Igor, thank you for writing this thorough post debunking the VAERS propaganda. I have been repeatedly pushing back against the “dropbox” talking point used to discredit this vitally important monitoring system, but the brainwashed bots are fairly impenetrable on this matter. I do plan to cover this topic in an upcoming essay and appreciate having your article as a reference.
BTW, my favorite source for viewing the VAERS data is https://openvaers.com/ (https://openvaers.com/covid-data for the COVID data). They present the data in a much more accessible format and also make it easy to view/search reports. I have read through several hundred reports there and have found all of them highly credible.
Great analysis. Nicely written. It shows that the "fact-checkers" are probably... well, maybe sponsored by certain well-known multinational corporations, shall we say.
Thanks for this analysis. Shocking how people are being gaslighted and many have become good little gaslighters. Steve Kirsch (stkirsch on Twitter) wrote about the dara too, a group combed the reports and came to the same conclusions you did. He has been betting $1 million to anyone who can prove that the data are wrong.
Very nicely written, Igor. I have looked through the data and the vast majority seems very legitimate. Truly I do not understand why VAERS is being ignored. It makes me very upset to know so many people are dying (or being injured) needlessly because the government and health officials do not recognize the red flags.
Someone, on one of the Substacks I follow shared this interview with a nurse (url below). She discusses how the hospital system did not teach them to use VAERS and she was not aware that it was required by law for them to submit reports. In the video, she also mentions that it takes a while to fill out a VAERs report and there is no save function.
In 2010 Harvard Pilgrim published a study of VAERs reporting. They concluded that adverse events are grossly underreported, showing only 1 to 10% of adverse events.
The system was designed to deter false reports. It is cumbersome to use, intrusive, crashes frequently requiring re-entry from the start. According to a Professional hospital worker turned whistleblower who took it upon herself to enter reports for clinics until her hospital forbade it, it takes 2 hours to enter a single report.
A few years ago I joined an online group of people studying VAERS for various reasons. The group included statisticians, data analysts, health care providers, vaccine-injured adults, and parents of vaccine-injured children. At least four of the members downloaded the entire VAERS database frequently, often working with it in a spreadsheet program. There was ZERO concern in this group about fake reports ("anybody can report anything") skewing the data. There was great concern about underreporting, about incomplete/inadequate-detail reports (generally submitted by patients or parents), and about reports with internal inconsistencies that made data analysis tricky (such as reports where DIED = NO but the written narrative stated that the patient died).
Jessica Rose's research on VAERS has been excellent and I highly recommend her written report ("Critical Appraisal of VAERS Pharmacovigilance") which was published in IPAK's journal "Science, Public Health Policy and the Law." A good interview with Rose is:
I've accessed VAERS data at times with NVIC's MedAlerts system but I generally use OpenVAERS, which provides a "Red Box Page" with summary statistics on a variety of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines. Eudravigilance gives adverse event summary data for COVID-19 vaccines in a helpful graph form (I recommend the display-by-seriousness option). Eudravigilance obscures deaths but the Vaccine Impact email newsletter gives summary statistics from Eudravigilance, including deaths, about once a month.
I call the vaccine zealots the third woke wave. The first one, mostly in Europe, was the 2015 refugee crisis where the narcissistic moral posers found SOME as a platform for virtue signalling and they loved it! Then when Hillary was not elected and Trump was, it turned into a turbocharged second wave, later also with the BLM/Georg Floyd stuff and solidified this online virtue signalling and group hating.
Then there was nothing to latch on for a while with Biden for these moral posers. Supposedly "Adults were back in charge" as they said but they needed something to virtue signal like addicts searching for the next fix.
With the new mRNA-vaccines the same woke persons said late last year, they are not going to take that "poisonous Trump vaccine" but within weeks last spring they flip-flopped! Eventually this started the third wave and it turned into demands of mandatory mass vaccinations. They have found a new issue to latch on!
Just like with the two first waves it is very difficult to argue with facts because these over-aged mental teenagers with lord of the flies, toddler like minds are using it for their narcissistic needs.
Great post. So if IL is 3% of population, that tracks right to the total (6K) of VAERS reports, suggesting IL is pretty indicative/typical. Let's say that the breakdown is the same for all states, and that only medical doctors can be trusted, so 75% of VAERS are true vax deaths. Now let's say 215MM people have had the vax. So, 4500 people have died from vax which is 0.002% (I think it's fair to say this is conservative).
Checking the IFR tables, if you have no underlying conditions, that means vax risk = COVID risk for those < 45 or so.
When Pfizer sponsors the news channel or online publication that "fact checks" you, you can rest assured they are just following orders. What you've done here is a great example of critical inquiry. It is the same phenomenon as "did Trump really say Mexican immigrants are animals?" or "does the Constitution really say that blacks are 3/5 of a person?". It doesn't take much source-document research to reveal that the lie is paper thin, and that reality--true reality--vindicates rational and critical thought. Thank you for this example.
VAERS Data is NOT fake and NOT made up!
