They DIDN’T inflate COVID deaths.

Because VAERS deaths are NOT assumed by anyone in the scientific community to be COVID deaths or vaccine deaths.

They are just deaths that happened after the vaccine. Maybe because of the vaccine. Maybe not. All we know is that they happened.

Nobody who VAERS is actually designed to serve creates a false correlation between the adverse events and vaccine injuries based on that data. It requires context, and neither COVID nor this report offer it. In fact, they both warn you that they do NOT offer it.

I understand correlation does not equal causation, but for events within the two week window of injection, you can be almost damned sure the event was due to the vaccine given the CDC’s definition of “when you’re vaccinated.”

Eh, if you're dealing with a sample of a hundred patients, maybe.

But not when you're analyzing a system that's trying to track the adverse event profile of literally every vaccinated person in the country. By the sheer n-value of your population, you're going to be dealing with an enormous number of weird events that will show, in context of the large population, to regress to the mean.

The larger the population, the more "weird things" you're going to have to look at. But is it outside the norm of what we would expect for a population the size of VAERS' target demographic? I suspect not.

This is going to be a problem for all of the monoclonal antibody treatments because they never got out of EUA so there’s no reason to hold a Phase IV for any of these companies.

I don't entirely disagree here, but I also probably believe the virus presented a more imminent threat than most people here do, so I am not yet convinced that some of the accelerated measures taken (in large part due to Trump's Operation Warp Speed) weren't unjustified given the nature of the crisis. I remain open to being convinced on that.

The bigger issue, to me, is that 1) adverse events are being reported, 2) they’re considered taboo to discuss, 3) the CDC is withholding data because they’re “worried how it’ll be interpreted,” and 4) Pfizer and the FDA both sued to keep these documents from coming to light.

1. Adverse events would be reported to a system like VAERS even if the vaccine was a placebo, by design.

2. I don't disagree here, but I also don't think that such issues are nearly as taboo within scientific circles as they are between scientists and the general public.

3. Related to point 2, I actually understand their argument, because I am sitting here watching VAERS data be misinterpreted by people on this site. You can believe the vaccine is a problem, but it is impossible to support that by posting VAERS data, and if you are wrong about the vaccine, then yes, making this kind of data public IS hurting people by making them scared of something that isn't really scary. However, I do not agree that making it hidden is the best way to handle it.

4. I agree with you here. People like to think that me not being afraid of the vaccine is the same thing as being pro-pharma, and nothing could be further from the truth. I oppose the established medical system on a lot of fronts, but intelligent people don't dismiss any claim based merely on the source. I have no doubt whatsoever that Big Pharma is up to shady shit and most certainly trying to get as much profit as they can. I am just not convinced that depopulation vaccines are one of those plans or that it could be successfully pulled off with the cooperation of every single scientist and doctor on the planet.

You can’t say the vaccine is totally fine if you don’t release the data for independent scholarly analysis.

That's true, and I agree with you 100%.

But I've also seen plenty of independent studies done on these vaccines that show them as effective and having a vanishingly low chance of side-effects, and those studies get dismissed around here as part of the conspiracy.

Independent scholarly analysis of the vaccine efficacy can take place without Pfizer's cooperation at this point, and we still are not seeing the levels of problems that would cause clinical panic. I agree that the data SHOULD be public, but we don't need the data to be public to analyze the vaccinated population for potential side effects. Independent scientists peer-reviewing and replicating established observational data is nothing new and it's been present throughout this process.

The data in the report is verified and cross referenced for duplicates.

You might need to be clearer what you mean here. The data has been verified that an adverse event took place in some cases, sure. That doesn't mean that the adverse events following some time after vaccination are verified as reactions TO the vaccination. And that's really the number that is important for separating garbage baseline from clinically-significant cases. That can't be done using a database that merely collects information on adverse reactions; such a database is Step 1 in the process of verifying these as actual vaccine reactions.

Just the deaths have exceeded all vaccines for the past 30 years for Covid.

This is not verifiable using an adverse event reporting system. What you're seeing is deaths reported to the system. You are not seeing what percentage, IF ANY, are due to the vaccine.

It's not surprising to see a huge number of deaths in such a system. You're giving a vaccine to an enormous number of people with an enormous number of pre-existing pathways towards death that have nothing to do with the vaccine. The numbers of deaths in a system like this aren't indicative of anything except the number of people that we're tracking.

The last time the CDC and CDC did there job was the swine flu vaccine, With data on less than 35 deaths the FDA investigated and pulled the vaccine from the marketplace. In the end we lost 52 people from the vaccine before it was over.

Swine flu never became a pandemic, so risk calculus changes significantly under those conditions when compared to COVID, which is considered far greater a threat to the average person than swine flu was. The number of cases of GBS that MAY (but still haven't been proven) to be linked to that vaccine would not have been considered problematic if swine flu had been responsible for as many deaths and injuries as COVID has been blamed for.

That's a fundamental problem in our sides discussing this. We're operating under different risk assessments. A very rare side effect isn't a huge problem to someone who believes COVID to be a serious and prevalent threat. If you think that COVID and the vaccine are a hoax or some sort of Deep State op, then ANY side effect would be considered to be too much.

The swine flu vaccine was considered at the time to carry too high a risk in relation to the non-pandemic threat presented by the swine flu. The variables in COVID have different values and therefore a different consideration weight of clinical significance.

It is not a police hot line from your comments. That comment is from ignorance. Data is input with the knowledge that jail time and fines for a fraudulent report.

Reports don't have to be fraudulent, they just have to be wrong. Doctors have to submit EVERY medical issue that happens after a vaccine, and can legitimately submit a report that their hair changed color after vaccination if their hair actually did change color after vaccination. Even if it just turned gray and the vaccinated individual is 40. That's not fraud. It's just wrong.

So even if the vaccine was a PLACEBO, you'd still see a huge number of reports in a system like this. And people who misinterpret that data would think that the placebo was killing people in droves.

Johns Hopkins states that we capture only about 10 to 20 percent of adverse events.

This is probably true. The reason it shocks you is because you, like most people here, are confusing the medical research terms of "adverse event" and "vaccine reaction." Vaccine reactions are adverse events, but they could also be only .00001% of adverse events.

Johns Hopkins and VAERS would prefer we know EVERY adverse event, which means that we want to know literally every fucking thing that goes wrong with you for a month after you've been vaccinated.

If you get vaccinated, and then a week later one of your toes hurts a little for a couple of hours, then that's an adverse event that Johns Hopkins wants to know about. If you don't tell them, then congrats, you're part of the 90% of lost data on adverse events they're talking about.

I appreciate the thought you put into this post.