What the Heck is the Harvard Pilgrim Study and did it really say that about the underreporting of vaccine adverse events?

What the Heck is the Harvard Pilgrim Study and did it really say that about the underreporting of vaccine adverse events?

There has been much social media chatter about some Harvard Pilgrim study and how it found that vaccine adverse events and deaths are underreported by a factor of 100. As a litigator in the vaccine field, this is something I have come across and have used, so I thought it might be helpful to some readers to post the study, and maybe clear-up some misimpressions in circulation.  So, here is the study:  r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011(6)

For those who just want the highlights (and a little more) here is what’s what:

What is a Harvard Pilgrim? It is a health insurance company in Massachusetts that has some research affiliation with Harvard (and as of 2019 it merged with the Tufts Health plan).

What did it study and why?

According to the listed purpose: “This research project was funded to improve the quality of vaccination programs by improving the quality of physician adverse vaccine event detection and reporting to the national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) . . ..”

***

“Public and professional confidence in vaccination depends on reliable postmarketing surveillance systems to ensure that rare and unexpected adverse effects are rapidly identified. The goal of this project is to improve the quality of vaccination programs by improving the quality of physician adverse vaccine event detection and reporting to the national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).”

Noble goals for sure, though most of you would take issue that AE’s from vaccines are “rare and unexpected.”

What was the universe studied?

This is from the first paragraph of the Results section.

“Preliminary data were collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month. These data were presented at the 2009 AMIA conference.”

So what about this thing about less than 1 percent of vaccine AE’s are reported?

Ok, now we get to the heart of it. Pay very close attention:

“Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed. Barriers to reporting include a lack of clinician awareness, uncertainty about when and what to report, as well as the burdens of reporting: reporting is not part of clinicians’ usual workflow, takes time, and is duplicative. Proactive, spontaneous, automated adverse event reporting imbedded within EHRs and other information systems has the potential to speed the identification of problems with new drugs and more careful quantification of the risks of older drugs.”

That’s a mouthful, and I could spend hours and pages about what this means (and doesn’t), but what I’m not seeing here is a source for the less than 1% underreporting of vaccine AE’s, and I wish there was.

I am also not seeing any mention of deaths. While death associated with a medical intervention is surely the most extreme AE, I don’t think it is reasonable to extrapolate the less than 1% number to deaths, in terms of an extrapolation argument that the 500 (or now 1,200) deaths associated with the COVID vaccine is really 100 times that amount. And with the widespread reporting of individual COVID-associated deaths, I think we would know if there were really 50,000 to 100k deaths from the COVID vaccine in the few months in which the vaccines have been administered.  So to my mind, making the argument that COVID vaccine deaths are underreported by a factor of a hundred based on this study is both unjustified and ridiculous on its face.

Of course, the quoted language from the results about how low reporting rates slow identification of problem drugs which  “endanger[s] public health” is music to the ears of the vaccine concerned. As is the listing of all the reasons practitioners do not report AE’s.

Were there any limitations or impediments to the study?

you betcha!

“Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.”

I guess everyone just got too busy or they didn’t think it was important enough to increase the efficacy of the AE reporting system.

So there you have it

While interesting, and certainly confirmatory of what most of you believe, it seems a little thin in general.  But even beyond that, we live in pandemic times with a still (for now at least) very active social media reporting on serious adverse events from the COVID vaccines, which is unparalleled to the vaccine context a dozen or so years ago when this study was performed. Therefore, I question the soundness of the extrapolation that some are making from this study onto the COVID vaccine AE situation, and more so about extrapolating about deaths. I think the latter should stop forthwith because it shows a lack of contact with reality, and thus undercuts credibility.

BUT MORE TO THE POINT,

I think there are much better and direct data points for extrapolation for the possible underreporting of Covid vaccine-related adverse events, and it is sort of obvious, namely, the reported data from the clinical trial itself. A while back, I did a post on the phase 1 clinical trial results for the Moderna vaccine. Here is that post. http://rickjaffeesq.com/2020/07/28/digging-into-the-moderna-vaccine-clinical-trials-protocols-and-results/

The bottom line is that after the second dose, 100% of Phase 1 subjects who received the Moderna vaccine had either a mild or moderate local and a mild or moderate systemic side effect from the vaccine. That’s right, 100%.

Two related caveats: Clinical trial AE reporting involves active follow-up with test subjects, obviously.  The VAER’s system is passive and voluntary. One would certainly expect a passive system not to be nearly as robust as an active reporting system. Relatedly, common sense might tell us that a passive, voluntary reporting system might well significantly underreport localized mild symptoms, i.e., a sore arm from a needle stick.

Those two caveats aside, (and assuming half of the 42 million delivered shots were the Moderna vaccine and half the reported 5k or now 12k VAER total reported side effects were from the Moderna vaccine), how is it that the active surveillance reported AE rate of 100%  goes down to 0.0005 (math might be wrong but it’s surely a couple of zeros after the decimal point.)

Either those Moderna folk made a really big improvement to the vaccine before EUA administration (which of course they couldn’t have legally) or this is pretty good evidence of the very significant underreporting of the passive VAER reporting system for the Moderna vaccine.

And in fairness, the FDA has recently admitted that its AE reporting system for the COVID vaccines is not fully up in place yet. Ya think? And this is all when most of the 42 million vaccinated have only received one of the two doses. But based on the above, don’t expect VAER’s to capture what is really going on, at least compared to what was reported in Moderna’s Phase 1 clinical trial results. I guess my point is that to me, Moderna’s actual reported clinical trial AE data is a much better basis for extrapolation than this Harvard Pilgrim thing.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

 

 

 

 

 

 

80 thoughts on “What the Heck is the Harvard Pilgrim Study and did it really say that about the underreporting of vaccine adverse events?

  1. Are you saying that this statement is false? “Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” Not quite sure how to wrap my head around this.

