The HHS / Harvard Pilgrim / Lazarus Study: Part III

The Perfect Storm: Public Health Surveillance Intentionally Designed to Fail and the COVID-19 Disaster

“Had the CDC cooperated as it pledged to at the start of the Harvard Pilgrim project, this automated surveillance system could have been implemented to track COVID-19 vaccine adverse events. Instead, HHS and its agencies are now scrambling to create new tracking systems and to integrate already-existing systems in order to try and track, in any meaningful way, adverse reactions to these COVID-19 vaccines.” -ICAN Attorneys, post-COVID FOIA filing

AUDIO & VIDEO OVERVIEWS

Chapter I: The Bridge — Everything Was Already in Place

If you’ve read Parts I and II of this series, you could have guessed what the finale would be about. You know from my interrogation of Google’s AI (Gemini) that by the time Operation Warp Speed launched in late 2020, every structural element needed to run a mass vaccination campaign with zero accountability was already in place. Not by accident. Not because of bureaucratic incompetence (of which there is always more than enough to go around). But because of decades of deliberate institutional engineering (“government and pharma sittin in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G….”).

The liability shield? Signed into law in 1986. The broken reporting system? Documented, ignored, and actively defended since VAERS launched in 1990. The one surveillance tool proven to work? Killed by the CDC in 2009. Baked-in conflict of interest? Why would you ever think otherwise? The same agency monitoring vaccine safety just happens to serve as the ‘defendant’ in every vaccine injury compensation case in Vaccine Court (in the VICP you don't have a plaintiff suing a defendant in an adversarial proceeding, you have a petitioner politely asking a respondent).

What COVID added was not a new system. It added scale, speed, and a financial apparatus so large it made everything that came before look like a rehearsal. When the first Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) was signed in December of 2020, the United States did not stumble unprepared into the largest mass vaccination campaign in its history. It walked in with a fully constructed infrastructure of unaccountability that had been quietly assembled, piece by piece, over thirty-five years.

The unifying theme of Part III is simple, and I will not apologize for calling a spade a spade. The lack of AE surveillance for COVID’s many (and as I will show you) ineffective and dangerous treatments is not a story about a system that failed to monitor vaccine safety. Instead it’s a story about a system that was intentionally designed to paint a false picture of what was really taking place across a spectrum of treatments, heavily heavy-handidly pushed within the intitutional (MSM / government / industry) narrative.

And let’s be honest with each other from the beginning of today’s post. Every day carries yet another study or story showing that the COVID treatments and prophylactics are even more dangerous (link, link, link) than we believed just yesterday. If you’re not aware of this, you’ve either been following the wrong news sources or playing the ‘Osterich Game’ - or both.

Chapter II: CICP — The VICP’s Uglier, Meaner, Nearly Invisible Little Brother

Prior to the pandemic, the average American had no idea that vaccine manufacturers carry zero liability for injuries - a fact hidden in plain sight since 1986’s National Childhood Vaccination Act (NCVA). The liability shield applied specifically to childhood vaccines on the CDC's recommended schedule, but by 2020, that schedule had expanded so dramatically, and the PREP Act had created such a broad parallel shield for emergency countermeasures, that functionally speaking, no vaccine administered in the United States carries meaningful manufacturer liability regardless of the recipient's age. For the vast majority of Americans, the idea that they signed away their right to sue simply by rolling up their sleeve was completely unknown.

But here is the detail that almost nobody was aware of… COVID vaccine injuries didn’t even fall under the already-broken Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; the ‘Vaccine Court’ (VCIP) covered in Chap 2 of Part I. They fell under something called the CICP; the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program. It’s a program so obscure that even most clinicians and public health officials had never heard of it, including those running COVID’s various vaccination campaigns / programs on the local level.

This begs the question: what about vaccine-injured children? Didn’t the CDC add COVID vaccines to the childhood immunization schedule, which would logically route pediatric injuries back to the VICP? Yes, in December 2020. But here’s the sleight of hand… The PREP Act takes legal precedence over the 1986 Act, as long as the emergency declaration is active (see block quote below). Thus, even after COVID vaccines were inexplicably added to the childhood schedule, injured children were still funneled toward the CICP during the emergency period. Whether you were six years old or sixty, your COVID vaccine injury claim landed in the same program, structurally designed to deny it (links coming).

Thus, one of the biggest governmental boot to the balls happened a year and a half ago, completely unnecessarily and rather clandestinely. From the January, 2025 government publication, The PREP Act and COVID-19, Part 2: The PREP Act Declaration for COVID-19 Countermeasures…

On December 11, 2024—a few weeks before the Eleventh Amendment's time period extensions were due to expire—HHS issued the Twelfth Amendment to the Declaration. This amendment further extended PREP immunity time periods for some COVID-19 countermeasures for an additional five years (i.e., until December 31, 2029).

