VAERS data isn't cases from the vaccine, just all cases after having taken it. So your analogy is incorrect, because it would be perfectly normal for a few thousand people to die after hundreds of millions went on a flight. You wouldn't blame the airline for someone dropping dead in a car accident a week later, right? That's what you're doing if you think VAERS data shows the vaccines killed 5k. It's just wrong.
Not really. It's cases that correlate with the vaccine. And with the very low reporting rate, one might expect that those reporting feel very strongly about the correlation.
Hypotheses are formulated upon correlation. If true science existed then this hypothesis would be subjected to the scientific process.
"Vaccine providers are encouraged to report any clinically significant health problem following vaccination to VAERS, whether or not they believe the vaccine was the cause."
Straight from VAERS. So no, they don't need to feel strongly, they are told to report it even if they don't.
With the level of follow up investigating that's being done for these deaths (which is effectively none by the CDC) you can't definitively say whether it was or was not due to the vaccine. But you shilling that it has to be one way all over this thread is telling which narrative you want it to be.
Sorry pal, but it would NOT be "perfectly normal" for a few thousand people to die after even hundreds of millions of passenger-flights, as a result of a design flaw. You have a mistaken view of the airline and airplane industries.
It is generally understood that VAERS undersamples the events reported, because they are self-reported. Crank the numbers up by a factor of 100 and you might be closer to the truth.
My point is that the government rightly put the kibosh on the 737 MAX after 346 fatalities, and didn't let up until there was convincing evidence that the flaw had been corrected. NO such diligence regarding the vaccine. (It also turns out that the vaccine companies have histories either of unethical product practices or a complete lack of relevant experience in producing the vaccine.)
You're missing the point entirely, "pal." As I've said over and over again, VAERS deaths are not conclusively linked to the vaccine. So your idea about a design flaw is entirely wrong, it doesn't make sense. The government put the kibosh on the 737 because it was the obvious cause of those deaths. The government wouldn't have stopped the 737 if .000017% of people got sick a week after they flew, because that's nonsense. VAERS deaths are NOT conclusively linked to the vaccine, and that's just reality. Why is that so hard to understand?
VAERS data isn't cases from the vaccine, just all cases after having taken it. So your analogy is incorrect, because it would be perfectly normal for a few thousand people to die after hundreds of millions went on a flight. You wouldn't blame the airline for someone dropping dead in a car accident a week later, right? That's what you're doing if you think VAERS data shows the vaccines killed 5k. It's just wrong.
Not really. It's cases that correlate with the vaccine. And with the very low reporting rate, one might expect that those reporting feel very strongly about the correlation.
Hypotheses are formulated upon correlation. If true science existed then this hypothesis would be subjected to the scientific process.
"Vaccine providers are encouraged to report any clinically significant health problem following vaccination to VAERS, whether or not they believe the vaccine was the cause."
Straight from VAERS. So no, they don't need to feel strongly, they are told to report it even if they don't.
With the level of follow up investigating that's being done for these deaths (which is effectively none by the CDC) you can't definitively say whether it was or was not due to the vaccine. But you shilling that it has to be one way all over this thread is telling which narrative you want it to be.
Me telling you the same exact thing Trump is telling you is shilling.
K.
Sorry pal, but it would NOT be "perfectly normal" for a few thousand people to die after even hundreds of millions of passenger-flights, as a result of a design flaw. You have a mistaken view of the airline and airplane industries.
It is generally understood that VAERS undersamples the events reported, because they are self-reported. Crank the numbers up by a factor of 100 and you might be closer to the truth.
My point is that the government rightly put the kibosh on the 737 MAX after 346 fatalities, and didn't let up until there was convincing evidence that the flaw had been corrected. NO such diligence regarding the vaccine. (It also turns out that the vaccine companies have histories either of unethical product practices or a complete lack of relevant experience in producing the vaccine.)
You're missing the point entirely, "pal." As I've said over and over again, VAERS deaths are not conclusively linked to the vaccine. So your idea about a design flaw is entirely wrong, it doesn't make sense. The government put the kibosh on the 737 because it was the obvious cause of those deaths. The government wouldn't have stopped the 737 if .000017% of people got sick a week after they flew, because that's nonsense. VAERS deaths are NOT conclusively linked to the vaccine, and that's just reality. Why is that so hard to understand?