All Episodes
Previous Next
March 29, 2022 - Epoch Times
20:03
Deaths Represent 1.3% of Reported Side Effects: Peer-Reviewed CDC Study; CDC Changes Risk Formula
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is your daily Facts Matter Update, and I'm your host, Roman, from the Epoch Times.
And now let's begin today's discussion by talking about vaccine side effects.
According to researchers over at the CDC, after they analyzed the reported side effects which came after mRNA vaccine injection, they found that death, listed as a side effect, accounted for 1.3% of all of the reported cases.
Specifically...
What these CDC researchers did was that they combed through the federal government's VAERS database.
And just for reference, the VAERS database stands for the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.
And this is a, you can call it a repository, which collects reports of adverse reactions to the vaccines throughout the entire country.
And after they analyzed the data within this database, they found that death, listed as a side effect, represented 13 out of every thousand reports.
Or in other words, 1.3% of all side effect cases had death listed as the side effect.
And then furthermore, their analysis also showed that another 6.6% of all listed side effects were categorized as being serious.
And in terms of what being serious means in this respect, well, here's what these scientists wrote in their study.
And for your reference, this study was published in the Lancet Medical Journal.
Here's what they wrote, quote...
Another 66 reports out of every 1,000, or 6.6%, were categorized as serious, resulting in inpatient hospitalization, prolongation of hospitalization, permanent disability, life-threatening illness, congenital anomaly, or birth defect.
Now, there are two things that I believe are worth noting with the data in their study.
The first one, as I mentioned earlier, is that the bulk of it came from the VAERS reporting system.
Now, the way that the VAERS system works is that it's essentially a passive surveillance system because anyone can report to it, but not everybody does.
And so generally, it's understood that what is reported in VAERS is only a fraction of the total number of cases with side effects.
That's because only manufacturers as well as healthcare providers, only they are required to report to the system, whereas everyone else is now required to report to it.
And so just as an example, if you get the shot and then you go home and experience some sort of symptom, but you don't tell anyone about it, well, that would not be registered in the system.
And so, in order to make up for this challenge, what the researchers in this study did was that they consulted another monitoring system, one that's called V-Safe, that was set up in the year 2020.
Now, V-Safe is what's known as an active reporting system, and it monitors people using their smartphones.
Basically, it's an app that uses both text messages as well as web surveys to provide people with more personalized health checks after they receive a COVID vaccine.
And according to this data, it shows that most reported adverse events were mild and short in duration, at least according to the V-Safe data, With 18 to 49 year olds representing a plurality, or 45%, and females a supermajority, or 75% of the reported cases.
Now one thing to really note here is that the CDC study actually excludes a large subset of young people, including minors.
So basically, the youngest age range in this particular study is 16 to 17, meaning that anyone below the age of 16 is not included in this particular study.
And the reason has to do with the time range, because the time frame of the study is the six-month period under which the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines had emergency use authorization.
And unfortunately, during that time period, there is no data for either people aged 5 to 11 or 12 to 16, meaning that we don't have any data, at least in this study, regarding that age range, which is a shame because now we know that young people, particularly young men, have a higher case rate of pericarditis and myocarditis after taking the mRNA vaccines.
But that is not listed here, and we'll have to wait until the subsequent CDC study, which has the next time range, until we see that data.
Now, since we're on the topic of the CDC, let's talk about something else, but that is very related.
Three weeks ago, the CDC made an announcement in which they updated their framework for both monitoring as well as containing COVID-19.
Here's specifically what Dr.
Rochelle Walensky, who is, of course, the director of the CDC, here's what she said as a part of that statement, again, just three weeks ago.
Quote, We are in a stronger place today as a nation with more tools to protect ourselves and our communities from COVID-19 like vaccination, boosters, broader access to testing, availability of high-quality masks, accessibility to new treatments, and improved ventilation.
And along that line, the CDC issued an advisory saying that most Americans throughout the entire country can stop wearing masks.
And that was, of course, the announcement that most of the media outlets in this country focused on.
Which is of course understandable, especially for people who are still living in areas with mask mandates in place.
That was for them big news.
However, what received very, very little scrutiny was how the CDC actually arrived at their conclusion.
Because when the CDC made their change in guidance in terms of masks...
Well, both COVID cases as well as COVID mortality rates were relatively high.
In fact, on March 1st, which is when this announcement was made, the government data showed that there were approximately 60,000 daily new cases of COVID based on a seven-day rolling average.
And for your reference, that is significantly higher than just last summer and pretty much identical to a year ago.
That's in terms of infections.
