HomeChinese VirusThe Deadly COVID-19 Vaccine Coverup

The Deadly COVID-19 Vaccine Coverup




The Deadly COVID-19 Vaccine Coverup

By Virginia Stoner

FACT: There has been a massive increase in deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) this year. That’s not a ‘conspiracy theory’, that’s an indisputable fact. You can try to explain it or justify it, or even argue it doesn’t matter, but you can’t deny it.


We’re not talking about a modest increase in death reports, something we might chat about in concerned voices over Chai tea and bagels at a company mixer. We’re talking about a huge and unprecedented increase—so massive that in the last 4 months alone, VAERS has received over 40% of all death reports it has ever received in its entire 30+year history. So massive it’s literally “off the chart.

The first chart in the pair below shows VAERS death reports from 2014 thru 2020. If you tried to add the 2021 data to it, it would be way, way off the chart. The second chart shows how much detail was lost when the 2021 data was squeezed in.

The pair of charts below are another illustration. Notice all age groups had an increase in death reports from the COVID-19 vaccines—with both the 18-64 and 65+ age groups experiencing a dramatic “off the chart” increase.

The Increase In VAERS Death Reports Is Not Due To More Vaccination

Even with the COVID-19 shots, the estimated total vaccines administered so far this year is less than the yearly average–because we are only a quarter of the way through this year. No doubt the vaccine count will climb much higher by the end of this year, but it’s not the reason for the massive increase in VAERS death reports over the last 4 months.

The following chart compares estimates of vaccines administered with deaths reported to VAERS, separating COVID-19 vaccines from other vaccines. The rate of reported deaths for other vaccines looks fairly normal; the massive increase is mainly from the COVID-19 vaccines.

There are many notes at the end of this paper about how the vaccine data was estimated, and where the data for these charts was obtained, along with the data table.

What The Official Experts Have To Say (*Crickets*)

With all the many experts at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ostensibly dedicated to COVID-19 and vaccine safety, not a single one has attempted to explain or analyze, or has even mentioned, the massive increase in deaths reported to VAERS from the COVID-19 shots. The silence is telling.

But it’s not as if VAERS death reports are being hidden, exactly. VAERS data is freely available to the public…and if you don’t want to look it up, you can follow the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Death Count online, which is updated regularly. Just scroll down to the section called “Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination” for the latest numbers. Most recently, the death count went from 2794 on April 5, to 3005 on April 12, to 3848 on April 26.

But a mere 1054 deaths in 21 days is no problem for the CDC—it probably just means the vaccines are working.

I found only one paper (1) that mentioned VAERS death reports re COVID-19 vaccines. The lead author was Julianne Gee, from the CDC’s COVID-19 Response Team, and the paper concerned safety monitoring during the first month (December 14 to January 13). We are told, in the Summary:

Monitoring … indicates reassuring safety profiles for COVID-19 vaccines. … No unusual or unexpected reporting patterns were detected.

The authors said 113 deaths were reported to VAERS that month from the COVID-19 vaccines. Incredibly, they never compared that number to historical VAERS averages or trends…just kidding. Of course, they compared it, realized it was shockingly higher than the historical average of 12 deaths per month, and decided not to mention it. Never let science interfere with good vaccine marketing.

Bizarrely, the authors actually implied the number of VAERS death reports indicated a safe vaccine, because a lot fewer deaths were reported to VAERS than they would have expected to see coincidentally among people who got the vaccine. Do you think that makes sense? I hope you said “no,” because it does not make sense.

You can’t conclude a vaccine is safe because fewer people filed VAERS death reports than were expected to die coincidentally. I can’t even explain it in a way that makes sense—because it’s NONSENSE.

They Were Going To Die Anyway…Someday

One hypothesis I’ve heard, and which is hinted at by Gee, et.al. in the paper above, is that the elderly and infirm, many in long-term care facilities, were the first to be targeted by the COVID-19 vaccine campaign, and they are much more likely to die coincidentally. These coincidental deaths then lead to an increase in suspected vaccine-induced deaths reported to VAERS.  (*cough*)

VAERS data just does not support that hypothesis. First, because all age groups—not just seniors—had a dramatic increase in VAERS death reports from COVID-19 vaccines, as illustrated in the charts below. The red line represents reported COVID-19 vaccine deaths, and the green line represents other vaccines. Across the board, all age groups experienced a dramatic increase in deaths reported to VAERS from the COVID-19 shots—even the under 18 group, which has had very few COVID-19 shots (so far).