As bad as the VICP is, the differences between the CICP and the VICP are staggering. Under the VICP, petitioners have access to legal representation with recoverable attorneys’ fees, a dedicated Special Master system, and a filing window of three years. The VICP also has a list of known vaccine injuries that are automatically compensated without requiring ‘proof’ of causation, whatever that really means (apparently it means that if your child comes down with disease X within a specific amount of time after receiving vaccine Y, causation is assumed and compensation is guaranteed).

Under the CICP, there are no recoverable attorneys’ fees, no hearing process, no ability to appeal to a neutral judicial body, no ‘automatic’ injury table, and an original filing window of one year (later extended, but only after thousands had missed the deadline). In the VICP, the parties are called petitioner and respondent, sanitized language that obscures what is actually happening, but at least there’s a proceeding. In the CICP, a single government employee decides.

The results speak for themselves. As of late 2023, the CICP had received over 10,000 COVID vaccine injury claims and compensated fewer than 20 of them (link, link). The program designed to compensate Americans injured by the most widely administered vaccine in the nation’s history had a compensation rate of less than one-fifth of one percent (1 in 500 reporting an AE). The VICP, for all of its exhaustively documented failures, looks like a model of generosity by comparison. And let’s be honest, the true number of injured who never filed a claim will never be known.

This was not an oversight. The CICP was deliberately chosen as the compensation vehicle for COVID vaccines precisely because of its structural hostility to petitioners. The same institutional architects who had spent thirty-five years watching the 1986 Act’s VICP get criticized by the GAO, the Congressional Research Service, 60 Minutes, the New England Journal of Medicine, and a host of others, concluded they needed something worse. They knew exactly which program to use, which is exactly why the CICP was chosen (link, link, link, link).

Chapter III: Warp Speed, Zero Brakes

The Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) framework exists for genuine emergencies. Those situations where a pathogen is so novel and so lethal that the normal multi-year approval process would cost more lives than it saves. Whatever one believes about COVID-19’s true lethality (something intentionally made impossible to ascertain, although Rancourt’s study is arguably the most ambitious attempt to separate signal from noise), what is not debatable is what the EUA framework actually did to the legal and regulatory architecture surrounding the vaccines it authorized.

Under a standard FDA approval, manufacturers retain some residual design-defect liability, the narrow window that the Bruesewitz Supreme Court decision had all but totally closed for traditional vaccines. Under an EUA combined with a PREP Act declaration, that window didn’t just close. It disappeared entirely. Manufacturers, distributors, administrators, and the federal government itself were granted complete immunity from liability for any injury caused by a covered countermeasure. Combined with the 1986 Act’s existing shield, the result was legally unprecedented. A product administered to hundreds of millions of Americans, under conditions that were mandatory in all but name (required for employment, military service, school attendance, airline travel, etc), for which no legal recourse of any kind existed.

Let that sink in for a moment. If you were injured, you could not sue the manufacturer. You could not sue your employer for requiring it. You could not sue the hospital that administered it. You could not sue the federal government that mandated it. You could file with the CICP, and as I just showed, your odds of compensation were roughly equivalent to your odds of being struck by lightning while orgasmically jumping around and waving the billion-dollar Powerball ticket.

And if you read my interrogation of Gemini, you already know that the very point of Warp Speed was just that - speed (although definitely ‘warped’). And not just logistical speed, but shutting up and shutting down anyone and everyone who stood in the way - in real-time. It was a legal strategy. The faster the rollout, the less time industry could allow for safety signals to accumulate before hundreds of millions billions of doses of dangerous, misunderstood, understudied, experimental, unpredictable, inflammatory, genotoxic, immunosuppressive, contaminated, irreversible, reactogenic, cardiotoxic, neurologically active, reproductively concerning, censorship-protected mRNA were already in people’s arms not-the-arms.

Although many big names were calling the vaccine and its promoters out early and often, cancel culture (which will be discussed momentarily) and a heavily censored and propagandized MSM won the day. By the time the adverse event data began congealing into patterns, the campaign was already complete. The liability shield had done its job, exactly as it was supposed to.

Chapter IV: Follow the Money — The Hospital Incentive Architecture

The figures most commonly cited in vaccine-critical circles - “$13,000 per COVID diagnosis, $39,000 per ventilator” - are real numbers that have at times been misrepresented. They were not flat cash bonuses. They were standard Medicare Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) reimbursements with a 20% add-on applied to every confirmed (or as you’ll soon see, assumed) COVID-positive admission under the CARES Act.

