Florida Surgeon General accuses CDC and FDA heads of ignoring 'many of the risks associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines'



Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo has written a letter to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky and U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Robert Califf, accusing the public health officials of ignoring many risks related to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

"Your ongoing decision to ignore many of the risks associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, alongside your efforts to manipulate the public into thinking they are harmless, have resulted in deep distrust in the American health care system," Ladapo declared in the May 10 letter.

He asserted that their "collective decisions to deny that natural immunity confers comparable or superior protection to COVID-19 vaccination, push mRNA COVID-19 boosters for the young and healthy, and delay acknowledging the risks of vaccine-induced myocarditis have only sowed doubt between the American people and the public health community."

The Sunshine State public health official listed a number of requests — among them, he pressed for the officials to "report why randomized clinical trials were not required prior to the approval of mRNA COVID-19 boosters, including the new bivalent booser." He called for them to "Report the number of adolescents that have died within days of receiving a second dose or booster of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine," and to "Explain why you have not required Pfizer to report results of its randomized trial in pregnant women ... which was completed in July of 2022." He also made various other requests.

\u201cWhen I asked the feds for more honesty and transparency around COVID-19 vaccine data, they replied with a word salad of pandering and gaslighting. \ud83d\ude44 Here\u2019s my response. Let\u2019s try again, @CDCgov @US_FDA.\u201d
— Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD (@Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD) 1683763252

In a March response to an earlier letter from Ladapo, Walensky and Califf had promoted COVID-19 vaccination.

"We stand firmly behind the safety and effectiveness of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which are fully supported by the available scientific data. Staying up to date on vaccination is the best way to reduce the risks of death and serious illness or hospitalization from COVID-19. Misleading people by overstating the risks, or emphasizing the risks without acknowledging the overwhelming benefits, unnecessarily causes vaccine hesitation and puts people at risk of death or serious illness that could have been prevented by timely vaccination," they wrote.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

COVID-19 vaccines should be added to immunization schedules for kids and adults, CDC advisory panel recommends



The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously on Thursday in favor of recommending that COVID-19 vaccines be placed on the immunization schedules for children and adults.

"Today, CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended updates to the 2023 childhood and adult immunization schedules, which includes incorporating additional information for approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines. CDC only makes recommendations for use of vaccines, while school-entry vaccination requirements are determined by state or local jurisdictions," a press release from the government agency noted.

"It has been almost two years since COVID-19 vaccines were first rolled out in the U.S., and nearly 630 million doses have since been administered nationwide, providing people with critical protection against severe COVID-19. ACIP's recommendation to add COVID-19 vaccines to the routinely recommended vaccine schedule represents another step in the nation's recovery," the release claimed. "The updated schedules and program guidance will be published in early 2023."

The CDC was already recommending COVID-19 vaccination for people aged 6 months and older.

While the move to add the vaccines to the vaccine schedule for kids does not impose any sort of vaccination mandate for schools around the U.S., local policy makers could potentially look to the schedule's recommendations for guidance.

"The ACIP voted unanimously to add the Covid vaccine to the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule for kids. The CDC will likely approve it. The CDC already recommends everyone 6 months and older receive the vaccine so the vote today was not a surprise, merely a formality," Dr. Nicole Saphier tweeted. "Today's vote in itself is not a mandate. When state/local authorities form vaccine requirements for school & other activities, they often defer to the CDC’s immunization schedule. It is to be seen whether Covid vaccines will be required for some kids to attend school," she added.

\u201cToday\u2019s vote in itself is not a mandate.\n\nWhen state/local authorities form vaccine requirements for school & other activities, they often defer to the CDC\u2019s immunization schedule. \n\nIt is to be seen whether Covid vaccines will be required for some kids to attend school. 2/2\u201d
— Nicole Saphier, MD (@Nicole Saphier, MD) 1666288710

Florida surgeon general Joseph Ladapo tweeted on Wednesday, "Regardless of what @CDCgov votes tomorrow on whether COVID-19 vax are added to routine child immunizations - nothing changes in FL. Thanks to @GovRonDeSantis, COVID mandates are NOT allowed in FL, NOT pushed into schools, & I continue to recommend against them for healthy kids."

\u201cRegardless of what @CDCgov votes tomorrow on whether COVID-19 vax are added to routine child immunizations - nothing changes in FL. \n\nThanks to @GovRonDeSantis, COVID mandates are NOT allowed in FL, NOT pushed into schools, & I continue to recommend against them for healthy kids.\u201d
— Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD (@Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD) 1666127639

How prominent public health agencies are skewing vaccine effectiveness statistics in the US - #Denominatorgate



The Centers for Disease Control (CDC @CDCgov) and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (NYC Health @NYCHealthy) are misleading us about the risk of being unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 (CoV2).

They are doing this through two basic errors. First, they appear to be using outdated population estimates that grossly undercount the actual number of unvaccinated persons in the United States. This leads to artificially inflated estimates of COVID-19 case rates among the ever-shrinking unvaccinated population.

Second, they appear to be counting every person for whom they cannot verify vaccination status as an “unvaccinated person.” In many cases, it appears that it is taking health agencies weeks, if not months, to properly match COVID-19 hospitalizations with vaccination status, and we have no assurance that it is ever done properly at all. This has led to some jurisdictions quietly publishing significant corrections to their data weeks after initial publication — and after the media and public health officials have already run with the erroneous numbers. This is leading to both overstatement of the COVID-19 case rate for unvaccinated persons and understatement of the same rate for vaccinated persons.

A re-examination of the data without these errors will show that while the COVID-19 vaccines have been effective at reducing hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19, their effectiveness has been grossly overstated in America.

Consider these charts, which were widely promoted by American media in order to support the desirability of COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Based on these and similar charts, the nation’s leading health officials, including Dr. Fauci and President Biden, have erroneously claimed that you are up to 97 times more likely to die if you are not vaccinated and boosted against COVID-19.

