Proportional Reporting Ratio
Signal Detection in Pharmacovigilanceby Craig Paardekooper

WHAT IS PROPORTIONAL REPORTING RATIO ?
PRR is a simple way to get a measure of how common an adverse event for a particular drug is compared to howcommon the event is in the overall database. It is used to measure the strength of the statistical association between
a risk factor (specific drug) and a condition (specific adverse event).
Proportional Reporting Ratio | Pharmacovigilance (allaboutpharmacovigilance.org)
If a drug produces a disproportionate number of specific adverse reactions per report compared to the number ofthe same adverse reaction per report found with other drugs. In other words – the number of adverse reactions isdisproportionately high for the number of reports compared to what would be expected from the occurrence of thesame reaction with other drugs. Disproportionality is used to detect if a drug is causing an adverse reaction.
Disproportionality method requires us to establish a baseline by measuring the adverse reactions per report for otherdrugs compared to the same for the target drug.
PRR is a classic disproportionality based method and it is defined as the ratio between the frequency with which a
specific adverse event is reported for the drug of interest and the frequency with which the same adverse event isreported for all drugs in the comparison group. The formula used is as follows.

nij = number of reports containing target drug and suspected reactionni = number of reports with the target drug
(so nji /ni = the % of reports for a target drug that involve the severe reaction)nj - nij = total number of reports with the suspected reaction for other drugs
n = total number of spontaneous reports for other drugs(so (nj – nij)/(n – ni) gives the % of reports for other drugs that involve the severe reaction)

Ref : J.C. Bouvy, M.L. De Bruin, M.A. Koopmanschap, "Epidemiology of adverse drug reactions in Europe: a review
of recent observational studies," Drug Saf. vol.38 (5), pp.437-453, 2015

WHO USES PROPORTIONAL REPORTING RATIO ?
The European Medical Association (EMA) uses Proportional Reporting Ratio for signal detection.
“Different statistical methods to generate SDRs are in use. In the EudraVigilance Data Analysis System, theProportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) has been implemented in the first release. Other methods will beconsidered for future implementation.”
Ref : 2006 Report : GUIDELINE ON THE USE OF STATISTICAL SIGNAL DETECTION METHODS IN THE EUDRAVIGILANCEDATA ANALYSIS SYSTEM (europa.eu)

APPLYING PROPORTIONAL REPORTING RATIO TO COVID 19 LOTS
The variation in Proportional Reporting Ratio for different Covid 19 vaccine lots can be seen here - Lethality(Howbad.info)(Graph provided
by Sasha
Latypova)

As you can see, many Pfizer lots have a high % of reports that are severe, compared to Moderna.
For many lots 35% of the reports are severe, where-as for 11 lots 100% of the reports are severe. So somelots have a PRR that exceeds 3.
In the table provided here, you can see that the % or reports that resulted in death varied by as much as 60 x
between different lots Lethality (Howbad.info). That’s a PRR of 60 !
The % or reports that resulted in a severe outcome varied by as much as 17 x between different lots.

AT WHAT POINT DOES PRR BECOME SIGNIFICANT

The lower bound of the confidence interval is given by PRR/e1.96 x s
The upper bound of the confidence interval is given by PRR x e1.96 x s

APPLYING PRR TO ASTRAZENECA COVID 19 VACCINEA PRR value is considered to constitute a signal if the lower bound of the 95% Confidence Interval is ≥1 and thenumber of events of interest with the drug of interest is ≥3. PRR can be derived from open-source regulatory drug
safety databases.
In this example, we evaluate the PRR for thromboembolic events with the Astra Zeneca COVID-19 vaccine (drug ofinterest) marketed in India and the UK under the brand names Covishield® and Vaxzevria® respectively. Typically, thecomparator for PRR is all events for all other drugs in the database. For the purpose of this example, the comparator
is other COVID-19 vaccines in use in the UK – Comirnaty® and Moderna®.
We used safety reports of COVID vaccines available in the public domain from the UK regulator(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirusvaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting)
The default Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities is MedDRA. We used the Standardised MedDRA Query(SMQ) for Embolic and thrombotic events as the event of interest..

