Don't let anyone gaslight you on VAERS
The data in VAERS can be used to prove the vaccines are killing people. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Here's how to respond to all their arguments and turn the tables on them.
The single most devastating piece of evidence showing that the COVID vaccines have killed hundreds of thousands of Americans is the data in the VAERS system. Why? Because it’s the ground zero reporting system for adverse events for vaccines in the US.
This is why fact checkers are so diligent in attacking any articles that use the VAERS data to make a claim that is counter-narrative.
In this article, I will arm you with the tools you need to debunk the fact checkers and turn the tables on them so they are caught in their lies.
They will claim this is just over-reporting of “background events” caused by a rule change and social media exposure in combination with more people getting vaccinated and a shift to older people who are more likely to die.
It sounds plausible, but they never provide the math to “check” that their explanation can explain the data. The key word is NEVER.
They basically hope that everyone buys the hand-waving argument and nobody actually checks the math.
While all of those statements are true, you have to show causality. For example, just because there is a rule change doesn’t mean that anyone notices it and actually changes their behavior to produce a different outcome. Can you name a single hospital which instructed doctors on the new VAERS rules and required them to report all the new incidents?
So basically, debunking these “fact checkers” is as simple as calling their bluff and asking to see the evidence for their claims and asking them to explain other observations that are easily verifiable that are inconsistent with their hypothesis.
Keep in mind that you cannot have it both ways. There is only one truth here. The correct hypothesis is the hypothesis which is a better fit to all the available evidence from all sources.
The counter-arguments demonstrating VAERS is not simply “over-reported”
How can you prove the data in VAERS shows the vaccines are killing people? Because there is simply no other way to explain the massive number of death reports.
Here are a few argument that their claims that the vaccine is perfectly safe don’t match up with observations:
People are always claiming VAERS can’t be used for causation. Technically, that’s true because causation requires all five Bradford Hill criteria and only 4 of the 5 criteria are possible using VAERS exclusively. But using VAERS in conjunction with papers in the literature can be used to prove causality. Additionally, VAERS can highlight correlations between vaccine doses and adverse events. These generate safety signals which then can be used to assess biologic plausibility. I have yet to see a case where there was a significant safety signal that triggered in VAERS where the number of VAERS reports were proportional to the dose given in those months and the cause was proven to be something else. Nobody could name one.
Suppose you had a vaccine that was given to 1M people. Everyone who got Pfizer died exactly 22 minutes after getting the shot. Everyone who got Moderna died 12 minutes after the shot. The doctors reported all 1M deaths to VAERS. Question: Do you think someone looking at the VAERS data could conclude that the vaccines killed people? Could they conclude that Moderna kills people faster than Pfizer? Or would this just be coincidence and would scientists be baffled as to whether there was causality?
In 2021, there were 525 deaths reported for all vaccines combined (which was atypically high), but 22397 for the COVID vaccine alone. So that’s a 42X differential. Show me the data you have explaining how you can close that gap based on the reasons you cited.
I had an independent survey of healthcare workers (who are responsible for the majority of the reports in VAERS) done and it showed that their propensity to report events to VAERS didn’t change over time. So the behavioral change you thought was there, wasn’t actually there. Is there data showing my survey is wrong?
If you read the text of dozens of death reports in VAERS (something few people take the time to do; they prefer to opine definitively on VAERS without spending hours doing searches and reading the records), you find that some people died, who would not be normally expected to die, right after the injection. While that might happen by chance, it’s happening at a higher frequency than would normally be expected. You can see the difference in this chart which is flu vaccines over the entire 30 year history of VAERS vs. the COVID vaccines:
The adverse event report mix in VAERS doesn’t match what would be expected if these are just background deaths (the plot of AE’s on the X axis and event count on the Y axis doesn’t have the same shape as a “safe” vaccine). So you clearly are not reporting background deaths. I don’t see how you can counter this argument, but I’m willing to be educated.
VAERS is under-reported by at least a factor of 41 on the most serious obvious adverse event: anaphylaxis. That means the other events will be under-reported by a factor of more than that. If that is not correct, then show us the correct calculation. This means the 17,000 excess domestic deaths in VAERS is at least 670,000 actual excess deaths (assuming about 500 deaths per year represent background deaths unrelated to the vaccine which is historically very generous). That’s a lot of deaths and it matches up with the estimates done by Rancourt as well ask Skidmore and both of them used completely different methods to estimate the death toll. Yet we come up with the same estimates.
