truthsnitch.com Open in urlscan Pro
35.206.89.175 Public Scan

Back to summary

Submitted URL:
https://truthsnitch.com/2017/10/24/cdc-silence-million-dollar-harvard-project-charged-upgrading-vaccine-safety-surveilla...
Effective URL:
https://truthsnitch.com/2017/10/24/cdc-silence-million-dollar-harvard-project-charged-upgrading-vaccine-safety-surveilla...
Submission: On October 19 via api (October 19th 2021, 4:28:51 am UTC) from QA — Scanned from DE

Form analysis
3 forms found in the DOM

<form id="commentform" class="comment-form">
  <iframe title="Comment Form"
    src="https://jetpack.wordpress.com/jetpack-comment/?blogid=125016244&amp;postid=1210&amp;comment_registration=0&amp;require_name_email=1&amp;stc_enabled=1&amp;stb_enabled=1&amp;show_avatars=1&amp;avatar_default=mystery&amp;greeting=Leave+a+Reply&amp;greeting_reply=Leave+a+Reply+to+%25s&amp;color_scheme=light&amp;lang=en_US&amp;jetpack_version=9.2.2&amp;show_cookie_consent=10&amp;has_cookie_consent=0&amp;token_key=%3Bnormal%3B&amp;sig=6d9a8c27156b10d5d54f546e402442202c36c8ef#parent=https%3A%2F%2Ftruthsnitch.com%2F2017%2F10%2F24%2Fcdc-silence-million-dollar-harvard-project-charged-upgrading-vaccine-safety-surveillance-system%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3mTnTvwHWvc79eDsCrj-qh8mN_hVV9SSVtLRNozULUhBtNLFzzs9gs-yE"
    name="jetpack_remote_comment" style="width: 100%; height: 58px; border: 0px;" class="jetpack_remote_comment" id="jetpack_remote_comment" sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-top-navigation allow-scripts allow-forms allow-popups" scrolling="no">
  </iframe>
  <!--[if !IE]><!-->
  <script>
    document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function() {
      var commentForms = document.getElementsByClassName('jetpack_remote_comment');
      for (var i = 0; i < commentForms.length; i++) {
        commentForms[i].allowTransparency = false;
        commentForms[i].scrolling = 'no';
      }
    });
  </script>
  <!--<![endif]-->
</form>

GET https://truthsnitch.com/

<form role="search" method="get" class="search-form" action="https://truthsnitch.com/">
  <label for="search-form-616e497d52244">
    <span class="screen-reader-text">Search for:</span>
  </label>
  <input type="search" id="search-form-616e497d52244" class="search-field" placeholder="Search …" value="" name="s">
  <button type="submit" class="search-submit"><svg class="icon icon-search" aria-hidden="true" role="img">
      <use xlink:href="#icon-search"></use>
    </svg><span class="screen-reader-text">Search</span></button>
</form>

Name: mc-embedded-subscribe-form — POST //truthsnitch.us15.list-manage.com/subscribe/post?u=074f8087281e6464ec1d8c8a2&id=5d67aa87f7

<form action="//truthsnitch.us15.list-manage.com/subscribe/post?u=074f8087281e6464ec1d8c8a2&amp;id=5d67aa87f7" method="post" id="mc-embedded-subscribe-form" name="mc-embedded-subscribe-form" class="validate" target="_blank" novalidate="">
  <div id="mc_embed_signup_scroll">
    <h2>Want to know what's new on Truth Snitch?</h2>
    <div class="indicates-required"><span class="asterisk">*</span> indicates required</div>
    <div class="mc-field-group">
      <label for="mce-EMAIL">Email Address <span class="asterisk">*</span>
      </label>
      <input type="email" value="" name="EMAIL" class="required email" id="mce-EMAIL">
    </div>
    <div class="mc-field-group">
      <label for="mce-FNAME">First Name </label>
      <input type="text" value="" name="FNAME" class="" id="mce-FNAME">
    </div>
    <div class="mc-field-group">
      <label for="mce-LNAME">Last Name </label>
      <input type="text" value="" name="LNAME" class="" id="mce-LNAME">
    </div>
    <div class="mc-field-group input-group">
      <strong>Email Format </strong>
      <ul>
        <li><input type="radio" value="html" name="EMAILTYPE" id="mce-EMAILTYPE-0"><label for="mce-EMAILTYPE-0">html</label></li>
        <li><input type="radio" value="text" name="EMAILTYPE" id="mce-EMAILTYPE-1"><label for="mce-EMAILTYPE-1">text</label></li>
      </ul>
    </div>
    <div id="mce-responses" class="clear">
      <div class="response" id="mce-error-response" style="display:none"></div>
      <div class="response" id="mce-success-response" style="display:none"></div>
    </div> <!-- real people should not fill this in and expect good things - do not remove this or risk form bot signups-->
    <div style="position: absolute; left: -5000px;" aria-hidden="true"><input type="text" name="b_074f8087281e6464ec1d8c8a2_5d67aa87f7" tabindex="-1" value=""></div>
    <div class="clear"><input type="submit" value="Subscribe" name="subscribe" id="mc-embedded-subscribe" class="button"></div>
  </div>
</form>