  2. I am saying:
    1. I don’t see a source in the study for the less the 1 percent. It seems like it’s based on something, or it’s an assumption, but I can’t say because there is no source, unlike the drug rate which is attributed to the FDA
    2. I’m saying that you can’t necessarily extrapolate that statement which was in 2008 or 2010 to now in the COVID world because of the intense social media scrutiny about AE’s which didn’t exist for fully licensed vaccines back then where there was much underreporting because docs would tell parents just to take baby motrin or whatever and it will resolve itself and not do a VAER report
    3. You certainly can’t extrapolate to deaths being the ultimate AE because deaths aren’t mentioned and there’s no way there would be 50 to 100k deaths from the COVID vaccine and we wouldn’t know it.

      1. I did a post about the Harvard Pilgrim study recently. That 1% is an unsourced estimate which appears to include all AE’s including mild local AE’s like a sore arm and I don’t think you can apply that unsourced estimate to the COVID world where serious AE’s get reported and recirculated in the vaccine concerned social media world.

    1. I have thought the same (on those exact points) and hate that many people I follow, and believe to have important messages, are causing the pro-vaccine safety cause to be less credible!

      1. yes, it’s one of many examples which shows the distorted views of some (or many) in the community that can’t or won’t look at things dispassionately and analytically, but instead deny and then give a zillion nonapplicable or general reasons why they don’t trust pharma/the government/scientists.

  3. Thank you for addressing this issue. I’ve been pointing out the lack of a source for that 1% rate for years because it drives me crazy how many people think it’s a result of that trial. I’ve tried to find the original source, including emailing Lazarus for it, but to no avail–with the exception that in 1995, Rosenthal & Chen found a rate of <1% for least serious adverse events (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615747/pdf/amjph00450-0108.pdf). After a lull, now with covid, that 1% has made a come-back in social media, and even Children's Health Defense has cited it in two of its recent articles.

  4. less than 1% makes sense for sore arms. On the other side if it, I think PCP’s for kids reactively downplay the seriousness of side effects reported by parents which if they were unrelated to a vaccine might result in a recommendation to the emergency room. It’s an assumption that the side effect will resolve without any long-term effect. Many in fact do, but some result in long-term effects, like developmental after encephalitic like reactions. I suspect/guess that is underreported.

    1. You obviously have not researched vaccine side effects science. Also, the CDC didn’t drop the ball; they did not want to take it further. Where’s the incentive, when HHS is in charge of vax safety, manufacturers are immune to liability aside from the kangaroo court, and government public health agencies are a revolving door of pharmaceutical industry players and investors? Rather, the CDC incentive is to not take the research further, same way they choose not to do a vax/unvax study, though they have the data.

      Again, the side effects are much more than sore arms. Myriad of chronic health issues now an epidemic in the USA, are linked to injections and other pharmaceuticals.

      1. “You obviously have not researched vaccine side effects science.”

        Why do you say this? Everything Jaffe has said makes sense to me. Also, everything you have said makes sense, except for your assessment of his knowledge of the science. Could you explain?

          1. thx for posting that article. I think the pre-Harvard Pilgrim study information is very interesting and important, especially because I think the actual study is not strong as I have indicated in the post and in comments. I also don’t think the findings can be extrapolated to the COVID pandemic context (and certainly not to deaths as I said in the post) because of a lack of separation of mild local side effects which I don’t think is viewed as a valid reason not to vaccinate a person in a pandemic. Of course many believe there is no pandemic and everyone is entitled to their opinion about anything I suppose.

          2. I’m familiar with that article, but my question was to Lana. Would like to engage with her, but so far, no response.

          3. I would like to add what I think is a crucial point: The Harvard Pilgrim “study” was not a study of VAERS reporting rates. It was a trial of the automated reporting system, ESP-VAERS, which was designed to increase existing reporting rates by health care professionals. It collected neither unreported adverse events nor events reported by non health care professionals (e.g., general public, drug companies). Therefore, not only could the 1% reporting rate (# of reported events / # of experienced events) cited in the report not possibly be a result of this trial, but also the trial’s actual results could not possibly represent VAERS overall reporting rates when unassisted by automated technology, regardless of whether the vaccines in question were administered during a pandemic.

      2. Not to mention “they” are eager to accept COVID deaths at face value simply because there was a positive test and no illness. Poor test quality, incentives, pressure…..nothing adds up. Trust is gone. Too many agendas as it is with everything. No trust. No long term studies. No trust. We allow government employees to benefit from vaccines. No trust. Numbers are easy to manipulate. No trust. Chaos wins elections. No trust.

        1. And now we are clearly seeing that only 5% of all US death certificates have the Coof as the singular cause of death. Ms.Wallenski said the other day in an interview that she agrees that the balance of the total Coof deaths have an average of FOUR other serious health problems and very often SIX comorbidities are present. Further delving into the CDC website data on detailed specifics of the Coof death certificates all consigned to Coof as cause of death, show a HUGE, absolutely overwhelmingly huge attribution was P & I, Pnuemonia and the Flu. Which explains all the recent articles on how “we conquered the flu, it’s gone” such as the NYT’s. Nope. All the flu deaths with positive Coof tests made it seem to disappear. whazzup wit dat? https://youtu.be/QP2u8I4bAEw

  5. CDC did another similar VAERS reporting study with Ohio Pilgrim. That one has more detail about the AEs reported.

  6. “I guess everyone just got too busy or they didn’t think it was important enough to increase the efficacy of the AE reporting system.”
    That may not be a complete list of reasons. Judging by how CDC, WHO and other such org. behave I would not be so polite in guessing “why they did what they did”. Take-downs of YT, Twitter accounts of those who go counter to the TV narrative speak loudly.

