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.
To be clear, you want me to be suspicious that the VAERS data currently does not match a screenshot of what might be a presentation of unlabeled data from some three month period we can’t identify from an anonymous source?
There are a million and one reasons why those don’t match, including outright forgery by the anonymous source, because there is literally nothing about a screenshot I can analyze or identify. Could be that it’s an old number and reports have been resolved and removed from VAERS.
Even the article suggests it could be just a lag in processing.
Seriously, you look at that screenshot and tell me what about it you consider to be objectively proving your point. Tell me the absolute indisputable facts you can tell about that picture by looking at it.
None of these are "indisputable facts". You made hypothesis yourself to try to explain what's going on; that's what people do. There are doctor's only sites saying exactly what is going in VAERS reports are happening to them verifying that something is going wrong that they haven't experienced before. You got an explanation for that ?
This isn't happen in a vacuum either. Look at all the other data points: every time this has gone to court they hide the date and lose. You are either being intentional ignorant or carrying water for someone I can't decide.
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?
This is an excellent response and deserves a more detailed response than I have time to do at the moment. Feel free to remind me if I don’t come back to this soon.
Yes, as I said, vaccine makers must report POTENTIAL side effects, which means, ANY apparent problem that comes up after the vaccine. That does NOT mean that these illnesses are verified as a result of the vaccine, which means that a vaccine-producer's report is no more verified than a rando submitting a report to end up in VAERS.
Being illegal to report false data means nothing. It's illegal to use fake vaccine cards (government document fraud) and that's clearly being ignored. Plus, it doesn't need to be a FALSE report to be bad data. It could just be someone who has no idea why they have a sore throat, blame it on the vaccine, and submit a report. It doesn't mean it's a correct report, and it still bogs up the data.
I have no idea why you're so hung up on financial disclosure, and it seems like you're nitpicking what you think it supposed to happen rather than what actually happens in the real world. Financial disclosures are for studies that draw conclusions, like experiments. They're not for reports on raw data, nor are they collected from participants in a survey, and VAERS is just a big survey.
It's not a straw-man to describe a real-world example. A 98 year old cancer survivor who dies shortly after receiving the vaccine will still be listed in VAERS by their doctor until their cause of death is confirmed. That's the point I'm making. Because doctors HAVE to report, then they will report ANY case that cannot immediately rule out the vaccine as a cause, even if it's super obvious that the vaccine is not the cause. That's how VAERS works.
Same thing with very young babies, per VAERS:
Millions of vaccines are given each year to children less than 1 year old in the United States, usually between 2 and 6 months of age. At this age, infants are at greatest risk for certain medical adverse events, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Some infants will experience these medical events shortly after a vaccination by coincidence. These coincidences make it difficult to know whether a particular adverse event resulted from a medical condition or from a vaccination. Therefore, vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccination, whether or not they believe the vaccination was the cause.
I don't find it an interesting coincidence that young, healthy people die after taking the vaccine. Young, healthy people die for weird, random reasons all the time regardless of whether or not they're vaccinated. And when you have tens of millions of people vaccinated, some proportion of those people are going to experience weird, random deaths. You'd need a LOT more than a few to rise above statistical significance, which is why no actual researchers are sounding the alarm bells yet. Because you're stressing out about a baseline of garbage data.
I know that nothing in the VAERS system is verified because VAERS tells us that nothing in the VAERS system is verified. I can read the directions that VAERS helpfully provides on how to interpret the data: https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html
A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.
As I said, VAERS was NOT given to you, as a layperson, to use for the reasons you're using it. It was given as open-access to scientists and researchers who are studying the data for localized, batch-related problems that jump above that baseline of garbage data that I was referring to.
What they HAVE given you is what you guys choose to distrust and ignore, which is information from the CDC, which IS designed for layperson understanding, and features conclusions reached after people who know what they're doing sort through data from systems like VAERS.
As I said, just because VAERS is open TO you does not mean it's designed FOR you. It is not the only data you have been given. It's just the only data that you're choosing to use, because it's the only data that you seem to think supports your conclusion about vaccine safety, even though it does not.
Since you are all knowing Oracle. Please point me to other data that supports that these particular vaccines are safe please. I would greatly appreciate it.
I said 16-24 year olds who many scientists said would be problematic ages for this vaccine BEFORE it was released. You keep using extreme examples to discredit VAERS which to me is a smell that you might be a bad actor. You don't even have enough curiosity to peruse the data seems like your mind is completely made up that VAERS is 100% useless.
There are 11 other systems closed to the public. VAERS is our only insight into the process. And VAERS reports are followed up by CDC. Some of the reports make reference to that if you bothered to read one.
