Kaye Fabe,

"Doesn't a VAERS report have to be filed by the Dr who administered the vaccine?"

I addressed the issue of VAERS specifically, and vaccine adverse event reporting more generally, in a recent monograph (https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/62907). The following is excerpted from the monograph:

"Long-term safety studies of vaccines are rare (however, see bibliography at the end of this Appendix for some examples). The typical vaccine study is aimed at efficacy. Such studies tend to be a few months long, and the main evaluation criterion is titers of antibody in the serum.

Vaccines, especially childhood vaccines, are administered according to a schedule, which now comprises about seventy+ doses covering about sixteen vaccines. The schedule-based combination effects of these seventy+ vaccine doses have not been tested, and, therefore, adverse effects due to real-life vaccine synergies are unknown.

Much of the published data for vaccine adverse events (at least in the USA) originates from the VAERS database. VAERS is a passive monitoring system, and, like all similar systems, suffers from substantial under-reporting of adverse events [53]. A groundbreaking study [54], performed by Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc, reported that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported”. In other words, the actual numbers of adverse reactions to vaccines are one to two orders of magnitude higher than those reported in VAERS!

The methodology for obtaining this result was as follows: “Every patient receiving a vaccine was automatically identified, and for the next 30 days, their health care diagnostic codes, laboratory tests, and medication prescriptions are evaluated for values suggestive of an adverse vaccine event. When a possible adverse event was detected, it was recorded, and the appropriate clinician was to be notified electronically.”

Thus, these adverse events are single-visit short-term adverse events (within thirty days of the vaccination). They do not reflect the results of vaccination combinations administered over a longer period than thirty days, and they do not reflect results of vaccinations of any type in the mid-or long-term [54].

If fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported, how well does this sample reflect the total number of adverse events actually experienced? This is not a randomly-selected sample, as would be required for a statistically-valid result. Thus, even analyses of short-term adverse effects based on VAERS data are severely flawed. And, if fewer than 1% of these short-term adverse events are reported, what fraction of longer-term adverse events (where the connection between the adverse event and the vaccination becomes more tenuous as time proceeds) would be reported? One can only conclude that a negligible fraction of long-term adverse events is reported in a passive monitoring system like VAERS."

So how will this impact the reporting of adverse vaccine reactions. Doesn't a VAERS report have to be filed by the Dr who administered the vaccine? I may be wrong but I seem to remember reading that those who had their flu shot at a pharmacy had trouble filing a claim for adverse event for this reason.

As one of the pediatricians who honors informed consent, and gives it whether or not it is asked for (consumers should know the pros and the cons and the alternatives - one altrnative being not giving the vaccine) - pharmacies giving vaccines to children is just one more way companies can sell their products.
Pharmacists are trained to be aware of drug interactions - but sadly they rarely would have the time to really educate, and the profit incentive will make it rare indeed that any parent would be discouraged from getting any vaccine they ask for.
This opens the door for more direct to consumer marketing.
If we can get the population to wear masks in ways that have no proven benefits, imagine how easy it will be to get them to take a COVID-19 vaccine given the hysteria and fear they have created about COVID.
I do see a move to by pharma to increase the places people can go to get vaccines. Dentists, Pharmacists, school nurses etc.
As the role of the primary care doctor overseeing all your health is further eroded - I have no doubt that only those who take the health of their family into their own hands will have a chance at wellness and robust health. Our sick care system is taking a fatal turn where:
1. Poor nutrition, toxins, stress and vaccines destroy the immune system and create autoimmunity
2. Pharma comes to the rescue with immunosuppressants, antibiotics and more vaccines and meds
3. Chronic health becomes the norm, with increased cancer and autoimmunity.

If you do what everyone else does - you get what everyone else gets!
Time to wake up as it is almost too late.

The thought has come to me that as pharmacists have a far better mechanistic appreciation of drugs and chemicals (its their job to know and understand), then perhaps these are the people we should now concentrate on to inform. Printouts of articles such as those of Chis Exley and ICAN, etc., are more likely to be read if handed over in an envelope with the Pharmacists name on, as it helps to psychologically impress upon them that this is more likely to be important information if your taking this extra effort to present it formally. Professionals are gradually beginning to question everything they’re being told. They are becoming more receptive as they realize much truth is being kept from them. Remind them that they too, can submit Yellow Cards but first they need to know what to watch out for and the time window in which vaccine injuries manifest themselves. They have family too — so maybe some of this science may start to sink in.