    “The bottom line is that after the second dose, 100% of Phase 1 subjects who received the Moderna vaccine had either a mild or moderate local and a mild or moderate systemic side effect from the vaccine. That’s right, 100%.”
    So how were these subjects chosen ? Some specialists who know this field suggest these were “healthy” people. Now to extrapolate these results to a population of millions who are not healthy , well that is some serious extrapolating. Even the 95% claim should be researched closer by those who are interest because it is not as it seem, it’s a relative number of improved protection as opposed to the placebo group.

  7. I believe it’s standard practice to conduct trials with healthy and non-pregnant people and then give the vax to everyone, including pregnant women.

    1. Wouldn’t a reasonable question be, if everyone knows that VAERS is inadequate, why hasn’t it been improved upon all these years later?

      1. I think there are many reasons AE’s are underreported for drugs and vaccines, but my uninformed guess is that a big reason is that AE’s include local and mild, which really don’t affect the safety or determination of whether to give a drug or vaccine, because all medical interventions can cause some mild side effect is some people. And it’s not only the docs’ fault. I took statins twice and got bad side effects twice and had to stop it, but I never reported it to the prescribing doc. I just stopped it.

        1. You’re dwelling on minor AEs. There are also serious AEs and we have no idea to what extent. And it’s because “they” don’t want to know. It they did, we would have had a better system a long time ago.
          It’s also why CDC and HHS didn’t answer the phone when Harvard Pilgrim called. AEs can be pulled right out of patient’s EMRs. Easy peasy. Instead, we’re stuck with a lot of coincidences.

          1. I find it puzzling that HHS funded the project, but CDC didn’t want anything to do with it.

            As for their lack of desire for a better system, they already have access to data from health care organizations (e.g., Vaccine Safety Datalink), so they don’t need one. Since the general public doesn’t have access to these databases, we’re stuck with a passive reporting system that is designed only to show rare events that can only be detected after vaccines get distributed en masse. These can of course be very serious, but get dismissed because of their rarity (in comparison to # of people vaccinated) without regard to the devastation inflicted on people who experience them. This is what burns me.

          2. That’s really what I meant.
            They have the data link but don’t share that information with the public.
            That fact alone gives some of us pause.

          3. They say it’s because of confidentiality, from what I understand. But it seems that they could disguise identifying info if they wanted. There are strict rules that researchers have to follow in order to access the database. For one thing, they have to access through the CDC’s onsite monitors. Another is, they can’t align patient numbers between databases. A couple of researchers got banned for doing that. So I imagine putting the system online with confidentiality protections would be a big job.

  8. Seems like the idea that people should be reporting anything other than major side effects is not realistic. Its not a flaw in vaers. Trials have given everyone most of the known side effects data. When you are told the side effects are likely to be fever chills, aches, sore arm headaches and more then why would anyone report it unless in a trial. It becomes an expected result.. anecdotally everyone i know has had something, myself and fiance literally a sore arm if I could call it that. Most others would be aches and tired.. I would purely guess that major side effects are reported at a much higher rate and deaths would likely be close to 100 percent.

    1. But, as Kevin said, it’s purely a guess. If the information is available on the data link, why not share it with us?
      It gives some of us pause. And gives others an opportunity to scream foul.

  9. Elephant in the Room
    Okay, so you’re suggesting the rate of reporting is better than 1%??? Any guess on how much more? Maybe 10%, 25% or a whopping 50%???
    Even at that rate, the AE are alarming!

    1. You should consider what the adverse event are. These are any health-related events that happen to a person after vaccination. They can be coincidental and are in fact are mostly coincidental. The only side effect that can be easily linked to a vaccine is anaphylaxis, because usually it happens within 30 minutes after injection. Such things as blood clots, GBS happen very often in general without any vaccination. And when caused by a vaccine they manifest within several days, sometimes weeks after injection. VAERS data by itself can not be used directly to identify rare side effects of vaccines let alone identify their rate. It is used to spot statistical anomalies that could indicate a rare side effect which went under the radar during clinical studies. Then you need statistical analysis to say if you really caught something. Here is an example http://jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?doi=10.1001/jamaoto.2021.0869 This is about link between sudden hearing loss and COVID vaccines (none found).

  10. Now middle of August 2021 and VAERS is reporting more than 12,000 deaths. Are you alarmed yet?
    What IF that number really does only represents 1%, or even 10% or lets be generous and say it represents a full 50% of the actual deaths. Are you alarmed yet?
    If you expect your readers to trust your research it would help if you respond to this travesty. Or is asking questions disallowed here too?

    1. The real takeaway from Harvard Pilgrim is that they showed how to make a more reliable system for showing adverse events and they blew them off.
      They prefer the plausible deniability of the current system.
      Tells you all you really need to know.
      Unfortunately the vast majority of the population is, well, you know.

      1. ESP:VAERS is not a replacement for VAERS, it is a supplementary system that helps health professionals with reports to VAERS. And it is being used by multiple health institutions.

    2. First, I don’t think the 12k number is from VAERS. It was around half that or less back in August.
      Second, you don’t understand what VAERS is or does. It’s just reported or self-reported temporal associations. not causation.
      Third, the 1 percent was not sourced and was just an estimate I assume based on drugs. Fourth, it doesn’t seem reasonable to extrapolate all AE’s to death since being a passive system, many mild to moderate AE’s (sore arm eg) seem like they would go underreported).
      As I said in the post, if there were 100 or 50 or even 20 times the VAERS reported death rate caused by the vaccine that would be a crazy number that is just not reality. A hundred times your 12k number would be 1.2 million, from the vaccine. Really? 50% would be 600k. 10% would be 120k additional deaths. If you think that makes any sense, maybe just stop reading my posts, because you’re living in a different reality.

