VISP Numbers, Appeals and PHAC’s Per-Dose Framing Trick¶
Day 2 · 5:03:59 · Dr. Jessica Rose
- 📊 Public VISP figures show 3,557 claims received (an underestimate) and only 252 approved (~7%); of 551 appeals, ~30% assessed and ~2% approved.
- 🏥 PHAC/CAEFISS/Vigilance report roughly 1 in 9,000 serious AEs, with myocarditis and death listed as temporally related.
- 🪄 Presenting rates per 102 million doses instead of ~32 million people makes rates look smaller—a presentation choice Rose calls a familiar data “magic trick.”
Official Canadian claim stats and how denominator choice softens rates.
← U.S. CICP Rejection Rates and Canada’s Secret VISP Design | Q&A: Is the VAERS Underreporting Factor Closer to 30 or 100? →
Transcript¶
Dr. Jessica Rose · 5:03:59
Shockingly, this is the only available data that the regular person gets to have access to online. And I can tell you with certainty that this total claims received number of 3,557 is an underestimate of the number of people who submitted claims. And Shockingly, only 252 were actually approved. It's about 7% of the total that were received. And this number is an underestimate. I heard somebody mention that they went through the appeals process and it might disgust you to find out that of the 551 listed appeals that were received, only a fraction were assessed and even a smaller fraction were actually approved. So only 30% were actually assessed and only 2% were approved. This is the data that you can access online, which again, I heard a reference to that was underreported and it absolutely is.
Dr. Jessica Rose · 5:05:05
And I'm going to show you why I think that. So this represents all of the total adverse events reported and the serious adverse events, which includes death, hospitalization, and an emergency room visit. A life-threatening illness, a birth defect, or hospitalization. These are serious conditions. And according to PHAC and the, the CAFIS system and also Health Canada's Vigilance Program, these are the three sources of data that I found I could access something. They found that 1 in 9,000 people reported a serious adverse event. Now that might not sound like a lot, but to me that sounds like a lot. Myocarditis and death on the right were both reported to be temporally related to the shots. Now I wanted to show you guys something interesting. The way that PHAC presents their data is per total doses, so approximately 102 million doses in the Canadian, in Canadian data.
Dr. Jessica Rose · 5:06:13
If you change that to people, so instead of per 102 million doses, you have 32 million people approximately who got one or two shots. It's interesting how the rate goes up. So this is one of these little magic tricks that you can use when you present data. You can either make it look better or worse considering what you're story is, and I know how gross that sounds, but it happens all the time. So they don't report it this way per person, and they, they might do that for a reason, but this is how they present it to the public. I'm going to stick with, with the way that they do it in order to be consistent. So VAERS, uh, in short, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, is a a passive reporting system, which means that anybody can volunteer a report. But as Senator Johnson correctly pointed out, about 67% are submitted by health practitioners and nurses.
Dr. Jessica Rose · 5:07:16
And it serves as an early warning system or signaling system for adverse events not detected during pre-market testing or clinical trials. And underreporting, as I stated, is a known imperfection. This system is not perfect, but it's what we have because vaccines are liability-free. This is what we have. And let me tell you, has it been used?
Speaker I · 5:07:38
Oops.
Dr. Jessica Rose · 5:07:40
Um, so again, there's a Lazarus study that Senator Johnson referenced that says it's 100 times unreported, underreported. I would say it's closer to 30 in the context of the COVID shots. So now I want to show you the difference between US VAERS data and the Canadian data that I just showed you.