Skip to main content
VaccineWatch
VaccinesSymptomsStatesAnalysisToolsDashboardCompare

VaccineWatch

Transparent access to VAERS data for informed decision-making. We present the data as-is, with appropriate context and disclaimers.

Explore Data

  • Vaccines
  • Symptoms
  • Manufacturers
  • States
  • Dashboard
  • Compare Tool
  • Search

Deep Dives

  • The Denominator Problem
  • Onset Timing
  • Lot Number Analysis
  • COVID Impact
  • Myocarditis
  • Death Reports
  • Interactive Tools
  • Reporting Rate Calculator
  • Signal Detection
  • All 23 Articles →

Resources

  • About
  • Methodology
  • FAQ
  • Glossary
  • Side Effects Guide
  • Vaccine Schedule
  • Vaccine Safety
  • Safety Timeline
  • Adverse Events
  • Is VAERS Reliable?
  • Myocarditis
  • Guillain-Barré
  • Allergic Reactions
  • Report an Event
  • Disclaimer
  • VAERS Official Site ↗

Sister Sites

  • OpenMedicaid
  • OpenFeds
  • OpenImmigration
  • OpenCrime
  • OpenSpending
  • OpenMedicare
  • OpenLobby
  • WarCosts
  • OpenPrescriber
  • GiveScope
  • SPACGraveyard
  • AI Exposure
  • AutoPilotWatch
  • TariffTax
  • ShelterScope
  • OpenPrices
  • TheDataProject.ai

Data source: VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System)

Data through 2026 · Updated quarterly

Built by TheDataProject.ai · © 2026 VaccineWatch

Important: VAERS accepts reports of adverse events following vaccination. For any given report, there is no certainty that the reported event was caused by the vaccine. Reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This data cannot be used to determine if vaccines cause or contribute to adverse events.

⚠️

Important: VAERS reports alone cannot determine if a vaccine caused an adverse event. Reports may contain incomplete, inaccurate, or unverified information. Correlation does not equal causation.

  1. Home
  2. Analysis
  3. Geographic Patterns
6 min read
Share

Geographic Patterns in VAERS

VAERS reporting varies dramatically by state. Population size is the dominant factor, but per-capita analysis reveals interesting patterns in reporting culture.

California
leads with 175,812 total reports
16%
of reports have unknown or missing state data

Population Drives Volume

The states with the most VAERS reports are, unsurprisingly, the most populous. California leads with 175,812 reports, followed by other large states. This is expected — more people means more vaccinations, which means more temporal associations with adverse events.

Per-Capita Tells a Different Story

When adjusting for population, the picture changes significantly. Alaska leads with 879 reports per 100,000 residents. Per-capita rates can be influenced by healthcare provider awareness of VAERS, state-level reporting mandates, and demographic factors like age distribution.

The Unknown Factor

A significant 16% of VAERS reports (307,638) have unknown or missing state information. This represents a major limitation in geographic analysis. Reports from healthcare providers may not always include patient state, and online submissions may omit location data.

Key Takeaways

  • 1.Population size is the primary driver of state-level VAERS report volume
  • 2.Per-capita analysis reveals variation in reporting culture across states
  • 3.16% of reports lack state information, limiting geographic analysis
  • 4.State-level differences reflect reporting behavior, not vaccine safety variation

2026 Data Context

As VAERS reporting normalizes following the COVID-19 pandemic surge, the data landscape for geographic variation in reporting is shifting. Annual VAERS reports in 2025-2026 have returned to the 35,000-45,000 range typical of the pre-pandemic era (2015-2019), making year-over-year comparisons more meaningful again.

The HHS administration has signaled increased focus on vaccine safety data analysis, including the development of AI-powered tools for pattern detection in VAERS reports. While these tools are still under development, they represent a potential evolution in how adverse event data is analyzed and interpreted.

