If nothing is verified, and everything is reported, then it doesn't matter how you filter the cases.
They could be injecting you with saline, and you'd still see this list of "side effects" pop up, because when you're vaccinating hundreds of millions of people, some of them are going to get sick randomly. Some are going to die randomly. All of them are going to be listed in VAERS. None of them are proven to have had their problems due to the vaccine.
Again, because VAERS is NOT DESIGNED to collect that kind of data.
It's designed to help researchers hone in on spikes above the baseline.
If 10,000 people are reported to have died after getting the vaccine this month after millions of people have been vaccinated, that's not interesting. It's not proof of literally anything other than 10,000 people died.
If 100 MORE people than expected died in Flynnville, Colorado after getting the vaccine, based on extrapolating from the baseline, then NOW researchers are interested. Because maybe there was something wrong with the batch in Flynnville.
That's the data VAERS is used to study. Not what you guys are trying to do. It can't be done, and that's why you guys are the only ones freaking out about VAERS.
If you are correct, and you're seeing something in this publicly-accessible data that is being missed by every independent scientist on the planet, and every lawyer looking for the ultimate lawsuit, and every politician looking for a guaranteed winning platform, and so forth...
I won't be the one you should be trying to convince.
Perhaps you DO know a way to manipulate the data in order to show what you think is there. But we're back to Occam's Razor.
I can believe you're the Data Messiah who is seeing a way to use this data that the creators of the database didn't foresee to unveil the largest crime against humanity in history, or I can believe that you're missing something.
You're welcome to present your argument, but whether or not you convince me doesn't really make a difference. I'm not the one who can vindicate you. But there are plenty of people who can, and if you think you can prove it, I'd absolutely encourage you to do so. I'd support that 100%.
I don't like to talk in absolutes, but I will on this particular subject.
You are 100% wrong that science is conspiring against you. Scientists are DESEPERATE to be the ones to break the mold. They'd cut each other to be the one to prove the vaccine was poison.
I have seen them destroy each others' careers in peer review. I've known PhD candidates fail to achieve their degree because a mistake in their data was pointed out by another scientist that crushed their entire dissertation.
The scientific process is EXTREMEY competitive. Nobody likes to agree with each other. They'll share data, sure, but if they manage to topple the prevailing theory, they become famous for all of time.
I promise, promise, PROMISE there are scientists who would literally kill to have the data you claim to have.
Which is why scientific consensus is so powerful. If you can get a bunch of these guys to agree on any particular theory, then that's the best theory we have. Maybe not the right one. But the best one we have. Because if there's anything better, they'll slaughter each other to be the first to prove it.
Until someone like you comes along, of course.
This whole, "the world is out to get me, nobody listens to be because everyone is against me" stuff doesn't sound like anything other than justification of dissonance for how you can both be right about something simple and profound and for nobody to believe you.
But it's not true. With literally every fiber of my being, I can tell you that if you have what you say you have, and can prove it, you WILL find an outlet for it. And could be in the news this week as the person who stopped a genocide. No question.
I don't think you're getting it.
If nothing is verified, and everything is reported, then it doesn't matter how you filter the cases.
They could be injecting you with saline, and you'd still see this list of "side effects" pop up, because when you're vaccinating hundreds of millions of people, some of them are going to get sick randomly. Some are going to die randomly. All of them are going to be listed in VAERS. None of them are proven to have had their problems due to the vaccine.
Again, because VAERS is NOT DESIGNED to collect that kind of data.
It's designed to help researchers hone in on spikes above the baseline.
If 10,000 people are reported to have died after getting the vaccine this month after millions of people have been vaccinated, that's not interesting. It's not proof of literally anything other than 10,000 people died.
If 100 MORE people than expected died in Flynnville, Colorado after getting the vaccine, based on extrapolating from the baseline, then NOW researchers are interested. Because maybe there was something wrong with the batch in Flynnville.
That's the data VAERS is used to study. Not what you guys are trying to do. It can't be done, and that's why you guys are the only ones freaking out about VAERS.
I had to think for a bit.
If you are correct, and you're seeing something in this publicly-accessible data that is being missed by every independent scientist on the planet, and every lawyer looking for the ultimate lawsuit, and every politician looking for a guaranteed winning platform, and so forth...
I won't be the one you should be trying to convince.
Perhaps you DO know a way to manipulate the data in order to show what you think is there. But we're back to Occam's Razor.
I can believe you're the Data Messiah who is seeing a way to use this data that the creators of the database didn't foresee to unveil the largest crime against humanity in history, or I can believe that you're missing something.
You're welcome to present your argument, but whether or not you convince me doesn't really make a difference. I'm not the one who can vindicate you. But there are plenty of people who can, and if you think you can prove it, I'd absolutely encourage you to do so. I'd support that 100%.
I don't like to talk in absolutes, but I will on this particular subject.
You are 100% wrong that science is conspiring against you. Scientists are DESEPERATE to be the ones to break the mold. They'd cut each other to be the one to prove the vaccine was poison.
I have seen them destroy each others' careers in peer review. I've known PhD candidates fail to achieve their degree because a mistake in their data was pointed out by another scientist that crushed their entire dissertation.
The scientific process is EXTREMEY competitive. Nobody likes to agree with each other. They'll share data, sure, but if they manage to topple the prevailing theory, they become famous for all of time.
I promise, promise, PROMISE there are scientists who would literally kill to have the data you claim to have.
Which is why scientific consensus is so powerful. If you can get a bunch of these guys to agree on any particular theory, then that's the best theory we have. Maybe not the right one. But the best one we have. Because if there's anything better, they'll slaughter each other to be the first to prove it.
Until someone like you comes along, of course.
This whole, "the world is out to get me, nobody listens to be because everyone is against me" stuff doesn't sound like anything other than justification of dissonance for how you can both be right about something simple and profound and for nobody to believe you.
But it's not true. With literally every fiber of my being, I can tell you that if you have what you say you have, and can prove it, you WILL find an outlet for it. And could be in the news this week as the person who stopped a genocide. No question.