Charlie Gibson’s letter (“Take self reports with grain of salt,” Aug. 11) in response to my Sentinel letter of Aug. 5 warrants careful examination.

It is curious that, while Gibson’s letter is titled “Take self-reports with a grain of salt,” the word “self” appears nowhere in Gibson’s letter or in the CDC VAERS disclaimer from which he quotes. The word “self” seems to cast additional doubt on the VAERS reports, but it is highly probable that this word and title came from The Sentinel’s editor, not Gibson.

In essence, Gibson casts doubt on the usefulness of the VAERS data by quoting the first paragraph of the CDC VAERS disclaimer. The full disclaimer can be found at www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vaers/access-VAERS-data.html.

In its second paragraph, the disclaimer states that “The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can quickly provide an early warning of a safety problem with a vaccine.” Contrary to what Gibson claims, the “figures” or numbers in VAERS do not come from the CDC, but from “Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public …” The data consists of actual accounts of adverse reactions to vaccines, and these accounts have the authority of the people giving the information — the people on whose behalf the CDC and other government agencies operate. There are severe penalties for making false reports to VAERS. See https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html.

Admittedly the CDC has influence and/or control over what data to collect and how to present it. But since the CDC is not the source of the data, the CDC VAERS disclaimer is only an opinion about VAERS’ reliability. If the data is collected without bias, it will generally be reliable. It is troubling therefore, as researcher Neil Z. Miller has pointed out, that the ICD (World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases) category for vaccine-related death was eliminated when the ICD was revised in 1979 — despite the fact that this information would be very important in understanding the connection between vaccination and death. See www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214750021001268.

In his final paragraph, Gibson states that “The very valuable vaccines should not be undermined by non-vetted data, whose source and accuracy are unsubstantiated.” The CDC VAERS data is vetted to the fullest possible extent. Here Gibson’s argument works against itself. It is only the VAERS data that could possibly confirm that vaccines are “very valuable,” and VAERS itself is signally the exact opposite, namely a catastrophic number of deaths and injuries from COVID vaccinations.

JOHN D. WYNDHAM

Peterborough

Recommended for you