How Accurate Is the Data For Injury From COVID Vaccines In Government Vaccine Injury Trackers?


Following news of a class action lawsuit in Hawaii to protect first responder emergency service workers from being forced to receive a COVID19 shot that mentions over 40,000 people having died within 72 hours of receiving the shots - focus is once again on calculating just how much risk COVID19 vaccines pose. In this post I look at the EU's vaccine injury reporting system to see what can be learned.

Victims of vaccine injury are well known to face a bleak journey as they try to access help, compensation or even just recognition. As this article on vaccine injury victims due to COVID19 shots in the independent points out.

The EU has recently announced a new investigation into adverse events from the COVID vaccines, stating:

The two anti-Covid messenger RNA drugs show potential side effects related to administration, specifically: erythema multiforme, glomerulonephritis or renal inflammation, nephrotic syndromes, renal disorders characterised by heavy loss of protein in the urine, and menstrual disorders.

Assessing the amount of death and injury caused by vaccinations is not an easy task. If someone is vaccinated and then becomes sick or dies, how do we know if their problems were caused by the vaccine? Maybe they would have gotten sick or died anyway? What if their problems begin months or even years later? Drawing a causal connection between ill health and a drug or vaccine can be very challenging.

Despite the difficulties, there is still much to be said, measured and analysed on this topic. Having been studying this (non professionally) for years, I have seen how the media and public perception of the topic has changed since COVID19. I find it particularly interesting that before COVID19, results from the US VAERS (The main USA based vaccine injury reporting database) were often pointed to as being valid and a reassuring sign that vaccines in general were 'safe and effective' - yet now that VAERS incidents have skyrocketed out of all proportion during the COVID19 vaccine rollout, suddenly VAERS is too inaccurate to be used!

In truth, a report funded by the US Government states that only about 1% of all vaccine adverse reactions make it into VAERS:

fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.

source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Meaning that it is quite possible that the 'tiny' percentage of people who are claimed to be injured by vaccines in the US (still resulting in Billions of dollars being paid out in compensation) is actually 'tiny' because it is a wildly inaccurate figure. The real figure could be up to 100 times higher.


VAERS, in the US, and other reporting systems are not obligatory - they are voluntary - meaning that doctors and medical staff do not always log adverse reactions in them. So it is not surprising that they under estimate the true amount of death and injury caused by vaccines and drugs.

So when we see graphs like the following, showing a massive increase of deaths logged in the VAERS system during 2021 as compared to the previous 40 years - as alarming as it is, we need to consider that the true numbers may be 100 times larger.


On the flipside, we also need to remember that just because a death is logged in VAERS does not mean that a person truly died from a vaccine adverse reaction. So how do we know the truth?

The US CDC Gov site for VAERS states:

Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 351 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through August 9, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,631 reports of death (0.0019%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths

source: CDC

How do we know how accurate these figures are?

Given the massive financial and political incentives involved (astronomical wealth transfer has already taken place due to COVID19 and continues apace), we need to be very cautious about who we trust here. It would be nice to think that everyone with a white coat or a position in government were trustworthy - but all of human history shows that this is not the truth. There have always been and continue to be a significant percentage of people who are all too happy to mislead basically everyone in order to achieve their own goals.

The counter narrative on this issue of trust is that people say that since VAERS can be added to by anyone, it's possible that 'crazy anti vaccine activists' have been logging COVID19 vaccine deaths that aren't real.

Data Sources

How do we know what the reality is?

Ultimately, we have several sources of information:

  • Databases such as VAERS and the EU's EudraVigilance (more on this in a moment).
  • Observations and data compiled by hospitals and doctors in their own clinics.
  • Data compiled by manufacturers of vaccines.
  • Independent studies and trials.
  • Anecdotal evidence from people's testimonies who we may know or encounter in media sources.

When we point to the huge spike in VAERS reports during COVID we are told that databases such as VAERS are untrustworthy (despite them being held up for years as evidence of vaccine safety until that wouldn't work any more). We are told that testimonies from doctors and clinicians such as the several who spoke up during the COVID phenomena to say that their data disagreed with the government data - should not be listened to and should be censored...

So that leaves us with manufacturer data, independent studies and anecdotes to base our analysis on. At least, if we are to believe the claims made by 'authorities' on the matter.

Now, in reality, 'authorities' will disregard testimonies of individuals in a heartbeat - because they just aren't scientific enough - too much possibility of error.

So this actually just leaves us with manufacturer data and independent studies!

Given that the manufacturers of the COVID vaccines are included among the top 20 recipients of massive fines for fraud and deception (multiple billion dollar fines for lying to the public about drugs) - you will forgive me if I ignore the manufacturer studies. Relying on manufacturer studies is like relying on a Las Vegas casino to let you know how successful you will be in advance when you gamble with them.

