https://www.sott.net/article/488040-...-never-sent-it


The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) prepared to alert state and local officials to an emerging connection between heart inflammation and COVID-19 vaccines, but ultimately did not send the alert, according to a new document obtained by The Epoch Times.

All four COVID-19 vaccines that are or have been available in the United States can cause the heart inflammation, or myocarditis, according to studies, experts, and agencies like the CDC. The first cases were reported shortly after the vaccines became available in late 2020.

The CDC sends alerts to federal, state, and local public health officials and doctors across the nation through a system called the Health Alert Network (HAN). Messaging through the system conveys "vital health information," according to the CDC.

In May 2021, CDC officials drafted an alert on myocarditis and the two most widely used COVID-19 shots, according to the newly obtained document, which is being made public for the first time by The Epoch Times.

"This is the most recent draft of an alert as discussed. Happy to discuss," Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, the CDC's top official for equity in COVID-19 data and engagement, told two other high-ranking CDC colleagues in the email.

It was titled "draft alert on myocarditis and mRNA vaccines."

The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are made with modified messenger RNA (mRNA) technology.

The draft alert was attached to the email. The Epoch Times is working to acquire the draft alert.

"This censorship of a proposed alert in May of 2021 is just one more example of our regulatory agencies' repeated pattern of behavior to censor any information that serves to counter the narrative that the COVID-19 vaccinations are 'safe and effective,'" Dr. Joel Wallskog, co-chair of the vaccine-injured advocacy group React19, told The Epoch Times via email.

The CDC started receiving reports of post-vaccination myocarditis in January 2021 and either failed to detect or ignored a safety signal for myocarditis and the mRNA shots the following month, previous reporting from the Epoch Times showed. The agency also hid a warning from Israel, the country that first vaccinated young people, who face the highest risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccination.

The CDC and other agencies have also repeatedly not disclosed other information that undermines their promotion of the vaccines, including how many COVID-19 cases there were among the vaccinated. The newly disclosed email is dated May 21, 2021.

That's three days before a CDC workgroup acknowledged for the first time that the number of reported myocarditis cases after COVID-19 vaccination was higher than expected, and a week before the CDC said it was still recommending that virtually all Americans 12 years and up receive a vaccine.

Dr. Daskalakis and his two colleagues, Drs. Henry Walke and John Brooks, responded to requests for comment through a spokesperson.

"CDC uses a variety of ways to inform the public of potential vaccine safety concerns. A HAN is one method," the spokesperson said. The agency ultimately chose to issue in May 2021 a document called "clinical considerations," which stated that there was an increased number of reported myocarditis cases after mRNA vaccination but emphasized the CDC was still recommending vaccination for virtually all people above age 11.The choice to change the alert to a statement was made after a call with CDC partners, emails obtained by the Daily Clout show.

The CDC's media office declined to outline how the CDC made sure the same people who would have received a HAN saw the clinical consideration document.

"The clinical consideration reached the provider audience as the HAN would have," a spokesperson alleged. "A clinical consideration is useful when information needs to be updated as circumstances evolve, and more data is collected and evaluated."

Because the actual science would have undercut the politics of the situation.



Government incompetence is deadlier than any virus.

nooo waaaaayyyyy

who coould have thought such a thing

Oh what do you know




Money and profits > sheep

Trust in public health is gone for a very long time. At least booster uptake is abysmal. Seems like people are finally waking up.

It does seem to be an effective campaign, in some circles.

I don't think the goal is health, but it's clearly a workable platform.

1,000% this. If you realize what the “control” aspect of the CDC is in actual practice this shouldn’t surprise anyone. The organization was compromised long ago, and has prioritized profit over public health ever since. If anyone disagrees, all they have to do is look at the state of public health over the past 40 years and look at pharmaceutical profits during that same timeframe.

Except the CDC is national public health agency of the United States.

I'm not convinced the US controls the world.

