Vaccine injuryAtlas

Position A

Regulator pharmacovigilance materials are read as treating vaccine-related adverse-event tallies as roughly complete relative to doses administered, with childhood schedule intensity treated as evaluated inside established surveillance systems and linked follow-up review.

Falsification · This account would be weakened if validated population studies showed confirmed serious vaccine-related adverse-event rates far above published pharmacovigilance estimates after correcting for underreporting, without alternative medical explanations.

• CDC and FDA describe VAERS, VSD, and related systems as detecting rare confirmed events and investigating safety signals across large vaccinated populations.
• Published regulator summaries treat most reported events as unverified raw signals until clinical follow-up, with confirmed serious outcomes described as uncommon relative to doses given.
• The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is presented as a legal acknowledgment path for specific table injuries without implying that overall serious-event rates exceed monitored estimates.

• Assumption (moderate): Active systems such as VSD substantially correct for known passive-reporting limits in VAERS.
• Assumption (moderate): Schedule additions undergo incremental review sufficient to detect large uncounted serious-event burdens.
• Assumption (strong): Compensation-program existence is compatible with uncommon confirmed injury rates.

Position B

Independent pharmacovigilance materials are read as treating vaccine-related adverse-event tallies as roughly incomplete relative to doses administered, with childhood schedule intensity treated as evaluated inside established surveillance systems and linked follow-up review.

Falsification · This account would be weakened if passive and active surveillance, after transparent underreporting correction, converged on low confirmed serious-event rates inconsistent with a large hidden burden across the childhood schedule.

• Independent analysts emphasize that VAERS is passive and underreported, so raw-to-confirmed pipelines may miss many real events even when signals are later investigated.
• Schedule intensity and simultaneous administrations are treated as reasons aggregate risk assessments can lag product-by-product reviews.
• VICP petitions, settlements, and concessions are read as partial institutional acknowledgment that injury mechanisms and reporting completeness remain disputed.

• Assumption (moderate): Underreporting magnitudes are large enough to change how published tallies should be read.
• Assumption (weak): Compensation and concession patterns reveal more than rare edge cases in the monitored record.
• Assumption (weak): Schedule-level cumulative effects are not fully captured by single-product trials and surveillance.