CDC’s Early COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Reports Under Scrutiny After Contractor Memo

 

From Staff

A Brownstone Journal article alleges that federal health officials understated the volume of vaccine injury reports during the early COVID-19 vaccine rollout. The claims raise questions about data processing, public communication and the limitations of vaccine safety monitoring.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is facing renewed scrutiny over its handling of early COVID-19 vaccine safety data following allegations that the agency reassured the public while its reporting contractor struggled to process a surge in adverse-event reports.

In an October 28 article titled “How the CDC Lied about Shot Injury,” Jeffrey A. Tucker of the Brownstone Journal argues that federal officials failed to adequately disclose the backlog affecting the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) during the initial months of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign.

The article focuses on a January 15, 2021, memo from General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT), the contractor responsible for processing VAERS reports. According to the memo quoted by Tucker, incoming COVID-19 vaccine reports had significantly exceeded the anticipated maximum of 1,000 reports per day, preventing the contractor from meeting established processing and response timeframes.

Tucker argues that the warning should have prompted an immediate reassessment of the vaccination campaign and more cautious public statements about vaccine safety.

On February 19, 2021, the CDC published an early assessment of COVID-19 vaccine safety in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

The report examined 6,994 VAERS reports received between December 14, 2020, and January 13, 2021. Its authors described the initial safety findings as reassuring and reported no unexpected patterns of serious adverse events.

Tucker contends that the assessment provided an incomplete picture because the number of reports discussed in the publication was substantially lower than the total number of reports he says had accumulated by that time.

He argues that the public-facing conclusions did not adequately communicate the implications of the processing backlog or the limitations of the available data.

However, the distinction between reports received and reports processed is critical. VAERS data undergo processing and review, and the number of reports analyzed in a published assessment does not, by itself, establish that officials concealed injuries or knowingly misrepresented vaccine safety. Establishing deliberate deception would require additional evidence concerning what officials knew, when they knew it and how they interpreted the available information.

The Brownstone Journal article also challenges the CDC's reporting of serious adverse events and deaths.

According to Tucker, approximately 9.2% of the reports examined in the early assessment were classified as serious. He uses that percentage to argue that thousands of serious events may have been represented in the larger pool of reports.

The article further cites approximately 966 death reports in VAERS by mid-February 2021, contrasting that figure with the 113 deaths discussed in the CDC assessment. The CDC report stated that available information did not suggest a causal relationship between vaccination and those deaths.

These figures require careful interpretation. VAERS is a passive surveillance system that accepts reports of health events occurring after vaccination, including events that may be coincidental or unrelated to the vaccine. A report is not, by itself, proof that a vaccine caused an injury or death.

Likewise, a report's classification as serious does not establish causation. Determining whether a vaccine caused a particular outcome requires further clinical and epidemiological assessment.

Nevertheless, the scale of incoming reports and the ability of surveillance systems to process them promptly are legitimate subjects for public scrutiny.

VAERS was designed to identify potential vaccine safety signals, not to independently establish the frequency of vaccine injuries or prove causation. The system can receive reports from healthcare professionals, manufacturers and members of the public, and its data can contain incomplete information, duplicate submissions and unverified claims.

Public health authorities have also acknowledged that passive reporting systems may capture only a fraction of adverse events.

Tucker argues that this limitation makes the reported figures an incomplete measure of the potential harm associated with COVID-19 vaccination. He also contends that the CDC's reassuring public statements failed to convey sufficient uncertainty during the rollout.

The broader issue is whether the agency communicated the limitations of its surveillance systems clearly enough while evidence was still emerging. That question is distinct from whether the available reports establish the article's allegations of deliberate deception.

The article raises concerns about the relationship between the CDC, its contractors and the pharmaceutical companies that developed COVID-19 vaccines. It also criticizes the legal protections afforded to manufacturers under the emergency public health framework.

During the pandemic, the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act provided significant liability protections for covered countermeasures, subject to statutory conditions and exceptions. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), meanwhile, allowed the Food and Drug Administration to authorize certain medical products during a declared emergency under a separate legal framework. These mechanisms did not eliminate all regulatory requirements.

Tucker argues that the combination of limited liability, vaccine mandates and public assurances created an environment in which potential safety concerns did not receive sufficient attention.

His article calls for accountability and renewed examination of the records surrounding the early vaccine rollout. However, the claims that officials deliberately lied, that the contractor's backlog proves widespread vaccine-caused injury, or that the reported deaths were caused by vaccination require independent corroboration.

The allegations underscore several questions that warrant examination: How quickly were incoming VAERS reports processed in early 2021? What did CDC officials know about the backlog when they issued public safety assessments? Were the limitations of the available data adequately disclosed? And did subsequent analyses identify safety signals that required changes in public health guidance?