Mudbloods having heart attacks is a sort of self correcting problem if you think about it

Maybe, but myocarditis =/= heart attack

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10...aff.2023.00418



A revolving door between government and industry can render government agencies more vulnerable to regulatory capture.1 Both exits to and entries from industry pose a problem for regulatory agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The exit of government employees to industry may lead to pro-industry bias as employees with an eye to leaving make decisions favorable to private firms where they are hoping to get jobs. Government appointees who come from industry may be more sympathetic to industry interests and could create work environments more open to industry contact and influence.

We examined the revolving door—inflows from and exits to industry—of government appointees to HHS between 2004 and 2020. We found that 15 percent of appointees had been employed in private industry immediately before their appointment (exhibit 1). At end of their tenure, 32 percent of appointees exited to industry. HHS offices with the highest rates of net exits to industry (that is, exits minus entries) included the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Office of the Deputy Secretary, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At the CDC, although only 8 percent of appointees came from industry, 54 percent exited to industry positions, resulting in a net exit rate of 46 percentage points. More than half of the appointees at the CDC, CMS, and the Office of the Deputy Secretary exited to industry employment.

One limitation of the study was that it focused on appointees to HHS and did not include labor flows to and from industry that might have occurred among nonappointed civil servants. It therefore did not capture all levels of the revolving door that might have taken place.

A second limitation was that the industry sector classification did not include nonprofit employers that may represent or be funded by industry interests. Our findings should therefore be viewed as an underestimate of industry flows. See appendix A1 for a more detailed discussion of this issue and a sensitivity analysis.3

Almost half of appointees (49 percent) came from another position in government before their Plum Book HHS appointment (appendix A3).3 Smaller shares came from the nonprofit sector (20 percent) and industry (15 percent).

Postappointment employment patterns, however, were strikingly different. Thirty-two percent of appointees exited to industry (table A3.1 in appendix A3),3 reflecting a 17-percentage-point net increase (exhibit 2). In contrast, government experienced a net loss of 29 percentage points.


Offices with the highest predicted probabilities of industry exit were the CDC (57 percent), CMS (54 percent), and the Office of the Deputy Secretary (53 percent).

The sheer scale of the revolving door that we have identified, however, is troubling and merits further scrutiny. The risks posed to the functioning of and public trust in HHS warrants study into how these government-industry flows are affecting agency decision making, especially in offices with the highest net exit rates. Where there exist vulnerabilities, analysis can focus on how current laws and regulations can be refined or better enforced. Given the complexity and subtlety of mechanisms of industry influence, regulation of the revolving door will require innovative legal and regulatory strategies.

Industry generally pays much better than the public sector.

Yet Pfizer themselves told you that their jab causes an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis..


https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-re...-agreement-and


"Authorized or approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines show increased risks of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart)"

Yep. Just like many other (non-mRNA-based) vaccines.

is that comment supposed to make people feel better?

I don't know-care

of course you don't, you just had to make the comment because you don't..."care"


just lol

It's more that new researchers seem to have little awareness of anything before covid and covid vaccines.

I appreciate that you're full on opposed to vaccines (except those you've recently taken).

But others try the only opposed to covid vaccines angle, which I find quite lulzy

The thread topic is about covid vaccines. If you would like to discuss other vaccines you can create a new thread...

Haha.

Myopia is almost always relevant

https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/S07...2823%2904263-8

Pharma bad now..?

Not in my opinion.

Myopia might be, or at least lulzy

Posting yet another vaxx causing myocarditis is not a good look for the "it's not the vaxx" spin..but I guess the diminishing of ripples upon that cranium of yours somehow missed that

Just noting you weren't as worried, previously

Seems you still aren't worried about what you did receive, only what you didn't

Well....Not much I can change on what I did receive. But seeing as there is such a large spike in myocarditis as of late, I guess people should start limiting all the vaccines they take then..huh?

That's the narrative

jlc the reject working overtime trying to defend the jabs.

Where?

The guy on the ground depicts how badly J.L.C. gets owned by actual facts/reality:

Who's the stomper?