The 20% Medicare add-on meant that every COVID-positive hospital admission automatically generated 20% more revenue than an identical patient admitted without COVID (a big reason facilities loved the PCR - the ‘test’ that was never meant to be a test because it generated so many false positives). Are facilities influenced by money? As my dear, departed Pappy used to say, “Is a monkey’s butt red” (study, study, study, study)? In hospital systems running on razor-thin margins, a blanket 20% increase in revenue tied to COVID is more than enough to change behavior. And as we’ve been watching for decades, financially incentivizing sickness does not create less sickness; it always creates more.

But the 20% add-on was not the biggest incentive. That trophy goes to the Provider Relief Fund’s Targeted High-Impact Distributions - grants paid directly to hospitals on top of standard Medicare billing. In the first round alone, approximately 395 hospitals received $76,975 per COVID-19 inpatient admission. A second round followed at $50,000 per eligible admission. Billions upon billions distributed before testing was reliable and before diagnostic criteria were standardized.

But the honest-to-goodness “Holy Mother of Pearl” moment…..?

The diagnosis (COVID-19) that unlocked the above-mentioned government treasure chest was simultaneously being used to build the epidemiological record upon which every public health decision in America was based. Morbidity & mortality. Hospitalizations. Lockdowns. School closures. Vaccine mandates. All of it hinged on a diagnosis code with tens of thousands of dollars worth of ‘bounty’ attached to it (and not the paper towel). It’s no surprise that we ended up with more COVID instead of less, and less truth instead of more.

As to bounties on death certificates, this is not quite true. However, there were at least three other mechanisms, each with its own unique incentives, financially rewarding listing COVID as the cause-of-death…

• Continuity: Keeping COVID on the record through discharge preserved the admission’s 20% reimbursement and avoided billing audits.

• Compliance: CDC guidance issued in April 2020 explicitly directed physicians to list COVID as the cause of death in presumed but unconfirmed cases.

• Consideration: Hospitals reporting higher COVID volumes received preferential consideration in subsequent PRF grant distributions.

Three convergent incentives, all pointing in the same direction, reinforcing a simple truth…

It’s impossible to build an accurate epidemiological model of any disease on a foundation of incentivized data. -Me

Not because every physician reporting the data was somehow corrupt (I’ve said this many times in many ways regarding generalized corruption in the biomedical community), but because the very nature of financial incentivization of certain diseases or treatments invites corruption.

Chapter V: Distributed Dilution — The Fragmentation Weapon

Near the end of Part II, I mentioned that ICAN’s attorneys had identified a critical structural problem in the post-COVID surveillance landscape. HHS had deliberately fragmented the various systems for reporting vaccine-related AEs (VAERS, V-Safe, CISA, Sentinel BEST, and the Vaccine Safety Datalink or VSD). With each system capturing a different slice of the data, no single database can provide a complete picture.

Think about it this way. If the nation’s vaccination-related AE data is split across five systems, the individual systems tend to show numbers that look manageable in isolation. This “dilution” means that alarm bells are far less likely to ring. And when journalists, attorneys, congressional investigators, etc, go looking for the AE data, getting a complete picture is darn near impossible.

If pushing a certain narrative is the biggest goal, it’s a brilliant playbook. fragment the data, silo the data, dilute the data, and then point to the mangled remains as (ahem) ‘evidence’ that no problem exists (or that the AEs are “rare and mild” - something I mentioned yesterday). What changed with COVID was the scale of the data and the number of systems available to spread it across.

Best example? V-Safe. Created specifically for the COVID vaccines, it was presented to the public as a user-friendly app-based improvement over VAERS that would capture AEs in real-time (me humming George Strait’s Ocean Front Property in the background). What the public was not told was that V-Safe data was not publicly accessible. It took ICAN attorneys years of aggressive FOIA litigation to extract it.

“Out of the approximate 10 million v-safe users, 782,913 individuals, or over 7.7% of v-safe users, had a health event requiring medical attention, emergency room intervention, and/or hospitalization.” -From CDC’s Covid-19 Vaccine v-safe Data Released Pursuant to Court Order

When Siri’s ICAN team finally cracked the data code, what they found was stunning, but not at all surprising if you’ve been following this mess as long as I have. Of the 10,108,273 registered V-Safe users, 782,913 reported adverse events requiring medical care from a healthcare professional after their jab. Unless my math is wrong, that should have generated 782,913 VAERS reports. The actual number of V-Safe linked VAERS reports filed: 30,492. A filing rate of 3.89%. An under-reporting factor of approximately 26 times (link, link, link, link, link, link, link). It represents one of many of the pandemic’s ‘surely you jest’ moments.

And here is the most troubling point of the V-Safe fiasco….

The CDC’s own documents show three different and contradictory descriptions of how V-Safe was supposed to connect to VAERS, with each version progressively weaker.

