 10,000 participants in the Pfizer trial and 6.4 per 10,000 in
the Moderna trial.
In short, the shots are far more likely to land you in the hospital
than COVID-19 itself. For every 800 jab recipients, one person will
suffer a serious injury. Meanwhile, some 5,000 must get the Pfizer jab
to prevent a single COVID hospitalization. This is what risk-benefit
analysis is all about — comparing and weighing the benefit against the
risk — and in this case, the jab clearly does more harm than good.
Scandinavian Study Confirms Cardiovascular Risks
Demasi also cites an observational study8
from Denmark, Finland and Norway, which found “statistically
significant increases in thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes
following both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.” As reported by the
authors:
“In the 28-day period following vaccination, there
was an increased rate of coronary artery disease following mRNA-1273
[Moderna] vaccination: RR, 1.13 ... There was an observed increased rate
of coagulation disorders following all 3 vaccines (AZD1222
[AstraZeneca]: RR, 2.01]; BNT162b2 [Pfizer]: RR, 1.12; and mRNA-1273:
RR, 1.26) ...
There was also an observed increased rate of
cerebrovascular disease following all 3 vaccines (AZD1222: RR, 1.32;
BNT162b2: RR, 1.09; and mRNA-1273: RR, 1.21 ...
For individual diseases within the main outcomes, 2
notably high rates were observed: 12.04 for cerebral venous thrombosis
and 4.29 for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 and 4.9 excess
events per 100 000 doses, respectively, following AZD1222 vaccination.”
Christine Stabell Benn, a vaccinologist and professor in global health at the University of Southern Denmark told Demasi:9
“The safety signal seems to be gathering around
cardiovascular and cerebral vascular events, things to do with
circulation and our larger organs, and these are the same signals that
appear to be popping up in the FDA surveillance data as well ...
It seems to me that doctors have a much higher
tolerance for COVID vaccine side effects because there’s been this sense
that if you don’t take the vaccine, you die. Obviously, that is
completely the wrong way to think about it.
We don’t want to create a lot of unnecessary anxiety
and we can’t say there is now proof that the vaccines cause these events
because the data are of poor quality, but we can say there is a danger
signal, and the medical profession needs to be alerted to this.”
Jab Makers Intentionally Botched Trials
The primary reason for why the data is of “poor quality” is the fact
that the COVID shots “were not tested properly” from the start, Stabell
Benn notes. The control groups were eliminated by giving them the real
shots a few months into the Phase 3 trials, which makes it
near-impossible to evaluate long-term side effects — problems that might
arise many months or years later. This seems to have been done
intentionally, for that very reason.
Without a proper control group, any and all side effects can be
written off as normal, as there’s no documented unjabbed group to
compare with. Many of us did not get the jab, but there are no data
about us (our health status and so forth) in the trial, so true
comparisons become problematic.
Are Data Withheld to Prevent Establishment of Causation?
Earlier this year, the CDC admitted it was deliberately withholding
data for fear they may be “misinterpreted as the vaccines being
ineffective” and/or be misconstrued as confirming causation.10 This is not how real science should be conducted.
To ever reach the conclusion that the shots are causing injury, data
are needed, and lots of it. By withholding crucial data, the CDC is
effectively preventing that conclusion from being reached. Its excuse so
far has been that there are “no data” to indicate there’s a problem.
Meanwhile, they’re sitting on data that indicate just that!
CDC Lied About Pfizer Study Results
In addition to hiding data, the CDC has also lied about trial
results. As noted in an October 31, 2022, tweet from Rep. Thomas Massie:11
“Pfizer’s original vaccine trial, which contained
1,200 participants with evidence of prior infection, showed no benefit
from their shots for those who had evidence of prior infection. CDC
lied, said study showed it was 92% efficacious for those w/ evidence of
prior infection.”
Massie — a Republican Congressman for Kentucky and an award-winning
scientist — initially revealed the CDC’s error in January 2021, after
having tried, in vain, to get the CDC to correct it. I detailed Massie’s
efforts in “Why Do Public Health Agencies Reject Natural Immunity?” At the time, Massie said:12,13
“There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer
trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections
and actually there's no proof in the Moderna trial either … It [the CDC
report] says the exact opposite of what the data says.”
Latest COVID Variant Favors the Jabbed 3 to 1
In related news, October 25, 2022, the Ethical Skeptic — a data analyst and fraud investigator — tweeted14
out a graphic showing the latest COVID variant, dubbed BQ, is infecting
the jabbed at a rate of 3-to-1 compared to the unjabbed. It also
appears to favor those who got jabbed more recently.
CDC Has Automated Data Falsification
A day earlier The Ethical Skeptic posted the second installment15
of his “Houston, the CDC Has a Problem” series, in which he details how
the CDC is systematically manipulating the data to hide signs of COVID
jab dangers.
Using data from the CDC’s Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Reports
(MMWR), he shows how the CDC hides and deletes excess jab-related
deaths, particularly in categories like cancer, cardiac deaths and
strokes. In June 2022, the CDC temporarily paused its MMWR reporting to
perform a “system upgrade.” That lasted two months.