Text Content

Truth Snitch

Hot on the trail of Biblical and societal truth.

Menu
* Home
* About
* Blog
* Vaccine Information
* The Holy Bible-TiffsNotes
* Archives
* Contact

Posted on October 24, 2017May 22, 2021 by Truth Snitch

WHY DID THE CDC SILENCE THE MILLION DOLLAR HARVARD PROJECT CHARGED WITH
UPGRADING OUR VACCINE SAFETY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM?

There are major problems with the vaccine adverse event reporting system (known
as VAERS) which the CDC considers the “front line” of vaccine safety. VAERS was
created in 1990 by the CDC and FDA as a means to collect and analyze adverse
effects that are associated with vaccines. Unfortunately, the failings of VAERS
are “kept from the consciousness” not only of the public, but also from the
doctors, pediatricians, and nurses that the public rely on to provide reliable
information as to the safety of vaccines. I say “kept from the consciousness”
rather than “kept secret” because while these failings are publicly disclosed
for all the world to see, they are for all intents and purposes BURIED in
documents seldom searched out by the average member of the medical community,
much less by the average individual. You could say that the information has been
very effectively hidden in plain sight.

By far, the most dire failure of the VAERS system is the vast underreporting of
vaccine adverse effects which leads to a dangerous false security in vaccine
safety and an erroneous assumption that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh
the risks.

Who DOES know about the deadly elephant in the room?

The CDC, the FDA, the Institutes of Medicine (IOM), and Congress to name a few.
Oh, and an organization called Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc.- but we’ll get
to them in a minute.

This is what the CDC says about the VAERS system, “Passive surveillance systems
(e.g. VAERS) are subject to multiple limitations, including underreporting,
reporting of temporal associations or unconfirmed diagnoses, and lack of
denominator data and unbiased comparison groups. Because of these limitations,
determining causal associations between vaccines and adverse events from VAERS
reports is usually not possible.” (emphasis mine)

In 2000, the 6th Report by the Committee on Government Reform addressed the
failings of VAERS in its address of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The
report states, “The quality of VAERS data has been questioned. Because reports
are submitted from a variety of sources, some inexperienced in completing data
forms for medical studies, many reports omit important data and contain obvious
errors. Assessment is further complicated by the administration of multiple
vaccines at the same time, following currently recommended vaccine schedules,
because there may be no conclusive way to determine which vaccine or combination
of vaccines caused the specific adverse event.”

The same Congressional report notes (on page 15), “Former FDA commissioner David
A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction
of the serious adverse events.” (emphasis mine)

The Congressional report above listed 4 limitations that the IOM Committees
noted, “1) Inadequate understanding of biologic mechanisms underlying adverse
events; 2) Insufficient or inconsistent information from case reports and case
series; 3) Inadequate size or length of follow- up of many population- based
epidemiological studies; 4) Limitations of existing surveillance systems to
provide persuasive evidence of causation; and 5) Few published epidemiological
studies.” The report continues by noting that the “IOM warned that ‘if research
capacity and accomplishments [are] not improved, future reviews of vaccine
safety [will be] similarly handicapped.’”

