Topic: [WO/Hat-Gang Only - MODERATED] The fucking COVID vax thread (No hat? Fuck off!) - page 5. (Read 7327 times)

I don't know, I don't want to get too conspiratorial either, but the other day I saw Rand Paul talking about the same thing: that the statistics had been inflated by including as Covid cases and Covid deaths completely asymptomatic people who had been admitted to hospitals, etc. for other causes.

It clearly says "VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness".
...
No, it doesn't say that the data "may or may not be valid" (for determining the number of adverse events caused by vaccines). It clearly says that the data is not valid for that purpose - "cannot be used", doesn't get any more definitive than that.

"VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events...  This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.”

"Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public."

But yet had zero effect of slowing the spread of Covid during the same period. Quite odd.

It's almost as if distancing and masks may slow the spread of some infections.

I guess we will never know, because the tracking of that other thing suspiciously dropped off the charts.

This means that if COVID-19 numbers were inflated, these people still died of something that they wouldn't have died of otherwise... so is there another pandemic that we don't know about?

I don't know, I don't want to get too conspiratorial either, but the other day I saw Rand Paul talking about the same thing: that the statistics had been inflated by including as Covid cases and Covid deaths completely asymptomatic people who had been admitted to hospitals, etc. for other causes.

How conveeeeeenient for them that they didn't do that before?

No, it doesn't say that the data "may or may not be valid" (for determining the number of adverse events caused by vaccines). It clearly says that the data is not valid for that purpose - "cannot be used", doesn't get any more definitive than that.

Someone who was admitted to a hospital without any symptoms of coronavirus and for another cause, with a positive pcr result counted as another admission due to coronavirus, and they are going to start separating that from now on, two years later.

How does that unsubstantiate the claim, I don't see any numbers of deaths in that statement?

The entire thing is one big CYA essentially saying the data may or may not be valid. If anything, that statement confirms his claim that the data contained in VAERS is underreported.

The disclaimer means that VAERS data does not substantiate your "18000+ recorded deaths" statement. Referring to VAERS as the source of such claim is a blatant lie.

That disclaimer doesn't mean shit. Nice try at gaslighting though.

Another debunked nonsense. VAERS data comes with the following disclaimer, which conspiratards completely ignore because it doesn't fit the doomsday narrative:

Keep in mind that with 2.7M+ ADRs and 18,000 recorded deaths (~1% of underreported deaths in VAERS) in a year

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to the system. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can quickly provide an early warning of a safety problem with a vaccine. As part of CDC and FDA’s multi-system approach to post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as “safety signals.” If a safety signal is found in VAERS, further studies can be done in safety systems such as the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) or the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project. These systems do not have the same scientific limitations as VAERS, and can better assess health risks and possible connections between adverse events and a vaccine.

Key considerations and limitations of VAERS data:

 - Vaccine providers are encouraged to report any clinically significant health problem following vaccination to VAERS, whether or not they believe the vaccine was the cause.
 - Reports may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.
 - The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.
 - VAERS data is limited to vaccine adverse event reports received between 1990 and the most recent date for which data are available.
 - VAERS data do not represent all known safety information for a vaccine and should be interpreted in the context of other scientific information.

VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public.

But it's kind of sad to some of us, that you folks that thought so little of the ability of your own innate immune system to handle things, that you rushed out to get an experimental, risky vaccine shot (perhaps multiple times) with an absolutely horrible track record.

For me it's a ballance of risk. My age I smoke(green) and don't like the prospect of suffocating

I can only go on my own experience.

Can't be bothered to squabble with anyone,especially here.
It's every man for himself as I see it


Like I said I'm pro choice 😎

For the record I had 2×Oxford 1× moderna booster

But whatevs, it's your life. Just don't support mandates, it's tyranny.

Like you said, every person to themselves.

But it's kind of sad to some of us, that you folks that thought so little of the ability of your own innate immune system to handle things, that you rushed out to get an experimental, risky vaccine shot (perhaps multiple times) with an absolutely horrible track record.

Just because you survived or didn't feel any after effects, does not even mean that it was even effective, in any way. The irony is that you'll probably catch Covid at some point regardless, even with all the shots and/or boosters.