get your vaccination and your booster shot

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the function and value of VAERS.

Any American can report a 'vaccine adverse event' or better yet what they 'believe' to be a vaccine adverse event. The main point here that causation is not automatically conferred -- it is what the vaccine could have potentially caused. The VAERS system in place to keep track of unintended or unfavourable events that might have been caused by a vaccine.

The issue with VAERS is that the limitations of VAERS are easily and totally exploited by those purveyors of misinformation like the childrenshealthdefense dot org

The problem with these liars is they conflate correlation with causation. They scroll through the VAERS data, they cherry-pick data, and presents that as proof that a vaccine is known to cause serious harm and death. These antivax idiots have no business using VAERS as proof a vaccine is clearly causing harm. It takes genuine researchers, epidemiologists, statisticians to look at the data and determine that there might be an issue. This has happened. The VAERS system was helpful in identifying there were bowel problems being caused by a rotavirus vaccine which was subsequently taken off the market.

Scrolling through a VAERS data set does not allow us to conclude anything; VAERS can be used to generate hypotheses but not to test them directly.

There are obvious weakness in the database. The first is obviously it can't in any way help assess causation, it can only provide an indication that something might be going on. Everybody is encouraged by VAERS to report any medical event or health problem EVEN if they aren't sure it was caused by a vaccine. Those doing further study of an issue can't be sure if it was due to the vaccine, due to underlying medical conditions, medications, or simply by chance.

The idiots who cherry-pick data from VAERS and publish false causation data are doing so without any proof. When VAERS actually detects something unusual they don't leave it up to ignorant non-scientist to make judgements. Generally, the vast majority of events reported for the covid-19 vaccines have not been serious.

Another problem with VAERS is, there is no control group to compare the reports against because unvaccinated people do not report adverse events to VAERS. This means there is no way to determine if the number of reported events is different from the number that would have been observed without the vaccination. For example, data from March 29th, 2021 recorded 2509 reports of death which represents 0.0017% of those receiving a covid vaccine. In 2019, before the pandemic, 0.8% of the U.S. population died from any cause. Basically, you are going to have deaths that have nothing to do with the vaccines. You can't determine that a death was caused by the vaccine just because somebody had the vaccine. The deaths have to be reported by doctors just because they had received a vaccination. This also goes for any other health issues, like Cancer, Kidney disease, etc etc etc. A certain percentage of people will develop these conditions at any given time whether or not they were vaccinated. Unfortunately, the anti-vaxxers tend to conflate any report to VAERS as proof that vaccines are definitely causing thousands of deaths. It's all disgusting lies.

Any article that claims causation from data taken from VAERS is bullshit.

 

~ The same can be said of those who continue to rely on network "news", watch CNN or depend on CDC, WHO or $aint Fauci . '

 

Not everybody relies on information from MSM, the CDC, WHO or Fauci. There is a ton of reliable epidemiological, statistical, scientific information related to COVID/Vaccines that is available from research based, evidenced based, non-government sources. Some of us even an educational background relevant to all these issues.

Monash is correct — Expose News is a garbage site full of false and misleading information and shouldn’t be used as a source of reliable information EVER.

 

Funny how nothing is said about all the peer-reviewed medical studies on vaccine adverse effects. I wonder where the researchers got their data from.

 

Links like this can't be trusted. In fact, the study it links to is absolute RUBBISH.

'researchgate dot net' is simply a site that is describe as "a European commercial social networking site for scientists and researchers to share papers, ask and answer questions". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchGate) It does not mean research papers on the site are all reputable.

ResearchGate has been criticized for failing to provide safeguards against "the dark side of academic writing", including such phenomena as fake publishers, "ghost journals", publishers with "predatory" publication fees, and fake impact ratings. It has also been criticized for copyright infringement of published works.

