CDC Admits Mistake About COVID Vax Surveillance

False information on heart inflammation.

QUICK FACTS:
  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has admitted that they misled the public about COVID-19 vaccine surveillance.
  • Included in their misinformation was the false claim that the agency had performed a specific type of analysis more than a year earlier than they actually did.
  • In July of this year, journalists requested all reports from a research team on post-vaccination heart inflammation via reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
  • The CDC said the team did not conduct any abstractions or reports, and that “an association between myocarditis and mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was not known at that time.”
  • The CDC corrected the false statement, but did not say whether its teams had ever analyzed VAERS reports
  • A spokesperson said in an email about the information requests, “In reference to myocarditis abstraction from VAERS reports—this process began in May 2021 and continues to this date.”
  • The CDC has yet to release the results of the analysis.
PROVEN INFORMATION ON HEART INFLAMMATION:
  • The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials are claimed to have found no evidence of myocarditis or pericarditis, two types of heart inflammation.
  • However, the U.S. military began to warn about post-vaccination heart inflammation in April 2021, and the CDC began to publicly acknowledge a connection in June 2021.
  • The erroneous information was provided in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the surveillance findings.
BACKGROUND:
  • In January 2021, the CDC stated that it would conduct “Proportional Reporting Ratio” (PRR) data mining analysis on VAERS reports.
  • However, when Children’s Health Defense, a nonprofit, asked for the results, the CDC said that “no PRRs were conducted by the CDC” and that data mining “is outside of th[e] agency’s purview.”
  • The spokeswoman went on to say that CDC employees never intentionally provided false information and they didn’t intentionally avoid FOIA reporting requirements.