VAERS Disclaimer: Required reading before accessing VAERS
(media.conspiracies.win)
Comments (31)
sorted by:
You can’t read so I’m not sure what you’re pointing out here except that you think that private, unsponsored reports of adverse vaccine events are bad and Big Pharma sponsored reports of vaccine safety and efficacy are good. Which makes you a, wait for it....
.....shill.
You can always find a few quacks out there.
I'll stick with the published scientific studies.
You will? Well, no one else is. Except for all those "quack" doctors who risked their professions to speak out against a fake vaccine. Derp.
Try the military data. It removes your concern completely.
VAERS is designed to be biased. No one reports a good time to them.
You just cannot ignore this:
No one goes there to wish others Happy Birthday either.
Okay sure it's not a controlled environment but you must also consider the under reporting present within a system such as this. This has been estimated at 20-100x what's stated. The best estimate I've seen is 41x.
Edit: adding this- even controlled environments have issues with representativeness. For example, can a 1000 person sample actually detect issues that occur with 5-10 bps?
The website says "The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted as evidence of a causal association between a vaccine and an adverse event, or as evidence about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines."
There is only one interpretation of the word "cannot." There is no getting around this. You cannot use this dataset to draw conclusions regarding causal association between the COVID vaccine and a particular adverse event.
Have you actually worked with this dataset? If you have, I'd like to see your numbers. It's not a particularly easy database to work with.
What was your methodology? How did you sort the date? Did you look at age of the patient? Did you consider the time between the injection and the adverse event? Did you read through the notes? I ran a countif formula and counted 3000 deaths (not sorted by vaccine type, that's just all the vaccines). Did you read through all 3000 (2022 database) records? How did you decide which ones were caused by the vaccine and which ones were not? Or did you assume all reports were causally linked to the vaccine?
Do you have a link to your data or your "math?" If you didn't do this work, who did? Is it published somewhere? I keep seeing VAERS, VAERS, VAERS. "Look at VAERS." You can't tell anything just by looking at VAERS, you have to sort thousands of records. I'm working on that in Excel, but it's work and time consuming. If someone has this work done, I'd like to see it.
So we should demand this level of rigor from the vaccine pushers? Instead, we have then warning investors while paying off regulators to push the safety and efficacy. How does this factor into the causal calculus?
Here is a direct link:
Disclaimer
Highlights:
Anyone citing VAERS data has read this and has acknowledged reading this disclaimer and still uses the data in exactly the way VAERS itself says it "cannot" be used for.
It is unethical and dishonest to misuse data like that. If you see someone citing VAERS data as evidence that vaccines cause particular adverse event or illness, you should keep in mind that they know they are misusing this data and are in effect lying.
Again: completely dishonest and they know it is.
The same terms is completely applicable to the using of PCR technology that can't be used for testing due to its working principle. But I don't see you insisting on rejecting all PCR "tests" results. Or rejecting all papers about not-a-vaccine "efficiency". They should be rejected for the exactly same reason you reject VAERS data - there is no any solid scientific proof of the link between the cause and result.
Either you completely throw out all PCR "tests" data along with all VAERS data and not-a-vaccine "efficiency" data according to your "logic", either you are just cheap low IQ hypocrite propagandist. :)
VAERS data is exactly same kind of data you suddenly praise for promoting coronahoax and not-a-vaccine "efficiency". If you accept latter, you shoud accept former. If you deny former, you should deny latter. Only if you are honest man, of course.
Sorry, but you fucked yourself up. Again.
Sorry, you are wrong on all counts. It's just absurd that you keep trying to make this case.
If the very database you are using to draw conclusions about causal associations says you cannot use their data to draw causal associations because they are unverified and could be inaccurate, than you can't use that database to draw a causal association. Period. Try as you might, you can't get around that hard fact. Go ask a physicist. They will tell you the very same thing.
If a physicist attempted to publish a paper drawing causal associations from a dataset that couldn't be verified as accurate, they would be literally laughed out of the editor's office.
Editor: Is the data accurate? Physicist: Well, I think so, but I can't be sure. Editor: Why not? Physicist: Because the accuracy isn't verified. Editor: Get the F*** out of my office.
No physicist would use a database with a disclaimer like this:
Go pitch that to any scientist you know. And, no, the guy at the end of the bar who claims he has a PhD doesn't count. Nor do anonymous trolls on the internet.
It's completely ridiculous. If such a database were used by Moderna to verify the efficacy of their vaccine, it would be the first thing you'd point to. It's only because this data apparently confirms your bias that you are fighting so hard to defend the completely illegitimate use of that data. I would absolutely not trust a vaccine based on data as shoddy as VAERS.