Answering these questions requires examination of the original GDIT memo, contemporaneous processing records, the complete CDC report, internal agency communications and independent safety studies.

The early COVID-19 vaccine rollout unfolded under extraordinary public health pressures, with officials balancing the urgent need to reduce severe disease against the need to monitor products introduced at unprecedented speed.

Whether the CDC's early communications adequately reflected the uncertainty of that period remains an important question. Determining whether those communications amounted to deliberate deception, however, requires evidence beyond a reporting backlog or the number of adverse event reports alone.

Sources:

How the CDC Lied about Shot Injury

https://brownstone.org/articles/how-the-cdc-lied-about-shot-injury/

The Medical and Ethical Atrocity of “Perioperative Vaccination”

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-medical-and-ethical-atrocity-of-perioperative-vaccination/

Equity with Accountability in Pandemic Preparedness

https://brownstone.org/articles/equity-with-accountability-in-pandemic-preparedness/

 

The Attention Trap

Why Your Feed Is the Last Place You Should Get the News

South Carolina Bulletin

1 minute ago

A feature on how the modern information diet is engineered against you.

By Staff Writer

There was a time when getting the news meant a deliberate act. You sat down with a newspaper. You tuned in at six o’clock. You waited, because you had no choice and because waiting was the price of accuracy.

That era is over and most people have not noticed how completely.

Today, the news arrives whether you want it or not. It slides into your pocket while you stand in line for coffee. It interrupts you mid conversation. It is curated, ranked and delivered by an algorithm whose only loyalty is to the clock you spend staring at a screen. The question is no longer whether you are informed. The question is whether you are being informed at all, or merely being processed.

The answer, for a growing number of researchers, former platform executives and journalists who have left the machine, is uncomfortable. The modern information diet is not designed to tell you the truth. It is designed to keep you consuming. Those are not the same thing and conflating them is the defining information error of our time.

https://samueleburns.substack.com/p/the-attention-trap

Inside the Left’s Election Backchannel—and the Talking Points It Didn’t Want Public

 Natalie Winters expose a network linked to Norm Eisen, a former official under President Obama, that coordinated anti-Trump messaging while maintaining contact with election officials. These memos provide insights into planned strategies for the upcoming midterm elections and were meant to remain private.

• The documents reveal that the Election Safeguards Response Network (ESRN), directed by Eisen, is involved in shaping public messaging against Trump.

• Specific instructions within the memos advise allies on how to amplify election officials' statements and portray federal interventions as overreaches.

• A clear directive is included: avoid addressing claims about non-citizen voting to prevent those claims from receiving attention.

• The documents illustrate how partners within the ESRN are keeping communication lines open with election officials while strategizing public responses.

• The approach is to focus on emotional messaging rather than factual rebuttals, cautioning that responding to Trump’s claims can reinforce misinformation.

• Suggested language for communications includes characterizing claims from Trump and his supporters as desperate attempts to undermine election integrity.

• The memos emphasize not repeating claims about non-citizen voting and direct partners to emphasize statements that frame Trump’s actions negatively.

The release of these memos underscores a strategic approach to managing narratives around upcoming elections, emphasizing communication tactics that appear intended to maintain a specific public perception while avoiding engagement with certain contentious debates. The information raises questions about the transparency and integrity of these election-related communications strategies.

https://nataliegwinters.substack.com/p/inside-the-lefts-election-backchanneland?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3382126&post_id=222572011&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=6dl2nb&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

First-Of-Its-Kind Poll Finds TDS Is Real, And It’s Shockingly Widespread

 A recent poll by TIPP (a partner of Issues & Insights) reveals significant public sentiment towards Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), a term describing intense negative emotional reactions to Donald Trump. This editorial critiques these reactions and highlights the mental health implications associated with them.

1. Definition of TDS: TDS refers to severe emotional responses, often associated with anger or distress, specifically aimed at Donald Trump. The poll indicates that 38% of the general public and over half (53%) of Democrats report experiencing TDS.

2. Public Observations:

• About 70% of respondents note they have witnessed emotional distress, anger, or agitation regarding Trump among their acquaintances.

• 62% say they have seen behaviors change due to negative feelings toward Trump.

• 41% know someone who has distanced themselves from Trump supporters.

• 37% have observed obsessive focus on Trump intertwined with animosity toward his supporters.

• 22% have noticed aggression or threats linked to negative feelings about Trump.

3. Broader Concerns: The poll's findings are concerning not only regarding the current political climate but also suggest that without addressing TDS, those affected may redirect their intense feelings to future political figures, further perpetuating a cycle of obsession and derangement.