      1. First, the 12,000 actually IS from VAERS.
        Second, I do understand very well what VAERS is and does.
        Third, I don’t even know what you’re saying.
        Fourth, no need to “extrapolate” anything. Either there are a lot more AE’s than reported or there isn’t…which there obviously is.
        As I mentioned…even the now 15,000+ deaths that ARE reported is a crazy number. Whether it’s 100x, 50x, 20x or just 2x more, where is the outrage? If you think that’s okay maybe just stop posting because you’re living in a different reality than most of us critical thinkers.

      2. Ummm, the VAERS #’s were not 1/2 of 12,000 in August. It seems it’s you who has the “implicit” bias that you project on to others as if the facts are not good enough and must be exaggerated only in the opposite direction.

        “There’s no way there would be 50 or 100k deaths from Covid vaccines and we wouldn’t know about it..” Is this your unbiased scientific opinion?

        Au contrere mon frere, I beg to differ. The censorship by the Biden Administration, CNN, Twitter, YT and FB is, to put it mildly, dystopian. You can’t even quote the CDC on FB or mention the WHO Ivermectin kits given to 65 million families in Uttar Pradesh last May that crushed the c19 tsunami. Facts are not allowed as Pfizer and the CDC are giddy with anticipation to vaccinate 5-11 year olds as soon as possible, mind you they have a .007% chance of getting the rona.

        According to the latest numbers from
        VAER’s;
        16k deaths
        23k disabilities
        10k myocarditis
        87k urgent care visits
        75k hospital stays
        775k adverse reactions
        These numbers are w/o any force multipliers… Even if they don’t show causality, they at least merit public FDA/CDC/Government hearings with testimony from affected parties.

        EudraViligance;
        26k deaths
        1.9 M adverse reactions

        According the latest Medicare whistleblower the government/CDC knowingly hid 50k deaths that occurred with 72 hours of the vaccine shot. Mind you the CDC loves to play tricks with words. You’re not technically considered vaccinated until day 15 after your shot, so technically these 50,000 dead people according to the CDC’s “science” are considered unvaccinated lol. It’s not very funny, quite sad really, one might venture to say even willfully evil.

      3. I don’t think 1% (or, as best I could calculate it, 1 in 233) would necessarily apply to serious events and deaths. The best way for us to get a sense of the actual tool is from analysis of other markers, such as national rates of myocrditis, and total death rates.

        But a factor on the order of 10, I could see, especially if increased susceptibility to COVID itself soon after the jabs is considered. Dead is dead.

        It is indeed misleading to regard people who have gotten the jab within 14 days as “unvaccinated”, when death rates just about everywhere indicate an increased susceptibility to COVID itself, perhaps due to the spike proteins amplifying those that are already present at a sub-clinical level in an incubation stage or antibody-dependent enhancement of a sub-clinical infection.

  11. But this is not the study! This is a grant report. Report by a group that was developing ESP:VAERS – the system that is supposed to automate adverse effect reporting. And the grant was given for development of this system. It is unclear where the numbers from the report come from, because the group did not do any study where they’d publish these numbers. The only scientific paper they published is this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2605594/ and it is about how their ESP:VAERS funcions.
    The most recent https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.09.072 study shows that for clinically significant adverse events (anaphylaxis, GBS) reporting rate is between 12% and 76%.
    Now if we are talking about mild or moderate adverse events then such events understandably fly under the radar, since it is something along the lines of arm swelling or light fever.

  12. Unbelievable… To state that Moderna’s reporting would be more accurate.. They are going to make billions onve the vaccine is allowed (it has NEVER been approved by the FDA or any official government body involved in approving new medicines. It was allowed as an emergency measure for the most vulnerable) so guess what Moderna is going to sat about their own product. And this is all AFTER they have secured 100 indemnity for any damages caused. Or would you rather believe an independent research institute, which has no interest in any outcome.

    1. This is an excellent point that I think much of the media and even folks like Richard seem to ignore. There is a conflict of interest in this matter that people want to avoid talking about. The more problematic issue is that as governments enact vaccine mandates, the governments themselves will have a conflict of interest in making known adverse side-effects. Richard also seems to think that the media is interested in revealing potential issues from vaccines when they tend to take the opposite position. A main reason would once again be the conflict of interest caused by the fact that this very media had been promoting the vaccines as something everyone must take and shaming those who ask any questions.

      So while I agree with Richard that 1% number is unsourced, I am not sure any of his other conclusions beyond that obvious fact is correct.

      1. I think social media widely reports adverse events and from what I see it’s the same isolated stories being circulated over and over again. And beyond those stories there are circulated stories from health care practitioners. Those stories are ignored by mainstream media but the information is nonetheless gets out. The problem is that it seems like a pretty small number compared to the over a billion shots. That’s why if you’re against vaccines you need a multiplier like the Harvard Pilgrim study to make the argument seem more reasonable from a numbers point of view.
        The fallback position is that any serious AE means there can’t be a mandate because it’s a forced medical procedure.

        1. I’ve also noticed many of the same reports are recirulated, but what of this fishing expedition on a Facebook post by a Detroit area news station for COVID deaths and serious cases among the unvaccinated; which netted hardly any of what they asked for, but rather over 200,000 comments, a vast majority of which reported serious events, disabilities, and deaths due to the jabs?
          https://www.facebook.com/wxyzdetroit/photos/a.461583946134/10158207966696135

          I’d say hundreds of thousands or reports of such issues in reponse to a query by a local news station, as compared with on the order of 250,000 people in the US having gotten the jabs, is quite a safety signal that deserves attention from those who are supposed to be charged with protecting our health.

