Debunking Vaccine Myths RE VAERS

a reply to: JBurns

Again, JD, I'll add other medical experts' analysis and lack of causation in the VAERS data. Along with comparisons of the numbers of elderly that may have died anyway, vaccinated or not. Comparisons and many other factors need to be included in all assessments, which are not being included.

“The idea is that we are vaccinating millions of people,” Mazo said, “and, unfortunately, when you look at 96 million people, some of them might die, and they would have died if they hadn’t been vaccinated.”

The fact that medically vulnerable individuals have had the earliest access to COVID-19 vaccines in the United States has also impacted the rate of post-vaccine deaths, Mazo said.

As reported here by Reuters in January, healthcare workers and people in nursing homes have been at the front of the line, followed by older members of the general population and people with pre-existing conditions ( here , here ).

In a WebMD interview here , Dr. Joël Belmin, head of geriatrics and vaccination coordinator at l’hôpital Charles-Foix in Paris, said, “In older people, due to their great frailty, a significant amount of spontaneous mortality is expected. In a retirement home, one in five people die each year. It’s therefore difficult to directly attribute these deaths to the fact that these people were vaccinated.”

The CDC estimates that about 1.3 million COVID-19 vaccine doses were administered to residents in long-term care facilities as of Jan. 18, 2021 (here). By comparison, VAERS had received 129 reports of deaths following COVID-19 vaccination in long-term care facility residents as of January 18, 2021.

www.reuters.com...

Base-rate Fallacy -

What is the base-rate fallacy philosophy?

Base rate fallacy occurs when a person misjudges the likelihood of an event because he or she doesn’t take into account other relevant base rate information. … Well, base rate concerns the likelihood of an event occurring out there in the world regardless of what the conditions of a particular situation may be.

Again, problems with using VAERS as a data source for anything other than an early alarm system.

The figures, which reflected the totals in the database as of a few weeks ago, are accurate, although they’re cherry-picked to be as high as possible, as they include reports from abroad; more than a quarter of the COVID-19 reports are foreign.

More important, experts say there are plausible reasons for why the COVID-19 total is so high — and because of VAERS’ design, comparisons between vaccines are invalid. The statistics are not proof that the COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous or significantly less safe than previous vaccines.

Beninger also said that with the COVID-19 vaccines, the people administering the vaccines have changed. In the past, the most experienced vaccinators have often been pediatricians. But he suspects a shift to more inexperienced vaccinators has also contributed to increased reporting in VAERS.

“Many people who are giving the vaccines are really very new to the whole vaccine paradigm,” he said. “They’re inexperienced in giving them and they’re inexperienced in assessing them.”

“They don’t have the experience to say, ‘I don’t think this is related, so I’m not going to report,’” he added. “They’re encouraged to report. There’s some inflation.”

Echoing Beninger, Dr. Robert Legare Atmar, an infectious disease specialist at Baylor College of Medicine who also evaluates vaccines, told us then that during flu season, many of the everyday deaths of people in nursing homes, for example, might have been reported to VAERS this year if someone received a COVID-19 vaccine. In the past, however, a similar death during flu season would not be reported because it would not be thought to be related to the vaccine.

False but sensationalistic claims on social media, such as the vaccines magnetizing people or changing a person’s DNA, he said, “fed the mania about vaccine safety,” while so-called “vaccine safety alarmists” repeated anecdotal reports and analyzed VAERS data incorrectly to much the same effect.

The agency said that it “cannot always identify reports that are fraudulent,” but that it had observed a “huge increase” in hoax reports to VAERS. These reports are obviously false, list celebrities or state outrageous claims, and often do not include contact information for follow-up, the CDC said. The hoax reports, which are deleted, make up less than 1% of all VAERS reports following COVID-19 vaccination, the agency said.

Knowingly filing a false VAERS report is illegal and can result in fines or imprisonment.

www.factcheck.org...

So who is willing to do the math now by taking into account all the above factors (not all existing factors, I am sure)?

While some of you here keep using Florida's data as your go-to proof, it is not. We have to look at the big picture...here...just have a look at the graph and it says it all.

ourworldindata.org...

Summary
All vaccinated groups had overall lower risk of dying from COVID-19 and testing positive for COVID-19 compared with people who were unvaccinated.
People who were vaccinated with an updated (bivalent) booster dose had lower rates of dying from COVID-19 and slightly lower rates of testing positive for COVID-19 compared with people who were vaccinated but had not received an updated booster dose.
Age-standardized rates of cases and deaths by vaccination status and receipt of the updated (bivalent) booster dose do not account for other factors like the higher prevalence of previous infection among the unvaccinated and un-boosted groups; waning protection related to time since vaccination; and testing practices (such as use of at-home tests), underlying conditions, and prevention behaviors which likely differ by age and vaccination status. Additionally, any data recording errors that misclassify monovalent and updated (bivalent) boosters at the time of vaccine administration would make rates between the two groups appear more similar.

covid.cdc.gov...-by-vaccine-status

So even more factors to include in one's calculations...are we at the equation stage yet?

a reply to: JBurns

That's cool bro, now you do realize that healthy individuals under 60 had a mortality rate of .01% ....right? right?