• Version 1 - The Easy Peasy (V-safe Frequently Asked Questions): “If you report seeking medical care after vaccination, V-safe will ask you to complete a report describing your side effect(s) or health problem(s) to VAERS. To help with this process, certain information already provided to V-safe (for example, your name) will automatically copy into your VAERS report.”

• Version 2 - No Longer Automatic (The V-Safe After Vaccination Health Checker Active Vaccine Safety Monitoring During CDC’s COVID-19 Pandemic Response): Note that the very title of this CDC study touts the system as “active” and not passive. To understand the difference, go back and read Part II of the series. “Participants who indicate they sought medical care...receive telephone outreach from a live agent at a v-safe call center to encourage them to complete a report to VAERS; the call center agents offer to complete the report during the phone call. In cases where the participant does not wish to complete the report during the phone call but indicates willingness to report on their own, the agents provide information so that the participant can complete the report at a later time.”

• Version 3 - Gatekeeper Lingo on Display (CDC’s MMWR, January 2021): “Enrollees who report seeking medical care are contacted, and a VAERS report is completed if clinically indicated.” And if not ‘clinically indicated,” well, tough you-know-what...

Chapter VI: VAERS in the COVID Era — The Dam Cracks

For thirty years, VAERS existed in bureaucratic obscurity. A program known to certain kinds of researchers, plaintiff’s attorneys, and a crazy community of rabidly fanatical vaccine safety advocates that should probably live in straitjackets according to JHU (usually parents of vaccine-injured children), but essentially invisible to the general public. However, thanks to COVID, by mid-2021, VAERS was not only being discussed but being heavily discussed on social media platforms, with people starting to ask questions. It had received more reports in a single year than in its entire previous three decades of existence.

In the 11 years from 2010 thru 2020, VAERS received fewer than half a million reports. In 2021 alone, following the COVID vaccine rollout (December 14, 2020), VAERS received domestic 677,514 reports - a 13-fold increase - in a system not upgraded or restaffed to handle those kinds of numbers.

The public health establishment’s response to this was immediate and revealing. Rather than treating the surge as a signal worth investigating, they treated it as a public relations problem to be managed, using a myriad of thinly cloaked excuses for the increased reporting. The explanation provided for the increased reporting was increased awareness and attorney-driven reporting, not an actual increase in adverse events. In other words, overreporting had replaced underreporting as the ‘official narrative’ (link, link, and link).

Think about the darkness of this response. For thirty years, the documented problem with VAERS was catastrophic under-reporting (a system capturing fewer than 1% of actual adverse events), as I documented in Part II. However, as soon as reporting went off the scale, institutional defenders pivoted 180 degrees. All of a sudden, the problem was “over-reporting” and it was being branded as a new form of money-grubbing - a sleazy get-rich-quick scam run by ambulance-chasing attorneys. The goalpost didn’t just move; it was dug up and transplanted on the opposite end of the field!

This is a good time to mention the VAERS Aware site by Welcome the Eagle. Because I had been censored so early in the game, I spent most of the pandemic not creating content for my site, but reading. I was subscribed to waaaaaaaay too many Substacks (honestly, though, after noting how many some of my subscribers are subscribed to, I probably can’t say that anymore), and somehow came across Eagle’s site. Eagle saw my Part II post and commented, providing a link. After looking at his website, it all came back to me.

Welcome the Eagle’s stunning comment (if anyone knows how to get to the bottom of this, contact him!)…..

No worries, it’s been a long scamdemic. I do appreciate your deep insights of the Lazarus study. I learned something very important about VAERS report deletions (after publication). I constructed a “deleted reports” dashboard (https://www.vaersaware.com/deleted-reports-2007-2022) as per medalerts.org Wayback machine. I then discovered or realized there was a huge deletions of reports on the last update of 2009 with over 3,500 reports of which were 175 deaths.

When I asked Dr. Steven Rubin (creator of medalerts) if he remembered, he said oh yes! “That was the great purge of 2009...”. Wow! I’m sure all the stuff Lazarus et al were doing in the background had something to do with CDC deleting all those reports.

I even asked Dr. McCullough if he knew about the great purge of 2009, he didn’t of course but said he knew about inconsistencies. I wish I had the fortitude at that second to quip back and say this is FRAUD not inconsistencies.

Here is me asking Peter about the purge in 2009 and especially all the MMR deaths they scrubbed...: https://rumble.com/v1781r0-bombshell-cdcfda-caught-gaming-vaers-for-decades.html

OpenVAERS also deserves a mention. Built by a small team of independent researchers and data analysts, OpenVAERS created a publicly accessible, searchable interface for the raw VAERS data that the CDC’s own query system had deliberately made difficult to navigate. It did not add data. It did not manipulate data. It simply made the CDC’s own numbers readable. Manageable. The establishment’s response was to attack the messenger, dismissing OpenVAERS as a tool for misinformation, rather than addressing the numbers.

