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
By Steve Kirsch
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.mm705152a1-H
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:
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.
Computing the VAERS underreporting factor (URF)
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.