USA: CDC Director Rochelle Walensky has admitted that the agency deliberately misled the public about Covid-19 jab safety data in the interests of keeping Big Pharma happy.
In a letter published on Sept. 12, Dr. Walensky admits that the CDC did not analyze certain types of adverse event reports at all in 2021, despite the agency previously stating it started in February 2021.
But the agency said in June that it did not perform PRRs. It also said that performing them was “outside th[e] agency’s purview.”
Confronted with the contradiction, Dr. John Su, a CDC official, told The Epoch Times in July that the agency started performing PRRs in February 2021 and “continues to do so to date.”
But just weeks later, the CDC said Su was wrong.
“CDC performed PRRs from March 25, 2022 through July 31, 2022,” a spokeswoman told The Epoch Times in August.
Walensky’s new letter, dated Sept. 2 and sent on Sept. 6 to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), shows that Walensky is aware that her agency gave false information.
‘Lacked Any Justification’
Walensky’s letter included no explanation of why that happened.
The letter “lacked any justification for why CDC performed PRRS during certain periods and not others,” Johnson, the top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Investigations, told Walensky in a response.
“You also provided no explanation as to why Dr. Su’s assertion … completely contradicts the CDC’s [initial] response … as well as your September 6, 2022, response to me,” he added.
He demanded answers from the CDC on the situation, including why the CDC did not perform PRRs until March and why the agency misinformed the public when it said no PRRs were conducted.
The CDC and Walensky did not respond to requests for comment.
“At no time have any CDC employees intentionally provided false information,” a CDC spokesperson, when correcting the agency’s previous responses, told The Epoch Times via email in August.
The spokesperson claimed that the false information was given because the CDC thought The Epoch Times and Children’s Health Defense, which received the first response, were asking about a different type of analysis called Empirical Bayesian data mining. But both The Epoch Times and Children’s Health Defense specifically listed PRRs in their queries.
The CDC has still not provided the results of the PRRs that were performed to The Epoch Times. It also did not provide them to Johnson. The Food and Drug Administration, which has conducted Empirical Bayesian data mining on Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System reports, recently refused to provide any of the results to the Epoch Times.
Walensky alleged in the new letter that Empirical Bayesian data mining is more reliable, and that the PRR results “were generally consistent with EB data mining, revealing no additional unexpected safety signals.”
“However, because of your failure to provide these analyses to Congress and to the American people, the public cannot verify your assertion,” Johnson said.
He added that the CDC’s “overall lack of transparency is unacceptable particularly in light of CDC’s inconsistent statements on this matter.”
by Sean Adl-Tabatabai
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