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:
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.
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.
You just cannot ignore this:
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.
You can always find a few quacks out there.
I'll stick with the published scientific studies.
I don't trust medical journals sponsored by Big Pharma, whether directly or indirectly. I do trust Dr. McCullough, Dr. Malone, Dr. Mercola, and all of the doctors found in this townhall: https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html
Do you not trust these medical experts?
When they publish their studies in a peer reviewed journal I will take them seriously, until then, they're less than a handful of quacks talking out of their asses. First hint: it's a Ron Johnson sponsored event. That guy is frigging dumb as a rock.
Nothing there to see. Just a bunch of links.
Um, no you didn't. Are you the one pretending to be a "scientist and engineer" who didn't know what peer review was? Or was that Crazy Russian? One of you guys.
What did I read wrong? It's pretty easy reading:
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.
How am I misreading that?
Your link has nothing to do with the fact that VAERS data cannot be interpreted as evidence of a causal association between a vaccine and an adverse event.
I've gone down a lot of rabbit holes with the anti-vaxxer crowd. I'm not wasting my time with this. Cite a document that you think is particularly important, or even the top 10 and I'll read them. Otherwise, this is a wild goose chase. I actually opened a few of the PDFs. I see nothing noteworthy so far.
It's like telling people to look at VAERs. I doubt anybody here has actually gone to VAERS and looked at it. And if they have, unless they spent quite a long time with the dataset, there isn't much one could say about it.
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.
Here is a direct link:
Highlights:
While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness.
VAERS reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable.
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.
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 mantra "Big Pharma" is stale. I know you would like people to trust a website that itself has a disclaimer that it's data is unverified and could be inaccurate, but most people with any sense will know that it isn't a good idea to do that.
And those reports are governed under 18 USC 1001, which is punishable by fine and imprisonment for false reporting?
But you don't trust medical journals even though publishing false data or falsified studies is literally career killing for any of the named authors. But the threat of of a fine if anonymous false reports are filed will prevent false anonymous reports from being filed. I'm not that naive.
What about all cause mortality increasing?
What about it? Show the study or the data (not VAERS, as I've already demonstrated, isn't verified or accurate).
Anecdotal evidence of people dying or having adverse reactions on camera after the jab?
The nurse? That was false. She did not die. She did not have a COVID vaccine reaction.
World class athletes falling over or dying during games?
Who?
ll the research showing VAIDs, myocarditis, hepatitis, being associated with repeated vaccination?
Haven't heard about VAIDs. Some minor myocarditis in adolescent males, thus it is recommended that adolescent males wait around for 15 minutes after being vaccinated. Hepatitis? What in the world is the mechanism for that even supposed to be? That's crazy.
Show the vids of people dying after getting the shot. Please vet them first, because you know I will and I'll call you a liar if you try to pass off fake stuff.
I've already schooled you on VAERS, so now you're just lying about it. VAERS itself says that the data there might not be accurate. You don't know if any of those reports have been validated.
No, every drug has the potential for previously unknown side effects or severity not demonstrated in trials cropping up when the vaccine or drug is administered to the population generally. This isn't anything new.
I would say that the threat of counterfeit products would indeed cause risks. You don't agree?
Do you all dig deeper on anything or do you just accept whatever confirms your bias that comes your way? Literally, this is just from google "counterfeit COVID vaccines."
Who do you think you are fooling? You aren't fooling me or anyone else with at least half a brain.
British Medical Journal: Fake COVID-19 vaccinations in Africa
Fake covid vaccines boost the black market for counterfeit medicines
STAT Fake, substandard vaccines and medicines spell trouble for controlling Covid-19
FDA:
Beware of Fraudulent Coronavirus Tests, Vaccines and Treatments
World Economic Forum:
The COVID vaccine market is worth at least $150 billion. Can we stop it being flooded with fakes?
What do you think is in this that wasn't already known? Where does it say the vaccine isn't safe?
Can you guess what I'll say about this?
This doesn't say what you seem to think it says. Nowhere does it say the vaccine is unsafe. All of these issues are already known issues and they have to disclose them to shareholders.
Of course. :) Who need independent replications? Only insane conspiracy theorists need them. Every good science believer will be satisfied with study about BigPharma shit done for BigPharma money by BigPharma "scientists".
I said they aren't necessarily published.
Multiple times. But for real science, not for pseudosciences like medicine or sociology. Had successful replications too.
Haha. No you have not.
It have absolutely nothing to do with validation of a study. For obvious reasons. Validation of the study could be only in a form of independently replicated experiment.
Not necessarily.
