67% of reports are filed by health service employees, a sample of the early deaths reported in VAERS, as few as 1% of adverse reactions ever get reported, claims of unreliability, only 14% of the cases could be ruled out as vaccine related deaths, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) Database
Analysis of COVID-19 vaccine death reports from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) Database: Interim Results and Analysis
Preprint · June 2021
Scott McLachlan, Magda Osman, Kudakwashe Dube, Patience Chiketero, Yvonne Choi, Norman Fenton
Clinically trained reviewers have undertaken a detailed analysis of a sample of the early deaths reported in VAERS (250 out of the 1644 deaths recorded up to April 2021). The focus is on the extent to which the reports enable us to understand whether the vaccine genuinely caused or contributed to the deaths. Contrary to claims that most of these reports are made by lay-people and are hence clinically unreliable, we identified health service employees as the reporter in at least 67%.The sample contains only people vaccinated early in the programme, and hence is made up primarily of those who are elderly or with significant health conditions. Despite this, there were only 14% of the cases for which a vaccine reaction could be ruled out as a contributing factor in their death.
There have been multiple conflicting claims made about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines that were rolled out world-wide from Dec 2020. However, there is no universally agreed system for reporting either deaths or serious side-effects for which these vaccines may have been the cause or a contributory factor, and hence, as a result, there are concerns about variability in the quality of reports and the credibility of the sources submitting them. Reports can be submitted by physicians involved in administering the vaccine or helping treat side effects that may have consequentially arisen, clinical and non-clinical health service employees, or pharmaceutical professionals involved in the investigation. Likewise, lay people, such the patient or their family and friends, may have submitted a report independently of medical carers. It has been suggested that a third category of submission may have been made by members of anti-vaccine, or other groups, motivated by ill-intent, who may exaggerate case numbers reported. Critics of safety reporting cite the fact that lay people, or those with malign intent, may form the bulk of reports and hence statistics on side effects must therefore be exaggerated because they come from non-credible sources. Set against this, research suggests that as few as 1% of the true adverse reactions ever get formally recorded.
In early April 2021 we downloaded the 2021 Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) dataset with the aim to analyse these reports to determine the range and frequency of health problems potentially caused by the vaccines but also the quality of the reports, and by inference the credibility of the reporters lodging them. For each patient cited in a report, a clinically trained reviewer manually examines the report to determine its source and clinical credibility and to identify and record medical history, current illness, and symptoms. Each is then checked by a second reviewer. This process is ongoing, as there are 1644 deaths in the April VAERS deaths dataset that have been reported in patients who had recently received their first or second COVID-19 vaccination, and over 28,000 serious adverse events that did not result in death. This interim report presents the results of our analysis of the first 250reported deaths that have been reviewed and coded by our team. We identified health service employees as the reporter in at least 67% of the reports, while pharmaceutical employees were identified as the reporter in a further 5%. Lay people were identifiable as the reporter in only 28% of the reports. This suggests an intention for clinical applicability and usefulness and goes some way towards addressing the common disclaimer that many VAERS reports are made by aggrieved family members and anti-vaxxers, both with an axe to grind. The sample is heavily biased because these were all people vaccinated very early in the programme when only the elderly, those with significant or chronic health conditions and frontline health service staff were being vaccinated. Yet, our analysis shows that the patients can be grouped into three main types: (i) those where the vaccine was most likely nota factor; (ii) those where the vaccine may have been a factor; and (iii) those where the vaccine was the most likely factor in their deaths. We found that in 34of the 250 deaths (14%) a vaccine reaction could be ruled out as a contributing factor in their death; these were all patients either already bedridden and expected to die from a serious medical condition like lung cancer, or were described as at end of life or receiving palliative hospice care. For 203 of the 250 (81%) the vaccine may have been a factor in their death; however, many of these patients had one or more chronic or age-related comorbid conditions. Finally, for at least 13 of the 250 deaths (5%) the vaccine was the most likely cause of death; these patients had strong reactions soon after vaccination and died either on the same day, or during the next couple of days.
Follow this link to download the entire document: DOWNLOAD FILE PDF