IOPList.Org

A pharmacist prepares a vaccine dose at a COVID-19 vaccination
site in New York on Feb. 24, 2021.
(AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)



Numerous Health Problems More Likely Because of
COVID-19 Vaccines Than Coincidence:
VAERS Data Analysis


By Petr Svab
April 3, 2022
Updated: April 5, 2022


Various health problems reported by people after receiving one of the COVID-19 vaccine
shots are more likely caused by the vaccines than being merely coincidental, according to
an analysis of data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

VAERS has been flooded with more than 1 million reports of various health problems and
more than 21,000 death reports since the introduction of the vaccines in late 2020. Some
experts and public officials have downplayed the significance of the reports, noting that
just because a health problem occurs after getting the vaccine doesn’t mean the problem
was caused by it.

However, a deeper analysis of the data indicates that many of the adverse effects are more
than just a coincidence, according to Jessica Rose, a computational biologist who’s been
studying the data for at least nine months.

“The safety signals being thrown off in VAERS now are off the charts across the board,”
Rose told The Epoch Times.

There are multiple ways to parse the data in order to flesh out whether the causal link between
an adverse event and the vaccination is real or illusory. For example, multiple COVID-19 vaccines
come in two doses. A random adverse event unrelated to the vaccine should be dose-agnostic.
A stroke randomly coinciding with a vaccination shouldn’t be picky about which dose it was.

In the VAERS data, however, a number of the reported problems are dose-dependent.
Myocarditis in teenagers is reported several times more often after the second vaccine
dose than after the first dose. Following a vaccine booster shot, in contrast, the frequency
is significantly lower than after the first dose, Rose found.




A graph showing age against the absolute number of myocarditis reports
filed to VAERS according to doses 1, 2, and 3 of the COVID-19 vaccines.
(Jessica Rose)



Other researchers and health authorities have already acknowledged that the shots are
associated with an elevated risk of myocarditis, especially in teenage boys, although they
usually also say the risk is low.

Yet dose-dependency shows up in the VAERS data for other problems as well, including fainting
and dizziness, which are more common after the first dose.



A graph showing age against the absolute number of syncope (fainting) reports filed to
VAERS according to doses 1 and 2 of the COVID-19 vaccines.
(Jessica Rose)


Rose acknowledged that statistical analysis seldom provides definitive answers. For instance, there
could be some unknown factor that leads to more reports of unrelated health events after the first or
second vaccine dose. In her view, however, the data leans away from such a conclusion.

Previous research shows that the majority of VAERS reports are filed by medical staff, who shouldn’t
fail to report adverse events based on which dose is being administered. To Rose, it seems more likely
that if people suffer health problems after an injection of a novel substance and if the problems
substantially change between the first and the second shot, the substance probably had something to
do with it.

“In lieu of being able to explain this happening for any other reason, it satisfies the dose-response
point quite well, in my opinion,” she said of the myocarditis results.

As for why the reports dropped after the vaccine “booster” shots, Rose said she hasn’t found a definitive
explanation. It could be that people who didn’t feel well after the first two shots would think twice
about getting more. As such, those most at risk for an adverse reaction would be less likely
to get the booster.

She arrived at the results after she evaluated the VAERS data from the perspective of the Bradford Hill
criteria—a set of nine questions that are used by epidemiologists to determine whether any given factor
is likely the cause of an observed health effect. She said she found evidence to answer all of the questions
positively.

Rose encountered resistance in the establishment science circles when she first tried to publicize her
analyses. Last year, right before her paper on VAERS myocarditis data was printed, the publisher pulled
the paper for unclear reasons.












*************









Syringes with Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine sit on a tray in a vaccination
center in London on Dec. 4, 2021.
(Daniel Leal/AFP via Getty Images)



Researcher Calls Out Censorship After Journal Pulls
COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Events Analysis


By Petr Svab
January 19, 2022
Updated: January 20, 2022




Jessica Rose didn’t ask for any of this. She started to analyze data on adverse reactions
after COVID-19 vaccines simply as an exercise to master a new piece of software. But
she couldn’t ignore what she saw and decided to publish the results of her analysis.
The next thing she knew, she was in a “bizzarro world,” she told The Epoch Times.

A paper she co-authored based on her analysis was withdrawn by Elsevier, the company
publishing the academic journal that ran the article, under circumstances that raised
eyebrows among her colleagues. The publisher declined to comment on the matter.

Rose received her PhD in computational biology from the Bar-Ilan University in Israel.
After finishing her post-doctoral studies on molecular dynamics of certain proteins, she
was looking for a new challenge. Switching to a new statistical computing software,
she was looking for an interesting data set to sharpen her skills on. She picked the
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a database of reports of health problems
that have occurred after a vaccination and may or may not have been caused by it.




A nurse administers a CCP virus vaccine to a health and care staff member
at the NHS Louisa Jordan Hospital in Glasgow, Scotland, on Jan. 23, 2021.
(Jane Barlow/PA)



She said she wasn’t looking for anything in particular in the data.

“I don’t go in with questions,” she said.

What she found, however, was disturbing to her.

VAERS has been in place since 1990 to provide an early warning signal that there might be a
problem with a vaccine. Anybody can submit the reports, which are then checked for duplicates.
They are largely filed by health care personnel, based on previous research. Usually, there would
be around 40,000 reports a year, including several hundred deaths.

