Sept. 24, 2022 - Epoch Times
12:41
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| This right here is Dr. | |
| Rochelle Walensky, the current director of the CDC. And last week, Dr. | |
| Walensky issued this letter right here, which was made public on September the 12th, in which she admitted that the CDC gave false information to us here at the Epoch Times in regards to their vaccine safety monitoring process. | |
| Specifically, in this letter, Dr. | |
| Walensky admitted that despite telling us otherwise, the CDC was not actually analyzing certain types of adverse events reported within their own database throughout all of 2021. | |
| And instead, they only began their analyses of these adverse events in March of this year. | |
| That is, again, despite the CDC telling us previously that they started their analyses all the way back in February of 2021, which we now know to be false. | |
| Here's specifically what this letter says in relevant part. | |
| Quote... | |
| The CDC performed proportional reporting ratio analysis between March 25th of 2022 through July 31st of 2022. | |
| The CDC also recently addressed a previous statement made to the Epoch Times to clarify that proportional reporting ratios were not run between February 26th of 2021 to September 30th of 2021. | |
| Now, if that sounds overly confusing, don't worry. | |
| Let me back up for a quick moment and set the stage free properly so that what's happening here becomes crystal clear. | |
| To start with, this right here is what's known as the VAERS system, which stands for the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. | |
| This is the government repository which collects all the reports of adverse reactions to the vaccine. | |
| And over a year and a half ago, back in January of 2021, just when the vaccine rollout program began at scale, the CDC issued several documents in which they promised to take the reports coming into the VAERS system and perform a certain type of analysis on them. | |
| Specifically, the type of analysis that they promise to perform is called proportional reporting ratio, or PRR. This is a type of statistical analysis that's done for drugs in order to see whether a certain adverse reaction happens at a higher frequency compared to other similar drugs. | |
| Essentially, using the PRR technique, you would take the number of specific adverse events attributed to the COVID vaccine and then divide it by the number of those same events attributed to other vaccines. | |
| Now, if that sounds confusing, let me give you an example of what this PRR technique looks like in practice. | |
| Let's just say... | |
| Within the VAERS system, out of 2,000 total adverse events that were reported for the Pfizer vaccine, myocarditis was reported 83 times, meaning that out of 2,000 adverse event reports, myocarditis appeared in 83 of them. | |
| And these are, by the way, just made up numbers just to illustrate how this technique works. | |
| And so you would do the math and find that the proportion of adverse events of myocarditis for the Pfizer vaccine was 0.0415. | |
| Then what you would want to do is compare this proportion with other similar vaccines in order to see whether it's higher or lower. | |
| And so let's say for all vaccines within the VAERS system, myocarditis was reported as an adverse event 1,500 times out of 55,000 total adverse events. | |
| Again, these are not real numbers. | |
| I'm just making an illustration. | |
| Regardless, with these numbers, you would find that myocarditis was reported with a proportion of 0.027 among the entire class of vaccine drugs. | |
| And so then, what you would do is you would divide the proportion of myocarditis within the Pfizer vaccine against the proportion of all vaccines. | |
| And you would get a PRR ratio of 1.537. | |
| And so, this then tells us that, at least in this scenario, myocarditis was reported about 53% more frequently for the Pfizer vaccine than for other vaccines. | |
| That's how this analysis is done. | |
| And this is exactly what the CDC promised to do starting in early 2021. | |
| However, this is where things begin to get funny. | |
| Because over a year after the CDC promised to begin conducting this type of analysis, a group called the Children's Health Defense submitted a Freedom of Information request to the CDC in order to get numbers from the agency. | |
| They wanted to see the results of this PRR analysis. | |
| However, as a response to their request, on June 16th of this year, on June 16th of 2022, the CDC sent a response letter to this group saying that not only were they not conducting this PRR analysis, but also that performing this analysis was outside of the agency's purview. | |
| Here's specifically what the letter from the CDC said, quote, Program staff within the Immunization and Safety Office inform me that no PRRs were conducted by the CDC. | |
| Furthermore, data mining is outside of the agency's purview. | |
| Okay, so you can see there is an obvious contradiction here. | |
| Because on the one hand, in January of 2021, the CDC said that they are going to analyze adverse events data using the PRR method. | |
| But then, in mid-2022, they said that not only are they not analyzing this data, but doing so is not even within their agency's purview. | |
| And so, seeing this obvious contradiction, we here at the Epoch Times, we reached out to the CDC in order to figure out what was really happening. | |
| And after we sent them an inquiry, we received a response from Dr. | |
| John Su, who works in the CDC's Immunization and Safety Office, and he's actually the head of the CDC's VAERS team, and he got back to us via email saying this, And so already you begin to see a pattern. | |
| These statements continue to flip-flop back and forth, Depending on who you asked at the CDC, they told you different things. | |
| And so again, in order to figure out the truth, we here at the Epoch Times sent another request to the CDC asking them to clarify what was really happening. | |
| And a month later, in August of this year, in August of 2022, another CDC spokesperson got back to us admitting that they previously gave us false information. | |
| And adding this, quote, Okay, and so with that letter, we were getting either somewhere or nowhere. | |
| However, perhaps after seeing this ridiculous back and forth about a week ago, the director of the CDC, Dr. | |
| Rochelle Walensky, she decided to step in and issue a clarification letter. | |
| This is the letter that I referenced earlier at the top of the episode, and here is what it says in relevant part. | |
| Quote, The CDC also recently | |
| addressed a previous statement made to the Epoch Times to clarify that PRRs were not run Given the strength of the EB data mining method, the CDC and the FDA plan to continue relying upon EB data mining moving forward. | |