Here\u2019s the deal: Unvaccinated individuals are 97 times more likely to die compared to those who are boosted. \n\nProtect yourself and those around you by getting vaccinated and boosted today.
— President Biden (@President Biden) 1644099241

WATCH LIVE: White House COVID task force holds news briefingyoutu.be

There is one huge problem with these claims: They are not true. Not only are they not true, but they are wildly out of sync with what we know about the efficacy of the vaccine in other countries, such as England, Scotland, and Denmark, where the difference between mortality and hospitalization rates for the unvaccinated and the boosted is in the single digits.

The CDC’s own website tells us where the problem begins. If you examine the CDC COVID Data Tracker page for “Rates of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by Vaccination Status,” the footnotes indicate, “An unvaccinated person had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen and has not been verified to have received COVID-19 vaccine.” Get it? If the health agency cannot specifically verify that you have been vaccinated by matching you with a vaccine record, you are automatically placed in the “unvaccinated” pile of cases.

However, a couple things should be obvious. First, matching deaths or hospitalizations to a vaccine record is a process that is a) imperfect and b) takes time. This means that, inevitably, the data will initially count at least some people as “unvaccinated” who have, in fact, been vaccinated, just because the records have not been matched up yet. And there is ample evidence, which we will discuss later, that this can take weeks or months to do properly. This has the obvious result of skewing both death and hospitalization numbers toward the unvaccinated population, at least in the initial publication of data.

A second factor — and perhaps more significant — is introduced by the CDC in its computation of what the entire population (and unvaccinated population) actually is. According to the CDC’s website, “Weekly age-specific incidence rates by vaccination status were calculated as the number of cases or deaths divided by…unvaccinated (obtained by subtracting the cumulative number of fully vaccinated and current estimates of partially vaccinated people from the 2019 U.S. intercensal population estimates)…”

In other words, the CDC calculates the estimated unvaccinated population in the United States by subtracting the total known number of fully vaccinated people (which it gets from fairly reliable data that is provided by state and county health agencies when vaccinations are reported to them) from an estimated total population count of the whole country. The estimate they are using is the 2019 U.S. intercensal population estimate.

This method of estimating the population is due to introduce significant errors into the CDC’s calculation. For one thing, the further the intercensal population estimate gets from an actual census, the less accurate it is presumed to be, and the 2019 intercensal estimate is as far as you can get from an actual census before a census is taken again. Second, the United States population grows every year, meaning that the further we get from 2019, those estimates get even more erroneous. For 2021 cases, there have been three years of population growth that have been ignored, meaning that both the total population count and the estimate of the non-vaccinated population are wrong.

To understand how these errors combine to vastly overestimate the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine, consider the diagrams created by @OurWorldInData in an article explaining death rates by vaccination status and how the base rate fallacy can mislead people. Basically, you must be aware of the percentage of people unvaccinated before you can accurately compare their deaths to percentage of deaths who are vaccinated.

In the figure above, which illustrates a hypothetical scenario, you see 10 total deaths split evenly among unvaccinated and vaccinated, but there are only 10 total unvaccinated people with 50 total vaccinated people. The result of this is a 5:1 death ratio for unvaccinated compared to vaccinated.

However, we must continue past this OurWorldInData example to show the effect of using incorrect population estimates.

It is likely, just comparing the latest estimates with the 2019 intercensal estimate, that the population of the United States is more than 5% higher than the 2019 intercensal estimate. However, assuming that the total increase is only 5%, which is almost certainly on the low side, the diagram below shows the impact of this error on the overall calculation of the vaccines' effectiveness.

Though the increase is only three, all three go to the unvaccinated side based on the CDC’s calculation method. The CDC knows for sure how many people have been vaccinated, because that data has been fed to it by local health agencies. It has to estimate the number of unvaccinated people by subtracting the known vaccinated population from the total population. So, every person who is added to the total population count is unvaccinated. In our example, increasing the total population by 5% increases the unvaccinated population by 30%, which then reduces the death ratio from 5:1 to 3.8:1.

But in addition, we also must calculate the effect of what happens when additional vaccine record matching occurs and finds that one of the five unvaccinated deaths was a vaccinated person.

In this hypothetical, this now reduces the death ratio from 3.8:1 to 2.75:1 for unvaccinated. If we match one more vaccine record, the ratio drops even further, to 2.08:1..

It is important to note that these are not actual figures, but rather only a crude example to illustrate how the math works.

If we plug in the actual data, we cannot know for sure the extent of the CDC data discrepancies, but we can try to approximate.

Since the CDC’s data only shows COVID deaths through Dec. 4 and is only updated once per month, I began looking at New York data in my home state. More specifically, I investigated New York City data because it is published in a large GitHub repository for anyone to peruse and is updated weekly.

When I first looked at the NYC Health COVID-19 Data site, I immediately noticed the dramatic difference between unvaccinated (97.46) and vaccinated (3.00) hospitalization rates, which is ~32.5:1 (Fig. 7). Besides this large differential appearing implausible, I also noticed the vaccinated line appeared to peak the week before (12/12), while unvaccinated was still skyrocketing. This did not make sense at all, which enticed me to explore how these rates were derived.

Take note of the description at the top of the graph, “Hospitalizations per 100,000 people (age-adjusted, for week ending on listed date).” From this, it is clear that there are at least two mathematical issues to uncover: 1) What population is being used for the “per 100K” calculation, and 2) How the age-adjustment is being done.

Within GitHub, I was able to find both explanations:

The NYC Health 2019 intercensal population estimate turns out to be 8,336,817 as shown in the figure below.

