Manipulating VAERS Data Through Underreporting

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Less than 50% of the community that United Medical Center services have the vaccine, but around 90% of sick patients were vaccinated, according to Conrad.

By Martin Armstrong for Armstrong Economics
© 2021 Armstrong Economics – All Rights Reserved

Manipulating VAERS Data through Underreporting

The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) was designed for medical providers to report any complications with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, which would seem to be a valuable tool considering the effects are widely unknown. However, there is no mandate for medical care providers to report side effects to the system.

Whistleblower and Physician Assistant Deborah Conrad, who has practiced medicine for 17 years, came out and said that medical workers are being dissuaded from reporting vaccination side effects. While working at United Medical Center in New York, Conrad reported 50 adverse events, including four deaths, within a four-week period. Her hospital’s chief quality officer reprimanded her for reporting to VAERS as “this level of reporting [has not been found] anywhere else and [they] didn’t hear of similar reports.” Conrad questioned the system. She questioned why an emergency use vaccination was launched to the public without safety gauges and without any notice to medical providers on what side effects they may see or need to treat.

Less than 50% of the community that United Medical Center services have the vaccine, but around 90% of sick patients were vaccinated, according to Conrad. Worse, their ailments went beyond a new strain or reinfection of COVID-19. The PA saw patients experience:

  • A new stroke
  • Bleed
  • Autoimmune Hepatitis
  • Sudden Bilateral Pneumonia or “COVID19 infection”,
  • Syncope with head injury
  • STEMI,
  • New arrhythmias
  • New seizure disorders,
  • New chorea movement disorder, and more.

At least five of her patients developed unprovoked deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolisms within six weeks of receiving the job. She treated four patients who experienced sudden bilateral pneumonia within just one week of receiving the vaccine. The system would not permit her to report patients who developed COVID despite the vaccine.

The VAERS website states:

Healthcare providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination [under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)], and other adverse events if later revised by CDC:
  • Vaccine administration errors, whether or not associated with an adverse event (AE)
  • Serious AEs regardless of causality. Serious AEs per FDA are defined as:
  • Death;
  • A life-threatening AE;
  • Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization;
  • A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions;
  • A congenital anomaly/birth defect;
  • An important medical event that based on appropriate medical judgement may jeopardize the individual and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above.
  • Cases of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome
  • Cases of COVID-19 that result in hospitalization or death
Healthcare providers are encouraged to report to VAERS any additional clinically significant AEs following vaccination, even if they are not sure if vaccination caused the event.

There is certainly a grey area between “required” and “encouraged” reporting, as medical providers can use their discretion to claim what caused the patient to experience an illness. For example, if someone is born with a birth defect, it would be difficult for providers to trace that back to the vaccination. The website “encourages” medical providers to report any adverse event, even if they are not sure if it is tied to the vaccine, but some hospitals are actively encouraging their workers not to do so. VAERS should track any ailments within the vaccinated population to see what illnesses they’re more susceptible to contracting. The only reason not to collect such data would be to downplay the dangers of the vaccine. How can individuals and health care providers make an informed decision when the risk is unknown? This raises questions on Fauci’s “safe and effective” vaccine claims.

By Martin Armstrong for Armstrong Economics
© 2021 Armstrong Economics – All Rights Reserved

Related posts