WHO VigiAccess Lists 5.8 Million COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Event Reports
World Health Organization data show system-wide adverse event reports spanning neurological, cardiac, immune, gastrointestinal, and reproductive categories.
The World Health Organization’s VigiAccess pharmacovigilance database currently lists 5,811,685 individual adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports associated with COVID-19 vaccines as an active ingredient.
A Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare/HHS study confirms fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported, meaning the number could be closer to half a billion.
These reports are submitted by national drug regulators worldwide and categorized by affected body system.
Below is the full numerical breakdown exactly as listed in the database.
Follow us on Instagram @realjonfleetwood & Twitter/X @JonMFleetwood.
If you value this reporting, consider upgrading to a paid subscription.
For advertising & sponsorship opportunities reaching 300,000+ monthly viewers, contact us by clicking below.
Reported Potential Side Effects by System Category
General disorders and administration site conditions
3,435,222 reports (26%)Nervous system disorders
2,162,680 reports (16%)Gastrointestinal disorders
969,611 reports (7%)Investigations (laboratory abnormalities, diagnostic findings)
807,850 reports (6%)Infections and infestations
660,107 reports (5%)Respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders
559,163 reports (4%)Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
643,195 reports (5%)Injury, poisoning, and procedural complications
373,950 reports (3%)Cardiac disorders
334,064 reports (3%)Psychiatric disorders
253,443 reports (2%)Blood and lymphatic system disorders
240,517 reports (2%)Vascular disorders
245,846 reports (2%)Reproductive system and breast disorders
280,795 reports (2%)Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
1,419,363 reports (11%)Immune system disorders
123,050 reports (1%)Surgical and medical procedures
121,374 reports (1%)Metabolism and nutrition disorders
103,797 reports (1%)Eye disorders
172,469 reports (1%)Ear and labyrinth disorders
153,026 reports (1%)
Lower-Frequency Categories Still Numerically Significant
Renal and urinary disorders
47,767 reportsEndocrine disorders
13,403 reportsHepatobiliary disorders
13,323 reportsPregnancy, puerperium, and perinatal conditions
14,180 reportsCongenital, familial, and genetic disorders
4,533 reportsNeoplasms (benign, malignant, unspecified)
17,770 reportsProduct issues
10,919 reportsSocial circumstances
47,909 reports
These figures represent submissions from national health authorities participating in the WHO’s global drug-safety monitoring program.
As of March 2025, 182 health authorities (national pharmacovigilance centers) participate in the WHO Programme for International Drug Monitoring.
Each report may include multiple symptoms, meaning totals by category exceed the number of individual reports.
The scale and system-wide distribution of these reports are unprecedented for a single pharmaceutical product class in the VigiBase system.
Follow us on Instagram @realjonfleetwood & Twitter/X @JonMFleetwood.
If you value this reporting, consider upgrading to a paid subscription.
For advertising & sponsorship opportunities reaching 300,000+ monthly viewers, contact us by clicking below.
Wonderful they’ve done something (more open than our government?), and that you report here.
The WHO data about these Countermeasure effects remain a harsh reminder that data collection in the bio-military-industrial-medical professions are biased beyond reasonable limits. It’s a problem with both under-reporting (documentation) of evidence and data definition.
There’s the street light effect: They only look where they shine their light. And, Pros wear blinders for their safety, to ensure focus on approved generic one-size-fits-all diseases and theories, to offer (or mandate) viable diagnostics and treatments in the performance of care. That care is - in significant but relative terms - devoid of person-based evidence of overall health, metabolism, fitness etc.
MDs trained in the Anglo-American system can blame their patient for prior conditions and comorbidities because specialists handle mono-focal expertise, diagnostic tools, terminology and fields of vision.
We - potential patients and health seekers - can’t seriously blame the best professionals for most closely following the standard science and working within the legal and commercial constraints on their methods and perspectives! We can’t forget the best ones ARE authorities with reputations and insights who their peers reward for setting the standards, regardless of their role in regulatory capture.
So, what jumps out of the WHO data is indication that 1% adverse effects are Metabolic. It is perfectly irrational yet acceptable in common language and professional medical ‘knowledge’.
What that really means is that none of the experts finding unexpected adverse effects understands how their disease definitions fit in the mouse model or patient pool of experimental human subjects.
Life and all diseases or health can be 100% defined as metabolic in principle. Even wounds and organ failures or dysregulation can be simplified in terms of metabolism. For example, the problem with a bullet passing through flesh, is that there is a gap in metabolism, or a depletion of key factors like blood and distortions in defensive or inflammatory functional capacities across local factors, mechanisms, dynamics and systemic levels. A shot that penetrates the skull or blood brain barrier, can be an immediate or invisible and cascading metabolic catastrophe.
So what if we inject some fixed conformation S-protein (not a protective N-protein) with pseudo-uridine in an LNP metabolic mask to ensure delivery of the metabolic payload - foreign recipes (mRNA) for protein metabolism - into tissue and blood stream?
Let’s fully see for the first time, the baseline and post -shot data on metabolic changes with big adverse effects in research and clinical biological studies such as:
- elevated cholesterol
- alterations in blood pressure regulation
- dysregulation in insulin
- electrostatic effects on the lining of the CVS and circulatory system
There are few if any uncensored clinicians who are incentivized or technically equipped and professionally trained (capable) of seeing this.
But it’s kind of obvious among people I know whose doctors did not tell them what happened after the first and sometime second shot, to alter their metabolism with no other dietary or lifestyle changes, when they had sudden onset of:
- T2 Diabetes
- elevated cholesterol
- insulin elevation
- ballooning appearance of obesity
- tooth or gum infections sometimes requiring removal or root canal
- ‘auto-immune’ disorders not otherwise listed by the WHO
- blood disorders not otherwise reported
- ‘frail’ lining of circulatory systems causing brain bleeds or odd clots that clinicians cannot report in other categories because the journals that place reports under peer review, won’t allow publication.
Where is the full scope of ‘Long COVID’?
As helpful as the WHO report is, it’s a gross understatement. It is much like the guy who lost his car keys at night and claims he can’t find them despite his friend holding a flashlight for him.
Then again, my analogy fails because there’s been a bait and switch on tech, so now MDs claim there’s no need for the a person to find keys to make use of their car. Keys are obsolete on new vehicles snd they’ve done the person ‘a favor’ by taking their old transportation away. Now, US-licensed public-private partnerships and Institutions like Cepi, Gavi, Barda, and ARPA-H can remotely get people a metaphorical ride when they think people need it. But what are they thinking?
They don’t seem to care: Metabolism is the Biology that is Life.
Grateful for those at the WHO, attempting to say something about adverse effects, we know they can do it because their overloads among medical authorities at home, and allies abroad, including editors, peer reviewers, and publishers at most every ‘authoritative’ medical journal, all know it’s rather demure as anything but understatement. They also know that the medical freedom movement remains onside with the generic disease models and global categorization systems WHO MDs and scientists are responsible for reporting on. The WHO does not set the standards that define diseases and ignore health or universal need for a functioning, self-regulatory metabolism?
Bottom lines without base rates: Experts can claim not seeing problems by official standards. They wouldn’t be heroic leaders gathering speculative big money wagers on their endless race to find cures without blinders.
Care to co-author a comment on the data in peer reviewed literature?
Looks like it is going exactly as planned!
Thank you, Jon!