Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.5K

My estimate of the VAERS under-reporting factor (URF) at 41 was based on anaphylaxis rates reported in the Blumenthal paper published in JAMA.

I have argued that the anaphylaxis rate is an appropriate number to use to (under) estimate deaths because I believed that deaths would be less reported than anaphylaxis to VAERS for two reasons: 1) usually lacks the time proximity to vaccination, 2) the person seeing the death may not know the vaccination status of the victim and may not technically be required to report the death.

Some people have quibbled with that assumption, including my friend Professor John Ioannidis, who argued that there is no evidence that that is true and it could be the other way around. It’s a fair point and I told John it’s only an estimate and I’m happy to modify it when we have more data.

That day has arrived courtesy of Wayne at VAERS Analysis.

Wayne did a URF computation using death data in CMS. This overcomes any objections about the validity of using anaphylaxis rates as a proxy for death rates.

The VAERS URF he computed was 44.64.

This seems reasonable to me. It’s really not far from the 41 I calculated.

Also, Wayne subsequently looked at the numbers for 9 states. The average value was 40, not far from the 41 I calculated from anaphylaxis.

I had two team members (Albert Benavides and Jessica Rose) double check his numbers. No mistake.

Now, let’s see what that means.

As of Dec 14, 2021, there are 9,136 deaths reported into VAERS for domestic deaths (if you are using OpenVAERS, flip the switch at the top to see the US only deaths). If we subtract out more than twice the total number of deaths reported in any previous year (to be super conservative about estimating background deaths):

My estimate of the VAERS under-reporting factor (URF) at 41 was based on anaphylaxis rates reported in the Blumenthal paper published in JAMA. I have argued that the anaphylaxis rate is an appropriate number to use to (under) estimate deaths because I believed that deaths would be less reported than anaphylaxis to VAERS for two reasons: 1) usually lacks the time proximity to vaccination, 2) the person seeing the death may not know the vaccination status of the victim and may not technically be required to report the death. Some people have quibbled with that assumption, including my friend Professor John Ioannidis, who argued that there is no evidence that that is true and it could be the other way around. It’s a fair point and I told John it’s only an estimate and I’m happy to modify it when we have more data. That day has arrived courtesy of Wayne at VAERS Analysis. Wayne did a URF computation using death data in CMS. This overcomes any objections about the validity of using anaphylaxis rates as a proxy for death rates. The VAERS URF he computed was 44.64. This seems reasonable to me. It’s really not far from the 41 I calculated. Also, Wayne subsequently looked at the numbers for 9 states. The average value was 40, not far from the 41 I calculated from anaphylaxis. I had two team members (Albert Benavides and Jessica Rose) double check his numbers. No mistake. Now, let’s see what that means. As of Dec 14, 2021, there are 9,136 deaths reported into VAERS for domestic deaths (if you are using OpenVAERS, flip the switch at the top to see the US only deaths). If we subtract out more than twice the total number of deaths reported in any previous year (to be super conservative about estimating background deaths):

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (10).
[–] • 0 pt

VAERS is reported by the doctor from my understanding.

[–] • 0 pt

How did the dude get The Incredible Hulk information entered into the database? He was an autism activist, not a doctor.

[–] • 0 pt

Considering 1% of adverse reactions are reported to VAERS I'd say it isn't a very "respected" part of the CDC. After all, they are in bed with the Pharma industry. Some things are there just for show.

[–] • 0 pt

Okay, I have some new information. Anyone is allowed to submit to VAERS: public health officials, medical professionals, and the general public.

Per the CDC, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is used to collect reports of adverse events after vaccination from the general public. This is primarily used to identify potential topics to further investigate with regards to vaccine reactions. However, because the event data in VAERS is often not verified and is often self-reported, it should not be assumed that the adverse events in VAERS are actually associated with or cause by the vaccines, nor is it possible to estimate the frequency of these adverse events from these data.

[–] • -1 pt (edited )

How do we know it's 1%? If under reported, we have a lack of data. We just don't know how much data we lack.

By the way, I took the liberty of looking that dude up. He is an anesthesiologist, so he does have access to VAERS. He sounds like a whack job. He almost killed his kids trying to keep them away from toxins in the environment so they won't catch autism.

Apparently there is a federal law against knowingly entering falsified data into VAERS, but I've read about people doing it on purpose. We would call them antivaxxers. They want to spread FUD about the covid vaccines. Read several instances of this on voat before it shut down. Unfortunately I didn't get screen captures.