CDC Responds to FOIA Request on Myocarditis Data for Covid Vaccinations With Over 100 Blank Pages
Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, co-author of Great Barrington Declaration: “This information will eventually come out. It’s not top secret.”
Last month, I reported that a large, multinational study of COVID-19 vaccines from companies like Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca has been linked to rare occurrences of heart, brain, and blood disorders. At this point, most rational health professionals would allow an individual to decide if the risk of heart, brain, and blood disorders outweigh the risk of experiencing COVID without the vaccine in any of its mutations and variations.
However, that study was only one of many that have been done to assess the COVID-19 vaccine side effects. Another project was proposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Myocarditis Outcomes after mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination Investigation (MOVING) in October 2021.
As a reminder, myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis is inflammation of the lining around the heart. The agency has already released some reports, such as this one in The Lancet, which asserted that virus-caused myocarditis was worse than the one that arose post-vaccination.
Myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination is rare yet potentially serious, and although most patients were considered recovered by health-care providers at least 90 days since onset, nearly half of patients continued to self-report symptoms, including chest pain, and a quarter were prescribed daily cardiac medications.
These findings suggest that continued follow-up and assessment of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination is needed to more fully understand recovery after vaccine-associated myocarditis.
From a clinical standpoint, our findings suggest that myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination could have a more favourable prognosis than myocarditis after viral infection, based on data available from the pre-COVID-19 period.
However, that same month, Florida’s Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo issued a warning to young men receiving covid vaccines, based on an analysis by the state’s health department that indicated they pose an “increased risk” of cardiac-related death.
“Today, we released an analysis on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines the public needs to be aware of. This analysis showed an increased risk of cardiac-related death among men 18-39. FL will not be silent on the truth,” Ladapo tweeted.
Clearly, the CDC has been collecting data on this matter since 2021. One intrepid investigator, Epoch Times reporter Zachary Stieber, decided to collect that information using a Freedom of Information Act request. Steiber would likely have crunched the numbers (or had a trusted scientist review the data) and published the findings to clarify who was correct: The CDC or the Florida Surgeon General.
Streiber got an eyeful…in the form of 148 redacted pages.
The CDC “released” a 148 page study on myocarditis after COVID-19 “vaccination” and every single page is completely redacted. This must be a new record. https://t.co/kIE2s7Wl2z pic.twitter.com/M6xDbRYMZx
— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) March 7, 2024
You can look for yourself by clicking HERE.
Traditionally, when science is practiced correctly, the scientist publishes the raw data (or makes that data available to the inquisitive) and is ready to address alternative theories and accept corrections when appropriate. Being funded by the taxpayer, the CDC means they collected that data on our behalf. This information is a matter of public health…not some sort of national security secret for which substantial redaction would be appropriate.
The manipulation of FOIA rules has been noted:
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford medical school professor who has advised DeSantis on COVID policy, sarcastically posted in response to Steiber, “I hear b(5) redactions are all the rage these days. Besides, there are just some things the public shouldn’t know.”
As the conservative website Twitchy explained, a Freedom of Information Act b(5) exemption allows the government to redact “privileged” information as it relates to the internal discussion of legal matters. “In other words,” Twitchy posted, “it allows the CDC to redact almost EVERYTHING.”
Bhattacharya predicted the Biden CDC’s secret would not remain secret for long.
“Many good journalists and media organizations are trying to get documents,” he added on X. “This information will eventually come out. It’s not top secret.”
Bhattacharya was one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, who opposed the lockdowns and advocated for sensible covid policies. He argued that Covid lockdowns would harm children, then Twitter secretly placed him on a “Trends Blacklist,” which prevented his tweets from trending.
I hear b(5) redactions are all the rage these days. Besides there are just some things the public shouldn't know. /s
— Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) March 7, 2024
One last note: The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) announced last week that children under the age of 12 will no longer be offered covid vaccines unless the children are deemed high risk. This news further proves that the American public has a right to see the data and allow researchers not connected to Big Pharma or Big Government to evaluate the findings and provide their own conclusions.
Trust in science is already at an all-time low. Our public health agencies ignoring FOIA requests will not help bring it back.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
CDC practicing high handed arrogance. This kind of arrogance is a “threat to our Democracy”.
I’d say at the minimum they need to be completely dismantled, the headquarters razed, the individuals involved jailed and the Earth salted so nothing like that can grow again.
Don’t raze the headquarters. Convert it to migrant housing so the residents of D.C. can experience first-hand what being a “Sanctuary City” really entails.
I think you mean Atlanta.
There will have to be many agency house cleanings.
I cannot think of ANYTHING that the CDC should have redacted. Not a single thing. But to have them actually submit a completely redacted study as response to a FOIA – a study that the CDC should have published, itself, without having to have any court command them – the CDC really went above and beyond, here. This is performance art … The sort of performance art that prisons are so desperately in need of.
