Debunking Vaccine Myths RE VAERS

a reply to: JBurns

I want to know where this 3.7 adverse side effects per million people thing came about. (Rhetorical)

That's orders of magnitude below even the flu vaccine. 1 in over a quarter million. I takes a certain amount of taking your brain out of your head for that.

Plus these published studies were done with The Brighton Collaborations reporting criteria. They're endorsed by The WHO.

The lowest published study was from '21 and still cited between 2 and 6 adverse events per 10,000.

But let's do the lowest one I can find. 2.5 reactions per 10000.

If the USA has given out 989 million vaccines that is still 247,000 adverse reactions.

At 12.5 percent per 10k that over 1.2 million adverse reactions.

Another number I found was overall percentage of all adverse reactions, including things like faintness and headaches. That was still .00169% and the lowest study I could find on Google. Seems pretty low.

But even that is over 1.6 million adverse reactions with 989 million does given.

This is why people are pissed. They are being played so big pharma doesnt have to admit their lightspeed vaccines were terrible. That's a lot of forced adverse reactions people can sue over. This isn't debunking as much as playing people like ignorant sheep.

1:264,000 something? Seriously?

Never heard of a vaccine with a 0.00000378 adverse reaction percentage. By far the safest and fastest produced vaccine ever if you believe it.

a reply to: Blaine91555

In case you want to make comparisons it's better if you compare pathogens with pathogens and vaccines with vaccines.

IFR of SARS-CoV-2 about 0.15%
IFR of the Spanish Flu about 10%

The swine flu vaccine in 1976 was withdrawn from the market for 1 serious adverse reaction per 100,000 vaccinees.

The mRNA products are still with us with at least 1 serious adverse reaction per 800 vaccinees.

The number of adverse reactions from the mRNA products is much higher than the number of adverse reactions of all other vaccines for the past 30 years or so.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: infolurker

I'm not sure you understand what you are reading there.

US numbers (from the CDC as of today):

Total Cases - 102,998,014

Total Deaths - 1,113,254

Works out to roughly 1/103 chance of dying if you catch Covid. Of course, that's a calculation over the entire series of Covid strains to date. The risk is higher than the risk of any serious side effects from the vaccine.

Yes, they should have been more honest about the vaccines. Yes, they should never, ever force anyone to get vaccinated. That does not change the facts. I'm also not sure you are understanding what "serious adverse events" refers to. It's not referring to deaths or permanent injury but instead, it's numbers that include things like a short-term allergic reaction or a rash.

I don't have to buy into myths to believe the response was botched and the government overstepped. I'm angry but I'm angry for the heavy-handed way they did things.

Total cases of those who got tested. Big difference. Try just about everyone in the US has had it, many more than once.

Then, out of those total deaths, how many died of covid or simply died anyway WITH covid?

Out of those million, how many were over 75 or 80 or older?

See here is the deal, in the lower risk age groups, your chance of negative side effect is much higher than being hospitalized for covid let alone dying from it.

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: infolurker

I'm not sure you understand what you are reading there.

US numbers (from the CDC as of today):

Total Cases - 102,998,014

Total Deaths - 1,113,254

Works out to roughly 1/103 chance of dying if you catch Covid. Of course, that's a calculation over the entire series of Covid strains to date. The risk is higher than the risk of any serious side effects from the vaccine.

Yes, they should have been more honest about the vaccines. Yes, they should never, ever force anyone to get vaccinated. That does not change the facts. I'm also not sure you are understanding what "serious adverse events" refers to. It's not referring to deaths or permanent injury but instead, it's numbers that include things like a short-term allergic reaction or a rash.

I don't have to buy into myths to believe the response was botched and the government overstepped. I'm angry but I'm angry for the heavy-handed way they did things.

Total cases of those who got tested. Big difference. Try just about everyone in the US has had it, many more than once.

Then, out of those total deaths, how many died of covid or simply died anyway WITH covid?

Out of those million, how many were over 75 or 80 or older?

See here is the deal, in the lower risk age groups, your chance of negative side effect is much higher than being hospitalized for covid let alone dying from it.

I have already explained it above. The member is confusing the case fatality rate with the infection fatality rate.

I have explained the difference numerous times over numerous threads.

The IFR of SARS-CoV-2 before any medical interventions was 0.15%. Global average estimate by Dr Ioannidis from Stanford.

originally posted by: schuyler
Let me see...

Shall I ask my father-in-law? Well, no since he is already dead, so I asked my neighbor, who is as old as my father-in-law would have been had he stayed alive. He's had his shots. And....he's still alive!

Shall I ask my best friend, my mentor in life? He's had all his shots. And....he's still alive!

Shall I ask my friend from church? Which one? Doesn't matter. They've had their shots and they are all still alive.

Who shall I ask? Biased people who took an untested mRNA injection? Why not? They are ALL STILL ALIVE.

Indeed, nobody I know who has taken the shots has died. Everyone is still alive!

Does that prove there are no problems with the vax? Of course not, but neither does your list.

