LOL

OK bud, keep your head in the sand and pretend there is nothing to see if it makes you feel better.

My observation of vaccine skeptics not understanding VAERS seems to still have 100% accuracy.

Yeah, I understand it fine. Adverse event reports are millions above baseline but they don't mean anything. LOL

You guys are hilarious with your desperate attempts to deny the obvious.

Heh, that post brought back memories of online poker riggies and how many times they claimed to see the "obvious" with their eyes. They also hated people who explained things to them using simple facts and logic.

You should check it out in the now dead internet poker forum, you will see many riggies over the years saying exactly the types of things you are saying. They all can see what they believe to be the obvious, yet they never can prove it for some reason with proper verifiable data. Most is mundane whining, but some of the stuff is pretty good. Give this read a thread that the stats guys keep on top of the stats forum due to the OPs legend status.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...tally-1706112/

All the best.

Continue to show that you don't understand how signal analysis in VAERS works. Rate comparison of specific populations is necessary for a signal and even an elevated rate is not proof itself of actual adverse events. There is no baseline in those OpenVAERS graphs in the only meaningful application of the word here. Baseline would be the rate of all heartattacks in a specific demographic, as I've already mentioned. If there were more heartattacks being reported in VAERS in a particular demographic than you would normally expect, that's a signal. How do you think things like myocarditis were discovered? Why would the CDC reveal such a case if they're really suppressing data?

All that OpenVAERS shows you is more reporting overall, not more adverse events, which can have numerous causes beyond actual increases in adverse events. You are looking at noise and drawing conclusions you cannot make based on this data.

I suspect that OpenVAERS doesn't display data in the way that actual signals might be revealed because it would be much less alarmist. The fact that they prominently display that bogus 1% claim on the top of their page and not the CDC's disclaimers about VAERS data tells you all you need to know about the motivations and interest in transparency of this garbage dump.

I checked the VAERS database this morning. The total number of COVID-19 vaccine adverse reports is 951,356. The current estimate for the number Americans who have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine is 270,045,602. That translates to an adverse reporting percentage of three and a half tenths of one percent (.003522).

I then checked the same database for all influenza vaccines. The number of reported influenza vaccine adverse events was 1,116,508. The total number of influenza doses last year was 173 million. That translates to an adverse reporting percentage of six and a half tenths of one percent (.00645), if we presume the number of vaccines last year is typical and recurring. Naturally the influenza vaccine has been administered for a much longer total period than the COVID-19 vaccine.

I amused myself just now thinking about how many times Brian James has reported vaccine data to the VAERS database.

That's a high number for the influenza vaccines. So it looks like they could be dodgy as well. Thanks for the info.

I assume you mean the vaccine is dodgy because your agenda is vaccines = bad rather than the data = dodgy when used as you use it, because that is reality?

Are all vaccines bad or are some ok for you? Just curious. If there is one that is ok for you (I don't know, say polio one) would a check of this database change that if you could misinterpret it in a way to suit an anti-vaxx agenda? Thanks in advance.

‘Nocebo effect’: two-thirds of Covid jab reactions not caused by vaccine, study suggests

Writing in the journal Jama Network Open, the researchers describe how after the first injection more than 35% of those in the placebo groups experienced so-called “systemic” side-effects, such as headache and fatigue, with 16% reporting site-specific ailments including arm pain or redness or swelling at the injection site.

As expected, those who received a first shot of vaccine were more likely to experience side-effects. About 46% reported systemic symptoms and two-thirds experienced arm pain or other localised symptoms at the injection site.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...study-suggests

So what? They are talking about mild side effects only. It's the more serious reactions that we should be paying attention to.

New study finds "Long Covid" could actually be "Long Mask".

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...3.1125150/full

Do you try to find and misinterpret data for all vaccines or just the Covid ones? Is the Polio vaccine bad for instance? Thanks in advance.

Not saying good/bad source.

Noted"
Overall, we (biascheck.org) rate Frontiers a Pro-Science source; however, due to being an open-access publishing company, we advise caution as not all information is properly peer-reviewed.

as well as:

....is an exploitative open-access publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors without providing the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals (open access or not).

Finally:

Frontiers have also retracted some studies that were found to be of poor methodology and not thoroughly peer-reviewed.

Generally, we still rate Frontiers pro-science. Of the thousands of journal articles they have published, only a select few were retracted, and the act of retraction shows diligence toward credible science.

Nice find BJ. Probably needs more investigations.

I definitely fall on the derp side of the spectrum of hating masks but this is flol

And which COVID-19 mRNA vaccine phase 3 study, randomized controlled trial, or systemic review of RCTs document the serious reactions you're referring to, outside the known incidence of myocarditis in young cohorts?

Have you heard of Madeleine de Garay? If not I suggest you look it up. She was a 13 year old participant in one of the pfizer trials who had a serious reaction immediately after one of the shots. She is now in a wheelchair for life with a feeding tube as a result.

That's the sort of thing I am referring to.

"The median trial duration was only 18 min (IQR = 50) for our comprehensive evaluation of mask induced physio-metabolic and clinical outcomes"

"So far, several mask related symptoms may have been misinterpreted as long COVID-19 symptoms"

I'm familiar with that case. Over 13 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered. How about those studies I asked for?

The anti-vaxx derps in BFI were doing the isolated incident thing years ago. That routine is hardly new, but it of course ignores all the lives the vaccine saved as people like you focus on single situations among billions of doses given as if it is statistically significant. It is not.

Is it just this vaccine you are obsessed about or is it all vaccines? DO you have the same hatred for the polio vaccine for instance? Thanks in advance.

Or many other commonly taken medications that can cause serious side effects in some people. I guess we should stop surgeries as well since sometimes those don't go as planned.

Even one case such as that in a trial with a limited number of participants is concerning. After 13 billion doses how many other Madeleine de Garays are out there? Who knows? The law of averages would suggest that the number could be quite substantial.

Here are a few cases that I found with just a brief search.

https://meridian.allenpress.com/aplm...-Findings-in-2

https://www.independent.ie/irish-new...-42162426.html

If the number was substantial then you would have more stories than just 1 to share to serve your anti-vaxx agenda. Law of averages and such. Just saying.

All the best.

Not really. Assuming her case is actually related to vaccination she's one of 20,000 participants in that trial. So maybe .00005% of the vaccinated population ends up like her. Far more people were protected by vaccination.

I'd love to hear more about this law of averages - what do you believe it means?