        2. What social media, are you serious? You get banned and have at least your comment or video and more often your entire account or channel deleted on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter- the most widely used of all social media platforms if you claim either that the election was stolen or that the virus itself was from a lab (that type of censorship is over now of course), has graphene oxide in it (such as Germany’s top expert in Graphene Oxide had claimed he noticed using a microscope – he was arrested during a livestream, and an expert in Patent Law who was on the Stew Peters show claimed, using the actual patents as evidence among other things, etc.), is a pLandemic (such as Kissinger’s now declassified National Security Memo #200- a depopulation/culling agenda using vaccines as the medium (of what? murder? It’s now available on the National Intelligence Archives Website), that vaccines are dangerous – even if your a freaking doctor, etc. etc. etc., ad nauseam. Hell Walensky and Fauci were on bloody CSPAN in October admitting most of the Doctors and staff at the CDC and NIH aren’t vaccinated, and Congress and Federal employees don’t have to be vaccinated but we do? Then there’s the fact the entire regimen for the lockdowns was published in the Rockefeller Foundations Lockstep Paper document in 2010, from the six feet social distancing to the shutdown of the economy while multinational stores remain open across the street – only privately owned mom and pop stores selling identical freaking products were forced to close and we’ve seen the largest mass transfer of wealth from middle and lower classes in Human history during this farce, and if I posted this on YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook it would be deleted or shadow banned – easy to see by logging out and trying to find the post. Try it.

          What social media?

  13. Richard, weather I agree with your statements or not… .. To state that Moderna’s reporting would be more accurate.. .. Basically in your opinion trustworthy… They knew they were about to make make billions once the vaccine is allowed (it has NEVER been approved by the FDA or any official government body involved in approving new medicines. It was allowed as an emergency measure for the most vulnerable) so guess what Moderna is going to say about their own product? If they would not have this immunity of liability, and would like be responsible for the serious side effects (not talking about a sore arm here or a bit of tiredness, but other severe damages as reported by VAERS) the pharma’s would never bring it to market. Of course none of their own reports are going to show anything that could possible stop this new product from being launched world wide. Or raise doubts by the public. All trials and report came AFTER they have secured 100% indemnity for any damages caused. How can their own findings be objective if there are billions at stake? And I assume everybody’s annual million dollar bonus as well? would you rather believe an independent research institute, which has no interest or benefit in any outcome, or trust the company who has a billion dollar profit at stake, and no matter what damages its product will cause, be it a sore arm, heart attack death or other life long severe brain injury, they can never ever be sued for it, taken to court or held accountable in any possible form. How can you trust their research, their trials and the outcome? They will never say anything negative about their product, and only report ‘standard and harmless ‘ side effects, like temp dizxyness, tiredness, etc

  14. Yes, 1% was evidently a “hand wavy” figure. I took my best shot at running actual numbers, using an estimate of the number of “at least 3,454,269,356 vaccine doses” administered in the US from 2006-17 from a vax shill site (https://vaxopedia.org/2018/01/10/vaccines-statistics-and-numbers/), and a VAERS search for all US adverse events reported to have occurred within the same period, and came up with an underreporting factor of 233 for all adverse events.

    Harvard Pilgrim MUST have data for more serious events and deaths, but WHERE is it?

    The very presence of such data and lack of public disclosure of it tell me quite quite enough about the safety record of these jabs.

    Mind you, the reporting system utilized by Harvard Pilgrim flagged medical history consistent with adverse ervents, and further examined those instances. So one can certainly make the case for greater veracity of Harvard Pilgrim data than VAERS itself.

    People ARE noticing the number of deaths from the jabs, as well as the increaded death rates attributed to COVID itself just following the jabs, which are counted as “unvacccinated”.

    I’m hardly a big follower of celebrity gossip, but have noticed many times more famous people having died or been disabled following the COVID jabs than attributed to COVID itself. I recently read of an NBA player who was disabled following COVID vaccination. haven’t heard of any killed or disabled by COVID. In fact, very few who even got seriously ill, and you can bet the media would play those up to the hilt.

    A whistleblower from the CDC itself reported on the order of 45,000 deaths within 3 days of the jabs from medicare and Medicaid data alone. What would the normal be for 3 days? I doubt it’s anywhere near 5,000,000 per year. Probably not even 1/10 that figure. And that’s just within those systems.

    I would not at all be surprised if the death rate due to COVID jabs in the US is on the order of 100,000 or more, as some who have examined death rates as compared to normals have claimed to be the case.

    Again, the CDC has access to better data, and they’re not telling.

    1. Please excuse the typos. A typsit I’m not and not the best proofreading long posts of my own, either.

    2. The total number of adverse reports on VAERS was 376, 692 for 2006-17. That’s about 1/233 of the “at least” 3,454,269,356 vaccines estimated to have been administered. And if the number of jabs was higher, so would be the underreporting ratio.

      The study also found adverse events reported for about 1 in 11 patients. That is within about a 3 year period.

      What do about adverse reaction rates of 1 in 39.4 doses and 1 in 11 patients within 3 years imply for children who get on the order of 70 jabs over 18 years?

      What amazes me most is how many people still believe in the safety of vaccines in light of such data.

    3. I confused figures. The VAERS figure of 376, 692 is about 1/233 of the 87,763,115 adverse events that would correspond to 1 in 39.4 of the 3,454,269,356 vaccine doses.

      Apologize for the confusion.

  15. Suppose the deaths reported of roughly 16,000 to date is NOT understated.

    Assume further that it is OVERSTATED, and by as much as 100% —- that the true number of deaths is ONLY 8,000 to date.

    To keep the math easy, if we assume that the injections have been available in the U.S. for 22 months, that would mean that we have averaged 363 deaths per month in the U.S., or 12 deaths per day in the U.S., or 1 death every two hours in the U.S.

    12 deaths per day? I can see that number “flying below the radar” —- going largely unnoticed by all but the friends and loved ones of the deceased.

    After all … It’s ONLY 12 people per day in the U. S. (And I have no idea how many people outside the U.S. have died due to the vaccine.)

    Has our government EVER approved a vaccine that has killed an average of 12 people a day minimum? Especially when there seems to be evidence of effective therapeutics.

