VSD Is the Vault with the Secrets

Those who are confident about the safety of vaccines have before them an easy route to shore up public confidence and completely shut down the anti-vaxx movement. They could open the data to what’s called the Vaccine Safety Datalink or VSD. 

Right now and for the past quarter century, access is severely restricted to only a handful of people at the CDC and the employees of the National Center for Health Statistics Research Data Center, which has the impossible acronym NCHSRDC, in Hyattsville, Maryland. 

No one can buy the database or access, not the public, not researchers at NIH, not statisticians at universities nor medical doctors at hospitals. 

Cries for Help Injury and Death Buried in V-Safe Data Parts I & II · React19 Buy on Amazon

VSD is one of several systems designed to monitor safety. The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) is the portal through which doctors and citizens report injuries. The records of injury here from the Covid shot have broken all records for previous records by a thousand times over. 

Another system is the v-Safe system that allowed shot recipients to report before it was shut down. The result was more than 7 million records. Brownstone has published a 1,048-page book of the free-text fields that the CDC would only cough up under court order. The result is the book set Cries for Help.

But those who continue to say that the shots are safe dismiss both systems as mere anecdotal lacking in a rigorous system of establishing scientific causality. They say that the only real way to know traces to VSD, a program established in 2002 in cooperation with many health-core providers. Here and only here will you find the data you need. 

Sounds great, so let’s have a look!

Not so fast. There is an obstacle course, Nothing says “Trust the science” like a mountain of bureaucratic paperwork to get to existing evidence. There will be no fishing exhibitions, the CDC declares. You have to send a proper proposal with the title, your name plus two because only three people get the workstation. 

Then you write a summary of what you want: background, why this matters for public health, your actual hypothesis, and a methodology that is not just the abstract of someone else’s paper. Define the population, years, study type, variables, confounders, and exactly how you plan to analyze it.

Next comes a gauntlet of reviews. NCHSRDC checks if your proposal is complete, if the data even exist, if they have the staff, or if letting you near it risks spilling state secrets.Then you need a permission slip from an Institutional Review Board, send them the letter and final protocol, and remember that approval doesn’t let you start digging in. You are already hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars deep. 

Everyone then has to sign the “I Won’t Leak the Data and I’ll Behave” forms and the confidentiality affidavit. Only then does NCHS actually build or format your dataset. After that you get access under all the rules, procedures, and fees. You must be there in person. No electronics are allowed in: no cameras, no cell phones, nothing. 

Hence, as you can see, the science is settled even before the evidence is examined. In reality, no outside researcher has made it through this process for more than twenty years. Many have tried, hundreds of attempts, but they have never amounted to anything. A father-and-son pair of researchers once got through early on (Mark and David Geier) but their work was smeared even before it appeared. 

In effect, the VSD is among the most secretive services in the entire government, comparable to Fort Knox, the Federal Reserve, and the National Security Agency and Central Intelligence Agency. It’s the real Puzzle Palace. 

And remember that we are not talking about national security here. We are talking about products injected into the bodies of 99% of the public. In some states, you cannot exercise full citizenship rights as an unvaccinated human. 

I spent a few days looking at the published studies signed by the appointed few who are allowed access. These are the studies submitted to top journals like the Journal of the American Medical Association. They are in the lineup hours after submission, of course, because they are so rare and have the reputation of being the most credible. 

After about the fifth study, I started having deja vu. I feel like I’ve read this before. They all follow the same structure and method. Here’s some adverse events, but nothing unexpected (they would typically use a test-negative study design that conceals adverse events). Nothing really stands out. All close examinations using serious science are reassuring. 

This is weird. 

I wanted to confirm my intuition so I went to a robust AI service. It identified at least 28 VSD Covid-vaccine papers published 2021–2024 and read the language of 17 of them. It spotted the formula: A null result (“not associated,” “not significantly higher”) is followed by a policy sentence: the data “support the safety” of vaccination, “support recommendations,” “reinforce the safety profile,” or “offer additional reassurance.”

