When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.
VAERS numbers show ANY reports that ANYONE submitted. You could submit a fake report right now, online, if you wanted to, and your report will be added to the VAERS numbers.
Vaccine manufacturers are required to report to VAERS all adverse events that come to their attention.
Knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment.
Also look at the sheer number of recent reports compared to all previous 31 years. They aren't all fake or mis-attributed. Just read a couple at random many are incredibly detailed and complete. We don't have to be meteorologists to know when its raining.
Also where is the financial conflict of interest disclosure you usually see on these kind of reports? Hmmm....
Yes, vaccine makers and doctors are required to submit to VAERS any potential adverse reactions that happen in a window after taking the vaccine.
That does not mean that what is being reported IS, in fact, a reaction. It just means it's a problem that popped up soon enough after a vaccine to warrant attention, just in case.
Essentially, if any medical problem pops up within a month of the vaccine that the doctor can't IMMEDIATELY rule as unrelated to the vaccine (like a gunshot to the head), then it gets reported to VAERS.
Life-long alcoholic dies of liver failure two weeks after the vaccine? VAERS.
98 year old cancer survivor dies of heart failure shortly after getting the vaccine? VAERS.
See the problem?
The database is not even expected to have a MAJORITY of the cases reported here as vaccine-related problems. They are just problems that happened shortly after getting the vaccine.
But if tens of millions of people are getting vaccinated, then some proportion of those people are going to get sick, because tens of millions of people get sick all the time.
And if people can submit their own report, that means that if you have a headache the day after getting a vaccine, you can file a LEGITIMATE VAERS report, and your headache will now be considered a potential adverse reaction. That's not fraud. It's just not likely to be a vaccine-related problem.
That's why VAERS isn't really designed to be used the way you guys are trying to use it. Because it's not designed to be solid data on vaccine problems. It's designed to collect random reports from everywhere over everything to help researchers focus their efforts into localized problems.
Think of it this way: VAERS is like a police tip line. The vast majority of tips are going to go nowhere and mean nothing, even if the tipsters genuinely thought they were trying to help. But police will collect EVERY tip and investigate EVERY lead, JUST IN CASE. Even though most of the tips are bullshit.
By the same token every PCR test or anti-body test doesn't prove the patient was suffering from COVID either. Do you agree with that?
And how do you know that most of these cases went nowhere? Can you back that up or did you just make that up? I'm not making any additional claims besides what I said. They were the ones being evasive.
This extreme number of reports didn't happen during 2009 swine flu or any other year. Why now?
Also 45 deaths for ages 16-24 now. That exceeds the threshold where other vaccines were discontinued, e.g. Polio vax.
Those are small enough in number to read VAERS details. There's pretty damning stuff in there. I can provide IDs if you want. There's some high quality tips in there :)
Are they gonna provide the rest of the data to us? Police officers write reports....
As far as the PCR tests, no, I don't agree with that. I think you guys misinterpreted the "recall" of the COVID tests, which wasn't a recall, and was not even implying there was anything wrong with the PCR tests at all. I think they worked perfectly fine within their established success ratios to detect COVID-19.
Nobody is being evasive about the data. What I'm claiming is that the data in VAERS is unverified, and therefore cannot be used to make any claims about the vaccine.
Let's try this: imagine that I am administering a saline placebo "vaccine." And I open a VAERS system to report ANY side-effects that may have resulted from my placebo.
That system would be flooded with reports. Why? Saline does nothing.
Because people will have a sore arm and report it. Because people will develop a cough and report it. Because people will die of something and report it.
Even though all they got was saline and their problems were unrelated, they will still show up in VAERS, because that's why VAERS exists.
The vaccine can be 100% safe and STILL show everything you're seeing. Researchers who know how to use this data are rightfully not concerned about all the apparent "deaths", because ALL deaths following the vaccine are reported, and almost none of them have yet been clearly established as due to the vaccine.
In other words, you're looking at a baseline of garbage data and assuming it's real. That baseline would exist no matter how benign the vaccine is.
And the reports you're talking about are just reporting raw data. They aren't interpreting data. Nobody is coming to a conclusion about what this data is saying except you. That's not the point of VAERS.