| And so, as this statement reads, if we can trust the director of the CDC herself to finally set the record straight, and that is, by the way, a big if, they conducted PRR analyses from March to July of 2022, at which point they stopped and relied solely on this other type of analysis, the one called Imperial Bayesian data mining. | |
| However, here's the kicker. | |
| We here at the Epoch Times have spent close to a year trying to get the results of this PRR analysis. | |
| And instead, what we've been forced to do is to go back and forth with the agency in this quagmire of technicalities in order to figure out whether it's being conducted at all. | |
| Finally, after about a year and a half, we find out that it was conducted for about three months, at which point some other type of analysis was used. | |
| And yet, after all this work, we still don't have any actual data. | |
| That's because, to this very day, the CDC has not provided the results of any of their PRR analysis that they allegedly performed. | |
| However, in this letter, Dr. | |
| Walensky told us that the FDA is now in charge of the data mining. | |
| And so, we here at the Epoch Times reached out to the FDA in order to get access to their results. | |
| But wouldn't you believe it? | |
| The FDA responded to us by telling us that they will not provide any of their analyses, not even in redacted form. | |
| Why? | |
| Well, in their response letter to us, the FDA said that there is actually a loophole which makes it such that they don't have to reply. | |
| Specifically, the FDA, quote, And then furthermore, | |
| In their response letter to us, the FDA also pointed to the Code of Federal Regulations, which says that, quote, all communications within the executive branch of the federal government, which are in written form or which are subsequently reduced to writing, may be withheld from public disclosure, except that factual information, which is reasonably segregable except that factual information, which is reasonably segregable in accordance with the rule established in subsection 20.22, is available for public disclosure. | |
| Meaning, essentially, that they have found a loophole to not have to hand anything over. | |
| Now, it's not exactly clear why the FDA is choosing to go this route, why they are denying us these records, but they are. | |
| And so, at the end of the day, we are left to rely exclusively on the words of Dr. | |
| Rochelle Walensky, who said again in her letter that, quote, Which is reassuring, but quite frankly, after dealing with the federal government for as long as we have, Well, we're going to need to see the data in order to trust any such claims, which we're still fighting for. | |
| And if we get it, well, you can be sure that I will be reporting it to you here. | |
| Until then, if you'd like to go deeper into the story, and if you'd like to read through the actual documents and letters that the FDA and the CDC sent to us, I'll throw all those links down into the description box below this video so you can peruse them for yourself. | |
| And of course, that is the description box that is right below that like button. | |
| Which I hope you take a quick moment to smash. | |
| That way the YouTube algorithm will be quite literally forced to share this video out to ever more people. | |
| And also, if you appreciate content like this, consider subscribing to this YouTube channel as well. | |
| That way you can get this type of honest news content delivered directly into YouTube feed every time we publish it. | |
| Alright, just to pause here for a super quick moment, I wanted to mention that the sponsor of today's episode is a super cool company called Secure. | |
| And they're a cool company for people that actually care about their privacy. | |
| Because listen, if you don't think that these giant tech and glomerates and all these different alphabet agencies within the US government are spying on your messages, well, then frankly, you are not paying enough attention to the news. | |
| However, all that can be in the past because with Secure, they have awesome proprietary technology that has all your messages and all your emails actually go through Switzerland as they're making their way back and forth between you and your recipient. | |
| And so let's say you're here in America and the person you're messaging is over in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere else in the world. | |
| Well, it doesn't matter because all your messages are actually going through Switzerland back and forth from one to another, meaning that they are not subject to the Cloud Act and they are only subject to Swiss laws, which are some of the safest in the entire world. | |
| Their technology is awesome. | |
| It's proprietary and they're a company that actually cares about your freedom. | |
| They care about getting the facts out, which is why they sponsor a company like ours. | |
| And best of all, they are offering a 25% off deal for our viewers, for the viewers of Facts Matter. | |
| So head on over to secure.com and use promo code Roman to get 25% off. | |
| And the rates are not even that expensive to start with. | |
| 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 again, head on over to secure.com, use promo code Roman, save some money, and support an awesome sponsor. | |
| And then lastly, over on Epic TV, which is our awesome no-censorship video platform, we just published a great documentary called Farmageddon, which tells the story of family farms that were providing healthy foods to their local communities, but were forced to shut down by agents of misguided government bureaucracies. | |
| Here's a trailer for that. | |
| They came with the director of milk control, and they all came and pretended they were just going to do an inspection, and then they did a seizure. | |
| It was a SWAT-type team raid, which included the FBI, the FDA, the CDSA, along with half a dozen sheriffs. | |
| We were just recently raided again for the third time. | |
| Knock on the door and my kids again ousted it from their beds. | |
| It terrorized the children, took the farmer away in handcuffs. | |
| Even to the sheep that I had brought over from New Zealand. | |
| And they took them out to Iowa and they killed them for a disease that doesn't exist to this day. | |
| Raw milk from South Carolina. | |
| USDA grade licensed dairy. | |
| The imminent health hazard according to the state of Georgia. | |
| America wake up. | |
| These things are starting to happen. | |
| If you'd like to check out that awesome documentary, as well as the plethora of other great content over on Epic TV, I'll throw a link. | |
| It'll be right there at the very top of the description box. | |
| I hope you check it out. | |
| And then, until next time, I'm your host, Roman from the Epic Times. |
Export Selection