Over 770 safety signals were triggered (including death) which is unprecedented. And the CDC didn’t notify the public. The mainstream media and medical community didn’t think this was a problem. Do you have an issue with that? Did you speak out about it? Note that safety signals are only triggered when there is a significantly disproportionate increase in an adverse event. So if these are all just background events and there is just an increase in the rate of reporting, there would be no triggering of safety signals at all. This should have set off alarm bells, but the medical community and the CDC looked the other way. Why did they ignore it? The CDC could make a hand-waving argument that the EUA reporting requirement shifted the mix of reports to certain types of events (thus generating a safety signal because of the disproportionality), but where is the evidence that anyone’s reporting behavior was skewed by that requirement? Instead, doctors simply continued to report what they saw, regardless of the rules (required vs. optional).
Kid deaths reported to VAERS don’t match the normal way kids die. The reporting requirements cannot skew this because this is not a safety signal test; this is a comparison with the normal causes of death of young people. Here, teenagers are dying from bleeding the brain as a common cause of death. Since when has bleeding in the brain been one of the top causes of death for kids? There is no explanation for this. The CDC reported the mix of causes and refused to comment on how abnormal the mix was. This should be very troubling to everyone because it shows that the CDC has a blind eye when kids are killed by the vaccine. Everyone looked the other way. Explain to me how this is normal.
The ratio of male-to-female deaths doesn’t match the underlying male:female death rate for a given age range that existed at the time of the death (either for all deaths or non-COVID deaths). There is no male vs. female bias in making VAERS reports. How do you explain this?
Doctors are noticing a 10X higher rate of AEs in vaccinated patients vs. unvaccinated patients. There is the issue of doctor observations where some doctors who never needed to file a VAERS report in the past, now are seeing over a 1,000-fold increase in reportable events (and not because of the rule change). If the vaccine is safe, how do you explain this? This is not over-reporting because the doctor is reporting more because there are more events. Explain how this can happen.
The gold-standard CMS data shows that deaths in people who were vaccinated don’t match background deaths. It’s supposed to “flatten” any COVID humps, i.e., decrease deaths. But the CMS data shows deaths go up after vaccination when the background death rates are going down. If the vaccine is safe, how do you explain this? I’ve made the Medicare data public and nobody has come forward to explain that the data is showing the vaccine is safe. Why not?
If nothing is wrong, why is CDC withholding the autopsy reports as requested by Aaron Siri? Shouldn’t the death investigations be made public? Is there a benefit to keeping these investigations secret?
We were told by the CDC that the vaccine is safe to take in pregnancy. That’s nice. But the Pfizer study of the vaccine for use in pregnancy didn’t conclude until July 15, 2022. Shouldn’t the CDC have waited? And why haven’t the results of that trial been made public yet since it’s now been nearly a year since the trial completed? Surely, they must know something by now? Why the silence?
How come menstrual issues for the COVID vaccines are off the charts in VAERS (around 1,000X normal)? That cannot be just elevated background reporting because it is disproportionate. Please explain.
Pulmonary embolism rates are about 1,000X normal. How can that be just “over-reporting”?
If nothing is wrong, why has the CDC NEVER done the proper stains on the tissue samples of people who died after they got vaccinated? That would be dispositive.
Why doesn’t the NIH fund a study to look at 100 bodies of people who died within 30 days of their last COVID vaccination. They’d do the proper stains on each body and report the results. We’d know instantly. Is it really better to not do this study and see if people can guess who is right?
The Schwab study showed at least 14% of the people who die within 20 days of the vaccine were killed by the vaccine. Peter McCullough believes the rate could be higher than 70%.
If this is just over-reporting, then how come multiple polls of households done by different organizations all find the same thing: that the vaccine has killed a comparable number of people as the virus. The latest poll was done by Rasmussen.
Why do large scale studies (such as Rancourt, Skidmore) show the estimated death rate from the COVID vaccine (1 per 1,000 doses) is the same as the death rate estimated from the VAERS data (1 per 1,000 doses)?
Why is there a male/female skew if the vaccine isn’t killing people? Extended: Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccine Death Reports from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) Database showed the following for the cases they analyzed (fewer in 2021 than the latest analysis in 2022):
2021 female deaths 96, male deaths 154
2022 female deaths 457, male deaths 544.
The biggest disparity in favor of males is as you get into the younger age groups. Every death below 15 years of age in the dataset at the time was male. So this can’t be over-reporting since it would have a more even mix of males and females.
There are no positive anecdotes. We couldn’t find a single funeral home, nursing home, or geriatric practice anywhere in the world where adverse events and deaths went down after the vaccines rolled out.
