The CDC Lied
The latest reveal from the CDC’s own data respositories quickly reduces to simply this: the CDC lied.
They lied about doing safety monitoring. They lied about the safety of the mRNA inoculations, that there were no safety signals. There were safety signals in abundance and the CDC either refused to look for them or simply ignored them.
Bell’s palsy, blood clotting, and death were among the signals flagged through analysis of adverse event reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The CDC, which runs VAERS with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), describes it as “the nation’s early warning system” for vaccine issues.
The CDC’s primary analysis compared the reports made for specific events suffered after receipt of a Moderna or Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to the reports lodged following vaccination with any other vaccine, or all non-COVID-19 vaccines. The type of analysis is known as Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR).
Safety signals mean a condition may be linked to a vaccine. Signals require further analysis to confirm a possible link.
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is co-managed by the CDC and the FDA, and the CDC references VAERS as its “early warning system”.
VAERS is the nation’s early warning system that monitors the safety of vaccines after they are authorized or licensed for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). VAERS is part of the larger vaccine safety system in the United States that helps make sure vaccines are safe. The system is co-managed by CDC and FDA.
There is simply no rational explanation for the CDC not to be aware of the safety warnings being thrown off by the system at every turn.
Which leads to the unavoidable conclusion: They lied. And they continue to lie.
Bear in mind there has always been a superabundance of red flags warning us that the mRNA inoculations were fundamentally “not safe.”
Nor am I the only one to see the safety signals. Steve Kirsch’ Substack does multiple deep dives on the safety of the mRNA inoculations.
Even Alex Berenson has had his comments about COVID inoculation safety concerns.
Despite all this, the CDC has insisted, and continues to insist on its website that the COVID mRNA inoculations are safe.
What You Need to Know
COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and severe reactions after vaccination are rare.
CDC recommends everyone ages 6 months and older get vaccinated as soon as possible to protect against COVID-19 and its potentially severe complications.
Millions of people in the United States have received COVID-19 vaccines under the most intense safety monitoring program in U.S. history.
CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other federal agencies continue to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.
Adverse events described on this page have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
VAERS accepts reports of any adverse event following vaccination.
Every time someone read that web page, the CDC lied. If you click on that web page now, the CDC is lying to you. (In case the CDC decides to “memory hole” that page, it is archived here.)
We know they lied because, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the Epoch Times, the safety analysis they claimed they were doing all along (but really weren’t) has finally been divulged—and it shows hundreds of safety signals, warning signs that should have been investigated but never were.
Let us be clear: the data compiled by the CDC shows clear safety signals based on criteria devised by the CDC, and yet the CDC to this day maintains the mRNA inoculations are “safe”.
Moreover, the safety analysis the CDC recently and reluctantly released to the Epoch Times, the safety analysis which produced more red flags than a May Day parade in the former Soviet Union, was something the CDC had committed to do all along but had neglected to do until this past spring.
The CDC promised in a set of operating procedures in 2021 to perform a type of analysis called Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) on reports of adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination. The reports are submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which officials have described as “the nation’s early warning system” for post-vaccination adverse events. The CDC also stated in an updated set of operating procedures in 2022 that it would perform the analysis.
Specifically, the CDC’s operating procedures obligates them to do the following:
The specific tasks and frequency of these tasks for surveillance will be adjusted to meet public health needs, with consideration of staff time and resources. For example, in the event of a significant increase in the number of adverse events (AEs) reported to VAERS that warrant clinical review, additional ISO staff will be assigned to perform reviews. An algorithm of the process to monitor vaccine AEs is shown in Appendix 4.1.
CDC will perform clinical reviews for AESIs listed in Table 1. Results from automated data assessment will identify additional conditions potentially warranting further clinical review.
CDC will perform Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) analysis (see section 2.3.1, p. 14), excluding laboratory results, to identify AEs that are disproportionately reported relative to other AEs.
