Discover more from The Forgotten Side of Medicine
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 over 10% of recipients 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 were for all practical purposes fraudulent and massively underreporting adverse events.
•Many of the adverse event databases are not being reported by the government unless they are anonymously leaked by a whistleblower (e.g. here, here or here) 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 for their vaccine, this was of immense consequence globally as governments around the world pushed the vaccine forward on the basis of Pfizer’s fraudulent safety 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 that 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. to fulfill the required pharmacovigilance role for the FDA) 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 (e.g. the ESP:VAERS project).
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 aggressively marketed to the initial recipients of the vaccine (e.g. healthcare workers who could be expected to be reliable reporters of 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 (e.g. one reader here who was hospitalized by a blood clot’s follow-up consisted of being instructed to report the event to VAERS).
Here are some brief descriptions of V-Safe (source is in picture):
Not surprisingly, V-safe’s data was never made available to the public, with the CDC giving the excuse that they needed to anonymize the data in order to protect patient confidentiality so that releasing the data could be stalled out indefinitely. To any astute observer, this is a clear admission of the data within V-safe was very concerning as the CDC could not afford to publicly release it (the federal government will always try to come up with excuses to indefinitely stall on releasing incriminating data best shown with the FDA demanding decades to curate and release Pfizer’s documents).
Fortunately, Aaron Siri, an attorney who has spent years fighting for vaccine safety on behalf of ICAN and Del Bigtree, after 463 days of work was finally able to force the CDC to release the V-Safe data. Given how concerning this data this raises serious concerns on who decided it was appropriate to withhold that data from the public. Interestingly, a key argument the CDC used to avoid releasing the data was the time they needed to develop a software system that could analyze and present the data, yet ICAN was able to do so within a day of receiving the day.
V-Safe collected two forms of data, relatively generic responses on the effects of vaccination (this is why it was not suited to detect rare significant side effects of vaccination) and free form responses on complex side effects that were experienced. Presently, only the former has been made available. At some point in the future, the latter will be made available and will likely be able to paint the best picture possible of the severe side effects that the vaccines have created. Nonetheless with the former, there is still a lot of extremely concerning data which I believe indicts the COVID-19 vaccines as the most harmful vaccinations in history.
Of the 10,108,273 users who participated in V-Safe the following was found (you can review the data yourself here, keep in mind there will always be a degree of underreporting that occurs as many readers here noted V-safe was remarkably difficult to enter adverse events into):
•1,225,867 (12.13%) were unable to perform their normal activities.
•1,344,330 (13.3%) missed work or school.
•782,913 (7.7%) required medical care, on average 2.7 times.
This is really bad.
Other notes on the above data:
•The last datapoint does not distinguish what type of care was needed (seeing their doctor verses going to the ICU), although from the anecdotal reports I have reviewed over the last two years, multiple doctor visits often suggests eventually needing to go to a hospital or having chronic complications from the vaccination.
•Keep in mind that approximately 264 million people in the United States received this vaccine, so a 10% adverse event rate from vaccination appears to outweigh even the most extreme estimates of harm from COVID-19 (not to mention the vaccine increases rather than decreases your likelihood of getting COVID-19). This is important because with almost every vaccine, the risk of you having an adverse reaction to a vaccine is never compared to your risk of getting the disease times the chance the vaccine will prevent you from getting the disease times the likelihood the disease itself will produce serious complications following an infection. However, with a 10% adverse event rate, the absurdity of this calculation becomes much easier to grasp.
•V-safe’s data showed that women were significantly more likely to report adverse events than men Although reporting factors could potentially explain some of this, it is congruent with many other datasets researchers that show women overall are 2-3 times more vulnerable to side effects of this vaccine (besides myocarditis which disproportionately affects men).
•Finally I was unable to determine how many people had at least one of these three happen to them, but it was likely at least 15%.
A variety of common symptoms after vaccination were also evaluated by v-safe. Based on the current presentation of the data, I cannot provide a clear estimate of how many people were affected by the symptoms, but it is noteworthy that many of the symptoms v-safe classified as “severe” which were reported by hundreds of thousands of people, while clearly problematic, in the grand scheme of vaccine injuries are not that severe. A very common tactic the pharmaceutical industry uses to conceal adverse events in clinical trials is to make it not possible for test subjects to report those adverse events. This was reported by participants in the COVID-19 vaccine trials and also by many individuals in this article’s comment section who used V-safe.
All of this likely means that once the freeform data is available it was entered into the V-safe, the picture we presently have of the vaccine injuries will be much worse than the damning picture that has already been made available through ICAN’s lawsuit. A common way that pharmaceutical companies conceal adverse reactions to their products is to not make those adverse reactions be possible for trial participants to select and document as a reaction (COVID vaccine trial participants have also testified that this happened), and based on the responses that were available in V-safe, it is clear the same also occurred there.
This is why the designers emphasized V-safe would not be suited for discovering "rare” or “unexpected” reactions to vaccinations (which is a euphemism for the much more severe complications of vaccination). Additionally, it should make sense why the most severe effects like death are unlikely to end up in this data set as those individuals will no longer be able to enter them into their V-safe app.
Ten million people being actively monitored constitutes to my knowledge the largest clinical trial in history. Additionally, it should also be noted that by May the CDC had stopped promoting this system and its usage dropped off dramatically. In my eyes this suggests that once they realized how concerning the data was, they stopped trying to collect it, and that it was not initially expected that the vaccine would be as harmful as it was.
