Tuesday, April 5, 2022

Three discoveries that should make you think twice, or thrice about COVID vaccinations

I don't write enough about the adverse events from COVID vaccines.  The reason is that I like to be accurate, but most of the data on vaccine side effects is hidden from us.  So while I have pointed out the many databases that FDA and CDC have available and are supposed to be using to assess vaccine safety, only 1 is publicly available:  VAERS.  Officially, it is the joint FDA-CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.  Steve Kirsch and Jessica Rose have done the best job analyzing the VAERS data, so I suggest you go to their substacks and read what they have to say.

Both FDA and CDC each have about ten other databases that taxpayers pay for, but most of them we never hear about.  Here are the FDA databases:

Below, then-head of Immunizations at CDC, Dr. Nancy Messonier, told the public about the databases that would be used to assess COVID vaccines' safety just before the rollout, on December 10, 2020.

Both agencies provided the public with promises of what these vaccine safety databases could provide.  The databases FDA rents include more than 100 million Americans, for example.  But since the rollout, the federal agencies have been almost silent on what they reveal.

However, yesterday I came across 3 very important items about COVID vaccine safety that I had not seen mentioned until now.  Each one is an important, though limited, piece of the COVID vaccine safety puzzle--but together, they give you a very good idea of what we are all dealing with as we traverse this data desert, touching small bits of the elephant like the blind men, but never being able to grasp the picture in its entirety.

Item 1 was posted on the FDA website on July 12, 2021 with no fanfare.  It revealed that yes, FDA was using its Medicare beneficiary database to look for potential vaccine adverse reactions, and it found four related to Pfizer's vaccine, which is the most widely used COVID vaccine.  FDA writes:

FDA has routinely been using screening methods to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and to evaluate potential adverse events of interest (AEI) related to these vaccines. One of these methods, called near real-time surveillance, detected four potential AEIs in the Medicare healthcare claims database of persons aged 65 years and older who had received the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The four potential AEI are pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, immune thrombocytopenia, and disseminated intravascular coagulation. The screening methods have not identified these AEI after vaccination in persons 65 years and older who received the two other authorized COVID-19 vaccines...

These events have not been identified as safety concerns or signals in the CDC Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) or the Veterans Administration (VA) Healthcare data systems screening methods. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), another government monitoring system, also has not identified any association between any COVID-19 vaccine and these AEI. 

FDA continues to closely monitor the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines and will further investigate these findings by conducting more rigorous epidemiological studies.  FDA will share further updates and information with the public as they become available. 

If the vaccine caused blood clots and bleeding, as is suspected, these are exactly four diagnoses I would expect to see indicating vaccine injuries.   The claim that FDA has not seen them in its other databases, including VAERS, is curious, because people who independently study VAERS have in fact reported higher rates of myocardial infarctions and pulmonary emboli.

Six weeks after FDA posted about these very serious warning signs, FDA issued a full, unrestricted license for Pfizer's vaccine, the very one they were warning about.  The FDA website where the above information is posted has never been updated, and FDA has not revealed what the last 8 months of "more rigorous epidemiological studies" show.

Item 2 is an academic paper published by the CDC in its own, non peer reviewed journal, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  It was written by CDC scientists with researchers at various sites that participate in a CDC-funded data collection on COVID.

The paper concludes that while myocarditis is known to occur after COVID vaccinations, it is more common after getting the disease COVID.  This is an unusual claim, since myocarditis rates as high as 1 in 2000 males aged 18-24 have been reported after the second Covid shot, and no one has claimed that such rates apply after getting the disease.

So what did CDC do?  It chose to examine this issue using a database that admittedly misattributed most vaccinations!  CDC has access to everyone's vaccination data and could easily have have used an accurate dataset, but chose not to.  Instead, CDC admitted in the paper's fine print that while 82% of Americans over age 5 have reportedly received at least one COVID vaccine, in the 15 million person dataset it used, only 28% were recorded as vaccinated.  The only reasonable interpretation is that a large number of vaccinated individuals were incorrectly assigned to the unvaccinated category.  It seems a case could be made that this is scientific fraud.

