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.
What is VAERS and how reliable are its reports?
Executive Summary
VAERS is a federal, passive early-warning system co-managed by CDC and FDA that collects voluntary reports of health events after vaccination; it is useful for detecting signals but cannot by itself establish causation [1] [2]. Reports vary in quality, suffer from both underreporting and overreporting or misinterpretation, and must be analyzed alongside active surveillance systems and clinical review to determine true vaccine safety risks [3] [4].
1. Why VAERS Exists and What It Actually Does — the Early-Warning Alarm, Not a Court of Law
VAERS was created in 1990 to provide a centralized, publicly accessible repository for adverse events following vaccination and to serve as an early-warning surveillance tool for unexpected patterns or rare events [1]. The system accepts reports from anyone — patients, clinicians, manufacturers — and is intentionally broad to capture signals that more controlled systems might miss; however, this openness means reports are raw, unverified accounts that require follow-up [5] [6]. Public-facing data releases expanded in recent years to improve transparency, but that transparency also amplified opportunities for misinterpretation and misuse of the dataset when users treat reports as confirmed evidence of harm rather than leads for investigation [7] [8].
2. How Reliable Are Individual VAERS Reports? — Quality Varies Widely; Context Matters
Individual VAERS entries range from detailed medical records submitted by clinicians to anecdotal accounts from patients, and the database does not validate clinical causality at the point of entry, so a reported event may be temporally associated but not caused by vaccination [2] [3]. The system experiences both underreporting of expected but minor events and selective overreporting when attention is focused on a topic, producing biased signal strength that can mislead casual analysts [3]. Because of missing clinical details, inconsistent coding, and variable verification, VAERS alone cannot provide reliable incidence rates or definitive safety conclusions without linked medical record review or complementary data from active systems [4].
3. What VAERS Is Good At — Spotting Unusual Patterns That Warrant Investigation
VAERS excels at detecting rare or unexpected clusters that merit deeper study: historically it helped flag issues later confirmed by controlled studies and regulatory review, serving as the first step in a multi-layered safety process [1]. When a signal emerges, public health agencies use other resources — Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), clinical case reviews, manufacturer data — to test hypotheses and compute background rates, which is why VAERS is best understood as a trigger, not a verdict [4] [6]. The system’s value depends on follow-up: robust epidemiologic analyses and clinical adjudication are required to move from signal detection to actionable safety findings [3].
4. The Trouble With Misuse — Why Raw VAERS Numbers Become Misinformation Weapons
Because the VAERS database is public, raw counts can be cherry-picked to support misleading claims, such as implying causation or exaggerating increases without adjusting for baseline rates, reporting changes, or vaccination volume; these kinds of misinterpretations were especially visible during COVID-19 debates [7] [8]. Analysts who fail to account for reporting biases, stimulated reporting, and lack of denominator data produce statistics that are technically true but contextually meaningless, enabling viral misinformation. Responsible interpretation requires statistical comparison to expected background events, clinical validation, and triangulation with active surveillance systems [8] [3].
5. How Health Authorities Actually Use VAERS — Part of a Broader Safety Ecosystem
CDC and FDA treat VAERS as one component of vaccine safety monitoring; signals from VAERS prompt additional investigation using the Vaccine Safety Datalink, Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment centers, and manufacturer post-licensure studies to evaluate causality and incidence [1] [4]. This layered approach allows regulators to distinguish coincidental temporal associations from true adverse reactions and to quantify risk in context of background rates and benefits. The process is deliberate: initial VAERS signals lead to targeted epidemiologic studies and medical record reviews before regulatory action or public guidance changes are recommended [5].
6. Bottom Line for Journalists, Clinicians, and the Public — Use VAERS Carefully and Complement It
VAERS provides indispensable early detection and transparency but is not a standalone measure of vaccine safety; credible conclusions require corroboration from validated clinical data and active surveillance [2] [6]. For accurate public understanding, reporters and consumers must emphasize that VAERS reports are preliminary signals requiring follow-up, cite corroborating analyses from CDC/FDA or peer-reviewed studies, and avoid presenting raw counts as proof of harm. When treated as designed — an alert system that triggers deeper inquiry — VAERS strengthens vaccine safety oversight; when treated as definitive evidence, it becomes a vector for confusion and error [3] [8].