What Can We Learn From This Data?
•First off, this shows us that the CDC and the FDA have clearly failed in their duty to assess the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines and certain individuals need to be held accountable. Given that many laws and policies have been predicated upon those agencies doing this, this gives potential grounds to repeal many policies such as the recently passed law in California which penalize doctors from suggesting anything with vaccines is unsafe.
•Secondly, this at long last provides us with a means for determining the VAERS under-reporting factor (which I am sure will be done in the next few days). Determining this under reporting factor is immensely important because while many extremely concerning vaccine injuries and deaths have been reported in VAERS, we also know that they only represent the tip of the iceberg and that there are far more injuries occurring than those that can be found within VAERS.
•This is the first large dataset I have come across (besides the Israeli study demonstrating significant adverse reactions from the boosters) that appears to be congruent with what I have directly observed. One of the major issues with science is that it trains you to deny your personal observations and assume that they are a product of bias, rather than questioning if the research you were relying upon is corrupt. I have felt the discrepancy between what I am personally observing and the effects that I have observed from the vaccinations (e.g. I know of approximately 50 people who died), indicates that the adverse event reporting data is deliberately under reporting the adverse events.
Recently, I discussed evidence that vaccinations were causing a massive spike in disability (which is sadly one of the very common results of medical injuries). With that dataset, I suspected that there would continue to be an upward trend in the disabilities from the time that they were first identified to now (as many of the effects from vaccination are chronic and worsen over time), but the rate of increase would level off as a result of individuals declining further vaccination (which fortunately has happened, in a state without mandates, only 1 in 573 people has accepted the most recent booster).
I wanted to wait longer before reviewing the subject so there would be more time for the data to prove or disprove my hypothesized trend. However, since the areas that V-safe was monitoring for are similar to what the national disability survey assessed, I think it is important to observe how these two data sets overlap (there was an approximately 10% increase in the disability rate when the vaccine rollout occurred and between 12-13% of those who received a vaccine were unable to work or do normal activities for an unspecified period of time).
At the time the previous article was published, the data was as follows:
Presently the data is as follows:
There is a lot that still cannot be determined from the V-safe data until it is correlated with VAERS and the additional free form text responses are made available (this is where most of the severe injuries will be made evident). However, in my assessment, this data clearly shows the CDC and FDA were fully aware this vaccine was significantly more dangerous than any other vaccine on the market and unlike the other systems, since this system was specifically designed to answer that question there is no way for them to argue otherwise. For those interested, Steve Kirsch has provided a more detailed summary demonstrating the CDC is deliberately ignoring evidence of safety issues from these vaccines.
We owe the individuals who put forth the work to make this information available to the public a debt of gratitude. The information within V-safe will be a game changer in shifting the public debate on the vaccine program. It must also be noted that there is still much more to be determined from this data and we should be cautious on making claims about it before the entire picture (and the most concerning data found within the free-form responses) is made available to the public.
The most important point to take home with all of this was that V-safe was specifically designed to be able to answer questions about the safety of these vaccines that could not be conclusively determined with other methods like VAERS. The fact that the CDC and FDA then stonewalled making that data available to the public clearly proves malfeasance by these agencies and demands a congressional investigation.
Additionally, although many recent events have made the American people lose faith within the justice system, many of the successful lawsuits (like this one) that have been passed against the Biden administration's COVID-19 vaccine policies show that the courts can still serve a vital role in protecting our constitutional freedoms if the legal system is approached appropriately. Please consider sharing this article with the appropriate parties (e.g. on Gab or GETTR) because this is a message that can shift the narrative if it gets out, but please also be mindful to avoid claiming anything that is not yet demonstrated within this data.
Postscript: After publishing this article, readers directed me towards a Lancet study that had evaluated the V-safe data (using the first 7.8 million participants in contrast to the 10.1 million in the data released to ICAN). The published data was as follows:
Although some of these figures are comparable to the data released to ICAN (12.13% were unable to perform their normal activities, 13.3% missed work or school and 7.7% required medical care, on average 2.7 times) and provide valuable context to their data, some such as those requiring medical care were very different (0.8-1.0% vs 7.7%). I considered a variety of explanations (e.g. ICAN presented the data incorrectly, I was misinterpreting the data, or the Lancet, as had previously happened with the Surgisphere scandal, deliberately published false data).
I eventually discovered that the Lancet paper only disclosed issues reported within 7 days of vaccination, and as many physician visits would happen more than a week from vaccination (e.g. they take time to schedule, the patient might hold off on paying for a doctor visit in the hope the issue would resolve, many vaccine side effects take over a week to appear etc.), most of them did not appear in the Lancet publication. Because of this, the authors were able to claim a data set with multiple red flags instead indicated:
Reports of seeking medical care after mRNA vaccine were “rare”…Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations; however, these events are rare. Vaccines are the most effective tool to prevent serious COVID-19 disease outcomes and the benefits of immunisation in preventing serious morbidity and mortality strongly favour vaccination.
This once again illustrates why it is so important to throughly review each paper rather than taking its conclusions at face value.
Thanks for reading The Forgotten Side of Medicine! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Lastly, for those who would like to know about this subject, Steve Kirsch is compiling an evolving summary of it here: