NewsHub CLAIMS and COUNTERCLAIMS #22

 

UNDER-REPORTED DEATH COUNTS IN THE VAERS DATABASE

 

In summary….

  1. Reported deaths and adverse events following COVID-19 vaccinations far exceed those from all prior vaccines over the last 30+ years
  2. Indirect evidence continues to suggest that under-reporting is more likely than over-reporting
  3. While causality cannot be absolutely proven, temporal association, mode of injury, dose dependency and pharmacologic surveillance tools strongly suggest a cause-and-effect relationship
  4. Regardless, strong “signals” that are present require follow-up investigation and analysis which have been absent to date
  5. Long-term adverse effects cannot be inferred from available clinical trial results, particularly in young teens

 

Claim 22: There have been more than 12,000 deaths due to vaccines in the US, up from an average of 108 a year.

NH: “While the US  Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) lists nearly 7000 deaths after a COVID-19 vaccine was administered (not 12,000), Dr Petousis-Harris said it was an “abuse of data” to suggest the deaths were a result of the vaccine.”

DrPC:  There are now 15,937 deaths as of 24 September 2021, of which typically about half are from within the United States.

It is true that most of the 752,803 cases reported following a COVID-19 vaccine have not been serious (43%) and have recovered (31%). However, permanent disability occurred in 3%, office visits for an adverse effect following vaccination in 16%, emergency visits in 11% and hospitalisations in 9% of the cases.

In fact, anyone can interrogate the database (R1), and find that COVID-19 vaccines from December 2020 to date in 2021 were followed by 7445 of the 7586 reports of deaths in the USA and territories (98%), and all other vaccines combined accounted for 141 reports of deaths for those over age 16.  This can be seen in the following table:

NH: “When people access the VAERS they have to tick an agreement that they understand that the cases registered in the database are not necessarily caused by a vaccine and that the data cannot be used for this purpose. Despite this, people continue to abuse this open access information. VAERS is used for signal detection, not causality assessment.”

DrPC: That is correct, however, the “signal” of some 25-40 deaths reported to VAERS after the “swine flu” vaccination program (along with some 500 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome) was enough to raise questions about the program in 1976. (R1A)

When we correct for the number of vaccine doses given, COVID-19 vaccinations still show nearly 40x the deaths per million doses for the year to date versus an average of 1.6x annually for all other vaccines from the previous 10 years. (R2) That should definitely count as a “signal.”

Reported deaths and adverse events following COVID-19 vaccinations far exceed those from all prior vaccines

 

OVER-REPORTING OR CONTINUED EVIDENCE OF UNDER-REPORTING?

There has been criticism that over-reporting is likely for the COVID-19 inoculations compared to other vaccines, even though it is well known from the 2010 Lazarus report on the passive system (VAERS) compared to an active system where ALL post-vaccination adverse events were reported, that only 1% of adverse events (on average) are reported. (R3)

The narrative is, “everyone is really concerned about safety of the mRNA vaccines, so health professionals are going to be particularly vigilant about reporting adverse events this time.”  However, physician knowledge even of the existence of the VAERS is not impressive. (R4)

But does the VAERS system, in fact, continue to be subject to under-reporting rather than over-reporting?

There are innumerable reports via social media of people who were actively discouraged from reporting possible adverse reactions to their nation’s reporting systems (VAERS or otherwise) when calling public health advocacy helplines, or were disparaged by their physicians, healthcare agencies and media for even raising the question. (R5)

Social media posts have been able to raise awareness of adverse effects where official reporting mechanisms have failed (R6, R7, R8), and several independent research groups have also raised awareness. (R9) I have deliberately omitted the half-dozen or more NZ-based social media sites which address such injuries, which can be found by individual browser searches, in an attempt to protect them from potential cyberattacks.

As it turns out, there is also an existing technique used by the CDC for answering this question. This technique is called the “proportional reporting ratio” (PRR). Essentially, if there are proportionately more or fewer events reported within specific adverse event categories (such as deaths, Guillain-Barré syndrome, tendency to clot formation, heart attacks and the like) compared to a reference like regular seasonal influenza vaccinations, then a “signal” is generated suggesting a need for further investigation, and we will discuss this shortly.

I have not yet discussed the “clarified” definition from the CDC as to who is considered “fully vaccinated.” Individuals who have received the first dose of a two-dose regimen (such as Pfizer’s preparation), and even those who have not yet passed 14 days after the second dose are considered “unvaccinated.” (R10) In this setting, one could legitimately wonder if the true deaths and injuries related to the mRNA inoculations could be substantially higher if those “partially vaccinated” had been included in the death and injury counts.

Indirect evidence continues to suggest that under-reporting is more likely than over-reporting

 

ASSESSING THE PRESENCE OF WORRISOME “SAFETY SIGNALS”

If we make a comparison of adverse events reported to the CDC for COVID-19 vaccines on a per dose basis versus annual influenza vaccines (which are taken up by Americans in roughly similar frequency and in a similar population distribution), we can compare using the ratio of events after COVID-19 vaccination vs influenza vaccination in the following graph (R2):

Several eye-popping results are evident: 

91x overall reports of deaths per million COVID-19 vaccine doses compared to influenza, including 32x in the 12 to 17-year-olds

1251x reports of myopericarditis compared to flu in teenagers

403x reports of heart attacks compared to flu in 18 to 49-year-olds

276x reports of blood clotting disorders compared to flu.

In addition, it is known that the CDC has already acknowledged myopericarditis as a “safety signal” with at least one of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines so far.

Even when we use the CDC’s own methodology from its briefing document,  several safety signals persist, indicated by an * (asterisk) in the following table.

From the following graph, it is evident that even the CDC criteria for a “safety signal” begins at a proportion of 2.5x deaths for the COVID-19 vaccines compared to those from the previous 5 flu seasons. In addition, there are major signals for ALL the categories listed in the prior table (except for Guillain-Barré syndrome), but especially for myopericarditis in teens. (R2)

When we discuss causality, an important element is the dose-response curve. When an observed effect is seen in greater frequency with greater dose, there is additional support for a cause-and-effect relationship. While not formally available to my knowledge in published scientific literature, a blog entry by a statistician who has used publicly available data has suggested that there may well be such a relationship. (R11)

Whilst causality cannot be absolutely proven, temporal association, mode of injury, dose dependency and pharmacologic surveillance tools strongly suggest a cause-effect relationship

 

SO, WHERE IS THE INVESTIGATION FROM THESE SAFETY SIGNALS?

Within the context of a closed clinical trial, all adverse effects are supposed to be reported, regardless of whether the observer believes there is a causal relationship or not. However, this doesn’t tend to happen in the general population of health care professionals who have not been enrolled as investigators in the continuing clinical trials of these vaccines. It’s especially unlikely to happen when regulatory agencies that control licensing of physicians threatens them with loss of their registration if they say anything negative about the vaccination program. (R12, R13)

CDC had broadcast plans to produce weekly reports regarding safety signals, but these have not been made public. (R2) What happened to the Hippocratic oath, which instructs doctors, “first do no harm?”  What about application of the “precautionary principle,” whereby one does not proceed with a global roll-out of a product using distinctly novel methodology with no prior large-scale experience and where there are significant signals of potential harm?  Is record keeping for the several hundred million vaccinated Americans good enough to support such data mining?  We are still waiting.

 

NH: “Dr Campbell said VAERS relied on self-reported data, and has been known to wrongly blame deaths from other causes on vaccines – including a two-year-old who actually died in that remarkably American way – from a gunshot wound.”

DrPC: This sort of insult has no place in any serious attempt to determine whether scientific enquiry can help us get closer to the truth.

If we are going to attribute deaths from gunshot wounds as post-vaccination deaths, then let’s also consider how we are seeing the attribution of accidents and deaths due to underlying comorbid conditions to COVID-19 death statistics as well.

It is important to be aware of the widespread distortion of medical records that has occurred in the COVID-19 era: physicians have been instructed to record deaths as due to COVID-19 on the death certificates rather than the underlying conditions, which were often chronic. (R14) To be sure, COVID-19 may have been the “final straw” for many frail individuals with serious underlying conditions such as chronic respiratory or heart disease, obesity, hypertension, diabetes and dementia, but in normal years the underlying conditions would have been listed as primary. 

Similarly, we must look at financial incentives, whereby hospitals received supplemental payments if they listed COVID-19 as a cause of illness, or simply suspected it. (R14A)

Furthermore, there is the matter of who lodges the VAERS reports. Most reports are lodged by health care workers. (R15) In the case of myocarditis-pericarditis, the reports lodged were confirmed 88% of the time by CDC as fitting the appropriate case definition. (R16)

 

PHARMACOVIGILANCE AND THE ISSUE OF CAUSALITY 

So, what about causality? An editorial by Dr Lyons-Weiler discusses this in the context of passive reporting systems such as VAERS:

“Vaccinologists act as if the process of collecting the data using a passive system destroys the causal link between vaccine exposure and poor health outcomes and death. In reality, the causal link exists, or it does not.

If it does, the act of collating the data using a passive system that then only satisfies temporal association and statistical association or correlation does not destroy the causal link; it merely makes it difficult to ascertain causality. The lack of association thereby does not indemnify the vaccine exposure.

A positive association, however, should be heeded; every single gene discovery made in the decades of gene association studies started with a mere association link between genetic variation in people and specific conditions or traits…. associations that were found were reported and acted upon; they were not ignored.”(Volume 3, editorial. R17 Publichealthpolicy.com)

A critical appraisal of VAERS and its function in so-called “pharmacovigilance” is also relevant, particularly in its finding of missing or delayed entries in the system. (Jessica Rose, volume 3. R18), (R21) It is also estimated, as noted above, that only 1% of adverse reactions following vaccine inoculation are reported in such a passive system. (R3) This may, as noted above, in part be due to widespread ignorance of VAERS’s existence among physicians in clinical practice (as opposed to those actively involved directly in drug and vaccine trial surveillance). (R4)

The current political and indeed healthcare environment is hostile to any individual, qualified professional, front-line treating physician or otherwise, who raises a question about the safety of the proffered crop of mRNA vaccines, and thus it is quite unlikely that historical under-reporting has been reversed for the COVID-19 vaccine regimen, and indeed may have been exaggerated under these circumstances, as suggested above. Therefore, resolving the root question of causality in the matter of post-vaccination reported deaths is likely to remain elusive.

Regardless, strong “signals” require follow-up investigation and analysis which have been absent to date

  

THE MOST VALUABLE STUDY ON COVID VACCINE-RELATED INJURIES

An in-depth study of vaccine-related injuries and the VAERS in the United States, with special emphasis on risk-benefit analysis for inoculation of children, provides insight into the degree of under-reporting in general. It is by-far the best and most comprehensive review of the topic known to me, with over 160 references to confirm the authors’ conclusions. If you read only one scientific but quite readable reference paper on COVID-19 in general and the mRNA vaccines in particular, this is the one to read. (R21)

Of particular interest, the authors note that the Pfizer trial looked at age groups that were least likely to die from COVID-19 and therefore may well have missed sufficiently robust signals of adverse events in precisely the older population most at risk. For example, only 4% of subjects in the initial Pfizer trial were over 75+, whereas 58% of COVID-19 deaths occurred in this age group.

 

SUB-CLINICAL EFFECTS ARE NOT APPARENT IN SHORT-TERM TRIALS

In respect to safety of the Pfizer product, the authors go on to state that only grossly observable adverse events and symptoms were studied. Many adverse effects may start out as sub-clinical (i.e., not observed within the short follow-up period of the trial). The limited panel of clinical laboratory tests was insufficient to detect early signs of what would later become clinically manifest, full-blown disease. This problem is especially worrisome in children, where only 1005 were inoculated with the Pfizer COMIRNATY product during the initial phase 2/3 trial.

From an elementary statistical perspective, an adverse event occurring in 1 in 800 would not be detected with confidence from this small sample size. Among the 16 million American children aged 12-15 who might be injected, an adverse event which thus went undetected in the clinical trial might result in 20,000 children suffering such an outcome, including death. (R21) In the setting where young teens have negligible risk of serious disease or death, the adverse risk-benefit analysis outcome should be apparent.