So now we are just left with 'independent studies', which could include our own independent investigations too. How are we going to carry out such investigations though, when the only data we have available is within the categories that were previously excluded as being unreliable? Hmm..

I only have limited time available at the moment to trawl through endless websites hunting for valid studies - I am not being paid to do this and have a lot of other things running concurrently. Therefore, I will just throw in a few links and relevant bits of information here - feel free to add to them in the comments below.

  • A small European study into healthcare workers - only relatively mild symptoms reported. (Not that useful really due to the small size of the study and absence of mortality data).


  • Board quits after peer reviewed study is published showing that COVID19 vaccines are killers! I hadn't heard of this before, but apparently a paper was published stating:

“for three deaths prevented by [COVID-19] vaccination, we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.”

Which was peer reviewed and which caused the board of the journal to quit because they said that the study was so poorly thought through!

Source: Science Mag (Archived due to deletion)

This highlights the need to know how many days after an injection the adverse event occurs. If we know that high numbers of people are dying only a day or two after their injection, then such a figure holds more weight than only knowing that the person died after their injection - perhaps 30 or more days later. Note: They may still have been killed by complication of the injection even 30 or more days later.

A look at the EU Vaccine Injury Database

In the course of investigating public databases I learned that the EU database called Eudravigilance, holds data on COVID19 vaccine injury reports. Unfortunately, their website is very limited and it is very hard to get useful information on mortality. However, I did find this site which has summarised the data from Eudravigilance. The issue is that it is difficult to get total death counts - you need to go into each category of disease, for each vaccine and then add up the totals.

I spent quite some time clicking about on the EU website and was able to confirm that the data in the health impact news report is essentially accurate for the categories of ill health that I looked at.

I wanted to see if I could take the database information and somehow guage it's accuracy or usefulness, despite only having limited access to 2nd hand information.

In the end, I settled on a simple test. I would work out the expected number of deaths from heart disease for the EU region between January 2021 and July 2021 and see whether the number of deaths recorded from heart disease as possible adverse reactions to the COVID shots sync up with the total expected. This should at least give us some context against which to assess the database information and how likely it is that the data is under-reported to a significant degree.

Here's what I found:

In 2016, 542 700 people died in the EU from heart disease, including heart attacks. So I used this as a reference figure. Based on this, I calculated that 316,575 heart disease deaths might be expected in the 7 months between January and July.

51.3% of the total population of the EU/EEA countries have received full vaccination for COVID 19 which translates to 232,482,391 fully vaccinated people. From this I worked out the full population involved (including unvaccinated and only single vaccinated) to be 453,182,048 people.

Based on this data I calculated that we might expect 162,402 people who have been double vaccinated in the EU region to die from heart disease, regardless of whether they have been vaccinated or not. Since 51.3% of the population is said to have been vaccinated, we can say that 51.3% of all heart disease related deaths would then be among the vaccinated population.

The total number of deaths in the EU vaccine adverse events database for all 4 COVID shots, attributed to heart disease is 2858, up until the end of July 2021. If we include the other cases where the person did not die but has serious heart problems or where their status is unknown, we have a total of 21,431.

So we can see that out of a theoretical (roughly estimated) possible maximum pool of over 160,000+ heart disease related cases among vaccinated people, only 21,431 of them were logged as possibly due to an adverse reaction to the vaccine.

We have no more data to go on to make more sense of these figures unfortunately, but some observations can be made:

  • Some of the people who died of heart disease will have died before receiving their shots.
  • Some of them will have been ill for a long time and perhaps were expected to die, so were not logged in the database.
  • Some of them will have died after having received their shots but simply not been added to the database for various reasons.

While it is not really possible to accurately calculate from the available data how many people might fall into each of these categories, it seems reasonable to point out the 2858 fatalities logged in the database as possible adverse reactions works out to 1.75% of the total expected heart disease cases among vaccinated people. While this percentage is quite significant – and higher than the risk values usually published for vaccines – the number is still quite small, considering that we don’t know how many of these cases are actually connected to the vaccine.

However, can we really imagine that all of the deaths from heart disease among vaccinated people were correctly assessed for possibly being caused by the vaccines? It is very unlikely in my experience, especially given the propensity for Doctors to ridicule patients who report adverse reactions, even when the reactions are fully known to be possible from the shots they have received.

How does someone determine if a fatal heart attack is the result of a vaccination on the ground, when few people are even taking about the possibility? People are dying every day from heart attacks - right? Why would this one not be just another statistic and not something related to a vaccine you know very little about?