Apparently you need to reread your last arrogant paragraph because you obviously did not do you research. You're missing so much important factors and numbers LOL

originally posted by: jidnum
a reply to: JBurns

That's cool bro, now you do realize that healthy individuals under 60 had a mortality rate of .01% ....right? right?

Apparently you need to reread your last arrogant paragraph because you obviously did not do you research. You're missing so much important factors and numbers LOL

Don't use VAERS data because it is not verifiable so prone to misuse, look at these numbers where underlying medical conditions played a role in Covid deaths. We have to compare risk vs rewards so we have to look at deaths at any age group with underlying health conditions vaccinated and unvaccinated.

covid.cdc.gov...-med-conditions

All rates are relative to the 18 to 29 years age group. This group was selected as the reference group because it has accounted for the largest cumulative number of COVID-19 cases compared to other age groups. Sample interpretation: Compared with ages 18 to 29 years, the rate of death is 3.5 times higher in ages 30 to 39 years, and 350 times higher in those who are ages 85 years and older. (In the table, a rate of 1x indicates no difference compared to the 18 to 29 years age group.)

www.cdc.gov...

a reply to: quintessentone

Who said I used VAERS data? LMFAO

also do you know what 3.5 *.01% is? i'll help you

0.035%.

Also, I find it funny that VAERS was literally created for the purpose of reporting adverse events but all of a sudden people want to ignore it when it becomes inconvenient for their numbers and guess who uses VAERS as one of their components for data? CDC.

Everyone keeps missing the major point to all of this. Take numbers out of the equation and it all comes down to one thing.

THEY LIED.

It was not safe, it was not effective, they ran with the relative efficacy number and not the "absolute" efficacy number and misled the public while changing the definition of what an actual vaccine is so they can call the covid jab a vaccine. I mean what is wrong with people? Orwellian nonsense happening in real time and folks still don't see it? amazing.

a reply to: jidnum

VAERS was not created for what you think, it was created as an early warning system only.

These data analysts have done a lot of the work for us.

IHME adheres to the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER). Learn more about our protocols for best practices in data use.

covid19.healthdata.org...

Here are data analyses by location.

ghdx.healthdata.org...

originally posted by: jidnum
a reply to: quintessentone

Who said I used VAERS data? LMFAO

also do you know what 3.5 *.01% is? i'll help you

0.035%.

Also, I find it funny that VAERS was literally created for the purpose of reporting adverse events but all of a sudden people want to ignore it when it becomes inconvenient for their numbers and guess who uses VAERS as one of their components for data? CDC.

Everyone keeps missing the major point to all of this. Take numbers out of the equation and it all comes down to one thing.

THEY LIED.

It was not safe, it was not effective, they ran with the relative efficacy number and not the "absolute" efficacy number and misled the public while changing the definition of what an actual vaccine is so they can call the covid jab a vaccine. I mean what is wrong with people? Orwellian nonsense happening in real time and folks still don't see it? amazing.

The member you are replying to is trying desperately to discredit VAERS as the number of reported cases, which is a massively underreported figure by the way, doesn't serve his narrative and beliefs as he is a vaccine apologist and is trying to peddle official lines using debunked claims and wrong statistics.

A few weeks ago he claimed that Covid-19 has come from SARS-CoV-2, both being virus...
I find hilarious when members are trying to lecture others on matters they don't know anything about and when they are confused with the basics.

If you take a look at the OP's analysis and claims you can easily see the flaws and mistakes and the lack of understanding of the basics too. Using CFR instead of IFR, creating statistics out of nowhere, competing vaccines to viruses, and using the reported cases in VAERS from Florida where he divides to the total numbers of shots given in the world.... It's just extraordinary!!!

a reply to: quintessentone

You are trying hard as I see you discredit the reporting system here in here in the US but it doesn't seen to work very much.

In addition you don't seem to have noticed the flawed arguments and claims by the OP who has produced statistics and an analysis that are completely false. I don't see any comments by the way and I wonder why...



What is truly amazing is that members have flagged this thread 7 times and starred him around 15 times. . given that the analysis and the statistics are completely wrong. I am sure you have starred it or flagged it or both.

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. He comes up with a fatality rate of 1 in 103 infections in the US which is completely wrong .