But in terms of mortality, when the CDC made their announcement about masks, there were approximately 1,600 Americans who were dying every single day from COVID. That's at least according to the government's own data.
And that number, 1,600 deaths per day, is also significantly higher than last summer, and it's pretty much similar to what we were seeing a year earlier.
And so this then naturally leads to the next logical question.
With the infection rate, as well as with the mortality rate being pretty much on par with what we were seeing last year, how could the CDC justify suddenly changing their guidance on masks?
Well, here's what Dr.
Dr. Rochelle Walensky told reporters during a conference call, again, just three short weeks ago, quote, with widespread population immunity, the overall risk of severe disease is now generally lower.
Now, as the virus continues to circulate in our communities, we must focus our metrics beyond just cases in the community and direct our efforts towards protecting people at high risk for severe illness and preventing COVID-19 from overwhelming our hospitals and our health care systems.
Now, that is an amazing statement, and there are two very important takeaways that we need to unpack from those comments.
The first one is that when she said that we should, quote, Well, that sounds a lot like the focused protection strategy that was advocated by the Great Barrington Declaration, which was later labeled as being essentially a fringe conspiracy theory.
Now, in case you're not aware of what that actually is, the Great Barrington Declaration was essentially a letter that was written by a group of epidemiologists as well as public health scientists which ran counter to the efforts of the government to lock down society.
Now, the Great Barrington Declaration, it argued that instead of broad-based lockdowns, we should instead be focusing on the protection of vulnerable groups.
And that declaration gained a lot of traction.
In fact, hundreds of thousands of people signed it, including many notable medical doctors as well as scientists.
However, as I mentioned a moment earlier, the Great Barrington Declaration, it ran directly counter to the measures which were being pushed by the government, specifically by people like Dr.
Fauci and Dr.
Francis Collins.
And so, a few months back, we were able to get our hands on some internal government emails which showed us exactly how they were treating these suggestions.
Because, as the government was pushing for more lockdowns, And as a group of doctors and scientists were arguing against the lockdowns, here's what Dr.
Francis Collins wrote to Dr.
Fauci.
Quote, "This proposal, referring to the Gray-Barrington Declaration from three fringe epidemiologists who met with the secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention, and even a co-signature from a Nobel Prize winner Mike Levitt at Stanford.
There needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises, I don't see anything like that online yet.
Is it underway?
And it appears that Dr.
Fauci was in full agreement to takedown both the authors as well as their declaration.
That's because he replied to Dr.
Collins with a very short reply email which said this, quote, And then right below that message, you can see the article from a publication called Wired.
Then, Dr.
Fauci's chief of staff, a man by the name of Greg Folkers, he sent Fauci a list of additional political op-eds, which likewise had the same anti-Great Barrington Declaration talking points.
And then, wouldn't you know it, within a day of that first email, the first email in that thread, the one that came from Dr.
Francis Collins, Google began to censor search results for Great Barrington Declaration.
Which could have, of course, been a coincidence, or it might have been part of that quick and devastating takedown that Dr.
Collins was requesting.
To this very day, we don't know.
However, what we do know is that three weeks ago, Dr.
Rochelle Walensky, she changed her official tune, and she's now suggesting that we should, quote, direct our efforts toward protecting people at high risk for severe illness, which sounds exactly like what the fringe conspiracy theorists were saying about two years ago.
Regardless, that was the first takeaway from her comments.
Sorry.
What's this?
Well, that's a great question, Roman.
And it is today's sponsor, which is an awesome messaging and email service provider called Secure.
And it's awesome if you're the type of person that actually cares about their privacy.
Because I mean, it's no big secret that these big tech companies are mining and remining our data all the time.
In fact, in the year 2020, it was found that over 155 million Americans, likely including you and me, have suffered some form of data breach.
And by the way, that's only what's publicly known.
However, what's happened in the past?
Well, that can stay in the past because with Secure, your data and your messages can remain And that's because Secure has all of their data centers located over in Switzerland rather than in the U.S. or in China.
And the reason that's so important is that Switzerland has some of the strictest data privacy laws in the entire world, and they are not subject to the Intrusive Cloud Act.
And if you want to know what the Cloud Act is, head on over to secure.com and watch their video on the homepage or on the video tutorials page, which is under their support section.
Now, the thing that I personally love the most about the Secure app Is the privacy aspect of it.
They don't mine my data.
They don't mine my phone number.
They don't mine the phone numbers or data of my friends and family who I chat with.
But best of all is that if your friends and family don't actually use the secure app themselves, it doesn't matter.
Because the way that it works is that when you use their secure send email technology, all of your emails and your messages route to Switzerland, and then the recipient can reply using their secure reply technology.