In addition, the authors point out that there is no assessment of the synergistic effects that any untested inoculation product may have with the toxic soup of the many chemical agents that now exist in our environment and that have been taken up in our bodies.

When evaluating adverse effects of medical interventions, it pays to listen to medical toxicologists rather than vaccinologists who may have vested interests in perhaps different weighting and thus a different outcome of a risk-benefit analysis.

An experienced pathologist raised concerns about the effects of the mRNA products when he saw a 20x increase in abnormal pap smears, resurgent viral diseases previously dormant, such as shingles, and a significant increase in endometrial cancers in those who have undergone mRNA vaccination against COVID-19. (R22)

Perhaps Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry might be asking those of us who take our chances on the jab…  “Do you feel lucky?”

Long-term adverse effects cannot be inferred from available clinical trial results, particularly in young teens

  

NH: “Dr Canaday goes on to cite an anonymous lawsuit which claims the actual number of COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths is ‘at least 45,000’.”

DrPC: It’s not anonymous. Confirmation of the filed lawsuit is noted here. (R23) This lawsuit involves testimony by an expert analyst with access to “back-office” data repositories, made under penalty of perjury, which is a criminal offence. We should all be interested in the outcome of this legal proceeding.

 

NH: “Experts have noted with elderly populations being the priority in many nations’ vaccine rollouts, the number who die soon after would be higher than usual – just because someone died after getting a jab, doesn’t mean the jab was the cause.”

DrPC: No, the deaths and adverse events are appearing not only in the elderly who were in the first groups to be vaccinated (and whose deaths from COVID-19 would also have occurred near their natural life expectancies). They are occurring in ALL age groups as noted above, and in particular, younger and otherwise healthy individuals with minimal risk of mortality from COVID-19.

What remains, even with the question of causality addressed above, is the close temporal “clustering” of deaths shortly after vaccination events for causes which are not unexpected, given the known coagulability issues from these mRNA products. From early VAERS reports, it became apparent that one-third of deaths occurred within 48 hours of injections (R24), with almost half experiencing symptoms within that period who later died from a related cause.  

The fact remains that neither the CDC nor MedSafe nor anyone else can exclude these experimental inoculations as being the cause of death without performing extensive laboratory analysis, post-mortem exams or autopsies, which themselves have raised worrisome concerns on the rare occasions when they have been performed. (R25, R26)

 

NH: “Last week, a study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University said vaccines had already saved about 140,000 lives in the US already. Just one death to date globally has been causally linked to the Pfizer jab – and it happened in New Zealand.”

DrC:  To be clear, there are now over 16,000 deaths on VAERS, 22,000 in Eudravigilance (much of Europe), some 2000 from MHRA in the United Kingdom. From these, there is only one death causally linked to the Pfizer jab? Again, post-mortem exams are needed to exclude such causality; this topic has been discussed above.

 

 

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

 

Deaths and severe adverse events following COVID-19 inoculations are reported in much greater frequency than prior vaccines on both an absolute and relative basis, and various tools of pharmacovigilance confirm legitimate concerns.

Marked underreporting to VAERS, as much as 98% from prior studies, continues as more likely than overreporting for these medical interventions, especially given the current chilling statements from governmental and health authorities against anyone who raises safety concerns.

There is legitimate concern as to missing entries, particularly of the more severe adverse effects, and as to underreporting by as much as 80% compared to other government data bases not transparent to the public.

Whilst reporting to VAERS is voluntary and open to anyone, most reports of deaths are made by health care workers.

The idea that post-inoculation deaths can be dismissed as unrelated to the intervention requires extensive post-mortem analysis which is rarely done or has been actively discouraged.

Limited and short-term clinical assessment during the clinical trials of the Pfizer product cannot be expected to anticipate potential severe long-term adverse events, including deaths from a disease that was in early stage and subclinical during the trials.