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... 50,577 reports in VAERS but only in the State of Florida which he then divides by the total number of shots worldwide... Massive confusion!!

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: visitedbythem

I was going to say if you died during the plandemic it was attributed to Covid in all likelihood no matter the real cause. If you died during the vaxxing it was not the vaxx and anything but that vaxx.
The vaxxes have and will kill more people than Covid.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: jidnum

VAERS was not created for what you think, it was created as an early warning system only.

These data analysts have done a lot of the work for us.

IHME adheres to the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER). Learn more about our protocols for best practices in data use.

covid19.healthdata.org...

Here are data analyses by location.

ghdx.healthdata.org...

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. The data analysts... may have done their job... but they are also able to differentiate between Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2. In contrast you seem to have issues with the basic definitions.

Trying desperately to ignore and dismiss VAERS make your arguments even less credible as it seems the numbers are not very convenient in this case... It shows clearly that you are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I don't consider VAERS to have verifiable data therefore any arguments based on this data will be flawed, but the IHME (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation) - an INDEPENDENT population health research organization - has done the correct and complete collection and assessments for us. Let's look there. Even looking at mask use data shows wearing masks reduces transmission by 30%. These are the data analysts we want for our INDEPENDENT go-to information.



We really need to do better at understanding the data.

ghdx.healthdata.org...

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: jidnum

VAERS was not created for what you think, it was created as an early warning system only.

These data analysts have done a lot of the work for us.

IHME adheres to the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER). Learn more about our protocols for best practices in data use.

covid19.healthdata.org...

Here are data analyses by location.

ghdx.healthdata.org...

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. The data analysts... may have done their job... but they are also able to differentiate between Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2. In contrast you see to have issues with the basic definitions.

Trying desperately to ignore and dismiss VAERS make your arguments even less credible as it seems the numbers are not very convenient in this case... It shows clearly that you are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

Genome research on Covid-19 origins from SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in guesswork and now they are calling Covid-19 a 'Chimera', so it would appear neither you, VAERS, nor I, nor expert genome researchers have the true answer just yet.

Hey, help me find an INDEPENDENT source, perhaps like IHME, so we can compare data and maybe we ALL can learn together how to interpret the TRUE data.

Misuse of data and dissemination of unverified data is misinformation and disinformation and it costs lives.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I don't consider VAERS to have verifiable data therefore any arguments based on this data will be flawed, but the IHME (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation) - an INDEPENDENT population health research organization - has done the correct and complete collection and assessments for us. Let's look there. Even looking at mask use data shows wearing masks reduces transmission by 30%. These are the data analysts we want for our INDEPENDENT go-to information.

We really need to do better at understanding the data.

ghdx.healthdata.org...

.
I don't think you understand the purpose of VAERS just as and you don't understand the difference between Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2 thinking that one came out of the other, both being virus... (as you said). Likewise when we're claiming that herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 can be still be achieved although this is a debunked claim.

It looks like the very high number of reported cases in VAERS are not so convenient when they don't serve the narrative...

a reply to: JBurns

Excellent summary

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: jidnum

VAERS was not created for what you think, it was created as an early warning system only.

These data analysts have done a lot of the work for us.

IHME adheres to the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER). Learn more about our protocols for best practices in data use.

covid19.healthdata.org...

Here are data analyses by location.

ghdx.healthdata.org...

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. The data analysts... may have done their job... but they are also able to differentiate between Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2. In contrast you see to have issues with the basic definitions.

Trying desperately to ignore and dismiss VAERS make your arguments even less credible as it seems the numbers are not very convenient in this case... It shows clearly that you are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

Genome research on Covid-19 origins from SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in guesswork and now they are calling Covid-19 a 'Chimera', so it would appear neither you, VAERS, nor I, nor expert genome researchers have the true answer just yet.

Hey, help me find an INDEPENDENT source, perhaps like IHME, so we can compare data and maybe we ALL can learn together how to interpret the TRUE data.

Misuse of data and dissemination of unverified data is misinformation and disinformation and it costs lives.

Don't forget how your understanding of these matters is when you have made all sort of false claims.

You said

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

If you can't see how is your argument exposed...

I don't need to do much by the way as you are exposing your arguments very easily not being able to differentiate between these two.

You are not in the position to say you who have propagated misinformation and that misinformation comes from VAERS. But you are right that misinformation and disinformation can cost lives as if healthy people knew they wouldn't have used the junk by Pfizer and Moderna. That's the only thing you are correct.

a reply to: JBurns

no free pass for gain of function fauci

originally posted by: DawgsterK
a reply to: JBurns

Excellent summary

I hope to haven't been sarcastic as the analysis and numbers are completely wrong.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: jidnum

VAERS was not created for what you think, it was created as an early warning system only.