The negative anecdotes are stunning. For example Wayne Root held an event attended by an equal number of vaccinated and unvaccinated friends. A year later, there were 52 serious injuries/illnesses (including 12 deaths) in the vaccinated group vs. 3 deaths in the unvaccinated group.
In the Pfizer Phase 3 study, the people in the vaccine group were 31% more likely to die than those in the placebo group (all-cause mortality).
Why didn’t Pfizer do the proper stains on the people who died in the vaccine arm to assess whether or not the vaccine killed them. Instead, they took the advice of the investigators who had a clear conflict of interest. This is irresponsible. The FDA should have demanded to see the histopathology on everyone who died, but instead the FDA chose to look the other way.
The precautionary principle of medicine requires us to take all of these observations above seriously and consider that the vaccine is unsafe until proven otherwise.
All you have to do to figure out whether the vaccine is dangerous or not is to pick up the phone and talk to an honest doctor who trusts you (otherwise, they’ll play it safe and say nothing). In my case, I chatted with a neurologist with a 20,000 patient neurology practice close to where I live to get a sense of what is going on. She said that in the 11 years of the practice, they’ve never needed to file a single VAERS report. This year, they need to file over 1,000. Why? Because the side-effect profile of the vaccine is off-the-charts, not because of a rule change or social media.
I spoke to another doctor who has been in practice for 35 years and he’s never in his career seen anything like this vaccine in terms of negative impact on his patients. He spent the next 15 minutes rattling off the adverse effects of at least 23 of his vaccinated patients that started after they got vaccinated. He said, “Thank you for listening, there are so many, these are just some of what I recall.... I know statistically things happen in life, but in 38 years I’ve never seen so many conditions in a condensed time, that right there tells us the answer!!!” Those were his exact words. He estimated that 10% of his 300 patients who took the vaccine were adversely impacted by the vaccine. This is simply not consistent with a “safe and effective” vaccine that is simply being over-reported to VAERS.
The CDC's own V-safe program data indicates that 7.7% of vaccine recipients required medical care, an independent confirmation of the danger signals seen in VAERS. This is not “over-reported.” It has to be considered definitive. So if there is no signal in VAERS, there is an inconsistency requiring explanation.
Using the anaphylaxis reports which must be reported, VAERS is under-reported by a factor of 41. But VAERS in the past has been under-reported by a similar factor as noted in the Lazarus report. So it can’t be “over-reported” if the under-reporting factor is the same as in the past, can it? That makes no sense at all.
If the vaccines are so safe, why are there so many death reports in <3 hrs after the jab? Check this out. Remember, this is under-reported by 41X. Explain how this can happen? Anyone who gets the jab is not expecting to die in 3 hours so the number of these should be quite low. How do you explain the number?
There are twice as many KID DEATHS in VAERS than anybody knows, because they are hiding as UNKNOWN AGE. Whoops. Should we be concerned or just write this one off?
If a VAERS report is made for a person and the person dies after the report is filed, the report isn’t updated. Do you know how often this happens? If you don’t, how do you know the vaccine is so safe?
Does this look safe for women? It’s a >40X increase in number of reports vs. all vaccines combined for the previous year.
Did you know that historically, the URF for VAERS has been calculated at <10 by the CDC? So a URF of 41 means that VAERS was not over-reported for the COVID vaccines; it was actually under-reported by at least 4X. This makes the observed rate differences even more extreme. So when we see a 40X increase over the base reporting rates for miscarriages and stillbirths, the real effective discrepancy is more like 160X.
Someone asked how do you know these adverse events are associated with the COVID vaccine and not caused by COVID? The answer is simple. The elevation in adverse event reports only happens with the COVID vaccines and not any other vaccines. If it were caused by COVID we would have seen spikes for all vaccines in 2020 and the following years.
Some people claim these are reported deaths and not confirmed deaths. This is simply not true for the vast majority of deaths in VAERS. HHS will almost always ask for proof if you are not a healthcare provider. And it’s a federal crime to submit a false VAERS report. And nobody has ever been able to show that any meaningful percentage of the death reports in VAERS are people who didn’t die. As for association, VAERS can show correlation, but why would the rates of death reports suddenly increase dramatically in VAERS and only for the COVID vaccines? You could say “oh that’s because of the EUA rules” but most healthcare providers don’t know the difference and in surveys said they are reporting as they have in the past. So there is no other viable explanation for the increase in death reports. In addition, the CDC has admitted in their own paper that VAERS is typically under reported by <10X. So it’s impossible for the reports to spike more than 10X. But here we are. This is why they won’t answer any questions. Knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment for up to 5 years. Who would risk that? Every single person who has claimed that VAERS is open to abuse has never been able to provide any data whatsoever to back up that claim. The best they can do is cite a handful of gamed VAERS entries. That’s it.