For an extended discussion and decidedly contrarian view of the topic of post-vaccination deaths by an MIT engineer facile with data analytics, go to (R27)

 

 

 

References

R1: Search engine on VAERS. https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/index.php

R1A: 1976 swine flu vaccination program. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/diseases-with-unknown-etiology-trace-back-to-mass-vaccination-against-influenza-in-1976/

R2: Safety Signals for COVID Vaccines. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/safety-signals-covid-vaccines-full-transparency-cdc-fda/

R3: Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS) (ahrq.gov)

R4: Limited knowledge of VAERS.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23597717/

R5: Patients disparaged for questioning vaccine safety. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/dr-danice-hertz-injured-pfizer-covid-vaccine/

R6: Patients disparaged for questioning vaccine safety. https://t.me/s/covidvaccineinjuries/

R7: Patients disparaged for questioning vaccine safety. https://thecovidworld.com/

R8: COVID-19 vaccine reactions in the USA. https://www.c19vaxreactions.com/uploads/1/3/7/7/137732232/medical_guidance_2.pdf

R9: https://swprs.org/covid-vaccines-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/

R10: CDC changes definition of “unvaccinated.” https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html

R11: Potential dose-response relationship of vaccine dose and deaths. https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/mechanistic-evidence-of-vaccine-induced

R12: Doctors threatened for questioning vaccine safety. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/445179/doctors-spreading-misinformation-about-covid-19-may-lose-their-job-medical-council

R13: Doctors threatened for questioning vaccine safety.  https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/digital-marketing/physicians-who-post-covid-19-vaccine-misinformation-may-lose-license-medical-panel-says.html

R14: Inflated figures for deaths due to COVID-19. https://niapurenaturecom.wordpress.com/2021/07/20/inflated-reporting-of-covid-deaths-is-a-real-conspiracy/

R14A: Additional hospital payments for diagnosis COVID-19. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/hospital-payments-and-the-covid-19-death-count/

R15: VAERS death reports by health care workers. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352837543_Analysis_of_COVID-19_vaccine_death_reports_from_the_Vaccine_Adverse_Events_Reporting_System_VAERS_Database_Interim_Results_and_Analysis

R16: CDC confirms myocarditis criteria. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-08-30/03-COVID-Su-508.pdf

R17: Current Volume | Science, Public Heal (publichealthpolicyjournal.com) Volume 3, James Lyons-Weiler

R18: Current Volume | Science, Public Heal (publichealthpolicyjournal.com) Volume 3, Jessica Rose.

R19: AHRQ report on active vs passive surveillance, VAERS 2011. https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

R20: Potential dose-response relationship of vaccine dose and deaths. https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/mechanistic-evidence-of-vaccine-induced

R21: Why Are We Vaccinating Children Against COVID-19? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X#bib0110

R22: Pathologist Dr Ryan Cole on increased neoplasms and autoimmune disease after mRNA vaccines. https://www.bitchute.com/video/nBW0ZfQcw3Y6/

R23: AFLDS vs. US Dept of Health and Human Services, 2021. https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/3c6a0774-cfad-46fa-aa97-af5aa5e74f00/M%20for%20PI%20file%20stamped.pdf

R24: Deaths within 48 hours. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/latest-data-cdc-vaers/

R25: Postmortem exam post SARS-Co-V2 vax. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33872783/

R26: Chief pathologist finds 30-40% of post-vaccination deaths when autopsied may be due to the injections. https://theexpose.uk/2021/09/13/german-chief-pathologist-sounds-alarm-on-fatal-covid-vaccine-injuries-jab-is-cause-of-death-in-30-40-of-autopsies-of-recently-vaccinated/

R27: TFNT1: COVID vaccines have killed over 200,000 Americans (vsecretscc.com)

 

 

We are an independent collection of experienced NZ registered real-world medical experts. We question the team of 120 politicians exploiting fear and division. We disagree with their assumptions and their actions. We question politicians' disdain for the long established fundamentals of health and medicine. We question taxpayer-funded promotion of biased experts. We decline the authorities' single source of half truths. With authorities inadequately representing the overall health interests of NZ, we are pursuing strategies to provide legal/medical body alternatives.

Disclaimer
The views expressed here are solely those of the authors in their private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of an institution. This site is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute the practice of medicine, nursing or other professional health care services, including the giving of medical advice, and no doctor/patient relationship is formed. The use of information or materials linked from this site are at the user’s own risk. The content of this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Users should not disregard, or delay in obtaining, medical advice for any medical condition they may have, and should seek the assistance of their health care professionals for any such conditions.