These data analysts have done a lot of the work for us.

IHME adheres to the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER). Learn more about our protocols for best practices in data use.

covid19.healthdata.org...

Here are data analyses by location.

ghdx.healthdata.org...

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. The data analysts... may have done their job... but they are also able to differentiate between Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2. In contrast you see to have issues with the basic definitions.

Trying desperately to ignore and dismiss VAERS make your arguments even less credible as it seems the numbers are not very convenient in this case... It shows clearly that you are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

Genome research on Covid-19 origins from SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in guesswork and now they are calling Covid-19 a 'Chimera', so it would appear neither you, VAERS, nor I, nor expert genome researchers have the true answer just yet.

Hey, help me find an INDEPENDENT source, perhaps like IHME, so we can compare data and maybe we ALL can learn together how to interpret the TRUE data.

Misuse of data and dissemination of unverified data is misinformation and disinformation and it costs lives.

Don't forget how your understanding of these matters is when you have made all sort of false claims.

You said

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

If you can't see how is your argument exposed...

I don't need to do much by the way as you are exposing your arguments very easily not being able to differentiate between these two.

You are not in the position to say you who have propagated misinformation and that misinformation comes from VAERS. But you are right that misinformation and disinformation can cost lives as if healthy prod knew they wouldn't have used the junk by Pfizer and Moderna. That's the only thing you are correct.

The genome researchers said Covid-19 is FROM SARS-CoV-2 and merged with another pathogen to become a Chimera, so Covid-19 as a Chimera did indeed come from SARS-CoV-2, what is so difficult to understand about that.

You are not in any position to say anything either because all your confirmation bias sources to date are from discredited and right-wing leaning people who are being given the bum's rush out of any reputable scientific institution or community.

If you look at the INDEPENDENT data from IHME you will see how they collect and evaluate data which does not lend itself to base-rate fallacy, under-reporting, false reporting, over-reporting and especially weaknesses in others who don't know how to interpret data to misuse it and disseminate it to fit their narrative.

originally posted by: DawgsterK
a reply to: JBurns

Excellent summary

VAERS states some truths; 1. the data does not show causation or correlation to vaccine deaths.

This is the data we need to look for and not what fits the narrative.

a reply to: quintessentone

I find it amazing at what lengths vaccine apologists can go to defend the junk by Pfizer and Moderna by start dismissing the systems of recording and surveillance that were created for these particular reasons in the first place.

Vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: jidnum

VAERS was not created for what you think, it was created as an early warning system only.

These data analysts have done a lot of the work for us.

IHME adheres to the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER). Learn more about our protocols for best practices in data use.

covid19.healthdata.org...

Here are data analyses by location.

ghdx.healthdata.org...

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. The data analysts... may have done their job... but they are also able to differentiate between Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2. In contrast you see to have issues with the basic definitions.

Trying desperately to ignore and dismiss VAERS make your arguments even less credible as it seems the numbers are not very convenient in this case... It shows clearly that you are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

Genome research on Covid-19 origins from SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in guesswork and now they are calling Covid-19 a 'Chimera', so it would appear neither you, VAERS, nor I, nor expert genome researchers have the true answer just yet.

Hey, help me find an INDEPENDENT source, perhaps like IHME, so we can compare data and maybe we ALL can learn together how to interpret the TRUE data.

Misuse of data and dissemination of unverified data is misinformation and disinformation and it costs lives.

Don't forget how your understanding of these matters is when you have made all sort of false claims.

You said

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

If you can't see how is your argument exposed...

I don't need to do much by the way as you are exposing your arguments very easily not being able to differentiate between these two.

You are not in the position to say you who have propagated misinformation and that misinformation comes from VAERS. But you are right that misinformation and disinformation can cost lives as if healthy prod knew they wouldn't have used the junk by Pfizer and Moderna. That's the only thing you are correct.

The genome researchers said Covid-19 is FROM SARS-CoV-2 and merged with another pathogen to become a Chimera, so Covid-19 as a Chimera did indeed come from SARS-CoV-2, what is so difficult to understand about that.

You are not in any position to say anything either because all your confirmation bias sources to date are from discredited and right-wing leaning people who are being given the bum's rush out of any reputable scientific institution or community.

If you look at the INDEPENDENT data from IHME you will see how they collect and evaluate data which does not lend itself to base-rate fallacy, under-reporting, false reporting, over-reporting and especially weaknesses in others who don't know how to interpret data to misuse it and disseminate it to fit their narrative.

Well.. it is not me or most others here who don't understand the difference between Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2.

Still you don't seem to get it.

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

Can you spot the mistake. Or still you are unable to do so?

What right wing leaning people are you talking about?? This is a great strawman again. The rest of your arguments are flawed just as the one above.