Pfizer vaccine data. Of particular interest is page 30: full pages of known adverse effects…
(twitter.com)
💉VACCINE DATA RELEASE 💉
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (209)
sorted by:
I’ve read the document. I’m asking for a specific piece of information you claim is in the document.
Please cite where in the document you can prove the following assertion you made:
I would like to see what part of the document states this as true. Can you give me the page number and quote?
No, I need the line that proves this exact statement by u/zeitreise:
That is foundational for his argument. If he can't prove that this is supported by the document, then his argument can't really proceed from there without admitting he's making assumptions unsupported by the source.
The source, in fact, says he is wrong. On page six:
This sentence is VITAL context for the data you're looking at.
"This data shows that bad things happened after the drug. We do not know which of these, if any, was definitely caused by the vaccine. People get sick all the time, and verifying whether this was actually a vaccine injury or not would require context we do not usually have."
Broken down further:
"You're going to see a shit-ton of scary symptoms here in the data. For any report of those symptoms, there's somewhere between a 0% and 100% that the report shows an actual vaccine issue and not just random medical bullshit. If you want to know for sure, then you'll need to check with the patient, because we don't know."
Which means, that no, you cannot say each adverse "instance" was actually a vaccine injury event. Because it's clearly stated that the data does not represent verified vaccine injuries, and nobody knows yet how much of this might just be random medical bullshit. These databases don't carry that information.
They're just a tip line for things that DID happen that might, maybe, possibly be connected in some way to the vaccine.
Essentially, it's just a a simple correlation/causation error. You cannot assume causation based on correlation, and these databases are incapable of proving causation. Therefore, you can't use the data to prove ANYTHING about vaccine injury. That is done by further studies that are based on the data from databases like these.
And now with a study just released stating that those who took two doses of the vax are more likely to catch SARS - COV - 2 than those that didn't.
For VAERS? No. A doctor does not have to believe it's related to the vaccine to be required to report it to VAERS. A doctor just has to be completely unable to empirically rule out the vaccine. So, if it's not a gunshot to the face, then a doctor could viably HAVE to report it to VAERS. That's by design.
They say so themselves:
https://vaers.hhs.gov/resources/infoproviders.html
https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_Following_Vaccination.pdf
The point of an adverse event database is not to prove that adverse events are connected to vaccines. It's to establish a tip-line that gives medical researchers an idea of where they should be looking at variations above the baseline of garbage data.
I strangely agree with your overall argument, reddit slut. Correlation indeed does not equate causation NECESSARILY.
However, from what I learned in my Psychology Statistics courses, strong correlations are specifically measured to discover their respective measures of reliability and validity.
And therefore an enormous reason why these public health institutions CANT be trusted is because they outright refuse to explore in depth much less acknowledge the statistically significant amount of VAERS adverse events that occur after these covid vaccines.
And with the long track record of these SAME big Pharma companies of choosing to place their profit margins over their product safety, you would be a naive fool would outright ignore this very valid, irrefutable fact.
You make some good points. Here's what I say.
Strong correlations are important. They are not to be disregarded. In a statistics class, you tend to be given data specifically curated to illustrate workable correlations.
However, as you already know, real-world correlations have a lot more confounding factors than any classroom project, and correlations are therefore going to exist between an infinite number of things that are only remotely related to one another.
When you look at VAERS, you see a lot of bad things happening, and you think, "There is a significant number of bad things happening to vaccinated people."
But are there?
For instance, nothing bad has happened to me, and I was vaccinated earlier than almost anyone. I was boostered in October. I've had no problems, no symptoms, nothing.
I am not represented in VAERS. I have not submitted any reports. Nothing has been submitted about me. I do not exist in the data set.
Nor do any of my coworkers. Or my family. Or my friends. Or honestly, anyone I know. Nobody had anything worse than a shitty flu-like weekend and a sore arm, and even that was rare. None of us are in VAERS, because we're all fine.
So how exactly are you establishing a correlation of bad things happening to vaccinated people by looking at a database where the only population being studied are vaccinated people who have had bad things happen to them?
That would be like me creating a database documenting violence perpetrated by Q supporters, and then assuming that Q people are fucking nuts because I'm getting a bunch of reports of violence submitted by people who thought the perpetrator was kind of Q'y looking.
Assume nobody lied in my database, and most or all submissions were simply wrong about the bad guy being associated with Q. There's no fraud. Just incorrect assumptions.
My database doesn't show that. It only shows SUSPECTED cases of Q-related violence. It's a tip line for me to investigate, nothing more. Nothing's verified.
