All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 24, 2021 - RFK Jr. The Defender
27:54
VAERS Problems with Dr Jessica Rose

Dr. Jessica Rose discusses V.A.E.R.S. and the system's pros and cons. Kennedy and Rose also discuss animal intelligence in this episode.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, everybody.
My guest today is Dr.
Jessica Rose, a Canadian researcher with a master's degree in immunology, a PhD in computational biology, and two postdoctoral degrees, one in molecular biology and one in biochemistry.
Her most recent efforts are aimed at learning to analyze the VAERS data, the vaccine adverse event reporting system data, and to make it more accessible to the public and more comprehensible.
And you have brought down holy help on yourself in the US and Canada.
Tell us how you got involved and what did you find?
Sure.
Well, first of all, thank you for having me.
I'm really honored to be here and thanks for the lovely introduction.
Well, it started, I suppose, at the end of 2019.
I had just completed my most recent postdoc at the Technion Institute of Technology.
And after three years of hard work, I decided that it was time to take a trip to Australia and start my career as a professional longboarder.
My trip was planned to start and continue February, March 2020.
So that's just about the time when they declared this pandemic.
So my plans were changed, cancelled.
Me being the constructive soul that I am, I decided, well, I need a project now to keep myself busy.
I'd always wanted to learn to...
I'm still trying to figure out how to become a computer programmer who's actually good, but I decided to start with R. So I needed, where I wanted, a data set that I could use to teach myself how to use R. So I decided to look at VAERS because...
Based on my background, based on what I was seeing, based on things that weren't adding up, I figured that the data in VAERS would start to accumulate with rapidity, and I was not wrong.
So that's kind of my involvement here, but interestingly enough, I also have an immunology background and biochemistry, molecular biology, so I come from this from many different points of view, and It seems like any point of view you look at this at, things don't make any sense.
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System in the U.S. is telling a very, very frightening story.
Tell us what...
Errors is telling us now.
I think most of our audience knows the vaccine adverse event reporting system is notorious as a dysfunctional system.
And there was a HHS study of the system in 2010.
It's called the Lazarus study.
They got the Agency for Healthcare Research, which is a sub-agency to an HHS study.
To design a machine counting system that can accurately assess how many people are actually getting injured by vaccines, they compare that to the results in theirs in one HMO, and they concluded that fewer, fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries are reported.
What that means in another way, it's obvious, is that more than 99% of vaccine injuries are missed.
There have been other analyses of theirs that have found similar dysfunction and undercounting the best performances, say that maybe 10 to 20% of injuries are reported, but that means that there's a, you know, five times that number are not reported.
So nevertheless, and this again is part of the background, we've seen these extraordinary rises and deaths and injuries during the 15-month period since they released the vaccines, COVID vaccines.
We've seen more injury, more deaths during that period reported to VAERS than all of other vaccines combined since 1986.
So I think most of the people who follow this podcast are aware of those deficiencies.
How can you add to that knowledge?
Okay, I can add to that.
I published a paper that was a critical appraisal of the pharmacovigilance myths of VAERS. So VAERS is designed, this is the brainchild of the FDA and the CDC, as you probably all know, that is designed to detect safety signals that weren't detected in pre-market testing.
So VAERS It is effective that way.
And what's really, really strong about what we're seeing in VAERS in the context of the COVID-19 products are the numbers in contrast to what we've seen in the past, like you said.
One of the things that I did in this paper, because I was very interested in this backlog that I was hearing about, like all of these VAERS reports that actually were reported that didn't make it to the publicly available data set.
So I wanted to figure out, like, okay, what's going on there?
Like, is this backlog real?
And is there a way for me to show that it's real?
So I did something...
Jessica, let me interrupt you.
Because this has been an issue of contention.
And people may wonder, why would there be any reports of errors that don't make it onto the official database?
And there's good reasons for that.
Because The person who was injured may report it, the doctor may report it, the family member may report it.
And there is some kind of screening that takes place and it's kind of opaque.
Yes.
In which somebody makes a determination that this report is real or that this report is not duplicative.
And they also, I think, if somebody says unfair, if somebody reports that they turn green and turn into a lizard or something like that, I think they get rid of those, too.
They get rid of ones that are completely wacky.
That's what they say they're doing.
So let's hear what your findings were.
So what I did, I started downloading the data from VAERS from the onset of the rollout of the products in December, late December.
So I have every updated data set from back then.
What people should know is that every week the VAERS data set is updated and made publicly available.
And as you said, there are people whose job it is to remove duplicates, to vet the data.
We don't know much about it, but we just know that they're hired specifically to do this.
So these weekly updates overwrite the update from the previous week.
So that's why it's important to download the data as it's coming in.
