During my review of the weekly VAERS data, I discovered the data reports have decreased for specific states and categories. Typically, every two weeks I review the OpenVAERS COVID-19 data summaries and update my tables. Assuming there has not been an error by OpenVAERS, For example, I noted the number of VAERS reports for Florida decreased, specifically for the 65-80 age range. Between January 28, 2022 and February 11, 2022 the number of reports for the 65-80 age group declined from 11,883 to 11,734. It should also be noted in my review of the overall child COVID-19 vaccine data I found several categories showed a decrease in a specific "injury" area, such as Myocarditis, and for overall state reports. I am unsure if the problem resulted from an erroneous data analysis by OpenVAERS or if in fact, the CDC has removed reports from their site.
I realize the VAERS site is significantly underreported, but this is published data from the institution that guides medical decision making and practices.
I am not trying to pre-determine data usefulness. The way in which the data is useful is explicitly stated by VAERS.
Let me boil down our conversation hencefar.
"Let's assume 0.1 percent of the reports are valid."
"Why?"
"Because the vaccine must be doing SOME sort of damage."
"But how do you know how vaccine damage is represented in VAERS if it doesn't verify its data?"
"Because I can assume if there are a lot of reports, there must be some representation of vaccine damage. Law of big numbers."
"Yes, but how do you know HOW MUCH vaccine damage is actually occurring within those VAERS reports if the VAERS reports don't verify that ANY vaccine damage has actually occurred?"
"Because there are a lot of reports, and the vaccine is doing damage, so some of these must be valid."
"But how do you know which of these reports represents damage? How are you assuming that the number of vaccine damage cases is even statistically significant? How can you assume what proportion of the cases are valid based on this data?"
"I know data and AI. I accept no further demands for explaining my assumptions."
I have a feeling that at this point, you are well aware that the mere ability to say that an outlier exists in some large population is NOT the same thing as saying the outlier exists in some specific proportion to the population. That is where your math fails, because if you cannot verify some proportion of your cases, then any extrapolation you make is implied, not empirical.
Do they list how often these known issues occur in the vaccinated population? Because that is where you are making assumptions.
I'm so glad you said that, because you've just stated EXACTLY the point of this debate.
You are incorrect about the point of VAERS.
VAERS is not a system for analyzing real cases. It's a system for FINDING real cases. This is done by providing a baseline of junk (worthless) data (reports that are not caused by the vaccine) and then looking for local spikes and trends. Then, they provide a specific study looking at the vaccine in that area (which you are then likely to reject, since, you know, scientists).
Imagine if the police opened up a tip line for a criminal, described the criminal, got 10,000 reports. They then go on television and say that they are now finding they aren't looking for one man, but apparently thousands of identical men, all of who are the culprits.
That sounds silly. The tip line is to help the police narrow the search. They have NO IDEA based on looking at the raw data which tips are really worth following.
This is exactly the point I'm trying to drive home here. You are incorrect about VAERS. It is made available to you for transparency purposes, but it is not being curated for you. You are foundationally misunderstanding what this data is supposed to represent.
There is a wonderful research paper that would be useful to you on how VAERS works. I will provide the full article for you, as well as some excerpts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632204/
Sound familiar?
Which, of course, you can't tell just by VAERS data. You have to look at the context. For someone who lectured me so much about context, you seem to be missing it when it counts.
Again, sound familiar?
So why are numbers of vaccine problems in VAERS so high?
Ah. So when people are really struggling with a problem, they report to VAERS. Which means that VAERS tends to be full of the most severe cases, which skews the sample population significantly. People who are just fine (like me) have not reported to VAERS, and therefore, you are not accounting for the total population.
The world looks terrifying when looking at VAERS, but what you're seeing is all the worst things that have happened (without the context of them being rare, since most people with no problems don't report). Neither VAERS nor any of the scientists who use it regularly claim that what is in VAERS has anything to do with reality. It's a tip line.
That's it. Just a tip line.