I absolutely don't underestimate what you can do with the tiniest fragment of data. I say this in the absolute most objective way that people who tend toward believing in conspiracy theories tend to be people who can establish patterns from miniscule amounts of data. They can see narratives from scatterplots.
I am definitely one of those people, in fact, despite not following you down this particular rabbit hole.
The problem is, of course, that those patterns are often subjective, and sometimes patterns can be drawn from the random and routine.
Such people also tend to have masterfully beautiful and complicated interpretations of the shapes of clouds, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the cloud is arranged in that particular shape for any particular reason.
I don't reject the complexity of the tapestry that you believe supports your beliefs. I just don't currently believe in the robustness of many of the threads with which the tapestry is woven. I am willing to be convinced, but you tend to want to stay in the more abstract top-level conversation rather than establish whether most of the facts you're using are actually as factual as you believe.
I feel like I have a better understanding of (and have demonstrated a better understanding of) this than you are giving me credit for, but yes, I follow your reasoning so far.
I may not be able to reply more today, but I will read what you post tomorrow.
First, you can't really weigh between doctor and self-reporting in the way you're suggesting. Doctor reports aren't that useful because they're reporting pretty much everything that happens within a time frame after the vaccine, which is by definition going to include most, if not all, garbage data that is unrelated to the vaccine. Self-reporting, on the other hand, carries almost no empirical data, and does not even confirm that the self-reported diagnosis is medically sound.
where you assume roughly 5% of the data is worthless...
See, almost everything you say is logical, except this part.
Let's define "worthless" in this case as "a medical symptom that occurred after the vaccine, but was not related to the vaccine." Would that be accurate? It's worthless data for your data set.
Now, why are you "assuming" that only 5% of that data is "worthless"?
Why can I not assume that 90% of the data is "worthless"? 99%? 100%?
Because that is absolutely, completely, unequivocally possible with VAERS. It may even be the case. Because VAERS does not verify a single report sent to it.
Let me be absolutely clear: if literally every single case submitted to VAERS right was completely unrelated to the vaccine, and the vaccine was completely safe, VAERS would look no different, and you would not be able to point to a difference in the VAERS data.
You assume only 5% of the data is worthless. Why? Why do you assume the data sent to VAERS would be accurately reporting vaccine injury?
VAERS does not claim this to be true. Nobody claims this to be true. In fact, it would be completely insane for any self-reporting system that is tracking millions and millions of individual people to have a 95% accuracy rate in reporting. That'd be ludicrous.
Can you empirically justify your assumption that only 5% of the data is worthless? That's a pretty important assumption to your argument, because if I instead assume that 99.99% of the data is worthless, instead of 5%, then your argument falls apart.
I absolutely don't underestimate what you can do with the tiniest fragment of data. I say this in the absolute most objective way that people who tend toward believing in conspiracy theories tend to be people who can establish patterns from miniscule amounts of data. They can see narratives from scatterplots.
I am definitely one of those people, in fact, despite not following you down this particular rabbit hole.
The problem is, of course, that those patterns are often subjective, and sometimes patterns can be drawn from the random and routine.
Such people also tend to have masterfully beautiful and complicated interpretations of the shapes of clouds, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the cloud is arranged in that particular shape for any particular reason.
I don't reject the complexity of the tapestry that you believe supports your beliefs. I just don't currently believe in the robustness of many of the threads with which the tapestry is woven. I am willing to be convinced, but you tend to want to stay in the more abstract top-level conversation rather than establish whether most of the facts you're using are actually as factual as you believe.
Yes.
I feel like I have a better understanding of (and have demonstrated a better understanding of) this than you are giving me credit for, but yes, I follow your reasoning so far.
I may not be able to reply more today, but I will read what you post tomorrow.
First, you can't really weigh between doctor and self-reporting in the way you're suggesting. Doctor reports aren't that useful because they're reporting pretty much everything that happens within a time frame after the vaccine, which is by definition going to include most, if not all, garbage data that is unrelated to the vaccine. Self-reporting, on the other hand, carries almost no empirical data, and does not even confirm that the self-reported diagnosis is medically sound.
See, almost everything you say is logical, except this part.
Let's define "worthless" in this case as "a medical symptom that occurred after the vaccine, but was not related to the vaccine." Would that be accurate? It's worthless data for your data set.
Now, why are you "assuming" that only 5% of that data is "worthless"?
Why can I not assume that 90% of the data is "worthless"? 99%? 100%?
Because that is absolutely, completely, unequivocally possible with VAERS. It may even be the case. Because VAERS does not verify a single report sent to it.
Let me be absolutely clear: if literally every single case submitted to VAERS right was completely unrelated to the vaccine, and the vaccine was completely safe, VAERS would look no different, and you would not be able to point to a difference in the VAERS data.
You assume only 5% of the data is worthless. Why? Why do you assume the data sent to VAERS would be accurately reporting vaccine injury?
VAERS does not claim this to be true. Nobody claims this to be true. In fact, it would be completely insane for any self-reporting system that is tracking millions and millions of individual people to have a 95% accuracy rate in reporting. That'd be ludicrous.
Can you empirically justify your assumption that only 5% of the data is worthless? That's a pretty important assumption to your argument, because if I instead assume that 99.99% of the data is worthless, instead of 5%, then your argument falls apart.