Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), and in this interview she shares the details of what she's finding.
VAERS, despite fiaws and drawbacks, is one of the greatest tools we have to evaluate vaccine safety. It was implemented as a consequence of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. While vaccine companies were given blanket immunity against liability for adverse reactions under this law, VAERS was created to collect injury reports in a centralized database so that the post-marketing safety of childhood vaccines could be monitored. The system was actually launched in 1990, so we have three decades' worth of data to compare trends against. Granted, vaccine injuries are notoriously underreported. Investigations have found only 10% to as little as 1% of injuries are reported. When it comes to the COVID jab specifically, calculations by Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, suggest injuries are underreported by a factor of 41. But despite that and other shortcomings, VAERS can still provide valuable information about a given vaccine. Rose is a computational biologist with postdoc degrees in molecular biology and biochemistry. While a native Canadian, she did her postgraduate training in Israel, where she still lives. When her dream of surfing in Australia were dashed due to the COVID-19 outbreak, she decided to start writing code for statistics and graphics, and as the pandemic wore on, she applied those programming skills to the VAERS database.
No, People Are Not Filing Fake Reports
A common attempt to explain away the VAERS data by so-called fact checkers is to say that it's unreliable because anyone can file a report. This is pure hogwash. Yes, anyone can file a report, but there are penalties for filing a false report, and the filing is time- consuming and exacting. We can be quite certain there's no over-reporting going on. It takes on average 30 minutes to fill out a report, and the system is set up in such a way that you cannot save anything until you get to the very end. Even worse, each page will time out after an allotted period of time, forcing you to start from the beginning if you take too long to fill in the details.1234
“This probably frustrates enough people that they don't start again,” Rose says. Indeed, the cumbersomeness of the website itself has often been cited as a reason for why doctors don't report adverse events. Doctors don't have the time to do it, and most patients don't know they can file on their own. As noted by Rose:
“[VAERS] is probably one of the best adverse event data collection systems inthe world, but it's completely lamentable. It's antiquated ... Nonetheless ... it's away to detect safety signals that weren't detected during premarket testing orclinical trials.And it is functioning that way, because there are many, many safety signals[about the COVID jabs] being thrown out by the data. For example, everyone'sheard of myocarditis ... which is one of the safety signals being thrown off inVAERS. And so, we've learned that it happens in young people, more so in boys.”
One explanation for this gender discrepancy has to do with androgens. Testosterone has been shown to facilitate entry of the spike protein into cells by activating a specific enzyme. This could help explain why men, who have higher testosterone levels, are getting myocarditis at much higher rates than women.
Most Lethal ‘Vaccines' in Medical History
“I implore everybody to do this ... [VAERS] is very accessible. Just go to theirwebsite and download the CSV files. You can play with it in Excel, or usewhatever is compatible with the CSV file. The OpenVAERS system is eveneasier to use.There are three separate files that you can download for the domestic data set,which includes the individual's data, the symptoms or adverse events that theyreported (and it can be up to 15 different types), and the injection data ...You can merge them so that, as per [each] VAERS ID, you have a lot moreinformation ... That's what I did. All you have to do is count the number ofadverse events that have occurred in 2021. In the context of the COVID-19products, exclude all the other vaccines to isolate the signal, and compare thenumber of adverse events to the total number of adverse events reported inevery single year going back 30 years.There's absolutely zero comparison. The average number of adverse eventreports for the past 10 years is ~39,000, and that includes the adverse eventreport data for all of the vaccines combined. There are a lot of them ...So we're looking at about 39,000 total adverse events per year [on average forall vaccines], as opposed to 675,942 [adverse events post COVID jab] in thedomestic dataset alone [Editor's note: Please note that all data are as of the dayof the interview and have not been updated prior to publication]. And this doesnot include the underreporting factor ...We see the same trend when we isolate standalone adverse events like death.There are over 10,000 [post COVID jab] deaths reported now in the domesticdataset alone, not including the underreporting factor, and in the previous 10years, the average was 155 deaths for the entire year for all the productscombined. This is over 6,000% increase in reporting for deaths.So, the question I've been posing to the FDA, the CDC and whoever wants tolisten to me is, ‘What's the cut-off number?' Because you kind of think of deathas being the worst outcome in terms of adverse events in the context of avaccine or a biological product.I think there are worse things than death personally. But most people thinkdeath is pretty bad. So that's why I always talk about death in this context.What's the cut-off number here? How many people have to die in order for theseproducts to be deemed unsafe? So that's basically all you have to do in VAERS. Imean, you can stop there. You don't have to look at anything else. But there's somuch more.”