As I said in another comment, just because this data is being made available to the public doesn't imply that the public is supposed to have any idea what it means. The fact that this data is available to you does not mean that this data is being PRESENTED to you in a way that you're supposed to understand. This data is for actual researchers, not laypeople.
Fine you're right I cannot reach a definite conclusion but you have to admit that the media publishes misleading interpretations in the other direction.
Its clearly not 100% safe as was initially advertised and you can get COVID after taking vax (lies per Biden et al.). Look at the ARR rates. Not so impressive.
Look, you're asking me to get down and dirty in defending a test I have never administered and have had no part in developing.
I am contesting the claims that are being made that the VAERS system is conclusive of evidence of vaccine harm. It is not. The Reuters article, in this case, is absolutely correct.
It is no more valid a way of measuring vaccine harm than a police tip line is in measuring overall crime. If there IS a problem, hopefully it'll show up in VAERS/the tip line, but nothing in VAERS/the tip line is verified. It's just what people are reporting as maybe possibly true.
I have a busy weekend and can't get drawn too into the weeds on it. If you want to formally contest the efficacy of the PCR tests, you're welcome to do so, but I'm not looking to convince you on how to face the vaccine.
I'm just trying to help clarify what the evidence you guys are using is actually saying and not saying. The VAERS system openly says that it's not supposed to be used to directly conclude anything about actual vaccine harm, and the PCR discontinuation of emergency authorization in December for the COVID-only test is not admitting any problems with the test or in any way constitutes a "recall." It's stating what it would like as an UPGRADE for future tests, not as a repair for a currently broken test.
Covid vaccine maker Moderna received 300,000 reports of side effects after vaccinations over a three-month period following the launch of its shot, according to an internal report from a company that helps Moderna manage the reports.
That figure is far higher than the number of side effect reports about Moderna’s vaccine publicly available in the federal system that tracks such adverse events.
Vaccine manufacturers like Moderna are legally required to forward all side effect reports they receive to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, where they are made public each week.
Sounds like I hit a nerve. Didn't you just say "Nobody is being evasive about the data.". It's called a lie by omission (I'm talking about Reuters here on the 3 points I made: 1) VAX makers must report, 2 its illegal to false report and 3) lack of disclosure for 30+ billion conflict of interest. So no they are not "absolutely" correct by neglecting to document these facts.
I partially agreed with what you said about VAERS but you act like nobody is allowed to make reasonable layperson observations like we are all a bunch of uneducated chimps. You also setup a straw man's argument using the 98 year old as example.
I gave concrete examples of healthy young people who did die after taking vaccine. That is a reasonable assumption I can make; there is no evidence of widespread false reporting like was stated in the article and inferred by you. I've read many many entries. Notice I didn't assert they died because of the vaccine because I don't know that for certain but its an interesting coincidence that is repeated.
You did make the same assertion for the second time however " but nothing in VAERS/the tip line is verified" How do you know this? Unless you have some insider baseball you aren't revealing?
You completely ignored that part of what I was saying. VAERS isn't perfect but they aren't giving us anything else. I'm pretty confident the real data is far more frightening.
Maybe you need to make some financial disclosures?
It’s not compromised. It’s doing what it’s supposed to do. It’s just a big fancy survey.
The data is for researchers trying to find localized trends to investigate, not to establish whether the vaccine itself is problematic.
It’s open to the public so that any researcher who wants to use the data properly can do so. It’s not open to the public because it’s designed for the public to understand and use this data correctly.
You’re welcome to see the data, but that doesn’t mean it’s being curated for you.
I wonder if Reuters might have a conflict of interest.
I’ve talked about this before.
VAERS does not prove death from vaccines. VAERS has a page about this right on its own website in the guide on how to use the data.
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html
VAERS numbers show ANY reports that ANYONE submitted. You could submit a fake report right now, online, if you wanted to, and your report will be added to the VAERS numbers.
https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html
Reuters is correct in this case.
Partially correct. Reuters neglected to point out (on the same link above https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html):
Vaccine manufacturers are required to report to VAERS all adverse events that come to their attention.
Knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment.