Jessica Rose, a Canadian researcher with a PhD in computational biology, became one of the most rigorous independent analysts of the COVID-era VAERS data, publishing peer-reviewed analyses that calculated under-reporting factors and identified specific safety signals, including myocarditis in young males, that the CDC’s own systems were either missing or actively not looking for. Her work, and the work of researchers like her, represented exactly what the Lazarus platform had been designed to automate and systematize a decade earlier. But during the pandemic, it was being done manually, by volunteers, because the government had chosen not to use an autotmated system already in existance.

The BMJ called it broken. The FDA’s own division director called the public’s frustration understandable. The CDC reviewed more death reports than any country on earth and acknowledged zero of them. The system was not overwhelmed by accident. A system intentionally kept small, intentionally kept passive, and intentionally kept opaque does not accidentally fail to process that many reports of a potentially deadly treatment. It fails on purpose, and the people in charge of it have made sure it stays that way.

Chapter VII: They Were Watching You — Just Not for Adverse Events

The same federal government that intentionally…

• refused to build a functional vaccine AE reporting system (see Part II).

• killed the one system already proven to work (see Part II).

• fragmented / diluted COVID injury data across five separate systems specifically to prevent any single database from raising alarms.

• designed a compensation program so hostile to petitioners that it compensated fewer than 20 people out of 10,000 claims (link, link, link, link).

That same government, however, had absolutely no trouble building a comprehensive, real-time surveillance system to monitor the movement and behavior of the American population during COVID. It was the very same geofencing technology used to prosecute anyone within shouting distance of the Capitol on January 6 of 2020.

In 2021, it was revealed that the CDC spent approximately $420,000 of your tax dollars to purchse cell phone location data for tens of millions of Americans from a company called SafeGraph to monitor population compliance with lockdown orders, track movement patterns around vaccination sites, and analyze whether people were visiting churches, beaches, parks, gyms, your own front yard, and other locations in defiance of public health guidance. All while elites were doing it themselves in typical FU style. The legal authority cited and notification of the public? None. And sorry; Jacobsen v. Mass does not count (link, link, link, link).

Geofencing technology was deployed around vaccination sites in multiple states to deliver targeted advertising and monitor foot traffic. The same technology used by retailers to push coupons to your phone when you walk past their store was being used by public health agencies to monitor and push vaccination compliance in real time.

Let the contrast wash over you for a moment. The government told you it had no reliable way to track whether your child’s post-vaccination seizure was related to the vaccine or not... But at that exact same moment, was tracking you to make sure you were not attending Sunday Services. The surveillance infrastructure was not absent. It was being pointed in the wrong direction. Intentionally pointed in the wrong direction… Away from adverse events, and toward compliance with mandates.

Chapter VIII: The Military — DMED and the Data That Was “Corrected”

If you want to understand what a functioning vaccine AE surveillance system looks like (and what happens when it reveals numbers the top brass doesn’t appreciate), look no further than the United States military’s Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED).

The DMED is exactly what Ross Lazarus spent years trying to build for the civilian population… A comprehensive electronic health record system covering a defined population (approximately 1.4 million active duty military personnel) with decades of baseline data against which post-vaccination changes could be measured. In epidemiology, it would be considered a nearly perfect surveillance instrument. A healthy, young, regularly-screened population. Consistent medical record-keeping done via EHR. Decades of historical baseline, without selection bias.

In January 2022, attorney Thomas Renz presented data pulled from DMED to Senator Ron Johnson’s panel on federal vaccine mandates. What the data showed, compared to the five-year average baseline from 2016-2020 (link, link, link, link), were the following increases in the year following COVID vaccine mandates for military personnel (the OMG numbers are rounded)…

• Myocarditis: 2,800% increase

• Cancer diagnoses: 300% increase

• Miscarriages: 500% increase

• Neurological disorders: 1,000% increase

• Pulmonary embolism: 500% increase

• Bell’s Palsy: 300% increase

The Department of Defense’s response? DO NOT investigate. DO NOT convene emergency safety reviews. DO NOT pause the vaccine mandate while the numbers are examined. Instead, within days of the Congressional Hearing, the DoD announced that the pre-2021 DMED baseline data had been (cough cough) “corrupted by a data error” (kind of like that hard drive linked to the cameras watching Epstein that just happened to fail at the precise moment he was, ‘cough cough,’ hanging himself). And surprise, surprise, the corrected numbers showed no significant signal.

What really happened?