The IOM has been telling the CDC for over 23 years that they have inadequate
information (and none at all in some cases) to advise on the causal relationship
between vaccines and adverse events for a majority of adverse events reported.
In a 1994 report on vaccines and adverse events the IOM stated, “The lack of
adequate data regarding many of the adverse events under study was of major
concern to the committee…Although the committee was not charged with proposing
specific research investigations, in the course of its review additional obvious
needs for research and surveillance were identified, and those are briefly
described here.” (emphasis mine) In 2011, the IOM conducted another study
examining the scientific evidence in studies available for 158 vaccine adverse
effects. Again, they concluded that they had inadequate information to come to a
decision, “The vast majority of causality conclusions in the report are the
evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship.” (emphasis
mine)

While one might expect a new program (new in 1990) to have a few bugs that need
to be worked out, I would expect that when it comes to being able to ascertain
vaccine safety, working out those bugs should be priority number one. Certainly
today in 2017, a whopping 27 years later, the failure of the CDC to address this
monumental danger to public health should be viewed with a skepticism much
greater than mere suspicion.

That leads us to the interesting case of the CDC and Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare
Inc.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gave Harvard Medical School a
$1 million dollar grant to track VAERS reporting at Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare
for 3 years and to create an automated reporting system which would
revolutionize the VAERS reporting system- transforming it from “passive” to
“active.”

This project was called Electronic Support for Public Heath- Vaccine Adverse
Reporting System (ESP:VAERS). According to the grant final report, the scope of
the project was, “To create a generalizable system to facilitate detection and
clinician reporting of vaccine adverse events, in order to improve the safety of
national vaccination programs.” To accomplish this the team used the electronic
medical records at Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc, which is described as a
“large multi-specialty practice.” Every patient that received a vaccine was
automatically identified and followed for 30 days. Within that 30 days the
individual’s diagnostic health codes, lab tests, and prescriptions were
evaluated to recognize any potential adverse event. Another goal of the project
was to evaluate the performance of the new automated system via a randomized
trial and to compare this new data to the existing data collected by VAERS and
Vaccine Safety Datalink.

Just the preliminary description of this program is head and shoulders above the
current functioning of the passive VAERS system. In our current system, adverse
events are to be spontaneously reported by parents or health care providers.
Most parents aren’t even aware the VAERS system exists, much less aware that
they are supposed to be reporting to it. Health care providers are “supposed” to
report adverse events, but we have no idea of the efficiency level with which
this is occurring, and more than a hunch that this reporting is grossly
neglected for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, many vaccine adverse events are
never reported because either the parent, patient, or doctor is completely
unaware that a subsequent adverse event is in fact due to a vaccine. This new
reporting system would remove all of these failures from the equation.

What were the results?

Data was collected from June 2006 to October of 2009 on a total of 715,000
patients. Of those 715,000 patients, 376,452 were given 1.4 million doses of 45
different vaccines. A total of 35,570 possible adverse reactions were
identified, so 2.6% of vaccinations were followed by a possible adverse
reaction.

Let’s just take a minute to reflect on that last sentence. Out of only 376,452
individuals that received a vaccine at this Harvard practice, the new automated
system identified 35,570 possible adverse reactions in a three year period. How
does that stack up to the number of adverse effects reported to VAERS? According
to the CDC, only 30,000 adverse events are reported every year for the entire US
population. This finding alone should have had the CDC saying:

I’ll quote the findings directly from the report, “Adverse events from drugs and
vaccines are common, but underreported. […] Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine
adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the
identification of ‘problem’ drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New
surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.”

Again, let’s stop and think about this revelation for a moment: fewer than 1% of
vaccine adverse events are reported. The CDC’s entire vaccination propaganda
campaign rests on their claim that side effects from vaccination are exceedingly
rare (and predominantly minor). According to the CDC, in 2016 alone, VAERS
received 59,117 vaccine adverse event reports. Among those reports were 432
deaths, 1,091 permanent disabilities, 4,132 hospitalizations, and 10,274
emergency room visits. What if these numbers actually represent less than 1% of
the total as this report asserts? Simple multiplication would yield vaccine
adverse events reports numbering 5,911,700!

Of course, at this point that figure is nothing but a guess. But, again, why do
we HAVE To guess? Because in 27 years the CDC has failed to provide a post-
licensure vaccine safety surveillance system that the IOM, FDA, physicians, and
the public can have confidence in.