Second, the increase in death reports in the 65+ age group is just so massive that coincidental death, no matter how sickly the population, just doesn’t seem like a sufficient and plausible explanation. After all, the elderly and infirm in long-term care facilities are frequent targets of flu shot campaigns.

What Does VAERS, And The People Who Tend To It, Do All Day?

VAERS is a “hypothesis-generating system” that “identifies potential vaccine safety concerns that can be studied in more robust data systems.”  VAERS uses data mining to “…identify disproportional adverse event reporting for vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccine.” VAERS also “identifies… adverse event-vaccine pairs reported at least twice as frequently as expected for a COVID-19 vaccine…” (2) (Pages 12-15)

Given the massive increase in deaths reported to VAERS—not a modest increase, but an enormous, unprecedented increase—it’s unfathomable that VAERS would not detect “disproportional” reporting, thus putting the wheels in motion to study the situation “in more robust data systems.” But there is no indication anything like that has occurred.

According to the CDC:

VAERS has not detected patterns in the cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines.

Even as the death reports continue to roll in at an astonishing rate, by the dozens and sometimes hundreds per week, in true Orwellian fashion, the CDC simply updates the Death Count on its website and reiterates:

VAERS has not detected patterns in the cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines.

And, of course, the old standby reassurance:

 “COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.

The only way it seems possible that VAERS did not detect any safety concerns, is if VAERS was actually programmed to expect a very high rate of deaths from the COVID-19 vaccines—much higher than the rate of deaths expected for other vaccines. That would explain why VAERS did not detect any “adverse event-vaccine pairs reported at least twice as frequently as expected for a COVID-19 vaccine…

On the other hand, maybe people are just lying, and VAERS is either doing nothing at all, or something other than what we’re being told; or, it is detecting possible safety concerns with the COVID-19 vaccines like crazy, and it’s being covered up.

But, hey—never let it be said I don’t have an open mind. Maybe one of the many highly paid and respected experts at the CDC will do an analysis—like my humble analysis here, but bigger and fancier with more bells and whistles, because they are experts—and prove the massive increase in VAERS death reports has nothing to do with dangerous COVID-19 vaccines. But I won’t be holding my breath. I think if that could be done, it would have been done already—in triplicate.

Previous article
Next article


  1. https://ci4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/PfhHOQNYLV8aXTKG3WyBNJlwuimzCJb5v5UVG480QOEr-VJYCieGNlZaViQhf02aC9ZkjiEnN61MJpk28ytbl9kZyyuAyEgtX-REVaHYzwOyjzQ4OMS_Hrf6yGB4IaUP2rF6lmqiBbW0zA1KaQM3aqLtHKpakjbWP-VjuYz9sIBMRCkE2luCU2pilt_lHdORfkEso_5dFTIQW_HabOpAndq-mtINfuRZGJGGiNh7=s0-d-e1-ft#https://usercontent.flodesk.com/18362695-f9e0-4cfd-9424-36de88d15e58/upload/screen-shot-2021-05-15-at-12-16-02-am_e8ef691f-c130-4be0-9d32-ceca763a367f.jpg

    Hello? Are you doing okay out there?

    It’s not often words fail us but … [insert eye-roll emoji]
    Bloomfield wants us to live in level 2.5 when – let’s be honest, if – the borders open. Why isn’t the mainstream media jumping up and down? Your guess is as good as ours – and probably a good guess too.
    Well, unlike the media, we were curious to see what life at level 2.5 is likely to mean*:
    (*At the current definition, and yes, we know, we know, definitions these days change at the whim of the folks calling the Covid shots.)