VAERS is in fact designed for US warts and all. It was negotiated as part of making VAX makers free from liability
Twitter (and just talking to people) has even lower barrier of entry (and much more garbage data) but where there is smoke there is fire. There is no example in history like this before. Why now? VAERS is canary in the coal mine wither you want to admit or not. Even if 5% is good data its very compelling stuff.
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.
To be clear, you want me to be suspicious that the VAERS data currently does not match a screenshot of what might be a presentation of unlabeled data from some three month period we can’t identify from an anonymous source?
There are a million and one reasons why those don’t match, including outright forgery by the anonymous source, because there is literally nothing about a screenshot I can analyze or identify. Could be that it’s an old number and reports have been resolved and removed from VAERS.
Even the article suggests it could be just a lag in processing.
Seriously, you look at that screenshot and tell me what about it you consider to be objectively proving your point. Tell me the absolute indisputable facts you can tell about that picture by looking at it.
None of these are "indisputable facts". You made hypothesis yourself to try to explain what's going on; that's what people do. There are doctor's only sites saying exactly what is going in VAERS reports are happening to them verifying that something is going wrong that they haven't experienced before. You got an explanation for that ?
This isn't happen in a vacuum either. Look at all the other data points: every time this has gone to court they hide the date and lose. You are either being intentional ignorant or carrying water for someone I can't decide.
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?
This is an excellent response and deserves a more detailed response than I have time to do at the moment. Feel free to remind me if I don’t come back to this soon.
Okay, so let's go through this.
Yes, as I said, vaccine makers must report POTENTIAL side effects, which means, ANY apparent problem that comes up after the vaccine. That does NOT mean that these illnesses are verified as a result of the vaccine, which means that a vaccine-producer's report is no more verified than a rando submitting a report to end up in VAERS.
Being illegal to report false data means nothing. It's illegal to use fake vaccine cards (government document fraud) and that's clearly being ignored. Plus, it doesn't need to be a FALSE report to be bad data. It could just be someone who has no idea why they have a sore throat, blame it on the vaccine, and submit a report. It doesn't mean it's a correct report, and it still bogs up the data.
I have no idea why you're so hung up on financial disclosure, and it seems like you're nitpicking what you think it supposed to happen rather than what actually happens in the real world. Financial disclosures are for studies that draw conclusions, like experiments. They're not for reports on raw data, nor are they collected from participants in a survey, and VAERS is just a big survey.
It's not a straw-man to describe a real-world example. A 98 year old cancer survivor who dies shortly after receiving the vaccine will still be listed in VAERS by their doctor until their cause of death is confirmed. That's the point I'm making. Because doctors HAVE to report, then they will report ANY case that cannot immediately rule out the vaccine as a cause, even if it's super obvious that the vaccine is not the cause. That's how VAERS works.
Same thing with very young babies, per VAERS:
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html
I don't find it an interesting coincidence that young, healthy people die after taking the vaccine. Young, healthy people die for weird, random reasons all the time regardless of whether or not they're vaccinated. And when you have tens of millions of people vaccinated, some proportion of those people are going to experience weird, random deaths. You'd need a LOT more than a few to rise above statistical significance, which is why no actual researchers are sounding the alarm bells yet. Because you're stressing out about a baseline of garbage data.
I know that nothing in the VAERS system is verified because VAERS tells us that nothing in the VAERS system is verified. I can read the directions that VAERS helpfully provides on how to interpret the data: https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html
What they HAVE given you is what you guys choose to distrust and ignore, which is information from the CDC, which IS designed for layperson understanding, and features conclusions reached after people who know what they're doing sort through data from systems like VAERS.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety.html
As I said, just because VAERS is open TO you does not mean it's designed FOR you. It is not the only data you have been given. It's just the only data that you're choosing to use, because it's the only data that you seem to think supports your conclusion about vaccine safety, even though it does not.
Since you are all knowing Oracle. Please point me to other data that supports that these particular vaccines are safe please. I would greatly appreciate it.
Who is talking about babies?
I said 16-24 year olds who many scientists said would be problematic ages for this vaccine BEFORE it was released. You keep using extreme examples to discredit VAERS which to me is a smell that you might be a bad actor. You don't even have enough curiosity to peruse the data seems like your mind is completely made up that VAERS is 100% useless.
There are 11 other systems closed to the public. VAERS is our only insight into the process. And VAERS reports are followed up by CDC. Some of the reports make reference to that if you bothered to read one.
VAERS is in fact designed for US warts and all. It was negotiated as part of making VAX makers free from liability
Twitter (and just talking to people) has even lower barrier of entry (and much more garbage data) but where there is smoke there is fire. There is no example in history like this before. Why now? VAERS is canary in the coal mine wither you want to admit or not. Even if 5% is good data its very compelling stuff.