And so everything remains private no matter what.
and the same actually goes for their messaging app as well and they're always coming up with new features in fact the most recent one they told me about they sent me an email here was that they're coming up with a new feature called text to chat by invite so they're an innovative company and they really do care about your privacy and so what they're doing doesn't work with your existing big tech email account so check them out you can head on over to secure.com i'll throw the link into the description box below And when you use promo code Roman, you can get 25% off.
And the rates are not even that expensive to start with, by the way.
It's only $5 for the messenger and $10 for the email and messenger combo.
And they even offer a seven-day free trial.
So head on over to their website.
Again, it'll be linked in the description box below.
Use promo code Roman to save some money.
And now Roman in the studio, back to you.
The second point is that it's worth examining exactly how Dr.
Walensky reached her conclusion.
And to understand her reasoning, it's worth noting that during the same phone call, Dr.
Greta Massetti, who also works for the CDC, she said that, quote, And along that line, here is a neat graphic that the CDC put together showing exactly that fact, that most Americans live in an area with low or medium COVID levels.
Those are the areas in either green or yellow.
However, it's worth noting that just days prior to their announcement, The CDC's data was actually showing something completely different.
Take a look at this chart.
This chart was published just a few short days prior to the CDC's announcement, and it clearly showed that the vast majority of American counties were suffering from high transmission rates.
Those are the counties in red.
Pretty much overnight, most of the U.S. was suddenly marked as being in the low or medium category, which is amazing.
How did the CDC achieve such a great feat?
Was it a new therapy?
Was it some kind of a new lockdown?
Was it a new mandate?
What was their approach?
Well, here's how Dr.
Massetti explained it during that phone call.
Quote, Meaning that when you put the two graphs next to each other, the only thing that changed is that the CDC updated the metrics in the new graph.
That's all that changed.
The underlying data is still the same.
And notice how they can speculously remove the color red from the graph altogether.
It looks a lot less scary that way.
And so, simply by changing their formula, To include things like hospitalizations as well as hospital capacity, the CDC took the vast majority of the American people from being in a state of high community transmission to a state of low or moderate transmission.
Overnight, the COVID pandemic eased up and went from having 90% of the United States in high risk red to less than 30% in high risk orange.
And because this change coincided with their Ukraine-Russia conflict, well, it almost got no news coverage.
That is rather amazing.
And it's potentially incidents like this that are having less and less and less Americans trust the CDC. If you'd like to read more about either the CDC's study on vaccine side effects or about their, you can say, creative changes in data charts, I'll throw all those links into the description box below this video for you to check out.
And all I ask in return is that you take a super quick moment to smash, smash, smash that like button so this video can be shared out to ever more people by the YouTube algorithm.
And now, let's switch gears just a little bit and talk about the many lawsuits that the state of Texas has filed against the Biden administration.
Now, while I was down in Florida about a week ago, I took the unique opportunity to sit down and speak with Mr.
Ken Paxton, who is the Attorney General of Texas, and we discussed not only his many cases against the Biden administration, but also, more generally, how our constitutional system of government has the different states in the country act as a check to the federal government's overreach.
Take a listen.
Please introduce yourself and a little bit about your work.
Yeah, so Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General, has been doing this job for a little over seven years.
Love being from Texas.
We're really focused on defending the Constitution.
And that's why we're in 30 lawsuits with the Biden administration.
We sued him again this week.
We sued him last week.
And we're also in several lawsuits with Big Tech.
We're investigating TikTok.
We're investigating Facebook.
We're in a lawsuit with Facebook.
We've got three lawsuits with Google.
So those are the types of things we're working on.
So let's unpack some of what you just went through.
So the lawsuits against the Biden administration, what is the one that's progressed the furthest?
And can you give us a breakdown of why you have sued the Biden administration so many times already?
Yeah, so it's fundamentally the same reason.
They've adopted this approach that they say they don't have to follow federal law.
They make up their own laws, whether it's by Biden himself or by some agency.
And so We have to stand up and stop that or we're going to have a dictator as opposed to three branches of government.
So the one that's probably progressed the farthest is the remain in Mexico.
It's gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
We've won.
But now we're going back up on the merits of the case.
I think we're going to win again.
If we can get that implemented, then he's going to be forced to start sending people back that are claiming asylum, which is most of the people.
So you have that victory already in the U.S. Supreme Court.
However, I'm sure you've seen that video footage of the migrants coming across, and then they're getting shuttled onto buses or planes and sent throughout the rest of the country.
So that seems like a violation of that order.
Can you give us a breakdown of what's happening?
Yeah.
So we've actually filed a motion to enforce.
