The Covid Vaccine Injured Suffer Silently - Ignored By The Government and Big Pharma

originally posted by: whyamIhere
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Admit it,

You are getting paid to spout your nonsense.

At this point not even you should deny the obvious.

This vaccine is junk at best, killing people at worst.

Absolutely a shill.

originally posted by: Narvasis
www.abovetopsecret.com...a reply to: AaarghZombies

Don’t know how YOU missed this with it having 105 flags. However, it doesn’t fit your narrative, so perhaps you just ignored it like your ilk loves to do.

Every single shill ignored that thread.

I'm sure this will get me lots of fans on this thread but I actually think that anyone that uses VAERS as source should also fall into the shill category. They just happen to be a shilling for their belief vs the traditional GovtMSM scenario.

Taken from the CDC site on VAERS it should be clear to anyone that , at best , it's more of an early alarm or alert system to possible trends that are forming in vaccine use and is not in anyway a valid scientific statement or conclusion. At worst it is a way for incorrect or unsubstantiated claims to get communicated as truth.

VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of possible health problems—also called “adverse events”—after vaccination. As an early warning system, VAERS cannot prove that a vaccine caused a problem. Specifically, a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event. But VAERS can give CDC and FDA important information. If it looks as though a vaccine might be causing a problem, FDA and CDC will investigate further and take action if needed.

Anyone can submit a report to VAERS — healthcare professionals, vaccine manufacturers, and the general public. VAERS welcomes all reports, regardless of seriousness, and regardless of how likely the vaccine may have been to have caused the adverse event."

www.cdc.gov...

This article , taken from a different source, also talks about how VAERS is really not a valid a source for clinical data but rather a starting point for research.

"It’s designed so that anyone — parents, patients and health care professionals — can freely report any health effects that occur after a vaccination, according to the CDC, whether or not those effects are believed to be caused by the vaccine. The reports are not verified before they’re entered into the database. But anyone with a computer can search the data, download it, sort through the numbers and interpret them as they wish."

www.politifact.com...

originally posted by: opethPA
I'm sure this will get me lots of fans on this thread but I actually think that anyone that uses VAERS as source should also fall into the shill category. They just happen to be a shilling for their belief vs the traditional GovtMSM scenario.

Taken from the CDC site on VAERS it should be clear to anyone that , at best , it's more of an early alarm or alert system to possible trends that are forming in vaccine use and is not in anyway a valid scientific statement or conclusion. At worst it is a way for incorrect or unsubstantiated claims to get communicated as truth.

VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of possible health problems—also called “adverse events”—after vaccination. As an early warning system, VAERS cannot prove that a vaccine caused a problem. Specifically, a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event. But VAERS can give CDC and FDA important information. If it looks as though a vaccine might be causing a problem, FDA and CDC will investigate further and take action if needed.

Anyone can submit a report to VAERS — healthcare professionals, vaccine manufacturers, and the general public. VAERS welcomes all reports, regardless of seriousness, and regardless of how likely the vaccine may have been to have caused the adverse event."

www.cdc.gov...

This article , taken from a different source, also talks about how VAERS is really not a valid a source for clinical data but rather a starting point for research.

"It’s designed so that anyone — parents, patients and health care professionals — can freely report any health effects that occur after a vaccination, according to the CDC, whether or not those effects are believed to be caused by the vaccine. The reports are not verified before they’re entered into the database. But anyone with a computer can search the data, download it, sort through the numbers and interpret them as they wish."

www.politifact.com...

Politifact is big pharma funded and not legit. And you linked to the cdc which has been captured by big pharma. Every study don't on vaers shows its underreported by a huge factor. Trying to pretend like there are 2 million fake reports is a joke because you'd need to spend a half hour to an hour on each one, know doctors specific NPI numbers as well as vaccine batch numbers and the knowledge to describe each incident with a story and proper medical ICD related codes. It's a F# joke to pretend it's fake.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: opethPA
I'm sure this will get me lots of fans on this thread but I actually think that anyone that uses VAERS as source should also fall into the shill category. They just happen to be a shilling for their belief vs the traditional GovtMSM scenario.

Taken from the CDC site on VAERS it should be clear to anyone that , at best , it's more of an early alarm or alert system to possible trends that are forming in vaccine use and is not in anyway a valid scientific statement or conclusion. At worst it is a way for incorrect or unsubstantiated claims to get communicated as truth.

VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of possible health problems—also called “adverse events”—after vaccination. As an early warning system, VAERS cannot prove that a vaccine caused a problem. Specifically, a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event. But VAERS can give CDC and FDA important information. If it looks as though a vaccine might be causing a problem, FDA and CDC will investigate further and take action if needed.

