PING
So somebody did report all 14. Since one wasn't really hospitalized it was overreported by 1/13 = 8%.
"V-safe does not directly record diagnoses associated with hospitalization; however, parents and guardians can include supplemental text for each health checkin. Whether hospitalization was the result of vaccination could not be determined; however, all parents and guardians who reported a child’s hospitalization were contacted and encouraged to complete a VAERS report. Two parents completed a VAERS report on behalf of a child who was reported to v-safe to have been hospitalized."
So it's not that only 2 out of 13 were reported. It's that only 2 out of 13 had parents or guardians who filed supplementary information.
Also the following should be considered when considering things like Steve Kirsch's extrapolation from allergic reactions to deaths.
"The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, VAERS is a passive surveillance reporting system and is subject to reporting biases and underreporting, especially of nonserious events (8).
I'm not claiming Vaers is perfect. But extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof, not some back of the envelope wag by someone who doesn't understand the number or who has an agenda.
I had three adverse reactions to the 2nd Moderna shot. I logged into VAERS and reported them myself. If I had not taken the initiative, they would not have been reported. No one else was going to do it.
So, yes. A large percentage of adverse reactions are not being reported.
it is under-reported by it’s own title -— VOLUNTARY -—
(from the article):" ... The CDC is reporting a rate that is 5,000 times lower than what we are actually observing in the real world.
How is that possible? The CDC doesn’t want to talk to me about it."
"As for death rates, I’ve written about this particular paper before.
See :
New ages 5 to 11 year-old CDC study: Proof of bozos at the CDC, NY Times."
"I explain in that article how the 2 reported deaths are more like 81 actual deaths (due to the more realistic 41 VAERS URF)
which if we conservatively remove the 50 background deaths, you get 31 excess deaths in an average of 3M kids which is >10 deaths per million.
This is 10X higher than any sane stopping condition (see this article where Paul Offit admits that a vaccine that kills 1 person per million vaccinated is unsafe for use in humans)."
More information and statistical analysis for understanding this report are included in the OP.
Quite the feat. We know covid death statistics are over-reported. The claim is over 800K deaths due to covid. The actual number is considerably lower. There are ongoing professional and financial incentives to over-report.
We have to ask ourselves two serious questions.
One, is the "cure" worse than the disease? Are we killing more people with the vaccine than the virus is killing?
Two, even more to the point, are we killing more people than we're saving?
The first question is a muddier comparison. If you believe the numbers as-is, we've killed 21,000 people with vaccines vs the virus killing 800,000 or more. People might be willing to put up with that ratio. It gets more interesting if you factor in under and over reporting. Then the numbers start to look a lot less favorable for the vaccines.
That leads to the second question which is really more directly applicable. If the virus has killed 800,000 - or more likely some significantly smaller number - just how many would it have killed without the vaccines? That's hard to say.
If you look at graphs of deaths over time in the US you see a big initial spike, then a wave last winter of lots of deaths. Then in the March-June (2021) timeframe deaths trailed off significantly - just as vaccinations were ramping up. Yea vaccines, right? Not so fast. There was a similar "summer slump" the year before. So the cause could be a combination of vaccines, environmental, and behavioral factors.
More disturbing, there was a ramp up of deaths starting in September of 2021. This is earlier than the winter ramp up from 2020. It does coincide with most of the early vaccine adopters reaching the 4 to 5 month post-vaccine point. A point at which (we're learning now) the vaccines' effectiveness drops off significantly.
This would tend to support the notion that the vaccines provide some protection from deaths - since as they wear off deaths go up. But why did they go up early? Why was Sept 21 much worse than Sept 20? Have the vaccines caused a negative benefit as they wear off?
The other interesting trend is that far from increasing into the winter months as happened in 2020, deaths are actually slowly tapering off. Why? Could it be the emergence of the far less serious Omicron variant?
The upshot is, it is difficult to say how many or even if the vaccines have saved lives. There is evidence to suggest they've helped reduce covid deaths, and evidence to suggest they caused a rise in deaths. Then there is the very direct cost in lives - somewhere between 21,000 and 140,000 or so lives directly lost due to the vaccines.
My gut feel from looking at the numbers and graphs is that the vaccines are at best about a wash - they've probably saved roughly as many people as they've killed. The reality may be a little off one way or the other. That doesn't matter. There is no way to look at the data and say "The vaccines have been an un-equivocal, slam-dunk success." Far from it. Given their at best even-trade results, is it advisable to keep disrupting lives and careers and the economy with vaccine mandates and all the associated BS? I'd say no.
Report (Part I): Young woman’s heart believed to have been damaged by Pfizer vaccine
It’s way more than that. Most people don’t know what it is.