Explain this one especially since 1 death per million doses is unsafe. So 25 deaths per million doses * URF of 41 = 1,025 which is 1,000X higher than the “safe limit” described by Paul Offit on 60 Minutes.
Understanding how fact checkers work
In general, most of the arguments used by fact checkers in the COVID era are hand-waving arguments or expert opinion with either absolutely no evidentiary basis or references to a flawed study without mention of contradictory studies.
For example, the CDC used the same technique (“it’s just over-reporting”) with the HPV vaccine and the authors of Turtles All the Way Down mentioned this as well.
The fact checkers talk to experts who will say something like “the association between death and the COVID vaccine has never been established” even when it pops out like a sore thumb if you do a VAERS query.
The COVID narrative “fact checkers” never consult with experts on both sides of the issue in doing their fact check. They will only quote experts who oppose the fact being checked, never any experts who support the fact. I’m not aware of a single counter-example.
So it will always be a one-sided presentation. This isn’t journalism; it’s “propaganda.”
In general, to counter their argument, you simply say, “Oh really? What actual evidence do you have in support of the statement you just made? Opinions, even when from experts, don’t count. Can you show me the actual data that backs up what you just said?”
Don’t let them get away with an insufficient answer. For example, they’ll say “it’s overreporting” and you’ll ask for proof and they’ll say “rule change.” Sounds good, but insufficient. You have to prove that it was the rule change that caused the over-reporting. They never do that. And they never fact check themselves on their explanation.
A WORD OF CAUTION
When you insist on seeing the data rather than trusting experts like they want you to do, you can get hit pieces written about you like the one that I got that appeared in MIT’s Technology Review .
On the other hand, thanks to that one article, I’m now the top hit on Google when you type “misinformation superspreader.”
It’s nice to be the best in the world at something!
And all I did to get there was to insist on seeing the data as the basis for my opinion rather than trusting people’s opinion! It was so easy.
An example: A VAERS fact check from factcheck.org
Consider the following VAERS “fact check”: Increase in COVID-19 VAERS Reports Due To Reporting Requirements, Intense Scrutiny of Widely Given Vaccines
The essence of the fact check is that all the huge numbers of adverse event reports in VAERS is because:
The reporting requirements for the EUA vaccines are more inclusive so more reports will be filed. Note: the first part of this sentence is true (see link to the VAERS reporting requirements), but the second half is an assumption with no evidentiary support.
Due to social media, people are more aware of VAERS so they’ve reported more
More people were vaccinated in total
More elderly and sick people were vaccinated than normal
and so there is absolutely nothing to worry about.
This sounds plausible if you don’t ask the next level of question which is: “Does this explanation fit the observed data?” The fact checkers never go there. Once they have their hand-waving argument that sounds good, there is no need to actually ask to see if it actually can explain the data (a 42X higher death rate than all other vaccines combined in the same year). For example, can they show that healthcare workers are now making 42 death reports when in the past they only made 1?
Some more insight into VAERS
Some people have claimed that VAERS numbers are up because social media attention is causing individuals to report at a huge rate. These claims always come without any evidentiary support.
VAERS actually has a field for the reporter type, but this field is not exposed to the public! Apparently, the CDC has determined that providing greater transparency into the reporter mix is not beneficial to public health outcomes. I have no clue why they think this and of course, they never answer any of my questions.
To find out the mix of consumer reports for domestic VAERS reports, we can do VAERS queries such as asking for “father” or “mother” in the body of the report. These keywords are typical of a self-report. The percentages of such reports are very small.
In addition the ratio of domestic to foreign reports has remained constant and the foreign reports are around 96% from healthcare providers. So that’s further confirmation.
So it doesn’t appear that there has been a huge influx of consumer reports into VAERS. If there was, I’m open to seeing evidence of that.
I made a list of over 25 items that would have to be explained away in order to convince me and my colleagues that the COVID vaccines are safe and that there is nothing to see in VAERS.
I’m hoping someone will answer these questions and show me how I got it wrong.
The sooner the better.
Thanks to your comments, I've added some additional items at the end since pushing out the article to readers.
can you for certain confirm that single stranded mRNA transfected into cytoplasm does not bind to other single stranded mRNA causing siRNA to be formed?