I don't even want to understand all that garbage you name "science".
Congratulations, you are succeeding in that goal.
You have no idea what real peer review is, how it is done and why it does not matter what speciality reviewer have.
It does indeed matter. It's comments like this that tip me off that you're posing.
"Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, as well as by scientists with a more general knowledge base. Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers."
"For medical journals, peer review means asking experts from the same field as the authors to help editors decide whether to publish or reject a manuscript by providing a critique of the work."
"Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field." [emphasis added] Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide
There are no any World Physics Organisation whose authoritarian orders are absolutely obligatory to all states. Suddenly.
Non sequitur.
Of course, you have no any sane counter-arguments, only can go personal. :) Perfect. :)
I've countered everything you've thrown out. It's an observation based on your responses. It's clear that you are misrepresenting yourself as a scientist or engineer. You clearly are not. You've been wrong about peer review, you're wrong about the word "theory." Minor league mistakes.
You find a wrong forum for your meaningless propaganda. Try some mainstream social networks and similar shit.
What a surprising response. I like challenging the duped to question their dupedness. I know no one will say they've changed their minds, but at least some of them will think twice about using spurious arguments again.
What a surprising response.
I checked. Found none independent researches. At all.
That depends on your definition of "independent." Also, I don't believe you. What were the funding sources of each study?
And no any replications. Zero. Nobody checked researches published by BigPharma/state researchers.
That's not how it works. Replications aren't necessarily published unless they show the study wasn't replicated (as was the case with Wakefield or cold fusion).
Do you know what is "peer review"?
Yes, I do. I have experienced peer review. Have you? Peer review is more than what you think it is. Will it catch everything? No, there have been peer reviewed studies that were later retracted after publication. But having experts in the field review your work before publication is not just formality. It's an important check on validating a study.
And certainly a study going through peer review is to be taken more serious than a study that does not.
Moreover, none of that paper will pass a peer review of, say, physics scientists.
Ooops. You let the facade slip there. Can't take you seriously. Physics scientists would say they aren't qualified to peer review a paper on epidemiology or virology. This is a meaningless, nonsense assertion. I really don't need to read on from this point. You pretty much discredited everything else you're going to say.
Exactly. If a theory have no repeateable experimental confirmation, it is probably bad, wrong theory thinked out by some swindlers.
You don't understand science. Not even the basics.
If you declare in your research that some treatment works, then this should be checked by an independent researches,
But you don't believe any scientists are actually independent because they might be financed by the state. I'll let the "non-scientist" thing slide, but what you said was non-scientists.
Yes. Because I'm a scientist and engineer and doing science and engineering job nearly everyday. That thing, that is happening in medicine is not a science at all. "We made some device, we absolutely have no clue how it really works, but we give 100 devices to 100 people and ask them to shake device. Then we found that women have 20% more green LED activated than men. Few people died for unknown reasons. So this device could be used to safely and effectively detect women.". Every single paper you posted looks like that. That is how medical science look like today. That is why medical science is complete bullshit and garbage. That is why it should be deeply reformed and forcefully returned to the strict scientific methods.
It's pretty clear that you are not an engineer and you are not a scientist. You don't understand even the difference between hypothesis and theory.
No response required.
More utter nonsense. Not a single point worth arguing.
how me a single paper that is done by an entlty that is not financed, connected, or dependend on BigPharma or state Health institutions. Show me a replication of a single paper that is done by an entlty that is not financed, connected, or dependend on BigPharma or state Health institutions
-
You all keep making these claims, but I see nothing to back up the claim. I've cited dozens of papers in this thread. Why don't you go through and list the funding sources for each of them.
-
The funding source of a study alone doesn't discredit the study. The studies lay out their entire methodology so they can be replicated. Some of these papers have dozens of authors named on them. You have to believe that all of those authors, all of those research institutions, all of those journals are willing to bend the truth and risk their reputations by doing shoddy science.
-
State health departments? Seriously? Come on, of course state health departments are going to fund research on COVID, it's literally their job. You are literally ruling out all sources of funding.
You don't understand, that everything you linked here is a solid proof that all that vaccinehoax is not a science at all.
Says anonymous internet troll "Crazy Russian."
Scientific papers are published to present some research to other scientists. Presenting your research to other scientists is necessary for independent replication of researsch. If you have no independent replication of your research, publication of your research says absolutely nothing about validity of your research. Only when other scientists repeat your experiments and get exactly same results, your research could be named valid and your theory could be accounted as correct.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Papers published in prestigious research journals undergo peer review. Experts in the field review the methodology and analysis before a paper is accepted for publication. If you think there's a problem with the study, then why aren't anti-vaxxer "scientists" replicating them and showing them to be false and publishing their results? They could do that. Instead, se see armchair experts poo pooing valid studies published in prestigious journals on the basis of nothing, just the possibility that there is some vast conspiracy including scientists, the top medical journals in the world, and top research institutions. All lying to get people to take vaccines. Literally, a bonkers position.