So you can kind of keep track of what's going on in terms of data entries that suddenly become missing, for example.
And you can compare and contrast an entry that, say, in the following update was removed.
You can determine whether or not that entry was actually removed or if it was replaced with a new VAERS ID, for example.
That's one of the things I looked at.
Just to follow through with what I did, I plotted a curve, a two-dimensional plot of the number of people who died, for example, per update date based on these weekly update I published this in May, so it was like something that looked like an exponential curve of the data from January through May, based on these points.
Nice increasing slope.
So if you take the latest updated data set that you download from VAERS, you would expect to find all of those data points, those death data points, inside this updated data set.
So when I plotted the number of deaths Per update date matched to those update dates.
I imagined I would see the same curve, maybe a little higher, maybe a little lower, but I didn't see that at all.
I saw a completely different curve with a different shape.
So what that does, we don't even have to go into interpretation.
What it does though, to a person who's monitoring VAERS, looking for safety signals, It makes the safety signal disappear.
So visualize a two-dimensional plot.
The number of deaths recorded in February, let's say, and it was still way over 50.
These deaths have been off the charts in my book from the very beginning, from January.
What you would consider beyond the cutoff value historically, which was 50.
So if you don't have that, you may...
If 50 people die from the vaccine, they pull the vaccine.
That's right.
Same thing for the pharmacy.
There's no rule that says that.
That is because historically during the, I think it was the aid and flu in 2006.
Right.
There was 48 or 49 people who died and they pulled the vaccine.
Right.
So they called a halt to that because they determined that it was too many people to have died as a result or in association with this product.
So it begs the question, what's the cutoff number for these products?
Because I'll get to that in a second where we're at.
If you're watching VAERS data in February for your grandma or something, and you're trying to make a determination as to Risk-benefit analysis.
How many people are dying in this age group that your grandma's in?
You would have seen a number that wasn't, you know, too scary when you compared it to the number of people who had been injected in that age group.
However, based on the updated data, that number was the real number.
And this isn't the real number either.
This is just the number of reports that made it into the front-end system without the under-reporting factor.
It was much higher.
So that actual number of deaths or cardiac events or neurological events or Guillain-Barre or Bell's palsy or all of this extraordinary number of adverse events that are Being reported in association with these products, you wouldn't have seen them because the data hadn't been entered at the time that you were looking at.
The number wasn't accurate.
So this is one of the things I found, I revealed from the data.
And I haven't seen anybody else even say this, let alone do a proper analysis, like the owners of the data, for example.
VAERS could be a better pharmacovigilance tool, but besides being extraordinarily ancient and imperfect, it's not being used as such.
And it might just be the byproduct of this enormous number of adverse event reports both being filed, not making it into the system, and not even being filed.
I mean, when I start thinking about this, And I hear the stories from GPs and nurse practitioners saying, after a 12-hour shift, I have 100 suspected injuries in the context of these COVID injections, and I don't have the physical time to enter them.
You're supposed to do it, but it takes 30 minutes to file a single VAERS report.
So it's a very scary thought when you start thinking about how many people are actually suffering adverse events in the context of these products when you look at VAERS. There's a screaming, red flags everywhere, on just about every adverse event you can think of.
It's not just death.
There are worse things than death.
We're at staggering numbers now.
You guys are probably aware of what they are.
They're pretty high.
Tell us what the numbers are now.
There are two data sets that you can download, rely on from the VAERS system.
There's domestic data, which is the one on the top, the updated data.
And at the very bottom of the list after 1990, there's the foreign data.
And that's a little bit of a question mark for me.
I only analyze the domestic data in my analysis because it's got more field entries, so I can do a more robust analysis.
And it's enough.
Even if I had half of the data entries from the domestic data set, it would still be alarming.
The signals would still be flying.
Let me ask you something.
Foreign data, do you mean that somebody in France is reporting to Okay, so it could be.
That's why I don't analyze it.
I've heard two things.
I've heard that it's people living abroad who are American citizens filing their adverse event through VAERS, which you can do.
It's an online thing.
And I've also heard that these are reports that might have been made in the UJR system or the yellow card system that are being pushed into VAERS. I've heard these two things, but I don't know.
There's no field data for the countries or the state, sorry, the location.
It's just FR. So it's just foreign.
So there's no way to know.
And the number of missing fields, theirs is comprised of like many, many different variable fields.
So it could be really good.
I mean, they collect so much.
They have so many variables for which they could collect data from.
But for the foreign data set, most of them are empty.
There's nothing you can really say.
You have gender.
I think you might have the product.
You do have, I think, the symptom measure codes listed.
But anyway, so I only use the domestic data, but like I said, it's enough.
