VAERS Disclaimer: Required reading before accessing VAERS
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (31)
sorted by:
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. :)