However, this number is much lower than NYC’s current population, which is estimated to be 8.85 million. The official 2020 Census shows 8.80 million, which would at least be a more reasonable population to use than 8.34 million. NYC Health acknowledged this in communication with the author but chose not to update key rate metrics due to not yet having all the granular demographic breakdowns:


Let’s see how this census issue affects both metrics I mentioned above. According to the NYC Department of Health, 76.03% of the total population is fully vaccinated, based on the known vaccinated population of 6,338,185 divided by the 2019 intercensal estimate of 8,336,817. However, according to the 2020 census, the total population is actually 8,800,000, which drops the fully vaccinated percent to 72.02%. Just using a more correct census drops the overall fully vaccinated percentage by almost exactly 4%. If the population vaccination percentage is believed to be higher than it is in reality, then the end result will be that vaccine effectiveness is overstated.

This will also have an impact on the calculation of COVID-19 case rate for the unvaccinated. For example, for the week of December 18, 2021, the NYC Department of Health shows 28,454 cases of COVID-19 among the unvaccinated. Assuming an unvaccinated population of 1,313,253 based on the old population estimate, they arrive at an unvaccinated case rate of 2,166.68 per 100,000 unvaccinated persons.

However, the actual unvaccinated population is at least 470,000 higher, based on the 2020 census. If we add those 470,000 into the unvaccinated population, the unvaccinated case rate drops to 1,595.62 per 100,000 — a decrease of 26.4%.

As you can see above, the differences come just from using a more appropriate population census. But this isn’t the only issue with NYC’s assessment of the data.

Separate from the per 100K population issue is the age adjustment process. NYC Health uses the CDC’s “Age Adjustment Using the 2000 Project U.S. population” document to perform its age adjustment. This document states:

Age adjustment, using the direct method, is the application of observed age-specific rates to a standard age distribution to eliminate differences in crude rates in populations of interest that result from differences in the populations’ age distributions.

This is a standard, appropriate step to take when the comparison cohorts have substantially different age distributions. This is what you would expect when comparing unvaccinated with vaccinated, but which weighting is NYC Health applying to its data? NYC has an unusual age distribution for the unvaccinated cohort, which skews heavily toward 65+ among adults. For example, the figure below demonstrates the age distribution of unvaccinated persons in NYC overlaid with the COVID death rate for the same age groups as of the week of Jan. 8, 2022 (peak deaths for NYC).

This chart illustrates some startling and counterintuitive data. Among other things, it suggests that there are more persons ages 75 and over who are unvaccinated than there are in age groups 13-24 and 35-74 combined. It also suggests that there are more unvaccinated persons in the 75 and over age group than all other age groups despite having the second-smallest total population. It also suggests that there are more unvaccinated persons among the 65 and over age group than among all persons aged 18-64 combined.

Given that elderly were the first population to receive access to the vaccine and that vaccinating the elderly has been the highest priority of virtually all public health agencies, seeing these startling distributions calls any age adjustment being used by New York City into question. Unfortunately, the NYC Department of Health does not publish COVID outcomes by age vaccination status, so we don’t know how the much higher death rate for individuals over the age of 75 is adjusted for in NYC’s rates.

NYC Health is not transparent with this process and has not shared the formula when requested through GitHub Issue submission.

Since we do not yet have the age-adjustment answers, the best we can do is calculate the crude rates (unadjusted) and compare. The graph below shows the difference when we remove the age adjustment AND apply the 2020 census to the unvaccinated rate. Doing so reduces the ratio of the unvaccinated death rate compared with the vaccinated death rate from 6.7:1 to 3.1:1 — a shocking 54% reduction. This figure is likely to increase even further, as it is probable that even more deaths will be changed from unvaccinated to vaccinated in the coming weeks.

The reason for that lies with the next major issue with the NYC data: vaccine record matching (VRM). It may have a more profound effect on the reliability of government data than anyone currently understands.

If you recall from the earlier CDC bullet #1, “unvaccinated” is defined as anyone whose vaccination status has not yet been matched with official records, which means that “unvaccinated” really just means “unverified.” It’s technically impossible to prove someone is unvaccinated, so health agencies simply attempt to verify vaccination for a given COVID case while assuming all others are unvaccinated. However, this verification is difficult, time-consuming, and inconclusive.

So how does NYC Health handle this? The GitHub documentation states, “‘Unvaccinated’ means people age 5 and over with no record of vaccination status.”

No record? Could it be possible that some vaccinated cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are temporarily included in the unvaccinated numerator and excluded from the vaccinated numerator while also remaining in the vaccinated denominator but not part of the unvaccinated denominator? If true, that would be a four-way hit to the unvaccinated-to-vaccinated comparison ratios, artificially inflating VE data for New York City.

Note the dramatic shift in the GitHub the week of Dec. 18, 2021, which went largely unnoticed. What could explain it? The most likely explanation is that vaccine record matching occurs over the course of time and could take as many as eight weeks to achieve high resolution. Some unknown numbers never get matched. Figure 20 below shows how many cases flipped from unvaccinated to vaccinated as part of the VRM process from its first release on Jan. 3, 2022, to the most recent update on Feb. 10, 2022.

Remember the original NYC Health chart showing Hospitalization Rates for the week of Dec. 18? This is how it looks now, after the shift noted above and when applying the 2020 population census, rather than the less accurate 2019 intercensal estimate.

Using this more accurate data, the hospitalization rate ratio for unvaccinated compared to vaccinated drops from 32.5:1 to 10.5:1, if we use the age-adjusted data, and all the way down to 4.1:1 if we use the non-age-adjusted data, an astounding 87% difference.

To be clear, this chart still shows that the vaccine has high effectiveness, but there is a real and meaningful difference in the public perception of being 4.1 times more likely to be hospitalized versus 32.5 times more likely to be hospitalized, if you are unvaccinated. The ratio is almost an order of magnitude lower, and that matters for public policy.

The shift from unvaccinated to vaccinated in NYC Department of Health’s data was not limited to the week of Dec. 18, 2021. Consider the data regarding COVID-19 deaths from the week of Jan. 1, 2022.