You do realize that being alive is normal, eh? Being dead is abnormal. All you're doing is comparing non-events to events. Apples and Oranges.

a reply to: infolurker

Thanks infolurker, and if that is the case for your own risk v reward assesment then I support you! I'm not saying force anyone or that anyone SHOULD or should not take it. I am only saying that doing so is not an apocalyptic risk as some have made it out to be, that its nowhere near as questionable or dangerous as the same claim. For the right age groups, the chance of having a fatal reaction to COVID itself OR the vaccine are astronomically low.

Taking the vaccine doesn't greatly increase the risk to you
Not taking the vaccine doesn't greatly increase the risk to you

Taking the vaccine can further decrease the risk from "improbable" to "darn near unlikely"

In no way does the VAERS data show any significant number of illnesses, injuries or especially fatalities

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You're talking estimates and I am talking real world data.

a reply to: infolurker

Good that you mentioned the study earlier for which I have already made a thread sometime ago and you can find here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Title: 'The Mathematics of adverse events of special interest following mRNA Covid-19 vaccination'

Clearly the OP is not correct in his estimation using adverse reactions per shots given. It should be per vaccinee as each individual gets at least 2 shots on average. Some people get more than 2 shots.

From the original trials of Moderna and Pfizer the chance of a serious adverse reaction is 1 in 800 vaccinees. The amount is huge and the product must have been withdrawn by now and not even released in the general population in the first place.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You're talking estimates and I am talking real world data.

Still the case fatality rate is a poor representation of how deadly a virus is as you are not taking into account asymptomatic individuals who are quite a lot. At least 1/3 of the cases.
And you are not taking into account many who are not get tested as they have minor symptoms (vast majority has minor symptoms).

a reply to: Asmodeus3

0.15% is still far higher than 1 person out of every 109733 people directly from the oft-cited VAERS database.

Do you have other numbers to present?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I included both per dose and per person.

If you'll recall, 1:109733. That's one person out of every ~110,000 (rounded up) who took one or more shots. From your own VAERS data.

Look if you have other concrete data, by all means include it. I always look for a good chance to learn something new.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Asmodeus3

0.15% is still far higher than 1:262,767 directly from the oft-cited VAERS database.

Do you have other numbers to present?

You number there isn't correct.

As explained to you by infolurker and by myself the number of serious adverse reactions is 1 in 800 vaccinees. Original trials by Moderna and Pfizer.

I have already made a thread about this sometime ago.

Each vaccinee doesn't get one shot but on average 2. That's another mistake you have made.

a reply to: JBurns

VAERS is a poor statistic to use. As you mention, it can contain many duplicates or simple inconveniences, and so far as I understand, the quality control on whether a case is actually attributable to the vaccine is quite lacking. On the other hand, there is no uniform guarantee that a death that is attributed to a specific vaccine gets reported... people do not (normally) die "from a vaccine." They do sometimes die from something triggered by a vaccine. On my mother's death certificate, her cause of death is listed as "pneumonia." Yes, that is what actually and directly caused her death. But that pneumonia was caused by paralysis of the muscles that allowed her to swallow, that paralysis itself being caused by schleroderma.

What happened in her case was that, for some still-unknown reason, she began to vomit. Since she could not swallow, everything she vomited went right back into her lungs as she was unable to swallow. That sat up a massive inflammation in her lungs which turned to pneumonia, and in her already-weakened condition, she could not recover.

All that was condensed down to "pneumonia" with "schleroderma" listed as a contributor.

Death for most does not come from a condition that can be easily summed up in one or two words. More commonly, it is a series of events that, when combined, lead to a condition from which recovery is impossible. The same is with VAERS; VAERS attempts to condense a complex equation into a few simple statements. Also, as with my mother's cause of death never mentioning "vomiting," a death can be caused by a vaccine and never make it to VAERS. It is very easy to attribute it to something else.

One big concern around that is that there has been a substantial increase in the reports of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) since the vaccinations started. They are not reported on VAERS because there was for a very long time no indication known that the vaccine could cause myocarditis. Even today, that theory, despite the mechanism now being specified and known, is meeting much opposition.

That is actually expected since every other treatment has been, one-by-one, removed from consideration:

• Hydrochloroquine in a supplemental cocktail showed early promise as a treatment; it was demonized over some idiot in, I believe, Arizona, who tried to self-medicate using a hydrochloroquine compound never intended for human medical use. "Studies" were conducted on patients using straight hydrochloroquine, completely ignoring the other ingredients in the cocktail, and then used to "refute" the effectiveness of the cocktail. Finally, doctors were threatened with legal and professional disciplinary action if they tried to use the cocktail.
  
  
• Remdesivir also showed promise, again in a cocktail if memory serves. It was also refuted by "studies" which were all inherently flawed in their approach.
  
  
• Monoclonal antibodies work; I have seen firsthand their effectiveness. I have two extended family members, both elderly, who became seriously ill with the Chinese virus and were given monoclonal antibodies. They began improvement almost immediately and were able to return home within a day or two. But then Biden decided that somehow the use of monoclonal antibodies was a "racist" act and shut down supplies of them to the states where they were being used.

