Debunking Vaccine Myths RE VAERS

a reply to: tacoman101

Is it really a covid death if you're murdered by a ventilator...

It is most certainly a "COVID death" if one is on a ventilator. At one point, the CDC itself stated that 85% of all Chinese virus patients placed on ventilators died. The reason is obvious: ventilators place the lungs under positive pressure. In patients who already have badly damaged, virus-laden lungs with internal bleeding that forces the viral particles into the bloodstream where the worst effects of the virus occur.

We no longer need to use ventilators. Now we have evolved our science beyond them; we inject the problem directly into the blood supply. That's much more efficient, and people will actually, willingly pay us to do so.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JBurns


You are making again some huge mistake by dividing the number of adverse events reported in Florida by the total number of shots given on the entire planet

The 50,577 reports on VAERS is only for the State of Florida

The 13.29 billion doses given to approximately 5.5 billion people on the planet.

What you need to do is divide the number of adverse reactions reported in Florida by the number of people who have been vaccinated in Florida. Around 15,000,000 are considered fully vaccinated in Florida and over 17,000,000 have had at least one dose.

So in the State of Florida you can do the 50,577 divided by whichever number you choose from above. Let's choose the 17,000,000

It comes close to 3 in 1000
Which is massive.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Asmodeus3

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

We don't compare vaccine fatality rates and infection fatality rates from viruses.

Vaccines compared to other vaccines
And pathogens compared to other pathogens.

originally posted by: JBurns
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.....

Infolurker and myself have already provided the peer reviewed paper in the first two pages. But you are not paying attention.

a reply to: JBurns

You have made various mistakes in your opening page. I suppose you are able to see them.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: JBurns

LOL, "THE SCIENCE" has spoken!

You're dividing the number of doses given on the entire planet by the number of adverse events reported in the state of Florida.

The graph you cited, which has no legend or proper citation, is from the FL DOH and is only their numbers.

The State Surgeon General is notifying the health care sector and public of a substantial increase in Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports from Florida after the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

FL DOH

Should I quote back some of your ad homs from the past few days or can you go read them back on your own? I'm sure more than one applies.

I have also spotted this mistake.

a reply to: JBurns

I'll trust a surgeon general over your ignorant, uninformed, gullible "opinion":
www.zerohedge.com...

a reply to: JBurns

I’m sure that ALL the people that I know, including myself, who had Covid and never reported it to the “system” would skew those statistics considerably.

And the other people that caught it and never reported it.

There’s a big difference between the “cases” and “infections”.

How deadly is Covid really?

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff
a reply to: JBurns

I’m sure that ALL the people that I know, including myself, who had Covid and never reported it to the “system” would skew those statistics considerably.

And the other people that caught it and never reported it.

There’s a big difference between the “cases” and “infections”.

How deadly is Covid really?

Answer: 0.15% the infection fatality rate
That's a global average before medical interventions.

Now probably the same as the flu or even lower

a reply to: NorthOfStuff

How deadly is Covid really?

Consider two things:

• The Chinese virus often appears as asymptomatic.
  
• The Chinese virus is one of the most contagious diseases we know of.

One could get a closer approximation by dividing the number of attributed deaths by the global population. By now, almost everyone has been exposed.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: JBurns
I won't make this a lengthy post, and despite the fact that any person can make a report to VAERS, I will (for now) accept the reported numbers as fact.



41,473 reports were submitted to VAERS in 2021, while only 9,104 were submitted in 2022. This makes a total of 50,577 reports of adverse reactions ranging from minor inconveniences to major events (such as death).

Really?

Well, science.org claims otherwise. According to them, there had been 228,000 in the first 5 months (from Dec 2020 to May 2021) alone.

Not only that, as has been stated numerous times, there have been almost twice as many reports of adverse events in the last two years for just these 3 Covid jabs alone, as compared to all other vaccines combined over the last 30 years

So, considering you got these initial numbers so terribly, woefully wrong, why should I listen to anything you have to say about it?