    Perhaps we have good reasons for our hesitance!

    1. I think the problem with your analysis is that it’s not possible to draw any conclusions about how many people died from the vaccine based on VAERS because there is no causation analysis. The data is just a temporal association. I think the real problem is that the government doesn’t/won’t give out that data and that there is no incentive to look for it, because it will be used by so called anti vaxxers to support their rejection of it.

    2. Average death rate from any cause in US right now is 8.9 per 1000 per year. Therefore average probability of an average person in US to die on an any given day is about 0.0000244. 414,302,192 doses of a COVID-19 vaccines were administered in US so far. There should be approximately 10000 people who coincidentally died within 24 hours after the vaccine. This calculation is extremely inaccurate of course, because I took average death rate. To get a better number I should take into account age distribution among vaccinated and exclude not health related death causes like accidents and murders.
      Those 16000 deaths reported to VAERS following vaccine administration are really not a surprise. I’d expect approximately the same number to be there if we monitored adverse events of a glass of water. It makes me really admire all the work that went into developing methods that help to catch side-effects of vaccines using VAERS data.

  16. Excellent discussion, thanks to Mr. Jeffries for pursuing it. Good points all around.

    What I have HEARD is that is was the Harvard REVIEW which originally crunched some kind of numbers, which would make it seem that the Harvard Pilgrim was merely quoting this. However, I cannot, like many here who have tried, find an original study (if it even was a “study” per se; for all we know it was an educated estimate). It doesn’t seem unlikely that the study finding less than 1% for minor adverse reactions has been amplified to justify with numbers the intuitive perception, based on knowledge of corruption, that adverse events are under-reported.

    Logic would dictate that they are underreported, since 1) few are educated, prior to vaccination, about possible side effects (they are written onto the packaging, which doctors typically do not show to parents, or even adults, before inoculating them)…Why, the other day, I was given what I thought was an individual tetanus shot, which turned out to have been bundled up with a pertussis and one other vaccine, injected into my arm without my having been informed of this at all. Far from educating me about side effects, I wasn’t even informed of what shots I was getting! And this is typical; 2) a second reason is that doctors do not see many vaccine reactions as such, such is the mass-communicated blind spot about these matters (doctors take pharmacology courses in med school, not etiology courses, as a rule); 3) vaccine manufacturers, as noted by one commenter above, have corrupted the regulatory system, the reality of which can be expected to skew the numbers toward a perception of safety and health, and away from any reports of illness, disability and death (this is par for the course for corporate PR machines, especially oligopoly-corporate ones); 4) vaccinees themselves, due to the mass manipulation of information, or even tribalistic fervor, may be blind to the possibility of an adverse event’s being due to a vaccine (although here you could conversely say that rabid antivaxers will err on the side of blaming vaccines for everything, and perhaps even pad VAERS numbers with false reports to make their point, but I would think the sheer number of vaccinees along with the sheer weight of mass-media propaganda, along with the unprecedented amount of control exercised by Big Pharma, would outweigh false VAERS reports by a large margin); 5) the side effects of COVID vaccines, in particular, seem to be unlimited in the organ systems possibly affected, amounting to a “ghost in the machine” situation which is difficult, at best, to diagnose, much less self-diagnose, and furthermore could easily be a symptom of wild COVID-virus exposure, which often occurs with no awareness on the part of the exposed person….Unless predisposed to blame the vaccine, it seems unlikely that individuals would do so with so little information handly about such reactions. The question is, are there more symptomatic people who are irrationally disposed toward blaming vaccines, or are there more such people who are underinformed about the side effects?

    1. I was appreciating what you were saying until you got to “rabid anti-vaxers” and ” irrationally disposed toward blaming vaccines.” If you’re going to use prejudicial language, please at least even out your delivery with “rabid pro-vaxxers” and “irrationally disposed toward denying vaccine injury.” But better to use kinder and more cushioned words for both extremes, imo.

      My question is, does it matter whose numbers are greater when all anyone can do is guess at the risk-benefit ratio when the study of the effects of mass vaccination for covid is still in early stages and the public health measures being employed are just as experimental as the jabs?

  17. …regarding my point 5), above, a top German pathologist, who had autopsied a number of people who had died within two weeks–two WEEKS, not two days–of COVID vaccination, came to the conclusion that 30-40% of them had died of complications from the vaccine. Despite his reputation and his being a mainstream pathologist, his conclusions were painted as baseless by other mainstream medical personnel. …Anyway, the point is that, if you can die from the jab as long as two weeks after the jab, then adverse-reaction symptoms may not be immediate, and thus not immediately obvious as being related to the inoculation. If everyone who was going to gravely sicken and die as a result of the vaccine did so with dramatic immediacy, I am sure we would be seeing more reports of adverse events as stemming from the vaccine. Hanks Aaron died two weeks after (with no autopsy). Also, in the context of the history of coronavirus vaccines generally, the worst of the adverse reactions were noted to have occurred only after exposure to the wild virus subsequent to the inoculations. If this is also true of the current round of coronavirus (COVID) vaccines, the random lag in time will be contributing to the confusion of what to blame for what…. So, again, the nature of this side-effect beast may be presenting from within a cloud of random symptomatology as well as confusing timelines, in a context of social pressure to submit to a positive view of COVID vaccination.

  18. Hello from Finland! I got interested about that pathologist from Germany. I did find the original story https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/panorama/Corona-Chef-Pathologe-der-Uni-Heidelberg-draengt-auf-mehr-Obduktionen-von-Geimpften-id60235361.html
    Google Translator made quite a good translation into english, so may I include it over here:

    A pathologist would now like to do more autopsies on the deceased who were vaccinated against Corona – and his theses have received a lot of criticism. He himself emphasizes that vaccination is an essential part of the fight against the virus.