By my count, when you merge the three files that you download, which is data, symptoms, and VAX data, we're at 618,548 reports.
Now, if you consider the underreporting factor, you either have to multiply that by...
You have to multiply it by something, whatever you believe the underreporting factor is.
I've made a calculation of this based on the Pfizer Phase 3 clinical data, which is probably questionable data anyway, but based on their own data and their rate of occurrence of severe adverse events, the underreporting factor is at 31, and this is the most...
Like, the lowest underreporting factor estimate of three that have recently been calculated.
So even if you take the lowest, the most conservative estimate, you have to multiply 618,000 by 31.
I mean, it's staggering.
It's staggering.
We're in the millions, people.
Deaths are at 9,315.
Hospitalizations and emergency room visits are well over 110,000.
No underreporting factor here.
Severe adverse events.
This is very interesting.
Oh, you say there's no underreporting in hospitals.
I'm not considering underreporting.
The numbers I'm giving you here are the absolute numbers from VAERS. I'm not considering the underreporting factor.
So multiply every number I'm giving you by at least 31.
That's the lowest, the lower bound of the estimate.
Now, the severe adverse events I've been tracking.
If there was 31 times the deaths or hospitalizations, wouldn't we see that on other databases, like just mortality and morbidity data?
Is there an unusual number of deaths occurring at this point?
From what I know, yes, but I'm not analyzing those, so I'm not the best person to ask.
Tess Laurie is the most knowledgeable on the yellow card system, so she would be a good one to ask to confirm that.
But I've heard that all the systems that are somewhat functioning are telling the same story.
Another problem is there are many places that don't even have an adverse event data collection system, so yeah.
But the story is repeating itself across the world, which is another strong piece of evidence, if you ask me.
Are there any countries that have functioning systems?
That have a functioning system?
A functioning post licensing surveillance system.
It's a very good question.
As sad as it is, I would say that the VAERS system is one of the best of a bad lot.
That would be my opinion, although I haven't done a deep dive into any of these other systems for various reasons.
I mean, some of them are just really hard to access.
The reason I chose VAERS in the first place was because it's easy to download.
The UGR system was like a nightmare.
I didn't go anywhere near that.
The Australian system is weird.
I don't think you can download CSV files.
They just give you like a screenshot.
So you can't actually like, you don't have the data, a picture of the data, which is weird.
How about Israel?
Israel has nothing.
Nothing.
They report hospitalizations and cases.
They do not have an adverse event data collection system, which is Appalling, considering that they're the first country to have steamrolled the Pfizer product into the population.
They just assumed there wouldn't be any adverse events, so there was no need to collect the data.
It's a mystery.
But the severe adverse event count, this is really important that people know.
To qualify as a severe adverse event, you have to have died, undergone a life-threatening event, birth defect, Hospitalization, emergency room visit, or become debilitated.
This collection of severe adverse events has consistently been above what the VAERS system handbook says is the average percentage of severe adverse events Historically.
So they say 15% of all reports will be severe adverse events, based on whatever model they chose to use.
So since the beginning, since January, we've been above that.
We peaked in February at 57%, which is wild.
And we're still at 18%.
And it hasn't dropped below that in months.
So we're still consistently above what is considered normal, again, by their own data.
This is alarming.
3% might not seem like a lot, but it is when you're considering what we're talking about here.
Another point, which is a huge sore spot, are the children.
There are children being inappropriately injected with these products.
As a matter of fact, there's a metric code, which is the name given to how the VAERS report is filed as per individual, called a product inappropriately given to person of wrong age or something like this.
More or less, that's what it says.
The meaning is that, whoops, we gave it to someone who was underage.
So the proof is in the pudding.
Between the ages of 0 and 18, we have 5,510 of those reports.
It's actually the most frequently reported vendor code, which is bizarre.
And of those children, 60 of them have died.
And 38% of those 60 were under two.
Okay, so somebody has to explain that to me.
Because they're not supposed to be injecting babies, right?
They have barely gotten through to the 5 to 11-year-old age group based on this FDA meeting that just occurred.
That's my first point.
There are a lot of kids being injected, and they shouldn't be being injected by anybody's definition, no matter where you stand on this.
And in total, there are 26,077 reports filed for kids' age groups.
I think my age group is 0 through 18 here again.
It might actually be 12 through 18.
In any case, it's an alarmingly high number.
And again, on the subject of children, the female reproductive issues, which I think everybody has heard about from a family member or a personal experience even, Even in people who haven't been injected and just been in close proximity to someone, these are at over 10,000 reports now.
And this is based on a limited keyword search.
So all of my numbers that I'm reporting are very conservative.
So you can multiply them by whatever you think you need to, but these are very baseline conservative numbers.