Looking at the publishing details of this particular paper --> Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021; 5(1): 1-3. This is the Journal of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. This particular journal is published by --> Publisher: Wilmington, DE : SCiVision Publishers, LLC, [2017]-Language: English. Further investigation reveals, from multiple sources, that this publisher engages in 'predatory publishing'. (For example: https://beallslist.net/#update, http://eprints.rclis.org/40643/1/Listofpredatoryjournalsandpublishers-Article.pdf)

Some illegitimate publishers co-opt the Open Access model by charging these Article Processing Charges, but fail to adhere to the rigorous standards of scholarly publishing. Many do not do peer review, or do so only on a superficial level. Many illegitimate journals are run by an editorial board of people from mixed disciplines who do not possess the expertise required to create a quality journal. These journals are akin to vanity presses where authors pay to have their work published, but the work itself is not professionally reviewed or vetted in any way. (https://pitt.libguides.com/c.php?g=718064&p=5112543)

As for the article itself, there is an obvious conflict of interest. The author J. Bart Classen is the CEO of Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. On further evaluation of the author, it appears that J. Bart Classen is an anti-vaccine advocate who has published research falsely linking vaccines to diabetes, Alzheimer's, and other diseases. (https://www.politifact.com/personalities/j-bart-classen/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Bart_Classen)

Looking at the content of the paper itself, it's largely an opinion piece based on antivax rhetoric. He claimed "potential risk factors for inducing prion disease is humans.". This study contains three sentences describing its methodology and actually provides absolutely no proof related to vaccinations causing prions. Again, there is absolutely no evidence. Generally, other scientists should be able to test somebody's hypotheses by replicating their experiment to see what results they get. Replication either supports the findings or not. Classen doesn't give any information how anything was analyzed, what software was used, so other researchers can't replicate the findings. He didn't appear to examine any controls, like cellular mRNA sequences. He simply states that the COVID vaccines contain various RNA sequences that may trigger TDP-43 and FUS's misfolding.

Language like "may cause" and "potential" are nothing but speculation and not proof of anything. The study is worthless and shouldn't be used by anybody to promote the idea that vaccines cause prion diseases.

Classen states at the end of his paper that “Many have raised the warning that the current epidemic of COVID-19 is actually the result of an bio-weapons attack released in part by individuals in the United States government”. He cites two sources and the sources are from himself. Also note the poor grammar of 'an bio-weapons' attack. It might be a small point but most upstanding journals publish manuscripts that have had any poor grammar meticulously removed.

If this paper was actually 'peer-reviewed', it just shows the dodgy nature of SCIVision because any real scientists with knowledge of prions and the vaccines would have laughed their collective heads off. When an author of a 'so-called' research paper references himself, in such a way, it just serves to identify the paper as anti-vaccine vehicle rather than a scientifically objective paper.

It's easy to link to garbage articles as proof of something, but rather than just cherry-picking an article which shows nothing relevant, why not go further and use some good critical thinking to find out who published the article, is the article published in a reputable journal, are the findings believable, would other scientists be able to replicate the study, are there any conflicts of interests, is the author biased?

 

Covid deaths in Canada are 90+% among the vaccinated. People shouldnt get the vaccines because they are ineffective. The adverse effects makes the decision a no brainer.

 

Any researcher that knows what they are doing would never use VAERS data to formulate any conclusion.

To measure, in a scientific manner, whether a vaccine has caused or contributed to an adverse event you need four sets of reliable data.

1. Vaccinated people who have experienced the adverse event
2. Vaccinated people who did not experience the adverse event
3. Unvaccinated people who experienced the adverse event
4 Unvaccinated people who did not experience the adverse event

VAERS gives one piece of information — a vaccinated person experienced an adverse event. Unfortunately, any data from VAERS basically says somebody had a vaccine, somebody had a side-effect which may or may not have been caused by a vaccine. You can’t use data like this in any study to show causation or even correlation.

Any researcher would not use data that comes from an open source, anecdotal and unverified database. As a database, it also contains some types of events that are more likely to be reported than others. By design, it’s a biased sample. Why would a researcher use VAERS for data? There are other databases like the Vaccine Safety Datalink that monitors electronic health records; the FDA’s Sentinel program which looks at insurance claims ….

