A CDC committee will convene this week and likely vote Thursday to deliver permanent legal indemnity to Pfizer and Moderna, through the process of adding the drug companies’ mRNA injections to the child and adolescent immunization schedules.
By adding the shots to the childhood schedule, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will transfer liability for vaccine injuries to the federal government’s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), allowing for Pfizer and Moderna to finally bring an FDA approved shot to the market without opening itself up to lawsuits. Moreover, it will act as another windfall for companies that have already brought in hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues, by requiring these vaccinations for children who attend public schools.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will not release its review of post-COVID-19-vaccination heart inflammation.
The CDC has been performing abstractions on reports of post-vaccination myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation, submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
But the agency is saying that federal law prevents it from releasing the results.
The abstractions “are considered medical records which are withheld in full from disclosure,” the CDC told The Epoch Times in a recent letter, responding to a Freedom of Information Act request.
One of the exemptions in the act says that agencies can withhold materials that are “specifically exempted from disclosure by statute, if that statute (i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or (ii) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; and (B) if enacted after the date of enactment of the OPEN FOIA Act of 2009, specifically cites to this paragraph.”
The CDC pointed to the Public Health Service Act, which was enacted in 1944, and says that vaccine injury reports and other information that may identify a person shall not be made available to any person except the person who received the vaccine or a legal representative for that person.
The information sought is available through the CDC website without details that would identify patients, the agency also said.
The CDC said that it does not have a formal definition of “abstraction” but that it means the process of reviewing medical records, including autopsy reports and death certificates, and recording data in a database. “Please note that this definition means that any abstracted data, because they originate from medical records, is also considered medical records,” a CDC records officer told The Epoch Times in an email.
The study (pdf), published on Sept. 28 in the medical journal Academic Pediatrics, sought to “assess the association between cumulative aluminum exposure from vaccines before age 24 months [2 years of age]” and see whether this group of children developed asthma between ages 2 and 5.
Authors of the retrospective cohort study included current and former CDC staffers. They analyzed data from a cohort of 326,991 children who were born between 2008 and 2014 at seven medical care organizations across the United States that participate in the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a network of health groups that collaborate with the CDC in studying vaccine safety.
Results of the observational study showed that children who were vaccinated with most or all of the recommended aluminum-containing vaccines (>3.00 mg aluminum exposure) had at least a 36 percent higher risk of being diagnosed with persistent asthma than kids who got fewer vaccines (≤3.00 mg aluminum exposure).
About 6 percent of the children with eczema and 2.1 percent of the children without eczema developed persistent asthma in the study. Each additional milligram of vaccine-related aluminum exposure was associated with 1.26- and 1.19-times higher rates of persistent asthma among children with and without eczema, respectively.
Overall, there was a “positive association” between vaccine-related aluminum exposure and persistent asthma, the authors said. They did not conclude that the results suggest any causative link. “[A]dditional investigation of this hypothesis appears warranted,” they added.
The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has acknowledged publicly for the first time that the agency gave false information about its COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring.
Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the agency’s director, said in a letter made public on Sept. 12 that the CDC did not analyze certain types of adverse event reports at all in 2021, despite the agency previously saying it started in February 2021.
“CDC performed PRR analysis between March 25, 2022, through July 31, 2022,” Walensky said. “CDC also recently addressed a previous statement made to the Epoch Times to clarify PRR were not run between February 26, 2021, to September 30, 2021.”
Walensky’s agency had promised in several documents, starting in early 2021, to perform a type of analysis called Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) on reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which it helps manage.
But the agency said in June that it did not perform PRRs. It also said that performing them was “outside th[e] agency’s purview.”
Confronted with the contradiction, Dr. John Su, a CDC official, told The Epoch Times in July that the agency started performing PRRs in February 2021 and “continues to do so to date.”
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) passed misinformation to Facebook as the partners worked to combat misinformation, according to newly released emails, in the most recent example of CDC officials making false or misleading claims.
In a June 3 message, a Facebook official said the CDC had helped the company “debunk claims about COVID vaccines and children,” and asked for assistance addressing claims about the vaccines for babies and toddlers, including the claim that the vaccines were not effective.