Although, again, there is no evidentiary correlation between the vaccine and these numbers, lets assume every last one is related to the COVID vaccines.

Why would you do that? I don't.

But, I do also understand that many, many reputable people have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that these numbers, as high as they are, are woefully low due to extreme under-reporting, and in this case even moreso due to the extreme pressure being placed on front line nurses and doctors to NOT report adverse reactions.

COVID-19, the disease caused by the SARS-2-CoV virus, is responsible for 6,860,165 deaths world-wide.

Yes, yes, we know that is what they claim, and we also know that number, too is totally bogus - but in this case vastly over-inflated for many reasons - one of which being how many people were murdered due specifically to the [n]mandated non-treatment protocols for anyone/everyone up to the point they were hospitalized and having trouble breathing, at which point they were given the extremely toxic remdesivir, and placed on ventilators until they died.

Wake up man. The vast majority of people who 'died from Covid' were murdered by this very system you are defending.

They will tell you to do your own research without actually expecting you to do it. This is the result of doing my own research, and I invite you to do your own as well. Don't take my word for it.

Well, all I can say is... your research skills suck. Hopefully you don't do this for a living.

He has mixed up the number of reported cases with the number of total cases. And has divided the number of reported cases in Florida to the total number of shots given on the entire planet.

Not even Pfizer and Moderna will ever do this if they wanted to present their products as safe and effective.

twitter.com...


Dr Joseph Ladapo

Florida saw a 1,700% increase in adverse event reports after COVID-19 vaccinations. Does that sound safe and effective? I didn’t think so either. That’s why we released this health alert.

Just because “correlation ≠ causation” doesn’t mean we should abandon common sense.

The really amazing 'thing' is that members have flagged this thread 6 times and starred the OP 11 times given that the analysis and the statistics are completely wrong.

Using the CFR instead of the IFR and making conclusions about how lethal the virus is. Hence disregarding those who are asymptomatic and those who have minor infections who never get tested. Both groups represent a very large number of those infected.

Then mixing up the adverse reactions reported in VAERS only in the State of Florida with the total number of adverse reactions reported in the entire country and then amazingly dividing this figure with the total number of shots given in the entire world!!! And finally make conclusions based upon this...

Then the OP says

I don't need to do the math to show me that 1:109733 is vastly lower than the already low 1% fatality rate among COVID-19 patients.

Both figures are completely wrong as we have seen and nothing else is taken into account such as age group, comorbidities, etc. All other conclusions and extrapolations are also wrong as they are based on the wrong numbers and analysis.

I have seen also a pattern by other members, few of them, but nevertheless vaccine apologists, who try desperately to degrade and diminish VAERS or any other reporting system as completely unreliable and non credible. Desperate arguments.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Again, you don't understand how the VAERS reporting system works, or rather, it's limitations.

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.

The analysis of these types of reports have limitations, in that, as stated above, there is no proof that the event was caused by the vaccine. So anyone that sends in a report to VAERS has not proven that their adverse reactions was caused by a vaccine. Cause and effect is not proven once again.

It wouldn't hurt any of us to learn a how to analyze data because we are not factoring in some common sense criteria.

Base Rate Fallacy -

Taken at face value, these numbers may appear to indicate that vaccination does not make that much of a difference. But this perception is an example of a phenomenon known as the base rate fallacy. One also has to consider the denominator of the fraction—that is, the sizes of the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. With shots widely available to almost all age groups, the majority of the U.S. population has been vaccinated. So even if only a small fraction of vaccinated people who get COVID die from it, the more people who are vaccinated, the more likely they are to make up a portion of the dead.

It is also important to consider the ages of those who are dying. People 65 and older make up the group that is both the most likely to be vaccinated (and boosted) and the most likely to die of COVID. (Being older is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID because the immune system weakens with age.) So when you separate the age groups, it becomes even clearer that vaccination reduces the risk of death. And because immune protection from vaccination wanes with time, and because some older people do not mount a good immune response to the primary series, being boosted reduces that risk even further.

