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:
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.
Some of the reports are coming from doctors, but it's an open-reporting system. Anyone can submit a report for any reason.
It is fraud to suggest you have a symptom that you don't have. If you say you got cancer after the vaccine, and you don't have cancer, or didn't get the vaccine, or both, that's fraud.
If you got cancer after getting the vaccine, but the vaccine didn't cause cancer, you didn't commit fraud by submitting it. That's EXACTLY what you're supposed to do. If your arm hurts, you aren't committing fraud by submitting a report even if your arm hurts for a different reason. You aren't committing fraud if you actually have a toothache after getting the vaccine.
All of those things are SUPPOSED to be submitted. Doctors are required to submit such symptoms, even if they are almost positive that it has nothing to do with the vaccine.
Which is why the data can't be trusted as representative of actual vaccine injury. Which is the point I'm making. VAERS isn't full of fraudulent data. It's just full of data that has not, to date, shown any proven connection between the injuries reported and the vaccine, except that the injuries happened AFTER the vaccine.
Again, correlation does not prove causation. VAERS provides correlation. You are choosing to establish causation. VAERS is NOT designed to prove causation. It's designed to show scientists where to look at the correlation more closely.