The whole point of VAERS is to watch out for safety signals that might suggest a problem with a given vaccine. If a scientist notes a safety signal, they can use other databases to see if there might be anything amiss. Using VAERS in research to support conclusions about a vaccine actually causing adverse events is bad design and a useless tool.

Let’s say, that some researcher has a hypothesis about the covid vaccine. As you say, the data could be correlated to other studies done and a conclusion reached. Nope, because the data in VAERS is unreliable. You can’t just take the data and compare it to other studies. Scientists have to use verified data to determine cause and effect relationships. Variables need to be controlled for. They can’t use data that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. The most is that they might use data from VAERS is to suggest a hypothesis with the support of other studies.

 

Unless, you provide proof, you statement will be taken as misinformation.

 

I looked it up myself, you are providing misinformation.



https://www.statista.com/statistics/1257040/number-covid-deaths-canada-by-vaccination-status/

 

I should have been more specific in that the 90+% figured is for ONE recent period of a couple weeks, not the past 8 months.
This
Communist Trudeau panics after his Government reveals the Quadruple/Triple Vaccinated now account for 92% of COVID Deaths across Canada – The Expose (expose-news.com)
may be referring to the same data

 

Could you please support your contentions with proof from a trusted site dealing with verified statistics. Expose news is a
bullshit site that posts misinformation.

 

It's just one piece of their research puzzle.

 

So you've used and cited CDC data/info in the past right? You swore wholeheartedly on the "metaphorical I trust the science bible" as gospel in the past, right? Can you guess where VAERS is located, part of? Come on, take a wild guess. Boo!, it's the CDC so you'll cite the CDC on narratives favourable to your argument, but then turn around and call out a narrative something that is not because it rocks your beliefs.

So, your saying CDC data is bullshit now? Priceless.

 

First of all, I do know that VAERS is a part of the CDC. So, you fail on the assumption — massively. You know what they say about people who make assumptions, don’t you?

Second of all, I have used and cited CDC data once, yes, that’s once on this forum. So, you fail on trying to assert that I constantly use the CDC to support what I say. I don’t. I also am not saying that CDC/VAERS data is bullshit. Try to understand. The data from VAERS is meant to be used to detect potential problems with vaccines. It is not meant to be used as proof of causation between some event and the vaccine. The bullshit comes in when dodgy liars use data from VAERS as proof of causation. I have already stated the data from VAERS is good when used what it is meant for. You need to learn to read and comprehend.

Thirdly, I trust science but only to the point that it’s good science, there is a lot of garbage research/science out there as well. I certainly don’t support the pseudoscience produced by liars intent on spreading disinformation by using VAERS to support causation. I look at all research with a critical eye and consider a lot of it to be garbage. So you fail on that assumption as well.

Lastly, since you are unable to comprehend the simplest points or you feel you must digress into posting misinformation about me, I will spell my major point out to you — no reputable article can use the data from VAERS to support causation.

Your welcome.

 

@MuchAdo

So you have cited the CDC in the past. Now you say that VAERS is rubbish, which is it?

 

I never said that VAERs is rubbish. Again, l said those sites that use VAERS data to suggest causation are rubbish useless lying sites. There is nothing wrong with the VAERs data itself when used appropriately. Stop misquoting me.

 

I've had my initial, single-dose, J & J vaccine, and a "booster" which was just the same vaccine, 7 months later. But that was 10 months ago. The Jansen/J&J vaccine, which was never common, does not appear to be being administered, anymore, in my neck of the woods (I know that the others are supposedly better, with less abstract risk, though I think that is variable, when it comes to actual individuals). Anyway, my point is that, to boost my immunity now, it looks like I will have to go to one of the mRNA vaccines which I had been trying to avoid, out of an excess of caution because, though theoretically safe, they are still a new technology which, like the first model of any new car line, I had felt it was wiser to hold off of, until time had proven them, in practice, to match the theory. I know there have been a huge number of "subjects" who've given us "experience" with the new technology; I would point out that the last time I was in the ER, for an X-ray, I found out that they have stopped using lead shields, on the patients because, after all these years, research now shows that this actually traps MORE radiation, inside the patient, than it blocks out. My point, for anyone who hasn't yet had their coffee, is that it can sometimes take a while, with a new technology, before we can be sure we understand all we should, about it.