In order to have an external validation, the CDC was to coordinate with the FDA, which would conduct an independent Empirical Bayesian analysis of the VAERS data. Ironically, we know the FDA conducted its analysis, because at least portions of that research have been published, either on the biomedical preprint server MedRxiv1 or in the Lancet2, even though the FDA has refused to make the full analysis available under FOIA.
Yet when asked about the safety analysis, CDC officials would either deny the existence of the PRR analyses or claim the analysis had not been done yet. Note that both claims are in direct contradiction of the CDC’s own stated obligations regarding safety analysis.
But the CDC has made false statements three times this year on PRRs, initially stating that such analyses were outside the agency’s purview, then stating that the analyses were performed starting in 2021, then stating that the analyses didn’t begin until 2022. The newly obtained emails show that an official falsely told an editor in 2021 that the CDC doesn’t perform PRR analyses.
However, the deception goes much further than just those isolated statements. Not only does the CDC positively assert the safety of the mRNA inoculations on its web site, the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical (VaST) Work Group makes specific claims regarding safety signals or the lack thereof which are impossible to make unless the required analysis had been done, and which are provably false as a result.
From June 28, 2021 (emphasis mine):
The number of preliminary cases of GBS reported to VAERS among persons after they received the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine was greater than the expected number of GBS cases. The reports were not limited to a specific age group, and there was no geographic clustering. The number of observed versus expected reports was not elevated for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
Without the promised PRR analysis, the highlighted claim cannot be honestly made. As the promised PRR analysis was not being done at the time of this report, the highlighted claim must be false.
From May 19, 2022:
Spontaneous reporting to VAERS has not identified any unusual reporting or patterns of causes of death
Anyone who has done even a cursory review of the VAERS database knows this claim is patently false. VAERS is replete with examples of unusual patterns of death from the mRNA inoculations.
Moreover, the CDC’s PRR analysis shows an unambiguous safety signal (PRR=2) for “Sudden Cardiac Death” by the CDC’s own criteria. For a safety group to be unaware of this safety signal means either they lied when they claimed to be looking at the safety data (which would be the PRR analysis), or they lied about the safety signal itself. Either way, the working group provably lied.
These are but a couple of the claims of fact made by the VaST Work Group, claims which either require the promised PRR analysis to have been done or which are demonstrably contradicted by even a cursory analysis of the VAERS data itself.
One does not need to set aside the parsimonious principles of Hanlon’s Razor to conclude from the recently revealed PRR analyses that the CDC has been demonstrably dishonest about the safety of the mRNA inoculations. Given the CDC’s own stated commitments about safety analyses of the VAERS data, any claim of fact regading inoculation safety made in the absence of those analyses cannot be regarded as true by definition.
CDC officials may simply have been stupid in telling such lies, but the subsequent revelations of the PRR analyses once they were done allow for no other conclusion about the CDC product safety claims regarding the inoculations.
The entirety of the CDC posture on mRNA inoculation safety has been discredited and disproven with the release of their PRR analyses. The only remaining unanswered question regarding mRNA inoculation safety (or lack thereof) is the Nixonian “what did the CDC know about mRNA inoculation safety and when did they know it?”
Regardless of when they knew from the PRR analyses that the mRNA inoculations were demonstrably dangerous, the fact that the analyses themselves were late being done, coupled with the fact that the analyses show clear safety signals the CDC and the FDA were obligated to act upon (and didn’t) prove that the CDC’s proven claims of inoculation safety are demonstrably false.
With the release of the PRR analyses to the Epoch Times, the CDC has admitted to what many will regard as inherently obvious: They lied—they are lying—about everything regarding the safety of the mRNA inoculations.
All Facts Matter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Alternatively, please consider leaving a tip through Ko-Fi. Thank you always for your support!
Day, B., et al. “Reporting Rates for VAERS Death Reports Following COVID-19 Vaccination, December 14, 2020-November 17, 2021”. MedRxiv. 7 May 2022, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.05.22274695v1.
Rosenblum, Hannah G et al. “Safety of mRNA vaccines administered during the initial 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme: an observational study of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe.” The Lancet. Infectious diseases vol. 22,6 (2022): 802-812. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00054-8