per 1 MM cases, VAERS is saying that 4.7 people per 1MM doses are having an anaphylactic reaction; Moderna saying 2.5 cases per 1MM. This is what is stated by VAERS when looking at the data over this time period.

Sounds good, right? Seems rare.

So, let's look to JAMA...

Acute Allergic Reactions to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777417

"We prospectively studied Mass General Brigham (MGB) employees who received their first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (12/16/2020-2/12/2021, with the follow-up through 2/18/2021) (eMethods in the Supplement)."

"Of 64,900 employees who received their fist dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 25,929 (40%) received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and 38,971 (60%) received the Moderna vaccine. At least 1 symptom survey was completed by 52,805 (81%)."

"Anaphylaxis to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is currently estimated to occur in 2.5 to 11.1 cases per 1 million doses, largely in individuals with a history of allergy. Allergic concerns contribute to vaccine hesitancy; we investigated acute allergic reaction incidence after more than 60 000 MRNA COVID-19 vaccine administrations."

"In this prospective cohort of health care employees, 98% did not have any symptoms of an allergic reactions after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The remaining 2% reported some allergic symptoms..."

"...however, severe reactions consistent with anaphylaxis occured at a rate of 2.47 per 10 000 vaccinations."

That's 10,000, sirs. Their study was 2.47 per 10,000 vaccinations. This was a controlled study. When we look at VAERS it was ~2.5 per 1,000,000. YUGE difference. This is exactly what Harvard Medical discovered back in 2010, that VAERS is capturing < 1%.

This is from a discussion that happened at the CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-01/06-COVID-Shimabukuro.pdf

They were talking about deaths in nursing homes. What you'll see is that they're trying to protect themselves from an argument. They were about to have a mass vaccination program throughout all of the nursing homes in the US. They wanted to make sure that all of the people that would die "naturally" wouldn't somehow corrupt the vaccine deaths.

So, this is their argument:

see "Estimated background mortality in LTCF residents (cont.)"

- Among 1.3 million LTCF (Long Term Care Facility) residents (2M x 65%) vaccinated over the 29-day risk period (December 21-January 18)

- Expect (to see a natural death rate) 11,440 deaths among LTCF residents (=286,000*4%) following vaccination

*THIS IS THE ARGUMENT* it's like a hedge, it's like saying, "We told you, that if there's 11,400 reports in VAERS we can discount those ahead of time because that would have been the natural death rate. Sure, it was merely days after they received their vaccines, but we've already planted the seed in our argument to show you that we expected that." This positions the CDC to not be concerned until deaths are > 11,400.

- By comparison, VAERS received 129 reports of death following COVID-19 vaccination in LTCF residents through January 18, 2021

*NOTE* There wasn't a drop in the death rate, it shows that virtually no one in these LTCF was reporting the deaths. The reports were underperforming, just as shown by Harvard Medical back in 2010 (129 deaths out of 11,440 is < 1%).

- Mortality in LTCF residents is high and substantial numbers of deaths in this population will occur following vaccination as temporally-associated coincidental events.

So, it seems nothing has changed with VAERS since 2010 based on the Harvard Medical findings.