Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How do vaccine adverse event reporting systems (VAERS, Yellow Card, EudraVigilance) differentiate reports from confirmed vaccine-caused deaths?
Executive summary
Vaccine adverse event reporting systems such as VAERS (U.S.), the UK Yellow Card, and EudraVigilance collect reports of events that happen after vaccination but do not by themselves confirm that a vaccine caused a death; VAERS explicitly states a report “does not mean that the vaccine caused the adverse event” and accepts reports regardless of suspected causality [1] [2]. Public-health agencies use those passive reports as signals to investigate; when a causal link is confirmed it is announced after further review, as happened with a small number of rare clotting deaths tied to the Janssen/Ad26.COV2.S vaccine [3] [4].
1. How the systems accept reports: an open intake, not a verdict
VAERS and similar systems are designed to accept any report of an adverse event that follows vaccination — from healthcare providers, manufacturers, and the public — without requiring proof that the vaccine caused the event [1] [5] [2]. That means raw counts of “deaths reported after vaccination” are counts of temporally associated events, not confirmed vaccine-caused deaths [1] [2].
2. Why agencies warn against reading raw totals as causation
The CDC and FDA explicitly warn that reporting systems cannot determine causation on their own; VAERS’s FAQs and guides repeat that a report “does not mean that the vaccine caused the adverse event” and that reported diagnoses are not causally verified [1] [2]. Independent fact-checkers and journalists have echoed this guidance when debunking claims that large VAERS totals prove mass vaccine lethality [6] [7].
3. What happens after a death is reported: follow-up and investigation
For serious reports, including deaths, VAERS staff attempt to collect medical records, hospital summaries, test results, autopsies and death certificates to better understand the case [8] [4]. Academics who analyzed VAERS death reports note that VAERS staff request and review such documentation for U.S. reports of death following COVID-19 vaccination [4].
4. Signal detection vs. proof: the surveillance pipeline
These passive systems act as early-warning tools: a cluster or unusual pattern in the data triggers targeted epidemiologic and clinical investigations using other data sources and controlled studies to test causality [9] [8]. For example, surveillance identified a rare clotting syndrome after the Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine; later detailed review confirmed a causal link and a small number of deaths were attributed to that syndrome [3] [4].
5. How confirmed vaccine-caused deaths are communicated
Authorities do not mark reports in VAERS as “confirmed” vaccine-caused deaths on the passive-reporting platform itself; instead, confirmation comes from follow-up investigations and formal safety signal evaluations reported by agencies or in peer-reviewed literature [8] [4]. News and fact checks have recorded instances where CDC/FDA said only a very small number of deaths were confirmed related to a vaccine — e.g., a limited number tied to the Janssen vaccine — while the larger VAERS death totals remained reports of events temporally associated with vaccination [7].
6. Research context: comparing reports to expected background deaths
Peer-reviewed analyses have compared VAERS reporting rates for deaths after COVID-19 vaccination with expected all‑cause death rates in the general population and found reporting rates were lower than expected background death rates, a finding the authors say does not suggest increased overall mortality from vaccination [10] [4] [11]. Such comparisons are one method researchers use to evaluate whether observed reports exceed what would be expected by chance.
7. Limitations and common misunderstandings to watch for
Limitations include reporting bias, incomplete or inaccurate information, and the fact that passive reports lack a control group — all of which mean raw counts cannot prove causation [11] [2]. Public confusion often stems from conflating “reported deaths following vaccination” with “deaths caused by vaccination,” a distinction agencies and fact-checkers repeatedly emphasize [1] [6].
8. Bottom line for readers evaluating claims
If you see headlines citing totals from VAERS, Yellow Card, or EudraVigilance, treat them as signals that may merit investigation, not as confirmations of causality; authoritative determinations that a vaccine caused specific deaths come only after targeted follow-up, clinical review, and epidemiologic study and are communicated separately from raw report counts [1] [8] [4]. Available sources do not mention procedural details for Yellow Card or EudraVigilance in these search results, so readers should consult those agencies’ official guidance for their exact follow-up practices (not found in current reporting).