By Steve Kirsch, Jessica Rose, Mathew Crawford
Last update: November 1, 2021Abstract: Analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database can beused to estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the COVID vaccines. A simpleanalysis shows that it is likely that over 150,000 Americans have been killed by the currentCOVID vaccines as of Aug 28, 2021.At this point, two separate stopping conditions have been satisfied:1. The vaccines kill more people than they save2. The vaccines have killed over 150,000 Americans so far.This is an engineering estimateThis is an engineering analysis, not a strict scientific analysis.What I mean by this is that our objective is to use all the available data and our own expertjudgement in interpreting that data in a reasonable way in an attempt to get an accurateestimate.For example, one analysis we reference said that up to 86% of VAERS deaths could be causedby the vaccine and 14% could not be. However, we know more about the causes of death aftervaccination than someone who doesn’t understand the mechanisms of action of the vaccine andcommon side effects reported by victims. So we took the high end of the estimate as beingcloser to the truth.Similarly, critics delight in saying that the English translation of the Schirmacher article says heestimated that between 30% to 40% of the bodies he examined died from the vaccine. However,we know from personal contacts that the 30% to 40% is a floor.Similarly, using anaphylaxis as a proxy for the URF was chosen because in our judgement,anaphylaxis should always be reported at a higher rate than deaths. It’s the best-case adverseevent. So calculating a URF from anaphylaxis yields a value that should always underestimatethe number of actual events when applied to any event (such as death). Nobody who hasdisputed this choice has produced any data at all that supports their hypothesis that ourassumption wasn’t correct; they just use hand-waving arguments.Page 1So all this extra knowledge is included in interpreting the data.Because we validated our death estimates against the analysis of different datasets done bydifferent people, we have high confidence our estimates are reasonable.It is easy to criticize every single method and to tell us “you can’t do that” or “you have to useDB-RCT data” or other objections.More constructive would be for our critics to come up with their estimate and provide the 7independent ways they validated that their estimates were valid. And then show that all 8 of ourmethods are flawed. Then we can simply compare which analysis better fits the observed data.Nobody seems to want to do that for some odd reason. We can’t fathom why…Our research is supported by the peer reviewedliteratureOur estimate is supported by multiple papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature including:Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19? by Ron Kostoff“Compared with the 28,000 deaths the CDC stated were due to COVID-19 and notassociated morbidities for the 65+ age range, the inoculation-based deaths are anorder-of-magnitude greater than the COVID-19 deaths!”The Walach paper found the same thing: that the vaccines harm more people than theysave. It has now been re-published in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law whichis a peer-reviewed medical journal. The Walach paper appears in this issue along with ascathing editorial by the journal editor talking about how the paper authors weremistreated by the scientific community.Critical Appraisal of VAERS Pharmacovigilance: Is the U.S. Vaccine AdverseEvents Reporting System (VAERS) a Functioning Pharmacovigilance System? ByJessica Rose. “Using this URF for all VAERS-classified SAEs, estimates to date are asfollows: 205,809 dead, 818,462 hospitalizations, 1,830,891 ER visits, 230,113life-threatening events, 212,691 disabled and 7,998 birth defects to date .“Note that in this paper, the 205,809 deaths were not categorized into background deathsand excess deaths. We do that calculation in this paper. The point of this paper is shedetermined a URF of 31 using a very conservative method which determines a lowerbound on the URF. Even with a URF of 31, the death toll is horrendous, and as we showin Risk benefit by age of the COVID vaccines, virtually all these deaths are “excess”Page 2deaths.And other independent studies such as:Vaccine death reportThe VAERS database is the only pharmacovigilance database used by FDA and CDC that isaccessible to the public. It is the only database to which the public can voluntarily report injuriesor deaths following vaccinations. Medical professionals and pharmaceutical manufacturers aremandated to report serious injuries or deaths to VAERS following vaccinations when they aremade aware of them. It is a “passive” system with uncertain reporting rates. VAERS is calledthe “early warning system” because it is intended to reveal early signals of problems, which canthen be evaluated carefully by using an “active” surveillance system.Those who believe the FDA mantra that you cannot use VAERS to determine causality, shouldstart by reading this editorial: If Vaccine Adverse Events Tracking Systems Do Not SupportCausal Inference, then “Pharmacovigilance” Does Not Exist.There are effectively two separate determinations:1. What is the number of “excess deaths” which is the total # of deaths from this vax – # ofdeaths normally expected from the typical vaccine. Causality plays no role whatsoever indetermining this number.2. Ascribing a cause to the excess deaths. Were these excess deaths caused by thevaccine or by something else?The detailed steps are:1. Determine the under-reporting factor (URF) by using a known significant adverse eventrate2. Determine the number of US deaths reported into VAERS3. Determine the propensity to report (PTR) significant adverse events this year4. Estimate the number of excess deaths using these numbers5. Validate the result using independent methodsDetermining the VAERS under-reporting factor(URF)One method to discover the VAERS under-reporting analysis can be done using a specificserious adverse event that should always be reported, data from the CDC, and a studypublished in JAMA.Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination is rare and occurs in approximately 2 to 5 people permillion vaccinated in the United States based on events reported to VAERS according to theCDC report on Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination.Page 3Anaphylaxis is a well known side effect and doctors are required to report it (see FDA FactSheet at the top of page 10) because it is considered a “severe adverse reaction.” It occurs rightafter the shot. You can’t miss it. It should always be reported.A study at Mass General Brigham (MGM) that assessed anaphylaxis in a clinical setting afterthe administration of COVID-19 vaccines published in JAMA on March 8, 2021, found “severereactions consistent with anaphylaxis occurred at a rate of 2.47 per 10,000 vaccinations.” Thisrate is based on reactions occurring within 2 hours of vaccination, the mean time was 17minutes after vaccination. This study used “active” surveillance and tried not to miss any cases.When asked about this, both the CDC and FDA sidestepped answering the question. Here’sthe proof at the CDC (see page 1 which incorporates the CDC response to the original letter onpages 2 and 3).As noted in the letter, this implies that VAERS is under-reporting anaphylaxis by 50X to 123X.The CDC chose not to respond to the letter.Is the anaphylaxis under reporting rate a good proxy for reporting fatalities? Since anaphylaxisis such an obvious association, one could argue that the rate would be a lower bound. Otherswould argue that deaths are more important and would be more reported than anaphylaxis.We don’t know, but it doesn’t matter because this is just an estimate to get to a ballpark figure.Since there are 5 other estimates, if we are wrong, we’ll know pretty quickly. Lacking a moredefinitive method, we go with this as our “best guess” in the meantime. We are working on aclever way to determine the fatality URF directly which will be a good “double check” on ourestimate.In general, most of us think It is therefore entirely reasonable to assert that deaths are reportedeven less frequently than anaphylaxis since deaths are not as temporally proximal to theinjection event.The MGH study used practically identical criteria as CDC used in its study to define a case ofanaphylaxis.We ran the numbers ourselves and confirmed this.Therefore, a conservative estimate (givingthe government the greatest benefit of the doubt) would use 50X as the under-reporting rate.However, after the MGH study was published, one doctor pointed out that doctors were morecareful to avoid anaphylaxis; there was more careful screening of people likely to haveanaphylaxis, and they were advised to see their allergist and take more precautions prior tovaccination. This sort of thing would overstate the numbers above.
So we ran the numbers BEFORE the JAMA study appeared and got a more conservative