Recent CDC study – in conflict with official WHO guidelines and other issues

Said study claims to prove that sudden cardiac death among previously healthy young persons cannot be attributed to mRNA vaccines

Recently, the CDC published the outcome of their study of postvaccination myocarditis in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The study purports to prove there is no link between COVID-19 injections and sudden deaths in young adults. Specifically, the authors claim that (emphasis added) “In this study of 1,292 deaths among Oregon residents aged 16–30 years during June 2021–December 2022, none could definitively be attributed to cardiac causes within 100 days of receipt of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose.”

However, there are serious limitations to the study:

The study is not generalizable and seems subject to reporting and misclassification bias

No justification is provided this specific limited small study - limited to a State with a small population size and subject to its policies - should be generalizable to the general public. Specifically, the CDC makes it clear that “Oregon law requires that a certificate of death be completed for each death in Oregon.” In this particular case, therefore, we only see through the filter of official mandates/reporting (some may call this “garbage-in garbage out.”). Why on earth would we expect that mandated classification and reporting are unbiased, independent, complete, and representative of the overall population?

Why no autopsies?

Why look at death certificate data rather than investigate each death individually? As I already highlighted in my book, if you want to know what someone died from, you must look at autopsy results - which even before the pandemic often revealed a completely different cause than reported on the death certificate. How much more can we expect a discrepancy in reporting during a time of censorship and intimidation of healthcare professionals and society at large?

Other database issues?

The CDC first used the following search terms  to go through their databases: “’sudden death,’ ‘arrhythmia,’ ‘dysrhythmia,’ ‘asystole,’ ‘cardiac arrest,’ ‘myocarditis,’ ‘congestive heart failure,’ ‘unknown,’ ‘undetermined,’ or ‘pending’ cited among the immediate or four possible entries for underlying causes of death and other significant conditions contributing to death.”

As healthcare professionals must adhere to strict mandatory rules and are likely also driven by fear and self-censorship, we can expect substantial bias to begin with. Few will dare to get into trouble by suggesting a potentially adverse effect associated with vaccination.

The “pending” cases may also substantially impair the statistics. We have no idea how many there were, and what their outcome was. For the actual analysis, the CDC only considered those “for whom death from a cardiac cause could not be ruled out by accompanying information in the death certificate database...” Disturbingly, it seems that in the end, the CDC only analyzed 3 cases and ignored the vast majority simply by looking at a computer screen.

The official WHO criteria to assess causation were ignored

There are indeed clear criteria, from the WHO nonetheless, to ascertain when an adverse event following vaccination (AEFI) is caused by the vaccine or not. These criteria took many years to develop. The WHO writes,

“Attribution of causality to AEFI, especially those considered severe, of public importance, and programmatically disruptive, are critical for ensuring vaccine safety. In 2005, WHO published an aide-mémoire to a systematic, standardized causality assessment process”

– which they updated in 2010 and then in 2019. They emphasized that their method is “simple, objective, adaptable and evidence-based.” These days,  everything needs to comply with WHO principles. Then why did the CDC ignore them here?  

I scrutinize these updated WHO-AEFI criteria at length in my book and show numerous issues in the context of the mRNA “vaccines.”

Nonetheless, they are official criteria. Yet, the CDC performed their analysis as if they did not exist at all. Indeed, they argue

“After concluding a thorough review of the most innovative methods available for determining causation for drugs and biologicals, an algorithmic scheme that incorporates additional elements of causation was designed.”

They bypassed the “Causality assessment of an adverse event following immunization (‎AEFI)‎” as clearly laid out by the WHO and came up with their own ad-hoc method to ascertain causality.

Did they not know that the WHO, after many years of work, and after extensively publicizing their results, had determined that  

“the new AEFI causality assessment system will provide a standardized and transparent method” ?!

Based on their in-house procedure, the CDC then concluded: “In this study of 1,292 deaths among Oregon residents aged 16–30 years during June 2021–December 2022, none could definitively be attributed to cardiac causes within 100 days of receipt of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose.”

However, since they ignored the WHO standard, it must be concluded that the result is unofficial.

Extremely short time frame, small population size, and circular arguments

In addition to the above, the study only “investigated” deaths that had occurred within 100 days post-jab. There is no good reason for choosing such a short time frame. The CDC indeed acknowledges this but immediately gets entangled in a circular argument, writing (emphasis added)

“this report cannot exclude the possibility of vaccine-associated cardiac deaths >100 days after COVID-19 vaccine administration. However, published data indicate that potential adverse events associated with vaccinations tend to occur within 42 days of vaccine receipt.”

Well, how did they previously prove that 42 days is the cutoff for such a tragic AEFI?

Likewise, the small population size of Oregon was also admitted by the CDC but immediately disregarded by the purported argument that the

“small population size made it less likely that Oregon would see a rare event such as sudden cardiac death among adolescents and young adults.”

The way it is written sounds as if Oregon’s small size should not be a problem – because of the known rarity of the deaths. This is another circular argument. If they had first selected a representative subgroup of the overall population, and rigorously proven the lack of a causal relationship using official criteria, then they could inferred the deaths are rare. But not the other way around.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the results of the CDC’s in-house evaluation with several glaring gaps should never have been made public. Media outlets parroting the study results should be aware of these concerns, especially that the study method ignores WHO standards.

Nonetheless, there are serious issues with the WHO-AEFI criteria in the context of mRNA vaccines. As I detailed in my book, there are specific pitfalls that will make it technically difficult to prove that an AEFI has indeed been caused by those drugs. The WHO method will most likely characterize most, if not all, AEFI’s as “not being caused” by these shots. This makes it even more intriguing why the CDC did not adhere to WHO criteria. The same applies to the many other studies and publications that purport to find “no causal relationship.” Why, one may ask, is the WHO suddenly being ignored?

One thing does seem clear. The unofficial criteria developed by the CDC have even lower standards than those detailed via the WHO-AEFI. This makes it even more likely that a genuine tragic event caused by the injections will be misclassified as “not related.”