The PRR for the Embolic and thrombotic events SMQ was 1.19 (95% CI 1.11, 1.28), i.e.. there appeared to be small
but statistically significant increase in thromboembolic events with Covishield® (Vaxzevria®).
PLEASE NOTE that this small but significant increase is when one poison (Covishield) was compared to another(Comirnaty). If instead we had compared Covishield with the Flu vaccine, for example, we would have obtained a far
greater value of PRR
A PRR is an initial step. It implies association. Once association is established, an investigation into causationcommences.
Typical subsequent steps in establishing causation require a single case analysis or aggregate analysis. Overallcausation is best established by using criteria like the Bradford Hill criteria used to establish the relationship between
smoking and lung cancer. At times, even when association or causation is established, a drug or vaccine may notnecessarily be withdrawn if the benefit risk evaluation favours ongoing use of the drug.
Ref : Proportional Reporting Ratio (rxmd.com)

USING PRR TO COMPARE COVID VACCINES WITH FLU VACCINES(Data Source = 2021 VAERS data USA)

Since the above example compared a poison with a poison, I decided to compare COVID-19 vaccines instead withwhat are regarded as traditional vaccines such as the Flu vaccine.

Death Reports
All Reports% of Reports with Death

Covid 19 Vaccines
9761
6947731.404%

Flu Vaccines
54
7164
0.76%

PRR for COVID 19 vaccines = 1.404/0.76= 1.84
Standard deviation = 0.14
Lower bound for a 95% confidence interval = 1.39
So the lower bound for the confidence interval > 1, therefore this is a significant safety signal.

USING PRR TO COMPARE COVID VACCINES WITH ALL OTHER VACCINES(Data Source = 2021 VAERS data USA)

What about comparing COVID-19 vaccines to all other vaccines

Death Reports
All Reports% of Reports with Death

Covid 19 Vaccines
9761
6947731.404%All other Vaccines
310
41482
0.747%

PRR = 1.88
Standard deviation = 0.05746
Lower bound = 1.679
So the lower bound for the confidence interval > 1, therefore this is a significant safety signal.

These results compare COVID-19 vaccines with all other vaccines for the outcome of death. What about for
hospitalization.

Hospitalisation Reports
All Reports% of Reports with
Hospitalisation

Covid 19 Vaccines
46009
694773
6.6%

All other Vaccines
1245
41482
3.0%

PRR = 2.2
Standard deviation = 0.028
Lower bound = 2.08
So the lower bound for the confidence interval > 1, therefore this is a significant safety signal.

USING PRR TO COMPARE SPECIFIC COVID 19 LOTS WITH ALL OTHER VACCINES
So far we have looked at all the COVID 19 vaccines as a whole. But there are differences between COVID 19 lots –some appear to be more toxic than others. Lets take the Pfizer lots that have lot numbers starting with EK or EL andcompare those to all other vaccines, and lets just look at death and hospitalisation.

Death Reports
All Reports% of Reports with Death

Pfizer EK, EL
1060
40081
2.6%

All other Vaccines
310
41482
0.74%

PRR = 3.5
Standard deviation = 0.06418
Lower bound = 3.08
So the lower bound for the confidence interval > 1, therefore this is a significant safety signal.

Hospitalisation Reports
All Reports% of Reports with
Hospitalisation

Pfizer EK, EL
3414
40081
8.5%

All other Vaccines
1245
41482
3.0%

PRR = 2.83
Standard deviation = 0.03235
Lower bound = 2.65
So the lower bound for the confidence interval > 1, therefore this is a significant safety signal.

So you can see why the initial calculation for Astrazeneca under estimated the signal by comparing a poison with apoison. When we compare COVID 19 vaccines with all other vaccines we get a much higher PRR. When wecompare certain lots of Pfizer with all other vaccines we get a much higher PRR still.

WHY WERE THESE SAFETY SIGNALS IGNORED ?
The reason they gave for ignoring this safety signal was that it would create vaccine hesitancy, and they claimed thatthe danger from the COVID virus was greater than the danger from the vaccine.
Governments instructed media to censor and actively suppress information about adverse effects, and threatened
doctors for speaking out.
However, in order to provide informed consent they should have informed people that the vaccine came with apossible risk of death and hospitalisation that was approximately twice as great compared to other vaccines.
They certainly knew about this risk by mid-2021, and absolutely knew the risk by end of 2021 when all the data
used in this analysis was available to them. But they suppressed this information.