The government’s response to data showing catastrophic post-vaccination injury rates in the military was to retroactively alter the baseline data against which those injury rates were measured (substituting data that was utterly implausible), to make the spikes on the graph disappear. Thomas Renz filed legal action. Independent researchers who had downloaded the original data before the “correction” documented the changes. And as all too many military personnel are aware, the mandate continued, with many (MANY) of our best and brightest leaving rather than getting the jab (love ya Bubba Boots!).

The DMED episode is the clearest illustration of the unifying theme of my three-part series. When a functioning surveillance system shows accurate data, the response is not to act on the data. The response is to either change the data or make sure said surveillance system was still running on floppy disc technology. I would argue that the purpose of the surveillance systems we’ve discussed in this series has never been about accurately capturing AEs, but to manage the AEs (Give me an opinion WtE!).

Chapter IX: The Lazarus Moment That Never Came — And What It Cost Us

As documented in Part II, in 2015 Drs. Klompas and Platt (Lazarus’ original co-authors in the HHS / Pilgrim Study) were working on the SHEPheRD AE surveillance program. It worked. But although the system increased VAERS reporting rates by a factor of 30, nobody in the CDC built on it, scaled it, or called to say another research grant was on the way. Instead, the system was shelved. And then came COVID.

Instead of using a recent system (or picking up the phone to tell Lazarus, Klompas, and Platt to dust off their capes), HHS inexplicably built a completely different program (V-Safe) from scratch. In 68 days. And then its data was locked away from the public for two years (not to mention it intentionally hid AEs by not having check boxes for some of the most common serious COVID vaccine AE’s like myocarditis). And remember the other surveillance tools mentioned in Part II…..? CISA created new tracking systems. Sentinel BEST was expanded. The VSD was theoretically available but practically inaccessible to independent researchers (we will touch on this again in the final chapter).

Oh, you are one of those who think it was not done intentionally? Still?

During the 40-month Harvard Pilgrim study window, 376,452 vaccinated patients in one Boston-area physician group representing less than 0.15% of the national population), Dr. Lazarus’ automated (NOT a passive system, as every single COVID-era system either was (at least functionally speaking) or limited as to who could access it) flagged 35,570 possible adverse events. A single Boston-area physician group representing less than two-tenths of one percent of the American population generated AE red flags equal to roughly one quarter of everything the entire nation reported to VAERS over the same forty months.

Remember my numerous “If/Then” questions I used to break the biggest AI’s on the planet regarding their part in censoring COVID-related AE’s (as well as tech’s role in all things COVID)…..?

• If those two systems had been scaled nationally…

• If the CDC had cooperated in 2009 and/or 2015…

• If the VSD’s nine million covered lives had been connected to the ESP platform...

• If the military’s DMED data had been treated as signal rather than embarrassment…

• If V-Safe’s 782,913 people who sought medical care following COVID vaccination had been automatically prompted to file VAERS reports the way the Lazarus/Klompas/Platt systems prompted their doctors…

Then, we, as a nation, would have had a far more accurate epidemiological picture of the myriad of dangers associated with the COVID vaccine. Which is why these systems were designed and managed exactly as they were designed and managed.

Chapter X: Non-Vaccine-Related AEs - The Other Surveillance Black Hole

COVID’s broken surveillance story does not end with vaccines. The financial incentivization architecture that handsomely rewarded the mRNA COVID vaccine with your tax dollars, likewise, rewarded other treatments with your tax dollars, creating identical distortions in AE data. Remdesivir (widely referred to as “Run, Death is Near”) is the most damning example of many damning examples. The nickname was not a joke - it was a clinical observation.

The NCTAP add-on payment discussed earlier financially rewarded hospitals for administering remdesivir to COVID patients. A drug that had already failed against Ebola. A drug the WHO recommended against after its own Solidarity Trial (8,275 patients showed no reduction in mortality or time to discharge). A drug whose kidney toxicity signal appeared in the WHO’s own pharmacovigilance VigiBase, in the FDA’s FAERS system, and in peer-reviewed journals, showing acute kidney injury as the most frequently reported adverse event, with a death rate among those cases of 36.45%.

Enter the FAERS program (FDA Adverse Event Reporting System) - the VAERS-equivalent for non-vaccine medications… Similar to VAERS in more ways than one, mostly because it runs on the same foundational flaw as VAERS…

It’s passive, voluntary reporting, with no legal obligation for physicians or hospitals to file. In fact, peer-reviewed analysis found as few as 0.01% of adverse events for some drug classes ever reached the database (1 in 10,000 if you are keeping score at home). Furthermore, the FDA’s own Public Dashboard acknowledges that the data are not an indicator of the safety profile of any drug. As for remdesivir specifically, every major clinical trial excluded the sickest, most renally-compromised patients, which is the exact population receiving it in the real world. And the signals that did emerge were found by researchers after the fact, not by real-time pharmacovigilance.

