I speak anecdotally, as someone who has gotten two Pfizer shots back in January, along with all of my coworkers, and their coworkers. We're all still kicking strong.
Maybe other people are having problems, but the only data I've seen allegedly supporting that has been VAERS, and VAERS data literally cannot be used to support that conclusion, based on the how-to guide to the VAERS data on its own page.
I will let you know if I start having health problems, but given that I was one of the earliest vaccinated individuals around, I would have expected to have the same problems by now that you guys think other vaccinated people are having when they got it done later than I did.
It's not that VAERS data is unreliable for what it's supposed to be.
It's that it doesn't collect verified data.
I've written pages and pages on this, but if you look at the how-to guide, you get three important pieces of info:
Nothing, NOTHING is verified before VAERS publishes it into the numbers.
Anyone, ANYONE can submit a VAERS report for anything they even remotely think might be a side-effect from the vaccine.
Doctors are REQUIRED to submit reports on ANY potential side-effect from the vaccine, regardless of whether or not they think the vaccine is actually the cause.
Which means that the vaccine could literally be absolutely, 100% perfect and safe, and we'd still see the VAERS system chock full of reports.
Because it's not designed to see whether the vaccine is killing people. It's designed to established a baseline of "garbage data" in order to detect localized spikes that might show a bad batch or a generalized trend.
The baseline data is going to show thousands of deaths and injuries, and not a single one of them is proven to have anything to do with the vaccine. This is a normal part of data collection when you're dealing with hundreds of millions of data points.
Which is why no actual data scientists are freaked out by the VAERS data. Because they know they're looking at a baseline that was built-in by design to the VAERS system.
Everyone is encouraged to submit everything for any reason, and nothing is verified. That equals a baseline of garbage reports. Stuff that rises ABOVE that baseline is what they're interested in investigating.
They've made it openly available so other scientists can use that data. The data is not curated to be used by laypeople to try to determine whether the vaccine is killing people, because the data, due to the way it's collected, literally can't be used to come to that conclusion. It's impossible given how VAERS is set up.
The clinical trials were designed to see if the vaccine was dangerous. VAERS is used to look for trends above a sea of garbage reports.
If I take the vaccine, and a month later get the sniffles, I can file a VAERS report and say that the sniffles are a potential side effect of the vaccine.
VAERS would then add that into the system. You'd see the numbers go up.
The only way you can file a false report is maliciously. But a garbage report doesn't have to be false.
Because, again, of the way that VAERS is set up.
Currently, under the VAERS rules, a 98 year old alcoholic who survived liver cancer dies in the hospital a month after getting the vaccine, and the doctor is encouraged to submit a VAERS report.
Even though we can guess this individual probably didn't die of the vaccine.
You see the problem? That's not a false report, and given the way that VAERS is set up and the data it's collecting, that would be a 100% legitimate reason to submit to VAERS.
And since nothing in VAERS is verified, people here would see the number of vaccine "deaths" in VAERS jump up by one. Because of this report.
Aren't deaths supposed to be verified with proof such as death certificate or things of that nature? At least the deaths component, not sure about other side effects.
This is not something I know enough about to answer directly.
I do know enough to know that people die all the time with an assumed cause of death. And that further questions might cause an investigation.
But when something gets sent to VAERS, all it's saying is that someone died or got sick within some window after getting the vaccine.
That's it. Could be a cough. Could be a fever. Could be death. But anything that can't IMMEDIATELY be ruled as 100% not related to the vaccine? It's a potential VAERS report.
And that's not even considering the fact that anyone, including non-medical people who are evaluating their own symptoms using WebMD, can also file these reports.
"My eye is itchy and dry and I got the vaccine last week."
That's a legitimate report. They file, VAERS uploads the data.
I speak anecdotally, as someone who has gotten two Pfizer shots back in January, along with all of my coworkers, and their coworkers. We're all still kicking strong.
Maybe other people are having problems, but the only data I've seen allegedly supporting that has been VAERS, and VAERS data literally cannot be used to support that conclusion, based on the how-to guide to the VAERS data on its own page.
I will let you know if I start having health problems, but given that I was one of the earliest vaccinated individuals around, I would have expected to have the same problems by now that you guys think other vaccinated people are having when they got it done later than I did.
Same, my own 84 yo mother ended up getting a hysterectomy, my son in laws 82 yo grandmother had the exact same thing happen.
I can't understand anyone who comes here to learn taking the jab. I just can't. It's insane with what we know.
It's not that VAERS data is unreliable for what it's supposed to be.
It's that it doesn't collect verified data.
I've written pages and pages on this, but if you look at the how-to guide, you get three important pieces of info:
Which means that the vaccine could literally be absolutely, 100% perfect and safe, and we'd still see the VAERS system chock full of reports.
Because it's not designed to see whether the vaccine is killing people. It's designed to established a baseline of "garbage data" in order to detect localized spikes that might show a bad batch or a generalized trend.
The baseline data is going to show thousands of deaths and injuries, and not a single one of them is proven to have anything to do with the vaccine. This is a normal part of data collection when you're dealing with hundreds of millions of data points.
Which is why no actual data scientists are freaked out by the VAERS data. Because they know they're looking at a baseline that was built-in by design to the VAERS system.
Everyone is encouraged to submit everything for any reason, and nothing is verified. That equals a baseline of garbage reports. Stuff that rises ABOVE that baseline is what they're interested in investigating.
They've made it openly available so other scientists can use that data. The data is not curated to be used by laypeople to try to determine whether the vaccine is killing people, because the data, due to the way it's collected, literally can't be used to come to that conclusion. It's impossible given how VAERS is set up.
The clinical trials were designed to see if the vaccine was dangerous. VAERS is used to look for trends above a sea of garbage reports.
Doesn't need to be a false report, though.
If I take the vaccine, and a month later get the sniffles, I can file a VAERS report and say that the sniffles are a potential side effect of the vaccine.
VAERS would then add that into the system. You'd see the numbers go up.
The only way you can file a false report is maliciously. But a garbage report doesn't have to be false.
Because, again, of the way that VAERS is set up.
Currently, under the VAERS rules, a 98 year old alcoholic who survived liver cancer dies in the hospital a month after getting the vaccine, and the doctor is encouraged to submit a VAERS report.
Even though we can guess this individual probably didn't die of the vaccine.
You see the problem? That's not a false report, and given the way that VAERS is set up and the data it's collecting, that would be a 100% legitimate reason to submit to VAERS.
And since nothing in VAERS is verified, people here would see the number of vaccine "deaths" in VAERS jump up by one. Because of this report.
Aren't deaths supposed to be verified with proof such as death certificate or things of that nature? At least the deaths component, not sure about other side effects.
This is not something I know enough about to answer directly.
I do know enough to know that people die all the time with an assumed cause of death. And that further questions might cause an investigation.
But when something gets sent to VAERS, all it's saying is that someone died or got sick within some window after getting the vaccine.
That's it. Could be a cough. Could be a fever. Could be death. But anything that can't IMMEDIATELY be ruled as 100% not related to the vaccine? It's a potential VAERS report.
And that's not even considering the fact that anyone, including non-medical people who are evaluating their own symptoms using WebMD, can also file these reports.
"My eye is itchy and dry and I got the vaccine last week."
That's a legitimate report. They file, VAERS uploads the data.