In a world where transparency is key, are COVID-19 vaccines keeping a secret about potential heart risks? Dive into the mysterious silence of the CDC regarding myocarditis and pericarditis cases post-vaccination. Is it all just a case of vaccine safety concerns or something more? Unveil the truth in our investigation. More on this below. Keep Reading.
In the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, questions and concerns have arisen regarding the potential side effects of these vaccines. Among these concerns, myocarditis and pericarditis have taken center stage. These inflammatory heart conditions have been reportedly linked to COVID-19 vaccination, raising alarm bells among health experts and the public alike. In this article, we will delve into the CDC's recent actions, or lack thereof, regarding the reporting and disclosure of myocarditis and pericarditis cases post-COVID-19 vaccination.
CDC's Historical Reporting
Historically, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been diligent in reporting cases of myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination. They have regularly shared data on these conditions, as reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), as part of their commitment to transparency and safety.
However, a recent development has left many puzzled. During a meeting on September 12th, 2022, the CDC notably omitted any mention of updated VAERS data. When pressed for this crucial information, a CDC spokesperson merely referred to a study that covered data up to October 23, 2022. This study acknowledged at least nine cases of myocarditis or pericarditis following vaccination, with seven of them confirmed through medical review.
Lack of Transparency Raises Concerns
The absence of more recent data has raised concerns among experts and the public. Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, questioned why the CDC has not provided more specific myocarditis and pericarditis data related to bivalent COVID-19 vaccines over the past ten months. It's a legitimate question that demands an answer.
Moreover, the mRNA vaccines in question, namely Pfizer and Moderna, have raised their own set of questions. Novavax, which employs a different technology, has yet to receive FDA authorization. This divergence in vaccine technologies further complicates the issue.
The Frustration of the Informed
Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate, expressed her frustration with the CDC and FDA's selective release of information. She stressed that this withheld data is vital for parents, especially as some schools and activities still require vaccination. The lack of transparency, as expressed by Witczak, erodes trust in public health officials and contributes to vaccine hesitancy.
The meeting in question saw CDC officials and partners presenting data on bivalent vaccines to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. This advisory panel was tasked with recommending which groups should receive these new COVID-19 vaccines, despite the absence of comprehensive clinical trial data.
Dr. Nicola Klein presented data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), an alternative monitoring system with a smaller population than VAERS. While two cases of myocarditis were detected in the VSD through March 11, it remains unclear why more current data were not presented.
The Importance of VAERS Data
The missing VAERS data is significant as it affects the strength of claims made by experts like Dr. Andrew Pavia, who suggested that there is no "detectable risk" of myocarditis caused by bivalent vaccines. Pavia pointed out that the strongest data comes from controlled studies, such as the VSD, where controls are in place.
Research has shown that as of September 8th, 2022, 98 cases of myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis have been reported to VAERS following bivalent vaccination. While anyone can submit reports to VAERS, the majority come from healthcare providers, and false information can lead to prosecution.
CDC official Megan Wallace, during her presentation, mentioned limited data regarding myocarditis risk following an updated mRNA dose. However, she did not reference the cases reported to VAERS but emphasized that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks, even for young, healthy individuals.
Dr. Pablo Sanchez, the sole dissenter on a widespread recommendation, raised concerns about myocarditis risk and urged health experts to be transparent with patients regarding what is known and unknown.
The Labels Speak Volumes
The labels of these new vaccines themselves acknowledge the potential for myocarditis and pericarditis. Post-marketing data with authorized or approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have shown increased risks of these conditions, especially within the first week following vaccination. It's important to note that while some have recovered from these conditions, others have not, and information about potential long-term consequences is still unavailable.
Hot Take: In a surprising twist, it seems that even the CDC has caught a case of "mum's the word." While we're all for a bit of suspense in a good mystery novel, when it comes to public health, transparency should always be center stage. Keep your eyes peeled for updates on this perplexing story, and remember, vaccines are essential, but so is trust. Stay informed and stay safe, folks!
The freedom of speech and alternative media face challenges from powerful entities. Real Raw News relies on reader support to flourish and endure.
Kindly refrain from funding websites or channels that unlawfully duplicate our original content. We invest extensive time in verifying, researching, and crafting our work. Your contribution matters greatly. Every dollar aids in maintaining the site's vitality and assists the author, including covering medical expenses. https://gogetfunding.com/realnewscast/