The report also states, “Barriers to reporting include a lack of clinician
awareness, uncertainty about when and what to report, as well as the burdens of
reporting: reporting is not part of the clinician’s usual workflow, takes time,
and is duplicative.

So, WHY aren’t the reports currently being made to VAERS? According to the
findings above, clinicians don’t know for sure what a vaccine adverse event is.
This isn’t surprising at all considering what we learned from the 2011 IOM
report above. There haven’t been enough studies performed for highly trained IOM
scientists and physicians to even determine whether or not the majority of the
currently suspected 158 adverse vaccine effects are indeed caused by vaccines.
How could we possibly expect our average pediatricians or general practitioners
to know what a team of IOM personnel have determined we have inadequate
information to decide? In addition, this report basically finds that your
clinician frankly doesn’t have the time to devote to proper VAERS reporting
under the current inconvenient system.

You’d think that the CDC would be jumping for joy that this Harvard team just
created a proactive, reliable, automated system that would improve the quality
of our vaccination program by improving vaccine adverse event detection thereby
increasing public confidence in post- licensure surveillance.

What was the CDC’s response?

Basically, the same response your average college student falls back on when
they decide they are no longer interested in continuing a relationship- they cut
all lines of communication. No more answering phone calls or emails. You heard
me correctly, the United States of America Centers for Disease Control ghosted
Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc. For those who are unaware, Google dictionary
defines ghosting as, “the practice of ending a personal relationship by suddenly
and without explanation withdrawing from all communication.” Personally, I would
hope that I could hold an organization like the CDC to a higher standard, but…

After a one million dollar grant was paid and three years of research conducted
on what appeared to be a very successful upgrade to the passive VAERS system,
the team’s CDC contacts went MIA. The ESP:VAERS final report states,
“Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance
assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the
CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our
multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.”

According to the final report, the only thing left for the CDC to do was link
the VAERS system to the Harvard Pilgrim system in order to transmit the data.
The team requested that the CDC do this, “However, real data transmissions of
non-physician approved reports to the CDC was unable to commence, as by the end
of this project, the CDC had yet to respond to multiple requests to partner for
this activity.”

What do we, the public, take away from this debacle?

As I see it there are only two options.

1. You give the CDC the benefit of the doubt, assume deep down they have the
safety of the public at heart and chalk up their monumental waste of money,
time, and a good idea to bureaucratic incompetence.
2. You stop naively believing that the CDC cares ultimately about public safety
and realize that the vaccine industry makes way too much money to allow
public confidence in the safety of vaccines to be eroded by a surveillance
system capable of giving the public a glimpse of the scope and magnitude of
the adverse effects vaccines are actually responsible for.

To assist you in your decision making, I’ll leave you with a statistic from the
ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network) request to the HHS to meet the
obligations set forth by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Safety Act
regarding the CDC’s role in the vaccine industry market, “When the CDC
recommends a pediatric vaccine for universal use, it creates for that vaccine’s
maker a liability free market of 78 million children typically required by law
to receive the vaccine.” (emphasis mine)

CategoriesHealth, Politics/Social Issues TagsCDC, ESP:VAERS, failures of VAERS,
FDA David A Kessler, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare $1 million grant, Harvard
Pilgrim Healthcare Inc, IOM, vaccine safety, VAERS, VAERS underreporting

46 REPLIES TO “WHY DID THE CDC SILENCE THE MILLION DOLLAR HARVARD PROJECT
CHARGED WITH UPGRADING OUR VACCINE SAFETY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM?”

1. Prolife Andrew says:
November 13, 2017 at 2:15 am

So if I understand this article,
1. The government says vaccines are safe but admits there are adverse
effects which are “rare”
2. The government funded a Harvard study to improve reporting adverse
effects.
3. The study showed that less than %1 of effects are being reported so…
4. The government & media buried the study.
Did I read that right?

Reply
1. Truth Snitch says:
November 13, 2017 at 11:29 am

It certainly appears that way Andrew. According to Harvard Pilgrim
Healthcare, they were dropped like a hot potato and the CDC gave no
reason- they just halted all communication.

Reply
1. Stephanie says:
March 19, 2019 at 6:21 pm

Where can I get a link to this study?

Reply
1. Truth Snitch says:
March 20, 2019 at 11:27 am

Hi Stephanie!