With all that in the history books, are we supposed to believe that VAERS is going to accurately document every death or disability related to the "vaccine"?

Not to mention, the number of deaths from the Chinese virus is itself under high suspicion. We have heard reports of people being fatally injured in a vehicle crash, hospitalized, dying from their injuries shortly thereafter, and being classified as a "COVID death" because they tested positive. In the US, that was in direct response to the government mandate started by Donald Trump where hospitals were to receive complete, 100% coverage of any patient with the Chinese virus through either forced insurance coverage or a government fund for the uninsured. Of course the hospitals would claim as many cases of the Chinese virus as possible! For every case they claimed they received full payment immediately; for every other case, they had to deal with co-pays, uninsured, delays, paperwork, and negotiated rates.

Also, most of the high fatality rates that make up that 1% fatality figure come from early episodes that were almost demonic in their approach to kill as many as possible. Andrew Cuomo forced nursing homes to take patients recovering from one of the most contagious diseases known without any thought to infection of other residents or the likelihood of those other patients being overly susceptible to the virus... without even providing PPE. He is one of the most notorious mass murders in the history of the USA. I believe the Governor of New Jersey did something similar, and I have heard that other states did as well.

Take those deaths away, and the fatality rate was similar to the seasonal flu. Today it is even less, as each "variant" is less deadly and more contagious than the last, as is to be expected in viral mutation.

TLDR: I do not accept your data as accurate, meaning your conclusions are speculative at best.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I included both per dose and per person.

If you'll recall, 1:109733. That's one person out of every ~110,000 (rounded up) who took one or more shots. From your own VAERS data.

Look if you have other concrete data, by all means include it. I always look for a good chance to learn something new.

1 in 800 vaccinees get a serious adverse reaction. Original trials by Pfizer and Moderna.

The issue of underreporting for the VAERS system is a major problem. Likewise there doctors and hospitals are reluctant in reporting adverse reactions from these products.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Ksihkehe, If you consider pointing out the ridiculousness of the magnetism/5G/microchip nonsense that was spread on this very site an Ad Hom, that is your problem. Pivoting away from the numbers and facts to specious arguments is a worn out tactic people spreading BS about the vaccines use though.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Trials? I am talking about real world populations not limited trials. Besides, you just spent 5,000 posts telling me how the official data is never to be trusted because "they" control it.

VAERS is open to everyone, even citizens. There's no excuse that should pass the smell test, for anybody.

doctors and hospitals are reluctant in reporting adverse reactions from these products.

Ok that is why the database is open for reports by any person who wants to make one. No proof even required. Cough. For all we know, EVERY report could be invented. Now I tend to doubt that personally, but its possible.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The fatality rate from COVID-19 is still higher than 1:800. You did do the math, right?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You only claimed this, you didn't provide any actual evidence unlike my number. Which I provided evidence.

So it has to be considered untrue until some sort of evidence comes forward.....

a reply to: 1947boomer

there are at least 8 different vaccine technologies in use around the world, and you would expect each of them to possibly have its own unique risk/benefit calculation.

That would be correct except that all have one thing in common: all use the spike protein. either the protein is synthesized directly and injected or mRNA is used to trick the body's own cells into producing the spike protein.

The spike protein is easily tied to the cases of myocarditis through the exact same mechanism that causes pneumonia to strike many survivors of the virus. In both cases, the spike protein uses the ACE-2 receptors on cells and thereby changes the ratio of active ACE-2 to ACE-1 receptors. This triggers the body to mount an inflammatory defense against the pathogen responsible and the resulting inflammation actually does the damage.

It wouldn't matter if the spike protein was created by Harry Potter magically; the result would be the same. In some people, in a noticeable proportion of people, the spike protein causes irreparable and potentially fatal consequences.

The monoclonal antibodies I mentioned above as so very effective target the spike protein. That's why they work. The virus itself is not the problem; the spike protein on the virus is the problem. And all the vaccines introduce the spike protein.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: infolurker

I'm not sure you understand what you are reading there.

US numbers (from the CDC as of today):

Total Cases - 102,998,014

Total Deaths - 1,113,254

Works out to roughly 1/103 chance of dying if you catch Covid.

That is only if you totally ignore the fact that many if not most of those deaths were caused, not by Covid, but byh the non-treatment protocols established by the CDC/NIH/WHO to not treat anyone at all, with anything, until they were admitted to the hospital and having serious problems breathing, then the only allowed options were remdesivir, and ventilators, and the vast majority of those who were put on ventilators died. They were murdered.

So, no, those numbers are pure unadulterated BS. The vast majority would have survived if they were actually treated, especially if they were treated before getting serious symptoms.

Evidence, you ask? Just ask the FLCCC, who treated hundreds of patients successfully, and there are many, many other Doctors who did the same and ignored the 'standard protocols' that were handed down from Dr. Death and his friends.