It seems more likely to me that we are simply seeing, as the report into VAERS concluded, that the EU database - like VAERS - is under-reported. We are unable to prove very much here other than to speculate, but just like those who ridiculed the study into Ivermectin that stated a 100% effectiveness in treating COVID19, I think it's fair to point out that the number of POSSIBLE cases of heart disease that COULD be connected to COVID19 here are so low as to be almost as ridiculous.


Obviously this is a major rabbit hole and we may not know the full truth for some time and even then it is reliant on honest people being funded to do thorough scientific investigation and then to not be silenced or censored.

There have been far too many examples of doctors being censored in the last 18 months (and many more in decades gone by) for me personally to feel confident that 'the system' will ever let the full truth be known unless it happens to make them look whiter than white.

I remain open to all sources of information and wish success to all those diving into the data and doing experiments, regardless of who they are. We all need to get reliable data and insights and the more of us involved, the easier it gets - so kudos to you all.

If you have any comments or feedback please leave them below, thanks!

Wishing you well,
Ura Soul

Read My User Guide for Hive Here

You Can Vote For Me As A Hive Witness!

Click the big black button below:

ura soul witness vote for hive

View My Witness Application Here

View Some of My Witness Related Posts

Note: Witnesses are the computer servers that run the Hive Blockchain.

Without witnesses there is no Hive blockchain or DApps such as PeakD and 3Speak... You can really help Hive by making your witness votes count!

I am founder of an ethical Digital Marketing Agency called @crucialweb. We help our clients to grow and innovate online and offer discounts for decentralised projects. Get in touch if you'd like to work with us.
I run a Social network for healing, balancing and evolving too. Meet compassionate co-creators of reality, learn, share & make life better!

Posted via


In 2016, 542 700 people died in the EU from heart disease, including heart attacks. So I used this as a reference figure. Based on this, I calculated that 3,165,750 heart disease deaths might be expected in the 7 months between January and July.

Why would you expect to see a 12 fold rise in the rate of deaths from heart disease between 2016 and 2021?


Ah good catch, I mist-typed the number - will correct the numbers and repost!


Ok, that's corrected now - an extra zero crept in there!


My Dad would always say "there's no smoke without fire". There's so much controversy and conspiracy theories surrounding the vaccine that I for one would not be taking it anytime soon...Atleast until all doubts have been cleared. I pray all those who've taking it remain safe from any supposedly dangerous side effect. Hey @ura-soul , just out of curiosity, have you by any chance taken the vaccine yet?


Hi @ura-soul,

thanks for posting on this topic. I followed some of the debates in the comment section on your former posts.

Assessing the amount of death and injury caused by vaccinations is not an easy task. If someone is vaccinated and then becomes sick or dies, how do we know if their problems were caused by the vaccine? Maybe they would have gotten sick or died anyway?

Well, that's the problem, right? We cannot really know. In the same way, we cannot know if someone died from what is called covid.

Here, two positions confront each other that cannot really be refuted or proven. Data that has begun to be collected and analysed is under the star of this event and there is no certainty that this data will not be used, misinterpreted or even manipulated in one way or another. What some call science, others call pseudo-science. And probably both are right as well as wrong. The human tendency to use a single cause for illness and death is, in my view, the real problem. For my part, I do not follow either the figures on covid deaths or those on vaccination deaths in the sense that I consider them reliable. I tend to think this event is exaggerated overall and see two extreme camps using the same methods, which they then accuse each other of.

Both cannot be avoided, as one extreme conditions and conjures up the other. If it had not been for the sensational and panic reports constantly running across the tickers, no counter-movement would have developed that appeared to be the same. At these poles there is no understanding, only struggle. Although I wish that the one would never have happened and that Pandora's box would have been better kept closed, I ask myself what would have happened if there had not been the equally loud, partly hysterical and overused statements that would not counterbalance the other kind of media power?

Just imagine that the event that was presented and perceived as a catastrophe would have received nothing but approval?

I think this is an important question that, when asked, can be thought-provoking after all. I asked this very question of a friend who was afraid of the alleged epidemic and was in favour of forcing people to comply with the measures.

My thinking is that if it really had been such a dangerous catastrophe, governments would not have needed to impose anything, people would have taken measures of their own accord to protect themselves once they had experienced what is described as absolutely deadly. There would have been no need to order punishments, no lockdowns, because people are their own best friends and would have kept their distance of their own accord.

But things turned out differently and so one comes to believe that one cannot really know what helped: The measures or the so-called natural immune system. Since one did not let the event happen that one was supposedly afraid of, there will be a constant controversy about this. But events must actually happen and not be probable or possible. Where we expose ourselves to probability or possibility alone as a scenario, we will not get definitive answers because it could happen one way or another. I call this a distorted representation of reality.