In this chart, the vaccinated deaths increased from 166 to 387 after vaccine record matching, an increase of 133%. Unvaccinated deaths also increased from 301 to 340, an increase of 13%. Clearly, although some unvaccinated deaths were changed to vaccinated deaths, the unvaccinated totals still increased slightly, due to the normal reporting lag for COVID deaths. After the shift, vaccinated deaths increased from 35.6% of the overall total to 53.2% of the overall total. This still shows that the vaccine had efficacy, since their share of the overall population is larger than 53.2% in New York City, but it does not show the same discrepancy as before.

I decided to ask the NYC Health data team about this on GitHub and got an illuminating reply.

This reply confirms that:

● Yes, the VRM process switches unvaccinated to vaccinated over time (without anyone reporting it or realizing it).

● Yes, this can happen in large numbers.

● Yes, cases that don’t find a matching vaccination record are counted as unvaccinated.

● Yes, even “unknowns” are lumped into the unvaccinated pool.

How big a deal is that? How many possibilities are there for an “unknown” or “unverified” case that actually was a vaccinated person? Let’s look at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health for some clues.

According to MDPH website, in Massachusetts:

● Vaccination identification relies on record matching between systems.

● Vaccinated cases can be undercounted due to simple clerical issues. Reminder: each vaccinated undercount is an unvaccinated overcount.

● Vaccinated hospitalizations are likely undercounted due to case investigation challenges with patient interviews.

One more example is the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) from its Weekly Vaccine Breakthrough Case Report. The OHA admits it was previously lumping unknowns into the unvaccinated cohort. How prevalent was this problem? According to the OHA site, “the vaccination status of approximately one-third of recent cases remains unknown. Oregon Health Authority (OHA) is working toward alternative methods to identify vaccination status for all reported cases in a timely manner. Beginning this week, cases with unknown vaccination status have been removed from... this report.” If Oregon represents a typical jurisdiction, a huge portion of the data being fed into the equation is summarily unreliable.

Credit to Oregon for recognizing the problem and taking measures to fix it; there is no indication that other jurisdictions have any plans to do the same.

The three charts below represent data from the OHA’s reports on Jan. 5, Jan. 20, and Feb. 10, respectively.

Look closely at the data for Week of Jan. 1, which shifts in a manner similar to NYC’s week of Jan. 1:

● Jan. 5 Report: 30.6% of cases were vaccinated persons.

● Jan. 20 Report: 42.7% of cases were vaccinated persons.

● Feb. 10 Report: 52.5% of cases were vaccinated persons.

○ Notice that 1 in 6 cases (17%) still have unknown vaccination status.

○ No cases were added to the total published on Jan. 5, but nearly 2,000 switched from unvaccinated to vaccinated while ~2,600 were switched to unknown.

○ Total shift in vaccinated % of cases: 30.6% -> 52.5% = 21.9 percentage points (+71.6%).

With the Mass DPH calling out its concerns directly, the OHA acknowledging and removing unknowns from the unvaccinated denominator, and NYC Health showing us how volatile the vaccine record matching process is, it’s reasonable to believe this is a widespread problem in the U.S. It’s a problem that would then assuredly roll up to the CDC’s aggregate data set being used to claim massive risk ratios — such as President Biden’s claim that the risk is 97 times greater — for unvaccinated individuals.

Beyond all of these data we see shifting from unvaccinated to vaccinated, there will still be some unknown number of vaccinated cases, hospitalizations, and deaths that never get moved out of the unvaccinated cohort. Because of this and the perpetually low population denominators, U.S. CoV2 vaccination data will always be skewed toward inflating the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine to some degree.

So, what should Americans do with this information?

To begin with, they should demand honesty, transparency, and truth. Even with a correct statistical analysis, there appears to be solid vaccine efficacy against severe COVID outcomes somewhere in the single digits. If that’s how much COVID vaccines help, then the public needs to know.

CDC recommendations carry with them extraordinary weight over state and local health departments, which themselves have demonstrated that they believe they have virtually unfettered power over the lives of Americans, particularly when acting in response to a pandemic. With that tremendous power to influence the lives of Americans, the CDC also assumes significant responsibility. It is critical for the public health community to inform both politicians and the public, most of whom have no expertise or background in infectious diseases or public health measures; however, that information MUST be honest and accurate.

I assume the CDC, NYC Department of Health, and other agencies like them are full of well-meaning, highly educated professionals who want to be honest and accurate. That assumption is the basis for my plea to have them evaluate their methodologies, be more transparent with the data, and then report that data in a believable manner that does not skew toward policy narratives.

We should not see comments like this from data team members at major health agencies:

Especially when the assertion is not only false abroad but is even false in the data set this person manages.

In this UKHSA table, you can see how every unvaccinated adult age group has higher case rates than vaccinated adults of the same age, and this is comparing against people with three doses, not just two.

In this NYC chart, I labeled the weeks of Dec. 18 and Jan. 1 on purpose to show how Dec. 18 has completed more of the VRM process and is thus closer together with a higher percentage of vaccinated cases (63.05). Dec. 25 and Jan. 1 are close but have not caught up as much yet. I expect the white line to exceed Dec. 18 as early as the Feb. 17 update. When that happens, the unvaccinated line (yellow) will move closer to the vaccinated line (blue).

It is unlikely that NYC’s case rates are truly inverse of the U.K., but these are the data we have for now. When you look at NYC Health’s current chart, you see clearly that the week of Jan. 8 is an anomaly due to the extreme difference between unvaccinated and vaccinated, but also because it shows an artificial vaccinated peak on 1/1 (orange line) just like I showed at the beginning with the original week of Dec. 18 chart (Fig. 7). However, this is the chart that got reported widely on social and legacy media without any critical thought or questioning.

But when you look at my chart below, you can clearly see how the VRM pattern is incomplete for the weeks of Jan. 8 and Jan. 15, where there is currently an artificial dip that corresponds with the inverse mountain on the NYC chart. As you can probably guess by now, the artificial dip in my chart will fill in, and the artificial spike on the NYC chart will lessen, along with a corresponding increase on the orange vaccinated line.