Also look at the sheer number of recent reports compared to all previous 31 years. They aren't all fake or mis-attributed. Just read a couple at random many are incredibly detailed and complete. We don't have to be meteorologists to know when its raining.
Also where is the financial conflict of interest disclosure you usually see on these kind of reports? Hmmm....
Awesome. Beat me to it.
Yes, vaccine makers and doctors are required to submit to VAERS any potential adverse reactions that happen in a window after taking the vaccine.
That does not mean that what is being reported IS, in fact, a reaction. It just means it's a problem that popped up soon enough after a vaccine to warrant attention, just in case.
Essentially, if any medical problem pops up within a month of the vaccine that the doctor can't IMMEDIATELY rule as unrelated to the vaccine (like a gunshot to the head), then it gets reported to VAERS.
Life-long alcoholic dies of liver failure two weeks after the vaccine? VAERS. 98 year old cancer survivor dies of heart failure shortly after getting the vaccine? VAERS.
See the problem?
The database is not even expected to have a MAJORITY of the cases reported here as vaccine-related problems. They are just problems that happened shortly after getting the vaccine.
But if tens of millions of people are getting vaccinated, then some proportion of those people are going to get sick, because tens of millions of people get sick all the time.
And if people can submit their own report, that means that if you have a headache the day after getting a vaccine, you can file a LEGITIMATE VAERS report, and your headache will now be considered a potential adverse reaction. That's not fraud. It's just not likely to be a vaccine-related problem.
That's why VAERS isn't really designed to be used the way you guys are trying to use it. Because it's not designed to be solid data on vaccine problems. It's designed to collect random reports from everywhere over everything to help researchers focus their efforts into localized problems.
Think of it this way: VAERS is like a police tip line. The vast majority of tips are going to go nowhere and mean nothing, even if the tipsters genuinely thought they were trying to help. But police will collect EVERY tip and investigate EVERY lead, JUST IN CASE. Even though most of the tips are bullshit.
That's the data you're seeing.
By the same token every PCR test or anti-body test doesn't prove the patient was suffering from COVID either. Do you agree with that?
And how do you know that most of these cases went nowhere? Can you back that up or did you just make that up? I'm not making any additional claims besides what I said. They were the ones being evasive.
This extreme number of reports didn't happen during 2009 swine flu or any other year. Why now?
Also 45 deaths for ages 16-24 now. That exceeds the threshold where other vaccines were discontinued, e.g. Polio vax.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/discontinued_vaccines.pdf
Those are small enough in number to read VAERS details. There's pretty damning stuff in there. I can provide IDs if you want. There's some high quality tips in there :)
Are they gonna provide the rest of the data to us? Police officers write reports....
As far as the PCR tests, no, I don't agree with that. I think you guys misinterpreted the "recall" of the COVID tests, which wasn't a recall, and was not even implying there was anything wrong with the PCR tests at all. I think they worked perfectly fine within their established success ratios to detect COVID-19.
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jccmZSyO/breaking-cdc-retracts-pcr-test-a/c/4JBvqadtu6h
Nobody is being evasive about the data. What I'm claiming is that the data in VAERS is unverified, and therefore cannot be used to make any claims about the vaccine.
Let's try this: imagine that I am administering a saline placebo "vaccine." And I open a VAERS system to report ANY side-effects that may have resulted from my placebo.
That system would be flooded with reports. Why? Saline does nothing.
Because people will have a sore arm and report it. Because people will develop a cough and report it. Because people will die of something and report it.
Even though all they got was saline and their problems were unrelated, they will still show up in VAERS, because that's why VAERS exists.
The vaccine can be 100% safe and STILL show everything you're seeing. Researchers who know how to use this data are rightfully not concerned about all the apparent "deaths", because ALL deaths following the vaccine are reported, and almost none of them have yet been clearly established as due to the vaccine.
In other words, you're looking at a baseline of garbage data and assuming it's real. That baseline would exist no matter how benign the vaccine is.
And the reports you're talking about are just reporting raw data. They aren't interpreting data. Nobody is coming to a conclusion about what this data is saying except you. That's not the point of VAERS.
