If vaccine adverse events and deaths following COVID19 vaccination were truly not causally related, there would be an equal number of reports in the days following the vaccine administration. That’s a valid null hypothesis.
Do the data support non-causality? No. A new peer-reviewed study has found deaths clustered near the day of vaccine exposure, which is inconsistent with non-causality, and a dramatic increase in the autoimmune reports associated with COVID19 vaccination, consistent with predictions made by earlier studies predicting specific autoimmmune-related reactions based on the SARS-CoV-2 virus proteins.
The study, by Dr. Jessica Rose, is a report on carefully analyzed data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, is attached, along with the Editorial introducing it. Both are also available and shareable from the journal website.
The results are numerous and compelling. Since anaphylaxis is known to be caused by COVID19 vaccines, Dr. Rose used anaphylaxis as a positive control, finding the same pattern of clustering of events in time in deaths and in many serious adverse events.
Dr. Rose also reported an expected increase increase in autoimmune-related reports in VAERS over time, which she attributed to the same mechanism I proposed and predicted in April 2020: Pathogenic Priming.
This study will be hotly debated because it drives to the core presumption that the VAERS data resource cannot be used to assess causality. Temporal association is a critical piece of evidence in causality; the test for clustering of the events so near the vaccination event provides a critical test of the hypothesis of causality.
Note that Dr. Rose has now joined IPAK, after the study was accepted. She is to commended for her fine work, and we will be supporting her monthly effort via the Joshua Kuntz IPAK Research Fellowship. To support Dr. Rose’s important future studies via IPAK, visit the Joshua Kuntz Research Fellowship webpage at the IPAK website.
Rose, J. 2021. A Report on the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) of the COVID-19 Messenger Ribonucleic Acid (mRNA) Biologicals. Sci Publ Health Pol & Law 2:59-80. [LINK]
But wouldnt you expect a higher likelihood of reporting an adverse event closer to the date of vaccination? i am not sure that the null hypothesis is valid…
There are no data to support that expectation; if you know of any, please share.
If it’s based on speculation, then one might also speculate a step function; deaths in the first week should certainly
all be attributed.
The study also found the same patter for anaphylaxis; i.e., the positive control, which also supports causality.
The entire consideration points to the flaw is in the passive reporting design. An active capture system would not be (relatively) left in the dark.
It takes 3-5 weeks for a beginning of a blood clot symptom to develop into a serious condition. You will have women who are ignoring the early warning signs because they will believe they are too young for anything serious so both them and their doctors will dismiss everything until these women rock up to their local a and e and by the time this occurs it’s nearly too late.
So glad I found you..you have restored my hope in science, scientist and objective thinking. Ive been reading a lot of your work.
Can you have Jessica Rose explain how she decided that VAERS data is under-reported by 10-100 times (p66) or that VAERS deaths are two orders of magnitude off (p72-73)? An assertion that bold shouldn’t be made without any supporting evidence and would get this paper thrown out of even a freshman level biology class.
It would be most appropriate for you to write to the author if you have questions about an article.
Nevertheless, this report should satisfy your curiosity: https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-support-public-health-vaccine-adverse-event-reporting-system