APPENDIX – ANALYSIS OF ALL VACCINES FOR PRR death AND PRR hospitalisation
I completed a preliminary analysis of all the different vaccines and calculated their PRR scores for death andhospitalisation compared to all the other vaccines.

DEATH : A safety signal appeared for the following vaccines•••

COVID-19
FLUX (H1N1)
MENINGITISHOSPITALISATION : A safety signal appeared for the following vaccines
•
•
•
•

6VAXF
COVID-19
FLUX (H1N1)
SMALLPOX

I only used the 2021 VAERS USA data as a test sample. But I can amalgamate all of the other years to get a moreaccurate picture.
It seems that the most dangerous vaccines are COVID-19, H1N1, SMALLPOX and MENINGITIS. This kind of total
analysis will be of great value - as long as the data is reliable, and not corrupted by CDC agendas.
Curiously H1N1 Flu vaccine shows up as it was possibly their first attempt at a bioweapon. The FLUX (H1N1) was the
Swine Flu vaccine of 2008, a depopulation attempt pre-empted by Jane Burgermeister and Dr Wolfgang Wodarg.
This type of analysis can be repeated with VIGIACCESS data and YELLOWCARD data to get confirmations. I will needto accumulate more data since the number of records is too low for some vaccines.
A spreadsheet of the data gathered can be found here. https://t.me/howbadismybatch/49538

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 1990
I obtained the VAERS data for 1990 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 2102 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

You can see that DTP has a very strong signal, followed by FLU3 and HIBV.
DTP is a combination vaccine that is supposed to protect against 3 illnesses – diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus. If
you must get vaccinated against tetanus, it would be safer to have a DT vaccine rather than a DTP, because DT has
one fifth of the PRR that DTP has. We will see if this pattern holds in subsequent years.
TD vaccine can also be used to protect against tetanus. However we need more data points to see if TD retains a low
PRR. We will see if this pattern holds in subsequent years.
HIBV is the vaccine for Haemophilus influenzae type B.
FLU3 is a vaccine that contains 3 different strains of swine influenza A virus which have been inactivated (killed).
FLU3 is a suspension for injection. FLU3 is used to vaccinate pigs including pregnant sows over the age of 56 days
against swine influenza. FLU3 is also used to vaccinate pregnant sows so that the sows milk contains enoughantibodies to immunize the piglets against swine influenza. So here people are being vaccinated against swine flu !

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 1991
I obtained the VAERS data for 1991 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 9933 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

DTP and the Swine Flu Vaccine show excessive deaths as in 1990.
DT and TD, the tetanus vaccine alternatives to DTP, appear to be safer.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 1992
I obtained the VAERS data for 1992 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 10692 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

DTP and the Swine Flu Vaccine show excessive deaths as in 1990 and 1991
DT and TD, the tetanus vaccine alternatives to DTP, appear to be safer.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 1993
I obtained the VAERS data for 1993 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 10147 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3
DTP and the Swine Flu Vaccine show excessive deaths as in 1990, 1991 and 1992
DT and TD, the tetanus vaccine alternatives to DTP, appear to be safer.

DTP is joined by a new vaccine DTPHIB, a 4 valent vaccine – which is supposed to protect against 4 diseases. As wasobserved with DTP, combination vaccines seem to have a higher mortality than vaccines that target a single disease.
Whilst DTP targets 3 diseases, DTPHIB targets 4, and you can see that it has a higher PRR than DTP for death.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 1994
I obtained the VAERS data for 1994 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 10193 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

Once again DTP and DTPHIB have the strongest safety signals, with the quad-valent DTPHIB having a higher PRR than
the trivalent DTP.
TD provides protection against tetanus and has a PRR of only 0.239, which is about one tenth of DTP.
HIBV appears again with a weak safety signal.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 1995
I obtained the VAERS data for 1995 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 10001 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

The Tri-valent and quad-valent vaccines maintain their place with the highest PRR ratios for death.
Swine flu reappears with a strong safety signal

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 1996
I obtained the VAERS data for 1996 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 10772 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3
The Tri-valent and quad-valent vaccines maintain their place with the highest PRR ratios for death.
Swine flu reappears with a strong safety signal.
There seems to be a trend here, with the same vaccines persistently showing strong safety signals resulting in deaths,
but the CDC and FDA are ignoring the signals – so each year repeats the same pattern. The vaccines responsible forthese deaths are multi-valent vaccines and swine flu vaccine.
Pigs are seen as physiologically similar to humans, so maybe that’s why swine flu vaccine was being administered topeople.

