Facts You Might Want to Have Known Before You Accepted COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine: Part 1

by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, Popular Rationalism, reposted with permission

(May 16, 2023) — If you visit the CDC website in search of known adverse events following the COVID-19 mRNA shots, you’ll find a page that lists a few, but that quickly assures you that the risk of low. The page tells you that individuals have experienced anaphylaxis, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, aka, immune thrombocytopenia, myocarditis or pericarditis, and Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), and that the risk of each of these is “low”.

The page does not define “low”, and in keeping with best practices of accountability to the public fails to quantify the risk in terms that are understandable to everyday people.

These issues are par for the course of the CDC’s reporting on vaccine adverse event risk. Most often, however, resources eschew the word “risk” altogether, using euphemisms such as “Safety Signal”.

I recently cataloged the number of ways the CDC, FDA, and others failed to inform the public about risks that were known – that is, they already knew about certain risks and proceeded with putting policies into place after delaying the release of key information that may have influenced individuals’ and organizations’ willingness to go along with the COVID-19 mass vaccination effort.

This is information that CDC and FDA should be making waves about – and yet they remain silent.

The first of these is new onset autoimmunity, which is diverse in form and not at all rare. I review this in detail in the article Immunosuppression Wars 1.0. Why are the FDA and CDC silent and failing to issue warnings when the scientific literature is filled with studies and reports characterizing autoimmune conditions triggered by COVID-19 vaccines?

FDA did issue a warning about heart inflammation on June 26, 2021, but why? Three days earlier, Dr. Tom Shimabukuro told the VRBAC Committee that after analyzing millions of records in the Vaccine Safety Datalink he could not find any signal trigger for myocarditis or pericarditis. VRBAC voted under the influence of Shimabukuro’s result; of course, they approved of the vaccine.

What if an independent study could have been conducted to determine if the VAERS database contained a safety warning that might have informed the VRBAC committee – or the ACIP committee – that myocarditis was a potential risk prior to their vote?

Oh, that’s right, there was. My colleagues Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough had their study accepted, then “unaccepted”, from an Elsevier journal over a difference in interpretation.

Read the rest here.