Honestly, this is so incredibly insane and ludicrous and offensive that I would not be against putting the entirety of the CDC upper management on the rack for it. This is insane and completely out of control.
The actions of democracy nearing its end stage. Arrogance of power, corruption, more rules, more laws more obfuscation, no accountability and no fear of anyone and anything.
I would understand if they redacted the part of the report that read
“Heck, we know these injections are very risky but if we don’t approve them, we won’t get our kickbacks from Pfizer and Moderna.”
We absolutely must have legislation disclosing past royalty checks and banning all future ones.
>>I cannot think of ANYTHING that the CDC should have redacted.
If you can’t get your data sealed for 70 years then you pay off your contacts in the CDC leadership to return dozens of blank, b(5) redacted pages for every FOIA request that comes down the line. Then you drag things out for years in the courts until the FOIA requester simply gives up. And yes, I think Pfizer™ has their hands in this as they desperately try to keep the data from the public. Data that would show quite clearly that they knew that the modRNA serum they created was neither safe nor effective
Delayed just like JFK’s murder by the CIA. There seems to be no end to corruption in government.
The only thing that could and should be redacted is identifying information about patients. (Assuming that there was any in the requested data.)
Other than that…….
As a State worker who has done some work fulfilling document requests (as we call them) I agree completely. I worked for an LE agency, and we would redact the names of innocent people and other personal information from all manner of documents, and the names of those who might be put in jeopardy should they be revealed publicly, but in a report the substance of the report would remain intact. The CDC is in material breach of its obligations under FOIA. No such medical or scientific report would include any individually-identifiable personal information, and data collection methods are an integral part of a scientific report necessary for reviewers to evaluate the conduct of the research; there are no “methods and resources” to hide here. And there are certainly no state or other national security secrets involved. The person responsible for ordering the redaction of this scientific/research report should be fired.
Thanks, CDC, for inspiring me. Taxes are due in one month. Since redaction is all the rage these days, I am going to save a ton of money…
My thoughts exactly. OfficeMax is running a special on reams of personal printer paper, and for a quite reasonable fee they’ll gladly cut it for you to 2 5/8 x 6″. If you pretend most of them represent $100s, you won’t even need much postage.
This is a simple example of how the establishment and their bureaucratic minions view the taxpaying public; with utter contempt. They are, in their own minds, the elite and the rest of us are no more than serfs to them.
I think it can be safely assumed that the results of this study are not good so this should be widely broadcast as a warning if nothing else.
And, as an aside, they always forget the metadata so I wonder if they remembered to redact it? There might be some sliver of useful info there?
You are likely correct that the data reflects poorly on the CDC. TBH though it doesn’t matter to me. The real issue is that the CDC believes they don’t have to provide data to the public, data that was acquired using taxpayer $. It is our data not theirs. It is past time some clever attorneys figured out how to jam a tort claim up every govt agency’s ass for this sort of thing; perhaps conversion would do the trick.
Metadata may or may not have existed, depending on how the document request was processed – did they copy the pages of a printed version, or did they start with a file – Word or PDF – of the report? Did they start with a file and then printed the file to PDF? Did they provide to the requestor a file or printed pages? Many variables would determine if the existence of metadata is even a possibility, and it is likely to be unhelpful anyway (containing nothing but information about who created the document and when, how many pages and words it has, and so on. Metadata will not contain a representation or duplicate of the actual content of a document.)
How big a dent can we put make in national debt by downsizing bloated government. When I was involved with one acquisition we canned 2/3 of bloat and that made the company profitable.
Debt service alone on the existing $34 Trillion debt will exceed the DoD budget and is likely to clock in at over a $1 Trillion this year. That doesn’t include ‘unfunded liabilities’ such as Social Security or Medicare both of which face huge cuts within the decade. Meaningful spending cuts would be painful to a large number of interest groups which is why politicians created these giveaway programs and why they don’t want to cut them.
I managed to find one page that was not redacted.
https://i.postimg.cc/h4XK7hbc/cdc-mickey.jpg
TY Leslie.. we deserve better..
Aside from patient privacy, nothing should be redacted. We can take this as an admission that the data is bad for the CDC and Big Pharma.
I would put it more directly. The data hidden must have indicted danger to patients taking the shots.
A research paper never contains individually-identifiable patient information. It’s all just numbers, even if the numbers were assigned to individual patients (if the report is that granular). There is just no good reason for redaction of a research paper unless is has classified, national security-related information.
I’d have to say that the complete reduction of everything speaks volumes. Apparently they don’t think they can’t say anything that isn’t harmful to their narrative. The truth will eventually out, and I hope someone loses their head over it.
