Well, look at that Ransomnote.
Baby steps, I guess.
based on a Harvard study which found only about 1% of actual events are ever reported to the CDC,
That was then, and probably doesn't apply to the current vaccination campaign. This time everyone gets the sheet of paper with the VAERS hotline and VAERS website. You can see from reading the reports on the website that people have read the paper and are dutifully reporting their sore arm or fever.
For the shots that the Harvard study is based on, lots of people get them at the doctor and collect the paperwork at the end. They don't just go for one shot. Few people read the paper about VAERS for routine shots. With these shots there is awareness of vaccine novelty and adverse effects (e.g. as reported by people on Facebook). That naturally leads to more reporting.
So while I agree that VAERS is an undercount, there are already overcounts in VAERS itself.
There are many reports like this: "This is a 93 year old with significant heart issues?EF of 20% among other comorbidities. He died suddenly approximately 0430, it is unlikely it was related to receiving the vaccine"
or "Pt on hospice in facility for severe cardiomyopathy unable to perform interventions received vaccine without adverse sequelae died 5 days later. Reporting as required. Narrative: Reporting as required patient death 5 days after immunization with Pfizer vaccine. However, no adverse sequelae were noted to the vaccine in the 15minute observation period, nor in the days following the immunization related to the vaccine...."
Those all have to be factored out or removed from the equation.
Well, look at that Ransomnote.
Baby steps, I guess.
I'm just using the very generous standard Faux-Xi used in attributing deaths to the coof in the first place in order to get his investments a chance at the BIG MONEY.