![\"\"](\"https:\/\/z3news.com\/w\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/123RF_14240340_s_combo.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Two independent research studies have made similar discoveries exposing VAERS as the elephant in the vaccination room that nobody\u2019s talking about. This post presents their findings in the hopes that we can finally escort this big fatty outside where he belongs.<\/p>\n
Since 1990, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) along with government agencies like the FDA and Department of Health and Human Services and the entire scientific and medical communities have relied on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)<\/a> to determine the safety of vaccines, but from the beginning, VAERS has had a well known problem of under-reporting the number of adverse reactions.<\/p>\n The CDC has publicly acknowledged this problem, as quoted below from their website:<\/p>\n \u201cVAERS is a passive surveillance system: reports of events are voluntarily submitted by those who experience them, their caregivers, or others. Passive surveillance systems (e.g., VAERS) are subject to multiple limitations, including underreporting, reporting of temporal associations or unconfirmed diagnosis, and lack of denominator data and unbiased comparison groups.\u201d (Source: cdc.gov<\/a>)<\/p>\n Likewise, the FDA has made similar statements, as shown here:<\/p>\n \u201cFormer FDA commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events.\u201d<\/p>\n (Source: congress.gov 106th Congress, 6th Report by the Committee on Government Reform, p 15. Published in 2000)<\/p>\n Since reporting to VAERS is completely voluntary, it makes sense the real numbers would be much larger than what\u2019s reported for the following reasons.<\/p>\n First, most of us have never even heard of VAERS so we wouldn\u2019t even think about reporting to them. And the reason why we haven\u2019t heard about them is because the mainstream news media avoids mentioning them as part of their campaign to downplay any dangers associated with vaccines. “Just doing my job mam.”<\/p>\n Second, even if patients know about VAERS, they often don\u2019t report their adverse reactions because they don\u2019t connect them to the vaccine. Again, the mainstream news media has done a fine job of indoctrinating us with endless claims that vaccines are totally safe. More recently with COVID-19, they’ve taken it a step further by slandering anyone sharing scientific facts as conspiracy nut cases. Who needs science when we can have vaccine religion?<\/p>\n Third, even if clinicians are aware of VAERS, they\u2019re not obligated to fill out VAERS reports, nor are they penalized for avoiding this extra work, so it\u2019s not part of their usual workflow and often doesn\u2019t happen.<\/p>\n Actually, these same reasons make VAERS the perfect reporting system for Big Pharma vaccine manufacturers because under reporting adverse reactions helps them sell more of their products. So maybe we should stop complaining and just buy their stock? And look at the bright side, thanks to our adverse reactions, we now have more time to sit in front of the TV for another indoctrination course on vaccine safety.<\/p>\n It\u2019s great to see the CDC and FDA admitting VAERS has a problem, but it\u2019s been in place now for 31 years, so do we still call that progress? And somehow they forgot to mention anything about the size of the under reporting problem, which seems kind of important, but thanks to the findings from two research studies presented below, we now know the size.<\/p>\n If we were playing Jeopardy, these would come under the category, \u201cThings the CDC and FDA don’t want to talk about.\u201d<\/p>\n The first study presented here was published recently, March 8, 2021, showing adverse reactions to COVID-19 injections are at least 80 times higher than what\u2019s reported to VAERS. I think that qualifies as a big elephant. The study is called “Acute Allergic Reactions to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines<\/a>” and it was conducted by a Boston-based non-profit hospital and physicians network called Mass General Brigham (MGB)<\/a>.<\/p>\n The study focused on acute allergic reactions within three days of receiving the first dose of the COVID-19 injections based on a sample of 64,900 participants, all MGB employees. For 3 days after getting injected, participants completed symptom surveys through a multi-pronged approach including email, text message, phone, and smartphone application links. Of the 52,805 (81%) participants who actually completed the symptom survey, 1365 experienced acute allergic reactions, which was defined as two or more of the following symptoms: itching, rash, hives, swelling, and\/or respiratory symptoms.<\/p>\n Source: Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, Lacey B. Robinson, MD, Carlos A. Camargo Jr, MD, Acute Allergic Reactions to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines<\/a>, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network, March 8, 2021,<\/p>\n I used the following calculations to show adverse reactions identified by MGB are at least 80 times bigger than VAERS:<\/p>\n Although these findings might sound hard to believe, it\u2019s amazingly close to the findings of a 2011 research study conducted by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Inc<\/a>. Recognizing the persistent problem with VAERS under-reporting adverse events, the Department of Health and Human Services authorized a $1 million grant to Harvard Pilgrim Health Inc to identify how different the results would be using an active rather than a passive reporting system. So Harvard Pilgrim conducted a three-year study in which they created a proactive, reliable, automated system, called ESP:VAERS, which relies on electronic health records (EHR) data to detect and securely report adverse events rather than relying on patients to voluntarily report their adverse events.<\/p>\n The ESP:VAERS system studied the results of 1.4 million doses of 45 different vaccines given to 376,452 people. Every patient receiving a vaccine was automatically identified, and for the next 30 days, their health care diagnostic codes, laboratory tests, and medication prescriptions are evaluated for values suggestive of an adverse vaccine event. The results showed 35,570 adverse events, which is 2.54% of total vaccines, which is almost identical to the 2.555% identified in the MGB study.<\/p>\n If Dr. Fauci was here, he could explain how two independent studies with almost identical findings was purely \u201ccoincidental\u201d, but since I don\u2019t have any scientific training, it sounds important to me.<\/p>\n Even though the MGB study focused exclusively on COVID-19 injections and the Harvard Pilgrim study focused on other vaccines (since it was done prior to COVID-19), their findings were similar because both compared systems that actively captured 100% of vaccine recipients with passive VAERS data. So they both arrived at the same conclusion, showing VAERS is a seriously inadequate system that grossly under reports adverse reactions.<\/p>\n The Harvard Pilgrim team<\/a> summarized their general conclusions as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cfewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of \u2018problem\u2019 drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n With the COVID-19 shots being increasingly mandated around the world, this elephant has already done lots of damage, as shown by the following VAERS data, even as under reported as it is, showing alarmingly large numbers of adverse reactions through April 23, 2021:<\/p>\n\n
\n