This was easy to miss since it wasn't specifically called out, but a CDC paper published a week ago confirmed (once again) that VAERS is very underreported, even when people are urged to report by HHS
 |
|
Posted on 01/06/2022 8:14:52 AM PST by ransomnote
|
|
It’s hard to keep up with all the data coming out of the CDC, but I try my best.
And sometimes, you strike gold every now and then.
Here’s one such paper that was brought to my attention by Dr. David Wiseman. It was written by authors from the CDC and FDA. So you can trust it:
COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Children Aged 5–11 Years — United States, November 3–December 19, 2021
Now look carefully at the second paragraph in the “Review of V-Safe data” section:
Approximately 5.1% of parents reported that their child was unable to perform normal daily activities on the day after receipt of dose 1, and 7.4% after receipt of dose 2. Approximately 1% of parents reported seeking medical care in the week after vaccination; most medical care was received via a clinic appointment (441; 0.6%). Fourteen (0.02%) children reportedly received care at a hospital; information regarding reason for hospitalization was available for five children and included appendicitis (two), vomiting and dehydration (one), respiratory infection (one), and retropharyngeal cellulitis (one). Parents and guardians of all hospitalized children were contacted; two parents completed VAERS reports, and one revealed hospitalization was reported in error.
In short, 13 child hospitalizations (since one of the 14 was a mistake), yet only 2 VAERS reports were filed.
What is stunning is that even after the parents were expressly asked by HHS to report to VAERS, only 2 complied with the advice.
Of course, these are relatively small numbers, but it is evidence that even in a best case scenario, VAERS is likely to be underreported by at least 6.5. So we know they know. They just don’t want to admit it. Ever. Not even in the same paper! They just say at the end that VAERs is underreported and V-Safe is voluntary. They don’t quantify it for you.
If someone questions them on this, they’ll just say, “Those were small numbers and not statistically significant.”
The paper tries to make you believe that the rate of myocarditis for this age range were only 11 cases in 8 million doses. Now contrast that with the 1 in 70 rate of myocarditis actually experienced at Monte Vista Christian School, a private school near where I live (teenage boys in this case).
They want you to believe the rate is 1 in 363,000 fully vaccinated kids.
What we see in real life is as high as 1 in 70 (in teenage boys).
See a difference? The CDC is reporting a rate that is 5,000 times lower than what we are actually observing in the real world. How is that possible? The CDC doesn’t want to talk to me about it.
As for death rates, I’ve written about this particular paper before. See New ages 5 to 11 year-old CDC study: Proof of bozos at the CDC, NY Times.
I explain in that article how the 2 reported deaths are more like 81 actual deaths (due to the more realistic 41 VAERS URF) which if we conservatively remove the 50 background deaths, you get 31 excess deaths in an average of 3M kids which is >10 deaths per million. This is 10X higher than any sane stopping condition (see this article where Paul Offit admits that a vaccine that kills 1 person per million vaccinated is unsafe for use in humans).
The CDC wrote “None of the data suggested a causal association between death and vaccination.” Sure, right. Whatever you say. No autopsy. See no evil. I get it.
I wrote earlier about even if you autopsy patients, trained medical examiners fail to associate a link for a variety of reasons. But if you take the time to do a very careful autopsy, those same bodies (where the vaccine was ruled out as the cause of death by trained medical examiners) now show that 93% of the time, the vaccine was a major contributor to the cause of death.
For how the VAERS underreporting factor is calculated using very large numbers, see How to verify for yourself that over 150,000 Americans have been killed by the COVID vaccines which walks you through the process and shows you that VAERS is likely underreported by at least a factor of 41. This reflects “real world” behavior.
What this means is that the adverse events that are really happening are at least 41 times worse than they are telling you.
Bottom line: it was nice to finally see the CDC admit to a minimum 6.5X VAERS underreporting factor, even if they ignored using that in the rest of the paper. At least we are making some progress. One baby step at a time.
PING
So somebody did report all 14. Since one wasn't really hospitalized it was overreported by 1/13 = 8%.
"V-safe does not directly record diagnoses associated with hospitalization; however, parents and guardians can include supplemental text for each health checkin. Whether hospitalization was the result of vaccination could not be determined; however, all parents and guardians who reported a child’s hospitalization were contacted and encouraged to complete a VAERS report. Two parents completed a VAERS report on behalf of a child who was reported to v-safe to have been hospitalized."
So it's not that only 2 out of 13 were reported. It's that only 2 out of 13 had parents or guardians who filed supplementary information.
Also the following should be considered when considering things like Steve Kirsch's extrapolation from allergic reactions to deaths.
"The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, VAERS is a passive surveillance reporting system and is subject to reporting biases and underreporting, especially of nonserious events (8).
I'm not claiming Vaers is perfect. But extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof, not some back of the envelope wag by someone who doesn't understand the number or who has an agenda.
