CDC's Erroneous Safety Signal Calculations Ensures the Most Dangerous Vaccines look Safe

Does a safety signal system that hides dramatic signals and allows the CDC to claim it doesn't see anything bad happening qualify as "fraud"?
In this Adverse Events Reported Following COVID-19 Vaccinations, Prepared by Josh Guetzkow, PhD, Dr. Guetzkow provides a more legitimate vaccine safety signal. See  Attachment 2 Adverse Events Reported Following COVID-19 Vaccinations.  Updated Aug. 28, 2021

Defining Away Vaccine Safety Signals.

The Chloroquine Wars Part XLVIII. July 26, 2021.  What if it turns out that vaccines are killing and crippling millions of people around the world, but that those harmed are just well enough spread out that almost nobody saw sufficient signals to build an intuition about the problem? And what if the agency most responsible for examining safety signals defines their algorithm using a nonsensical mathematical formula that hides nearly all serious problems?

...During the past few months, many people (including myself) have learned for the first time about the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) where health care workers and patients can submit adverse events (AEs) suffered post-vaccination. While the VAERS database is understood to record an often small subset of the AEs, the information can still be used for purposes of establishing safety signals.

As with a great deal of health care regulation during the declared pandemic, changes were made to the VAERS system and also to safety signal analysis leading up to the experimental mass vaccination program officially targeting COVID-19. Without much fanfare, the CDC published a document on January 29, 2021 entitled Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Standard Operating Procedures for COVID-19. There is a lot to talk about in this document, but let us focus on Section 2.2, which begins on page 14. Here, the CDC states that, "A series of tables will be generated using the VAERS automated data," and that these, "will be refreshed daily for internal use," but "not for public release". One might wonder why the CDC would not want additional outside eyeballs on such data---particularly since it took them two full months to figure out that myocarditis was an issue with the vaccines despite Israel warning about it two full months before the CDCs scheduled, delayed, and finally held meeting in late June. Maybe the CDC should hire somebody to read the pertinent news?

This knowledge is taken from Steve Kirch's work in his document:

Vaccine Safety FAQ and search on "PRR problematic"

By Vaccine Truth     
Twitter: @VaccineTruth2  

The key section of Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Standard Operating Procedures for COVID-19 is section 2.3 which talks about using Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR). This sentence in 2.3.1 is key: “A safety signal is defined as a PRR of at least 2, chi-squared statistic of at least 4, and 3 or more cases of the AE following receipt of the specific vaccine of interest.”​​

Whenever the CDC's Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) <​ ​2, the​ CDC claims there​ is no safety signal​ (i.e., no safety concern re. a particular vaccine).​
CDC's Inputs to its alleged "Safety Signal" for Vaccines
  Specific Adverse Event All Other Adverse Events
Specific Vaccine A B
All Other Vaccines C D


PRR = [A/(A+B)]​ ​/​ ​[C/(C+D)]

Notice first, the numerator is always​ less than one(1),​ 0​ ​< ​ ​A/(A+B) <1  and the denominator is ​too,​ 0 < C/(C+D) <1. 

​For PRR​ ​ >​ ​2 to occur to create a ​CDC ​safety concern,  A/(A+B) > 2* C/(C+D), ​i.e., ​the numerator must be ​at least double the size of the denominator .

​Method 1 showing CDC's PRR measure is fraudulent:​

Notice if any specific vaccine has a very large number of adverse events​ (AEs)​, then B is a very large number, making the denominator of  A/(A+B), very large, causing the fraction A/(A+B) of the PRR numerator to approach zero, a large number of adverse events for a particular vaccine makes it LESS likely that the PRR > 2. 

Notice, if any specific adverse event occurs most often in a large number of vaccines, then C is a very large number, causing C/(C+D) to approach one (1), and, since A/(A+B) < one (1), a large number of a particular adverse event makes it LESS likely that the PRR >2.

Thus, if any specific vaccine has many adverse events or any specific adverse event shows up in many vaccines, the CDC's PRR "safety signal" will falsely show the vaccine is SAFE!

​Method 2 showing CDC's PRR measure is fraudulent:​

if A/(A+B) = C/(C+D) ​then the PRR=1, ​whenever the specific vaccine's AE ​has​ the same safety level as all other vaccines​ for the same AE​​. But what happens when the specific vaccine ​is 5 times more dangerous due to 5 times as many adverse events, i.e.,  5*A/(5*A + 5*B) the 5's all cancel ​5*A / 5*(A+B) ​and there is no safety signal because the numerator remains exactly the same and A/(A+B) = C/(C+D) and PRR = 1 still!​ So, clearly there is no safety signal when one vaccine causes any multiple times more adverse events than another.​

Thus, the CDC's safety signal measure is designed so that

​(1) ​the larger the number of total adverse events are reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) for a specific vaccine, the ​LESS likely this particular vaccine raises any safety concern; and

​(2) ​ the larger the number of a particular adverse event occurs in *all* vaccines, the ​LESS likely this particular adverse event ​will raise any safety concern!! 

The CDC's PRR measure for revealing safety concerns​ about adverse events​ ​reported to its VAERS system is FRAUDULENT​, i.e., is designed to not raise safety concerns re. any vaccine having large numbers of AEs or when one AE is occurring in large numbers in all vaccines​.

Here is an Excellent Way to Calculate ACTUAL Safety Signals from the VAERS database by Josh Guetzkow, PhD1


COVID vaccine versus Flu vaccine Adverse Events
COVID vaccine versus Flu vaccine Adverse Events per 100K doses