The blue area represents how each week appeared when that week’s data was first released. The yellow area represents how much that week’s data switched from unvaccinated to vaccinated. The more yellow you see, the more cases switched as a percent of that week’s total.

As NYC continues to shift unvaccinated COVID outcomes to the vaccinated side, these data will show less and less apparent vaccine efficacy, but no one will know unless this issue gets addressed not only in NYC but across the U.S.

By stacking the information deck against the public, the public health community and government are gambling with our lives. We deserve and should expect an honest accounting of COVID data devoid of bias and opacity. If truth and transparency are provided, the populace would trust these public institutions, which would lead to healthier outcomes for everyone.

For more content from Clayton Cobb, please visit his Substack here.

CDC director faces criticism from all sides over statement that 75% of COVID-19 deaths have 'at least four comorbidities'



U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky is being criticized from all sides over comments she made last week in an interview.

Appearing on ABC News to discuss Omicron variant death statistics, Walensky was asked about a new CDC study that found COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death. The study looked at more than 1 million people who completed primary vaccination (two shots, no booster, or one Johnson & Johnson shot) between December 2020 and October 2021. Researchers found that "severe COVID-19-associated outcomes" occurred only in only 0.015% of vaccinated people. Deaths were rare, happening in only 0.0033% of cases.

"Severe COVID-19 outcomes were defined as hospitalization with a diagnosis of acute respiratory failure, need for noninvasive ventilation (NIV), admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) including all persons requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (including discharge to hospice)," the study said. "Among 1,228,664 persons who completed primary vaccination during December 2020–October 2021, a total of 2,246 (18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated persons) developed COVID-19 and 189 (1.5 per 10,000) had a severe outcome, including 36 who died (0.3 deaths per 10,000)."

The study explained that people most at risk from developing a severe outcome were older than 65, are immunosuppressed, or have at least one of six other underlying health conditions.

Digging into these results on Friday, Walensky told "Good Morning America" that the vast majority of people who died of COVID-19 after primary vaccination had at least four underlying conditions that increased their risk of serious illness. Those conditions include diabetes, and chronic kidney, cardiac, pulmonary, neurologic, and liver diseases.

"The overwhelming number of deaths, over 75%, occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities. So really these were people who were unwell to begin with, and yes, really encouraging news in the context of Omicron," Walensky said, referring to deaths of vaccinated people examined in the study, not total deaths from COVID-19.

CDC director responds to criticisms on COVID-19 guidance l GMAyoutu.be

Some people on social media attacked the CDC director for allegedly speaking disrespectfully toward disabled or chronically ill people. Newsweek reported that Twitter users posted #MyDisabledLifeIsWorthy with comments criticizing Walensky for saying she was encouraged that COVID-19 deaths among the vaccinated appear limited to people with preexisting health conditions or disabilities.

"Contrary to popular belief, CDC Director, disabled people aren't just data points ... How callous to say you're encouraged by the prospect of their deaths," Imani Barbarin, a disability rights activist, wrote.

Contrary to popular belief, @CDCDirector, disabled people aren\u2019t just data points. Every life lost was loved by someone, someone\u2019s community member, someone\u2019s friend. \n\nHow callous to say you\u2019re encouraged by the prospect of their deaths. \n\n #MyDisabledLifeIsWorthy
— Imani Barbarin, MAGC | Crutches&Spice \u267f\ufe0f (@Imani Barbarin, MAGC | Crutches&Spice \u267f\ufe0f) 1641695050

Matthew Cortland, a lawyer who suffers from a chronic illness, tweeted: "It is 'encouraging' to [Walensky] that chronically ill and disabled Americans are dying ... our deaths clearly don't count."

It is "encouraging" to @CDCDirector that chronically ill & disabled Americans are dying. It's no wonder that @CDCgov has consistently refused to issue guidance protecting the health & wellbeing of chronically ill Americans \u2013 our deaths clearly don't count.pic.twitter.com/zd3iBQTH0J
— Matthew Cortland, JD (@Matthew Cortland, JD) 1641608728

Many others shared similar comments, some of them nasty. The social media backlash prompted Walensky to respond on Sunday with a tweet emphasizing the CDC's dedication to protecting people with comorbidities from COVID-19.

We must protect people with comorbidities from severe #COVID19. I went into medicine \u2013 HIV specifically \u2013 and public health to protect our most at-risk. CDC is taking steps to protect those at highest risk, incl. those w/ chronic health conditions, disabilities & older adults.
— Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH (@Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH) 1641772496

"We must protect people with comorbidities from severe COVID-19. I went into medicine—HIV specifically—and public health to protect our most at-risk," she wrote. "CDC is taking steps to protect those at highest risk, including those with chronic health conditions, disabilities and older adults."

But the CDC director faced more backlash for entirely different reasons. Several individuals called attention to Walensky's comment that over 75% of COVID deaths were people with "at least four comorbidities." These critics took her comments out of context, leaving out the vaccination effectiveness study and claiming she was saying that 75% of all coronavirus-related deaths were from people with comorbidities.

"How many had 2/3 things that would likely kill them or were in late stage terminal cancer, or were hit by a bus?" Donald Trump Jr. asked. "Whats the # of truly healthy?"

CDC Dir. says over 75% of covid deaths were people with \u201cat least 4 comorbidities\u201d & were \u201cunwell to begin with\u201d\n\nHow many had 2/3 things that would likely kill them or were in late stage terminal cancer, or were hit by a bus?\nWhats the # of truly healthy?https://twitter.com/i/status/1480566096113680388\u00a0\u2026
— Donald Trump Jr. (@Donald Trump Jr.) 1641840437

"This means they shut down the country, stole two years of education from children, sent thousands of businesses under, and caused mass hysteria when only 209,000 deaths weren't people already deathly sick," Greg Price, a senior digital strategist for X Strategies LLC, a political consulting and digital marketing firm, said.