    The chief pathologist at the University of Heidelberg, Peter Schirmacher, urges many more autopsies of vaccinated people. In addition to corona deaths, the corpses of people who die in connection with a vaccination would also have to be examined more frequently, said Schirmacher of the German Press Agency in Stuttgart. The director of the Pathological Institute in Heidelberg even warns of a high number of unreported cases of vaccination deaths and complains: The pathologists do not notice anything about most of the patients who die after and possibly from a vaccination. However, other scientists disagree with him on this point, as do the Standing Vaccination Commission (Stiko) and the Paul Ehrlich Institute.

    For a year now, coronavirus deaths have been autopsied at the university clinics in the southwest in order to better understand the disease. The state supports the Covid-19 autopsy research of the university pathologies with around 1.8 million euros. Schirmacher heads the autopsy project. The findings of more than 200 autopsies so far have led, among other things, to better treatment and ventilation of Covid sufferers, he says. “The knowledge gained here therefore helps to be able to treat sick people better and more successfully and to save lives,” says Science Minister Theresia Bauer (Greens).

    Schirmacher, a member of the National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina since 2012, hopes that the funding will continue next year.

    Other scientists clearly criticize statements made by the chief pathologist
    The doctor now wants to get to the bottom of rare, serious side effects of the vaccination – such as cerebral vein thrombosis or autoimmune diseases. The problem from his point of view: Vaccinated people usually do not die under clinical observation. “The doctor examining the corpse does not establish a context with the vaccination and certifies a natural death and the patient is buried,” reports Schirmacher. “Or he certifies an unclear type of death and the public prosecutor sees no third-party fault and releases the corpse for burial.”

    In Baden-Württemberg, the pathologists therefore worked with public prosecutors, the police and resident doctors, reports Schirmacher. More than 40 people have already been autopsied who died within two weeks of being vaccinated. Schirmacher assumes that 30 to 40 percent of them died from the vaccination. In his opinion, the frequency of fatal consequences of vaccinations is underestimated – a politically explosive statement in times when the vaccination campaign is losing momentum, the delta variant is spreading rapidly and restrictions on non-vaccinated people are being discussed.
    Schirmacher then also received clear objections from other scientists. The statements that there is currently too little knowledge about side effects and the dangers of vaccination are underestimated are incomprehensible, said the Paul Ehrlich Institute. In particular for serious reactions, which also include when a person dies after a vaccination, there is a reporting obligation under the Infection Protection Act. “I do not know of any data that would allow a reasonable statement to be made here and I do not start from an unreported number,” said the head of the Standing Vaccination Commission, Thomas Mertens.

    The Federal Association of German Pathologists is also calling for more autopsies to be performed on those who have been vaccinated
    There is no reason to assume a high number of unreported vaccination complications or even deaths, emphasized the immunologist Christian Bogdan from the Erlangen University Hospital. “There can also be no question of neglecting the possible dangers of COVID-19 vaccines.” The last few weeks and months in particular have shown that the surveillance system is working well. In Germany, for example, the rare occurrence of cerebral vein thrombosis after vaccination with Astrazeneca (1-2 cases per 100,000 vaccinations) was recognized as a complication, says Bogdan.

    Schirmacher insists on his opinion. “My colleagues are definitely wrong because they are not able to assess this specific question competently,” he responded. He doesn’t want to spread panic and is by no means opposed to vaccinations, says the professor, who says he himself had himself vaccinated against corona. Vaccination is an essential part of the fight against the virus, he clarifies. But you have to weigh up the medical reasons for vaccination individually. From his point of view, the “individual protection consideration” is overlaid by the idea of ​​a quick vaccination of society.

    The Federal Association of German Pathologists is also pushing for more autopsies of vaccinated people. This is the only way to exclude or prove connections between deaths and vaccinations, says Johannes Friemann, head of the autopsy working group in the association. However, from his point of view, too little autopsies are carried out to speak of an unreported number. “You don’t know anything yet.” General practitioners and health authorities should be made aware of this. The federal states would have to instruct the health authorities to order autopsies on site. The Federal Association of Pathologists asked for this in a letter to Health Minister Jens Spahn (CDU) in March. It went unanswered, says Friemann.

    1. This article is complete enigma for me. He assumes? Seriously? These news are from June. And there is neither an article nor a preprint about his findings.
      Besides, this Peter Schirmacher is specialist in cancer pathology.

  19. VAERS reporting of serious adverse events after COVID vaccination is mandatory, NOT voluntary. But that doesn’t mean that every or even most healthcare providers are aware of this, or that even one single person has paid any price for not complying with the requirement. There are many anecdotal accounts of nurses and family members trying to get a report entered, with doctors refusing, saying there’s no causal connection, when the doctor can’t possibly know that and the evidence is clearly suggestive of a causal connection, which isn’t even required … for the requirement to report to be in valid.
    There’s also the problem of the thousands of serious post-COVID-19 reports that have been REMOVED from the publicly accessible VAERS data without, to my knowledge, any documentation supporting the removals or even an admission that they happened. That is completely improper.
    Why should we trust CDC’s management of this database when we know that CDC and FDA are paid “user fees” by the industry and royalties on vaccines and approved drugs? Who exactly is getting “used” here? Most professional journals now require disclosure of conflicts of interest. Do the COVID-19 vaccine package inserts come with disclosures of conflicts on the part of the CDC, FDA, or NIH? We all know the answer.
    “Healthcare providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination [under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)], and other adverse events if later revised by FDA:
    Vaccine administration errors, whether or not associated with an adverse event (AE)
    Serious AEs regardless of causality. Serious AEs per FDA are defined as:
    Death
    A life-threatening AE
    Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization
    A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions
    A congenital anomaly/birth defect
    An important medical event that based on appropriate medical judgement may jeopardize the individual and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above
    Cases of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome
    Cases of COVID-19 that result in hospitalization or death”
    https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/hcproviders/reportingadverseevents.html

  20. I included linebreaks in my previous comment but they don’t show up in the pending-approval draft. Also, please fix grammar and punctuation since I cannot edit my submitted post. “there” at the beginning of the third sentence was not capitalized.