If you’re referring to the links to the project that was funded,
they are hyperlinked within the article. But I’ll link them here
as well for easier access:

https://healthit.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-support-public-health-vaccine-adverse-event-reporting-system

https://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

Hope this helps! Thanks!

2. Kathy says:
June 5, 2018 at 7:03 pm

It appears you failed to read the most important parts of the article
stating that once Harvard had completed the system and wanted to connect
with the VAERS system the CDC could not be reached to connect and after
numerous attempts at reaching them it was quite obvious that the CDC did
not want the program that Harvard had created to show just how many
adverse reactions there actually are.

2. Jim says:
December 21, 2017 at 9:28 pm

Fantastic article. Thanks so much!

The more I dig into the vaccine issue – on which I for many, many years
reflexively adopted the views of the establishment – the more I see that
the whole program is a fraud, or worse, a war on the people.

Reply
1. Truth Snitch says:
December 25, 2017 at 7:07 pm

Thanks Jim!

2. Zorp says:
February 24, 2019 at 1:38 pm

It’s really not.

Reply
1. Ardi says:
December 16, 2020 at 7:02 am

Not what? State what you referring to.

3. Michelle Emanuel says:
March 6, 2019 at 5:41 pm

its a war Jim…

3. Jenna says:
June 5, 2018 at 7:13 am

Great article. Thanks for sharing.

Reply
1. Truth Snitch says:
June 5, 2018 at 9:27 am

Thanks Jenna!

4. Lauren says:
November 28, 2018 at 4:24 pm

Is there any data available about what the reactions actually were and the
severity? I think this is a key data point and I’ve not seen it in the
study itself or anywhere else. For the amount this is referenced in
opinions, I’d like to see – 2.6% is huge if they are severe like seizures
but I’m less worried if a large percentage are minor like swelling, fever,
etc.

5. Lauren says:
November 28, 2018 at 6:08 pm

Reposting incase this didn’t go through

Do we have access to the types and severity of the 2.6%? If they are severe
like seizures or death it’s really different than if a good portion are
minor like swelling or fever

6. Truth Snitch says:
November 30, 2018 at 11:49 am

Hi Lauren!

Sorry for the slow response!

As far as I know, we don’t have any data on what the reactions were. Like
you, I’d love to see specifics on what particular reactions were recorded.
My personal opinion is that even if the additional reactions were
relatively minor, it doesn’t bode well that the CDC didn’t even want to
know about them. Their goal is supposed to be to make the safest vaccines
possible. Ultimately, this shows that this is not their priority.

I would have to also add, considering the skyrocketing rates of autism,
childhood onset autoimmune diseases, childhood allergies (food, etc), which
the CDC recognizes are nearing (or already at) epidemic proportions while
not offering any speculation as to the cause, except for a vehement
denunciation that vaccines can’t possibly be the cause or even a
contributing factor (which cannot be ascertained from the data collection
system that they currently have), is enough to solidify my distrust.

This system would have provided them the very information they needed to
make a vaccine connection to these issues if it exists. The fact that they
aborted it makes me beyond suspicious that they already know the answer,
they just don’t want the hard proof available to the public.

Reply
1. Jennifer Popa says:
February 8, 2019 at 2:34 pm

Great reply! Thanks for the article.

2. Katherine says:
May 20, 2019 at 5:19 am

VAERS itself is a fully searchable database. If you want to see what
kinds of reactions people report, you can search by date, type of
vaccine, severity, type of reaction, etc. go read case reports – they
run the gamut from low-grade fever to pain at injection site to
seizures, to “fainted after shot, skinned knee on carpet, was revived
with apple juice and goldfish crackers.”

7. Keith Bell says:
December 16, 2018 at 1:34 pm

Here’s The Gut Club’s Microbiome Vaccine Safety Project:
https://www.patreon.com/thegutclub

8. Kassi Renee Barber says:
April 10, 2019 at 1:36 pm

When you click the underlined link that says according to cdc……in 2016
alone, VAERS received 59,117 vaccine adverse event reports. Among those
reports were 432 deaths, 1,091 permanent disabilities, 4,132
hospitalizations, and 10,274 emergency room visits……it does not take you to
an actual report it just sends you to the cdc wonder page for you to search
the VEARS system yourself. Is there no actual link to see the reflection of
these numbers in a requested VEARS data report??