Can Causation Be Established?
While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outrageously deny that a single death can be attributed to the COVID jabs, it's simply impossible to discount 19,532 deaths (8,986 in the U.S. territories alone ) reported as of November 26, 2021. As noted by Rose:
“It's not even statistically plausible to say that not one death out of 10,000 wascaused [by the shot]. It's not scientific to say that ... Those people, not 100% ofthem would have died anyway? That's not how life works.”
The FDA and CDC are also ignoring standard data analyses that can shed light on causation. It's known as the Bradford Hill criteria — a set of 10 criteria that need to be satisfied in order to show strong evidence of causal relationship. One of the most important of these criteria is temporality, because one thing has to come before the other, and the shorter the duration between two events, the higher the likelihood of a causative effect.
“So, when you're talking about percentages of people who died within 24 hoursof one of these jabs, let's say you're talking 50%,”
“That's kind ofsuspicious to me. [Yet] they completely deny the causal effect. It's just becauseof coincidence?”
There's also a strong safety signal for female reproductive issues. Preliminary post- marketing data showed women who got the jab in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy had a miscarriage rate of 82%. Pfizer's own data, which Rose analyzed, showed a miscarriage rate of 69% when given during the first 20 weeks. Yet no one is warning pregnant women away from these injections: Quite the contrary — women are being universally lied to.
How to Assess Underreporting
As mentioned, Kirsch has calculated an underreporting factor for post COVID jab events of 41, which is likely quite conservative. Rose's calculation is even more conservative5678
than that. She explains:
“Steve [Kirsch] and I are good friends. We've been working very closely on all ofthis stuff for a long time. His underreporting factor is 41. He estimated thatbased on a peer-reviewed publication that estimated anaphylaxis numbers, sohe used anaphylaxis as a proxy for death.What that means is that when you hear us say these numbers, you have tomultiply them by 41, if you want to go with Steve's estimate, or 31, in the case ofmine. Mine is the most conservative estimate. I took Pfizer's Phase 3 clinicaltrial data that they presented to the FDA.There were over 18,000 participants in the drug group and the placebo groups,and there were a certain percentage of individuals in each arm that succumbedto a severe adverse event, which includes death, hospitalization, visit to the ER,a life threatening adverse event, disability or birth defect.So, 0.7% of people in the drug arm succumbed to a severe adverse eventaccording to their data. I used that rate, and multiplied it by the number ofpeople who had been injected with one shot of Pfizer on a certain date, August10, and that number becomes your expected number of people that wouldsuccumb to a severe adverse event based on their data.So, you take that number and divide it by the number of reports of severeadverse events, and you get a multiplication factor, an underreporting factor.When you use that base dataset, the Pfizer Phase 3 clinical trial data, you get31. Ronald Kostoff has also published a paper in Toxicology Reports, and hisestimate is 100, I believe.So, whenever you're talking about the underreporting factor, I think you shouldtalk about it in terms of a range, because each adverse event is going to havetheir own [underreporting factor] ...I think if people actually knew the reality of what was going on, they woulddecide very quickly, right now, never to go near these things. This isn't hearsay.It's not conjecture. The clinical trials are garbage, and there's no safety data. I'mnot just saying this — it's very refiective in all of these adverse event datacollection systems all over the world.They're all saying the same thing, the Yellow Card [system in the U.K.], the U.S.[VAERS], Australia's [system ]. They're all saying the same thing. As an example,myocarditis and young boys. You know, it's not something that you can ignore.There's a reason why this is happening. It's because the [shots] are not safe.”
