Epic data fraud follow-up
Validation of concerns from the CDC and Epic users themselves.
In April of 2023 I published An Epic Covid Fraud, detailing my concerns about how the predominant hospital software in the United States lacks nuance in accurately capturing the Covid vaccination status of hospitalized Americans.
I didn’t want to write that Substack. I wanted a reporter with some reach to get it out there. Nobody I asked seemed interested, so I did it myself. It felt like screaming into the void.
I wasn’t the only one who noticed the issue, however. A healthcare system in Kansas and Missouri noticed and decided to do a study on it:
"A manual query of the local Immunization Information Systems for 4114 adult patients with “unknown” vaccination status showed 44% of the patients were previously vaccinated."
“The EHR system used is Epic.”
44% is a staggering number. How does this compare to other health systems? Better? Worse? As far as I know, this study is unique, but it shouldn’t be. It should be repeated throughout the country.
If you adjust the CDC’s data on hospitalization rates by vaccination status by 44%, the vaccines show, at best, negligible efficacy and possibly harm (depending on the variant and time since vaccination).
But wait, there’s more!
Via publicly available meeting minutes, I’ve also come to understand that the CDC themselves knew of this issue. Their confident public messaging was directly contradicted by their internal discussions:
Meeting minutes: National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, June 17, 2020
Page 55:
I think COVID-19 has better than ever highlighted the problems with the data we have in public health.
…
That has, again, in this data sort of environment around COVID-19, that has been exposed in a very raw way about how we can get data quickly from one point to another point, and then it sits and has to be manually transcribed or some other archaic way of getting that data moved to the next part of the data stream.
Page 59:
I am also concerned about clinicians and hospitals and all the people who are in the reporting chain from the very front line to public health, whether it be at the state and local level or at the national level, and you know, we've had a history with, for example, with case reporting.
When Operation Warp Speed was announced to the American public, we were reassured that no step would be skipped, no stone unturned in looking at vaccine safety and efficacy. Healthcare authorities also knew long before the first dose of mRNA was given that our data systems were broken.
Were they fixed prior to the rollout? No.
Was the fact that they were known to be broken taken into consideration as data around the “safe and effective” narrative was gathered? It seems not.
Is the lack of data integrity glaringly evident? Absolutely: simply look at how US data and policy compares to the rest of the world.
Why do we keep finding examples of rank-and-file staff trying to sound alarms while those in leadership positions promote opinions and policies that they have no right to be so confident about, according to their own data and their own staff? The people who preach “follow the science” the loudest have, again and again, been the gaslighters, the liars, and the frauds.