Item 3 came from the Pfizer documents that were released on April 1.  Huge thanks to all the volunteers who have been digging through these documents to piece together the truth about the vaccines.  Huge thanks also to the scientists and attorneys who had to file suit and win in court to force FDA to release them.

This information, I think, could be a gamechanger.  It turns out that Pfizer had to hire 600 new full-time employees simply to process the adverse event reports that were coming in regarding vaccine injuries and deaths:  600 new hires in the first 2 1/2 months of the vaccine rollout.  And Pfizer further said it planned to hire another 1800. Eighteen hundred more!  Just to manage the paperwork resulting from its vaccine-caused carnage.

FDA knew.  But FDA wanted it buttoned up for 75 years.  CDC knew also, since the reports of deaths to VAERS for COVID vaccines exceed all death reports for the past 30 years, for all other vaccines, put together.  Both agencies hid what they knew.  CDC even played tricks with data to mislead us.  Pfizer knew.  DHHS must have known.

There is no Public Health without public honesty.  Our public health agencies have become public trickery agencies.  Why should anyone believe anything they say now?  Why would anyone do what they recommend?


Anonymous said...

'EXCLUSIVE'! Pls. Bump and Share!
'Dr. David Martin, Stu Peters the Vaccine/Covid Cabal & Investors (Vanguard, Blackrock, Etc,) Are Going Down!'


Anonymous said...

Re Item #2 - myocarditis more common after getting the disease COVID.

I would love to see a major category on the MerylNassMD.com website titled "This is how the false narrative got started"

I often tell my friends to question the prevailing narrative that the mainstream media spits out. One of the reasons I keep up with the website is to find out how the false narrative starts. It would be really great if I could find meaningful facts that point out where the false narrative originated to begin with.
Having one spot to collate the best of the best of the false narrative would be a powerful way to show how the regulatory capture problem continues to spiral out of control.

Dr. Nass, God bless you for all that you do.

Anonymous said...

Disseminated intravascular coagulation
ALL VAERS Reports of adverse events as of April 6 2022

Deaths after COVID19 shot = 68

Immune thrombocytopenia

Deaths after COVID shot = 36

Acute myocardial infarction

Deaths after COVID shot = 442

Pulmonary embolism

< 6 months 1
6-17 years 31
18-29 years 348
30-39 years 546
40-49 years 816
50-59 years 1,042
60-64 years 593
65-79 years 1,705
80+ years 633
Unknown 5,320

Deaths after COVID shot = 804


Meryl Nass, M.D. said...

Re a comment above: Do you mean how the narrative started, or do you want a collection of deliberately flawed scientific studies, especially those performed by federal agencies?

I got into identifying fake science 33 years ago. The first examples were studies published and designed to buttress the false narrative that flies transmit anthrax--and this is why Rhodesia had such a large outbreak affecting thousands. There has been more fake science on Rhodesia's anthrax epidemic since. Much of this was done by fed agencies or under US fed contracts, suggesting a role for our intel agencies.

I next encountered a massive amount of fake science on Gulf War syndrome, much designed to blame the victim, i.e., "stress"

Then there was a massive effort to create fake science about the safety of anthrax and many other vaccines.

By 2022, I think the standards have devolved such that you could publish a scientific paper maybe any cockamamie claim.

Anonymous said...

In the above false narrative comment, I am talking about a category that would sit right next to the "Fauci Cabal" tab that is about HOW the false narrative got started.
Let's face it, the pharma industry pays millions to PR agencies to spin facts on all kinds of pharma issues, I would like to have a place where I can send people so they can get an accurate story. Right now, I have to search your sight with a keyword that I have to guess at.

Also, how about a prediction tab where we could predict which head of the CDC, or other gov employee is next going to do a big favor for Pharma such as like approving a flu shot for children. And then guess what cushy high paying job they will get rewarded with from Merck.

Anonymous said...

Now that I reread your comment I think a tab of deliberately flawed scientific studies, especially those performed by federal agencies is a good idea too.