What Are VAERS IDs and Why Are They Missing?
VAERS IDs are the numbers assigned to individual report entries. Aside from underreporting, another oddity that strongly suggests the data are worse than we think is that VAERS IDs are going missing. In other words, case reports are being deleted from the system after they've been put in. Rose investigated this after seeing videos saying hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people had their reports deleted. So, she set out to either confirm or deny whether reports were going missing each week, as data sets are updated weekly. She's been downloading all the data sets since January 2021, which put her in the unique position of being able to compare the different sets, because when the data set is updated, the old data is overwritten.
They went through this horrifying experience,which no human should be going through, and thenthey got disappeared. I don't even know what the wordfor that is. It's appalling. ~ Jessica Rose
Now, there are valid reasons for deleting a VAERS ID. One reason would be if both the doctor and the patient file a report. The two reports then need to be combined, and the ID number of one of the duplicated reports is erased. However, what Rose found is that reports are indeed being deleted that shouldn't be. She explains:9
“The way I was determining if entries, if their IDs, were disappearing was byfinding out which VAERS IDs didn't show up in the next update, because youwould assume that every single ID that got into the system would stay in thesystem. And so, the next update would have that data set and a little more, butthat's not how it works.There are removals every single week, and they're not explained. There's noexplanation for these. So, the first thing I did when I found this — and it wasover 1,000 [missing IDs] — was to check if a high proportion of these deletedreports were deaths. It wasn't anything overly suspicious, something like 18%.Then I checked severe adverse events, then I checked children, because this isa big one that's happening now. A lot of babies are going missing in VAERS, andthey shouldn't be there [since the COVID shots aren't being given to babies yet],which is probably why they're being removed.So, there wasn't anything overtly suspicious about the nature of the [missing]IDs. But that's not even the point. These are people who trusted in theseproducts, and listened to people who are telling them they are safe andeffective. They were healthy. They went out and got the shots.Some of them suffered an adverse event, some of them died. These reports gotfiled to VAERS, and then they got removed. That's atrocious. I'm not speculatinghere, either. This is what is happening. They went through this horrifyingexperience, which no human should be going through, and then they gotdisappeared. I don't even know what the word for that is. It's appalling.”
Data on Children Are Being Deleted
Rose has also delved into the VAERS data for children. Disturbingly, there are apparently thousands, likely tens of thousands of instances if you factor in underreporting, where the jabs have been given to children that were too young to receive the shot at the time they got it. At the time she looked into this, there were approximately 5,570 reports with a metric code indicating that the product was given to a patient of inappropriate age. In fact, it was the most frequently occurring adverse event type among young children.
“So, there were so-called medical professionals injecting children withoutconfirming their age,”
“and then those children suffered adversereactions in the thousands. And this doesn't include the underreporting factor.Some of them died. In the 5- to-11 age group, two of them died. One was 11,one was 13, and the timeframe between the death and the injection in one ofthe kids was five days, in the other it was one day.So, this was in close temporal proximity. The part that's even more disturbingthan that is that ... something like 60 children had died between the ages ofzero and 18, and 38% of those children were under 2. [The next week] thatpercentage went down to 30%. I'm like, wait now, that was late last week. Whathappened to them?There are these enormous inconsistencies in the data. Here's another one. Ihave about 100 different files that contain algorithms that run code for specificthings, like I have a kid's file, a cancer file, a prion disease file. So, I run them allwith the updated data.Myocarditis is one of them. And there was this big chunk of data for the 50- to75-year-olds pertaining to myocarditis reports last week, and this week, it's one-half. It's staggeringly obvious that something's very different in the data. Theabsolute number of reports went up, but it seems to have shifted somehow.There could be a plausible explanation. But the fact is there's no reference at allas to how this data is being shifted around. There's no record. So, we as thepublic, have no idea what's actually going on. All we can say with absolutecertainty is that something is going on.”