Thank you
Kassi Barber

Reply
1. Truth Snitch says:
April 12, 2019 at 5:33 pm

Hi Kassi!

Sorry! That link used to take you directly to data. Here’s a link where
you can download a zip file for each year back to 1990. Hope this helps!

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/datasets.html

2. Jeff says:
July 13, 2019 at 10:11 am

Something that is being missed is that in order for those who did the
study to know what a vaccine reaction is, the parameters, the CDC would
have had to show/ teach them.

If vaccines are safe like we are being told and vaccine injuries are one
in a million, there would be no information to give those at Harvard
what a vaccine injury is.

The thirty five thousand vaccine reactions / injuries were identified
based on the CDC’s definition of what constitutes an injury.

The CDC tells us vaccines are 100% safe but give Harvard a list of
injuries that result from vaccination.

9. Jen says:
May 8, 2019 at 9:40 am

Amazing article! I just found this in my truth searching. Thanks for
replying to people’s comments and providing links.

Reply
1. Truth Snitch says:
May 12, 2019 at 1:02 pm

Thanks Jen!!

10. Em says:
July 5, 2019 at 6:02 am

They have used the reporting system at least once since then, and there’s a
bit more detail in this report:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26060294

11. Mark Mc dougall says:
August 23, 2019 at 10:17 am

Strangely, there is ghostly silence about deaths. We’re there NO deaths? Or
was that what froze the communications over? A Dr Aaby style study could
reveal a lot here if anyone can source the raw data with an foi request?

Reply
1. Truth Snitch says:
August 26, 2019 at 10:16 am

I agree Mark. It would be great to see the actual data.

12. Greg Larsen says:
August 26, 2019 at 11:39 am

So by all accounts and your story VAERS may actually be over-reporting.
That is to say,there may be less vaccine related injuries than the cases
reported.

Reply
1. Truth Snitch says:
August 26, 2019 at 12:00 pm

Greg, I’m not sure how one would come to that conclusion looking at this
data. To be sure, VAERS is not the ideal tracking system, though it is
the one the government has put in place. So, there will be instances of
reports that are not actually vaccine injury. However, all taken into
consideration, according to the Harvard data, under-reporting on the
magnitude of some 99% is the issue, not over-reporting.

13. Boomer Lady says:
October 29, 2019 at 5:35 pm

The CDC isn’t the only entity not cooperating in this issue. In the 1986
vaccine law, besides reporting to VAERS (which isn’t being done enough),
the HHS is supposed to be submitting biannual safety reports to Congress
beginning in 1988. To date no report has been done, and Robert F. Kennedy
Jr won a lawsuit on this point.

Reply
1. Truth Snitch says:
October 30, 2019 at 9:11 am

You’re exactly right.

14. rellimnosaj says:
February 11, 2020 at 6:12 am

“According to the CDC, in 2016 alone, VAERS received 59,117 vaccine adverse
event reports. Among those reports were 432 deaths, 1,091 permanent
disabilities, 4,132 hospitalizations, and 10,274 emergency room visits”

I’m looking at the 2016 Vaers.csv and only see Y marked to 177 cases of
death. What am I missing?

Reply
1. Truth Snitch says:
February 11, 2020 at 11:15 am

Thanks for your comment!

This is quite an interesting find. I’ve not looked back at the numbers
since I wrote the article. I first read the data from ICAN’s Vaccine
Safety white paper, which was written in 2017 and sent to HHS. You can
access it here:
https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/VaccineSafety-Version-1.0-October-2-2017-1.pdf

You’ll see the data on p. 5, top right paragraph. They also link the
source which is, of course, the CDC’s VAERS data. When I wrote the
article, I ran a search myself to verify their numbers and the data
matched, so I used it. But I just ran the same search again and the data
doesn’t match. However, where you got 177 deaths in your search, my
search today for 2016 data yielded 174 deaths.

I have no idea why VAERS searches for historical data would yield
differing results. Your guess is as good as mine.

2. Kayla W says:
February 1, 2021 at 12:42 am

There’s great inconsistency in how deaths are reported. Sometimes
“Death” is listed as a symptom, but the field for “patient died” is left
blank or marked N. Sometimes the only “evidence” of death in the report
is a statement in the narrative.