As I said in another comment, just because this data is being made available to the public doesn't imply that the public is supposed to have any idea what it means. The fact that this data is available to you does not mean that this data is being PRESENTED to you in a way that you're supposed to understand. This data is for actual researchers, not laypeople.
Fine you're right I cannot reach a definite conclusion but you have to admit that the media publishes misleading interpretations in the other direction.
Its clearly not 100% safe as was initially advertised and you can get COVID after taking vax (lies per Biden et al.). Look at the ARR rates. Not so impressive.
How do you explain this regarding the PCR test?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/OYSDWcfswgVb/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/bR5HF0hNzZvI/
https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2020-11-27/covid-pcr-test-reliability-doubtful-portugal-judges/56962
I have a Fauci video somewhere where he says above 26 cycles is inconclusive. They regularly use 40+ cycles
Look, you're asking me to get down and dirty in defending a test I have never administered and have had no part in developing.
I am contesting the claims that are being made that the VAERS system is conclusive of evidence of vaccine harm. It is not. The Reuters article, in this case, is absolutely correct.
It is no more valid a way of measuring vaccine harm than a police tip line is in measuring overall crime. If there IS a problem, hopefully it'll show up in VAERS/the tip line, but nothing in VAERS/the tip line is verified. It's just what people are reporting as maybe possibly true.
I have a busy weekend and can't get drawn too into the weeds on it. If you want to formally contest the efficacy of the PCR tests, you're welcome to do so, but I'm not looking to convince you on how to face the vaccine.
I'm just trying to help clarify what the evidence you guys are using is actually saying and not saying. The VAERS system openly says that it's not supposed to be used to directly conclude anything about actual vaccine harm, and the PCR discontinuation of emergency authorization in December for the COVID-only test is not admitting any problems with the test or in any way constitutes a "recall." It's stating what it would like as an UPGRADE for future tests, not as a repair for a currently broken test.
You ready to get down and dirty for this? Hiding something?
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/some-actual-news?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDc2MjAxMSwicG9zdF9pZCI6Mzk2NzAyMDIsIl8iOiJ0NUorbCIsImlhdCI6MTYyODI2MzE5NywiZXhwIjoxNjI4MjY2Nzk3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzYzMDgwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.MlY3gm9ssZ5c5D0XFWSTPlz7x-f
That figure is far higher than the number of side effect reports about Moderna’s vaccine publicly available in the federal system that tracks such adverse events.
Vaccine manufacturers like Moderna are legally required to forward all side effect reports they receive to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, where they are made public each week.
Sounds like I hit a nerve. Didn't you just say "Nobody is being evasive about the data.". It's called a lie by omission (I'm talking about Reuters here on the 3 points I made: 1) VAX makers must report, 2 its illegal to false report and 3) lack of disclosure for 30+ billion conflict of interest. So no they are not "absolutely" correct by neglecting to document these facts.
I partially agreed with what you said about VAERS but you act like nobody is allowed to make reasonable layperson observations like we are all a bunch of uneducated chimps. You also setup a straw man's argument using the 98 year old as example.
I gave concrete examples of healthy young people who did die after taking vaccine. That is a reasonable assumption I can make; there is no evidence of widespread false reporting like was stated in the article and inferred by you. I've read many many entries. Notice I didn't assert they died because of the vaccine because I don't know that for certain but its an interesting coincidence that is repeated.
You did make the same assertion for the second time however " but nothing in VAERS/the tip line is verified" How do you know this? Unless you have some insider baseball you aren't revealing?
You completely ignored that part of what I was saying. VAERS isn't perfect but they aren't giving us anything else. I'm pretty confident the real data is far more frightening.
Maybe you need to make some financial disclosures?
It’s not compromised. It’s doing what it’s supposed to do. It’s just a big fancy survey.
The data is for researchers trying to find localized trends to investigate, not to establish whether the vaccine itself is problematic.
It’s open to the public so that any researcher who wants to use the data properly can do so. It’s not open to the public because it’s designed for the public to understand and use this data correctly.
You’re welcome to see the data, but that doesn’t mean it’s being curated for you.
Technically, it doesn't. But that's an awful lot of "correlation" to just explain away.