I had three adverse reactions to the 2nd Moderna shot. I logged into VAERS and reported them myself. If I had not taken the initiative, they would not have been reported. No one else was going to do it.
So, yes. A large percentage of adverse reactions are not being reported.
it is under-reported by it’s own title -— VOLUNTARY -—
(from the article):" ... The CDC is reporting a rate that is 5,000 times lower than what we are actually observing in the real world.
How is that possible? The CDC doesn’t want to talk to me about it."
"As for death rates, I’ve written about this particular paper before.
See :
New ages 5 to 11 year-old CDC study: Proof of bozos at the CDC, NY Times."
"I explain in that article how the 2 reported deaths are more like 81 actual deaths (due to the more realistic 41 VAERS URF)
which if we conservatively remove the 50 background deaths, you get 31 excess deaths in an average of 3M kids which is >10 deaths per million.
This is 10X higher than any sane stopping condition (see this article where Paul Offit admits that a vaccine that kills 1 person per million vaccinated is unsafe for use in humans)."
More information and statistical analysis for understanding this report are included in the OP.
Quite the feat. We know covid death statistics are over-reported. The claim is over 800K deaths due to covid. The actual number is considerably lower. There are ongoing professional and financial incentives to over-report.
We have to ask ourselves two serious questions.
One, is the "cure" worse than the disease? Are we killing more people with the vaccine than the virus is killing?
Two, even more to the point, are we killing more people than we're saving?
The first question is a muddier comparison. If you believe the numbers as-is, we've killed 21,000 people with vaccines vs the virus killing 800,000 or more. People might be willing to put up with that ratio. It gets more interesting if you factor in under and over reporting. Then the numbers start to look a lot less favorable for the vaccines.
That leads to the second question which is really more directly applicable. If the virus has killed 800,000 - or more likely some significantly smaller number - just how many would it have killed without the vaccines? That's hard to say.
If you look at graphs of deaths over time in the US you see a big initial spike, then a wave last winter of lots of deaths. Then in the March-June (2021) timeframe deaths trailed off significantly - just as vaccinations were ramping up. Yea vaccines, right? Not so fast. There was a similar "summer slump" the year before. So the cause could be a combination of vaccines, environmental, and behavioral factors.
More disturbing, there was a ramp up of deaths starting in September of 2021. This is earlier than the winter ramp up from 2020. It does coincide with most of the early vaccine adopters reaching the 4 to 5 month post-vaccine point. A point at which (we're learning now) the vaccines' effectiveness drops off significantly.
This would tend to support the notion that the vaccines provide some protection from deaths - since as they wear off deaths go up. But why did they go up early? Why was Sept 21 much worse than Sept 20? Have the vaccines caused a negative benefit as they wear off?
The other interesting trend is that far from increasing into the winter months as happened in 2020, deaths are actually slowly tapering off. Why? Could it be the emergence of the far less serious Omicron variant?
The upshot is, it is difficult to say how many or even if the vaccines have saved lives. There is evidence to suggest they've helped reduce covid deaths, and evidence to suggest they caused a rise in deaths. Then there is the very direct cost in lives - somewhere between 21,000 and 140,000 or so lives directly lost due to the vaccines.
My gut feel from looking at the numbers and graphs is that the vaccines are at best about a wash - they've probably saved roughly as many people as they've killed. The reality may be a little off one way or the other. That doesn't matter. There is no way to look at the data and say "The vaccines have been an un-equivocal, slam-dunk success." Far from it. Given their at best even-trade results, is it advisable to keep disrupting lives and careers and the economy with vaccine mandates and all the associated BS? I'd say no.
“Also the following should be considered when considering things like Steve Kirsch’s extrapolation from allergic reactions to death” DannyTN you are much more polite about this than I am, I am truly sick of Ransomnote and Steve Krisch and his bellyaching nonsense.
From the report cited by Steve Kirsch -
“Approximately 8.7 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were administered to children aged 5–11 years† during this period; VAERS received 4,249 reports of adverse events after vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in this age group, 4,149 (97.6%) of which were not serious. “
So there were 100 reports of serious adverse events AFTER 8.7 MILLION DOSES!!! Not deaths mind you, just “adverse events”. I’m not sure what demented planet Steve Kirsch is on but PUH-LEASE everything he says is complete crap.
imagine that...130,000 dead from this poison
Report (Part I): Young woman’s heart believed to have been damaged by Pfizer vaccine
Never fear....Captain Save-a-Vaers is here.
Let's pretend you're not lying out your anoos. A stretch, I know, but let's pretend, Captain Save-a-Vax. Do you consider 100 serious adverse events significant? We can also talk about the deaths you don't wanna talk about whenever you're ready.
It’s way more than that. Most people don’t know what it is.
Kirsch is a billionaire.
Here's your chance for a cool $2,000,000. Go for it! (scroll down for your special offer)
https://www.skirsch.io/vaccine-resources/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.