Anyone can submit a report to VAERS — healthcare professionals, vaccine manufacturers, and the general public. VAERS welcomes all reports, regardless of seriousness, and regardless of how likely the vaccine may have been to have caused the adverse event."

www.cdc.gov...

This article , taken from a different source, also talks about how VAERS is really not a valid a source for clinical data but rather a starting point for research.

"It’s designed so that anyone — parents, patients and health care professionals — can freely report any health effects that occur after a vaccination, according to the CDC, whether or not those effects are believed to be caused by the vaccine. The reports are not verified before they’re entered into the database. But anyone with a computer can search the data, download it, sort through the numbers and interpret them as they wish."

www.politifact.com...

Politifact is big pharma funded and not legit. And you linked to the cdc which has been captured by big pharma. Every study don't on vaers shows its underreported by a huge factor. Trying to pretend like there are 2 million fake reports is a joke because you'd need to spend a half hour to an hour on each one, know doctors specific NPI numbers as well as vaccine batch numbers and the knowledge to describe each incident with a story and proper medical ICD related codes. It's a F# joke to pretend it's fake.

So don't use the CDC disclaimer on what VAERS is or isn't even though they essentially formed it.
Don't use Politifact because its a big pharma site.

What about all of the thousands of other articles talking about how VAERS isn't a valid source of true data but rather an early warning for possible patterns?

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: opethPA
I'm sure this will get me lots of fans on this thread but I actually think that anyone that uses VAERS as source should also fall into the shill category. They just happen to be a shilling for their belief vs the traditional GovtMSM scenario.

Taken from the CDC site on VAERS it should be clear to anyone that , at best , it's more of an early alarm or alert system to possible trends that are forming in vaccine use and is not in anyway a valid scientific statement or conclusion. At worst it is a way for incorrect or unsubstantiated claims to get communicated as truth.

VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of possible health problems—also called “adverse events”—after vaccination. As an early warning system, VAERS cannot prove that a vaccine caused a problem. Specifically, a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event. But VAERS can give CDC and FDA important information. If it looks as though a vaccine might be causing a problem, FDA and CDC will investigate further and take action if needed.

Anyone can submit a report to VAERS — healthcare professionals, vaccine manufacturers, and the general public. VAERS welcomes all reports, regardless of seriousness, and regardless of how likely the vaccine may have been to have caused the adverse event."

www.cdc.gov...

This article , taken from a different source, also talks about how VAERS is really not a valid a source for clinical data but rather a starting point for research.

"It’s designed so that anyone — parents, patients and health care professionals — can freely report any health effects that occur after a vaccination, according to the CDC, whether or not those effects are believed to be caused by the vaccine. The reports are not verified before they’re entered into the database. But anyone with a computer can search the data, download it, sort through the numbers and interpret them as they wish."

www.politifact.com...

Politifact is big pharma funded and not legit. And you linked to the cdc which has been captured by big pharma. Every study don't on vaers shows its underreported by a huge factor. Trying to pretend like there are 2 million fake reports is a joke because you'd need to spend a half hour to an hour on each one, know doctors specific NPI numbers as well as vaccine batch numbers and the knowledge to describe each incident with a story and proper medical ICD related codes. It's a F# joke to pretend it's fake.

So don't use the CDC disclaimer on what VAERS is or isn't even though they essentially formed it.
Don't use Politifact because its a big pharma site.

What about all of the thousands of other articles talking about how VAERS isn't a valid source of true data but rather an early warning for possible patterns?

What articles? Everything is a mainstream media echo chamber bought off by big pharma minus a few sites like substack and a few podcasts. Every single person and newsource says the vaccine is the most amazing thing in the world and you should get 100 boosters and there are zero vaccine injured people.

What exactly are you doing on this site if you expect it to be the same echochamber?

a reply to: opethPA

what medium would be best to find the factual truth?

Perhaps the folks with some skin in the game?
www.wfyi.org...

“The data is consistent across every player in the business.”

Davison said death rates among working age people – those 18 to 64-years-old – are up 40 percent in the third and fourth quarter of 2021 over pre-pandemic levels.

“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three sigma or 200-year catastrophe would be a 10 percent increase over pre-pandemic levels,” Davison said. “So, 40 percent is just unheard of.”

And then remember that fun fact from the other thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
61,885 people under 50 died "WITH" perhaps not even "FROM" Covid 19.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: opethPA
I'm sure this will get me lots of fans on this thread but I actually think that anyone that uses VAERS as source should also fall into the shill category. They just happen to be a shilling for their belief vs the traditional GovtMSM scenario.

Taken from the CDC site on VAERS it should be clear to anyone that , at best , it's more of an early alarm or alert system to possible trends that are forming in vaccine use and is not in anyway a valid scientific statement or conclusion. At worst it is a way for incorrect or unsubstantiated claims to get communicated as truth.

VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of possible health problems—also called “adverse events”—after vaccination. As an early warning system, VAERS cannot prove that a vaccine caused a problem. Specifically, a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event. But VAERS can give CDC and FDA important information. If it looks as though a vaccine might be causing a problem, FDA and CDC will investigate further and take action if needed.

Anyone can submit a report to VAERS — healthcare professionals, vaccine manufacturers, and the general public. VAERS welcomes all reports, regardless of seriousness, and regardless of how likely the vaccine may have been to have caused the adverse event."

www.cdc.gov...

This article , taken from a different source, also talks about how VAERS is really not a valid a source for clinical data but rather a starting point for research.

"It’s designed so that anyone — parents, patients and health care professionals — can freely report any health effects that occur after a vaccination, according to the CDC, whether or not those effects are believed to be caused by the vaccine. The reports are not verified before they’re entered into the database. But anyone with a computer can search the data, download it, sort through the numbers and interpret them as they wish."

www.politifact.com...

Politifact is big pharma funded and not legit. And you linked to the cdc which has been captured by big pharma. Every study don't on vaers shows its underreported by a huge factor. Trying to pretend like there are 2 million fake reports is a joke because you'd need to spend a half hour to an hour on each one, know doctors specific NPI numbers as well as vaccine batch numbers and the knowledge to describe each incident with a story and proper medical ICD related codes. It's a F# joke to pretend it's fake.

So don't use the CDC disclaimer on what VAERS is or isn't even though they essentially formed it.
Don't use Politifact because its a big pharma site.

What about all of the thousands of other articles talking about how VAERS isn't a valid source of true data but rather an early warning for possible patterns?

What articles? Everything is a mainstream media echo chamber bought off by big pharma minus a few sites like substack and a few podcasts. Every single person and newsource says the vaccine is the most amazing thing in the world and you should get 100 boosters and there are zero vaccine injured people.

What exactly are you doing on this site if you expect it to be the same echochamber?

Have I said any of that though, nope what I said is by their own definition VAERS is not a scientifically controlled or regulated source of factual data. That's it.

Is your argument that VAERS is?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: opethPA

what medium would be best to find the factual truth?

Perhaps the folks with some skin in the game?
www.wfyi.org...

“The data is consistent across every player in the business.”

Davison said death rates among working age people – those 18 to 64-years-old – are up 40 percent in the third and fourth quarter of 2021 over pre-pandemic levels.

“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three sigma or 200-year catastrophe would be a 10 percent increase over pre-pandemic levels,” Davison said. “So, 40 percent is just unheard of.”

And then remember that fun fact from the other thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
61,885 people under 50 died "WITH" perhaps not even "FROM" Covid 19.

I'm making the statement that VAERS in and of itself is not a valid source of factual data. Literally the VAERS site essentially makes that statement on the site, "VAERS data alone cannot determine if the vaccine caused the reported adverse event."

www.cdc.gov...

Knowing that I have used VAERS at the start to point me in a direction then I got corroborating info from other sites which is what you are effectively doing also.

a reply to: opethPA

If this is to be discussed rationally, we do need to find a source for the facts that we all agree on. My point was the insurance guys who prefer to make money, not pay it out, have skin in the game, and are saying something strange is happening. So far, nobody is saying what that is, just that it's there. Which seems to be the best way to approach this. What source of data would you approve of for this topic?

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: opethPA
I'm sure this will get me lots of fans on this thread but I actually think that anyone that uses VAERS as source should also fall into the shill category. They just happen to be a shilling for their belief vs the traditional GovtMSM scenario.

Taken from the CDC site on VAERS it should be clear to anyone that , at best , it's more of an early alarm or alert system to possible trends that are forming in vaccine use and is not in anyway a valid scientific statement or conclusion. At worst it is a way for incorrect or unsubstantiated claims to get communicated as truth.

VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of possible health problems—also called “adverse events”—after vaccination. As an early warning system, VAERS cannot prove that a vaccine caused a problem. Specifically, a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event. But VAERS can give CDC and FDA important information. If it looks as though a vaccine might be causing a problem, FDA and CDC will investigate further and take action if needed.

Anyone can submit a report to VAERS — healthcare professionals, vaccine manufacturers, and the general public. VAERS welcomes all reports, regardless of seriousness, and regardless of how likely the vaccine may have been to have caused the adverse event."

www.cdc.gov...

This article , taken from a different source, also talks about how VAERS is really not a valid a source for clinical data but rather a starting point for research.

"It’s designed so that anyone — parents, patients and health care professionals — can freely report any health effects that occur after a vaccination, according to the CDC, whether or not those effects are believed to be caused by the vaccine. The reports are not verified before they’re entered into the database. But anyone with a computer can search the data, download it, sort through the numbers and interpret them as they wish."

www.politifact.com...