But as you might imagine, the surveillance story gets even worse for COVID…

For COVID vaccines, EUA status routed adverse events to VAERS rather than FAERS - the system that BMJ called ‘broken,’ and where the CDC reviewed nearly 20,000 death reports, acknowledging zero. For remdesivir, mandatory FAERS reporting was technically required under the EUA, but evaporated the moment full FDA approval landed on October 22, 2020, inexplicably reverting to ‘voluntary reporting’ mid-deployment. The CICP rejected 98% of COVID countermeasure injury claims, and the CDC killed the Harvard automated VAERS fix in 2010. None of this was accidental - prove me wrong.

For the record, antivirals suck beyond belief for whatever is claimed of them. I only mention that because “Run, Death is Near” (aka remdesivir) has an equally-crappy predecessor, which you’ve likely heard of - Tamiflu - of which 60% of its clinical trial data fell into the research community’s black hole known within said community as “Invisible & Abandoned”. Dr. Kevin Schierling (no relation - wait, actually he’s my little bro) wrote a letter to the editor in Emergency Medicine News that I wrote about a decade ago.

But it gets even worse regarding drug AE reporting during COVID…

Nobody was systematically tracking what remdesivir was doing to patients (VAERS does not capture drug AEs in hospitalized patients). The government had no functioning infrastructure to capture what its financially incentivized treatment protocols for other drugs were doing to the people receiving them. Which segues to one of the most moronic medications of the entire pandemic, Paxlovid.

Paxlovid was yet another terrible antiviral promoted as the outpatient answer to remdesivir’s hospital failures, revealing its own ‘surveillance failure’ in the form of a phenomenon widely known as “Paxlovid Rebound”. Patients would complete the five-day course, test negative, and then test positive just days later, with symptoms returning. The rebound-effect became impossible to ignore when three of the most prominent faces of the entire COVID response experienced it publicly. The head of the CDC, Rochelle Walensky, Joe Biden, and the Fowchster himself… After promoting it in true PT Barnum style! The drug was also associated with mountains of AEs (study, Fizzer’s warning label) for which there was no surveillance apparatus.

While not a drug, ventilators tell a similar story. The reimbursement premium for ventilated COVID patients was substantial, leading it to become a major source of financial gain and iatrogenic harm, with mortality rates among ventilated COVID patients running dramatically higher than initially projected. The financial incentive to ventilate and the absence of reliable outcome surveillance collided at the very moment it was too late for many who had already been put on the machines. For instance, in this study, only about 1 in 5 ventilated COVID patients actually met clinical criteria for being vented.

Chapter XI: The Surveillance That Never Happened — Cancel Culture as Public Health Policy

Every surveillance system discussed in this series required someone to file a report, raise a concern, or publish a finding. Which means these systems were only as functional as the willingness of the people operating within them to speak out. Destroy the willingness, and you nip said “reports, concerns, findings, and/or speaking out” at their source. It’s known as “Cancel Culture” and is nothing new in the biomedical community (Royal Rife, Royal Lee, Fudenberg, Burk, Becker, and thousands upon thousands of others - large numbers of whom I consider heroes). It was, however, ratcheted up to never-before-seen levels during the pandemic. It was ‘surveillance’ of another kind (Big Brother is Watching You).

Here is a “Top-Ten” list of the disgusting level of professional Cancel Culture that occurred during the COVID era (list by Claude)…..

1. The Minerva Study “Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter-Tactics”

2. The Tablet Magazine “Dissidents” Profile “The Dissidents” Also related… “Persecution of doctors under Covid has pushed medical science back into the Dark Ages”

3. The Minerva Study’s PMC Companion Piece… “Suppressing Scientific Discourse on Vaccines? Self-perceptions of researchers and practitioners”

4. The Senate Hearing “COVID-19: A Second Opinion”

5. Board Certifications Revoked: Drs. Marik, Kory, McCullough “US doctors lose licences over Covid misinformation”

6. The Twitter Files Doctors: Malone, McCullough, Tyson sue Twitter Medscape

7. The Impact of Censorship on Covid-19 Policy Formation Medical Research Archives

8. California’s Anti-Misinformation Medical Law House Oversight Committee, 2023

9. ResearchGate: “These Are the Courageous Doctors Who Fought the Covid Farce and Paid the Price”

10. The Aaron Siri Senate Testimony, May 2025

Big list, but there were plenty of other areas where Cancel Culture was eating its own…

Medical Journals: Peer-reviewed research became the first line of suppression (go back to the earlier link and see what they did to Fudenberg back in the day). Papers raising vaccine safety questions were rejected on messaging grounds, not methodological ones. Peer reviewers killed counter-narrative papers before publication. The ones that made it through faced coordinated retraction campaigns. The journal Current Problems in Cardiology retracted a myocarditis signal study under pressure. The journal Vaccines saw a large portion of its editorial board resign after a safety monitoring paper triggered a political firestorm (the commentary on this study is amazing). Scientists were asked to revise conclusions, not because the science was wrong, but because the conclusions were damning to their product(s).