An additional factor to consider is that as the pandemic wears on and a disproportionate number of unvaccinated people die from COVID, the unvaccinated population shrinks. This leaves a comparatively larger vaccinated group, leading to an increase in total deaths despite the lower death rate among vaccinated people. No vaccine is 100 percent effective, but immunization reduces the risk of dying from COVID substantially.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Granted the newest studies are claiming that the boosters are adversely effecting people's immune systems but the research is still ongoing. So once we have repeated studies that are also peer reviewed we should not use factor in these numbers.

a reply to: JBurns

Make the choice on your own folks. Don't buy up the clickbait disguised as scaremongering. Apocalyptic doomsayers are as old as human civilization, and you should pay no more attention to them now than our ancestors did tens of thousands of years ago. People are serving you crap sandwiches and expecting you to eat it with a smile on your face. Because politics? Because ideology? Or is it because they run entire communities based on spreading this stuff (no doubt for monetary renumeration in some cases). These people have a vested self interest in scaring the crap out of you.

I think it's mostly due to confirmation bias, and I don't blame some people for not trusting government and the numbers from researchers who work for government because of how badly they handled this pandemic from the start. So I can't say it's political, but rather mistrust of government in general. However, considering some members' choice of sources it is up for debate whether or not it leans towards right-wing politics.

That was then, this is now and now requires us to look at this rationally and if the scientists are lagging behind real-time virus mutations/changes then how are we expected to keep up? For now, we have to learn how to read the data from repeated studies that are peer reviewed and not cherry pick to feed our beliefs.

I don't dismiss some ATS members' vaccine hesitancy beliefs, such as younger males being more susceptible to heart problems but we are learning as we go and it looks like we learn after the fact, sometimes deadly facts.

Now there are red flags about vaccine induced immunological problems, but I am waiting for more repeated studies and peer reviews.

Through it all, authorities (immunologists, virologists and those whose research should count the most) have and still are recommending getting vaccinated from how they evaluate the data (from expert data analytics), but now with newly emerging drugs whether or not to get boosted/vaccinated may not become a death sentence (either way) if one is elderly with comorbidities, immunocompromised or susceptible to severe health outcomes. So this is evolving and we should evolve with it too.

originally posted by: JBurns

COVID-19, the disease caused by the SARS-2-CoV virus, is responsible for 6,860,165 deaths world-wide.

Extremely unlikely.

There might have been that many deaths from any cause that could also be associated with a positive pcr test (of unspecified amplification) within the previous 28 days (which is how many of the authorities were counting), but that is a very different thing. Though even this is unlikely.

Here's an example for you. 2 yrs into the pandemic in the UK the figure was around 137, 000 deaths from covid. A FOI request revealed only around 4.4% of these had covid listed as the cause of death on the death certificate. So there's a huge grey area. I think there was something like 3 people in the under 20 age group. Not sure if it's still on the UK gov website, but that's where I saw it.

The death certificate figures themselves are doubtful because there is good reason to believe based on some reasonable analysis that many of the elderly were really iatrogenic deaths. The initial fatalities in Italy for instance, doesn't follow the pattern of an epidemic/pandemic. There is evidence that covid was around for months before this that might explain the anomalies, but it would also lend further weight to the idea that panic and non/mal treatment (particularly of the elderly) played a huge part in fatalities.

Finding out how many people really died from covid isn't so simple. But if you insist on that figure, it's up to you to explain and support the methods by which it was derived.

To date, there are 673,570,579 total cases of COVID-19 reported world-wide. By these numbers, you have just over a 1% chance of dying from COVID-19 if you were to be infected. Pretty good odds, if you ask me.

Also very unlikely. There might be some GIGO effect in that.

The below is from John Ioannides and crew from Stanford based on pre "vaccine" seroprevalence data. I think it will be closer to the truth. The pre vaccine era IFR varied between age groups and across countries (depending on morbitity/ health of populations) but overall is nowhere near 1%.

Highlights *Across 31 systematically identified national seroprevalence studies in the pre-vaccination era, the median infection fatality rate of COVID-19 was estimated to be 0.035% for people aged 0-59 years people and 0.095% for those aged 0-69 years.

