Government regulators at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) say they will not release any of the agency’s Covid-19 “vaccine” safety analyses for independent review because their findings are allegedly part of internal discussions that are protected by law.
Back in July, The Epoch Times submitted a request to the FDA for all analyses performed using a special method called Empirical Bayesian data mining. This method involves comparing adverse events recorded after injection with a Fauci Flu shot to adverse events recorded after injection with some other non-covid vaccine.
Whatever data these analyses produced was used by the FDA to foist Chinese Virus shots on everyone, including infants and toddlers. (Related: Check out our earlier coverage about the FDA’s suspicious secrecy to learn more.)
The operational procedures laid out by the agency and its partner in January 2021 and February 2022 stipulate that the FDA is to perform data mining “at least biweekly,” if not more often than that, to identify adverse events “reported more frequently than expected following vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines.” That data was to come from the official Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
Fast-forward to today and the FDA is now refusing to release any information about this data mining, claiming an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that allows governments to withhold inter-agency and intra-agency memorandums and letters “that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.”
The FDA also cited the Code of Federal Regulations, which states that “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 in accordance with the rule established in § 20.22 is available for public disclosure.”
Why doesn’t the FDA want us to see its covid injection data?
The FDA is refusing to release even redacted versions of the data, which strongly suggests that the agency has a lot to hide. It really, really does not want the public to see these analyses, presumably because they expose Fauci Flu shots as dangerous and ineffective.
“The secrecy is unacceptable for an agency that said it is transparent with the public about vaccine safety,” says Kim Witzcak, co-founder of the non-profit advocacy group Woodymatters, which wants the FDA to be stronger and more transparent.
“What’s the point of having VAERS if you’re not releasing it to the public?”
Witzcak, who also sits on one of the FDA’s outside advisory panels, says her own concerns about the injections are also highlighted in a recent paper from Dr. Joseph Fraiman, which identified higher rates of serious adverse events in people who took the mRNA (messenger RNA) shots from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna versus those who took a placebo.
“If this data is available, shame on you for not making it known to the public,” Witczak said about that data. “It’s as if they don’t trust the people to make their own best decision for what’s good for them and their families.”
The Times says it is appealing the FDA’s decision to withhold the analytical data, which will hopefully at some point in the future force the agency to comply with the request.
“Hiding the evidence … again,” wrote a Times commenter about the FDA’s shady behavior.
“Didn’t your parents warn you not to trust the government?” asked another. “The swamp is a cesspool. Power corrupts people. Term limits are desperately needed.”
by: Ethan Huff
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post