Important: VAERS reports alone cannot determine if a vaccine caused an adverse event. Reports may contain incomplete, inaccurate, or unverified information. Correlation does not equal causation.
The short answer: VAERS is reliable for what it's designed to do — detect safety signals. It's unreliable for what many people try to use it for — proving vaccines cause specific harms. Understanding the difference is crucial.
VAERS was created in 1990 as an early warning system — a "canary in the coal mine" for vaccine safety. Its job is to collect as many reports as possible so that researchers can look for patterns.
Think of VAERS like a suggestion box, not a court of law. It casts a wide net to catch potential signals. The trade-off: it captures noise along with signal, and that's by design.
VAERS has successfully detected real safety signals:
This is simultaneously a strength and a limitation. The open reporting system means that unusual events get captured even if a healthcare provider wouldn't have thought to report them. It gives patients a voice.
VAERS covers all vaccines given in the U.S. and has data going back to 1990. This long history allows researchers to identify trends and compare patterns over time.
Unlike many medical databases, VAERS data is publicly available. This transparency allows independent researchers, journalists, and the public to examine the data.
VAERS can detect signals quickly — within weeks of a vaccine rollout. Active surveillance systems like the VSD take longer to produce results.
This is the most important limitation. A VAERS report means something happenedafter vaccination. It does not mean the vaccine caused it. With millions of vaccinations per year, coincidental events are inevitable.
Studies estimate that VAERS captures only 1-10% of actual adverse events(depending on the event type). Minor events like soreness are rarely reported, while serious events are reported more consistently. This means you can't calculate true rates from VAERS data.
Media coverage and public attention can dramatically increase reporting for specific vaccines. COVID-19 vaccine VAERS reports surged partly because of genuine adverse events and partly because of heightened awareness and mandatory reporting requirements.
VAERS reports are not routinely verified. They may contain inaccurate diagnoses, incomplete information, or even deliberately false reports. While submitting a false report is a federal crime, the system relies primarily on good faith.
VAERS tells you how many reports were filed, but not how many people were vaccinated. Without this denominator, you can't calculate actual rates. See our denominator problem analysis.
VAERS data is frequently misused in ways that lead to incorrect conclusions:
If someone cites VAERS data to prove a vaccine is dangerous, they're misusing the system. VAERS generates hypotheses; it doesn't test them.
For establishing causation, other systems are more appropriate:
These systems complement VAERS. VAERS catches the signal; these systems investigate whether the signal is real.
VAERS is a valuable and necessary part of vaccine safety monitoring. It's reliable as an early warning system and for identifying patterns that warrant investigation. It's unreliable as a source of definitive conclusions about vaccine causation or risk.
The best approach: take VAERS data seriously, but interpret it with context. That's exactly what VaccineWatch aims to provide.