And what is the purpose of this grand conspiracy? What interest does the state have in getting people vaccinated other than preventing a pandemic that kills people and destroys the economy? You reject studies financed by the state, but the state has to pay for all these vaccines. It makes no sense at all.
I wonder if you cast the same critical eye at all studies supported by Big Oil? All those fake studies that purport to debunk global warming? You reject those, too, right?
Science is not about publishing papers.
Papers present finding of science.
it is unscientific to declare that your theory is correct.
Theories are not "declared" correct. That's not how science works. Every study either supports or doesn't support a hypothesis. It is absolutely scientific to declare that the study either did support or did not support a hypothesis.
There are no any single independent replication of any paper somehow connected with coronahoax at all.
How do you know that? Do you think all replicative studies are also published? They are not. What is your source for your claim that there's been no replication of the findings of any paper? There are literally hundreds, thousands of papers. Have you read them all to see if they support or don't support findings of previous papers? If not, then how can you make this claim?
Medical "science" have lowest replication rate of published papers among all other areas. Moreover, even if rare medical papers replicated even by not-so-independent, but just another group of scientists, their results in most cases contradictes with initial paper.
So you only accept replication of studies done by independent groups of non-scientists? You are entwining yourself in an ideology so airtight that there is no way to refute it. You won't accept science because by the rules you set up, there is no way to prove things that don't confirm your bias. I doubt you are so critical when you accept studies based on data pulled from the VAERS website. Right? All these independent non-scientists cherry picking data from a site that literally disclaims that its data is likely to contain inaccuracies is the kind of science you can accept.
Published papers prove absolutely nothing if described experiments was not replicated by independent researchers with same result.
Not true. You have made this up. But papers do have to be replicable. So anti-vaxxer scientists can go out and disprove them. Why don't they?
here is nothing to discuss at all. You have no any clue what science is and how it works.
So says anonymous internet troll "Crazy Russian." I'll take his word over the word of dozens of scientists publishing in the most prestigious medical journals in the world.
It is funny to see how you try to replace science with some kind of stupid religion with "published papers" as sacred writings and people financed by BigPharma and state health institutions as "priests", having no any idea what is all that really about.
Why don't you start a "science-y" journal and publish your debunks of all these, hundreds and thousands of papers published in prestigious medical journals? You clearly know more about science than all of these scientists who actually have science jobs.
What's the reliability of this? The PCR sequencing techniques multiply false positives. There's also needs to be a random sample in order to be valid.
You should write a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine with your suggestions.
If you're really interested, you could look up this: Mio C, Cifù A, Marzinotto S, Marcon B, Pipan C, Damante G, et al. Validation of a One-Step Reverse Transcription-Droplet Digital PCR (RT-ddPCR) Approach to Detect and Quantify SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Nasopharyngeal Swabs. Disease Markers. 2021;2021: e8890221. doi: 10.1155/2021/8890221
or this: 10. Mio C, Cifù A, Marzinotto S, Bergamin N, Caldana C, Cattarossi S, et al. A Streamlined Approach to Rapidly Detect SARS-CoV-2 Infection Avoiding RNA Extraction: Workflow Validation. Dis Markers. 2020;2020. doi: 10.1155/2020/8869424
or this: 13. Washington NL, Gangavarapu K, Zeller M, Bolze A, Cirulli ET, Barrett KMS, et al. Genomic epidemiology identifies emergence and rapid transmission of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 in the United States. medRxiv. 2021 [cited 11 Apr 2021]. doi: 10.1101/2021.02.06.21251159
or this: 14. Lo Menzo S, Marinello S, Biasin M, Terregino C, Franchin E, Crisanti A, et al. The first familial cluster of the B.1.1.7 variant of SARS-CoV-2 in the northeast of Italy. Infection. 2021; 1-5. doi: 10.1007/s15010-021-01609-6
It's all cited in the study itself, because that's what science does.
I find it hard to believe that we know the variant with reliability
You're just naysaying the science. And that was just one study and there have been literally hundreds of studies.
I think the idea of variant is just random mutation and they've fit the data to it.
You're looking for ways out to protect your cherished and firmly held dogma.
For example, more vulnerable population getting sick first so this must be a different variant even though the sampling was insufficient to determine such.