Myocarditis Report Pulled From Publication
Together with Dr. Peter McCullough, Rose recently wrote and submitted a paper on myocarditis cases in VAERS following the COVID jabs to the journal Current Problems in Cardiology. Everything was set for publication when, suddenly, the journal changed its mind and took it down. You can find the pre-proof on Rose's website . The data clearly show that myocarditis is inversely correlated to age, so the risk gets higher the younger you are.
“Most of the reporting in VAERS was in young boys, aged 15. There was asixfold difference in reporting following dose one and two, which indicates doseresponse and/or causal effect. The rate for myocarditis in 12- to 15-year-olds is19 times above background reporting for the United States, so there's a lot ofstuff in that paper that was really important,”
“There are many other papers coming out now that are 100% supporting whatwe found. It's not debatable. They [pulled] this paper five days before that FDAmeeting for the 5- to 11-year-olds, and I don't think that was a coincidence,because it would have informed people as to the potential risk of myocarditis inyoung people. So, of course, they don't want that, because they already bought30 million doses for the 5- to 11-year-olds.”
Latent Infections Reactivated
Another common side effect of the jabs is the reactivation of latent infections such as herpes infections and shingles. Rose explains:
“There are a bunch of papers that have come out that lend some ideas as towhy this is happening,”
“One makes the claim that CD8+ T cellpopulations are becoming compromised. In the acquired branch of the immunesystem, you have immune cell populations called CD4+ T cells and CD8+ Tcells.Everyone's heard of HIV/AIDS. So, the idea there is that you have a virus thatpreferentially infects CD4+ T cells, which are the generals of the immunesystem. They kind of coordinate all the other cells to do their jobs. If you have a10
depletion in this type of cell, then the rest of the immune system kind ofcollapses, because they don't have their general telling them what to do.The CD8+ T cells are the killer cells. These cells are in charge of killing virallyinfected cells, so they're very important in the context of a viral infection. One ofthese studies showed that in people post injection, the gene profiles were verydifferent for CD positive T cells.If we're talking about going beyond immune dysregulation, if we're talking aboutimmune dysfunction, if we're talking about certain immune cells being depleted,that could be a possible reason why you're seeing a reemergence of a latentviral species, possibly. We're also seeing cancer resurgences.Another paper that came out shows that there might be problems in the realmof double-stranded DNA repair. There are two enzymes (BRCA and 53BP1) thathave been reported to be impaired that are very important in repairing doublestranded DNA breaks, and if you have an impairment of essential proteins thatare meant to repair double stranded DNA breaks, you have serious problems.One of those problems is proliferation of cells. So, whenever you get a certaintype of exposure to a virus, say a cold or a fiu virus, and it gets the better of youso your acquired immune system kicks in, you get these swollen glands. That isactual populations of T cells proliferating.If you have stunted proliferative capacities, or if you have an impairment of thatprocess, you don't have an immune system if it happens in T cell and B cellpopulations ...So, in addition to the hyperinfiammation that the spike protein seems to beinducing all over the body, there's this immune function impairment. That'sreally scary to me. [It's something] we need to investigate and absolutelyanother reason why these rollouts should stop right now.”
To learn more, be sure to peruse Rose's website, Jessica's World . There, you'll find links to videos in which she summarizes her various findings, and a weekly graphic update of the latest VAERS data for death, female reproductive issues, breakthrough COVID infections, cardiovascular events and immunological events. Another excellent resource is OpenVAERS , which summarizes the most pertinent VAERS data for you on a weekly basis. If you click on the COVID Vaccine Adverse Event Reports, there's a sliding bar at the top of the page where you can select to view data either for the U.S. territories only, or all VAERS reports, which includes international reports.
Read the full article at the original website