'But VAERS reports aren't causal!' – How to respond

How to put VAERS vaccine injury numbers need in proper context to make an effective response

The “But VAERS reports aren’t causal” objection is a common one you will get from the medical authorities. It’s important to have a response ready for this. Here’s how to do it.

When critics dismiss vaccine injury concerns by saying "VAERS reports do not prove causality," they’re technically correct—but the full picture is far more nuanced. VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) was never designed to prove causality in the legal sense. Instead, it functions as a surveillance system—a “canary in the coal mine” meant to detect early safety signals. To disregard VAERS entirely because it contains unverified reports is to ignore one of the only open-access safety monitoring tools available to the public and researchers.

What’s missing from this objection is the application of the Bradford-Hill criteria—a well-established set of nine scientific principles used to determine whether an observed association is likely causal. When applied to certain adverse outcomes reported after vaccination (such as myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccines, or seizures and encephalopathy after MMR or DTP vaccines), multiple criteria are met:

• Temporality: The injury follows the vaccine exposure in time.

• Strength and consistency of association: Repeated findings in population-level surveillance across countries.

• Biological plausibility: Well-understood mechanisms, such as autoimmune activation, molecular mimicry, or inflammatory cytokine responses.

• Dose-response relationship: Higher rates of injury with increasing doses or combinations.

• Analogy: Other pharmaceuticals have caused similar injuries under similar circumstances.

The scientific literature now contains hundreds of peer-reviewed studies exploring vaccine adverse events, ranging from autoimmune conditions to neurological disorders. Even governments acknowledge these risks through action—over $4.9 billion has been paid out by the U.S. Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) for injuries including Guillain-Barré syndrome, encephalitis, and even death. And beyond the numbers, there are thousands of documented testimonies from individuals and families whose lives have been altered by vaccine injury—cases often dismissed or gaslit despite consistency and medical documentation.

If vaccine injury is as “vanishingly rare” as some claim, why does the system resist open, rigorous investigation into the injuries that do occur? The dismissal of VAERS data, the lack of long-term synergistic vaccine interaction studies, and the hostility toward open scientific debate are all signs of a system more focused on protecting policy than patients.

It’s time for reform. A 21st-century vaccine program must be built on transparency, independent safety monitoring, informed consent, and genuine accountability. Only then can public trust—and public health—truly thrive.