*The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0-19 years, 0.003% at 20-29 years, 0.011% at 30-39 years, 0.035% at 40-49 years, 0.129% at 50-59 years, and 0.501% at 60-69 years.

*At a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0-59 and 0-69 year old people, respectively.

*These IFR estimates in non-elderly populations are lower than previous calculations had suggested.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Compare these numbers to the total doses given world-wide: 13.29 billion doses given to approximately 5.5 billion people. This means your chance of suffering any adverse reaction is 1:262,767. 1 person will experience an adverse reaction for every 262,767 doses given, or right around 1:109,733 people. In other words, 1 person out of every 109,733 people will experience some adverse side effect. Not neccesarily death, not neccesarily minor - the VAERS reports don't indicate the severity of the side effects.

Source: ourworldindata.org...

I don't need to do the math to show me that 1:109733 is vastly lower than the already low 1% fatality rate among COVID-19 patients.

Unless I'm mistaken you are dividing VAERS data into worldwide vaccine doses. VAERS is a reporting system for the US only, so that doesn't work.

You also don't know the under reporting factor as it's generally considered that only 1-10% of all events are reported. Dr. Jessica Rose (who is highly qualified if nothing else) reached an under reporting factor of 41x. Have seen others reach similar.

The best way to do it is to compare AE's and deaths per million doses with other vaccines. The covid products are horrendous in comparison.

While it is true your chances of dying from COVID are low, your chance of having a negative side effect from the vaccine is hundreds of times lower than that. This is where the risk vs. reward comes in.

We know from the Pfizer data that there was higher mortality in the treatment group (something like 40% higher heart related deaths) and the review by Doshi et al of clinical trial data showed that when severe AE's were factored in, the treatment group didn't fare so well there either. Isn't that the "gold standard"? They should have never been released.

Make the choice on your own folks. Don't buy up the clickbait disguised as scaremongering. Apocalyptic doomsayers are as old as human civilization, and you should pay no more attention to them now than our ancestors did tens of thousands of years ago. People are serving you crap sandwiches and expecting you to eat it with a smile on your face. Because politics? Because ideology? Or is it because they run entire communities based on spreading this stuff (no doubt for monetary renumeration in some cases). These people have a vested self interest in scaring the crap out of you.

No idea what you are talking about in those first few sentences. I haven't supported a political party or politician (I despise both) since the seventies because I'm apolitical. There are no systems of govt presently being practiced that I support. I don't vote for that reason (only encourages them).

The same could be said about yourself. By passing off obviously inflated fatality figures and an unrealistic IFR you are frightening people into being vaccinated. What is your motive?

They will tell you to do your own research without actually expecting you to do it. This is the result of doing my own research, and I invite you to do your own as well. Don't take my word for it.

I appreciate and applaud you for doing so. While I think it a little thin on substance to put it mildly (just IMO), at least you made an effort and I know now what you base your opinion on.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Again, you don't understand how the VAERS reporting system works, or rather, it's limitations.

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.

The analysis of these types of reports have limitations, in that, as stated above, there is no proof that the event was caused by the vaccine. So anyone that sends in a report to VAERS has not proven that their adverse reactions was caused by a vaccine. Cause and effect is not proven once again.

It wouldn't hurt any of us to learn a how to analyze data because we are not factoring in some common sense criteria.

Base Rate Fallacy -

Taken at face value, these numbers may appear to indicate that vaccination does not make that much of a difference. But this perception is an example of a phenomenon known as the base rate fallacy. One also has to consider the denominator of the fraction—that is, the sizes of the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. With shots widely available to almost all age groups, the majority of the U.S. population has been vaccinated. So even if only a small fraction of vaccinated people who get COVID die from it, the more people who are vaccinated, the more likely they are to make up a portion of the dead.

