The vaccine is a weapon of war.
Those who have to take it against their preference are casualties.
Brothers wounded in war get Purple Hearts.
They don’t get ostracized.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (56)
sorted by:
I understand the confusion.
VAERS saying that under reporting is a problem is not a tacit admission that there are vaccine injuries going unreported.
It’s saying the following:
“This database is supposed to contain literally every medical issue that arises after a vaccine is administered. Every single one. Regardless of whether the vaccine caused it. However, we don’t get every report we want. The data we are looking for is underreported.”
VAERS is not specifically reporting on vaccine injury. It’s reporting on reports of medical issues that arose after a vaccine was administered. Those are two very different things.
In the case of VAERS, they want every cold that someone came down with. Every weird arm pain. Every case of AIDS. Every case of lightning strike. Every heart attack. Every stroke. Every case of a penis randomly falling off.
As long as it occurred after the vaccine.
That is what is being underreported. Not cases of vaccine injury, but cases of medical problems that occurred some time after the vaccine was administered.
Which is why they openly state that not a single case in VAERS is proven to be due to the vaccine. It just happened after the vaccine.
See the difference? Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Causation/correlation error. VAERS does not attempt whatsoever to avoid this. It simply presents correlation, and scientists then use VAERS correlation to see if they can establish causation. VAERS does not establish causation at all.
The doctors don’t have a choice in filing. If an injury occurs after the vaccine, they have to report it unless they can 100% rule out the vaccine. Like a gunshot.
I know how to draw conclusions from data, but you’re confusing data and reports of data.
If I sat in the hospital, checked every single patient myself, I’m collecting data.
If I’m getting reports, then I don’t have data. I have reports that MIGHT be data.
Which is an extra step for me as a researcher. I can’t draw definite conclusions from reports of data, only data.
VAERS offers reports, not data. If I want to turn those reports into data, then I have to investigate the reports. THAT is what VAERS is designed to do.
Which is why you can’t draw conclusions from VAERS. Because you can’t draw scientific conclusions from reports of data. Just data itself.
That's true of direct reports from verified sources.
As VAERS explicitly states, no report to VAERS is verified. Therefore, the data cannot be considered verified. Therefore, it must be verified by a third party before being considered a data point.
Until it's a verified report, the report cannot be used as data. It's just a report of where data might exist. You can draw inferences from it if you'd like, but as I've stated, there can be literally zero cases of vaccine injury, and still tens of thousands of reports suggesting potential problems in VAERS.
VAERS points researchers to where they should look for data. It does not provide actionable data on its own. The system itself says as much.
This is something I have quite a bit of experience with, but if you're no longer interested, that's fine.