Some have argued that the VAERS data is unreliable because “anyone can submit anything” and the vast majority of VAERS reports are submitted by lay-people and not by medical professionals. But, is there a way we can know with reasonable certainty if the VAERS data is indeed submitted predominantly by lay-people rather than medical professionals?
Yes. Based on common medical coding terminology that often shows up in VAERS records, it is very possible to classify many of the records in VAERS with a decent degree of accuracy. With the help of a revenue cycle management medical billing expert (thanks WelcomeTheEagle88!!!), we were able to implement a search algorithm over the VAERS data for many of these commonly used phrases and word patterns that suggest a report is likely submitted by a medical professional. And thus, we are able to estimate an answer to the main question with a high degree of confidence. But of course, the caveat here is that this type of pattern matching cannot produce true 100% certainty without having a medical professional actually reading through and interpreting each record. There is bound to be some ambiguity in many of the records which will not allow for easy classification…so take these results with a grain of salt. Also, and this will be explained further below, I believe our search methodology actually gives the lay-people reports an advantage in that ambiguous reports not caught by our search algorithm are automatically classified as lay-people reports. [Lastly, you can also go here if you want to read a study done by a team of researchers who actually had medical professionals carefully examine a sample of death records from VAERS to conclude that at least 67% of these death records were submitted by health care service employees].
What are the results of our investigation? — Looking at deaths first:
Next looking at all adverse events:
So while the Death reports are predominantly submitted by medical professionals, it seems that when considering all adverse events, the majority are reported by lay-people…however, is there a predominant majority? Obviously, NO.
Here is a description of the search methodology used:
We utilized 13 of the most commonly found word patterns/phrases in the Covid-19 jab VAERS records which likely indicate that a report was submitted by a medical professional. We ranked these word patterns in the order deemed to be of greatest to least importance as a likely indicator. Searches were then executed using each of these word patterns on every Covid-19 jab record in VAERS, searching over the SYMPTOM_TEXT field, which contains the descriptive details for each report. Note that many records ended up matching more than one of the key word patterns. And finally, records were progressively removed from the universe of VAERS records and added to a Medical Professionals “bucket” starting with the records for Search #1, then subsequently adding more records for each of the following Search #’s, such that each subsequent Search # only adds new records which are not already in the “bucket” from any of the previous Search #’s. Doing it this way gives greater confidence in our accuracy, as you can see that the majority of records are added by Search #5, and that the Search #’s at the end (10-13) actually contribute very few new records that are not already captured by the earlier searches.
Below is a list of the word patterns in the order that the searches were conducted (in the order of greatest to least importance), along with the number of records found which contained each search term (column D) and the count of records progressively being added to our final total for Medical Professionals (column E).
If you think about it, we are giving the lay-people reports the benefit of the doubt and an advantage. Rather than limiting lay-person reports to only those we identify by matching them against specific search terms, we are essentially saying that anything we did not specifically find to be a medical professional report, is considered by default to be a lay-person report. What this means is that there are possibly many medical professional reports hidden inside the lay-people “bucket” that our searches could not identify.
Lastly, for any technical people who may be interested, also listed below in a separate table are the actual Regex search terms used in the individual searches.