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:
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 can't convince them they completely misunderstand VAERS and I'm one of them. They aren't going to listen to an outsider, and that's assuming they are even arguing in good faith. Half the people you're talking to are probably shills.
They don’t really have to. Reality will either begin to reflect in an empirical, observational, and predictable way that they are correct, or it will not. I wouldn’t be here if I was uncomfortable waiting.
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?
I would call that a false equivalency, friend. For if there was a legitimate phenomenon of Q related violence, or even Trump supporter related violence, then I would not be here and I'd still be a passive, mainstream media believing, self righteous liberal.
In fact, it was my very observation that near everything bad that was being reported about Trump and Trump supporters, did not line up with anything I was seeing in reality (nor anything i was able to verifiably prove was being reported) that first caused me to question my leftist beliefs 2 years ago.
Secondly I'd like to zoom in on one of your last comments: "It's a tip line for me to investigate, nothing more. Nothing's verified." For me, and most of us on here, the fact that this "tip line", is being ignored and the people who are supposedly supposed to do this job are constantly being called out for deliberately being dishonest, purposefully obfuscating any real investigation, and insisting anyone who questions their motives is a "conspiracy nut".
To many of us, this is the equivalent of having someone hiding something behind their back after reaching into our wallets, and then getting angry at US for accusing them of being a thief.
The only way to regain the trust of the people is through complete transparency and full accountability for those who abuse the trust of the public for financial gain.
And until this actually occurs in all the areas needed, this glaring VAERS list will only appear to be more "on the nose", evidence of corrupt people in power who know they aren't tied to a system of accountability, and so they see no reason to care about our concerns.
I'm not seriously suggesting this notion as a truth. I'm trying to contextualize the strategy you're using to reach your conclusion when the conclusion is something less appealing to you. And we collect data specifically because "I can just tell by looking" is shown to be a remarkably poor measure of validity in most studies.
See, I disagree completely that the tip line is being ignored. The tip line is being monitored and heavily utilized in studies on a daily basis. It's the first step in a large number of studies.
Check it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=vaers
That's over 1,500 studies just with VAERS in the title of the paper. These are papers specifically analyzing something in VAERS or VAERS itself. That doesn't include the countless other studies of even greater proportions that utilize VAERS data in their actual analyses.
The problem is that DESPITE this heavy analysis, nobody seems as alarmed by what they're seeing as you think they should.
This is because the data is not really alarming. All the scary things in VAERS are symptoms reported following a vaccine, and actual VAERS analysis shows that almost everything that is investigated shows no evidence of vaccine problems, especially not serious ones.
I suppose it's possible that every single study is a well-funded fabrication by bribed Cabal scientists and that solid proof of the vaccine's danger from honest skeptical scientists is somehow being drowned out or suppressed so completely that there are no leaks, anywhere, even from random grad students.
But I have no reason to suspect that very unlikely reality of being true.
I think the same thing about most Q stuff. I look around and think, "How would the world look any different if Q was a prank by some dude in his basement?"
And I honestly can't think of anything that would look different.
Trump would be doing exactly what he's currently doing, which is political stuff and trying to take credit for the vaccine because it was actually a success that he's proud of.
Biden would be floundering because he was nobody's first choice and was just someone no liberal hated, but everyone is interested in replacing with someone better. And everyone really hopes it's not Harris because nobody is really into her.
Putin would be emboldened after years of relative friendship with Trump to push Biden, make him look weak, and bully the rest of the world by neutralizing Ukraine, which threatens Russia's border if they join NATO, which was always a goal of Ukraine.
There would be multiple attempts and multiple expensive failures to prove Trump right about election fraud.
All of this seems pretty expected without Q. All of this seems in character. Nothing about Trump's stance on Ukraine or Russia or the vaccines or how he's handled his post-Presidency is confusing without Q.
I understand there are a lot of explanations about habbenings, but if I'm to do what you did and ask myself how the world is different should Q just be a persuasive nobody who took advantage of confirmation bias for fun, what exactly should I be struggling to explain? What major deviation from a normal Biden victory should I be wrestling with here in this reality?