'Public Interest' Doesn't Interest the VA
The Hypocrisy of Denying Vital Information to the Public
Disclaimer:Â I refer to the COVID-19 vaccines as "pseudo vaccines." This terminology emphasizes that, prior to the COVID-19 debacle, these injections were classified as experimental therapeutics. Pfizer and Moderna registered them with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as gene therapies. They were relabeled as vaccines to mislead and increase public uptake
Many people would have declined them had they understood the novel technology being employed, the lack of testing, and the perverse financial incentives driving our medical community.
The VA's Transparency Crisis
Transparency and accountability are the cornerstones of public trust in our institutions, especially one tasked with caring for those who have served our country. Despite this axiomatic truth, my interactions with the VA's FOIA office have been fraught with difficulties, and I have encountered significant challenges in obtaining critical information from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
The VA Office of General Counsel (OGC) has systematically obstructed access to information that is clearly of profound public interest. This isn't just bureaucratic red tape, it's blatant disregard for the public's right to know. I have filed a formal complaint with the Office of Inspector General (OIG), and believe we should draw the public's attention to this vital issue.
The health, safety, and rights of veterans and VA employees are at stake, and it's crucial that we hold the VA accountable. Transparency and informed consent aren't optional.
They are fundamental rights.
FOIA Requests Denied by the OGC
More often than not, OGC denied requests for information that could have served the public interest. Sometimes the denials were preceded by colorful responses completely divorced from legal responsibility and unfortunately for veterans, these fanciful logic enigmas have real world impact for men and women seeking care.
There were 3 key FOIA requests denied:
VA Claims Data on COVID-19 Pseudo Vaccine Harm;
Year-Over-Year Data on Disability Claims;
COVID-19 Pseudo Vaccine Trials Conducted by the VA.
VA Claims Data on COVID-19 Pseudo Vaccine Harm
On 16 March 2023, I submitted a FOIA request for all veteran and VA employee COVID-19 vaccine adverse events reported in the VA Vaccine Event Reporting System (VA ADERS) and OHRS 2.0. I requested detailed information on each event, including:
Type and name of the vaccine given
Date of administration
Lot number and expiration date
Manufacturer
Vaccine dosage
Name and title of the individual who administered the vaccine
Whether it was the first dose, second dose, third dose, or booster
Detailed narrative of the adverse event (with personally identifying information redacted)
Reaction onset time compared to the time of injection
Treatment provided and location of treatment
Symptom/event resolution
If the patient died, the date and cause of death
I also requested that these reports be separated into categories for VA employees, veterans, and veteran beneficiaries.
On 3 April 2024, the VA’s Office of General Counsel issued a Final Agency Decision (FAD), withholding the requested information. FOIA Exemption (b)(3) in conjunction with 38 U.S.C. § 5705, which protects quality assurance records from disclosure, justified the erroneous decision. OGC also invoked FOIA Exemption (b)(6), which protects information in personnel, medical, and similar files where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The response is deeply problematic for several reasons:
Overly broad application of exemption (b)(3): The assertion that all adverse event data within the VA ADERS system is quality assurance material is overly broad. They are correct, it is a system that monitors for quality assurance; however, the products quality had already been established. That is why it was given an EUA and subsequent FDA approval. Quality assurance in the sense, was to ensure the public had informed consent. Adverse event data is crucial for public health monitoring and transparency. The broad application of Exemption (b)(3) raises concerns about the VA's commitment to transparency, especially when the data could inform veterans and the public about the risks associated with pseudo vaccines.
Misuse of exemption (b)(6): Application of exemption (b)(6) to protect the identities of individuals involved in these adverse events overlooks an obvious solution. Redact personally identifying information. My request to do so was ignored. The VA is effectively shielding critical information from public scrutiny, under the pretext of privacy. Given the USG’s Privacy Act failures, this makes the denial especially absurd.
Failure to balance privacy against public interest: The decision reflects a failure to adequately balance privacy interests with the public interest in disclosure. The public has a legitimate interest in understanding the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 pseudo vaccines, particularly when administered to a vulnerable population like veterans.
Withholding this data under the guise of protecting quality assurance processes and personal privacy is a significant barrier to transparency. This decision not only limits public awareness but also undermines efforts to ensure that veterans receive the best possible care in light of the potential risks associated with pseudo vaccines.
Year-Over-Year Data on Disability Claims
I requested year-over-year data on disability claims granted for each VA rating schedule diagnostic code, covering the entire veteran population from 2012 to the present. Specifically, I sought to understand how health conditions reported by veterans have changed over time, with a particular focus on the period following the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines.
OGC denied my fee waiver request, arguing that the data wouldn’t significantly enhance public understanding of government operations. This response is disconcerting, given the potential implications of the data.
Identifying trends and spikes in health conditions: Year-over-year data on disability claims is critical for identifying emerging trends and spikes in specific health conditions among veterans. Such patterns can serve as early warning signs of broader health issues that may be related to recent medical interventions, such as the widespread administration of COVID-19 pseudo-vaccines. For instance, a significant increase in claims for myocarditis, a condition linked to the vaccines, could validate concerns raised by other sources, including military whistleblowers.
