Again, you're making an assumption based on evidence I don't believe you have.
Pfizer and Moderna does indeed list known issues.
That does NOT mean that every issue of this type in VAERS is legitimate. It doesn't even mean that 99% of the issues in VAERS are legitimate. I'm not suggesting that these are fraudulent reports. Just ones that were submitted (because VAERS wanted them) that are not actually vaccine injuries.
A study of 2.5 million vaccinated individuals found myocarditis in 54 of them.
Based on this study, I can extrapolate that there is around a .00216% chance of myocarditis arising from vaccination, and of those, 76% will be considered mild and make a full recovery quickly.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737
I know, I know, the communist scientists are lying and everything. And this is only one study. But the communist scientists are also the ones who that VAERS database is designed for, not you.
You are correct that there are real vaccine injuries. You are correct that with a large enough number of vaccines in a database, some of them will probably show vaccine injuries.
You are unable to demonstrate what percentage of those reports are legitimate using any empirical measure. You specifically said "you assume" that only 5% is worthless.
If you can show me mathematically how you arrive at a conclusion that 95% of VAERS reports are considered actual vaccine injuries based on the data it presents, you will have made your point.
But I want to see something more than, "Just trust me, I know data stuff and use AI." Because you aren't Q, and you don't get the benefit of the doubt from the audience here. :)
Again, you're making an assumption based on evidence I don't believe you have.
Pfizer and Moderna does indeed list known issues.
That does NOT mean that every issue of this type in VAERS is legitimate. It doesn't even mean that 99% of the issues in VAERS are legitimate.
A study of 2.5 million vaccinated individuals found myocarditis in 54 of them.
Based on this study, I can extrapolate that there is around a .00216% chance of myocarditis arising from vaccination, and of those, 76% will be considered mild and make a full recovery quickly.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737
I know, I know, the communist scientists are lying and everything. And this is only one study. But the communist scientists are also the ones who that VAERS database is designed for, not you.
You are correct that there are real vaccine injuries. You are correct that with a large enough number of vaccines in a database, some of them will probably show vaccine injuries.
You are unable to demonstrate what percentage of those reports are legitimate using any empirical measure. You specifically said "you assume" that only 5% is worthless.
If you can show me mathematically how you arrive at a conclusion that 95% of VAERS reports are considered actual vaccine injuries based on the data it presents, you will have made your point.
But I want to see something more than, "Just trust me, I know data stuff and use AI." Because you aren't Q, and you don't get the benefit of the doubt from the audience here. :)