491
Comments (209)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
5
Yohan_Galt 5 points ago +5 / -0

What you are saying is simply not true. Adverse events if severe enough constitute injury. I think you need to define 'vaccine injury' before you continue. There is no listing in a PI regarding 'injury'... they fall under Adverse Events (this includes Infections / Serious Adverse Events and Death)

All medications approved by the FDA have this information, and its robust, and long term. It's Trial Safety Data.

You are trying to say injury is different than Adverse Events, which is ridiculous.

This Adverse Events following these mRNA jabs is something we have never seen before, they are endless. And this isn't even long term Safety Data. VAERS only verifies this.

So I ask you, define vaccine injury in relation to Adverse Events.

0
ARandomOgre 0 points ago +3 / -3

I'm not suggesting an adverse reaction has to hit some threshold of severity to count.

A vaccine injury is ALWAYS an adverse event. But an adverse event is not necessarily a vaccine injury.

If I get a vaccine, and then two days later, I have a stomach ache, that is DEFINITIONALLY an adverse event. I can submit it to VAERS. Once it's there, you will think that proves that vaccines cause stomach aches.

In truth, I had the stomach ache because I drank a lot of alcohol and am hungover, and am too stupid to make the connection. I just reported it as a random stomach ache after I got the vaccine.

I did not commit fraud by misattributing my stomach ache. I did what VAERS wanted me to do.

The stomach ache is an adverse event.

The stomach ache is not a vaccine injury.

They are two different terms for a reason.

VAERS records adverse events. It does not record vaccine injuries. That can only be done by verifying adverse events as being caused by vaccine injuries, which VAERS does not do.

If the database is not verifying which reports are from the vaccine and which are not, then you can't use that data to make conclusions about how bad the vaccine is.

3
Yohan_Galt 3 points ago +3 / -0

VAERS is a reported system that monitors Adverse Events, to include Injury (if the Adverse Event is severe enough). They are not two different terms, you are making them two different terms. I asked you to define 'injury', and you did not, because injury is subjective. A severe stomach ache to someone could be considered injury, but in clinical trials the term is not used, because its subjective.

The real safety data come from clinical trials which uses placebo. Through short and long term safety data (compared against placebo) compared to VAERS data we can get a better understanding of the 'SAFETY' of a medication, short and long term.

1
dangerb407 1 point ago +1 / -0

Problem is Pfizer blew up the control arm by vaccinating them

-2
ARandomOgre -2 points ago +3 / -5

Okay, look. I'm going to give you made-up VAERS data. Let's say these five cases all happen a week after vaccination. Broken down, this is what VAERS would show:

  1. Death
  2. Paralysis
  3. Blue tongue
  4. Heart inflammation
  5. Death

These are adverse events. These five things actually happened after the vaccination. These things would be shown in VAERS.

At this point, the Q crowd is done. They conclude that the vaccine must have caused two cases of death, paralysis, heart inflammation, and a blue tongue, since these were listed as adverse events.

BUT THAT IS INCORRECT.

I, a medical researcher, am going to take that VAERS data, and I'm going to investigate the fuck out of every case. I come back with the following causes for the adverse events:

  1. Liver failure by alcoholism.
  2. Stroke related to vascular EDS.
  3. Ate a pixie stick and forgot.
  4. Lasted for three days, required one day of hospitalization, full recovery
  5. Aortic aneurysm.

Well, guess what? These are STILL adverse events! They still happened after the vaccination!

But we know they have nothing to do with the vaccine. They are NOT vaccine injuries.

Adverse events are correlation. Vaccine injuries are causation.

If you accept VAERS data as indicative of vaccine injury, you're making a correlation/causation logical fallacy, and VAERS itself will tell you this.

When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

2
Yohan_Galt 2 points ago +2 / -0

I to work in the medical field, and I agree, VAERS alone cannot be used to determine Adverese Events, it certainly has to be taken with a grain of salt. But it cannot be ignored, it has to be compared with clinical trial safety data (PLACEBO) to either confirm or rule out potential Adverese Events.

I have never stated VAERS is indicative of vaccine injury, it is indicative of potential Adverese events (80 percent reporting done by clinicians/nurses/doctors) which need to be followed an compared against ongoing safety trials of said medicines.

There is no such term 'Vaccine Injury' in clinical trials, you as a medical researcher should know this.

3
SassyLass 3 points ago +3 / -0

I concur. I worked in heart medication clinical drug trials and we had to report EVERY SINGLE symptom, no matter what. Your example if the stomach ache is perfect.

What you can do is start correlating in retrospect how many had a stomach ache, how soon after, what comirbidities were common, etc ...

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-2
ARandomOgre -2 points ago +3 / -5

Yep.

And such studies already exist. One compared the myocarditis rarely associated with vaccination with non-vaccine myocarditis found "in nature."

They found that while regular viral myocarditis is typically a big deal, myocarditis following vaccination is usually very mild. This makes sense: heart inflammation is a response to viral infection, and vaccines are very weak viruses, so it's a much weaker response.

So when they did the comparison, they found that the problems resolved more quickly and more quickly. Viral myocarditis is unpredictable and can require a heart transplant, but the sample studied with vaccine-related myocarditis were able to get through it quickly with only painkillers.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346

The problem isn't whether these correlations are being actively studied and established. It's whether or not people will trust that research enough to change their mind on taking a vaccine they're convinced will kill them.