    Last time, level 2.5 was sold as a more precautionary variation of level 2. They said the extra 0.5 accounted for mask use and restricted social gatherings.
    So what’s the deal under a level 2.5 then?
    Socialising and gatherings:
    Under level 2.5, all social gatherings – whether they be church services, family reunions or catch-ups with friends – are capped at ten people with maximum of 50 guests only at authorised funerals or tangihanga. Aged-care facilities continue operating under stringent settings – you’ll likely have to ring ahead before visiting an elderly friend or relative.
    Masks are likely to be strongly encouraged. Expect to be asked to wear a mask when you step out of your home. If the promises of last time are anything to go by, we’ll see mask mandates if people don’t wear them (calm down, Michael Baker). Forget about worrying about small details like effectiveness: if “mandates” to date have been anything to go by, then as long as it covers your nose and mouth, you’ll be good to go.
    (But never fear. You can save your old socks and hankies for another day. We’re anticipating exemptions for those that suffer from critical thinking and the need to breathe.)

    More from Libby at http://www.voicesforfreedom.co.nz



  2. Posted last night, and it dove tails well into this post.

    It seems that all these Doctors, health bureaucrats, do not seem to realize this is an experimental trial !
    The whole system is breaking down, as they can not do the follow up, as they allowed too many in the trial.
    A trial runs with limited numbers, the reasoning behind that is to flatten the curve.
    A trial is where the “guinea pigs” are monitored by health staff.
    The numbers are limited, so that any problem the Doctors, hospitals can cope, and give all the attention to the “guinea pigs” that they deserve.

    With constant monitoring, and if any one had any issue, side effect they should be all over it, investigating, testing, analyzing, comparison, and that is time consuming, and takes a lot of staff numbers.
    That is one of the reasons why there is only a small certain limited number in a trial !

    All the politicians in allowing no liability, has allowed that to be applied to themselves, as that is politics, and it has been picked up by the rest of the “health departments” to then be able to claim “no responsibility” knowing they will not be called to account.

    It seems it is all being treated as a game, and the governments, health departments have unleashed the Doctors, researchers, scientists, that enjoy the part of being Dr. Josef Mengele unleashed.



  3. Just seen this. Interesting.

    Covid Vaccine Injuries post

    From.Samira🙏 #anaphylaxis #blind #covulsions #delerium 15/5/21 I’m in the US and three people close to me have had life-threatening reactions. One went into severe anaphylactic shock and was temporarily blinded in one eye (still having lingering problems weeks later), another experienced shock and delirium, and another person without history of seizures seized and has had ongoing shaking and convulsions (for over a month). The first two had Moderna, unsure about which one the third took. Those are just the severe reactions. I am starting to see what looks like some kind of antibody dependent/“vaccine” enhancement of disease in many others I know who have been jabbed.

    For the record, I’m a caregiver and know of dozens of cases of COVID all of which turned out fine. The contrast between the lack of severity of those cases and what’s happening to the jabbed is stark, and I know other healthcare workers are witnessing the same exact pattern. It astounds and angers me that some are so deeply indoctrinated they won’t even admit what’s so plain to see.



  4. The post Curious put up yesterday with the YouTube video giving graphs of numerous countries and how the deaths increased after vaccination started was interesting. Most showed a big spike at the start and then tappered off. I am guessing the elderly in those countries got the jab first . So all the idiots will say “but they were going to die anyway”. Well in any normal autumn the elderly are probably more likely to get the flu jab than any other age cohort but do we get a massive spike in deaths after they get the flu jab ??
    It seems from the video that those getting the jab will either have a reaction very early on or will be OK —that is from the data so far, who knows what delayed reactions will occur?



  5. Look, I’m NOT a supporter of this experimental RNA ‘vaccine’ at all and I think it’s dangerous and untested and I won’t be having one.

    But, that having been said, all I saw in this woman’s article was a lot of frightening fancy-looking graphs with NO DATA OR SOURCE REFERENCES to back up her claims.



Recent posts

NZ Message To WHO, Fuck Off!

Have Your Say

What Car?

Hitting the Ground Running???

Recent comments

Pike is our weekly review of the most popular posts and comments seen on YSB in the past week.
overcast clouds
13.9 ° C
14.6 °
13.4 °
89 %
97 %
17 °
19 °
19 °
22 °
21 °
NZD - New Zealand Dollar