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:
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.
Oh hey that's how they inflated the Covid deaths too.
So why is one more legitimate than the other?
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.
Oh sorry, to be clear I wasn't saying that VAERS figures were being used to inflate Covid deaths. I meant how every death in 2020 was being used to inflate Covid deaths
Again, that would only happen if VAERS data was being taken in the mainstream as indicative of COVID deaths. That’s not what happened.
What I’m saying is that if someone dies of something obviously not the vaccine (like alcoholism), it can still end up in VAERS if the vaccine had happened recently enough. Because VAERS requires ALL deaths and ALL symptoms to be reported.
So it’s not COVID deaths that are inflated. The only number that gets inflated as a result of this is the number of problems the vaccine causes when people mistakenly don’t realize that the VAERS database doesn’t actually prove even a single report was caused by the vaccine, and says as much.
That is 100% true.
In fact, there almost certainly ARE legitimate vaccine injuries in that data. Probably quite a few of them.
But what we can't establish AT ALL based solely on this data is what percentage of these reports are wrong. Because NONE of them are verified. We can only guess.
All anyone can do with this data at this point is plug in numbers for X. u/zeitreise wants to plug in a very high number, because he believes it's a valid assumption. I believe a far lower number is probably more valid.
But we both have to drawn on outside sources to establish these percentages, because we CANNOT do it from the data provided by the databases.
So far, the only source I've gotten from Zeitreise that proves his assumption true is his assurance that he's Very Smart and knows Predictive Algorithms and the rest of us are too stupid to understand and that we should just trust that he knows data science well enough to assume the proof.
Yes, I agree there are potential side-effects. The empirical data so far that has tested the potential for these effects has estimated them to be very low.
I know you don't trust these studies or the people behind them, which means my evidence is useless to you. But you don't need my evidence if you have better evidence anyway that the vaccine injury rates are catastrophic.
But the VAERS data and this Pfizer report are mathematically incapable of providing you that evidence. The data here gives me absolutely no idea how bad the vaccine side effects actually are. I can't even determine WHAT the vaccine side-effects are, because I don't know which of these reports was actually caused by the vaccine.
Are you seeing the problem here? The data that many people here are using to prove vaccine injury can't actually tell you ANYTHING about vaccine injury.
Only the studies that actually go look at verified cases of vaccine injury in their specific contexts can offer that kind of data. And so far, I have seen very few studies even trying to make the claim that vaccine injuries are an unexpectedly serious problem, and of those, none that have even attempted to prove it.
So if you have such studies, I'm happy to look at them. But until then, I have to decide between using data that you don't like, or spitballing into the wind using unsupported mathematical assumptions.
And since I don't assume that literally every scientist on the planet studying this, from established giants in the field to lowly unknown grad students, is in on some conspiracy to hide "the real data", I will choose to stick with the data that I have.
When it stops accurately predicting reality, then we can talk.
But so far, I can't see any evidence that it has. Including observing that I, one of the earliest-vaccinated people in the country, one of the earliest-boosted people in the country, have suffered none of the theorized problems on none of the theorized timelines, nor have any of my coworkers. I have promised to let you know if that changes, but I made that promise a while ago and have not yet had to deliver.
Yes... there are a higher percentage of people who suffer vaccine injuries in the vaccinated population than in the unvaccinated population.
I'm... not sure why you stated that. But you did. So I guess we established that.
In other news, nobody who eats an entire pack of razor blades has ever died from cancer. Therefore, eating razor blades must prevent cancer.
Silly, right?
But you are making clear why this is confounding you. You believe that COVID is nothing, and therefore, the vaccine protects you from nothing. Which means side effects, even extremely rare ones, are not worth it.
Which means, of course, that this conversation will never go anywhere, because as long as you don't believe that the vaccine actually protects against a more significant threat, then there will never be a reason to take it.
And that's a conversation far outside of the purview of this.
IT doesn't excuse you for continually refusing to empirically prove the assertions that make up the foundation of your argument on the mathematical certainty that the vaccines are causing significant damage. But the context of the seriousness of COVID is always going to qualify what level of side effects are going to be considered acceptable.
But again, that goes nowhere, because you are someone who believes the mere existence of a data set in the mainstream media is enough justification to dismiss it completely as a fabrication. Which, honestly, isn't any better than the idiots you talk about who believe everything they see on television.
Lol, wtf do database keys have to do with this that you're so fixated on this? How does reference GUIDs, or database indexes have to do with any of the data the database actually contains? Database keys are nothing more than internal reference points between data objects within the database. Any sort of analysis of data held in a database wouldn't ever be affected by database keys.
This isn’t true.
You aren’t required to report anything to VAERS after a trial has completed. If you have a doctor that is part of a Phase IV clinical trial after a new drug is brought to market you have to report it. VAERS is 100% voluntary, hence the Harvard study that said reported events are likely only 10% of the events that actually occurred. 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.” They’re claiming the mechanism of action takes that long to get your immune system to where it needs to be.
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.
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. You can’t say the vaccine is totally fine if you don’t release the data for independent scholarly analysis.
