For all who have been paying attention, it should be widely known by now that VAERS significantly underreports adverse event data. However, the million dollar question is always–“What is the exact under-reporting factor?” Perhaps there is no way to determine it with foolproof accuracy, but there are previous studies which have estimated it, such as the Lazarus study of 2011. More recently, Kirsch/Rose/Crawford have estimated it at 41x based on comparing anaphylaxis rates published in a study to rates found in VAERS. On the other hand, the CDC “safe and effective” narrative likely either assumes a factor that is actually negative or requires that pretty much any VAERS death is coincidental to vaccination in order to be able to discount 99.98% of deaths in VAERS (remember that they have only admitted to 3 deaths that are causally related to the Covid-19 shots, due to Vaccine-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia–see page 26 of this).

In this post we will use the CMS data that has been recently revealed, courtesy of Tom Renz and his whistleblower, to come up with another way to approximate the URF for VAERS. Since the CMS system is not a voluntary reporting system, but rather a robust system that tracks medical events for billing and claims purposes, it likely has a better representation of the true number of adverse events related to the Covid injections than a system like VAERS, which is often overlooked, ignored, or even not known to exist by medical professionals. In Mr. Renz’s presentation, he cited CMS data on the slide below (relevant data circled), which shows 52,030 deaths occurring within 14 days of injection in a population of 27,431,845 Medicare beneficiaries. This equates to a death rate of 189 per hundred thousand (or 1,890 per million):

Also note that these are people receiving any dose, not just “fully vaccinated” people with 2 doses.

Since Medicare is only available to the 65+ age group (thought there are a few exceptions which we will consider negligible), we will need to pull data for the same age group out of VAERS. If we do a query on US VAERS reports for the 65+ age range and for deaths within 14 days of the shot, we get 2,369 deaths. To get the total number of people vaccinated with at least one dose in this age group, we need to download the data from this CDC page– https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-demographic:

Once we open the downloaded csv file, we then add together the number of vaccinations shown for both the 65-74 yrs age group and the 75+ yrs age group to come up with 55,949,565.

Finally, we take the deaths and divide by the number of vaccinations (2,369/55,949,565), resulting in a death rate of 42.34 deaths per million. Comparing the CMS death rate of 1,890/million to the VAERS death rate, we see that the ratio is 1,890/42.34, which gives us an Under-Reporting Factor for VAERS of 44.64. This corresponds to a true reporting rate in VAERS of 2.2% of all adverse events.

Seems like a mid 40s URF for VAERS is very good approximation.

If we multiply the current number of deaths in VAERS (as of the 12/10 data release) by our URF, we will get: 887,711 deaths. If we want US deaths only, we will have: 407,831.

Safe and Effectivesure about that?

Part II…

109 thoughts on “Using CMS Whistleblower Data to Approximate the Under-Reporting Factor for VAERS”
  1. Wow! That’s some serious number crunching and CONSERVATIVE. So here might be a fun fact to boost the URF another % point. 1). There is about 22% of all reports with UNK AGE. Considerably lower for domestic only. What if we could discover some child deaths hiding in there? Also under UNK vax type which overlooked by everybody! I’ve calculated that ~95-97% of all UNK vaxx entry since the c19 has been introduced is basically a covid 19 vax and based on the meager cum accrual of all entries that are non-c19 currently. So basically saying what if it was discovered that we could find and additional 20-25 child vaxx deaths? Find them in combination by symptoms write up search and % probability of all UNK AGE and UNK vaxx type? How would would 10-25 extra kid deaths move the needle?

    1. Albert, yes, the CMS data is predominantly only age 65+…so child deaths wouldn’t be involved here. I’ve actually already accounted for “UNK” ages. In this case, I found and included 22 death records for which the AGE_YRS field was empty, but for which the age information was indeed present within the SYMPTOM_TEXT field. I do not normally go out of my way to correct the VAERS data in any way, but since missing age data is one of the most egregious things in VAERS (and it was not difficult to correct), I went ahead and did it for this exercise.

      1. actually, if you don’t “improve” the data by finding the extra deaths that originally had missing age information, your URF would end up higher. Fewer deaths = higher URF.

    2. Further comparative info on VAERS URF as estimated from CMS data .
      New census data from the UK for 2021 -22 estimates 871,000 seniors age 60 + died by mNRA vaccination.
      (https://expose-news.com/2024/02/15/analyzing-englands-shocking-c19-vaccine-deaths/ ).

      There were 12.5 m seniors in the UK compared to 56 m in the US..a ratio of 4.5 times .
      Prorata, these numbers would suggest about 3.9 m Seniors deaths in the US in 2021-22 .
      The implicit URF for those seniors is well over 700 which makes the estimate of less than 50 derived from Renz CMS data rather unlikely .