And a lot of these reports are actually miscarriages.
There's over a thousand of those reports.
That's just using one Medra code named abortion spontaneous.
This is another weird thing about VAERS. As this is evolving over the months, the number of Medra codes that mean miscarriage has increased.
We've seen them do that before.
Yeah, it's very...
Nowadays, the term SIDS, originally there was once an infidescent It was, you know, if we died of unexplained causes between one and between Earth and two years old, now they have half of the different codes.
That's the way of amping the signal.
That's right.
Precisely.
It's kind of shocking to see it happening in front of your eyes, though.
I'm like an unbiased data person.
I'm not even a data person.
It's just one of the things that I have to know how to do to do what I've done in my career.
But yeah, it's shocking to see it unfold right before your eyes.
Because if you're tracking this, this is all I do now.
I enjoy it in a morbid way, but it's something that somebody needs to explain.
Another thing that people need to explain is why are VAERS IDs missing from VAERS? Where did they go?
Because this was also part of my critical appraisal of the pharmacovigilance.
Because there were a lot of people saying that there were a lot of VAERS IDs going missing.
So I was like, hmm, how many are actually going missing?
So I wrote this little algorithm that takes out the VAERS IDs that go missing from week to week.
I mean, it's not a high percentage, but it is a percentage.
And my question is, why is there even one?
And where's the little marker from the person who's hired to vet this data as to where this person, because it's not a VAERS ID, it's a person, where did they go?
They died.
Where did they go?
They filed a VAERS report.
They did everything right.
They thought they were serving their community by getting these injections.
They got COVID. They died anyway.
And then they put it into VAERS and then they disappeared.
People would be alarmed to find out how often that is happening.
If it was my grandma or my relative or somebody that I know, I mean, it doesn't have to be.
I'm already angry about this because I'm seeing it happen.
Like it's It's not right.
And it just lends itself to this whole weirdness that is the COVID story.
I mean, everything about it is weird.
From every way you look at it, none of it makes sense.
Thank you so much.
That was terrific.
Can I just say that I think it's so cool that you do falconry?
I read that about you earlier.
Are you still doing that?
Yeah.
It's so cool.
I've always wanted to do that.
I have probably about a hundred birds.
Wow!
Wow!
I've been hawking with one of my best friends since I was 14 years old.
Two of us have been flying hawks continuously.
When I moved to California, I left all my birds in his facility.
I still own them under the license.
But I go back probably six or seven times and just fly and I'll go hunting for a weekend.
Wow.
Wow, that's amazing.
The connection, like, do you feel...
I have a bunch of crows that follow me around.
I'm not a falconer.
They follow me because I feed cats and they like to eat the cat food.
But sometimes I feel like they see me and they know who I am.
So I wonder, like...
Crows are very, very smart.
I could tell you a lot of stories about crows.
That would shock you.
And, you know, the level of intelligence they have in ravens still, and I've had crows and ravens my whole life, but I've seen them do things that are inexplicable.
They're so smart.
I'll tell you, there's a guy who studies ravens in Maine, and he did a series of experiments where he captured all the ravens at one point or another and put telemetry on them.
He could see where they were, and it was a single roost with about 30 birds on a cliffside in a pine forest, and all the birds would return there.
So he had about a decade-long study of them.
He's now been up there for 30 years studying the same group of ravens.
One of the things he did is he would capture two of the ravens, and then he would take them.
A raven normally would wander about 50 miles a day.
Wow!
He'd take out those ravens 20 miles from the roost in different directions.
And he'd have them in a dog kennel with an automatic door opener on it.
And he'd put the dog kennel in the woods and he'd let the raven get calm and he'd put a haunch in front of one of them.
He'd put a haunch of a deer just away.
So the raven could see that deer haunch while he was sitting in that kennel.
And on the other 40 miles away, he puts a whole deer in front of the camel.
The raven is looking at that.
He opens the two of them simultaneously.
Both ravens go out and they feed up, you know, one on the haunch, one on the dead deer.
And then they fly back to the roost where all the other birds are.
They arrive at the same time.
They all chatter with the other birds.
And then they all go to the place, A whole flock close to the place where the deer park is in.
Wow.
And so those birds were able to, and he did this again and again and again, and they always went to the right spot.
That is wild.
Somehow those birds were able to have this very high-level sophisticated discussion where they compare the experiences of two I saw the two things that are amazing in the wild.
When I'm trapping blocks, we see a lot of things.
I bet.
Oh, it's just amazing.
Well, thank you very much, Dr.
Jessica Rose.
Thank you for all the extraordinary work you've done, and I hope you will continue to keep us informed on this important mission.
I sure will.
▲
Export Selection