DTP and DTAP – WHATS THE DIFFERENCE ?

As you look over the years of data, you can see that DTAP has only a fraction of the PRR ratio compared to DTP.
DTP or DTaP vaccines both stand for 3 diseases – Diptheria, Pertussis (Whooping Cough) and Tetanus. DTP
and DTaP differ in pertussis vaccine.
DTP has cellular pertussis vaccine while DTaP contains acellular pertussis vaccine.
DTP has been in use many years, but is also infamous for its side-effects. A lot of kids suffer from high fever,soreness in injection-site and irritability.
The reason pertussis vaccine was associated with fever and irritability was because it was composed of deadversion of the bacteria that causes pertussis. The vaccine contained all the parts of the dead bacteria andthus was called the “whole-cell” vaccine. However, researchers soon realized that perhaps a better vaccine
would be one that included those parts of the bacteria which allow for the body to become immune but leaveout other parts that cause the fever and irritability. This resulted in the development of acellular vaccine. The
word acellular describes the fact that this vaccine does not contain the “whole” bacteria cell but rather only
the parts of the cell that allow for the body to develop immunity against the disease. So, the name DTP was
modified for this acellular vaccine and called the DTaP. The “a” stands for acellular.
Ref : DTP vs. DTaP Vaccine - ShishuWorld
Unfortunately, even though researchers realised that DTP was quite toxic, the drug manufacturers still produced DTP
and did not recall it from the market. Instead, they introduced DTPHIB which you can see was even worse. These
vaccines were given to children, and the safety signals were ignored.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 1997
I obtained the VAERS data for 1997 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 11006 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3
In 1997 we still have the nasty trivalent and quad-valent vaccines.
A new vaccine appears in the records – called MER. Is this Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome vaccine? It looks
bad. We will see if subsequent years cast more light upon it.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 1998
I obtained the VAERS data for 1998 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 9950 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

In 1998 we still have the nasty trivalent and quad-valent vaccines. DTAP was hyped as a much safer version of DTP,
but the data says otherwise.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 1999
I obtained the VAERS data for 1999 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 12,123 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

The nasty trivalent and quad-valent vaccines DTAP, DTP, DTPHIB continue to cause harm.
You can see that there has been a bigger shift from DTP to DTAP. Unfortunately DTAP is killing a lot of people.
There was a big push of the anthrax vaccine in 1999.
The Pneumonia vaccine PPV, and the polio vaccine OPV generate safety signals in this year.
The HEP signal is too weak.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 2000
I obtained the VAERS data for 2000 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 14,104 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

DTAP looks like it has taken over from DTP, though its PRR for death is worse.
Anthrax vaccine is still being rolled out.
Swine Flu vaccine is causing harm

PECULIAR CHANGE IN DTAP
Over the period 1992 to 2000, DTAP shows a progressive increase in lethality. Here are the PRR death ratios for each
year.

1992

0

1993

0.25

1994

0.27

1995

0

1996

0.48

1997

2.37

1998

3.71

1999

3.49

2000

4.298

What could be the cause of this?
The increase seems to jump up by an order of magnitude in 1997. Before 1997 DTAP was not producing any safety
signals.
DTAP was introduced as a safe vaccine but then became progressively more toxic. Its incredible that the CDC and FDA
did not see this signal.

