CDC Knew Covid Shots Damage Heart but Covered It Up

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) knew that COVID-19 shots damage recipients’ hearts and cause other serious complications but chose to cover up the information, bombshell documents unsealed under a court order have revealed.

The CDC was forced to hand over documents and data following a November 14 court order by Judge Robert Pitman.

The judge ordered the data to be made public following a Freedom of Information Act request from the Informed Consent Action Network.

The federal health agency has been withholding the data that shows adverse reactions to the vaccinations among those who received them.

Data released under the court order shows that a staggering 1 in 3 among the earliest populations to get vaccinated reported needing medical care, missing school or work, or they were unable to “perform normal daily activities” after receiving the shots.

The information was held in the CDC’s v-safe database.

V-safe is a safety monitoring system that lets people report any adverse reactions to the CDC after getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

The unsealed files revealed that the CDC knew that the shots caused damage to the heart tissue, blood clots, and strokes.

However, the data shows that the CDC intentionally left out questions regarding these serious side effects from its v-safe survey.

Despite the worrying information regarding public health that has been revealed in the documents, the CDC is still fighting to keep the v-safe “free-text field data” secret.

Among the 10 million-plus users of the agency’s v-safe active monitoring smartphone app through July — 8.5 million of whom signed up between December 2020 and April 2021, before all adults were eligible for COVID vaccines — nearly 8% said they required medical care after receiving the vaccines, according to Just the News.

For patients aged 3 and older needing such care, nearly 3 in 4 couldn’t rely on telehealth visits.

They required urgent care (48%), emergency room (15%) or hospitalization (10%).

Slay the latest News for free!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

For infants, who were authorized to receive the jabs this summer and are enrolled in v-safe through parents or guardians, hospitalizations were much lower (2%) but urgent care was much higher (66%).

Another 12% of v-safe users reported they were unable to perform normal daily activities, and 13% said they missed work or school, meaning 1 in 3 had more than mild adverse reactions.

Well over 10 million symptom reports were filed each month from January through April 2021, dropping to 5 million in May and hovering around 1 million for the next few months.

The reports jumped above 2 million again in October following President Biden’s vaccine mandates for roughly 100 million workers and dropped to the low- to mid-hundred thousands from January through July 2022.

The Informed Consent Action Network posts the v-safe data obtained thus far as both interactive graphs and several gigabytes of files.

It got them through ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation against the CDC.

Those are just the data the CDC affirmatively sought through checkboxes on v-safe surveys, which are sent to users daily for the first week after each dose, then weekly for 6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after the final dose.

It took a year and a half to get “five excel files which likely took the CDC minutes to download and produce,” ICAN said in its portion of the November 4 joint status report filed with the court.

Notably, chest pain and other cardiac symptoms that could indicate myocarditis and pericarditis — now known to be more common post-vaccination in people under 40 — are completely missing from the survey checkboxes, without which input data are harder to standardize.

V-safe users would have to write in cardiac symptoms on the survey form’s “other” field, limited to 250 characters, for them to be counted.

ICAN is still trying to compel the agency to turn over this “free-text field data,” its lawyer Aaron Siri told Just the News.

The fact that the agency didn’t prompt users to consider adverse events of special interest (AESI) it had already identified in an early v-safe protocol is “one of the best and most compelling pieces of evidence supporting premeditated [wrongful] conduct,” Siri wrote in the second of a 12-part series of posts on the disclosures.

“The CDC, in dozens of publications, relied on the data from v-safe to argue and support its recommendations regarding Covid-19 vaccination that upended the lives of tens of millions of Americans who refused to comply” with mandates, according to ICAN’s portion of the November 4 filing.

Siri’s firm alone has heard from “thousands” claiming “serious injuries” from COVID vaccines.

The checkbox figures add context to CDC researchers’ peer-reviewed March study in The Lancet, which found that deaths following mRNA vaccination constituted 1.3% of reports to the passive Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.

Adding in 6.6% of reports with “serious” complications, from hospitalization to permanent disability, the VAERS figures roughly match v-safe reports for medical care.

In the second part, Siri explained the significance of the CDC limiting checkboxes to 18 “mostly minor symptoms considered normal after vaccination,” such as pain and fatigue.

V-safe surveys excluded myocarditis, seizures, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and other “adverse events of special interest” the CDC explicitly identified before deploying v-safe.

Its January 28, 2021 protocol covered 15 AESIs including myocarditis, anaphylaxis, a multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, spinal cord inflammation, and death.

Earlier New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of the American Medical Association studies also discussed AESIs related to mRNA vaccination, from nervous system disorders to MIS-C, Siri noted.

By relegating such reports to the free-text field rather than checkboxes, from which it could calculate a rate of occurrence, the CDC doomed them, Siri said, to a lengthy and inconclusive process: direct contact with the user to confirm the report “actually reflected one of these conditions” and then helping them report it to the much more ambiguous VAERS.

While the CDC has agreed to produce birth years so ICAN can assess the data by birth cohorts, the agency appears to have left out further checkbox data as evidenced by a v-safe flow chart that mentions “call center,” “call center pregnancy” and “pregnancy” data, ICAN’s portion of the November 4 filing says.

The CDC hopes to withhold the 6.8 million free-text entries from public release by proposing instead to “convert them into medical codes” over a few months, a process “more time consuming and complex than simply reviewing” the fields for personally identifying information, ICAN argues.

ICAN speculated the data “may run contrary to the recommendations it pushed to deprive people of their jobs, their livelihoods, schooling, military careers” and to the “CDC’s claim that there was a low incidence of various serious issues, like tinnitus, myocarditis, and small fiber neuropathy, from this product.”

The CDC’s portion of the filing says it would be “premature and inefficient” for the court “to address the legality of CDC’s withholdings in piecemeal fashion,” as ICAN wants.

The agency maintains that “the records at issue here are not reasonably segregable,” an argument ICAN called “frivolous.”

In a November 14 text order, Judge Robert Pitman told the CDC to produce the “batch of records containing data derived from specific feedback survey questions” in two days and the birth years “as soon as practicable.”

He denied ICAN’s proposed briefing schedule for the free-text fields.

The CDC has yet to explain why it hid the v-safe data for so long and left out the AESIs it had already identified from the surveys’ checkboxes.

Advertise with Slay News
join telegram


Who is the best president?

By completing this poll, you gain access to our free newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.

By Frank Bergman

Frank Bergman is a political/economic journalist living on the east coast. Aside from news reporting, Bergman also conducts interviews with researchers and material experts and investigates influential individuals and organizations in the sociopolitical world.

Notify of
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x