Igor, thank you for writing this thorough post debunking the VAERS propaganda. I have been repeatedly pushing back against the “dropbox” talking point used to discredit this vitally important monitoring system, but the brainwashed bots are fairly impenetrable on this matter. I do plan to cover this topic in an upcoming essay and appreciate having your article as a reference.
BTW, my favorite source for viewing the VAERS data is https://openvaers.com/ (https://openvaers.com/covid-data for the COVID data). They present the data in a much more accessible format and also make it easy to view/search reports. I have read through several hundred reports there and have found all of them highly credible.
Great analysis. Nicely written. It shows that the "fact-checkers" are probably... well, maybe sponsored by certain well-known multinational corporations, shall we say.
Thanks for this analysis. Shocking how people are being gaslighted and many have become good little gaslighters. Steve Kirsch (stkirsch on Twitter) wrote about the dara too, a group combed the reports and came to the same conclusions you did. He has been betting $1 million to anyone who can prove that the data are wrong.
Very nicely written, Igor. I have looked through the data and the vast majority seems very legitimate. Truly I do not understand why VAERS is being ignored. It makes me very upset to know so many people are dying (or being injured) needlessly because the government and health officials do not recognize the red flags.
Someone, on one of the Substacks I follow shared this interview with a nurse (url below). She discusses how the hospital system did not teach them to use VAERS and she was not aware that it was required by law for them to submit reports. In the video, she also mentions that it takes a while to fill out a VAERs report and there is no save function.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIydr2ZqZto
In 2010 Harvard Pilgrim published a study of VAERs reporting. They concluded that adverse events are grossly underreported, showing only 1 to 10% of adverse events.
The system was designed to deter false reports. It is cumbersome to use, intrusive, crashes frequently requiring re-entry from the start. According to a Professional hospital worker turned whistleblower who took it upon herself to enter reports for clinics until her hospital forbade it, it takes 2 hours to enter a single report.
A few years ago I joined an online group of people studying VAERS for various reasons. The group included statisticians, data analysts, health care providers, vaccine-injured adults, and parents of vaccine-injured children. At least four of the members downloaded the entire VAERS database frequently, often working with it in a spreadsheet program. There was ZERO concern in this group about fake reports ("anybody can report anything") skewing the data. There was great concern about underreporting, about incomplete/inadequate-detail reports (generally submitted by patients or parents), and about reports with internal inconsistencies that made data analysis tricky (such as reports where DIED = NO but the written narrative stated that the patient died).
Jessica Rose's research on VAERS has been excellent and I highly recommend her written report ("Critical Appraisal of VAERS Pharmacovigilance") which was published in IPAK's journal "Science, Public Health Policy and the Law." A good interview with Rose is:
https://live.childrenshealthdefense,org/shows/doctors-and-scientists-with-brian-hooker-phd/0Kc-3wyP2S
and a video of Rose's presentation to Vaccine Choice Canada can be found at:
https:??www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMY2tdFNkRU&t=79s
I've accessed VAERS data at times with NVIC's MedAlerts system but I generally use OpenVAERS, which provides a "Red Box Page" with summary statistics on a variety of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines. Eudravigilance gives adverse event summary data for COVID-19 vaccines in a helpful graph form (I recommend the display-by-seriousness option). Eudravigilance obscures deaths but the Vaccine Impact email newsletter gives summary statistics from Eudravigilance, including deaths, about once a month.
I call the vaccine zealots the third woke wave. The first one, mostly in Europe, was the 2015 refugee crisis where the narcissistic moral posers found SOME as a platform for virtue signalling and they loved it! Then when Hillary was not elected and Trump was, it turned into a turbocharged second wave, later also with the BLM/Georg Floyd stuff and solidified this online virtue signalling and group hating.
Then there was nothing to latch on for a while with Biden for these moral posers. Supposedly "Adults were back in charge" as they said but they needed something to virtue signal like addicts searching for the next fix.
With the new mRNA-vaccines the same woke persons said late last year, they are not going to take that "poisonous Trump vaccine" but within weeks last spring they flip-flopped! Eventually this started the third wave and it turned into demands of mandatory mass vaccinations. They have found a new issue to latch on!
Just like with the two first waves it is very difficult to argue with facts because these over-aged mental teenagers with lord of the flies, toddler like minds are using it for their narcissistic needs.
Great post. So if IL is 3% of population, that tracks right to the total (6K) of VAERS reports, suggesting IL is pretty indicative/typical. Let's say that the breakdown is the same for all states, and that only medical doctors can be trusted, so 75% of VAERS are true vax deaths. Now let's say 215MM people have had the vax. So, 4500 people have died from vax which is 0.002% (I think it's fair to say this is conservative).
Checking the IFR tables, if you have no underlying conditions, that means vax risk = COVID risk for those < 45 or so.
Please fact check me.... thanks again
When Pfizer sponsors the news channel or online publication that "fact checks" you, you can rest assured they are just following orders. What you've done here is a great example of critical inquiry. It is the same phenomenon as "did Trump really say Mexican immigrants are animals?" or "does the Constitution really say that blacks are 3/5 of a person?". It doesn't take much source-document research to reveal that the lie is paper thin, and that reality--true reality--vindicates rational and critical thought. Thank you for this example.