I think part of it is that the district court is waiting for it to go back up to the Supreme Court on the merits.
We got a preliminary injunction.
It's being implemented very small in small ways.
So...
I think if we get a victory on the merits, I think we'll get fuller implementation than we are now.
Now look, they're always going to be difficult, and we're going to have to hold them accountable because they don't like following laws that apply to all of us, and they like to make their own laws.
So we're going to have to hold them accountable.
We're not going to have a constitutional government.
So actually, on that note, this topic has been coming much into the spotlight recently because of what happened in Canada, right?
You had that Freedom Convoy of the truckers.
They got there.
They're protesting.
And for the most part, it looked extremely peaceful.
I mean, I saw maybe two police reports come out saying there was some disorderly conduct.
People got arrested.
But, I mean, generally, by and far, nothing got burned down.
It was generally peaceful.
However, you had the Emergencies Act invoked.
You had essentially financial warfare waged against...
Canadians for taking it or giving any money to it.
Now, at this very moment, we're having a freedom convoy go to Washington, D.C. A lot of people are worried that the same thing might happen here in the States.
Can you give us an idea from the perspective of U.S. constitutional law, whether that is possible and what that might look like?
Look, the Biden administration doesn't respect the Constitution.
They don't respect federal law.
They think it applies to everybody else, but not them.
And so, yeah, I can see the Biden administration doing the very same thing as the Canadian government.
The difference is we've got states here in this country that will stand up and fight them, including the state of Texas.
It seems to me, and this is something that a few of the other guests I spoke with mentioned, that there are times, like they're worried with the Supreme Convoy, that the Biden administration might take some action, knowing that eventually it'll lose at the Supreme Court, but in the meantime, it'll have the effect that they want, and they can quash, let's say, the trucker process.
Is that a feasible thing that you foresee?
Sure.
They've done this already with immigration.
That's why we have 2 million more illegal immigrants.
They're abusing the system.
That type of president should be impeached, but you know the Democratic Congress isn't going to impeach him.
So that's part of the freedom he feels.
He doesn't feel confined by the same laws and the Constitution that every other president has felt confined by.
He feels like he can do whatever he wants, and it'll take several years to stop him.
And so he sort of gets his way and rules more like a dictator than a president.
So to shift gears a little bit and talk about the U.S. southern border, the last time we spoke was when the governor was beginning to pile essentially trucks as an actual deterrent for people to pass through because there was no border at certain locations.
So he actually put cargo containers, right?
Like ship cargo containers.
Can you give us an update on what's been happening with that?
Has the federal government stepped in and tried to fight you on that or they haven't at all?
Look, most people just turn themselves into border agents and then get transported by the federal government.
So that's what our lawsuits are about right now.
What the governor's doing, he's doing everything he can.
It appears he's doing his best, given that the federal government supposedly has responsibility for the border.
He's trying to build a wall.
He's tried to arrest people that are trespassing on private property.
He's tried to stop people from transporting illegals inside of our state.
We've been challenged by the federal government on all of this.
And so we're fighting the fight.
And in the end, I think we're going to be victorious because the law and the Constitution are on our side.
And if we get to this point where the courts rule in our favor and the president says, I don't care about federal law, I don't care about court orders, then we're going to have a constitutional crisis that we're going to have to figure out how to deal with.
Yeah, it's almost an amazing situation because I read this report saying that Texas sheriffs were making a point of arresting people just so at least they can keep track of them through that criminal record.
It's unprecedented.
So that's absolutely happening.
So if they don't turn themselves into Border Patrol, it usually means they're trying to not be turned in.
Even though they could do that, it usually means they have some type of problem, some type of record or some type of behavior that they don't want disclosed.
And so those are the kinds of people we are arresting for trespass.
And we are putting them in jail for a little while, and then we're charging them.
And so those people end up, you know, potentially charged with criminal trespass, which is not a huge, huge, huge thing, but it still puts a criminal trespass on their record.
Now, that was not the full interview.
If you'd like to check out that interview in its entirety, you can do so over on EpicTV, which is our awesome no censorship video platform.
I'll throw a link to it.
It'll be down in the description box below.
And also, if you use promo code Roman, you can get a 14-day free trial.
So you can check out all the content.
You don't have to pay anything for two full weeks.
And then after two weeks, if you like it, you can continue or you can simply quit and wash your hands of the whole thing.
However, I do hope you continue your subscription because not only is there a plethora of great content on there, but it's also a great way to support our journalism here at The Epoch Times.
Again, I'll throw the link.
It'll be down in the description box below.
And then, until next time, I'm your host, Roman, from The Epoch Times.
▲
Export Selection