One argument I received was that the measures were meant for those of us who would behave "crazy" or "unreasonably" and therefore it was necessary to impose restrictions because there would always be "people who don't stick to anything and have no consideration for others". To this I would say that no law or regulation is capable of stopping such things, because people who are crazy or unreasonable are crazy or unreasonable even if the rules and regulations try to stop their unreasonableness or craziness. One pretends that those who are accused of such things are responsible for the fact that all people in a system are then harmfully affected by these few. But when it is said that the allegedly insane and reckless are not a few, but an astonishing number who have doubts about the whole thing, it continues to be claimed that they are minorities. As if this would justify that pro-government course-optimists would have a good argument. These minorities, whether alleged or real, are then pigeonholed and one has to discredit them in order to continue to see them as untrustworthy and morally reprehensible.

Well, from my point of view, one thing is certain: if I were to stand directly in the eye of the storm, facing death, my friends and loved ones dying like flies, I would first of all be quite selfishly interested in my own survival. I can't say that with certainty, but the assumption is obvious. I would be afraid.

Though this is not the reality I perceive. So, I am not afraid of sickness and death, other than what I call "normal" events in all of our personal lives. People get old or sick and they die. Right now, one can neither die or get sick in peace. Our health and state of being became a public affair. That's not something people can really live with in the long run, at least, I can't.

Greetings to you.


Thanks for sharing!

Well, that's the problem, right? We cannot really know. In the same way, we cannot know if someone died from what is called covid.

I feel that actually we can know, through being grounded and self aware - internally clear enough of neurosis and self denial that we are in touch with powerful intuition, body consciousness and insight beyond the human realm. However, this isn't something that can be written in a scientific study and replicated (at least not without it taking about 5+ years and being highly personal).

In the sense you meant your comment and looking only at the data, it is hard to know. However, we don't have ALL of the data that actually is available. I feel that with all of the data we would probably have a much clearer picture of what is happening. E.g. What percentage of injuries took place within 24 hours of vaccination? Within 48 hours? Etc.

You are right about the pushback against hysteria being labelled itself as hysteria. The connecting thread is free will. When someone feels their life or free will is threatened, they will tend to move to correct the situation. If they perceive a disease to be doing so, they may become irrational if they don't know what the answer is. That irrational thinking can lead them to try to control others (in case of a virus). The logical and natural response to people trying to control the free will of others who are perhaps not panic stricken, will likely trigger a similar response in terms of their own drive to protect themselves.. So it is like two people fighting in a life boat over who gets to start the engine. Totally counter productive.

Right now, one can neither die or get sick in peace. Our health and state of being became a public affair. That's not something people can really live with in the long run, at least, I can't.

Nearly all of the human problems will be resolved or become much easier to resolve through a thorough understanding and awareness of free will. Currently most humans are in kindergarten in that respect - this in itself is not sustainable.

Wishing you well!


Thank you for replying. Appreciated.

In the sense you meant your comment and looking only at the data, it is hard to know. However, we don't have ALL of the data that actually is available. I feel that with all of the data we would probably have a much clearer picture of what is happening. E.g. What percentage of injuries took place within 24 hours of vaccination? Within 48 hours? Etc.

I agree, we don't have ALL the data. And so, the "other side" doesn't have all the data. I predict we won't get it and since the beginning of the phenomena time already has passed without chances taken to alter the course of collecting data or leaving it aside to collect even further.

My question is: what, if we stopped collecting data in this regard, at all? It became a theoretical question, as it seems, that won't happen, as the struggle goes on...

Altogether, I am not a fan of data collecting when it comes to human beings (meaning myself) and their state of health. I am not so much against it in terms of collecting data about water quality, river quality, weather, etc. - but when it comes to he human being, I have bad gut feelings. Luckily, people are different and there are other humans who don't have a problem with that. I am just not one of those.

You are right about the similar response. I would lie in saying that I am without sorrow, even high anxiety, at times. I feel being thrown out of my usual existence, that alone gives reason to worry. Seems, that parallel "societies" (even when minor ones) always existed but I did not take notice. I was just as normal as everyone else, it seemed. Now, it's different.

I try not to talk bad about people, the anonymous mass, that doesn't do me good. Only when I am in a relationship or know others, I dare to give an estimate or a point of view which might end up in serious disagreement. But then there is always the chance to come back and "repair" a damage. Though I admit, that I oftentimes am aggravated and also feel that I live in a kindergarden. Well, who can help it? As long as I don't wish those people evil or otherwise harm, that's okay.

Wishing you well, too.


it's not very accurate is it

Posted via


I am about to post a video from a doctor who has treated 6000 covid patients - He has some very clear and strong messages for COVID treatment.