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.
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.
...vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccination, whether or not they believe the vaccination was the cause.
VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.
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.
Like I said. Just a giant survey. With all the many, many limitations that surveys have.
I kind of hate surveys. This one does exactly what it's supposed to do, but true to form, they are confusing for people to interpret when they don't have all the info they need to understand the data they're looking at.
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.
It's not ignoring it. It's understanding that just because the data is made available to laypeople does not mean the data is curated for laypeople to understand. It's open-source for other researchers.
It's simply not designed to collect the data you need to support the conclusions you want it to support.
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.
But you CAN. There's nothing stopping you.
VAERS, really, is just a giant fucking survey. That's it.
This is the page I want you to read to get my point: https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html
Like I said. Just a giant survey. With all the many, many limitations that surveys have.
I kind of hate surveys. This one does exactly what it's supposed to do, but true to form, they are confusing for people to interpret when they don't have all the info they need to understand the data they're looking at.
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.
lol at wanting to ignore the only government vaccine reporting system because it COULD be false in favor of your own personal hypothesis
It's not ignoring it. It's understanding that just because the data is made available to laypeople does not mean the data is curated for laypeople to understand. It's open-source for other researchers.
It's simply not designed to collect the data you need to support the conclusions you want it to support.
Here's what the VAERS system itself says about this: https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html
I have two relatives who died from the vaccine and know many others with adverse effects, primarily bleeding complications.