VAERS safety signals for the COVID vaccine were being triggered so the FDA silenced the whistleblower

Thanks to the brilliant work of Ron Johnson and his staff, we now know that the FDA knew that a more accurate analysis method was throwing off safety signals so the FDA silenced the whistleblower.

ER05 is the new method. Values >2 are serious safety signals that need to be investigated. The EB05 is the old method. It showed that the COVID vaccine was safe because all signals were being reported at rates less than expected.

Executive summary

As detailed in the Johnson report and hearing Unmasked: How Biden Health Officials Purposely Turned a Blind Eye Toward COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signals, you can find above the list of safety signals that triggered highlighted in yellow.

The left column is the new method that exposes the signal. A value of 2 means “reported at twice the rate expected.”

The right column is the preferred FDA method showing there is nothing to worry about because every single adverse event was reported at a lower rate than what is expected.

The new method was pioneered by FDA scientist Ana Szarfman.

From the report:

In short, the FDA knew about the more accurate method of detecting safety signals but determined that the method would fuel anti-vaccine rhetoric so they silenced her research and findings. They didn’t want to hear about it.

The report

Links

The press release with links to the data and report

The report

Hearing and additional links

Summary

The FDA wasn’t aware of any safe signals in the VAERS data because they ordered the scientist who spotted the safety signals to stop talking about them because they might feed into anti-vaccine rhetoric.

I’m baffled as to how burying safety signals is in the public interest.

Before anything criminal can be pursued, it typically goes through:

• HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigations

• Congressional oversight (hearings, document production)

• Independent scientific review of the analyses and methods

• Potential civil litigation if harm and causation can be shown

If they knowingly suppressed material safety risks to mislead that could be criminal. But establishing that requires strong, specific evidence of intent, not just signals in a table or disagreements over methods.