4. Case Study: The editorial cites the left's recent hostility toward figures like Elon Musk as evidence of TDS symptoms transferring to new targets after Trump's presidency, indicating that the issue may be systemic rather than merely personal.

5. TDS and Electoral Integrity: The editorial argues that TDS allows individuals to justify morally questionable actions, including lies and deceit, to achieve political goals, exemplified by recent events in Alaska.

6. Media Influence: A significant 74% of poll participants believe that media coverage of Trump contributes to negative public emotional responses, indicating the media's role in amplifying TDS.

7. Potential Solutions: Dr. Carole Lieberman, a psychiatrist, has advocated for TDS to be included in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), arguing that recognizing it could improve awareness and treatment for those affected. However, there are doubts about the acceptance of TDS as a legitimate diagnosis within the psychiatric community.

The poll results suggest a widespread and alarming phenomenon of Trump Derangement Syndrome, with implications for mental health and societal behavior. The need for recognition and treatment of TDS as a legitimate concern is emphasized, pointing towards a potential mental health crisis that influences political discourse and behavior in America. The issues surrounding TDS warrant serious attention and action to prevent further escalation and societal division. 

https://issuesinsights.com/2026/10/30/first-of-its-kind-poll-finds-tds-is-real-and-its-shockingly-widespread/

Equity with Accountability in Pandemic Preparedness

 The discussion around reforming global health systems highlights a critical question: have existing policies led to an overreliance on donor countries and international organizations in low-resource nations? This situation has potentially weakened national accountability and health sovereignty. The purpose of this summary is to outline key arguments for rebalancing power in global health governance, emphasizing the need for national governments to regain responsibility for health outcomes.

1. Dependency on Donor Systems:

• Low-resourced countries often face issues due to earmarked financing and externally imposed priorities that overlook national needs.

• This dependency fosters a reliance on external resources and creates a workforce aligned with donor interests rather than national health strategies.

2. Sovereignty and Accountability:

• Reforms must focus on strengthening national sovereignty, allowing governments to make independent health decisions.

• A call is made to reduce the authority of entities like the WHO where local capacities can address health needs more effectively.

3. Fragmentation and Trust Issues:

• The global health system suffers from fragmentation and declining public trust.

• Proposed reforms often do not adequately address the root causes, risking the continuation of ineffective practices that previously caused mistrust.

4. Need for Meaningful Reform:

• Current proposals for reform often do not outline clear strategies for transferring power from international bodies to national governments, perpetuating existing power dynamics.

• The dialogue around health equity is often superficial, equating access to materials with actual health outcomes, without considering local contexts.

5. Critique of Institutional Responses:

• Many institutional responses to pandemics, like those initiated during COVID-19, have been criticized for lacking coordination and failing to recognize the differential impacts of health interventions on diverse populations.

• There is a demand for transparency regarding decision-making processes and the effectiveness of health strategies, focusing on results rather than mere compliance with global mandates.

6. Inequitable Financing Models:

• Discussions about pandemic preparedness funding highlight a disconnect between the proposed needs and their adequacy.

• Many countries bear the burden of financing initiatives that disproportionately favor international organizations and the wealthier nations that control them.

7. Realigning Priorities and Responsibilities:

• A shift in focus is needed toward local health systems that prioritize essential services over emergency preparedness that is often resource-intensive but not necessarily beneficial.

• Systemic reform should enable countries to make health investments based on their unique demographics and health challenges.

8. Transparency and Evaluation:

• Future global health strategies should include rigorous evaluations of proposals and policies, along with transparent accountability measures.

• There should be mechanisms in place to ensure that financial support leads to measurable improvements in health outcomes, rather than merely increasing expenditures without tangible results.

9. Empowering Local Governance:

• The future of health governance should prioritize empowering national and local governments to set their own priorities and health strategies.

• International cooperation should focus on supporting national efforts without undermining their sovereignty and capacity to govern health decisions.

10. A New Framework for Health Resilience:

• A reform framework should emphasize building local capacities and maintaining accountability through clear national health policies.

• The need for international support should only arise when national capacities are exceeded, allowing for a more sustainable approach.

Reforming global health governance involves addressing the entrenched power dynamics that have historically marginalized local health priorities. To restore equity and trust, it is essential that health systems prioritize national sovereignty, build local capacities, and promote transparent and accountable decision-making processes. Without significant change, health reforms risk perpetuating existing inequalities and eroding trust, further complicating global health challenges. The focus for any reform must be on enhancing local control and ownership in health governance, ensuring that systems are resilient and truly responsive to the needs of populations. 

https://brownstone.org/articles/equity-with-accountability-in-pandemic-preparedness/

Texas Republican Cites Little-Known Rule That Could Stop DSA Radicals From Being Sworn Into Congress

 Texas Republican Rep. Keith Self has expressed a belief that members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) may be prevented from being sworn into Congress due to their political platform, which he views as contradictory to the oath required to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

• Rep. Self cites a little-known congressional rule that allows members-elect to challenge the swearing-in of others based on their ability to uphold the oath to protect the Constitution.

