snowdog90 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

VAERS is a self-reported system to allow researchers to identify and explore possible problems. It is not at all a peer-reviewed source. It is not a list of known vaccine-related problems. It is people (literally anyone) claiming a medical condition that they believe may be due to a vaccine. To use it uncritically as evidence of a problem with a vaccine is asinine.

---

This is just laughable. You will grasp at anything to defend your precious vaccine. VAERS is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. It's the only system used for vaccine adverse events. The covid vaccine caused more reports from 2021 than all other vaccines combined since VAERS was created.

It's THE system. Most doctors say the events are UNDER reported.

You act like this data is all of a sudden unreliable since covid came out, as if it's just a bunch of pranksters thinking it would be fun to hoax covid adverse events.

Covid vaccine adverse events are numerous and serious. Blood clots, strokes, heart issues, neurological issues, the list goes on and on. To act like this doesn't exist is naive or just a lie.

---

Zobel said:

---

it's not damning and the 2009 H1N1 flu shot is not a good analog. since the covid vaccines were not FDA approved, they had different reporting requirements for medical professionals (i.e., stricter). All things being equal, we would expect higher rates of VAERS reports. that's what we saw.

more heads i win tails you lose approach here, because it says we need "unbiased" research. translated: research that agrees with my preconceived notions.

the "amount of harm" you're presenting mostly exists in your imagination.

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

VAERS is a self-reported system to allow researchers to identify and explore possible problems. It is not at all a peer-reviewed source. It is not a list of known vaccine-related problems. It is people (literally anyone) claiming a medical condition that they believe may be due to a vaccine. To use it uncritically as evidence of a problem with a vaccine is asinine.

---

Zobel said:

---

it's a big jump, sure. but it doesn't mean anything in and of itself.

the vaccines were under EUA so providers had different reporting requirements than any vaccine in history. we can stop right there, because that by itself says prior reporting numbers aren't directly comparable.

the second is that VAERS basically came into the general public consciousness in a new way. that drives reports too.

Quote:

---

I already agreed with you that VAERS is doing what it was designed to and has limitations (cynically built into it). But we either all acknowledge that it is working as intended, and highlight a significant increase is claimed adverse events that should cause everyone to pause and wonder what is going on, or we acknowledge that VAERS was never meant to do anything and close our eyes and ears.

---

this is painful, fractally wrong. there's no cynical limitation. it is an open access passive surveillance tool. no one was sitting around saying - hey we could have a better way to do this, but let's build a crappy tool instead. it is working as intended, but the indicator for a problem is not volume of reports into VAERS.

that's what i don't get. hypothetically speaking if every person who get the vaccine heard about VAERS, and went and entered soreness or fatigue as an adverse event (which they are) there would be millions and millions of entries and no indicator of a problem.

it takes analysis of those reports to see if the report itself represents a potential problem, and second to see if there is potential causality. and... the people who do this for a living actively did this, and it actively worked, and that's why there's a myocarditis warning label.

Quote:

---

Again, on a logical level, VAERS should be reporting higher than usual incidents from the COVID vaccines. We know the testing insufficient, we know the science is newer, and we know the claims of our medical establishment were outright lies.

---

begging the question and failure of basic logic. we don't know testing was insufficient (in fact there was a much larger sample size in the trials than normal). "the science is newer" does not follow that VAERS reports go up or even that problems increase. and medical establishment can lie all they want, does not change the number of entries into VAERS.

---