Now: where are these VAERS studies anyway? I see you all saying VAERS VAERS VAERS, but where is the data? Where are the studies? I have the 2022 dataset on my computer and it isn't very easy to work with. It takes a lot of sorting to get to where you can do any real calculations and run ACTUAL stats on it.
I used to have SPSS, which might have made it more useable, but I don't have that account anymore. So if anybody could provide ACTUAL CITATIONS, that would be great.
LOL. since when "disclaimer" become something scientific? If I measure voltage across the resistor with different currents, store that data into database and write a "disclaimer" that "it can't be used" will it make Ohm's law non-existent or will it make that data unuseable to check that law? No. Science don't give a fuck to any "disclaimers". You have no any idea, what science is.
Where is the evidence of casual association between result of PCR test and cause of disease? Where is the evidence of casual association between the jab and occasional immunity? Where is at least the evidence of casual association between presumed virus and disease?
To prove casual association scientist throughly isolate the potential cause from all other potential causes of effect. To be shure, that the cause he study and only the cause he study is the real cause of observed result. This is what real scientist do. Real scientists spend years and a lot of money to isolate the object of study from anything else. Buld filters, shields, even whole underground facilities to get that probable cause as pure as possible. This was never done in any paper you praise and in none of other papers your praised papers link to. Your medical cheaters even never get a presumed virus particles in pure form, without any contaminants to study them. Only as a soup of dead cells, medications, solvents and hell knows what else. And used only PCR tech, absolutely not suitable for that, to "prove" that there is some "virus" in that dirty soup. They did not bother to do even the most basic part of any scientific research. :) Swindlers.
You could get all your coronahoax shit and try to sell it to instagram dumbfucks. You have absolutely zero chances to do it here.
PS: You also gave a perfect proof that you absolutely can't do your own research, even simpliest possible one, and using stupid assumtions backed with literally nothing. I never mentioned VAERS data for anything. In Russia there are no VAERS or anything comparable at all, so I just don't care.
In Russia, if you are interested, here exists one interesting official paper, that was and is actual even right now - "Methodics of determining epidemic thresholds for virus respiratory diseases". It is officially signed and accepted paper with epidemic thresholds (number of cases per 10000 above which authorities could declare epidemic) calculated for every single region and each week of year. None of that thresolds was ever exceeded during all that coronahoax in any region at any week. There was no any epidemic in Russia at all. None of all that shitty illegal orders and laws, federal and local issued during coronahoax have any mention of epidemic. They all use only WHO orders as reason. None of local health entities give positive official answer to the requests like "do we have epidemic now?". There are tons of that official papers where clearly stated by official entities, that there are no any exceed of thresholds, so no any epidemic of virus respiratory disease observed. Link to the official "Methodics" - https://docs.cntd.ru/document/555652160 You will not find any proof that there was any real epidemic, even with all that fake PCR "tests". So there was no any need for any immediate vaccine at all. Case closed. Take your coronahoax to the instagrammers.
You are the most miserable propagandist I ever saw here. :)
You really don't even need to use VAERS to know that vaccines are ineffective and unsafe. Just look at Pfizer's own trial documents: https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/
Nothing there to see. Just a bunch of links.
Yikes! You're bad at research!
There are psychos everywhere. In just about every population of people. I'm not saying they're in a higher concentration level in the antivaxx community, just that they're in there like anywhere else.
So of course that can't be trusted when you have antivaxx activists posting complete fabrications or 3rd hand stories from a first hand perspective.
Post 23&me results first.
178-7356-92108-639052-73893-5338-241
So all you do is start fights with people over VAERS? Man, you're a fucking loser.
I am saying, from what I observer (anecdotal evidence is fine in these circles), that yes, they ae in a higher concentration in the antivax community. There's something wrong with these people. They are all liars or dupes. No doubt. Anyone who can accept using VAERS to make conclusions about causal associations in spite of the disclaimers from VAERS itself has to be either a psychopathic liar or a complete dupe. There's really no in between.
I was going to give a good faith conversation room to blossom with OP but you're right, they're drawn to those communities like moths to a flame.
I honestly believe it's because the vast majority of them are completely miserable and anyone telling them "it's not your fault that life sucks, spooky secret people are out to get you" ends up being hailed as the new "right wing" hero of the week, until they ultimately expose themselves to be the grifting charlatans that they are. Then it's on to the next one, having learned zero in terms of being critical of those that tell you what you want to hear.
Says the inbred purple-haired reddit trannie mod. Whip out that vax card and let us know when to expect your pointless posts to stop.
www.howbadismybatch.com
Some independent research would be good for you. Good luck!