• He argues that DSA candidates aim to "destroy" the Constitution, making it impossible for them to swear allegiance to it in good faith.

• This challenge could lead to deliberations and votes within the House on whether these members-elect can be sworn in, even if they win their elections.

• DSA members have recently won primary elections and could potentially take office.

• Self believes that the oath of office is not merely ceremonial but signifies a deep commitment to the country and its laws.

• He also mentioned co-sponsoring the Judicial Loyalty Act, aimed at ensuring that all American judges are natural-born citizens to safeguard the Constitution from foreign influence.

Rep. Keith Self's position highlights a contentious political strategy aimed at questioning the legitimacy of DSA members taking office. He argues that their platform conflicts with the constitutional obligation they would need to uphold, suggesting a potential barrier to their swearing-in if they win elections. 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/10/texas-republican-cites-little-known-rule-that-could/

The Non-Obvious Anatomy of a Slow Collapse: How Economic Decline Reshapes Nations, Concentrates Wealth, and Paves the Way for a New Order

 The global economic landscape has entered a troubling phase characterized by high debt levels and systemic dysfunction. While visible indicators of distress, such as unemployment and inflation, receive significant attention, the underlying, less visible consequences are reshaping societies over time. This summary explores the gradual nature of collapse, its complex manifestations, and the implications for society and global equity.

1. Understanding Debt and Economic Collapse

• Global debt exceeds $300 trillion; the U.S. alone has a federal debt over $37 trillion.

• The economic engine shows signs of faltering with the contraction of the American money supply in 2022 and 2023, indicating potential systemic issues.

• True economic collapse is not always apparent; it often manifests as a slow, grinding decline rather than a sudden failure.

2. Visible vs. Invisible Consequences

• Immediate effects of economic trouble, such as job loss and rising prices, are noticeable.

• Deeper societal changes — trust erosion, family instability, and chronic stress — develop more subtly over time.

• Economic decline changes social dynamics without outright destruction, leading to societies that appear similar yet are fundamentally altered.

3. Wealth Distribution and Trust

• Economic pressure favors the wealthy, enabling them to capitalize on crises at the expense of the rest of the population.

• Trust within society is diminishing, affecting cooperation and economic activities.

• As formal trust falls, informal economies arise, allowing people to transact outside official channels, posing challenges for governments.

4. Health and Well-being

• Economic hardship correlates with negative health outcomes, as lower spending on health services and increased stress lead to rising mortality rates.

• Chronic stresses resulting from economic decline can manifest as increased deaths from despair, notably suicides and overdoses, particularly among vulnerable demographics.

5. Demographic Changes

• Falling birth rates in many countries signal a troubling trend for future economic stability.

• Economic insecurity leads young adults to delay family formation, exacerbating the demographic challenge of an aging population and shrinking workforce.

6. Policing and Safety

• As economic pressures increase, crime rates may shift in nature, with property crimes rising alongside a retreat to private security solutions.

• The fear of crime leads to heightened demand for safety measures, creating a cycle where public institutions are undermined in favor of privatized solutions.

7. Consolidation of Wealth and Power

• Economic crises often result in wealth consolidation, where smaller players lose out to cash-rich entities eager to acquire assets at low prices.

• Each crisis serves to further entrench those already holding power, and the mechanisms for this consolidation are becoming ingrained in economic policies.

8. Infrastructure and Control

• Development of digital currencies and identification systems among over 100 countries suggests an evolving landscape of financial control.

• Such systems can enable targeted economic management but also come with risks of increased surveillance and restricted access to one’s own wealth.

The presentation of debt as a benign or manageable problem is misleading; instead, it reflects fundamental issues within economies that are now becoming increasingly visible. The unsustainable nature of wealth concentration, the decline of trust, and the socio-economic burdens on the population paint a grim picture of a society wrestling with the ramifications of a slow-motion economic collapse. Understanding these dynamics is crucial as they set the stage for who will thrive in the aftermath of crises and who will bear the costs. Ultimately, the future may bring significant changes dictated less by popular will than by the pre-established interests of those already in power. 

https://preppgroup.home.blog/2026/10/25/the-non-obvious-anatomy-of-a-slow-collapse-how-economic-decline-reshapes-nations-concentrates-wealth-and-paves-the-way-for-a-new-order/