Be this as it may, my question is for anyone with info and/or experience with the latest form of this technology, the new "bivalent," booster.

 

~ Universities forced vaccine mandates likely cause more harm than good.

"Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable. "

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070​

 

Oh, so those that use it, to correlate the data with their own studies and research, that is rubbish, is it? So tell me what is the purpose of VAERS again?

 

Which part of stop misquoting me are you failing to understand?

Verbatim quotes from https://vaers.hhs.gov/index.html

 

Your implied responses indicate you give it a lack of integrity of the VAERS system, which is part of the CDC. I am trying to determine your perspective on it (VAERS). You have used the CDC in the past, regardless of how many or little times, yet you discredit it because researchers use the data. What part of the questioning don't you understand?

Objectives of VAERS
The primary objectives of VAERS are to:

• Detect new, unusual, or rare vaccine adverse events;
• Monitor increases in known adverse events;
• Identify potential patient risk factors for particular types of adverse events;
• Assess the safety of newly licensed vaccines;
• Determine and address possible reporting clusters (e.g., suspected localized [temporally or geographically] or product-/batch-/lot-specific adverse event reporting);
• Recognize persistent safe-use problems and administration errors;
• Provide a national safety monitoring system that extends to the entire general population for response to public health emergencies, such as a large-scale pandemic influenza vaccination program.

This part of your cut & paste is the crux of the argument.

So if the bold text can't be used for research and analysis, what can it be used for, according to you?

 

Adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines and measures to prevent them

Abstract

Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals. According to European Medicines Agency recommendations, frequent COVID-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible. The decrease in immunity can be caused by several factors such as N1-methylpseudouridine, the spike protein, lipid nanoparticles, antibody-dependent enhancement, and the original antigenic stimulus. These clinical alterations may explain the association reported between COVID-19 vaccination and shingles. As a safety measure, further booster vaccinations should be discontinued. In addition, the date of vaccination should be recorded in the medical record of patients. Several practical measures to prevent a decrease in immunity have been reported. These include limiting the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including acetaminophen to maintain deep body temperature, appropriate use of antibiotics, smoking cessation, stress control, and limiting the use of lipid emulsions, including propofol, which may cause perioperative immunosuppression. In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination is a major risk factor for infections in critically ill patients.

https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-022-01831-0

 

For Immediate Release: New Peer-Reviewed Papers Lead Calls for Suspension of Covid-19 Vaccines

In a two-part paper entitled “Curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine,” real-world data reveals that in the non-elderly population the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one death from Covid-19 runs into thousands and that re-analysis of randomised controlled trial data suggests a greater risk of suffering a serious adverse event from the vaccine than to be hospitalised with Covid-19.

Speaking about the report, Dr Aseem Malhotra said, “There has been a rise in out of hospital cardiac arrests and heart attacks linked to Pfizer’s Covid-19 mRNA vaccine with plausible biological mechanisms of harm” and “Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety.”

https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/n...reviewed-papers-suspension-covid-19-vaccines/

 

How COVID-19 vaccine can destroy your immune system

According to a study that examined how informed consent is given to COVID-19 vaccine trial participants, disclosure forms fail to inform volunteers that the vaccine might make them susceptible to more severe disease if they're exposed to the virus.

The study,1 "Informed Consent Disclosure to Vaccine Trial Subjects of Risk of COVID-19 Vaccine Worsening Clinical Disease," published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice, October 28, 2020, points out that "COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies may sensitize vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated."

https://www.sott.net/article/445095...-your-immune-system?ysclid=l9149vcgmq53636485

 

~ I think the term scientists use is "immune damping " . The miracle mRNA Covid-19 "vaccine " experiment apparently weakens an individuals immune system with each dose .
It's actually a marvelous marketing ploy for those who are hypochondriac or just like being addicted to the shots.

A habit forming vaccine that the entire family can enjoy ... ! ​