Then there is the sorting move. Signals that do appear are classified as known or expected, or attributed to confounding, and then excluded from the verdict. Your example: myocarditis, chest pain, and palpitation clusters are found, yet it concludes no unexpected serious events were seen and offers “additional reassurance.”

This analysis also spotted how few people are actually involved. The CDC’s Eric Weintraub (still there) is an author on 12 of 13 papers examined here; four other investigators appear on 8 to 10 of them. In the broader selection of VSD papers, Eric Weintraub is on the byline of nearly every VSD Covid shot safety paper

It gets weirder. Dr. Weintraub just so happens to be the “Project Leader” of VSD. He controls the keys to the kingdom. The main person he lets in is himself. Presenting the Prince of the Puzzle Palace:

The 17 below are the safety studies whose conclusion wording could be retrieved. Wording is quoted or closely paraphrased from abstracts. As you can see, there is a pattern here.

The dominant move is the leap from a null result to an endorsement: seven of the 17 abstracts close with a sentence about safety or recommendations that the statistical finding alone does not establish. Only two lead with a risk. Death is not examined in any of them, for the reason that science has already established that there is no increase (Xu, 2021). 

The vocabulary is small and repeats:

• “Support the safety of…” / “further support recommendations” — Lipkind 2022, Kharbanda 2023 (twice in one abstract), Denoble 2024; Boyce 2024 “supports the absence.”
• “Reassuring” / “reassurance” — Yih 2023a in the paper; Klein 2021 and Goddard 2023 in press statements.
• “Unexpected” / “known” / “as previously reported” — the three tree-scan papers, where it does the work of clearing detected clusters.
• “Reinforces the safety profile” — Xu 2021.
• “Surveillance is ongoing” — Klein 2021 and Hanson 2022, a promise of future answers in place of a caveat on the present one.

The authorship is concentrated.

It is a closed network. The same small group designs the studies, interprets the signals, and writes the verdicts, with no outside replication possible. The same journals reliably publish the results, which are then cited by all the pharma-funded public media. 

For its first decade (roughly 1990–2000), the VSD used a centralized model: participating health plans sent de-identified research data files to the CDC once a year for merging into a central database. But then some people started to worry about FOIA requests and prying eyes. 

In 2001 the CDC switched to an outsourced data model. Each participating site began assembling and maintaining its own data files on its own secure servers. Study-specific extracts are transferred securely as needed (via a hub server or direct protocol), but the source data no longer resides on CDC servers.

That way, the information cannot be FOIAed. Nor can it appear in court discovery because these cases cannot go to court. The industry is indemnified and bears no liability for harm. It is a closed system, carefully guarded, locked to outsiders, and shut to the public entirely. 

This is not science. It is a system one would construct if your intention was to fuel the rise of a movement of anti-vaxxers who trust none of these products ever. In all my years of research, I’ve never seen a structure so preposterous, inscrutable, or deeply suspicious. It would be a miracle if there were not a movement against all these products. 

Meanwhile, I’ve now finished 16 hours of live reading of Cries for Help. These are records of many thousands of people – representing probably a million or more – whose lives were destroyed or ended entirely by the decision to take the Covid shot. It led to immense suffering, professional calamity, and financial bankruptcy, with no recourse at all. In their own words reported to a government database, they are crying, screaming, in pain, begging for help, threatening suicide, and raging against the system they once trusted. Those who lived swore revenge. 

It adds grotesque levels of insults to grave and vast evidence of injury that official science would construct such obviously absurd access restrictions, clearly and obviously designed to hide something. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to see this. You only have to have a brain and a conscience. 

The VSD systems of statistical investigation might work beautifully at its core. In which case, it needs to be opened immediately. This proprietary data needs to be confiscated, anonymized, and distributed to not only competent experts but also to the general public. This needs to happen now. 

Until this happens, the growing movement of declaring a pox on the entire house of vaccine science will only grow and grow.