Also, if I understand correctly, reports of death are followed up by
VAERS personnel who collect more information on each case. It may be
that some reports of death following vaccination are deemed by VAERS
personnel after investigation to be “invalid” in the sense that the
vaccine does not appear to VAERS personnel to have been the cause of
death. These records may be altered or in some cases deleted from the
database, and I think this could occur with quite a long time lag after
death reports are filed.

15. Kayla W says:
February 1, 2021 at 12:44 am

Please see my reply to rellimnosaj re this issue.

16. Taskeen Imrit says:
February 5, 2021 at 11:55 pm

Wow. To be frank I heard several people across social media talk about that
less than 1% and I thought let me dig a bit deeper and look for this study.
I didn’t think it would show up on google because of the censorship but
your article popped up. Thank you for laying everything so clearly and
linking that Harvard Report. It’s disgusting how people don’t do their
research on this stuff.

Reply
1. Truth Snitch says:
February 6, 2021 at 6:43 pm

Thanks for your comment Taskeen! So glad this article was helpful to
you! 🙂

17. Kat says:
February 22, 2021 at 5:47 pm

It gets worse. The WHO lying about vaccine safety … dispicable
https://twitter.com/GirlOnYourScre1/status/1360917429883342855?s=20

18. Kat says:
February 22, 2021 at 5:50 pm

Vaers is not accurate, less then 1% of dr.s report using that system …

19. Pingback: Under Reporting Adverse Reactions in VAERS | DATA SCIENTIST {EDC
DEVELOPER + STATISTICAL EXPERT + DATA MANAGER}

20. Person says:
April 10, 2021 at 9:01 am

Well written article thank you. According to the sketchy CDC claims, 2400
people have died from the injection, 20% of America in total injected. If
the <1% figure is right from the study that means 1 in 250 people were
killed from the injection

Reply
1. Truth Snitch says:
April 17, 2021 at 12:35 pm

Thanks!

Yeah, it sure would be nice to have a clue what kind of mortality rate
these new vaccines have, but it would be almost impossible to estimate
with the horrible quality of information they make available to the
public.

21. Linda says:
April 13, 2021 at 12:39 pm

Excellent article with valuable links in the article and the comments.
Thank you so much for such a thorough job!

Reply
1. Truth Snitch says:
April 17, 2021 at 12:31 pm

Thanks Linda!

22. T. E. says:
May 8, 2021 at 10:46 pm

It would be massively helpful if 1) the “scientists” making the vaccines
were not allowed to profit from said vaccine creation 2) all vaccine
companies WERE to be held responsible for patients injuries 3) independent
agencies were in charge of the safety studies that are “required” to be
done per the vaccine injury laws 4) if information reported to VAERS stayed
put – by not allowing the CDC and the FDA to remove information they felt
was irrelevant – ALL INFORMATION reported to VAERS should stay in VAERS.
CDC and FDA are both biased entities considering Big Pharma lines their
pockets to silence them. Let me tell you, Big Pharma doesn’t make money off
of people who are well and healthy, they make money off the unhealthy and
sick. That’s why they make sure to create lifelong return customers with
vaccines. Plus they are not treating the underlying problem with their
drugs, they are merely masking the symptoms of it, and when that drug gives
you a side effect, don’t worry, they have another drug to treat that
symptom too… just personal opinion.

23. Guest says:
May 9, 2021 at 11:36 pm

“The same Congressional report notes (on page 19), “Former FDA commissioner
David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only
a fraction of the serious adverse events.” (emphasis mine)”

it’s page 15

Reply
1. Truth Snitch says:
May 22, 2021 at 9:38 am

Thanks for pointing that out! I’ll fix it!

truthsnitch.com Open in urlscan Pro 35.206.89.175 Public Scan

Form analysis 3 forms found in the DOM

GET https://truthsnitch.com/

Name: mc-embedded-subscribe-form — POST //truthsnitch.us15.list-manage.com/subscribe/post?u=074f8087281e6464ec1d8c8a2&id=5d67aa87f7

Text Content

truthsnitch.com Open in urlscan Pro
35.206.89.175 Public Scan

Form analysis
3 forms found in the DOM