>>Apparently they don’t think they can’t say anything that isn’t harmful to Pfizer™.
their narrative.FTFY as I’m more than sure this has more to do with Pfizer™ and their stock price than keeping to their “narrative” at this point.
I trust science just fine. So do most thinking people.
It’s the scientists and bureaucrats we can’t stand.
There’s nothing wrong with the science. The problems is when scientists — and the bureaucrats they work for — put their financial kickbacks and political agenda ahead of what the data actually show,
Science is fine. What we’re seeing from the CDC and Big Pharma is not science.
Agreed. We must remember science is a process. It’s not Anthony Fauci.
Science works when it’s applied rigorously and reported honestly.
2 of my fully vaccinated 18 employees developed myocarditis and are on pacemakers. One was in her early 50s and the other in her early 60s. Neither had weight issues. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
Couldn’t mRNA be sued on the basis of fraud? They obtained a waiver of liability by misrepresenting their product.
That seems low. I’m betting a few others are having heart related issues, but are chalking it up to stress or something else. The ones we are hearing about are the ones who go in because the symptoms are consistent with heart attack.
Clearly they have nothing to hide.
Over at the CDC they’re probably smirking right now about this. “Ha! How dare they FOIA us? THAT will show those uppity peasants!”
Then down the line when they declare some new “pandemic” (heh, maybe this coming summer or fall?) they’ll be whinging “why doesn’t anybody listen to us we’re teh experts!”
Well, it’s not because the government has covered-up the harmful side-effects of therapeutic vaccines — it’s because the American people are racists, obviously. The Deep Sewer is never to blame; they just have all the money and power and everything to lose and are therefore noble and heroic in thought and deed.
Trust the Science…
If it weren’t Mystery Science Theater 3000 I would.
Otherwise healthy and clean living 30-40 YO males having massive heart palpitations on a massive scale. Nothing to see here.
A friend in national guard took the vax under duress of being punted and is now frequently having what feels like heart attacks. I know anecdotally this is happening big time around the world.
Around the same time the vax came out I was talking to a retired veteran who had to deal with guys who had gotten a questionable vax going into the first gulf war. He said the reactions to that were the best and healthiest males in their 20s were sick and needing to sleep for 20 hrs a day. The army was pulling them up for disciplinary hearings and he knew damn well from the scale it happened on – exactly what it was.
The fact that he cut the line and skipped the all the deployment vax was the clue for him.
Is that why they blame burn pits?
That’s a very interesting question!
This is, ultimately, undemocratic.
Much of the left around the world has fallen out of favor with democratic principles, if they ever had them to begin with. For them you are supposed to trust the experts, the scientists (the *right* ones, anyway), trust the bureaucrats, trust the (right) politicians. There was a story last week about going after people who–horror!!!!–looked at primary sources of information, instead of just listening to The Narrative.
Democracy (and don’t give me any pedantry about being a republic) requires an informed population, and the ability of that population to direct their government through voting. Without information, or only with curated information, democracy dies.
People on the left are too often just fine with that, because The People might want the wrong things, know the wrong things (even when accurate), and vote the wrong way.
This has been going on a long time and is entrenched. The entire EU project was designed from its inception to dampen the voice of the people at large, and place power in the hands of the bureaucrats. The rise of the administrative state in the US and international bodies, like the WHO and the IPCC, trying to gain control are of the same philosophy:
The People can’t be trusted. Only the elite left should be listened to and followed. Everyone else should just sit down, shut up, and do what you’re told.
these were not grunts on burn pits.
I don’t trust the narrative surrounding pericarditis/myocarditis. To wit, I think they’re hiding the true incidence by deeming those conditions in older people to be pre-existing. It makes no sense to me that the young are most affected, as one would normally expect medication side effects to be worse in the elderly as they are less resilient against all kinds of injury, yet somehow mRNA covid vaccines defy that. Then there’s the significant increase in general mortality that somehow has nothing to do with these vaccines even though they are the only population-wide variable that might explain it.
Raid the CDC.
It’s not apparent to me how the b(5) language offered above would cover the contents of a medical study. Leaving aside the fact that no personally identifiable information (PII) would be part of a medical study, considering the blinding that would be part of the process itself, It seems unlikely that “internal discussion of legal matters” would represent the content of the report. If this sort of matter existed in the report at all, it would surely be minimal.
This is clearly nothing more than audacious defiance. There was no effort made to even conceal their bad faith.
Clearly, the CDC thought: Why should the DoJ have all the fun stiffing people’s FOIAs?
The agencies all the time figure: “If they can do that, why can’t we?” Everybody’s got a SWAT team these days, and their own administrative “courts.” I speculate that agencies’ surveillance is patchwork only because the infinitely many intelligence orgs consider all surveillance their turf, and “…have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”