We Now Have Clear Proof the Vaccine is Dangerous and That The CDC Concealed It
Aaron Siri was finally able to force the CDC to relinquish their V-safe data, which showed approximately 10% suffered significant adverse reactions to vaccination. This article will explain why that is so important.
One of the major challenges with the COVID-19 vaccination has been that it has been impossible to get any clear safety data on it. The two key issues have been:
Suppression of Data Showing The Vaccines Were Not Safe:
•Clinical trials of the vaccines massively underreporting adverse events.
•Many of the adverse event databases not being reported by the government unless they are anonymously leaked by a whistleblower or forced into the open by a lawsuit.
•Mass censorship of reporting “unsafe” adverse responses to vaccination on every media platform.
For example, it was recently revealed that the Israeli government deliberately concealed concerning signs of vaccine safety so that it could push the vaccine through. Given that Israel’s government served as Pfizer’s laboratory to develop the COVID-19 vaccines, this was of immense consequence globally as governments around the world pushed the vaccine forward on the basis of Pfizer’s fraudulent data. Steve Kirsch also has been able to demonstrate that the CDC’s committee that determines the appropriateness of these vaccines is willfully ignoring this data.
Design Flaws in the Existing Adverse Event Reporting Systems:
•Massive underreporting occurring globally within the existing vaccine safety monitoring systems (e.g. VAERS).
•It being impossible to know the denominator (how many total people were the adverse reactions observed in) to calculate the actual adverse event rate that is occurring.
•Since VAERS is a passive reporting system, it is not possible to determine causality from it.
Because of this, VAERS has been able to demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccine is much more dangerous than any previous vaccination, but nothing has been done with its data because it is not “reliable.”
VAERS thus occupies a curious position. It is repeatedly cited when it is needed (e.g. Pfizer said VAERS would fulfill a required pharmacovigilance role in their FDA application) but disparaged as worthless whenever its data is cited to suggest potential harm from vaccination. Many have recognized the shortcomings in VAERS, and attempts have been made to produce more reliable systems, however as these systems tend to then produce evidence vaccines are in fact quite harmful, they are then scrapped (RFK shared an excellent example of this occurring).
Due to the unprecedented nature of the “emergency” COVID-19 vaccination campaign (a completely novel vaccine was developed in one tenth of the time normally required for the basic safety testing to bring a vaccine to market and then forced onto the entire world), a significant amount of the safety testing had to be performed after the vaccine had already been given to the world’s population.
I cannot find direct proof of this, but I am relatively certain that it was decided that since the vaccine had to be tested on the general population and no existing mechanism existed to effectively track vaccine safety, V-Safe was developed to fulfill this role.
V-Safe briefly was a phone app the initial recipients of the vaccine (e.g. healthcare workers who could be expected to have a good rate of reporting adverse events) were given and instructed to use to communicate to report their experiences. This approach is very important because this data was prospective (this data is always more reliable than retrospective data and considered necessary to demonstrate causality) and because the total number of participants was known (which is necessary to demonstrate the rate at which adverse events occurred). The CDC was also supposed to follow up with individuals who reported adverse events, although I am somewhat doubtful this occurred.
was already being used around the world.