Debunking a Viral Vaccine Misinformation Table

Recently, a table comparing supposed “death risks” from vaccines versus diseases has gone viral across social media. At first glance, the numbers appear shocking – suggesting that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent. However, a closer examination reveals serious mathematical and statistical flaws that completely invalidate these claims. (Pardon the awkward cropping- this is how it was sent to us! We do not know the source of this image.)

This misleading graphic contains fabricated statistics and manipulated calculations designed to frighten parents. The most egregious example claims there is “less than 1 death from polio per 1 trillion people” while alleging the polio vaccine causes “less than 1 death per 214,973 people” – numbers that are categorically false and mathematically impossible.

Here is another post—this one from Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an organization with a well-documented history of distorting vaccine data to fuel fear and misinformation. PIC has repeatedly misused statistics, often manipulating risk comparisons and stripping data from its proper epidemiological context to exaggerate vaccine risks while downplaying the dangers of vaccine-preventable diseases.

Several reputable sources have critically examined and debunked claims made by Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC):

• Genetic Literacy Project: This article discusses how PIC has become a prominent voice in the COVID-19 anti-vaccine movement, highlighting the organization’s history of science rejectionism.

• FactCheck.org: This piece addresses misleading graphics circulated by PIC regarding COVID-19 vaccines, clarifying how the organization’s presentations omit critical context about vaccine efficacy and safety.

• Skeptical Raptor: This article critiques PIC’s opposition to mandatory vaccines, pointing out the organization’s reliance on unpublished, unreviewed data and misunderstandings of vaccine science.

Back to the graphic… The numbers follow the same misleading pattern, artificially inflating the risks associated with vaccines while minimizing the well-established and severe consequences of diseases like polio, measles, and pertussis. Public health experts and fact-checkers have repeatedly debunked PIC’s claims, yet they continue to circulate these deceptive materials to undermine trust in vaccines. Same story. Same bad data.

Let’s break down why these calculations fail basic scrutiny:

The creators of this graphic have taken CDC/MMWR datasets – which were designed for specific epidemiological surveillance under controlled definitions – and inappropriately repurposed them. These datasets report disease incidence and case fatality rates based on carefully defined populations and timeframes. By stripping these numbers from their original context, the calculations become meaningless.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is frequently misused and distorted to spread fear about vaccines. VAERS is a passive surveillance system that accepts reports from anyone without verification of causality. It was designed as an early warning system to detect potential safety signals, not to determine causation or calculate incident rates.

VAERS reports represent temporal associations only—events that happened after vaccination but were not necessarily caused by vaccines (this includes deaths from CAR ACCIDENTS and other things that have nothing to do with vaccines, yet still get recorded). The CDC and FDA explicitly state that VAERS data cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused an adverse event or to calculate the rate at which adverse events occur. Each VAERS report comes with the disclaimer: “VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness.”

Despite these clear limitations, the graphic’s creators inappropriately use VAERS data to suggest causal relationships and calculate death rates. They extract raw numbers from the database without accounting for coincidental events, background rates, reporting biases, or the critical distinction between correlation and causation—precisely the misuse that VAERS administrators warn against. We’ve written extensively about VAERS if you want to read more.

The mathematical model used appears to follow a flawed formula structure similar to:

Estimated Deaths = Reported Deaths × Extrapolation Factor × Temporal Adjustment

This approach contains multiple critical failures:

• Incorrect denominators: Using mismatched population bases (e.g., differing age groups) for comparison, effectively comparing apples to oranges

• Unvalidated multiplication factors: Applying arbitrary “adjustment factors” without statistical justification

• False attribution of causality: Attributing any death following vaccination to the vaccine itself without controlling for other variables

• Temporal misalignment: Comparing disease data from one era with vaccine data from another without proper adjustment

Deaths following vaccination might be coincidental rather than caused by the vaccine. Without controlling for variables such as:

• Age

• Underlying health conditions

• Time elapsed between vaccination and reported outcome

• Background rate of the reported outcome in the general population

Any mathematical model risks falsely attributing causality where none exists.

