Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)

[phylodog]

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

Oh yeah?!?! Well at least the government isn't paying money to incentivize lying about VAERS!!!


I don't believe any of it

 

[ChrisK]

We live in a capitalist society, no one should expect them to work for free. But a grain of salt should be taken with each vaccine.

I would never say they should work for free. The American TAXPAYERS paid for it though.

 

[JettaKnight]

I would never say they should work for free. The American TAXPAYERS paid for it though.

I have no qualms with that at all. I consider it too important to allow cost/benefit/risk calculations to factor into it. And I don't want someone to not get vaccinated just because they can't afford it (their potential hospital bill is orders of magnitude more). In fact, the govt would likely spend far more in medicare, lost taxes, etc. if they didn't find a vaccination program.

One purpose of a government is to deal with pandemics. Heck, I think the U.S. Is the largest single owner of chickens just so that they have the egg production ready to make vaccines ( mRNA might change that).

As someone that pays for health insurance (and taxes, and medicaid), I'm a bit miffed at having to indirectly pay for hospital bills for people that could have got vaccinated and potentially not have been hospitalized. But that's just a personal opinion.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Oh yeah?!?! Well at least the government isn't paying money to incentivize lying about VAERS!!!


I don't believe any of it

See, when you get paid to do something you love it ruins a perfectly good hobby.

My granddad used to say "he'd climb a tree to tell a lie when he could tell the truth on the ground" about a certain fellow who's stories were...often fanciful in nature.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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

It is the *unverified* entry of data by anyone who chooses to do so.

VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.....

A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.

If we're playing the percentages game, what percentage of the population is hypochondriacs vs how many reports are made?

The system is just a way to report and start an investigation, nothing to draw conclusions from.

 

[idkfa]

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 les than the VAERS data? I don't know.

Very well put.
VAERS is just a tool, and it comes with its limitations.

Some grandmasters (e.g., @jsharmon7, @BehindBlueI's) in this discussion stated different variations of the "garbage in garbage out" argument.
Essentially, "the data are dirty, so you cannot trust them."
That's true, but that is also irrelevant -- in my opinion.

Here are just some thoughts:

1. One should never trust anything but look at the limitations, conduct analyses, and draw conclusions with varying degrees of confidence.
2. One should always assume malfeasance.
3. Dirty data can be cleaned up.
   It's an effort, but it can be done e.g. as a pilot and expanded as needed.
4. Dirty data can be analyzed "as is" to identify the presence or absence of trends.
   • Distribution of reporting dates
   • Distribution of patients' age
   • Number and severity of symptoms by date
   • Dosage trends
   • Internal consistency: how do the 2021 data compare to other years
5. Fraudulent reporting can be detected with relative ease precisely due to the point above.
   E.g., look at what happened with the 2020 election.
   Statistics is a ruthless b*tch.
6. Finally, and probably most importantly, the real question we have in front of us is this:
   Were there at least 30 deaths from these vaccines? (based on, e.g., Swine flu vaccine)
   In other words, given that there are about 10,000 deaths reported in VAERS in the US alone, how likely is it that not even 0.3% of those are real?

 

[idkfa]

The system is just a way to report and start an investigation, nothing to draw conclusions from.

Depends on the size of the data. The data tell the stories -- including those about themselves -- very well, especially if the dataset is large.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It is the *unverified* entry of data by anyone who chooses to do so.



If we're playing the percentages game, what percentage of the population is hypochondriacs vs how many reports are made?

The system is just a way to report and start an investigation, nothing to draw conclusions from.

From what I can tell, VAERS is basically reddit.

 

[tim87tr]

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.

Please , please no use of cognitive thinking abilities or common sense at the start of this New Year as we're still in Mass Formation Psychosis mode for two entire years!

Excellent insight. I posted about under-reporting factor and next then you know that the VAERS data is alleged skewed. Like has been posted is half those deaths ok then?

 

[wtburnette]

I wouldn't worry so much about side effects, both short and long term, if Pfizer hadn't pushed for the results of it's drug study to be unavailable to the public for 75 years. That move, by itself, worries me more than a lot of other information/speculation about the vaccine.

 

[ChrisK]

I wouldn't worry so much about side effects, both short and long term, if Pfizer hadn't pushed for the results of it's drug study to be unavailable to the public for 75 years. That move, by itself, worries me more than a lot of other information/speculation about the vaccine.

A federal judge has ordered all documents pertaining to the vaccine be released no later than this year. Pfizer is not very happy about it.

 

[ChrisK]

The co-creator of the MRNA vaccine is saying “please do not take this”. The technology is not ready for use and the chance of damage is very high.

 

[wtburnette]

A federal judge has ordered all documents pertaining to the vaccine be released no later than this year. Pfizer is not very happy about it.

Glad to hear it. I'm guessing it'll make for some interesting reading.