Several weeks later, after U.S. regulators authorized the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines for young children and the CDC recommended them, a CDC official responded by offering unsupported information.
“Claims that COVID-19 vaccines are ineffective for children ages 6 months to 4 years are false and belief in such claims could lead to back vaccine hesitancy,” the CDC official wrote. The names of all of the officials mentioned in this story were redacted in the emails, which were released as part of ongoing litigation against the U.S. government.
“COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States are effective at protecting people, including children ages 6 months to 4 years, from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and even dying,” the CDC official added.
There’s no evidence that the vaccines are effective against severe illness and death in young children.
In August 2021 Science Magazine, a peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, highlighted groundbreaking research out of Israel that upended the public health establishment.
The research, which relied on a database enrolling some 2.5 million Israelis and was led by Tal Patalon, head of the KSM Research and Innovation Center at Maccabi Healthcare Services, and deputy Sivan Gazit, found that previous infection from Covid-19 conferred considerably stronger and longer-lasting protection against the Delta variant than vaccines.
“The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19,” Science staff writer Meredith Wadman noted.
Wadman also noted that the research showed that “never-infected people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people” who had previously had Covid.
“It’s a textbook example of how natural immunity is really better than vaccination,” Charlotte Thålin, a physician and immunology researcher at Danderyd Hospital and the Karolinska Institute, told Science.
If you managed to maintain your integrity through this awful period of time, congratulations! You are one of the rock stars of this story. You are a solid individual who has courage and stood firm and tall when it mattered most.
As for the people who didn’t, some can be forgiven. But many cannot.
Those who could have and “should” have known better? The doctors who failed to utilize known and proven early treatments to save lives? The public health authorities that locked people down and forced masks onto children’s faces without a shred of supporting science to back those decisions? Medical hospital administrators who took the monetary bait and forced patients onto toxic and deadly regimens of Remdesivir and ventilators (again, without any supporting evidence!). The NIH treatment panel that still – to this day – does not recommend vitamin D, or any of the other actual safe and effective early treatments?
Sorry, not sorry, those people need to suffer real and lasting public consequences. Some doctors should lose their licenses. Some bureaucrats need to lose their jobs while others need to go to trial.
I feel most acutely for those who got caught up and suffered terribly as a result. I feel truly awful for all the people prevented from being at a loved one’s passing, or who ,as a condition of continued employment, were coerced into getting Covid jabs they neither wanted nor needed.
There are far too many tragic cases out there. Far too many young lives were lost and continue to be lost. I am angry that it happened and at the petty, ignorant bureaucrats who forced it to happen. “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome” is a thing now, and the attempts to normalize it by the press have left me thinking that those companies and journalists who engaged in this ought to be barred for life from ever being in the business again.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is admitting it gave false information about COVID-19 vaccine surveillance, including inaccurately saying it conducted a certain type of analysis over one year before it actually did.
The false information was conveyed in responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the results of surveillance, and after the CDC claimed COVID-19 vaccines are being monitored “by the most intense safety monitoring efforts in U.S. history.”
“CDC has revisited several FOIA requests and as a result of its review CDC is issuing corrections for the following information,” a CDC spokeswoman told The Epoch Times in an email.
No CDC employees intentionally provided false information and none of the false responses were given to avoid FOIA reporting requirements, the spokeswoman said.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has claimed that there was no known association between heart inflammation and COVID-19 vaccines as late as October 2021.
CDC officials made the claim, which is false, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request for reports from a CDC team that is focused on analyzing the risk of post-vaccination myocarditis and pericarditis, two forms of heart inflammation. Both began detected at higher-than-expected rates after COVID-19 vaccination in the spring of 2021.
The team focuses on studying data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive surveillance system co-run by the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The date range for the search was April 2, 2021, to Oct. 2, 2021.
“The National Center for Emerging Zoonotic Infectious Diseases performed a search of our records that failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request,” Roger Andoh, a CDC records officer, told The Epoch Times. The center is part of the CDC.
No abstractions or reports were available because “an association between myocarditis and mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was not known at that time,” Andoh added.