But with the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines, VAERS reports went through the roof. By Jan. 7,
there were over a million reports, including more than 21,000 deaths. Other notable issues include
over 11,000 heart attacks, nearly 13,000 cases of Bell’s palsy, and over 25,000 cases of
myocarditis or pericarditis.

Rose found the data alarming, only to realize authorities and even some experts were
generally dismissing it.

“Clearly, there’s no concern [among these authorities and experts] for people who are suffering
adverse events,” she said.

The usual arguments against the VAERS data have been that it’s unverified and unreliable.

Rose, however, sees such arguments as irrelevant—VAERS was never meant to provide definitive
answers, it’s meant to give early warning and, as she sees it, it’s doing just that.

“It’s emitting so many safety signals and they’re being ignored,” she said.




A screenshot of the homepage of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS),
which is co-sponsored by the CDC, FDA, and HHS.
(Screenshot/The Epoch Times)



She teamed up with Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist, to write a paper on
VAERS reports of myocarditis in youth—an issue already acknowledged as a side effect of the vaccination,
though usually described as rare.

As of July 9, they found 559 VAERS reports of myocarditis, 97 among children ages 12–15. Some of them
may have been related to COVID itself, which can also cause heart problems, but there were too many
cases to dismiss the likelihood the vaccines were involved, according to the authors.

“Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12–15-year-old age group, we found
19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background
myocarditis rates for this age group,” the paper said.

After two weeks, on Oct. 15, the paper disappeared from the publisher’s website, replaced by a notice
of “Temporary Removal.” Not only weren’t the authors told why, they weren’t informed at all,
according to Rose.

“It’s unprecedented in the eyes of all of my colleagues,” she said.

When they brought up the issue with the publisher, they were first told the paper was pulled because it
wasn’t “invited,” Rose said. That was shot down as irrelevant by McCullough, who threatened to sue for
breach of contract. The publisher then turned to its terms of use, saying it has the right to refuse any
paper for any reason.

It’s still not clear why the paper was pulled.



Jessica Rose.
(Courtesy of Jessica Rose)



“I do apologise, but Elsevier cannot comment on this enquiry,” said Jonathan Davis, the publisher’s
communications officer, in an email to The Epoch Times.

In late November, the paper was replaced by a notice that the “article has been withdrawn at the
request of the author(s) and/or editor.”

“It just feels like weird censorship that isn’t really justified,” Rose said.

The paper’s conclusions are not necessarily controversial. A recent Danish study concluded,
for example, an elevated risk of myocarditis for young people following the Moderna COVID vaccine.

It’s common, however, even for papers that examine potential issues with the vaccines to frame
their results in a way that still endorses vaccination.

“That’s what you have to say to get your work published these days,” Rose said.

Her paper did no such thing.

“As part of any risk/benefit analysis which must be completed in the context of experimental products,
the points herein must be considered before a decision can be made pertaining to agreeing to 2-dose
injections of these experimental COVID-19 products, especially into children and by no means, should
parental consent be waived under any circumstances to avoid children volunteering for injections with
products that do not have proven safety or efficacy,” the paper said.

The paper also called the vaccines “injectable biological products”—a reference to the fact that they
are distinct from all other traditional vaccines.

A traditional vaccine uses “whole live or attenuated pathogens” while the COVID vaccines use
“mRNA in lipid nanoparticles,” Rose explained via email. She said the lipid nanoparticles include
“cationic lipids which are highly toxic.” Pfizer, the manufacturer of the most popular COVID-19 vaccine
in many countries, addressed the issue by saying the dose is sufficiently low to ensure “an acceptable
safety margin,” according to the European drug authority,
the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (pdf).

Rose also noted that the COVID-19 vaccines haven’t gone “through the 10-15 years of safety testing
that vaccines have always had to go through … for obvious reasons.”

By this point, Rose is no longer a dispassionate observer. Reading through countless VAERS reports
gave her a window into the hardships of those who believe they’ve been harmed by the vaccines.

“I speak for all of those people,” she said.




An internal medicine resident sits in a waiting area before receiving a dose of the
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a hospital in Aurora, Colorado, on Dec. 16, 2020.
(Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images)



In the past, 50 reports of deaths in VAERS would prompt authorities to hit the brakes and investigate,
Rose said. In her view, that should have happened with the COVID-19 vaccines a year ago.

Not only has that not happened, but it isn’t even clear what would be enough to convince the
authorities to do so.

“What’s the cut-off number for the number of deaths?” Rose asked.

The counterargument is that the vaccines save more lives than they cost. But in Rose’s view, this logic
is flawed since the vaccines haven’t been around long enough and studied thoroughly enough to tell
how many lives they may cost.

It is known, however, that VAERS understates adverse events following vaccination—by a factor of
anywhere between 5 and as much as 100, based on some estimates.

Submitting a VAERS report takes about 30 minutes and many medical practitioners simply don’t have
the time, Rose said. Some may feel that filing the report may get them labeled as “anti-vaxxers.”
Some may simply not associate whatever health issue they’re facing with the vaccination.
Some may not even be aware VAERS exists.

It’s unlikely that any significant number of the reports would be fraudulent, she suggested,
noting it’s a federal offense to submit a false report.

Rose has now joined the ranks of dissident doctors and researchers skeptical of the official line
on the vaccines and the pandemic in general. She described it as something she’s compelled to
do despite the disincentives involved.

“We don’t want to be doing this. But it is our duty. Doctors swore an oath to do no harm.
And researchers with integrity cannot look away from this,” she said via email.