1/3 of VAERS Reports Missing, According to BMJ and REACT19 Sample Analysis
New report from The British Medical Journal shows broken vaccine injury reporting system and reluctance of U.S. medical bureaucracy to acknowledge vaccine deaths
“Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands.”
—Isaiah 49:16
Update from last week: A judge has approved a Special Master and in camera review in the UNC Ralph Baric Lab suit brought by U.S. Right To Know. This is a step in the right direction in producing documents that may shed light on the probable development of the novel coronavirus in conjunction with the Wuhan Institute of Virology that likely caused the COVID-19 pandemic.
The British Medical Journal (BMJ) continues to do important work in reviewing the development, rollout, and uptake of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines over the past few years, venturing into territory that has remained largely taboo or under threat of deletion or suppression on social media, much less published in traditional media.
In their latest research report, they reveal a VAERS system — Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System — in complete disarray that has been nothing short of disastrous for helping discern the true scope of vaccine injuries in the U.S.
Prior to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in 2021, the public submitted nearly 60,000 reports to the jointly operated CDC/FDA VAERS system each year. In 2021, that number skyrocketed to one million reports. Since then 660,000 reports have been submitted.
Pfizer, which admitted earlier this year that it conducts Gain of Function research while attempting to deny that it was doing such things…
…actually has 1,000 more full-time employees working on vaccine surveillance than the CDC, according to BMJ, despite the fact that Pfizer isn’t the one running VAERS. In fact, in February 2021, Pfizer quickly onboarded 600 new employees to handle the volume of its own reports. It has taken Freedom of Information requests just to uncover some of these details.
This implies that the VAERS system is severely understaffed, resulting in a leaky, inefficient, sometimes unusable method for those and their loved ones who have experienced an adverse event due to a vaccine to report it to the so-called medical experts.
Not only do estimates show the majority of people injured by a vaccine never report the event (no more than 10% historically), but the BMJ reports that a sample analysis conducted by React19 found that one third of the sample reports that were submitted to the system have disappeared from public view.
React19’s analysis shows that 22% of the reports do not have a permanent ID and thus are not publicly visible, and 12% of the reports have been deleted altogether.
Ascertaining the actual number of reports that have been submitted to the system is therefore impossible.
Those trying to update initial reports they had submitted for a person who was injured from what they believe was a vaccine-induced event, in order to report that the person had since died due to that condition, found it impossible to report the death without having to submit an entirely new report and hope that it would be permanently accepted into the system.
One of the reasons for the trouble is that there are two databases — one you see, one you don’t…
“The BMJ has found that the FDA and CDC essentially maintain two separate VAERS databases: a public facing database, containing only initial reports; and a private, back end system containing all updates and corrections—such as a formal diagnosis, recovery, or death.”
The explanation given for the obscure nature of this double database system is patient confidentiality. The FDA, however, operates yet another public-facing database that collects adverse event reports on drugs that can be updated for the public to see. No explanation was given as to why VAERS could not duplicate this system and provide transparency without breaking patient confidentiality.
What’s most troubling is the VAERS reviewers’ complete allergy to linking mRNA vaccines to patient deaths despite strong evidence and despite VAERS reports made by doctors themselves on behalf of patients that died after being administered the vaccine, as explored in the BMJ report.
One such medical professional is James Gill, the current chief medical examiner for the State of Connecticut, who made his first VAERS report in his multi-decade career in 2021 when a 15-year-old boy died after getting his second Pfizer shot. Gill, who conducted the autopsy and determined the death was caused by the vaccine, submitted a VAERS report, never received a permanent report number, and only after he published the case of the boy’s vaccine death in a medical journal did the CDC acknowledge it. That is, they quickly went on the offensive to attack his findings.
How many other reports have fallen by the wayside or been quashed by the CDC to maintain its tidy narrative of a safe and effective mRNA vaccine for COVID-19? We’ll never know, and that is a concerning thought.
“While other countries have acknowledged deaths that were “likely” or “probably” related to mRNA vaccination, the CDC—which says that it has reviewed nearly 20,000 preliminary reports of death using VAERS (far more than other countries)—has not acknowledged a single death linked to mRNA vaccines.”
This is important journalism, thanks Mac!