There have been 836,000 covid deaths in America. \n\n75% of 836K is 627,000.\n\nThis means they shut down the country, stole two years of education from children, sent thousands of businesses under, and caused mass hysteria when only 209,000 deaths weren't people already deathly sickhttps://twitter.com/LucasFoxNews/status/1480566096113680388\u00a0\u2026
— Greg Price (@Greg Price) 1641835199

These critics and others thought Walenksy's comments confirmed a long-held suspicion by many people skeptical of COVID-19 lockdowns and government mandates that reported COVID deaths were inflated by counting deaths with COVID alongside deaths from COVID.

Data from New York, for instance, shows that more than 40% of all COVID-19 hospitalizations in the state are patients that were admitted to the hospitals for reasons other than coronavirus infection or were complications from the virus. Last week, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) ordered hospitals to start differentiating why COVID-19 patients were initially admitted in their daily COVID reports.

Walensky was asked directly about this issue on "Fox News Sunday," hosted by Bret Baier.

"Do you know how many of the 836,000 deaths in the U.S. linked to COVID are from COVID or how many are with COVID, but they had other comorbidities? Do you have that breakdown?" asked Baier.

"Yes of course with Omicron we're following that very carefully," Walensky responded. "Our death registry of course takes a few weeks ... to collect. And of course Omicron has just been with us for a few weeks. But those data will be forthcoming."

Her non-answer only frustrated her critics, who demanded to know when that data would be released so that science, not fear of death from COVID-19, would inform policy makers with the power to close schools, businesses, and mandate masks or vaccination during a pandemic.

Liberals express outrage over new COVID isolation guidelines, push debunked conspiracy theory involving Delta Air Lines



Progressive ideologues voiced outrage this week after the Biden administration relaxed quarantine requirements for people who test positive for COVID-19.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced new guidance on Monday that people who test positive for COVID should isolate themselves for only five days — down from the agency’s previous requirement of 10 days.

Specifically amid the latest wave of COVID infections, businesses have experienced pressure from a significant increase of employees who have become sick with COVID and are thus being forced to stay home for two weeks.

What was the reaction?

People angry over the updated guidelines charged that the Biden administration made the change to appease corporate interests. Accusers cited Delta Air Lines, which has suffered staffing issues and therefore canceled flights due to sick staff members in recent weeks.

Some of the most circulated accusations included:

  • Jemele Hill: "For example, every media outlet should include that Delta CEO Ed Bastain asked the CDC to reduce the recommended quarantine time from 10 days to 5 for vaccinated people because of workforce impact. That’s not a health decision. The media needs to frame it that way every time."
  • Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.): ".@CDCgov is saying 'we need people back to work quicker even if they are still sick.' Is this based on public health and science? Or is this in response to corporations like Delta who asked for shorter times? ... Public health decisions should be purely based on public health, not the needs of CEOs."
  • Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: "I suspect Delta Airlines have way more influence than they should because they are based in Atlanta (CDC hq)… Delta shouldn’t be able to lobby the CDC like this!!"
  • Judah Friedlander: "Congrats to the Airline CEOs on being appointed head of @CDCgov. I always get medical advice from Airline CEOs. Glad the @CDCgov is listening to them."
  • Don Winslow: "Dear @CDCgov and @CDCDirector You don't work for Delta Airlines.You should not do what their CEO ask you to do.This wasn't a health decision.It was a political one.You have made a serious mistake here."
  • Russell Foster (D-Texas): "So we find out that Delta CEO Ed Bastain asked the CDC to reduce the recommended quarantine time from 10 days to 5 for vaccinated people because of workforce impact. This change has nothing to do with the virus or your health & everything to do with the profits of corporations."
  • Jesse Jae Hoon: "If you're wondering which scientist the CDC is basing their decision to halve the quarantine time from 10 to 5 days on, it's… Delta CEO Ed Bastian."

What is Delta's role?

Delta CEO Ed Bastian did, in fact, write to CDC Director Rochelle Walensky last week asking her to cut the quarantine requirement from 10 days to five days for vaccinated people who experience a breakthrough COVID infection.

"With the rapid spread of the Omicron variant, the 10-day isolation for those who are fully vaccinated may significantly impact our workforce and operations," Bastian wrote. "Similar to healthcare, police, fire, and public transportation workforces, the Omicron surge may exacerbate shortages and create significant disruptions."

But what did the CDC say?

Walensky confirmed Wednesday that her agency altered quarantine guidelines based on what public health officials believe Americans can tolerate — not corporate interests.

"It really had a lot to do with what we thought people would be able to tolerate," Walensky said on CNN.

\u201cIt really had a\u00a0lot to do with what we thought\u00a0people would be able to\u00a0tolerate,\u201d CDC Director Walensky says on why the CDC shortened the isolation period from 10 days to 5 days if you\u2019re asymptomatic. Our full interview:pic.twitter.com/rO7blPFiPj
— Kaitlan Collins (@Kaitlan Collins) 1640782912

Biden administration reverses travel ban on African countries



The Biden administration announced Friday that it would lift the ban on travel to the United States from eight African nations, reversing a policy that the administration imposed after the outbreak of the Omicron variant of COVID-19.

The administration imposed the ban on November 29th after the Omicron variant was first detected circulating in South Africa. The initial order prohibited any non-citizen who had recently been in the countries of South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Lesotho, Eswatini, Mozambique or Malawi from entering the United States. The ban will be allowed to expire on December 31st.

A White House spokesperson tweeted about the decision Friday morning, saying that it was "recommended by [the CDC.]"

On Dec. 31, @POTUS will lift the temporary travel restrictions on Southern Africa countries. This decision was recommended by @CDCgov. The restrictions gave us time to understand Omicron and we know our existing vaccines work against Omicron, esp boosted.https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/exclusive-us-lift-travel-curbs-eight-african-countries-source-2021-12-24/\u00a0\u2026
— Kevin Munoz (@Kevin Munoz) 1640352900

The tweet further claimed that the restrictions "gave us time to understand Omicron and we know our existing vaccines work against Omicron, esp. boosted."