Hospital Credentialing: Pulling privileges is a regulatory nuclear weapon (think lawfare). Report to a medical board or strip a DEA number, and you’ve ended a career, while launching a process that consumes years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend. Peter McCullough, the most published cardiologist in American history, lost his hospital credentials. Paul Marik was driven out of Eastern Virginia Medical School after decades of practice (eventually giving up his license rather than fighting). Every physician who watched knew that if it could happen to medicine’s top tier, it could happen to them. Most chose silence. And every piece of silence-driven data became another gap in the AE record.

Social Media: Censoring social media (or sites like mine, for that matter) was not a conspiracy theory. It was confirmed in congressional testimony and the Twitter Files. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube operated under explicit agreements with the CDC and WHO to suppress content contradicting official guidance (expertise was based on one thing and one thing only - adherence to “Narrative Consensus”). Physicians were deplatformed for posting clinical case reports of adverse events… Precisely the kind of frontline signals a functioning surveillance system would have wanted to capture.

NIH Funding: Being funded (or more accurately, not being funded) requires no explicit threats. The furtive looks and whispers among colleagues are proof that researchers know. Toe the line, or you won’t get your grant. The incentive structure delivers the message silently and without a paper trail. The result is that today we have multiple generations of researchers who learn from day one exactly which side their bread was buttered on - which topics are safe to discuss (see previous “heroes” links) and which topics will destroy your career. Unfortunately, the topics unofficially ‘officially’ unofficially deemed off-limits are those for which accurate surveillance tools are needed most.

Professional Societies: The AMA, the AAP, and every major medical society issued statements framing any questioning of COVID vaccine safety as misinformation. When the organizations that grant professional legitimacy define the boundaries of acceptable inquiry, the inquiry stops. And the epidemiological data that inquiry would have generated stops with it.

What I want you to notice in the following quote - the position statement of Federation of State Medical Boards from July 29, 2021 - is that it was based not on “best evidence” (which the medical community slobbers endlessly about until it gets in the way of their money), but “consensus”….

“Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license. Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not. They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health.”

Chapter XII: What They Knew, When They Knew It, and How Long They Tried to Bury It

The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was approved by the FDA in 108 days, shattering every precedent in the history of American drug approval. The same agency that processed 451,000 pages of Pfizer’s submission in 108 days turned around and asked a federal judge to officially seal those records for 75 years. The FDA’s attorneys stood before U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman and argued, with straight faces, that it needed until the year 2096 to release Pfizer’s approval data to the American public. Pittman flipped the script, ordering 55,000 pages per month, meaning the entire cache would be public within eight months.

This sordid story begs a question that literally asks itself…. If Fizzer’s data supported the vaccine’s approval, what exactly were they (both Fizzer and the FDA) hiding by asking that same data to be sealed until every one of you reading this sentence, along with your children and quite possibly many of your grandchildren, is dead? The answer arrived in the first document batch, released March 1, 2022, after a coalition of more than thirty scientists and physicians from Harvard, Yale, UCLA, and Brown had been forced to sue the FDA to get it. The document, marked by Pfizer as “PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL,” covered the first three months of the vaccine’s rollout.

In those 79 days, Fizzer’s own internal surveillance captured 158,893 adverse events, 1,223 deaths, 75 cases of vaccine-associated enhanced disease with 38 fatal outcomes, and an internal flag describing vaccine-associated myocarditis as an “unexpected serious risk”. Buried in the appendix was a list of 1,291 Adverse Events of Special Interest. Conditions it identified as worthy of active surveillance after only (gulp) seventy-nine days (the EUA was signed December 11, 2020 - Fizzer’s document closed February 28, 2021). The public was told the side effects were rare and mild, but Fizzer was privately watching for 1,291 AEs, admitting so in a document labeled ‘proprietary & confidential’.

The surveillance failure documented throughout this series, VAERS running at an under-reporting factor of 26, despite telling the public that over-reporting was its biggest problem now, V-Safe data locked behind two years of FOIA litigation, the CDC reviewing nearly 20,000 death reports and acknowledging zero… It was not a bug, but a feature.

Surveillance systems that actually worked would have generated data the government could not afford to release. Another way to think about it… Systems designed to fail generate data that can be managed, delayed, and buried… Released when every person who received the shot had died of old age. The only thing standing between that plan and its execution was a four-page court order quoting Founding Father, James Madison.

Be sure and watch for my next article, a short (I promise) summary of my recent eight-part series, titled “The Language of Censorship & Propaganda -vs- The Language of God”.