Senate Hearing Opens a Rough File
A new Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report has put the COVID vaccine safety debate back under a bright light, and this time the questions are not coming from talk radio. Senator Ron Johnson says the findings explain how federal health officials could look at reports of harm and still act like everything was fine. According to the hearing material, the issue was not just whether warning signs existed, but whether the people in charge chose to treat them like an annoying fly at a picnic instead of a possible danger to the public.
What the Investigation Says
The report points to VAERS, the government’s vaccine adverse event reporting system, and says the number of reports after COVID shots far exceeded those tied to all other vaccines combined over more than 30 years. It also claims the COVID shots showed a much higher reported death rate than the flu vaccine, and says the data should have triggered a hard look from regulators. Critics will say VAERS is not proof by itself, and that is true, but when a safety system lights up like a Christmas tree, the grown-ups in the room are supposed to check the wiring instead of taping over the bulb.
The Masking Warning
The hearing highlights a March 2021 warning from FDA employee Dr. Ana Szarfman, who reportedly said the agency’s existing system could hide safety signals because of a flaw called masking. She suggested using a newer method developed by statistician Dr. William DuMouchel, and that method allegedly found 49 examples of extreme masking that the standard approach missed. The list included serious problems such as Bell’s palsy, cardiac failure, acute left ventricular failure, pulmonary infarction, stroke, and sudden cardiac death. If those names do not sound like minor side effects, that is because they are not exactly what most people mean when they say, “No big deal.”
Pressure to Stay Quiet
According to the report, Szarfman was told to stop creating and sending data-mining analyses and later was told to focus on her assigned work rather than discuss internal findings outside the chain. The hearing also says former FDA vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks told agency leadership that her work had become a major distraction and could feed anti-vaccine rhetoric. That may sound tidy in a bureaucratic memo, but public health is supposed to deal with facts, not manage feelings. If the data show a problem, the answer is to dig deeper, not to send the messenger to the basement.
What Comes Next
The report says Szarfman retired from the FDA in 2025 after more than 35 years of service, and the subcommittee argues that federal officials chose image control over transparency because they feared stoking vaccine hesitancy. The hearing is now part of a larger fight over how much Americans were told, when they were told it, and whether the people running the system put politics ahead of patient safety. Those are serious questions, and they deserve serious answers, not the usual fog machine from Washington. At the very least, the public should get full disclosure, honest debate, and an end to the habit of pretending inconvenient data does not exist.
For four years, Ron Johnson has wondered how US health officials could ignore “overwhelming evidence of harm” from the COVID vaccine.
“Now I know,” he says.
The truth is, health officials didn’t “ignore” safety signals. They buried them instead.
And now we have the receipts:… pic.twitter.com/h8xvIejUql
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) April 29, 2026
Dr. Szarfman went on to retire from the FDA in 2025 after more than 35 years of service.
She raised concerns about safety signal masking. The FDA essentially told her to shut up.
Because in their eyes, “49 examples of extreme masking” could create “erroneous conflicts” and fuel… pic.twitter.com/78iw20Obwh
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) April 29, 2026
WE’D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS! PLEASE COMMENT BELOW.
JIMMY
Find more articles like this at steadfastandloyal.com.
The post Hearing Puts Vaccine Safety Under Spotlight appeared first on Steadfast and Loyal.
Source by [author_name]
