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. 35 Years of VAERS Reporting
7 min read
Share

35 Years of VAERS Reporting

From 2,214 reports in 1990 to 768,706 in 2021 — and the journey back to baseline.

2,214
1990 (first year)
768,706
2021 (peak)
40,283
2025 (declining)

Three Eras of VAERS

The history of VAERS reporting can be divided into three distinct eras:

Era 1: Early VAERS (1990-2006)

VAERS started small with just 2,214 reports in its first year. Through the 1990s and early 2000s, annual reports hovered around 10,000-18,000. This was a period of steady, predictable growth as the system matured and awareness increased.

Era 2: Growth Period (2007-2019)

Starting around 2007, reporting jumped to 30,000-50,000 per year. Several factors drove this: the introduction of new vaccines (HPV, rotavirus), increased digital reporting infrastructure, and growing public awareness of VAERS. The pre-COVID decade (2010-2019) averaged about 40,051 reports per year.

Era 3: COVID and Beyond (2020-Present)

The COVID-19 vaccination campaign caused an explosive spike in 2021 (768,706 reports). Since then, reporting has declined 95% from the peak. By 2025, annual reports (40,283) are approaching pre-COVID levels, suggesting the system is returning to its historical baseline.

Return to Baseline

The decline from the 2021 peak is significant and expected. As COVID-19 vaccination rates dropped, booster uptake declined, and the heightened awareness of VAERS faded, reports returned toward pre-pandemic levels. This pattern confirms that the spike was driven by the pandemic context, not a permanent change in reporting behavior.

What's Happening in 2026

Through mid-2026, VAERS reporting continues its normalization trend. Early data suggests 2026 annual reports will land near the 35,000-45,000 range — essentially back to the 2015-2019 baseline. Key factors shaping the current landscape:

  • Updated COVID formulations: The 2025-2026 updated COVID vaccines targeting newer variants saw lower uptake than previous boosters, contributing fewer VAERS reports
  • RSV vaccine monitoring: RSV vaccines for older adults and maternal immunization (Abrysvo) continue to generate a small but steady stream of reports, being closely watched for safety signals
  • Bird flu preparedness: With H5N1 avian influenza concerns growing in 2025-2026, pre-pandemic vaccine candidates are under review — any future mass vaccination would likely trigger another reporting surge
  • Routine childhood vaccines: Reports for DTaP, MMR, and other childhood vaccines remain stable and consistent with historical patterns

The post-pandemic normalization is an important data point: it demonstrates that VAERS's sensitivity to external events (media coverage, public awareness, new vaccine rollouts) is both a feature and a limitation. Understanding these contextual drivers is essential for interpreting any year's data accurately.

Key Takeaways

  • 1.VAERS has gone from ~2K reports/year to a peak of 769K, reflecting system growth and the COVID spike
  • 2.Post-COVID reporting has declined 95% from the 2021 peak, approaching pre-pandemic levels
  • 3.The return to baseline suggests the spike was context-driven, not a permanent shift

2026 Data Context

As VAERS reporting normalizes following the COVID-19 pandemic surge, the data landscape for VAERS reporting trends over time 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 VAERS reporting trends over time 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 VAERS reporting trends over time 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 VAERS reporting trends over time 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 VAERS reporting trends over time 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 VAERS reporting trends over time 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

COVID-19 Impact
Deeper dive into the pandemic era
Top Symptoms
Most commonly reported adverse events
Understanding VAERS Reporting Bias
What drives reporting spikes