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.
Contrary to your beliefs, I don’t cower in the face of claimed expertise.
You have NOT established which data sets are redundant. You have no way of establishing which data is worthless and which is not, because that is not contained in VAERS data, because they do not collect it. You are making an assumption about how much data useful, but you have no way of confirming even a single case via VAERS data.
I am not junking my data by establishing a 99% junk baseline. I’m doing that based on established studies showing vaccine reactions being far less than 1% and extrapolating from that. Reminder: just because you download VAERS data does not mean you have a means of verifying any single number as a vaccine injury.
I am not predetermining the value. I am seeing how many vaccine reactions happen in sample populations, and extrapolating. That’s what scientists do. VAERS is not a sample population because not a single entry has been proven to be related to a vaccine injury, as stated by VAERS.
Data doesn’t have to be a false report to be wrong. If someone submits a VAERS report that they have a migraine, that doesn’t mean vaccines cause migraines. It means that person did exactly what VAERS asked them to do. And that person was wrong, and their migraine had nothing to do with the vaccine. But VAERS is happy.
Most bad data is not false reports. It’s people who are wrong, but doing what they’re supposed to do and reporting anyway. And it’s doctors who are reporting absolutely everything, because they have to, not because they think the vaccine has anything to do with it.
Again, it is entirely possible that VAERS has less than ten reports in it reflecting actual vaccine damage, and it’s also possible that not a single fraudulent report is included. Just millions of wrong ones.
I have no idea why you think a control doesn’t exist if everyone is vaccinated. Of course it does. We know how prevalent myocarditis is in people before the COVID vaccine. That was our control. We also know what our rate is in our vaccinated population. That’s our experiment. Nobody needs a control and experimental group to run simultaneously. People existed and got sick before the vaccine. We don’t need unvaccinated people to track how things change after vaccination, obviously.
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.
I so enjoyed reading this chain, thank you 😊
Quickly.
Contrary to your beliefs, I don’t cower in the face of claimed expertise.
You have NOT established which data sets are redundant. You have no way of establishing which data is worthless and which is not, because that is not contained in VAERS data, because they do not collect it. You are making an assumption about how much data useful, but you have no way of confirming even a single case via VAERS data.
I am not junking my data by establishing a 99% junk baseline. I’m doing that based on established studies showing vaccine reactions being far less than 1% and extrapolating from that. Reminder: just because you download VAERS data does not mean you have a means of verifying any single number as a vaccine injury.
I am not predetermining the value. I am seeing how many vaccine reactions happen in sample populations, and extrapolating. That’s what scientists do. VAERS is not a sample population because not a single entry has been proven to be related to a vaccine injury, as stated by VAERS.
Data doesn’t have to be a false report to be wrong. If someone submits a VAERS report that they have a migraine, that doesn’t mean vaccines cause migraines. It means that person did exactly what VAERS asked them to do. And that person was wrong, and their migraine had nothing to do with the vaccine. But VAERS is happy.
Most bad data is not false reports. It’s people who are wrong, but doing what they’re supposed to do and reporting anyway. And it’s doctors who are reporting absolutely everything, because they have to, not because they think the vaccine has anything to do with it.
Again, it is entirely possible that VAERS has less than ten reports in it reflecting actual vaccine damage, and it’s also possible that not a single fraudulent report is included. Just millions of wrong ones.