Posting for RMN member, Basil..

*****************************

snip
Here’s the key paragraph:

Furthermore, as a passive system, VAERS data are subject to reporting biases in that both underreporting and overreporting are possible.38 Given the high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, underreporting is more likely. Therefore, the actual rates of myocarditis per million doses of vaccine are likely higher than estimated.

I agree. Underreporting is more likely. In fact, the term “overreporting” wasn’t even mentioned in the reference they cite. I can’t even figure out how VAERS could be overreported since the system should eliminate duplicates unless there is a bug.

But the key thing here is they did absolutely nothing to attempt to quantify the underreporting factor (URF).

They absolutely know how to estimate it. John wrote the paper on how to do that in November 2020: The reporting sensitivity of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for anaphylaxis and for Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Do they apply that methodology to compute a minimum underreporting factor for serious adverse events (e.g., using the anaphylaxis rates from the Blumenthal paper in JAMA).

Of course not!

They simply do not want to let anyone know how serious it is.