Analysis of US VAERS Vaccine Adverse Reactions Data – Part 1

Spread the Word

by Biostatistician Chistine Cotton via


The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System VAERS is a US system for recording medical events which might (upon further investigation) be deemed to be caused by a COVID-19 vaccine.

The VAERS website states:

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a national early warning system to detect possible safety problems in U.S. licensed vaccines. VAERS is co-managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of adverse events (possible side effects) following vaccination.

Unlike the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency MHRA equivalent, the Yellow Card Vaccine Adverse Reaction reporting system (which has minimal data concerning the individual person experiencing adverse effects and the circumstances in which the vaccines were administered to them), the VAERS system does at least have some detail in the reports.

VAERS also provides its data in a standard comma-separated (CSV) files for importing into a standard datbase, spreadsheet or text editing programme, or by using the CDC Wonder on-line search tool. 

In contrast the UK’s MHRA system provides a confusing and often erroneous list of adverse reaction data for each of the vaccine manufacturers and this is updated by the production of a new data set. The data is not easiy searchable and the sporadic updates make it difficult for the public to compare the latest data with earlier data. The UKColumn took positive action to help the UK public gain better access to the MHRA’s own data by producing an online searchable database which can be found here – UKColumn Yellow Card Reports

Despite the better presentation of data in the VAERS system, the size of the database and the complexity of the data itself make it difficult for the ordinary member of the public to really understand what is the real significance of the vaccine adverse effects recorded. In addition, since the VAERS system is quick to state a ‘Disclaimer’ concerning the validity of its own data in respect of vaccine advers effects, the public are once again presented with confusing, or even misleading data, when attempting to identify the actual health risks presented by vaccines.

The VAERS Disclaimer states:

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to the system. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can quickly provide an early warning of a safety problem with a vaccine. As part of CDC and FDA’s multi-system approach to post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as “safety signals.” If a safety signal is found in VAERS, further studies can be done in safety systems such as the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) or the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project. These systems do not have the same scientific limitations as VAERS, and can better assess health risks and possible connections between adverse events and a vaccine.

VAERS US

French Biostatistician, Christine Cotton, recently began her own research and analysis of the VAERS vaccine adverse effect data, to establish a better understanding of what the real risks of vaccination are and their particular nature and probability.  To do this she downloaded the raw VAERS data so as to evaluate it line by line. Shocked by what she discovered Christine began to speak out on her own data and findings with a view to informing the wider public of the real risks of vaccinations against the benefits claimed.

In a valuable and informative interview with UKColumn, Chrisine Cotton divided a presentation of her work into two parts. Part 1 begins with an introduction to herself and her professional work as a biostatistician. This is followed by a detailed analysis of the complex procedures and regulations required of pharmaceutical companies in developing new vaccines. The results of her analysis of the procedural and regulatory steps taken to introduce COVID-19 emergency vaccines led Christine to conclude that it was simply not possible to develop, test and unleash the suite of COVID-19 vaccines on the US and world population, in a manner and timeframe which met all the then existing public health and vaccine safety constraints, checks and regulations. In short the development and vaccine roll-out was just too fast to justify the vaccine safety and efficacy claims made.

Christine concludes from her analysis of the implementation of the COVID-19 vaccination programme and the VAERS data itself that the vaccines carry significant health risks to all members of the public be they children, grown adults or the elderly. Within this cross section of society additional risks are identifyable for pregnant women and their babies. The risks deserve special attention when it is realised that they include life changing disabilities and even death.

Analysis of US VAERS Vaccine Adverse Reactions Data by Biostatistician Christine Cotton Part 2 focuses on the identification of key vaccine adverse health risks within the body of the VAERS data. Her findings make stark reading against the continuing claim by the US government and US Public Health agencies that vaccines are safe and that their benefits outweigh the risks.

Christine Cotton is joined in both Part 1 and Part 2 of her interview by Dr Anne-Marie Yim and former State Registered Nurse Debi Evans, both of whom are assisting Christine in her work and findings. Dr Anne-Marie Yim is French and of Cambodian origin. She holds a doctorate in organic chemistry from the University of Montpellier, France. She worked as a researcher at the University of Michigan in cancer research, particularly in proteomics (the large-scale study of proteins), and was awarded a research prize in 2001 for her work in identifying membrane proteins, awarded by the Office of Technology Transfer at the University of Michigan.

She has expertise in protein chemistry, with a focus on disulfide bridges in cysteine derivatives and the radical enantioselective synthesis of amino acids both in the homogenous and the supported phase, as she did her thesis in the Laboratory of Aminoacids, Peptides and Proteins at the University of Montpellier, now the IBMM, Max Mousseron Institute.

When highly qualified Biostatisticians such as Christine Cotton question the accuracy of data and statistics collected to protect public health from vaccine adverse effects, and also question the efficacy of vaccine development and safety testing procedures, we should all pay heed. It appears that both the US VAERS vaccine adverse effects data base and the UK’s MHRA Yellow Card vaccine adverse reactions system are being used to reassure the public that vaccines are safe. The reality is that the data suggests otherwise. 

Please watch Analysis of US VAERS Vaccine Adverse Reactions Data by Biostatistician Christine Cotton Part 1 and Part 2 to be better informed of the risks versus the claimed vaccine benefits. 

54900cookie-checkAnalysis of US VAERS Vaccine Adverse Reactions Data – Part 1Share this page to Telegram
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1 Comment
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert Kernodle
Robert Kernodle
8 months ago

So, where is Part 2? You mention it several times, yet provide no link to it or any indication that it was actually produced, will be produced, or is actually available.