POLIO VACCINE SAFETY
Since 1999, the Polio Vaccine has had the highest PRR, though not enough cases of death to trigger a signal. Thereneeds to be at least 3 cases. What is interesting though is the consistency with which it has highest PRR over many
years.
1999

10.7

2000

12.6

2001

19.2

2002

33.2

2003

35.89

2004

46

2003 and 2004 have more than 2 deaths, so generate a safety signal.
By combining the data from all years, we would get a more accurate rating of PRR for each vaccine

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 2001
I obtained the VAERS data for 2001 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 13,359 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

DTAP and Swine Flu Vaccine (FLU3) and FLUX producing safety signals.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 2002
I obtained the VAERS data for 2002 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 14,074 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

DTAP, FLUX, OPV (Polio) and PNC (Pneumonia) vaccines produced safety signals.
This was the year that Sars-Cov 1 was supposed to strike. There is a small increase in the reports involving the flu
vaccines FLUX and FLU3.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 2003
I obtained the VAERS data for 2003 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 16,754 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

Polio vaccine reported a high PRR – strong safety signal
Introduction of first penta-valent vaccine DTAPHEPBIP with high PRR – strong safety signal
Swine Flu Vaccine (FLU3) with high PRR – strong safety signal - Judging by the number of reports it looks as if they
were treating Sars Cov 1 with Swine Flu vaccine.
HEP, RAB, DTAP show safety signals

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 2004
I obtained the VAERS data for 2004 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 15,322 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

Polio and Pneumonia vaccines High PRR – why did Polio and Pneumonia vaccines become more toxic in this year?
Multivalent vaccines – high PRR
Swine flu vaccine - high PRR – Judging by the number of reports it looks as if they were treating Sars Cov 1 with Swine
Flu vaccine.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 2005
I obtained the VAERS data for 2005 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 15,581 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3
Multivalent vaccines and swine flu vaccine account for most of the deaths.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 2006
I obtained the VAERS data for 2006 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 17,313 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 2007
I obtained the VAERS data for 2007 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 28,227 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE DEATHS IN 2008
I obtained the VAERS data for 2008 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 29766 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE SAFETY IN 2009
I obtained the VAERS data for 2009 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 32787 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

The vaccines showing safety signals for death are – DTAPPIPVHIB, DTAPHEPBIP, HEP, MMR and FLUXThe combination vaccines such as DTAPIPVHIB are supposed to protect against 5 viruses. However, they display astronger safety signal than the vaccines against single viruses. These combination vaccines are given to children, andtheir bodies must find it hard to cope. So it seems that these combination vaccines are much more dangerous.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE SAFETY IN 2010
I obtained the VAERS data for 2010 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 31,582 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

Once again, the combination vaccines come out the worst because they are assaulting the body with multiple
pathogens at once.
The Swine Flu vaccine also has a safety signal.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE SAFETY IN 2011
I obtained the VAERS data for 2011 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 25,408 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

Swine Flu (H1N1) vaccine still showing a strong safety signal.
The multivalent vaccines, DTAPIPVHIB and DTAPHEPBIP showing a strong safety signal.
FLUX vaccine showing a big increase in PRR from previous year (was it being mixed with the H1N1 FLU vaccine?)
PNC, the Pneumonia vaccine has the highest PRR.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE SAFETY IN 2012
I obtained the VAERS data for 2012 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 26,668 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3
It is noticeable that the H1N1 appears to have become progressively more toxic since its introduction in 2009. It isnow 3 years later, and the PRR has risen to 54.49.
(Was this a trial run to experiment with a delayed mortality effect?)
As in all the previous years, the multivalent vaccines, DTAPIPVHIB and DTAPHEPBIP still show a strong safety signal, as
does FLUXHEPA is a weak signal, because the lower confidence level is close to 1.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE SAFETY IN 2013
I obtained the VAERS data for 2013 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 29,736 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3
Yet again, the multi-valent vaccines DTAPIPVHIB and DTAPHEPBIP are right at the top – with strong safety signals.
FLUX continues to show a safety signal, and is joined by FLUN3 and FLU4.
Surprisingly FLU(H1N1) vaccine no longer has a safety signal.
A question arises as to whether the greater mortality associated with the flu vaccines in this year arises from immune
deficiency induced by the H1N1 vaccine in the previous years.
If the H1N1 vaccine effects were tested over the period 2009-2012, this might suggest that a 4 year window wasdeemed sufficient to test for its effects.. Over that 4 year period its PRR for death rose exponentially…Then the signal
just vanishes.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE SAFETY IN 2014
I obtained the VAERS data for 2014 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 34339 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3
Yet again, the multi-valent vaccines DTAPIPVHIB and DTAPHEPBIP are right at the top – with strong safety signals.
FLUX continues to show a safety signal, and is joined by FLU4.
FLU(H1N1) vaccine no longer has a safety signal.
The mortality due to FLUX vaccine peaked in 2011, the third year of the H1N1 rollout, and then declined, suggesting a
recovery from immune deficiency.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE SAFETY IN 2015
I obtained the VAERS data for 2015 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 44422 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

