First we’ll start with the CDC’s own words from here:

And also from here:

So what would we expect to see in VAERS, in terms of quality of data, given that the CDC claims the shots are being administered under the most intense safety monitoring in US history, that they verify data, and that they even go to the trouble of removing false reports? Would it be too far of a stretch to expect to see clean data which has been subject to a rigorous quality control process?

Based on its own statements, it would be reasonable to assume that the CDC is making concerted efforts to make sure that the data entering the VAERS system is clean and as free as possible from errors and inconsistencies. If accomplishing this requires hiring a few extra workers, we can be certain that the CDC’s multi-million dollar budget can accommodate that, no? So what do we actually see, in terms of data quality, when we look at the actual VAERS data?

Below is a table showing some of the basic quality issues with the VAERS data, both for the new Covid-19 injections and the historical vaccines:

As you can see, the quality of the data in VAERS leaves a lot to be desired. This is not only the case now, but has also been the case historically speaking. There certainly doesn’t seem to be any significant amount of increased attention to data quality during the rollout of these new injections. If this is indeed the “most intense safety monitoring in US history”, and VAERS is being used as an early warning system and to conduct serious investigations into any possible side effects related to the experimental injections, you would think the CDC would take the bare minimal step of making sure the data is subject to high levels of quality control. Instead, what we see is inconsistent and missing data all over the place in VAERS. The net effect of this is that simple searches using the VAERS Wonder search tool will exclude significant numbers of records from many searches. While it is true that some data is going to be missing because some things were simply not known or not collected, the amount of missing information that we do see in the data suggests a high degree of negligence. And while one may also argue that the net effect of these data issues on the whole may be negligible, we need to keep in mind that this information pertains to human lives, these are not just numbers regarding retail widgets of no real consequence. When lives are at stake, there is all the more reason to desire that data is as accurate, and as rigorously verified as it possibly can be.

So VAERS could seriously use a data cleansing operation. Vaccination and death dates and other information should be verified and re-verified with the original report submitter (Some of this already happens, but it needs to be done better). There is no excuse for not having enough call center staff or data entry people to process VAERS reports, given that this is the biggest rollout of an experimental medical product ever (lack of staffing would also be a pretty pathetic excuse if that is the explanation behind the throttling of the weekly data, which has been explained in other posts on this site). Further, for many records, there is often missing data (such as age) which is actually readily available in another part of the record, specifically in the Symptom_Text field. There is no valid excuse at all for this type of thing to not be corrected; these issues can be fixed rather easily by a competent IT professional, for whom such a task would be mostly trivial. The fact that VAERS has tens of thousands of records with things like missing age data, speaks volumes about the CDC’s lack of concern regarding safety monitoring. If VAERS were a mission-critical database used in the private sector, the person in charge of data quality would have been fired a long time ago. [Also, and this is a minor point, but perhaps we should mention that the user interface of the VAERS system looks like it hasn’t been updated since 1990. It isn’t particularly user-friendly, could use a complete facelift, and the search results could be better explained. A competent professional would likely transform the VAERS search tool into a modern, robust website in a matter of a couple weeks.]

Put simply, based solely on the quality of the VAERS data itself, the idea that the Covid-19 vax rollout is happening under “the most intense safety monitoring in US history” is downright comical. The quality of the data implies the neglect of the only public-facing vaccine safety monitoring tool and a disregard and lack of concern for public health.

The question then becomes: why hasn’t anything been done already to improve data quality and/or replace the VAERS system with something better? Especially in the face of the greatest medical experiment in history? Well the answer is that a worthy replacement named ESP:VAERS was indeed created, developed, and put through the paces between 2006-2009, collecting data electronically and identifying adverse events in an automated way. What was the CDC’s response to this test-pilot? Rather than welcoming ESP:VAERS with open arms, the CDC went silent on it: “Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation“. You can read all about it here. Apparently, when a safety monitoring tool works too well, it turns out that the CDC becomes not terribly interested. When the mantra is that “the science is settled” and all vaccines are “safe and effective”, then negligence when it comes to safety monitoring systems is par for the course.

Lastly, we should also mention that there are close to a dozen or so other government systems which track adverse events for vaccines. However, none of these others are available to the public, only VAERS is. One could argue that perhaps one of these other systems is what the CDC primarily uses for safety monitoring, and that VAERS is more of an afterthought. If so, why is the government not being transparent about the safety monitoring process? If the government wants to reduce vaccine hesitancy and get everyone on board the vax train, why not make these systems public? Or if that is too difficult, how about just publicizing a simple weekly or even monthly summary of the data in those systems? Doing so would certainly go a long way in reassuring the public that these injections are indeed “safe and effective”.

My simple recommendation to the CDC: instead of investing millions in vaccine advertising and promotion and giveaways, why not spend a few bucks on implementing better data quality control for VAERS, as well as a few bucks for extra call center and data entry staffing?

Oh and in case anyone’s interested, here are the 195 Covid jab deaths which were not labelled as such in VAERS (symptoms list for each report is in the last column on the right):