Debunking Vaccine Myths RE VAERS

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Not really... This is a political position.

Every medicine or vaccine must be judged on its own merits.

Promoting these ineffective, half arsed, rushed to market drugs as vaccines (even changing the definition of the word to accommodate them) was a brilliant strategy. That way anyone who displays any willingness to scrutinise claims of safety or effectiveness, or shows scepticism in any way is labelled "anti-vaxxer" and receives the stigma that comes with it. Even when they are brilliant and in some instances pioneering scientists in the area of vaccines. A great way of shutting down academic debate and enforcing groupthink. The masses comply easily believing themselves to be all "sciency'. lol

I know of one scientist labelled "anti-vax" and threatened with losing tenure at a university for not taking a "govt. approved" vaccine (think he was eventually sacked). He and his team created a more traditional (protein based) covid vaccine and he wanted to take this instead. This obviously makes him an..."anti-vaxxer"! Quite a dangerous one at that apparently, can't have a distinguished professor thinking for himself, that might buck the narrative.

Of course you might think a govt. would jump at the chance to develop such a local vaccine with peoples health being on the line but no, they hindered it every step of the way and had him smeared. Can't have some pesky scientist moving in on Pfi$er$ market share. That would be unscientific!

www.spectator.com.au...

double post.

a reply to: MaxxAction

Everything you said is correct.

There's more, though. It's not just the oxygen that causes the deaths from ventilation, but the pressure as well. Under normal conditions, the blood in the lungs never comes into contact with air. Oxygen enters the bloodstream through a type of osmosis that only allows for oxygen. That forms one of the many pathogen barriers we possess, and serves to keep any pathogens in the lungs where the body can easily attack them.

The Chinese virus is actually a very weak virus. It degrades easily and is easily fought off by the body. It has one serious strength, and that is the spike protein. In the lungs, it can cause pneumonia by triggering an inflammation response that is out of proportion to the viral infection; it can do the same thing in other internal organs like the heart, but only if it can access them. As long as the virus is contained in the lungs, it cannot infect the heart.

The doctors in the early stages were caught up in a catch-22. Their worst patients were literally dying of oxygen deprivation anyway, which indicated the need for a ventilator. But using a ventilator increases the chances that the virus will be forced past the normal blood/air barrier. The additional oxygen didn't help, as you said, but that additional oxygen was restricted to the lungs. It could not explain the failures in other organs that plagued many of the ventilated patients.

Ventilators have a much less chance of intensifying a patient's issues when the settings are adjusted to reduce the pressure differentials. That's what most hospitals are now doing. That change happened very quietly, with almost no media reporting.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: tanstaafl

Even if you alter the risk to reflect it being only say a 1/500 chance, it's still way higher than dying from the vaccine.

What is a 1/500 chance? Dying of Covid? The jab? And opposed to what? You're not even being very clear with the fictitious numbers you're tossing around.

Again, if you understand that the vast majority of the numbers of people claimed to have 'died from Covid' were murdered by the insane protocols pushed from on high, not dead from a virus, these numbers are meaningless.

So much higher that it makes the argument laughable.

I actually don't think mass murder is funny, but that's just me.

You can't ignore that using VAERS is hardly science.

If you use it as it was intended - an early warning system, nothing more - then it is absolutely science. You do know that 'observation' is a very large aspect of good science, don't you?

I have no issue with people being angry over the way the vaccine was forced on people and I'm angry about that also. It does not make me want to close my eyes to reality or want to force my views on others. Both sides in this have been acting very badly and stretching the truth to the breaking point.

While I agree that there has been some silliness on the part of the anti-jabbers - magnetic jabs, etc - I'm sorry, but that pales in comparison to the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the medical tyranny imposed top-down by tptb, from the FDA/NIH/WHO to big Pharma and the medical industrial complex (hospital systems) they have built over the last 100 years, and now utilizing censorship via big Tech to silence those speaking out against it all... well, no, no one on the other side of this has done anything even remotely from the 'other side'.

a reply to: JBurns

You can never conclude any death from covid 19, or death from covid 19 vaccine, was causative.

