Understanding the Misinterpretation of VAERS Data on Vaccines
Written on
Chapter 1: The Misuse of VAERS Data
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has become a focal point in discussions about vaccine safety, particularly regarding Covid-19 vaccines. Critics often leverage this database to assert that vaccines are harmful, playing on public fears and uncertainties.
In my previous writings from July 2021 and December 2021, I explored the misinterpretations and implications of VAERS data. These concerns resurfaced recently when Florida's General Surgeon, Joseph A. Lapado, MD, Ph.D., cited VAERS in a letter to the CDC and FDA, suggesting alarming trends in vaccine safety.
Lapado stated:
> "In addition to Florida's analysis of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, academic researchers throughout our country and around the globe have seen troubling safety signals of adverse events surrounding this vaccine..."
This assertion echoes sentiments from earlier analyses that lacked rigorous scrutiny, raising questions about the reliability of such conclusions.
Section 1.1: Understanding VAERS
To comprehend the implications of VAERS data, we first need to understand its purpose. Established in 1990, VAERS serves as a monitoring tool for potential vaccine-related health issues in the U.S. population, especially after clinical trials.
Clinical trials often do not encompass the full spectrum of the population. For instance, in Pfizer's clinical trials, participants were predominantly middle-aged, with very few individuals over 75, and certain health conditions were excluded. Thus, real-world data collection is vital for assessing vaccine safety.
VAERS operates on voluntary reporting, leading to what is termed passive surveillance. While this method may not capture every case accurately, it provides a broader view of potential adverse events, even though it cannot definitively link these events to vaccination.
Subsection 1.1.1: The Challenges of Interpretation
Section 1.2: The Risks of Misinterpretation
Despite the numerous reports of adverse events following vaccination, it's crucial to contextualize these numbers. In 2022 alone, over 665 million doses of Covid-19 vaccines were distributed in the U.S. This led to a reported 4,434 life-threatening adverse events, but when viewed against the total number of vaccinations, these figures represent just a fraction of one percent.
Furthermore, many reports to VAERS may not reflect causation. The system accepts all reports, regardless of whether they are likely connected to the vaccine. Given the ongoing occurrence of deaths in the general population, one might expect a certain number of post-vaccination events purely by chance.
Chapter 2: The Role of VAERS in Vaccine Monitoring
In the video "VAERS mRNA Death Curve Explained Clearly," the complexities and potential misuses of VAERS data are discussed in detail. This analysis helps clarify how the data can be misrepresented and the importance of sound interpretation.
Another insightful video, "Adverse reactions and under reporting," delves into the implications of underreporting in vaccine safety discussions and the need for accurate data interpretation.
Though some adverse events have been reported, the frequency is generally lower than what might be suggested by sensational narratives. While VAERS is indeed a vital tool for identifying rare adverse events, it is essential to approach its data with caution and a critical eye.
In conclusion, the existence of VAERS raises an important question: If authorities were intent on concealing information, would they have made this database public? Understanding the nuances of VAERS is crucial in fostering informed discussions about vaccine safety. Thank you for engaging with this content. If you found it valuable, consider subscribing for more insights.