New vaccines entering the market — including RSV vaccines for older adults and pregnant women, updated COVID-19 formulations, and potential H5N1 avian flu vaccines — continue to add new data streams to VAERS. Each new vaccine type provides additional context for understanding geographic variation in reporting across the full spectrum of vaccine safety surveillance.

Limitations of This Analysis

This analysis is based entirely on VAERS passive surveillance data, which carries important limitations that must be understood:

  • Underreporting: Studies estimate that only 1-10% of adverse events are reported to VAERS. This means the true number of events is likely much higher than what appears in the data.
  • Stimulated reporting: Media coverage and public awareness can temporarily increase reporting rates for specific vaccines, independent of any change in actual safety.
  • No control group: VAERS does not include a comparison group of unvaccinated individuals, making it impossible to determine whether reported events occurred at a higher rate than expected.
  • Variable data quality: VAERS reports range from detailed medical records submitted by healthcare providers to brief descriptions from patients. Not all reports are verified for medical accuracy.
  • Duplicate reports: The same event may be reported by multiple people (patient, doctor, manufacturer), and some duplicates may remain in the data.

For these reasons, VAERS data is best used for signal detection — identifying potential safety concerns that warrant further investigation — rather than for definitive risk assessment. When VAERS surfaces a potential signal, it is investigated using more rigorous systems like the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and controlled epidemiological studies.

About This Data

All data on VaccineWatch comes from the official VAERS public-use datasets published by the CDC and FDA. Our current dataset covers reports from 1990 through early 2026. We process the raw data without filtering or editorializing — every metric is a transparent aggregation of official government data.

Our Methodology →FAQ →Disclaimer →

2026 Data Context

As VAERS reporting normalizes following the COVID-19 pandemic surge, the data landscape for geographic variation in reporting is shifting. Annual VAERS reports in 2025-2026 have returned to the 35,000-45,000 range typical of the pre-pandemic era (2015-2019), making year-over-year comparisons more meaningful again.

The HHS administration has signaled increased focus on vaccine safety data analysis, including the development of AI-powered tools for pattern detection in VAERS reports. While these tools are still under development, they represent a potential evolution in how adverse event data is analyzed and interpreted.

New vaccines entering the market — including RSV vaccines for older adults and pregnant women, updated COVID-19 formulations, and potential H5N1 avian flu vaccines — continue to add new data streams to VAERS. Each new vaccine type provides additional context for understanding geographic variation in reporting across the full spectrum of vaccine safety surveillance.

Limitations of This Analysis

This analysis is based entirely on VAERS passive surveillance data, which carries important limitations that must be understood:

  • Underreporting: Studies estimate that only 1-10% of adverse events are reported to VAERS. This means the true number of events is likely much higher than what appears in the data.
  • Stimulated reporting: Media coverage and public awareness can temporarily increase reporting rates for specific vaccines, independent of any change in actual safety.
  • No control group: VAERS does not include a comparison group of unvaccinated individuals, making it impossible to determine whether reported events occurred at a higher rate than expected.
  • Variable data quality: VAERS reports range from detailed medical records submitted by healthcare providers to brief descriptions from patients. Not all reports are verified for medical accuracy.
  • Duplicate reports: The same event may be reported by multiple people (patient, doctor, manufacturer), and some duplicates may remain in the data.

For these reasons, VAERS data is best used for signal detection — identifying potential safety concerns that warrant further investigation — rather than for definitive risk assessment. When VAERS surfaces a potential signal, it is investigated using more rigorous systems like the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and controlled epidemiological studies.

About This Data

All data on VaccineWatch comes from the official VAERS public-use datasets published by the CDC and FDA. Our current dataset covers reports from 1990 through early 2026. We process the raw data without filtering or editorializing — every metric is a transparent aggregation of official government data.

Our Methodology →FAQ →Disclaimer →

Related Analysis

Browse All States
Detailed state-by-state data
35 Years of Reporting
National trend analysis
Who Files VAERS Reports?
The reporting sources behind the data