New documents show CDC intentionally omitted serious adverse events from "V-Safe" post-jab surveys

Watchdogs have found yet another smoking gun showing CDC deliberately acted to hide tens of thousands of adverse effects of the vaccines from the public.

In November of 2020, with the rollout of the "vaccines" due the next month, the CDC was also readying a "survey system" called "V-safe" to ask people who got the jab if they experienced any injuries after taking the jab.

"Wait, isn't that called 'VAERS'?"

No, VAERS is for all vaccines.  V-safe was specifically created to check for reactions to the vaxes for duh Chyna virus.

Before the V-safe survey went active in December 2020 (when the first vaccine was authorized), the CDC knew from the drug company trials that myocarditis—heart inflammation--was an "adverse effect."  So you'd think that would have been one of the possible "check-boxes" in the V-safe survey, eh?

Yeah, well...according to a newly-released docs covering the evolution of the "protocol" for V-safe, the CDC didn't make that an option, along with several other known adverse effects.

Two weeks before the system went active, as of Nov. 19, 2020 the "protocol" for V-safe listed myocarditis, stroke, death, and a dozen other known possible adverse effects as known and serious.

But strangely, when the final "protocol" for the V-safe survey was rolled out just three weeks later ( December of 2020) it didn't list ANY of those KNOWN adverse effects.

About 10 million people had signed up to participate as of August of last year 2022.  Participants were asked (via a robot smartphone app) how they felt after getting the jab, whether they had a fever or common minor symptoms, whether they were unable to work or carry out normal daily activities, and whether they needed medical care.  

The app had checkboxes to report 10 minor problems such as fever and nausea...but there were no checkboxes for the known, serious adverse effects that had been in the protocol just three weeks earlier.

So since the survey carefully, intentionally didn't have checkboxes for serious effects--despite the initial protocol recognizing several known serious effects--how could participants in the highly-touted "V-safe" survey report they had experienced a serious adverse effect, eh?  

Easy: by writing them in narrative form in a free-text field.  

If you don't see where this is going yet, read on.

So of the ten million Americans who signed up to participate in the survey as of last August, how many would you guess wrote something in that field, eh?

According to the CDC, 6.8 MILLION.  

For the math-challenged that's over two-thirds of the population being surveyed.  Wow.

If you still don't see where this is going, hang on for a few more 'grafs.

The second smoking gun (after deliberately not including checkboxes for serious effects) is that *the CDC has refused to release any of the entries in the free-text field.*

Since that's the only place any serious injuries (not including the ten minor effects) could appear, a reasonable person might conclude that the agency was trying to hide the true number and percentage of serious adverse effects.

That's silly, right?  Cuz the agency has an excuse for not releasing the entries in the free-response field:  "Those entries could contain personally identifiable information."

Ah. So why not just "redact" (black out) that info?  The CDC claimed it was simply too much of a burden to review all the free-response comments to delete any "personally identifiable information."

That's plausible, since a staggering 6.8 million people had written comments in the free-response field.  But since, **by design,** that's the ONLY place you'd find the number of severe adverse effects, hard not to see the agency's "excuse" for what it is.

Critics then asked the CDC to provide a sample of a few hundred entries to see how often "personally identifiable information" appeared.  Plaintiffs claimed this would likely support their argument that the entries likely hold little or no identifiable information.  Not surprisingly, the CDC refused.

Critics wonder if the CDC was trying to get an honest look at whether the vaxxes were actually safe, or had instead  designed a survey that would allow them to claim the vaxxes were safe even if there were a much higher incidence of serious side-effects that would contradict the CDC's repeated claims that the vaccines were "safe and effective."

In other words, with no checkboxes for serious effects, and the excuse that enable 'em to refuse to release the 6.8 MILLION free-response entries that are the ONLY place serious effects could appear, it seems that this was all intentional.

The CDC did offer to review all the entries and convert described effects into medical codes.  Plaintiffs noted that after the CDC claimed scanning the fields for personal info would be too much of a burden, converting all symptoms to codes would be more time-consuming.

Plaintiffs speculated that the CDC was willing to do this-- even though it would be far more time consuming and complex than simply reviewing for PII--because the public wouldn't be alarmed by a listing of how often bland numeric codes appeared, and would allow the CDC to hide really distressing narratives from the public.

The judge in the case is Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee. 

Source.