 

[Ingomike]

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

Apparently before the politicization of wuwho flu it worrked as intended and my understanding is they pulled many drugs for far less than what we have now. Hypocrisy on their part…

 

[Ingomike]

The unknowable amount it’s inflated is the problem.

Why wasn’t it a problem before now?

 

[JCSR]

Apparently before the politicization of wuwho flu it worrked as intended and my understanding is they pulled many drugs for far less than what we have now. Hypocrisy on their part…

Hypocrisy or murder for profit. History will tell.

 

[jsharmon7]

Apparently before the politicization of wuwho flu it worrked as intended and my understanding is they pulled many drugs for far less than what we have now. Hypocrisy on their part…

Politicization has been a problem. Stimulated reporting has been a problem. People just screwing with the system could be a problem. Someone upthread mentioned “cleaning up the data.” If that were possible, it might help the situation. I actually went to the database and looked through a breakdown of claims made against the Covid vaccines. Things like penile abscess, loss of employment, imprisonment, abortion, etc. all were mentioned. That stuff seems unlikely. But, is it even possible to narrow down what kinds of adverse events are reasonable to expect and which ones aren’t? If so, can we then compare the rates they’re reported vs. the expected rates in the general population? In other words, if Bell’s Palsy is reported as an adverse reaction in 4 out of 100,000 cases, does that coincide with the rate per 100,000 we would normally expect to see? It’s a deep rabbit hole, which is exactly why I don’t put a lot of stock in it. It’s certainly possible (likely?) there are adverse reactions, I just don’t think this system can accurately identify them with all the “noise” that’s included. It ultimately comes down to what one thinks is the most logical.

As to why it wasn’t a problem before now, I think it’s the sheer numbers. VAERS averaged 30,000 or so reports a year prior to this vaccine. The average person had never heard of VAERS until the last year or so. Is it unreasonable to think many of the 30,000 reports they normally receive are mostly from healthcare professionals and pharmaceutical companies?

 

[BAgun]

I work in the medical profession. I've tested thousands for Covid and I'm sick of it. I can tell you there's a virus that's circulating. I'm not vaccinated and I did catch one of the variants and I'm alive, didn't feel much other than tired. In my circle, the people who were vaccinated, caught it and were worse off. I'm not sure if there's a correlation there or not but it's interesting. Hospitals are overwhelmed with scared people who should just drink fluids and stay home like they would for any flu or cold.

 

[Ruger_Ronin]

I work in the medical profession. I've tested thousands for Covid and I'm sick of it. I can tell you there's a virus that's circulating. I'm not vaccinated and I did catch one of the variants and I'm alive, didn't feel much other than tired. In my circle, the people who were vaccinated, caught it and were worse off. I'm not sure if there's a correlation there or not but it's interesting. Hospitals are overwhelmed with scared people who should just drink fluids and stay home like they would for any flu or cold.

So you mean to tell me the copious amounts of **** we are fed is inaccurate and that people are panicking, not because of hard data, but someone told them too?

The cake is a lie.

 

[Rosenbah]

Very well put.
VAERS is just a tool, and it comes with its limitations.

Some grandmasters (e.g., @jsharmon7, @BehindBlueI's) in this discussion stated different variations of the "garbage in garbage out" argument.
Essentially, "the data are dirty, so you cannot trust them."
That's true, but that is also irrelevant -- in my opinion.

Here are just some thoughts:

1. One should never trust anything but look at the limitations, conduct analyses, and draw conclusions with varying degrees of confidence.
2. One should always assume malfeasance.
3. Dirty data can be cleaned up.
   It's an effort, but it can be done e.g. as a pilot and expanded as needed.
4. Dirty data can be analyzed "as is" to identify the presence or absence of trends.
   • Distribution of reporting dates
   • Distribution of patients' age
   • Number and severity of symptoms by date
   • Dosage trends
   • Internal consistency: how do the 2021 data compare to other years
5. Fraudulent reporting can be detected with relative ease precisely due to the point above.
   E.g., look at what happened with the 2020 election.
   Statistics is a ruthless b*tch.
6. Finally, and probably most importantly, the real question we have in front of us is this:
   Were there at least 30 deaths from these vaccines? (based on, e.g., Swine flu vaccine)
   In other words, given that there are about 10,000 deaths reported in VAERS in the US alone, how likely is it that not even 0.3% of those are real?

idkfa,

Thanks for putting thought into your post. VARES is certainly not accurate, clean data. It can be used to identify trends and SHOULD be used to trigger deeper investigation by the three letter alphabet soup government organizations (NIH. CDC, FDA...).

Point #6 is excellent. The Swine Flu vaccination resulted in less than 100 deaths which resulted in the vaccination being pulled from the market. How can the number of deaths from the COVID vaccinations be less than that?

To me it seems that it's not too great of an effort for the government to verify a small, say 100, fatalities to help guide policy. They have the tools and alternative data sources and tools to do #3-#5 above. Why don't they do this?