Let’s set the record straight with accurate information. While the viral graphic claims vaccines are more dangerous than diseases, the scientific evidence shows the opposite is overwhelmingly true:

• Diphtheria has a 29% case fatality rate without treatment, while the vaccine has no documented deaths

• Tetanus has a 10-20% case fatality rate even with treatment (25-100% without), while the vaccine’s risk of fatal anaphylaxis is extraordinarily rare

• Measles has a 3% case fatality rate in infants in low or middle-income countries (LMIC), while the vaccine’s most serious common side effect is non-lethal febrile seizures (1 in 3,000-4,000)

  

The viral graphic also fails to acknowledge that death is far from the only serious outcome of vaccine-preventable diseases:

• Measles can erase immune memory, making children vulnerable to other infections for years

• Rubella infection during pregnancy has a 90% chance of causing congenital rubella syndrome

• Chronic hepatitis B infection leads to liver damage, cirrhosis, and cancer in a significant percentage of cases

(We recently co-authored an article detailing the numerous risks associated with measles infection if you’d like to learn more! Of course, each viral infection carries its own unique set of risks.)

Unlike the creators of the viral graphic, our analysis:

1. Uses peer-reviewed data from legitimate scientific sources

2. Maintains proper statistical context

3. Employs appropriate denominators for comparison

4. Distinguishes between correlation and causation

5. Considers the full spectrum of disease outcomes

6. Accounts for population-level impacts

Unlike the misleading graphics circulating online, we’ve taken the time to create a scientifically accurate version of this table with verified statistics from legitimate medical sources (all hyperlinked for transparency). The contrast between the viral misinformation and the scientific reality is striking – showing just how dramatically the original tables misrepresent vaccine risks compared to disease risks.

Note: We ultimately modified the title of our table from “Deaths” to “Adverse Events” to more accurately reflect the data. While vaccine-related fatalities have occurred historically, they are extraordinarily rare with modern vaccines and current medical protocols. This extremely low frequency made “Deaths” a potentially misleading category heading, as it might suggest a more common occurrence than the evidence supports. “Adverse Events” better captures the spectrum of possible reactions—from mild to severe—while acknowledging that fatal outcomes, though documented in isolated cases, represent an exceedingly rare subset of these events.

Depending on where you are viewing this, you may need to click the link that says, “View this chart interactively on Datawrapper” to view it in full!

*Anaphylaxis is an extremely rare but serious allergic reaction that can occur after vaccination. Historically, instances of fatal vaccine-induced anaphylaxis have been exceedingly uncommon. For example, a 1994 Institute of Medicine report identified only a single well-documented case of death causally linked to tetanus toxoid immunization due to anaphylaxis. More recent data confirm that while anaphylaxis remains a potential adverse event following vaccination, fatalities are extraordinarily rare. Large-scale studies of vaccine safety have found that anaphylaxis occurs in approximately 1.31 cases per million doses administered. Importantly, a 2015 study analyzing vaccine-related anaphylaxis found zero deaths, reinforcing that rapid administration of epinephrine effectively prevents fatal outcomes. These findings highlight the effectiveness of modern anaphylaxis management protocols and reinforce the strong safety profile of vaccines.

It’s also worth noting (again) that death is not the only bad outcome of diseases! Measles, for example, can erase the immune system’s memory of other diseases, which takes several years to redevelop. If infected with rubella early in pregnancy, there is a 90% chance of the child having congenital rubella syndrome, which kills 33% of infants before their first birthday. Another possible long-term consequence of measles is SSPE (link above in table) – a rare but debilitating outcome. Varicella can lead to shingles, which can be debilitating. Even diseases that have low case fatality rates have awful complications, such as chronic hepatitis B, which can cause liver damage, cirrhosis, and cancer.

As with all medical interventions, there are risks of side effects. However, the data are clear that vaccinations are safe and effective. These unfounded claims of risk are playing on individuals’ fears, making it harder to actually make informed decisions.

When we share vaccine misinformation, we’re not just spreading numbers—we’re potentially influencing healthcare decisions that affect vulnerable people in our communities. As someone who has witnessed the real suffering caused by vaccine-preventable diseases, I urge you to approach these viral claims with healthy skepticism. Taking time to verify information from reputable public health sources isn’t just good practice—it’s how we protect each other.

Stay Curious,

Unbiased Science

P.S. Want to support this kind of analysis? The best way is to subscribe to our Substack and share our work. While all our articles are always completely free to read, paid subscriptions help sustain our in-depth reporting on vaccine policy and public health. Thank you for considering it!