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:
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.
If you aggregate unverified reports, you come up with a conclusion that itself is unverified.
I can post a website right now that collects an aggregate of reports of lies told by Donald Trump. I can have 5,000,000 reports of Donald Trump lying.
The fact that I have 5,000,000 reports of lies told by Donald Trump does not in any way prove that Donald Trump has told even a single lie.
What I have are cases that I need to investigate individually. If I want to prove Donald Trump is a liar, I need to investigate the 5,000,000 reports I've collected. I would need to see if ANY of those reports is actually accurately reporting a lie told by Donald Trump. None of them were verified just because I opened up a line for people to report it.
I can't claim that 5,000,000 people reporting that Donald Trump is a liar proves he's a liar. That's a logical fallacy.