Cross-verification with other data sources: This data could corroborate findings from other databases, such as the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED). In 2023, Navy Medical Service Corps officer Lieutenant Ted Macie revealed alarming increases in serious medical conditions among military personnel post-vaccination. If VA disability claims data shows similar patterns, it would strengthen the case for further investigation and potentially necessitate changes in policy or medical practice.
The broader implications of withholding data: The refusal to provide this data is an administrative hurdle and a missed opportunity to potentially prevent further harm. Veterans, who have served and sacrificed for this country, deserve transparency, especially when it comes to their health. Without access to this data, we are left in the dark about the true impact of COVID-19 pseudo-vaccines on their health.
Informed consent: Veterans and their families rely on accurate information to make informed decisions about their health care. By withholding this data, the VA is preventing veterans from fully understanding the risks they may be facing, thereby undermining their ability to make informed choices about their health and well-being.
The refusal to release year-over-year disability claims data is a direct threat to informed consent and bodily autonomy. This data has the potential to reveal trends in veterans' health that could inform public health decisions, guide future medical treatments, and ensure that veterans receive the care and attention they deserve. By blocking access to this information, the VA is not only obstructing public understanding but also potentially putting veterans at greater risk.
COVID-19 Pseudo Vaccine Trials Conducted by the VA
I had hoped the VA would provide details on the VA's involvement in Operation Warp Speed (OWS) and its participation in COVID-19 pseudo vaccine trials, but if you are following the direction the VA has been taking with my requests, you’ll know how the story ends. Here is what they didn’t include:
Trial locations:Â Moderna (Greater Los Angeles), Pfizer (Cleveland), AstraZeneca (NY Harbor), Janssen (multiple locations including Albuquerque, Atlanta, and others), Novavax (Ann Arbor, Miami), Sanofi (Bay Pines, Pittsburgh, Salisbury, San Juan).
Correspondence and communication:Â All internal and external correspondence related to these trials.
Partnership agreements:Â Copies of all agreements between the VA and vaccine manufacturers involved in OWS.
Ethics and compliance documentation:Â All documents related to the ethical review and approval of these vaccine trials.
Participant recruitment and retention:Â Records detailing recruitment and retention strategies for trial participants.
Evaluation and analysis:Â Reports and analyses generated from the trials.
Long-term tracking data:Â Data on the long-term health outcomes and adverse events of trial participants.
Emails and communications:Â Specific communications involving key VA officials.
The VA’s Office of General Counsel denied my request for a fee waiver, claiming the information was too technical for the general public and would not contribute to public understanding. There are two possible interpretations.
They actually think government lackeys are intellectually better equipped to understand the data that government lackeys are paid to produce, or…
They are just covering their rear ends. Aside from the obvious mental gymnastics in which one must engage to believe this cartoonishly thin justification, their denial poses a number of other problems.
Critical role in OWS: The VA’s involvement in OWS was central to the rapid development and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. The significance of these trials in the overall success of OWS cannot be overstated, making transparency about these trials essential for public trust and accountability.
Transparency and public trust: Full disclosure is vital to ensure that the vaccines were thoroughly tested and that the data genuinely reflects their safety and efficacy. The public deserves to know how these trials were conducted.
Ethical and leadership concerns: The leadership overseeing these trials, including Rachel Ramoni and Grant Huang, were involved in an improper bonus scandal, raising concerns about the integrity of the trial oversight.
Contradictory denial: The OGC's denial letter contains a key contradiction, acknowledging that the records "may reveal information about the operations or activities of the VA" while simultaneously arguing that disclosure would not "significantly contribute" to public understanding.
Many Feds For Freedom (F4F) members are aware that we are involved in FOIA litigation with DOD in an effort to acquire over 20,000 OWS documents, DOD has (so-far) refused to release. I had hoped we could break through this impasse and release information related to VA’s role in OWS. The refusal to grant access to detailed data from the VA's COVID-19 vaccine trials executed under OWS is one of the more disturbing issues at play. The integrity of the vaccine development process and the leadership involved must be subject to scrutiny to ensure that public trust is well-founded.
A Plea for FOIA Integrity
FOIA is crucial to the integrity of our constitutional republic. It ensures government transparency, allowing citizens to hold public institutions accountable. When the VA obstructs FOIA requests, it not only violates the law but also undermines the trust that veterans and the public place in these institutions.
As a veteran and active volunteer for F4F, I’ve experienced firsthand the VA’s resistance to releasing critical information that could impact the health and safety of those who served. VA’s OGC has repeatedly used legal loopholes and bureaucratic delays to withhold data that the public has a right to know. F4F volunteers filing, tracking, and pursuing FOIAs from a number of different agencies and departments are having the same experience.
This isn’t just a bureaucratic issue. It’s a fundamental threat to the principles of transparency and accountability on which our constitutional republic is built. Without access to information, we cannot fully understand or influence the decisions that affect our lives and the lives of our veterans.
By blocking FOIA requests, the VA is betraying the very people it’s meant to serve. The information isn’t just data, it’s key to ensuring veterans receive the care they deserve and that the government remains accountable to its citizens. We must protect the integrity of FOIA. The future of our constitutional republic, the trust in our institutions, and the well-being of our veterans depend on it.
Government transparency is your right as a citizen of this great nation.
Our FOIA litigation isn’t cheap. Please consider becoming a member supporting this Substack with a paid account.