Counterarguments to VAERS and EudraVigilance

Share to the world...

There are always people who want to acknowledge a phenomena only if they can explain it.  Science is one way of explaining things, but it has limitations.  Science must be able to observe, measure, categorize, and reproduce something before it acknowledges it.  Until that time, the phenomena is usually dismissed or even ridiculed.

  • VAERS, and its European equivalent, EudraVigilance are government databases.
  • They allow health care providers (doctors) or patients to make reports of adverse reactions (serious or death) to a vaccine.
  • These reports do not automatically qualify as proof of causality between the adverse reaction and a vaccine cause.

Here is an example of a “debunker” article:

“The claims often rely on statistics from the EudraVigilance database run by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in an attempt to create fears around the use of vaccines.”

That is an emotional argument.  How does this person know that the purpose of exposing these factual statistics is ‘an attempt to create fears around the use of vaccines‘.  This initial phrase sets the stage for the remainder of this author’s arguments.

“Sometimes, they also misuse data from a similar database in the US – known as the VAERS database – to claim that adverse side-effects of vaccines are being under-reported.”

He does not say it but what he is reporting is that historically VAERS has only a 1% reporting rate.

However, claims which rely on EudraVigilance and VAERS to suggest that thousands of people are dying from Covid-19 vaccines are misleading and often false.

The possible vaccine side-effects listed on the EMA and US databases have not been confirmed, and many posts which use EudraVigilance and VAERS data to heighten concerns about Covid-19 vaccines have taken figures out of context.

These government databases provide signals.  Being unconfirmed is not the same as fictional.  Every confirmed adverse reaction was first unconfirmed.

  • There is a federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) prohibiting false reporting.
  • Most reporting is done by medical professionals (doctors).
  • It is difficult to navigate the VAERS submission system and casual “spamming” is not easy.
  • It takes time to submit a report, indicating sincere motivation.

These posts often fail to specify how these databases collect their information, and contain no information outlining how safe vaccines actually are.

This goes both ways.

  • The posts don’t need to specify how the databases collect their information because it is well known and public information.  This can all be learned from the VAERS government website itself.  If the US Government had such severe concerns as to the legitimacy of the data, they would shut down VAERS. Safety information is not provided by the vaccine manufacturers because no proper study has ever been done.  You are the study/experiment.  Vaccines are required to contain a “product insert” with each vaccine package.  Since mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are experimental, their product inserts are blank sheets of paper which sometimes say “Left Intentionally Blank”.
  • We do not know if the vaccines are safe.
  • Also, various government agencies have different definitions of what “safe” means.  The term safe is often used as a marketing slogan but not in a technical capacity, which is the only definition that truly matters.
  • We do know that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have had orders of magnitude more adverse reactions (including death) compared to all other vaccines over 34 years.  Vaccine trials have been stopped for adverse reaction rates which are far lower.

The rest of the article makes an emotional argument but doesn’t discredit the use of government databases as signals.  This author excludes the possibility that such reports are indeed true.  Do we automatically conclude that professional healthcare providers (and patients) are so ideologically aligned against a vaccine that they would file numerous false reports?  This author should differentiate between explained/verified and true or false.  He is conflating the idea that something is only true if it is verified by the limited methods of government policy.  His argument still does not explain the existence of the signals in the first place.  In the end, there are still over 10,000 people who died within a short timeline of vaccination.  What about all those VAERS and EudraVigilance reports of Myocarditis and Blood Clots which are now acknowledged by the US government?  How does the debunker explain the existence of Myocarditis and Blood Clots in VAERS and EudraVigilence to then be acknowledged by the government?  (Note:  this does not imply that the government entity must automatically be accepted as authoritative simply because they claim to be — the federal government is a political organization that has been historically unreliable (e.g. Tuskegee experiments)).  The author will not accept that COVID-19 vaccines are causing harm because vaccination is his religion and faith.  His standard of proof is an impossible to achieve standard that not even science can provide.  What would convince him that these vaccines are causing harm?  Does he even know?

Required and Optional VAERS Reporting

  • Healthcare providers are required by law to report to VAERS:
  • Healthcare providers are strongly encouraged to report to VAERS:
    • Any adverse event that occurs after the administration of a vaccine licensed in the United States, whether it is or is not clear that a vaccine caused the adverse event
    • Vaccine administration errors
  • Manufacturers are also required by regulation (21 CFR 600.80) to report to the VAERS program all adverse events made known to them for any vaccine.

Share to the world...