So would it be viable to say, "this database that only collects unverified reports of Q-related violence shows a strong correlation between Q beliefs and violence"? Or would that seem like a completely unfounded way of understanding the data?
Known adverse effects is not the same thing as proven vaccine injury. Adverse effects are merely reported after a vaccine. They are not proven to be caused by the vaccine.
VAERS states this. This report states this on page 6.
Again, your assumptions are hamstringing your validity as a claimed data scientist.
It's not exactly that it's a coincidence.
Doctors have to report every symptom that happens after a vaccine to VAERS.
So a 98 year old alcoholic who dies of liver failure a week after the vaccine? That's going in as a death in VAERS.
Nobody lied. Nobody committed fraud. But the vaccine didn't kill that person, even though it's in VAERS.
VAERS DEMANDS to have ALL symptoms that occur. Even ones that are absolutely not the vaccine. Not a single report is verified to have anything to do with the vaccine before it's listed in VAERS.
Because no report is verified, and EVERY symptom after EVERY vaccine is supposed to be reported, then yes, it's entirely possible that not a single report in VAERS or in this Pfizer report was caused by the vaccine. The system would, by design, be absolutely flooded with garbage data.
Every adverse reaction database works this way. They work like police tip lines. We don't assume we have 10,000 identical criminals just because one tip line got 10,000 tips. Many of those people were just wrong.
Changing the subject again when asked simply and directly to provide empirical evidence if your claims. This is a pattern. Which is why I’ve been engaging with you less.
It is immensely easier to put on the persona of expertise and intelligence by implying that empirically proving even a single one of your claims or establishing falsifiable premises is beneath you.
You’re like the third poster in this site’s history that has tried this strategy. It gets less effective when people see the avoidance pattern, and that’s hard to hide on a site full of pattern-seers.
Page 30 lists adverse events reported to the database. Adverse events are not established as proven vaccine injuries, just events that occurred in some period after a vaccination. This is the same as VAERS.
See page 5-6.
You cannot look at a list of adverse events reported spontaneously to the database and empirically deduce that each adverse event correlates directly to a confirmed vaccine injury.
You can make assumptions, but so can I, and that is not empirical.
Please quote the part of the report that confirms the assertion you made. So far, I can only see you relying on an assumption of how this data must correlate with vaccine injury, and refusing to demonstrate any empirical basis for that assumption by claiming that you’re just way smarter than me.
Perhaps you are. But for the benefit of your peers, who tend to hate fake researchers who make up bullshit to fit their narrative and lord their intelligence over everyone when questioned, can you lay out the mathematical basis of these assumptions?
I can understand where you are coming from, but I would like to make a broader point about truth communities like ours.
The broad goal here is NOT to prove beyond reasonable doubt to every single person that what we claim is true. Thats beyond the scope of any human being.
The broad goal is to provide enough information to make people ask themselves "am I perhaps being lied to?". This question needs to come from each person, because only when they reach this point will they actually open their minds to the truth.
You haven't reached that point, unfortunately. Hopefully you will, in the days/weeks to come.
Frigging sidebar material right there!
Many people faint after being around needles. I can't base any sort of assumption merely on seeing evidence of people falling down after being sticked with a needle. It happens literally every day in every doctor's office around the world.
So yeah, that wouldn't really cut it.
Define Vaccine Injury in Relationship to Adverse Events? Is death an injury or is it considered an Adverse Event?
Yes.
https://www.fda.gov/safety/reporting-serious-problems-fda/what-serious-adverse-event
Be careful here, though. "Associated" does NOT mean "caused by" or even "significantly related to." It means, "there is some relationship between a thing happening and another thing happening."
In VAERS, for instance, that means, "a vaccine was administered, and then a bad thing happened."
That's the association. That adverse event could be that you develop cancer, or die, or that your fingernails get darker, or penis falls off.
The adverse event can be caused by ANYTHING, but has to happen after the vaccine. That's the association. Once that association is established, we can then try to verify whether or not the vaccine actually DID cause that adverse event, or if the adverse event was due to something else.
VAERS does not do that. VAERS is a database of reported adverse events, not confirmed vaccine injuries.
You use VAERS data to figure out where you look for potential vaccine injuries.
Im sorry you took the death serum. I hope you survive your ignorance. Ill pray you find peace in the next realm.
I appreciate that and also hope I survive it. I’m just not as worried about it as you are, but that does make your words more meaningful. Thank you.