Listen to the article
Senator Ron Johnson’s COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Draw Scrutiny Over Methodology
Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin sparked controversy on May 9, 2026, when he claimed that COVID-19 vaccines may have killed 3.9 million people during an appearance on the right-wing network Real America’s Voice. The assertion, which quickly spread across social media platforms, has drawn intense criticism from health experts who point to fundamental flaws in Johnson’s methodology.
The Wisconsin senator’s claim emerged just days after he published a 38-page Senate report titled “Unmasked,” alleging that Biden administration health officials deliberately suppressed COVID-19 vaccine safety signals detected through the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
During his interview with James O’Keefe, Johnson presented a two-step calculation to arrive at his figure. First, he cited 39,000 deaths reportedly following COVID-19 vaccination from worldwide VAERS data. He then multiplied this number by 100, referencing what he described as a Harvard study establishing that fewer than 1% of adverse events are reported to VAERS.
“Take that 39,000, multiply it by as much as 100 times,” Johnson stated during the broadcast. “That could be 3.9 million deaths.”
Public health experts have identified several critical issues with this calculation. The 39,000 deaths Johnson referenced represent global VAERS reports, not U.S. figures, despite the senator presenting them in the context of American casualties. The United States represents approximately 4% of the world’s population, making the statistical leap problematic.
More fundamentally, Johnson’s interpretation mischaracterizes what VAERS reports actually signify. The CDC explicitly states on its website that a death reported to VAERS following vaccination does not indicate the vaccine caused the death. Healthcare providers are legally required to report any death occurring after vaccination regardless of cause – meaning a vaccinated person who died in a car accident would appear in these statistics.
The Harvard study Johnson cited to justify his 100-times multiplier presents additional problems. The research, conducted by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. and submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, collected data between 2006 and 2009 – more than a decade before COVID-19 vaccines existed.
This study examined 45 different vaccines administered across a Massachusetts health network and concluded that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported” to VAERS. Importantly, the study counted all possible reactions, including mild ones like sore arms or low-grade fevers, not just deaths.
Both the CDC and HHS acknowledge that underreporting in VAERS varies significantly by severity. Serious events, particularly deaths, are far more likely to be reported than minor ones, making Johnson’s application of a blanket 1% reporting rate to death figures particularly misleading.
The timing of Johnson’s claim is notable, coming shortly after he held a Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations hearing on April 29, 2026. During that hearing, he released his “Unmasked” report, which alleged that FDA officials ignored a more advanced data-mining method for detecting vaccine safety signals through VAERS.
While COVID-19 vaccines do carry documented risks, they are exceedingly rare. The CDC has confirmed that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine carried a risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, a blood-clotting condition that resulted in a small number of deaths before that vaccine was withdrawn from routine use. Myocarditis has been identified as a rare risk following mRNA vaccines, primarily in young males, but is typically mild and self-resolving.
These confirmed risks bear no relation to a death toll in the millions. With more than 13 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses administered worldwide, a death toll of 3.9 million Americans would represent a catastrophic event that would be unmistakably visible in national mortality data. Instead, the U.S. saw a significant drop in overall excess mortality as vaccination rates rose in 2021.
The VAERS system, created as an early warning tool for potential vaccine safety concerns, explicitly states on its homepage that it “is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem” and that reports “may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable.”
Johnson’s office has not responded to requests for comment about his methodology or the widespread criticism from public health officials regarding his interpretation of vaccine safety data.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.


10 Comments
While I appreciate the desire to scrutinize vaccine safety, Senator Johnson’s claims seem to lack the rigor and nuance required for such a complex issue. I would encourage looking to established health organizations and peer-reviewed research to inform a balanced understanding of the benefits and risks of COVID-19 vaccines.
Absolutely. Responsible policymaking and public discourse on this topic must be grounded in sound science, not unsubstantiated figures that could sow unnecessary fear and confusion.
This is a highly contentious issue, and I would urge caution in making definitive claims without a thorough, impartial review of the data and methodology. While vaccine safety is a legitimate concern, promoting unverified figures could undermine public trust in crucial public health measures.
I agree. Maintaining public trust in science-based policymaking is essential, especially on sensitive topics like vaccine safety. We must rely on credible sources and experts to navigate these complex issues responsibly.
The senator’s calculation appears to be a gross oversimplification that fails to account for the complexities of vaccine safety monitoring. I would urge caution in amplifying such speculative claims, as they could undermine public trust in crucial public health measures.
Agreed. Promoting unsubstantiated figures without proper context could have serious consequences for public health. Fact-checking and relying on authoritative sources is crucial in this sensitive domain.
Senator Johnson’s claims seem to be based on a flawed interpretation of VAERS data. While VAERS is an important surveillance tool, it does not prove causation, and underreporting is a well-known limitation. I would encourage looking to reputable health agencies for a more accurate and nuanced understanding of vaccine safety.
Absolutely, VAERS data should be interpreted with great caution, as it can be prone to misinterpretation. Expert analysis is essential to drawing sound conclusions about vaccine safety.
This is a highly controversial and sensitive topic. While I understand the desire to examine the claims, I would caution against making definitive conclusions without thoroughly reviewing the data and methodology from credible health authorities. Claims of this magnitude require careful, objective analysis.
I agree, it’s crucial to rely on robust scientific evidence and expert consensus when assessing vaccine safety and efficacy. Unsubstantiated figures could sow unnecessary public panic.