sycasey said:
Zippergate said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
2) The massive amount of side effects reported in VAERS is normal because VAERS can't be trusted because it was hardly used prior.
Yeah, that's absolutely right. Ironically, Cal88 (in his attempt to fearmonger) has done a great job of demonstrating why VAERS isn't reliable. Does anyone really believe the number of stillbirths/miscarriages really went up 3000x in 2020? That the rate of such was so low prior to that? No, I don't think so.
That number only jumps because a whole lot of people became more aware of VAERS in 2020. There was a new vaccine that a bunch of people took at the same time (with multiple doses) and a massive publicity campaign around them. The primary reason you're seeing so many new reports in VAERS is because of response bias.
Now, that doesn't mean that the vaccines lack side effects and that we might need to learn more about them. But the VOLUME of reports doesn't mean anything, if you're comparing to years past.
Do you think that the skyrocketing rate of heart injuries among professional athletes right after the vax rollout also is a manifestation of some kind of a cognitive bias?
Do you also have a chart for that or is it just anecdotes?
Hank Aaron died within days of receiving his covid shot. He was 86, died in his sleep, and it was determined to be death from natural causes. Who is going to chart that?
An 86 year old man dying in his sleep? Why would anyone think that was unusual?
It is so easy to disregard the causation, right? If they are old, it is natural. If they are young, they probably had covid at some point or would have had covid at some point and would have been ill regardless.
If causation could actually be demonstrated, then that would be something. Your statement did not demonstrate it. It's the basic definition of "correlation is not causation."
If someone has a heart attack or stroke with covid, covid caused it. If someone has such within days of getting the vaccine, it is assumed to be natural causes. No further investigation necessary!
Hey, I think the "with Covid" deaths are overreported too. But they're still more reliable than VAERS.
So we have this massive spike in death and disease recorded in VAERS and it is correlated with the vaxxines. Call me crazy but I think it would be a good idea to investigate if there was causation as well.
Pretty sure those things are being investigated. Why would you think they aren't?
Maybe you will find this satisfying but I don't in light of all that has transpired over the last few years.
CDC vaccine safety monitoring - Epoch Times
The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has acknowledged publicly for the first time that the agency gave false information about its COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring.Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the agency's director, said in a letter made public on Sept. 12 that the CDC did not analyze certain types of adverse event reports at all in 2021, despite the agency previously saying it started in February 2021."CDC performed PRR analysis between March 25, 2022, through July 31, 2022," Walensky said. "CDC also recently addressed a previous statement made to the Epoch Times to clarify PRR were not run between February 26, 2021, to September 30, 2021."Walensky's agency had promised in several documents, starting in early 2021, to perform a type of analysis called Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) on reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which it helps manage.But the agency said in June that it did not perform PRRs. It also said that performing them was "outside th[e] agency's purview."Confronted with the contradiction, Dr. John Su, a CDC official, told The Epoch Times in July that the agency started performing PRRs in February 2021 and "continues to do so to date."But just weeks later, the CDC said Su was wrong."CDC performed PRRs from March 25, 2022 through July 31, 2022," a spokeswoman told The Epoch Times in August.Walensky's new letter, dated Sept. 2 and sent on Sept. 6 to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), shows that Walensky is aware that her agency gave false information.'Lacked Any Justification'Walensky's letter included no explanation of why that happened.The letter "lacked any justification for why CDC performed PRRS during certain periods and not others," Johnson, the top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Investigations, told Walensky in a response."You also provided no explanation as to why Dr. Su's assertion … completely contradicts the CDC's [initial] response … as well as your September 6, 2022, response to me," he added.He demanded answers from the CDC on the situation, including why the CDC did not perform PRRs until March and why the agency misinformed the public when it said no PRRs were conducted.The CDC and Walensky did not respond to requests for comment."At no time have any CDC employees intentionally provided false information," a CDC spokesperson, when correcting the agency's previous responses, told The Epoch Times via email in August.The spokesperson claimed that the false information was given because the CDC thought The Epoch Times and Children's Health Defense, which received the first response, were asking about a different type of analysis called Empirical Bayesian data mining. But both The Epoch Times and Children's Health Defense specifically listed PRRs in their queries.StonewallingThe CDC has still not provided the results of the PRRs that were performed to The Epoch Times. It also did not provide them to Johnson. The Food and Drug Administration, which has conducted Empirical Bayesian data mining on Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System reports, recently refused to provide any of the results to the Epoch Times.Walensky alleged in the new letter that Empirical Bayesian data mining is more reliable, and that the PRR results "were generally consistent with EB data mining, revealing no additional unexpected safety signals.""However, because of your failure to provide these analyses to Congress and to the American people, the public cannot verify your assertion," Johnson said.He added that the CDC's "overall lack of transparency is unacceptable particularly in light of CDC's inconsistent statements on this matter."