In all covid 19 deaths there is always another underlying health condition.

You can't rely on either of these statistics to compare the severities of each disease.

The reporting system for reporting COVID 19 deaths is designed to catch higher numbers than VAERS.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The duplicates in VAERS are people who report more than 1 side effect.

Just an update as I have now noticed there are 7 members who have flagged the analysis and numbers provided in the OP which are completely wrong as myself and others have pointed out on several occasions.

It looks like this thread is flagged by those who are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and those who defend the pharmaceuticals and the pro-vaccination campaign at all costs.

Key points.

You cannot use case fatality rates in the US or elsewhere in the world. You need the infection fatality rate. The fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in the US is not around 1% and the statistic provided that 1 in 103 who is infected dies is false.

The rate of adverse reactions from the vaccines is not the one stated in the OP as the estimation came from completely false considerations. The OP took the total number of reported adverse reactions in Florida and divided to the total number of shots given worldwide! That's extraordinary....

The OP and some others tried to make comparisons between the vaccines and the virus and that's as absurd as it gets. You compare vaccines to vaccines and viruses to viruses.


In a few words the attempt at debunking has failed magnificently.

At least some states are starting to see the light and tell the TRUTH.

Florida issues controversial new guidance to doctors telling them to warn patients they could suffer HEART ATTACK after Covid shot

www.dailymail.co.uk...

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Just an update as I have now noticed there are 7 members who have flagged the analysis and numbers provided in the OP which are completely wrong as myself and others have pointed out on several occasions.

It looks like this thread is flagged by those who are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and those who defend the pharmaceuticals and the pro-vaccination campaign at all costs.

Key points.

You cannot use case fatality rates in the US or elsewhere in the world. You need the infection fatality rate. The fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in the US is not around 1% and the statistic provided that 1 in 103 who is infected dies is false.

The rate of adverse reactions from the vaccines is not the one stated in the OP as the estimation came from completely false considerations. The OP took the total number of reported adverse reactions in Florida and divided to the total number of shots given worldwide! That's extraordinary....

The OP and some others tried to make comparisons between the vaccines and the virus and that's as absurd as it gets. You compare vaccines to vaccines and viruses to viruses.


In a few words the attempt at debunking has failed magnificently.

I thought this thread was a larp ? We are so far beyond understanding its a dangerous gene therapy.

This is not directed at any person but is a general observation. Actual logical discussions are not possible on this topic. It's always either my way or the highway.

Around and around we go with the same conversation over and over with people at each other's throats trying to force one another to alter their views. That's not debate, it's just intellectual bullying accompanied by much foot stomping and posting of videos by online crackpots.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
This is not directed at any person but is a general observation. Actual logical discussions are not possible on this topic. It's always either my way or the highway.

Around and around we go with the same conversation over and over with people at each other's throats trying to force one another to alter their views. That's not debate, it's just intellectual bullying accompanied by much foot stomping and posting of videos by online crackpots.

That's one way to avoid responding to someone pointing out problems with your claims...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Blaine91555
This is not directed at any person but is a general observation. Actual logical discussions are not possible on this topic. It's always either my way or the highway.

Around and around we go with the same conversation over and over with people at each other's throats trying to force one another to alter their views. That's not debate, it's just intellectual bullying accompanied by much foot stomping and posting of videos by online crackpots.

That's one way to avoid responding to someone pointing out problems with your claims...

But it's true, so there is that!

a reply to: InachMarbank

The duplicates in VAERS are people who report more than 1 side effect.

How does that lend credibility to the numbers?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InachMarbank

The duplicates in VAERS are people who report more than 1 side effect.

How does that lend credibility to the numbers?

TheRedneck

Instead of only focusing on VAERs, focus on other data collection systems that match its numbers for deaths and disabilities, all still under reported.

The CDC v safe data system that the CDC had to be sued by a team of high level attorneys for a year a a half to release showed with sample size of 10 million people, 7% had side effects severe enough to require hospitalization.


Then there's the military DMED database that showed a 10-20x increase in severe disease in the military

Then you have the foreign datasets from systems like eurovigilance, etc.


It's not just VAERs and also VAERs was created and is maintained by the CDC. The reason it's inadequate is because it's designed to be that way.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

That's my point. VAERS is not a reliable data source. Yet, it is what is typically used to promote the "vaccine."

TheRedneck

originally posted by: JBurns
...
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.
...

Bullcrap. VAERS themselves admitted that less than 1% of adverse effects from vaccines are reported to VAERS. That's the fact you are leaving out...

...
Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of
ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events
and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.
...

Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse
Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS)

The push for everyone to get COVID-19 non-vaccines should be treated like what it is, the largest medical experiment forced upon people without the consent of millions of people.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Interesting... I bet up till Covid health professionals would have used it as a very valid source and even more so by government if the data in VAERS showed something that would help promote a specific political agenda.

We have UTH report system in Demmark, which is basically the same thing.
But you know what? If I asked 10 random people on the street, 9 of them would say they didnt know about this report site or how to find it / use it.

Why? Because ignorance is bliss... especially if you are an elected official who is more concerned about their own validity than integrity.

If I dont know anything is wrong... then nothing is wroong.

a reply to: Blaine91555

The only bullies are those who forced millions of people to be injected with an experiment which is NOT a vaccine and hasn't been properly tested.

The last bullies who tried this were the nazis as they forced medical experimentation on millions of people without their consent. Same with the jab poison passing as vaccines.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: JBurns
...
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.
...

Bullcrap. VAERS themselves admitted that less than 1% of adverse effects from vaccines are reported to VAERS. That's the fact you are leaving out...

...
Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of
ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events
and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.
...

Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse
Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS)

You didn't do any research. You just regurgitated the lies by big pharma.

The push for everyone to get COVID-19 non-vaccines should be treated like what it is, the largest medical experiment forced upon people without the consent of millions of people.

I will refer you also to the recent studies that we have posted here and I have made about in the:

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

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The ratw of serious adverse reactions post vaccination with the mRNA products is at least 1 in every 800 vaccines from the original phase3 trails of Pfizer and Moderna. A huge number which should have resulted to the withdrawal of the products in the first place.

Here the OP made false considerations and presented false conclusions as he estimated the rate of adverse reactions to be 1 in hundreds of thousands. He took the total number of cases reported through VAERS in Florida and divided by the total number of shots worldwide... Which is extraordinary! That's the most polite word I can find.

He also presented SARS-CoV-2 as having a high fatality rate by not being able to differentiate between the case fatality rate and the infection fatality rate. He divided the total number of the deaths in the US over the total number of confirmed cases which is the CFR and concluded that someone who gets the infection has 1 in 103 to die from it. Which is obviously completely false.
Not taking into account the large number of asymptomatic individuals and those with minor symptoms who never get tested. That's again... extraordinary!

SARS-CoV-2 has a very low IFR and the vast majority of deaths are those on the 65+ age group who have comorbidities.

Finally he hasn't taken into account the papers linked above where for young and healthy people the risk of serious adverse reactions from the vaccine is higher that than the risk of getting hospitalised due to Covid. Again some statistics are presented by the OP that have come out of his mind...

In a few words the OP has failed magnificently to debunk what he wanted to debunk. It has made it even more clear that his side of the argument is completely wrong due to lack of understanding of the basics and lack or reading. It's mainly vaccine apology and vaccine dogma.

I will refer you to my replies earlier in these threads.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: tanstaafl
But it's true, so there is that!

Depends... what is true?

It is absolutely not a "general" truth that "actual logical discussion are not possible on this topic".

That said, it is absolutely true that some people are incapable of logical discussion on this topic.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not trying to 'alter anyone's views', I'm simply trying to get someone to acknowledge that there actually is real, actual evidence of massive collusion between government agencies, non-governmental organizations and large corporate interests to engage in real, actual crimes against humanity.

I know it's mind boggling to even consider, so I don't necessarily blame the average person for not seeing it, but those of use who are here have access to the real, actual evidence, and have no excuse for ignore it.