Multi-valent vaccines continue to generate strong safety signals
Several flu vaccines are also generating strong safety signals including FLUN3, FLUX, FLUN4 and the Pneumonia
vaccine PNC13

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE SAFETY IN 2016
I obtained the VAERS data for 2016 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 45706 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

HPV is a multivalent vaccine. The highest PRR scores are associated with HPV, DTAP multi-valent vaccines, FLU and
Pneumonia vaccines.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE SAFETY IN 2017
I obtained the VAERS data for 2017 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 38,910 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

HPV is a multivalent vaccine. The highest PRR scores are associated with HPV, DTAP multi-valent vaccines, FLUX, HEP
and VARZOS vaccines.

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE SAFETY IN 2018
I obtained the VAERS data for 2018 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 49,135 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE SAFETY IN 2019
I obtained the VAERS data for 2019 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 48,438 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE SAFETY IN 2020
I obtained the VAERS data for 2020 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 49.635 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE SAFETY IN 2021
I obtained the VAERS data for 2021 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 737,528 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

COVID-19 vaccines produce a significant safety signal. In addition they have the highest significant PRR ratio in 2021

INVESTIGATION OF VACCINE SAFETY IN 2022
I obtained the VAERS data for 2022 here - VAERS Nov 11th Downloadable files (vaersaware.com)
There were 218,283 records of adverse events during this year.
Here are the results –All the highlighted rows are significant safety signals because the lower confidence boundary (95%) exceeds 1, and
PRR > 1 and drug-deaths > 3

The FLU vaccines and the COVID-19 VACCINES are showing a high PRR . Due to the low number of reports for FLUA3and FLUN3 we can discard the first 2 rows, showing that COVID 19 vaccines have the highest significant PRR followedby the flu vaccine FLUX.

DISCUSSIONPRR ratios provide a rapid and useful way of assessing the relative toxicity of different vaccines compared to all theother vaccines.
Relative Toxicity
However, the PRR ratios do not give an absolute value because the vaccines they are being compared against may
include some very toxic vaccines that consequently suppress the score of other vaccines. Perhaps a baseline vaccine
can be chosen – one that is frequently used with a fixed toxicity. This would provide a better way of getting an
absolute score of PRR.
Still, this ratio can be useful in identifying possible dangerous vaccines and in taking a less harmful alternative
medication instead.
Cyclic Pattern of Vaccine Toxicity
When a new vaccine is introduced which is highly toxic, then it immediately suppressed the PRR scores of all theother vaccines. This is evident from looking at the scores of DTP, DTAP, DTAPHEPBIP, HPV4, COVID-19. This can resultin a cyclic rise and fall of PRR scores.
Outcome Measures
The PRR used in this analysis only looked at death as an outcome – but the same method can be applied to disability
or hospitalisation or to the occurrence of any symptom.
Vaccines with Lowest Scores
It may be useful to combine data from all the years into one dataset. This will reveal better signals for those vaccinesthat are more harmless, and hence provide valuable information about less harmful alternatives.

VACCINES WITH THE HIGHEST PRR SCORES
Some vaccines consistently generate higher PRR scores than other vaccines. COVID 19 has the strongest safety signal
in 2021 and 2022. The results also suggest that multi-valent vaccines may be more dangerous than univalent ones.

Vaccines with significant high PRR scores include Corona Vaccines :•COVID-19

DTP multivalent Vaccines :••••DTAPIPVHIB
DTAPHEPBIP
DTAP
DTP

HPV multivalent Vaccines :
•
•

HPV4
HPVX

Flu multivalent vaccines :
•
•
•

FLUX
FLU3
FLU(H1N1)

All of these have generated significant safety signals. Safer alternatives should be sought.