Was it insufficient though? What makes you think so? To think they can't fully sequence this virus is another ridiculous position.
Where are your studies?
Everything you say is wrong.
I think it's probably just a reporting anomaly.
"u/name" to tag
Thanks.
Look, the research has to be related. Citing stuff for other viruses really is not helpful unless you're establishing background which we are past
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I did cite about other vaccines because someone replied that "vaccines" don't work. I took that to mean, and I think it meant, vaccines in general don't work.
But of all the studies I cited, like three were not about COVID (whooping cough, polio, measles, I think).
Show me a way to surveil safety that is more accurate than VAERS or else it's a mute point since VAERS data clearly deconstructs the safety argument.
I don't have to show you another way. I only have to show that VAERS isn't accurate. It says itself that it isn't accurate. That's all I need to show you that it isn't adequate for that. That there isn't another database for your purpose doesn't mean you can use an inadequate one and produce anything meaningful. That isn't logical or rational.
The site itself says that. I quoted it to you. Yet you want to use that a source to draw causal inferences. It's spurious. It's dishonest. How is it not dishonest to use a site that literally says it contains inaccurate data? The purpose of VAERS isn't to establish causal links. It is like an early warning system that can alert researchers to a possible problem that needs to be investigated. You want to skip over the "needs to be investigated" part and go directly to the drawing causal links part. If you want to be taken seriously, then go out and investigate those reports and establish the accuracy of them and then you have grounds to use the data. That's how it works.
Every single study I cited tells you exactly how its data was collected. Where it came from, how it was collected. You can read through every one of them and question how the data was collected and where it came from. That's how science works.
And no study is perfect. All studies have flaws. But here we have study after study from different parts of the world, by different research teams, all of which support the same general conclusions. That's how science works.
There are even meta-analyses which analyze many studies to draw inferences from whole batches of studies taken together. And every one of these studies is peer reviewed. But you want to gainsay all of them. Poo-poo them. You don't trust their techniques. You aren't qualified to not trust their techniques. If you have a study by qualified experts that call into question their techniques, that's a different story. But as far as I can tell, you simply refuse to accept any science that goes against your cherished beliefs.
I've asked you to cite sources, studies, present your own whatever you want to call it. But so far you haven't cited a single thing.
Look at this, you say:
else it's a mute point since VAERS data clearly deconstructs the safety argument.
VAERS does NOT clearly deconstruct anything. It says itself, as I have shown you:
VAERS reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable.
While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. [emphasis in original]
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. [emphasis in original]
VAERS data do not represent all known safety information for a vaccine and should be interpreted in the context of other scientific information.
All these disclaimers and yet you claim VAERS clearly "deconstructs the safety argument." It doesn't. It says itself that it doesn't. It say it many times on several different pages of the site and sometimes several times on one page. You cannot use VAERS data to make causal inferences. It isn't legitimate to do that. It should be obvious just from reading the disclaimers on the site. Why would you dispute that?
Also, I'd say you are quite disrespectful so unless that changes I'm not willing to debate with you
I've tried to be patient. I have literally posted VAERS disclaimers half a dozen times or more. VAERS says it doesn't contain accurate data, you say you'll use it anyway. I don't see how you can justify that to yourself.
I think your sources are ridiculous but I continue to offer a resolution without attacking you.
My sources are actual peer reviewed scientific journals, the most prestigious medical journals in the world. JAMA, NEJM, BJM. You call them ridiculous. But you haven't offered a single reason for why they should be discounted. Journals that have for decades and decades been highly regarded by all medical professionals. Are these journals just flawed when it comes to vaccines?
A couple of summers ago, my wife almost died due to a hole in heart. A congenital defect. The doctors at first thought she'd need open heart surgery to fix the defect. But guess what? Around that time, a study showing the effectiveness of a plug that could be inserted without open heart surgery was published. Her doctor contacted the actual inventor of the device and they put it into my wife's heart. Every year since she's been monitored and the plug has been perfect, even better than what open heart surgery would have achieved. Not only that, the enlargement of her heart caused by it overworking has been reduced, which was one of the effect published in the study.
So if I accept the science regarding devices that can be stuck up a person's thigh and inserted into the heart, why would I think the science regarding viruses would be somehow flawed?
Face it: your opposition to vaccines is not based on science or logic. It is a dogmatic opposition based on some anti-science ideology. It is ideology, not science. I have seen the effectiveness of science. I've seen people beat cancer with the help of medical science. We all have. If you accept one area of medical science but not vaccines specifically then it must be due to an ideological stance and not a scientific one.
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.