When it came back online, large numbers of deaths jab-related
categories had been moved, either into the COVID death category or a
“holding” category for undetermined deaths, thereby making it appear as
though deaths from cancer, heart attacks and strokes are far lower than
they are. This gaming of the algorithm appears to have been automated as
of that system update. Here’s an excerpt from Part 2, in which The
Ethical Skeptic summarizes his findings:16
“The principal concerns with regard to the US Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention ‘Weekly Provisional Counts of Deaths
by State and Select Causes’17 and ‘Wonder: Provisional Mortality Statistics’18 are that the reports have begun to exhibit two primary apparent goals on the part of the CDC and its agency:
- concealing excess deaths potentially caused by the mRNA vaccines, and
- attempting to make mRNA vaccines falsely appear as uber-effective in saving lives.
Please note that we will not resolve an answer to
either of these issues in this article, rather herein we will only
outline the efforts in disinformation, misinformation, and deception on
the part of the CDC which are foisted in an attempt to achieve both
goals. Accordingly, four key issues are entailed inside this
two-sided-coin deception:
1. The National Vital Statistics
System Upgrade (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NVSS System Upgrade’)
afforded the CDC a timeframe inside which it could alter 22 weeks of
NCHS-MMWR data.
During this window of opportunity the CDC surreptitiously removed
excess death records from its database, and adjusted the policies and
techniques as to how ICD-10 mortality codes were populated with state
death certificate data thereafter.
We outline herein that a new policy was enacted during the NVSS
System Upgrade break, one which centered around two categorical gaming
practices. The CDC is employing categorical gaming techniques to conceal
dramatic Excess Non-COVID Natural Cause Mortality.
If these excess deaths are not COVID deaths and are not vaccine
related, as is commonly claimed through appeals to authority,
credential, and ignorance, then there should also be no reason to
conceal their associated records. Yet, that is exactly what is
occurring.
2. Excess Cancer Mortality is being
concealed through Cancer Multiple Cause of Death (hereinafter referred
to as ‘MCoD’) categorical reassignment to COVID-19 Underlying Cause of
Death (hereinafter referred to as ‘UCoD’).
3. Sudden Adult Deaths are being
concealed by holding Pericarditis-Myocarditis-Conductive heart related
deaths inside the R00-R99 temporary disposition bucket, far longer than
per historical practice, thereby falsely depleting the associated ICD-10
mortality trend for these related deaths.
Finally, the CDC is using the exact opposite technique,
exploiting Multiple Cause of Death attributions and adding in completely
fictitious deaths as well, in order to make its mRNA vaccines appear to
be performing better than they are.
4. The CDC is using Multiple Cause of
Death categorical gaming, and is creating novel death counts, in order
to counterfeit an appearance that the unvaccinated are dying at a rate
12 times that of the vaccinated.”
22-Sigma Increase in Cardiac Deaths
The article contains loads of charts and graphs and extra details for
those who want to dig in. But in summary, the analysis performed by The
Ethical Skeptic raises serious questions about the CDC’s handling of
mortality data, as it appears to be manipulating statistics specifically
for the purpose of hiding post-jab deaths.
On the upside, The Ethical Skeptic believes the CDC’s mirage will
soon fall apart, as the data is already starting to get misaligned to
the point that fraud is self-evident.
For example, since the system upgrade, 25% of all weekly COVID deaths
just so happen to also be dying of cancer. “Such constitutes an
impossibility in this important mortality account ledger, one which is
analogous to the same species of mistake an embezzler might make,” he
writes.
Similarly, the temporary “holding” bucket has grown by 70% since the
introduction of the COVID shots, and the CDC is simply leaving them
there. At present, there are 35,600 pericarditis, myocarditis and
conductive disorder deaths that remain unaccounted for in U.S. cardiac
mortality statistics.
If just 18% of these deaths were properly coded back into their
heart-related deaths, there would be a 22-sigma increase in cardiac
mortality. Based on the CDC’s data, having properly recategorized the
miscategorized deaths, The Ethical Skeptic estimates there are now
385,000 excess deaths related to the jabs.
Justice for Vaccine Victims Act
Marjorie Taylor Greene, House representative for Georgia's 14th
Congressional district, recently introduced HR 7308, the Justice for
Vaccine Victims Act of 2022, which would require an investigation into
COVID jab injuries reported to VAERS to be completed within three months
of the bill’s enactment.
The bill would also remove liability protections “that apply to the
administration or use of certain medical countermeasures (e.g.,
vaccines) during the public health emergency.”19
Last but not least, November 1, 2022, Judicial Watch announced20
it is suing the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS) for all
of its safety studies relating to vaccines and gene therapies to treat
or prevent COVID.
All in all, it seems the wheels are coming off the COVID jab bus.
Sparks are already flying. The FDA and CDC could have saved themselves
by coming clean a few months into the COVID jab scam. At this point,
there’s no way to save face, let alone anyone’s career. Both agencies
are doomed, as are their leadership.