      Approximately 70 % of the US vaccinated were Seniors which suggests that about 5.6 m Americans died from the Vaxx in 2021-22 .

      It seems improbable that UK vaccine deaths , even accepting that all were faithfully reported by the UK Govt , would not apply to the same age group in the US, as vaccine distribution by manufacturer is about the same .
      As a final comment, it is my understanding that CDC does not alter its VAERS record for vaccine deaths subsequent to their first adverse event record ..ie if a vaccinated person dies subsequent to its initial record in VAERS , that death is not recorded and the individual remains a survivor rather than a mortality.
      This recording anomaly would explain the rapid mortality curve decay as measured in days after vaccination .

  2. I just read an excellent article on estimating the actual number of potential myocarditis cases in children leading to deaths. It shows how the the actual trials are skewed to show data that Pfizer wants and not actual science. Apparently the CMS OPTUM database is being used by the FDA to publish data, that cannot be verified by the public and they select databases for datasets, most likely for which shows lowest AEs, so VAERS data will never be acknowledged. https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/ten-red-flags-in-the-fdas-risk-benefit

  3. I am impressed by this work. However, I am troubled by one thing. I personally believe that Covid in general is the final nail in the coffin for people with very limited life expectancies anyway. Of course the data are not released in a way that we can prove this definitively but if I recall the UK data correctly deaths occur disproportionately in the “at risk population” that they track but disproportionately in the 15 percent classified as most at risk of the at risk.

    I suspect the same is largely true of vaccine deaths.

    In order to estimate the number of “excess deaths” in the CMS data base that are probably due to the vaccine you would have to know the number of people in the CMS database that were vaccinated in the 14 days that would be expected to die anyway. These are the real background deaths.

    I don’t have the numbers but I understand in 2014 80 percent of the US deaths would have been in the CMS database. Then it was 2.1 million people or about 40 000 people per week. This means that 80 000 Medicaid beneficiaries would be expected to die in 14 days. We would have to know more about the share of the vaccinated in the total number of beneficiaries to know whether this high number is in fact an excess deaths number.
    But this of course does not detract from the point that many of these deaths should have been reported to veers, it also raises questions as to why so many people who had to be very fragile were vaccinated in the first place.
    I should make it clear that while I have deep concerns about the safety of the vaccines and I am deeply suspicious about the suppression of debate and information I don’t think we should jump to the conclusion that all deaths are vaccine deaths. However, it is also true that we do not know that they are not.

    In short, for the majority of those over 65 who die from either Covid or the vaccine it will be hard to prove that this was the cause as they have so many comorbidities. This is not the case for healthy people under 50 and this must be the focus.

  4. Renz forgot to account for the fact that SARS-CoV-2 is given in 2 doses and Influenza vaccines in one dose, and so Renz was effectively comparing 28 days worth of deaths after SARS-CoV-2 vaccines vs. 14 days worth of deaths after Influenza vaccines.

    When accounting for this, the CMS data show that the death rates within 14 days of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine adminstration are roughly equivalent to the death rates within 14 days of Influenza vaccine administration, so there is no evidence of any excess deaths after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the 65yr+ CMS population than there were in 2018-2020 after Influenza vaccination.

    Given the acknowledged MUCH higher death reports in VAERs in 2021 relative to 2018-2020, unwittingly these CMS data provide convincing evidence whatever the URF is for deaths in 2021, it must have been MUCH higher in 2018-2020, and it appears a much higher proportion of deaths after vaccination are being reported to VAERs in 2021 than in the past.

    This blog post discusses this in detail: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/renz-whisteblower-data-from-cms-falsely-claims-death-rate-higher-for-sars-cov-2-vaccine-than-flu

    1. 14 days after a Covid jab is 14 days after a Covid jab — whether it’s the first or second jab.

      It doesn’t magically turn into the same thing as 28 days after one jab.

      1. He takes the total deaths in 28 days as numerator and number of vaccinated individuals in denominator for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and total deaths in 14 days as numerator and number of vaccinated individuals in denominator for Influenza vaccines.

        1. And? Most people get 2 jabs if the first one doesn’t kill or maim them. The risk is typically for 2 or more jabs per person.

    1. The point is that, when adjusting for the 28 day vs. 14 day issue, the rate of deaths within 14d of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in 2021 is not any higher than the rate of deaths within 14d of Influenza vaccination in 2018, 2019, or 2020 for the >65yr population. Since CMS data are not plagued by the reporting bias of VAERs, these data are sufficient to show that the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are not producing excess deaths in this population relative to flu vaccines in recent years.

