Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)

[JCSR]

So if the VAERS numbers were inflated by 50%. 10,500 deaths are acceptable from an experimental vaccine?

 

[jsharmon7]

So if the VAERS numbers were inflated by 50%. 10,500 deaths are acceptable from an experimental vaccine?

What’s the criteria for deciding someone died as a result of the vaccine and reporting it to VAERS? Forget death, what’s the criteria for saying anything was the result of the vaccine and deciding to report it to VAERS?

 

[JCSR]

What’s the criteria for deciding someone died as a result of the vaccine and reporting it to VAERS?

The same criteria as someone saying they didn't.

 

[jsharmon7]

The same criteria as someone saying they didn't.

So we agree the VAERS data tells us nothing either way?

 

[JCSR]

So we agree the VAERS data tells us nothing either way?

No we do not. Like "died from Covid" or "died with Covid".

 

[jsharmon7]

No we do not. Like "died from Covid" or "died with Covid".

So you argue the criteria is the same, but you’ll only look at the conclusions to be drawn from the angle you choose? At least you’re honest about it, so I can’t argue that.

 

[phylodog]

At least the VAERS system only counts people who have actually had the vaccine. That makes it more trustworthy than the reported Covid death numbers.

 

[JCSR]

So you argue the criteria is the same, but you’ll only look at the conclusions to be drawn from the angle you choose? At least you’re honest about it, so I can’t argue that.

And you think 1 million people conspired to lie to make the vaccine looks bad. See I can Strawman as good as the next guy.

 

[jsharmon7]

And you think 1 million people conspired to lie to make the vaccine looks bad. See I can Strawman as good as the next guy.

Post #38. I specifically argued that was NOT the case. I think whether or not someone believes there was or was not a link between the vaccine and any adverse event is completely subjective.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

At least the VAERS system only counts people who have actually had the vaccine.

Anyone who's willing to pinky swear that what they say is true can enter whatever they like. https://vaers.hhs.gov/esub/index.jsp

 

[JCSR]

I don't doubt the data is inflated. I have never argued that. I question by how much. If 75% were false there's still over 5000 deaths. Is that acceptable for a experimental vaccine that doesn't work very well?

 

[jsharmon7]

I don't doubt the data is inflated. I have never argued that. I question by how much. If 75% were false there's still over 5000 deaths. Is that acceptable for a experimental vaccine that doesn't work very well?

The unknowable amount it’s inflated is the problem. If the decision point for whether something is reported is subjective and up to the individual to determine, then we don’t know how inflated it is. It could be that 1% of the reports are actually linked to the vaccine. Or 10%. Or 75%. My point is you’re trying to draw conclusions from bad data. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[AtTheMurph]

Guessing it has the same accuracy as the “died from covid” being reported by our “health professionals “.

The COVID death numbers have to be less reliable since there is a perverse financial incentive built into our health care system that rewards deaths coded as from or associated with COVID.

So from my days as a economics student< I can tell you with certainty that you get more of whatever you subsidize. And in this case the government subsidized COVID deaths.

There is no such perversion in the VAERS reporting system. That is done voluntarily with no financial benefit to the person doing the reports, whether a medical professional or the person involved.

There have also been studies done on VAERS that lead us to suspect that fewer than 5% of all adverse events are actually reported. Probably 3% or even less are reported. If that's accurate then the adverse events possibly associated with these "vaccines" are higher by a factor of 10 or even more. That's pretty scary when you see the government pushing kids to get multiple shotz with no long term safety testing having been completed and not with the one and only approved "vaccine" which is still not available in the USA.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't doubt the data is inflated. I have never argued that. I question by how much. If 75% were false there's still over 5000 deaths. Is that acceptable for a experimental vaccine that doesn't work very well?

Given the percentage is unknowable, I suppose it means whatever you want it to mean based on what value you've assigned it. Self-reporting is inherently flawed because it's heavily reporting what people believe or want you to believe. Anything from calories consumed to "are you a safe driver" to firearms used by criminals, the self-reporting has little to no correlation with more grounded stats, such as dietician's reports, insurance records, and property room receipts.

Given I have zero faith in any self-reporting, let alone on something remotely controversial, I don't see this as anything approaching data relevant enough for decision making purposes.

 

[JCSR]

The COVID death numbers have to be less reliable since there is a perverse financial incentive built into our health care system that rewards deaths coded as from or associated with COVID.

So from my days as a economics student< I can tell you with certainty that you get more of whatever you subsidize. And in this case the government subsidized COVID deaths.

There is no such perversion in the VAERS reporting system. That is done voluntarily with no financial benefit to the person doing the reports, whether a medical professional or the person involved.

There have also been studies done on VAERS that lead us to suspect that fewer than 5% of all adverse events are actually reported. Probably 3% or even less are reported. If that's accurate then the adverse events possibly associated with these "vaccines" are higher by a factor of 10 or even more. That's pretty scary when you see the government pushing kids to get multiple shotz with no long term safety testing having been completed and not with the one and only approved "vaccine" which is still not available in the USA.

You make a great point. If 1 million people took the time to report it gets my attention.

 

[AtTheMurph]

Given the percentage is unknowable, I suppose it means whatever you want it to mean based on what value you've assigned it. Self-reporting is inherently flawed because it's heavily reporting what people believe or want you to believe. Anything from calories consumed to "are you a safe driver" to firearms used by criminals, the self-reporting has little to no correlation with more grounded stats, such as dietician's reports, insurance records, and property room receipts.

Given I have zero faith in any self-reporting, let alone on something remotely controversial, I don't see this as anything approaching data relevant enough for decision making purposes.

The VAERS data is not controversial. It is simply the report of an adverse health event(s) after receiving a vaccine.

Whether or not those two events are correlated is the question.

Sort of like the data on COVID deaths where the average person who died "of" COVID had an average of 4 significant comorbidities. Does the COVID death number tell us anything more or less than the VAERS data? I don't know.

 

[Leadeye]

I was surprised to find out that FEMA is paying covid funeral expenses.

 

[JettaKnight]

I was surprised to find out that FEMA is paying covid funeral expenses.

Surprised? Not I. Disappointed, yes.

 

[AtTheMurph]

I was surprised to find out that FEMA is paying covid funeral expenses.

Hunter must hold some silent partner deals with funeral homes we didn't know about.

 

[Leadeye]

Surprised? Not I. Disappointed, yes.

Recently had a relative pass away from covid so a lot of this stuff has been circulating on the family grapevine. It made me wonder if this had any affect on reported covid death numbers.