  21. This is a wonderful thread of what seems to be very investigative individuals. I know Fauci does not agree, but I still think individuals should be able to decide for themselves; that where there is risk, there must be choice. I have to admit, I had no idea there was such extensive clinical trials done on these shots. I really was taken in by the “rushed to market” “warp speed” development by the Trump administration. It was my understanding that an adequate trial was several years long. Silly me. So, I contracted it. It was pretty brutal, but I recovered at home. Took me nearly 3 weeks being mostly in bed. Couldn’t get known therapeutics quick enough because I’m in California. However, I have tested off the charts since for the antibodies (is natural immunity ever going to be recognized?) But, I got to thinking while sick: why isn’t there a database composed – age, weight, blood type, general health – when these shots administered to people and then a follow up every 3 months say, for a year following to see how people are doing? If this was truly a “pandemic” why isn’t it being treated like one? This has been a boom for big pharma and everyone who holds their stock, but I know MANY injured and a few deaths as result of blind compliance, far greater than those got sick without. You all can quote studies till the cows come home, but it’s really lacking in anything personally tangible. Like the 12 year old who grips his chest panicked on the basket ball court, looking pleadingly at the parents who had just days prior brought him for his shot. Turns out has myocarditis and no more ball for him. Sorry, I’ll say it again: where there is risk, there must be choice. And now that we know the shots aren’t keeping people from getting sick and infecting others (guess “no one dies, just gets mild symptoms”), it’s almost like it’s the un vaccinated who are assuming the risk. All the while losing their jobs, being kicked out of schools, shut out of businesses and/or made to segregate.

    1. You were correct when you said, “It was my understanding that an adequate trial was several years long.” The covid vaccines were rushed because of the declared emergency, despite the pharmaceutical companies saying that “no corners were cut.” The Pfizer phase 3 trials won’t be over until 2023, for example, and vaccines aren’t normally given to the general public until phase 3 trials are complete. Research has been done previously on mrna vaccines for other coronaviruses, but not for covid, and there were significant problems with them.

      Take a look at the conditions for licensure that are attached to BioNTech Comirnaty. It has only been approved for manufacture, not distribution, and 13 additional studies must be done — including in children, pregnant women, and for myocarditis/pericarditis — with completion dates between June 2022 and December 2026.

      https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download

  22. Peter Ringo, Your input was far more valuable than the article you responded to. Thank you for clarifying my understanding of the foundation of this study and acknowledging there are conflicts of interest in the overall system. The outlook is not very optimistic in the short term under this tyrannical takeover of the world, however, the long term outlook is much better, when you realize that what we are seeing taking place is, indeed the fulfillment of ancient prophecies written in the books of Jeremiah and Revelation KJV. There shall come a dawning of righteousness and glory when the Lord returns to put an end to the kingdoms of men!

    1. Thank you, Scott. Mr. Jaffe’s perspective on this issue is valuable to me, as I agree with him, and especially because he addressed a spurious claim that has been repeated ad nauseam by people in my camp ever since the Lazarus report came out. I’ve been playing whac-a-mole with this claim for years, including with CHD, an organization I respect and that I wish would check the content of their articles more carefully.

  23. Peter its my understanding that 2 months in Pfe compromised the control class, they gave ethical reason but in hind sight it gives one pause the thr phase III was compromised intentionally.

    Doesn’t matter my understanding is FDA has never approved a vax who efficacy did not hold 50% at one year.

    This all will see are extended emergency authorizations

    My guess it will be many years before we a true picture of what is fact. Too man have been silenced for fear of professional repercussions, which is sad, its okay in science to question things, one can’t know everything about what is truly untested tech , we won’t know impacts for some for 20 years.

    Its why this should be educated consent this mad dash to fascism in record time is a little discomforting.

    Like the mask drama, only morons would ever believed a cloth mask is useful for more than cosmetic, bandanas crack me up

    Interesting there’s been little education on public to treat any symptoms as covid until you know other wise, so people are smarter about putting others at risk. We here know this as common sense but that is NOT common for most people

    Interesting thread thank you all, I am a sponge

    1. They always give the same “ethical” reason for jabbing people, whether it’s the control arm, or adults and children who are unable to give informed consent for whatever reason, as if short-term manipulated safety and efficacy results are justification.

      Can’t withhold treatment, can we, even unapproved treatments (e.g., covid gene therapy)? The Pfizer “vax” is not approved–it’s still under EUA, and it’s being mandated all over. Comirnaty is not yet available in the states and won’t be for quite awhile. A close reading of FDA’s letter to BioNTech issuing a license number for Comirnaty shows that it’s not even fully approved at this point. What is going on now is criminal in so many ways.

  24. What is troubling is the lack of investigation of the reported deaths following Covid vaccine (now over 11,000 U.S. deaths). According to the CDC’, 18% of deaths within 24 hours of the vaccine. That’s about 2,000 deaths within 24 hours of getting a shot. ‘No causal relationship’ seems almost laughable on its face. Maddie de Garay developed severe symptoms, which spiraled downward to a permanent neurological disability. She was one of 2,000 on the trial. It is my understanding only half of the subjects received the vaccine. Only the admitting ER doc noted AE in her chart – after that, her condition was from anything but the vaccine, with a complete dismissal of causality. I don’t think the CDC has admitted (word chosen carefully) a single death as causally related to the vaccine, nor severe and permanent disability, as in the case of Maddie. Seems to me 1/1,000 with a permanent disability is not so good, when the impact of the actual disease on 12 year-olds is much less.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.