      Thus there is no need for the speculative exercise of estimating vaccine-caused deaths by VAERs by extrapolating based on URF.

        1. Look at his tables — he is using the number of people vaccinated as the denominator, and the total deaths within 14 days of either first dose or 2nd dose (i.e. 28 days total)as the numerator.

          This is very clear given his overall table has ~50k deaths and his subsequent tables split out in detail after first dose (~29k deaths) and after second dose (~21k deaths).

      1. Not to mention that publicly available population life tables show that in the >65yr old USA population, the background death rate in any given 14 day period is ~150 deaths per 100k, and so none of these data show any evidence of excess deaths in the vaccinated cohorts.

        In fact, they suggest a substantially lower (about 1/3 lower) death rate in the vaccinated subpopulation than the overall population of >65yr in the USA. This is likely reflecting factors such as people who are in hospice or otherwise imminent risk of dying would not likely be vaccinated for flu or SARS-CoV-2 so the vaccinated subpopulation will tend to have an inherently lower death rate than the unvaccinated subpopulation in the >65yr old Medicare age group.

  5. Is it possible to repeat the calculation with Tom Renz’ data for shorter time spans within which deaths after vaccination have happened? For example, within 1, 2, 3, or 7 days after vaccination? Assumption that there should be more deaths in the first days and week after vaccination, if there is a vax effect.
    Question is if you run the analysis for lesser number of days, this would surpass the background rate of avg number of deaths for this population.in the given time span..
    See also Prof. Morris’ data on population details: https://twitter.com/jsm2334/status/1471142203690999813

  6. So, in conclusion, is VAERS UNDER-Reported, By (at least) 99%, or not?
    Meaning, do The VAERS numbers, ONLY represent, less than 1% of the actual number of deaths, as the Lazarus Report found?
    Thank you, for your time, consideration, and cooperation, I truly appreciate it.

    1. Also, If VAERS (12/10/2021) states 20,244 deaths, is that in just The U.S.A., meaning, in reality, 2,024,400 deaths, in The U.S.A.?

  7. […] Mais un calcul plus récent effectué par Wayne à VAERS Analysis suggère que le taux de sous-déclaration réel pourrait atteindre 44,64, ce qui porterait le nombre réel de décès suite à la vaccination contre Covid-19 à 893.000. […]

  8. Death rate of healthy Seniors after Vaxx in excess of 20 %

    In the table below, which is from Mr Renz’s presentation, I present by State, the death rate of seniors who , at the time of Vaccination, were healthy without serious comorbidities and within 28 days of covid Vaccination acquired multiple serious adverse events, some of which died.

    State #of Serious Adverse Events # of deaths within 28 days Implied death rate
    NY 30290 6586 21.7 %
    Misou 8638 2322 26.9 %
    Ohio 20409 4888 24.0 %
    Ma 2645 661 25.0%
    CA 41180 8412 20.4%
    TX 31695 6558 20.7 %
    FL 28904 5700 19.7 %
    Nev 3473 658 19.0 %
    Totals 167234 35785 21.4 %
    1.5 SAE/ Person 111489 35785 32.1 %

    From these statistics, if I have read the selection criteria corectly, is that more than 20 % and possible over 30 % of healthy seniors die within 28 days of a covid vaccine

  9. In my previous post, the selection criteria by Renz was directed towards the number of seniors who were healthy when Vaxx but developed SAEs after injection, including being killed, within the 28 day window that Vaers would have considered these individuals to not be Vaxxed.

    Yet, vaccine mortality rates were substantial in this healthy seniors group, possibly as high as 1 in 3.
    My question is…..what are the mortality rates and statistical treatment by CMS of those seniors who had one or more comorbidities at the time of vaccination.

  10. […] Tuy nhiên, người ta đã biết rằng VAERS không có đầy đủ các dữ liệu tác dụng phụ có hại của vaccine. Con số thực tế tùy theo các ước tính khác nhau là gấp từ 1,3 (theo CDC) cho đến 100 lần (theo Harvard Pilgrim Health Care) con số trên VAERS (5, 1,3 – 8,3, 20, 41, 44,64, 100).  […]

  11. […] by a factor of 20…”Harvard study:“ fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.”Cases on VAERS are under-reported by 44.64 times:Poll shows that 5.2% of the vaxed had serious adverse events that “prevent daily activity”. 9.4 […]

  12. Another Analysis in the weekly Vaers Reports provides vaccine deaths per shot for flu vaccines as well as similar data for the C19 shot.
    In that report, the C19 shot is about 70 more lethal than the flu shot.

    Yet the CMS data provided by Renz shows that the C19 shot was less than two times more lethal than the flu shot.
    In other words, are the CMS data also massively under reporting C19 Vaxx deaths ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *