CDC knowingly labeled accurate news stories about the dangers of COVID-19 vaccines “misinformation,” internal messages show

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) routinely labeled accurate news articles as “misinformation” because they went against the government’s pro-vaccine narrative, a review of internal messages that were circulated widely within the CDC shows.

One of them referred to a peer-reviewed study that concluded that myocarditis, a type of heart inflammation, was more common among patients following COVID-19 vaccination than an infection with the virus itself.

In the study, Nordic researchers assessed electronic health records and found 530 cases of myocarditis following the vaccine versus just 109 after infection. It was printed by the highly respected British Medical Journal.

However, the CDC noted in an internal e-mail that it had been “picked up by anti-vax proponents as evidence that vax was more likely to cause myocarditis than COVID-19 infection.”

That email, which was dated February 7, 2023, listed an article from the Epoch Times about the peer-reviewed study in a list of “points of confusion/potential rumors/misinformation” without providing any additional information to support this classification.

A physician and scientist for the University of California San Francisco, Dr. Tracy Hoeg, told the Epoch Times that its article on the study “should not be labeled as misinformation,” adding that the study’s findings aligned with those of previous research, such as a paper printed in the journal JAMA Cardiology concluding that some populations had higher rates of myocarditis after receiving the vaccines than they did after being infected with the virus.

There were numerous other instances of similar studies being falsely labeled as misinformation by the CDC. For example, their emails show that a video in which a doctor explains data showing the COVID-19 vaccines have an adverse effect on gut health was labeled misinformation by the agency despite being based on published research.

In another case, the CDC labeled a story about the government being paid royalties from Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine as being misleading or inaccurate despite officials from the company disclosing in an earnings call that they had formed a patent agreement with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and had sent a $400 million payment, which would be followed by further royalties in the future.

A CDC e-mail that was dated in March of 2023 said: “Anti-vax proponents question Moderna’s new patent agreement with NIAID, citing catch up payments and royalties as a ‘conflict of interest’.”

Yet that’s exactly what it was, and the director of the NIAID’s parent agency, Dr. Lawrence Tabak, conceded that royalty payments present “an appearance of a conflict of interest.”

The Epoch Times pointed out that the CDC itself defines employees participating in matters that they have a financial interest in as a conflict of interest. The CDC’s parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, notes that a financial conflict of interest could jeopardize honesty, particularly when the financial interests in question are “significant” – and $400 million feels pretty significant.

Michael Chamberlain, the director of Protect the Public’s Trust, a nonprofit that aims to inform the public about conflicts of interest among government officials, told the Epoch Times: “The agency is quick to slap a derogatory label on any statements that don’t fit its preferred narrative, and just as quick to impugn the motives of anyone who dares make those statements. This is not government working for the people, it is government as adversary to the people.”

CDC labeled vaccine criticism “misinformation” so they could censor it

Last fall, a U.S. appeals court ruled that the CDC, along with other governmental entities such as the Surgeon General, FBI and White House, likely violated the First Amendment by coercing social media platforms to moderate content about vaccines that they claimed was “misinformation.”

Much of the pressure referred to in the decision took place in 2021 as the government tried to push people to get COVID-19 jabs.

The decision noted that the pressure “had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens.”

Sources for this article include:

TheEpochTimes.com

ProtectPublicTrust.org

TheHill.com