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:
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:
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:
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.
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html
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.
Then I'm not... sure... we disagree...
VAERS is useful tool. It's a necessary part of the investigative system, and I absolutely want it doing exactly what it's doing and being used by researchers to keep an eye on any unusual trends. It's the first step.
It is impossible to establish any sort of argument that proves the vaccine caused even a single case of injury. You can't just slap down a spreadsheet of VAERS numbers and say that a smart person can look at that data and see that the vaccine is PROVEN to be a problem.
Which is something a lot of people here disagree with.
If you do not, then I apologize. I am managing multiple conversations tonight and may have made an unfounded assumption about your stance on this when performing the mental heuristics I sometimes need to multitask here. :)
100 percent agree, VAERS is not fact/truth, it is merely data that needs to be compared to against clinical safety trial data to find commonality. My only sticking point is the term vaccine injury, its not used in clinical trials. I do understand why people use the term, to highlight potential Adverse Events that are more extreme. I did enjoy the conversation ;-) Keep up the good work!
Oh, the vaccine injury term thing isn't a hill I was dying on. I try to use the terminology of the people I'm speaking with to avoid unnecessary communication problems.
I was just trying to illustrate that assuming an "adverse event" is due to a "vaccine injury" is like assuming something correctly called a UFO must therefore be a space alien. That's a very specific mistake that's being made here that I think contributes to a lot of the confusion regarding VAERS and what that data is actually representing.