By Aaron Siri

If you have not already read Parts 1 through 7 of the v-safe saga, please read those first!

CDC’s Attempt Get Mainstream Media to Spread False Information

This part is, and I am biased, jaw dropping. 

After ICAN obtained the v-safe data and published to the world that 7.7% of v-safe users sought medical care (and that the CDC hid this number from the public for two years), Reuters reached out to my firm stating it had received comment from the CDC regarding this figure. 

Incredibly, CDC told Reuters that the 7.7% figure was grossly inflated because it claimed there were 10 million records in v-safe, not 10 million users. Here is the exact email I received from Reuters:

“CDC says v-safe has 10 million records, not 10 million users, and that one person could submit multiple records of seeking medical care for the same adverse event. Which makes the 7.7% statistic problematic… Is that something ICAN was aware of or able to adjust for?”

Based on the CDC’s claim, the major news outlet asked if ICAN would be modifying its claim of 7.7%.  But it was the CDC’s claim that was categorically false!

ICAN was correct: there were 10 million v-safe users, not 10 million records; and the 7.7% also did not double-count because it was the number of unique v-users who submitted one or more reports of seeking medical care.

The CDC was plainly pushing the major news to declare ICAN’s claim false and, hence, characterize it as misinformation.

Had Reuters just accepted the CDC’s claim, as typically occurs, it likely would have published a story declaring ICAN’s 7.7% figure to be false information.

Luckily, to its credit and because one of its reporters proceeded objectively and with integrity, this news outlet did not just take the CDC’s word for its claim. It actually gave us an opportunity to respond to this claim. (Albeit not by asking if ICAN believed it was wrong but by asking if it would adjust the figure it published.)

CDC Proven Wrong

Showing that the CDC was wrong was simple.  All we had to do was use the CDC’s own data it provided to ICAN! 

The data the CDC provided to ICAN clearly and without any doubt showed that ICAN was using the precise and correct number of v-safe users and the number of unique v-safe users who reported needing medical care.  Meaning, the 7.7% was absolutely accurate – without any doubt. 

We sent this proof and asked Reuters to please ask that CDC substantiate with actual proof, not just conclusory assertions, how ICAN was supposedly wrong and spreading misinformation.  And again, to Reuter’s credit, because it demanded proof from the CDC, the CDC eventually relented! 

The CDC finally conceded that v-safe did in fact have approximately 10 million users and, hence, the 7.7% figure of those who reported seeking medical care was accurate.

With that, I expected that interaction would be one heck of a story in and of itself! I foresaw a Reuters story that disclosed this CDC behavior – here was the CDC trying to get a major news outlet to publish false information!  It was trying to get it to write that the 7.7% figure was incorrect. 

That should have been its own major story.  And although Reuters did publish a story about v-safe, thus far, these behind-the-scenes communications have not been published.  I expect they never will, other than in this article. 

CDC Asks Reuters to Ask ICAN for a Copy of CDC’s V-Safe Data

It gets even worse. Making plain that the CDC officials communicating with Reuters were not concerned about the facts, and instead were focused solely on pushing their “safe and effective” mantra which is typically not questioned, they further revealed the agency’s disfunction: the CDC officials asked Reuters if it could get a copy of the v-safe data from ICAN and send it back to the CDC representatives Reuters were dealing with so they can review that data. If that sounds nutty, it is because it is. 

Just so you don’t think you misread the foregoing, let me repeat: CDC asked Reuters to get the v-safe data that CDC had given to ICAN days before, and then send that data back to the CDC to review.

You can’t make this stuff up. Mind you, the data had already all been made public on ICAN’s website.

What this shows is that these CDC officials were driving forward to push a major news outlet to claim to the world that ICAN’s claim of 7.7% was false without actually looking at the data to assure their claim was accurate.  It also shows an incredible level of disfunction at the CDC; instead of getting the data internally, they had to ask a news outlet to get its own data produced to ICAN to then send it back to CDC. 

And these are the folk that have effectively dictated what level of civil and individual rights most Americans would have over the last three years! 

CDC Seeks to Deceive Again

When the foregoing gambit by the CDC did not work, it had a new gambit.  It tried to get Reuters to publish that the 7.7% figure was misleading by claiming to Reuters that “[i]n the first week after vaccination, reports of seeking any medical care … range from 1-3% (depending on vaccine, age group and dose).” 

But as we explained to Reuters, even this is not true.  For example, 3.36% of those younger than 3 years old reported receiving medical care within one week of receiving the Moderna vaccine. 

Even if all combinations of vaccine, age group, and dose resulted in between 1% to 3% of infants, children, or adults seeking medical care within one week, that is not necessarily an insignificant figure!  Why is this somehow comforting? Especially in the context of vaccinating the entire country. 

And why should the reports of medical care on days 14 or 21 or 28 be ignored?  Is it because the CDC thought it was not relevant information? And, if so, why in the world ask v-safe users to submit this information on these days?  Or is it because the CDC did not like what the numbers showed? I will let you be the judge.

As noted above, and a sad irony, when medical care is sought during the first seven days, the CDC presumably attributes that to expected reactogenicity and tells the public to not be  concerned.  And if it occurs beyond seven days, it pretends as if that data does not exist – even though harms from COVID-19 vaccines, as the CDC well knows, can occur well after the first seven days, as discussed in depth in part 7 of this v-safe substack series.

Also, here, we are talking about a novel medical product, hence heightening the need for assessing its long-term safety – certainly beyond 7 days post-vaccination. 

This shows how the sausage is made in mainstream media. But for the actual tenacity – I would even say courageous – pushback from a Reuters reporter, the story around ICAN’s v-safe claims could have ended very differently.

The real story I can only imagine this reporter would have liked to publish, the one I told above, however, would no doubt be a step too far for Reuters as an organization – at least for now, until brave journalists become the typical journalist.

That is it for this part and in the next part, I will share a video breakdown of the parts of the v-safe I have written about thus far.

Subscribe now

Source: Originally published on Substack.