Source: a parent who was part of fixing the shitshow that was the Merck MMR-II Outbreak from poor vaccine quality control with decades of experience with pharma trials and FDA reporting. Said parent has argued they’ve fought this disclosure in court because Pfizer “is technically released from liability” but the FDA is not when it comes to COVID vaccines.
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.
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.
Adverse events would be reported to a system like VAERS even if the vaccine was a placebo, by design.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Except they are not peer-reviewing without having some kind of ties to Pfizer and/or Moderna when it comes to analysis of vaccine safety and efficacy. Case in point: the BMJ actively calling on Facebook to stop limiting discussions about vaccine-related adverse events. One of the largest German insurance companies saying they’re now seeing 2.5 million to 3 million people being treated for vaccine related side effects.
While I am not allowed to disclose everything I know about certain things due to court order, I would urge you to examine what happened with Fen-Phen. The reason we need the original data is similar to how that lawsuit went down—the executives covered it up and colluded, and the only thing that brought the people with heart murmurs any kind of justice was an idiot executive who sent an email along the lines of, “Why should I care if fat people are getting heart issues and dying?” And then the shitshow of their clinical data was brought to light.
As a data scientist, I also disagree with you about the “weird events in a large population.” I would be THRILLED to get a massive dataset like what we should have on vaccinated individuals and potential adverse reactions. Is the quality of the self-reported data on VAERS ideal? Hell no. But you can do follow-ups to get a better picture of which points to include, which points to exclude, etc. A larger population is by far better than a smaller one; you can get closer to the ND (in theory), can match pairs, and do corrections in ways you cannot do with tiny sets. But we don’t get to do that because, apparently, the collaborative spirit of science, mathematics, and medicine, no longer exists.
Whoever told you “well, when you have too much data, it’s basically useless,” is incredibly misinformed.
Edit to add: I have never once asserted that the vaccine is a placebo by design. I’ve got a cousin who developed Bells Palsy after his booster and a SIL with a heart murmur after switching from J&J to Moderna to back me up on that.
Lol, so you're actually claiming the unprecedented amount of reports are potentially botched against the favor of a vaccine that has unprecedented protection against any form of skepticism at a significant ratio?
Man, of all your performances here this one is your worst by far.
The data in the report is verified and cross referenced for duplicates. The only time it is investigated is when an usual amount of reports surface for myocardia or deaths as a example.
It has not in the past or now flooded by garbage information.
Just the deaths have exceeded all vaccines for the past 30 years for Covid. That is a huge red flag. The CDC and the FDA have ignored and done zero investigations.
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.
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. Johns Hopkins states that we capture only about 10 to 20 percent of adverse events. It serves as canary in the cold mine.
The data base is especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of health problems (also called “adverse events”) that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine.
We have a huge amount of data on other vaccines and it is easy to predict in a sub group of people the number of deaths, heart attacks and other medical issues will occur from any vaccine.
The other and only accurate source is autopsies. Only about 25% of the population end up in a autopsy that is not requested by law enforcement. We have at 61 cases of direct lengths to the vaccine.
Enough to immediately remove the vaccine form the marketplace if anyone was listening. The entire effort is the cover used to make this part of the New World Government
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I could care less about politics. People are ignorant because of political leanings and not looking for truth.
VAERS has been around since 1990. It is serves only as a national early warning system to detect possible safety problems in U.S.-licensed vaccines. It is the preverbal canary in the coal mine.
There is several other database for all approves FDA drugs that is maintained and is not public accessible. In these databases we have adequate data that we can set parameters on when the alarm bell rings the FDA becomes aware. It acts like the check engine light on your car. It is a cost effective way to tract vaccine adverse reactions for possible issues without having to investigate every incident.
Our medical profession has failed us. Hospitals, Doctors and Hospital Administrators have instructed that no one file any incident reports. Most of the vaccinations given were at drive thru locations, work locations and by pharmacists. Most if not all of them never see the patient again. Most if not all do not even know the VAERS system.
CDC instructed everyone not to report an adverse reaction until after 14 days had elapsed after the injection. So if you were sitting in your local RX and collapsed after the shot it would not be recorded at all.
It takes about 40 minutes and under the threat of jail time and fines for false reports. The Johns Hopkins study was under reporting by that factor. Once the data is in the system it is checked to make sure it is not a duplicate. It is also checked for data accuracy.
If the system finds the number of reports for a particular adverse reaction exceeds a bench mark then the CDC and FDA investigate. (Canary Dies) Here is the issue that should scare the hell out of everyone. The FDA and CDC are not investigating any adverse reactions unless it shows up in media. They are more in practicing political science. They have 2 masters to please. About 60 per cent of their funding comes from the pharmaceutical industry itself. Another 30% comes from the US taxpayers and they make money on their own.
The makeup of the drug approval panel contains more than half of the people who worked for Pfizer at some point. It took over a decade for the FDA to warn about the new at that time narcotics like Vicodin, Oxycodone. It was not until the public was made aware of the 100,000 overdoses.
Throughout the pandemic all good science was jettisoned for political purposes.