Politifact is big pharma funded and not legit. And you linked to the cdc which has been captured by big pharma. Every study don't on vaers shows its underreported by a huge factor. Trying to pretend like there are 2 million fake reports is a joke because you'd need to spend a half hour to an hour on each one, know doctors specific NPI numbers as well as vaccine batch numbers and the knowledge to describe each incident with a story and proper medical ICD related codes. It's a F# joke to pretend it's fake.

So don't use the CDC disclaimer on what VAERS is or isn't even though they essentially formed it.
Don't use Politifact because its a big pharma site.

What about all of the thousands of other articles talking about how VAERS isn't a valid source of true data but rather an early warning for possible patterns?

What articles? Everything is a mainstream media echo chamber bought off by big pharma minus a few sites like substack and a few podcasts. Every single person and newsource says the vaccine is the most amazing thing in the world and you should get 100 boosters and there are zero vaccine injured people.

What exactly are you doing on this site if you expect it to be the same echochamber?

Have I said any of that though, nope what I said is by their own definition VAERS is not a scientifically controlled or regulated source of factual data. That's it.

Is your argument that VAERS is?

I don't have to provide you with an argument for anything. There are mountains of evidence that show the vaccine is killing and injuring millions. I have created numerous threads, whistle blowers are emerging left and right, and I have seen the effects with my own eyes. Whether or not some source is up to your standards doesn't matter to me. The reason VAERs isn't a perfect source is because the government doesn't want it to be, this way they can discredit it. What is a perfect source is the DMED which shows the exact same thing as VAERs.

So your saying that your government commited fraud to establish a legislative conduit to administer an unapproved therapy and are now hiding behind the indemnity enacted by that same fraudulent activity.

Seems like there is some dirty deeds being done.

Surely there is some recourse to redress this nefarious indignity?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: opethPA

If this is to be discussed rationally, we do need to find a source for the facts that we all agree on. My point was the insurance guys who prefer to make money, not pay it out, have skin in the game, and are saying something strange is happening. So far, nobody is saying what that is, just that it's there. Which seems to be the best way to approach this. What source of data would you approve of for this topic?

I actually aim for multiple sources of data that backup a similar statement without just repeating what another source says.

It's the same reason why I try to never just use CNN or TheGatewayPundit a sole source for anything. Both definitely have a spin to them and that doesn't mean you can't find facts on either just that relying on one house of cards isn't the best way for me to prove a point.

IMO what VARES shows is that there is enough of a pattern that something could be going on and as such valid research should be done to prove or dispeove what that something might be. That isn't the same as saying "I see it on VAERS so it must be true"

originally posted by: Dalamax
So your saying that your government commited fraud to establish a legislative conduit to administer an unapproved therapy and are now hiding behind the indemnity enacted by that same fraudulent activity.

Seems like there is some dirty deeds being done.

Surely there is some recourse to redress this nefarious indignity?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

You tell me.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

It has nothing to do with if a source is up to my standards.

By it's own creation , documentation , information and usage VAERS is not a valid scientific source of data .

Notice I haven't said that vaccines are great just that VAERS is not a fully accurate source of data and as such its not the only source that should be used

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: opethPA

If this is to be discussed rationally, we do need to find a source for the facts that we all agree on. My point was the insurance guys who prefer to make money, not pay it out, have skin in the game, and are saying something strange is happening. So far, nobody is saying what that is, just that it's there. Which seems to be the best way to approach this. What source of data would you approve of for this topic?

I actually aim for multiple sources of data that backup a similar statement without just repeating what another source says.

It's the same reason why I try to never just use CNN or TheGatewayPundit a sole source for anything. Both definitely have a spin to them and that doesn't mean you can't find facts on either just that relying on one house of cards isn't the best way for me to prove a point.

IMO what VARES shows is that there is enough of a pattern that something could be going on and as such valid research should be done to prove or dispeove what that something might be. That isn't the same as saying "I see it on VAERS so it must be true"

You managed to take the thread off topic. It's not about VAERs, and I stated that it shows a signal, and did not state every single report was correct.

Are you trying to ignore the vaccine injured or just saying they don't exist?

Where are your sources for your claims.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Mustn’t have much of a budget allocation considering they never provide sources for any of their assertions.

That members posts are like rock soup, no meat.

a reply to: whyamIhere

So where is the independent, truly independent from government and corporate influence, commission into these reports?

Why isn’t there one and if one exists why isn’t it’s investigations and findings being afforded a prominent place in the public arena?

a reply to: opethPA

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Pharma zombie we know who you are, you are a pharma damage control, for what I been reading your post you maybe a bot.

But is ok, nobody here cares anymore the pharma lies.

I am sure the money is good for those that works this days in pharma in any way or form.