While there is data suggesting that vaccines remain effective at reducing the severity of illness with Omicron, the vaccines have largely failed to prevent its spread, as Omicron appears to spread just as rapidly among the vaccinated population as among the unvaccinated. Preliminary data suggests that the Omicron variant is much milder in severity than its predecessors, but spreads more easily.

Travel bans have been a controversial element of the government's COVID mitigation strategy. In the early stages of the pandemic, the Trump administration announced a travel ban on flights incoming from China, a move that was blasted by then-candidate Biden as an example of "hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering."

We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science \u2014 not Donald Trump\u2019s record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency.
— Joe Biden (@Joe Biden) 1580594460

After Biden imposed his own travel ban and was confronted with this quote, he claimed, rather implausibly, that this referred to Trump's response to the Ebola virus crisis in 2014. Biden would later reverse himself on the campaign trail, saying, "Travel restrictions, when supported by science, advocated by public health officials, and backed by a full strategy can be warranted. Travel restrictions can buy time; but here, the time they bought for preparation was squandered when Trump used it to downplay, rather than ready the country for, the disease."

When Biden announced his own travel ban on the eight African countries, this move was likewise criticized by some health experts who declared that it would be ineffective.

CDC recommends that kids ages 5 to 11 get Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine



The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is now recommending that young kids ages 5 to 11-years-old get vaccinated with the pediatric Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

"Today, CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, M.D., M.P.H., endorsed the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' (ACIP) recommendation that children 5 to 11 years old be vaccinated against COVID-19 with the Pfizer-BioNTech pediatric vaccine," according to a press release from the agency. "CDC now expands vaccine recommendations to about 28 million children in the United States in this age group and allows providers to begin vaccinating them as soon as possible."

CDC accepted the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ (ACIP) recommendation that children ages 5–11 be vac… https://t.co/dfMtq05za7

— CDC (@CDCgov) 1635898027.0

Even among those in the U.S. who were previously eligible to get vaccinated against COVID-19, many have chosen not to do so. So far 67.9% of the U.S. population comprised of those ages 12 and older has been fully vaccinated, according to the CDC, while 78.2% of that demographic has received at least one dose.

"We know millions of parents are eager to get their children vaccinated and with this decision, we now have recommended that about 28 million children receive a COVID-19 vaccine," Walensky said in a statement. "As a mom, I encourage parents with questions to talk to their pediatrician, school nurse or local pharmacist to learn more about the vaccine and the importance of getting their children vaccinated."

In a statement on Tuesday President Biden hailed the news on Tuesday as "a turning point" in the fight against the illness.

"Today, we have reached a turning point in our battle against COVID-19: authorization of a safe, effective vaccine for children age 5 to 11," Biden said in the statement. "It is a major step forward for our nation in our fight to defeat the virus."

"Over the last several weeks, my Administration has been working hard to be prepared for this moment: we are ready to act. We have already secured enough vaccine supply for every child in America, and over the past weekend, we began the process of packing and shipping out millions of pediatric vaccine doses. These doses — specially designed for these younger children — have started to arrive at thousands of locations across the country," he said.

Last week the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized emergency use of the vaccine in 5 to 11-year-old kids. The agency noted that the dosage for these young kids will be lower, at just 10 micrograms, compared to the 30 micrograms administered to individuals 12 and above.

Fans of rapper Nicki Minaj protest against vaccine mandates outside the CDC headquarters in Atlanta



Fans of rap artist Nicki Minaj protested outside the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, after she tweeted her thoughts on the vaccine.

"Nicki Minaj told me the truth! Fauci lied to me!" the protesters chanted Wednesday, referring to White House coronavirus expert Dr. Anthony Fauci.

The fans were inspired by numerous tweets Minaj sent out, first explaining why she hadn't gotten vaccinated yet, then defending herself against the furious backlash.

One protester's sign read, "DEFEND NICKI AT ALL COSTS!"

@NICKIMINAJ told the truth to me, Fauci lied to me” Protesters are approaching cars leaving the @CDCgov in ATL.Clai… https://t.co/Xv4ovDDNhC

— Tori Cooper (@toricoooper) 1631722503.0

Minaj was ridiculed by some for tweeting that her cousin had avoided getting vaccinated because his friend reportedly became impotent after receiving the vaccine and experiencing swelling in his testicles. Health experts denied the possibility of the story and criticized Minaj for passing along unsubstantiated anecdotes.

Among those bashing Minaj were MSNBC anchor Joy Reid, who called on Minaj to tweet support for vaccines for her more than 22 million followers.

Minaj responded by lashing out at Reid, calling her a racial epithet and recalling her controversial past with homophobic blog posts.

Minaj then tweeted a video of Fox News host Tucker Carlson defending her skepticism on Wednesday and had to defend herself against those who called him a racist and a white supremacist. She later claimed on her Instagram account that she had been suspended from tweeting because of her claims.

She also compared the United States to communist China in an Instagram video post.

"You can't speak for the fear of the mob attacking you. If that doesn't give you chills up and down your f***ing spine. This is scary! You should be able to ask questions about anything you're putting inside your body," Minaj said. "You can't just innocently ask a question about something going in your body."

Although the Biden administration had previously said it was not the role of the federal government to mandate vaccination, President Joe Biden later announced that he would be doing exactly that for employees of companies with more than 100 workers.

Minaj has been nominated for Grammy awards 10 times.

Here's more about the anti-CDC protest inspired by Nicki Minaj:

Nicki Minaj tweet sparks local vaccine protestwww.youtube.com

Rapper Nicki Minaj blasts 'dumb a**' Joy Reid for chastising her COVID vaccine hesitancy on MSNBC, rips Reid as hypocritical and 'homophobic'



After rapper Nicki Minaj went viral Monday for stating her COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy on Twitter, MSNBC host Joy Reid chastised Minaj on TV for using her "platform" of 22 million followers to "put people in the position of dying from a disease they don't have to die from."