It is also important to consider the ages of those who are dying. People 65 and older make up the group that is both the most likely to be vaccinated (and boosted) and the most likely to die of COVID. (Being older is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID because the immune system weakens with age.) So when you separate the age groups, it becomes even clearer that vaccination reduces the risk of death. And because immune protection from vaccination wanes with time, and because some older people do not mount a good immune response to the primary series, being boosted reduces that risk even further.

An additional factor to consider is that as the pandemic wears on and a disproportionate number of unvaccinated people die from COVID, the unvaccinated population shrinks. This leaves a comparatively larger vaccinated group, leading to an increase in total deaths despite the lower death rate among vaccinated people. No vaccine is 100 percent effective, but immunization reduces the risk of dying from COVID substantially.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Granted the newest studies are claiming that the boosters are adversely effecting people's immune systems but the research is still ongoing. So once we have repeated studies that are also peer reviewed we should not use factor in these numbers.

Your arguments have been refuted everywhere. To lecture others on various matters of vaccine safety or infectious diseases is rather hilarious. Before you do so make sure you understand the difference between Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2.

According to you

Covid-19 has come from SARS-CoV-2, both being virus

I hope you do see the problem what this statement or the attempts you made to make sense of what the VAERS system is. Which you misunderstand and try to discredit as some other members have done in the past few days.

It's rather hilarious to try to 'teach' the audience about the reopening system when you are not sure even about the basics such as the difference between Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2, the meaning of herd immunity and how it could be achieved, natural immunity, and a range of other matters.

Also I notice that you link irrelevant pieces of literature in your posts.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: JBurns

Make the choice on your own folks. Don't buy up the clickbait disguised as scaremongering. Apocalyptic doomsayers are as old as human civilization, and you should pay no more attention to them now than our ancestors did tens of thousands of years ago. People are serving you crap sandwiches and expecting you to eat it with a smile on your face. Because politics? Because ideology? Or is it because they run entire communities based on spreading this stuff (no doubt for monetary renumeration in some cases). These people have a vested self interest in scaring the crap out of you.

I think it's mostly due to confirmation bias, and I don't blame some people for not trusting government and the numbers from researchers who work for government because of how badly they handled this pandemic from the start. So I can't say it's political, but rather mistrust of government in general. However, considering some members' choice of sources it is up for debate whether or not it leans towards right-wing politics.

That was then, this is now and now requires us to look at this rationally and if the scientists are lagging behind real-time virus mutations/changes then how are we expected to keep up? For now, we have to learn how to read the data from repeated studies that are peer reviewed and not cherry pick to feed our beliefs.

I don't dismiss some ATS members' vaccine hesitancy beliefs, such as younger males being more susceptible to heart problems but we are learning as we go and it looks like we learn after the fact, sometimes deadly facts.

Now there are red flags about vaccine induced immunological problems, but I am waiting for more repeated studies and peer reviews.

Through it all, authorities (immunologists, virologists and those whose research should count the most) have and still are recommending getting vaccinated from how they evaluate the data (from expert data analytics), but now with newly emerging drugs whether or not to get boosted/vaccinated may not become a death sentence (either way) if one is elderly with comorbidities, immunocompromised or susceptible to severe health outcomes. So this is evolving and we should evolve with it too.

I see that you haven't noticed the completely wrong numbers given by the OP and the completely wrong analysis. You may want to take sometime to look and let the audience know. Or do they seem correct to you?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
You are making again some huge mistake by dividing the number of adverse events reported in Florida by the total number of shots given on the entire planet

The 50,577 reports on VAERS is only for the State of Florida

The 13.29 billion doses given to approximately 5.5 billion people on the planet.

What you need to do is divide the number of adverse reactions reported in Florida by the number of people who have been vaccinated in Florida. Around 15,000,000 are considered fully vaccinated in Florida and over 17,000,000 have had at least one dose.

So in the State of Florida you can do the 50,577 divided by whichever number you choose from above. Let's choose the 17,000,000

It comes close to 3 in 1000
Which is massive.

Lol. Thanks for that I didn't pick it up, didn't bother looking at VAERS. But your right, VAERS is a reporting system for the US. So when he does get the right number, he would need doses administered in the US only.