vaccine adverse events data

to say that safety standards have slipped might be the understatement of the pandemic

“these products are safe” has been a consistent claim of covid vaccines, but the numbers do not bear this out. claiming “this is a vaccine so of course, it’s safe because other vaccines were safe what are you some kind of anti-vaxxer?” has been common, but was never a valid framing. it’s a false equivalence akin to claiming that because raspberries and blueberries are safe and lots of people eat them, that baneberries you found in the yard are not poisonous. (pro tip: they are)

most countries have vaccine adverse events reporting systems. they are not intended to catalogue all bad vaccine outcomes but just catch some small subset. by so doing, they serve as sorts of “canaries in coal mines” to generate an alert when things are going wrong.

and these birds have been dropping like flies.

this is FIMEA, finland’s equivalent to VAERS. i have no idea what the reporting percentage is for events but even if we take the serious category at face value, it gets pretty worrying for a vaccine because their definition of serious quite serious. (see highlight)

this can be tricky to eyeball, so let’s run the ratios:

so, we see that the mRNA vaccines actually look safer than astro-zeneca and janssen (i used 3582 as janssen count. it’s likely a bit lower which would make the safety look worse.)

but none of these are good numbers. they are, in fact, terrible.

if we take 2,000 as a ballpark number for mRNA, this means that 1 in 2000 people who got the jab experienced a reaction that was “fatal or life-threatening, requires hospitalisation or prolongs it, causes persistent or significant disability or incapacity or congenital anomaly.”

and that’s per dose, not per person. so, double it to get fully vaxxed and triple it for a booster.

so double dosed is ~ 1 per 1,000 for mRNA, ~900 for janssen (JnJ) which is single dose, and a terrifying ~1 per 300 for astra zeneca.

for a vaccine even 1 per 1000 is a completely outlandish number. it would mean that you would expect to inflict 330,000 serious AE’s like death, hospitalization, or disability to fully vaccinate a country the size of the US, and those are just the ones you catch.

that’s something on the order of 7X the total number of reports (including mild which are the vast majority) VAERS gets in pre covid years.

doing a rough extrapolation from VAERS this last year it’s probably more like a 45-50X rise in serious reports. (deaths, for example, were up 46X and that was just through september.

when we count the full year for deaths, we get this: (note that 2022 is still partial)

the US averaged 166 vaccine deaths a year in the 5 years prior to 2021.

2021 was 61 times that.

2022 so far is 19 times that, 41 X if we extrapolate this rate to a full year.

these are numbers so far above any seen before in every other vaccine program combined as to completely lack precedent.

and keep in mind that VAERS is just a reporting system. it undercounts actual outcomes by something like 90-99% best i can tell. that is to say, actual outcomes are 10-100X higher. some have claimed 40.

According to Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk (MDR), a public broadcaster in Leipzig, "The number of severe complications after vaccination against Sars-CoV-2 is 40 times higher than previously recorded by the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) (germany’s VAERS equivalent).

i suspect it drops somewhat for “serious” as more serious complications are more likely to be reported.

a german insurer estimated underreporting of serious as follows:

that’s ~14X variance which seems reasonably in line.

more HERE.

if we apply that to finland the 1 per 1000 for double vaxxed and 1 per 677 for triple becomes 1 per 71 and 1 per 48 respectively and would imply some sort of serious AE in over 2% of the triple vaxxed.

that’s a horrifying number.

the swine flu vaccine in 1976 was called a “debacle” for killing 25 people and causing guillian barre disease in about 500.

read what the LA times had to say about this back in 2009 prior to the wild departures from age old standards, practices, and mores on vaccines:

it’s amazing how clear eyed their takes were. ms roan sounds like she could be writing for bad cattitude… (bold mine)

The swine flu brush of 1976 -- some call it a debacle -- holds crucial lessons for the government and health officials who must decide how to react to the new swine flu threat in the days and weeks ahead.

For starters, officials must keep the public informed. They must admit what they know and don’t know. They must have a plan ready should the health threat become dangerous. And they must reassure everyone that there is no need to worry in the meantime…

“I think we’re going to have to be cautious,” Wenzel said. “Hopefully, there will be a lot of good, honest public health discussion about what happened in 1976.”

Officials should be prepared for plenty of second-guessing, especially for any decisions regarding vaccination, which was at the core of the 1976 controversy, said Dr. David J. Sencer, the CDC director who led the government’s response to the threat and was later fired.

The question of whether politics overtook science in 1976 has been the fodder of books, articles and discussions for 33 years.

this vaccine was pulled after 10 weeks once about 25% of the american population had received it. (about 54 million people) it was another rush job vaccine brought to market with little testing and great political pressure amidst a government driven fear surge.

it was pulled off the market for about a 1 in 100,000 severe outcomes figure.

covid vaccine in finalnd are reporting 100X that.

and in the US we see

covid vaccines have this far killed nearly 13,000 in the US.

total severe events (grabbed from these categories and not including urgent care) look at be about 160k from 220mm fully vaxxed people. that’s 1 per 1,375 fully vaxxed and finds pretty good alignment with the 1 per 1000 finnish reporting figures.

apply a 10-15X underreporting range similar to what we see in germany and it’s on the order of 1.6 to 2.4 million predicted actual severe outcomes in the US.

that’s a staggering figure, but one that does not seem at all implausible to me. i do not personally know a single person that has had severe covid/been hospitalized/or died. (though i have a couple of “once removed” friends/relatives of friends.) but i personally know dozens of people who are vaccine injured and have had severe or chronic responses from anaphylaxis to shingles to tinnitus to vertigo to heart issues or palsies. if anything, i’m guessing that the sort of 1 in 100 figure for severe outcomes that a 14X underreporting figure implies is considerably low.

(though my experience based on who i am and what my friends know about my background and opinions on this topic may also make me unrepresentative as people seek me out preferentially to discuss such things. that said, a strongly disproportionate number of my friends are also unvaxxed.)

this severe outcomes safety signal has similarly been on the order of 100-200X the size of those previously required to take a vaccine off the market.

and yet we lacked the societal courage to stop it.

government could not reverse course even when they were obviously wrong about both vaccine efficacy and vaccine safety.

(and do not let anyone tell you they did not claim the vaccines stopped transmission. that’s flatly, provably false and we have an entire file cabinet of receipts.)

yes, the vaccines were supposed to stop covid spread. yes, the "experts" told us so.

yet curtailing vaccines not even being discussed in the US.

instead we rubber stamp boosters with obviously negative net expected value for 5-11 year olds.

even as other countries are contra-indicating vaccinating kids for mRNA at all.

such a severe departure from all past standards and policy warrants explication.

as we enter the “pointy questions” portion of this public health collapse, it’s time we got serious about discussing the harms here in open, honest fashion.

these products and mandates were the technocratic centerpieces of 2 administrations. and they have not performed even remotely as promised and their impact even now is being severely misrepresented.

erecting truth ministries and medical board censors to stop such discussion represents vast societal harm.

we must get back to a place like 2009 when the press and people alike were skeptical, not credulous and censorious.

we must ask, in all abashed humility, “how did we, once more, allow politics to completely overtake science and run roughshod over lives and livelihoods, rushing the sort of product that should have 5-10 years of testing to market in 5-10 months and wrapping themselves in oppressive moral raiment as offensive to liberty as it was inaccurate in it’s claims?”

how did we allow the full regulatory capture and subversion of the federal agencies whose theoretical job is to prevent such miscarriages, not to serve as the marketing arms of corrupt crony corporatism?

because the math on that one is always the same.