Well, Minaj wasn't about to take Reid's tongue lashing without a fight — and fired back at the far-left host, calling Reid a "dumb ass" and "homophobic" and "thirsty to down another black woman (by the request of the white man)."

What are the details?

Minaj indicated on Twitter that she wouldn't be attending the Met Gala because it required attendees to be vaccinated.

"They want you to get vaccinated for the Met. If I get vaccinated it won't for the Met. It'll be once I feel I've done enough research. I'm working on that now," Minaj tweeted Monday. "In the meantime my loves, be safe. Wear the mask with 2 strings that grips your head & face. Not that loose one."

They want you to get vaccinated for the Met. if I get vaccinated it won’t for the Met. It’ll be once I feel I’ve do… https://t.co/aL4ucdg78a

— Nicki Minaj (@NICKIMINAJ) 1631568090.0

Shortly afterward Minaj tweeted that her "cousin in Trinidad won't get the vaccine cuz his friend got it & became impotent. His testicles became swollen. His friend was weeks away from getting married, now the girl called off the wedding. So just pray on it & make sure you're comfortable with ur decision, not bullied."

My cousin in Trinidad won’t get the vaccine cuz his friend got it & became impotent. His testicles became swollen.… https://t.co/xQJa2xi9TX

— Nicki Minaj (@NICKIMINAJ) 1631569446.0

How did Reid respond?

Reid was in full finger-wagging mode against Minaj during the host's "ReidOut" program.

"You have a platform, sister, that is 22 million followers, OK? I have 2 million followers. You have 22 million followers on Twitter," an animated Reid said. "For you to use your platform to encourage our community to not protect themselves and save their lives — my God, sister, you could do better than that! You got that platform ... it's a blessing that you got that! That people listen to you. And they listen to you more than they listen to me!"

Reid added: "For you to use your platform to put people in the position of dying from a disease they don't have to die from, oh my God. As a fan, as a hip-hop fan, as somebody who is your fan, I'm so sad that you did that, so sad that you did that, sister. Oh, my God!"

.@JoyAnnReid responds to @NICKIMINAJ's tweets on the #COVID19 vaccine: "For you to use your platform to encourage o… https://t.co/jn4adsbyDm

— The ReidOut (@thereidout) 1631575349.0

Minaj fires back

Minaj wasted no time hitting back at Reid: "This is what happens when you're so thirsty to down another black woman (by the request of the white man), that you didn't bother to read all my tweets. 'My God SISTER do better' imagine getting ur dumb ass on TV a min after a tweet to spread a false narrative about a black woman."

The rapper used a racial slur in another tweet, calling Reid a "lying homophobic c**n." The "homophobic" remark presumably refers to Reid getting called out a couple of years ago over anti-LBGTQ blog posts attributed to her — for which she apologized although she couldn't fathom that she wrote them. So Reid figured hackers were out to get her.

Minaj also referred to Reid as "Uncle Tomiana" and pointed out that while she sat on a high horse calling out Minaj's vaccine hesitancy, Reid last September tweeted plenty of vaccine hesitancy herself: "I mean, will anyone ... anyone at all ... ever fully trust the @CDCgov again? And who on God's earth would trust a vaccine approved by the @US_FDA?? How do we get a vaccine distributed after this broken, Trumpist nonsense has infected everything? Even if Biden wins?"

As of Tuesday morning, Reid on her Twitter page has not answered Minaj's pushback.

Florida Health Department calls out CDC after agency pushed false claim that state set daily COVID case record: 'Wrong again'



The Florida Department of Health fired back at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Monday after the national public health agency amplified false information about the COVID-19 surge in the Sunshine State.

What did the CDC claim?

As the White House and Democrats continue targeting Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) for his leadership amid the COVID pandemic, the CDC claimed Monday that Florida recorded 28,317 daily COVID cases on Sunday, Aug. 8.

The number, if true, would have set a new record for daily cases in Florida.

But what is the truth?

According to the Florida Department of Health, the CDC circulated not just a misleading number but one that was entirely false. The state health agency said the CDC combined multiple days worth of cases and reported that number as a single-day count.

"Wrong again. The number of cases @CDCgov released for Florida today is incorrect. They combined MULTIPLE days into one," the FDOH said. "We anticipate CDC will correct the record."

In fact, Florida recorded 15,319 COVID cases on Sunday, more than 13,000 fewer than what the CDC claimed. The three-day average over the weekend was 18,795 daily cases, the FDOH said.

The daily case counts for Florida currently posted on the CDC COVID Tracker are incorrect. The current listing stat… https://t.co/GMb0ijsy2m

— Florida Dept. Health (@HealthyFla) 1628561974.0

It's not clear why the CDC published a miscalculation.

According to the Miami Herald, the CDC published the figure after combining, then dividing, the weekend case total.

One lawyer noted that the CDC has been updating Florida's case numbers from the weekend on Tuesdays, making Monday's update uncharacteristic. Still, the lawyer explained the CDC has been adding Florida's weekend total, then dividing it by the number of weekend days to formulate an average number of daily weekend cases.

The FDOH confirmed this is how COVID case reporting works for weekend data.

"Florida follows CDC guidelines reporting cases Monday through Friday, other than holidays. Consequently, each Monday or Tuesday, there will be two or three days of data reported at a time," the agency explained. "When data is published, it is attributed evenly to the previous days."

Why the weekend total was seemingly divided by two, instead of three, is not clear.

A spokeswoman for DeSantis wrote from her personal Twitter account Tuesday that she does not believe the CDC intentionally reported miscalculated figures, but called on the agency to immediately correct its data.

"To be clear: I don't have any evidence that the CDC reported the wrong COVID case number for Florida intentionally," Christina Pushaw said. "It could have been an honest mistake, so I don't want to jump to conclusions. But to clear things up, @CDCgov needs to correct the record & explain to the public."