Skyrocketing Massive Vax Induced Heart Injuries!

We disagree but it is good to discuss without hurtful words.

 

Yes politics tends to breed bad manners. No doubt there.

 

THE most absurd thing anyone can say on this matter!

And gave you easy to understand educational material from experts showing why not!

YOUR flawed understanding of how it works and your obvious allegiance to the very thing highlighted about "Anti-vaccination fringe groups" is the problem!
ibid
1. Since the emergence of COVID-19 vaccines, however, the database has garnered more dubious notoriety. Anti-vaccination fringe groups have attempted to spin false stories using VAERS data, adding to misinformation about the safety of COVID-19 vaccinations.

2. While VAERS cannot determine whether an adverse event was caused by a vaccination, patterns in reporting may suggest a need for further evaluation to assess potential safety concerns.

3. "How VAERS Works
When researchers notice a pattern, such as an uptick in side effects after a particular vaccination or among a particular group of patients, such as women over 65 or people with diabetes, they can follow up by investigating with other safety monitoring systems, such as the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which can connect adverse events to medical records and reports from health care facilities and practitioners. Importantly, in addition to being verified, this data includes controls, Talaat says. That's because medical data for women over 65 or diabetics would include reports from both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.

4. VAERS doesn’t reveal how many people report the same reaction, nor how many in an unvaccinated population report the same thing. By following up with other monitoring systems, researchers can determine if, for example, the population of people who report getting arthritis after a vaccine is the same as a control group getting arthritis in the same period, which would rule out the vaccine as the cause.

5. “The COVID vaccine especially is where VAERS has gotten so misused,” Talaat says. “Eighty percent of people in this country have gotten at least one dose. Well, a lot of things have happened to 80% of people in the last two years that are unrelated to the vaccine.”

Answer the question, evasion noted: Are you claiming VAERS reports aren't investigated?

 

Yes, it must be true because poster named "Illuminati Bot" said so in Twitter.

 

VAERS was put in place in the legislation which eliminated liability for vaccine manufacturers. A Harvard study determined that only 1% of adverse vaccine reactions are reported.

“Experts” can be found to support any possible position.

Where is the reporting on the deaths reported using the VAERS system?

I have answered your question.

 

That's just bullshit. It's an early warning system for potential problems!

The useless antivaxx-by-numbers factoid! The following is not for your benefit as clearly you aren't even reading any of it.
What VAERS Can and Can’t Do, and How Anti-Vaccination Groups Habitually Misuse Its Data - FactCheck.org
"For decades, an unassuming government vaccine safety surveillance system has done its job, quickly flagging possible side effects and allowing scientists and regulators to investigate further.

But for nearly as long, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, has also been exploited by people opposed to vaccination. With a publicly searchable database, full of unverified reports of health problems that occurred sometime after vaccination, VAERS has proven irresistible to the anti-vaccination community, which often falsely claims the number of reported deaths or other issues is proof that vaccines are dangerous. That’s despite the fact that the reports aren’t vetted for accuracy and don’t mean that a vaccine caused a particular problem.

VAERS is an early warning system used to identify potential safety concerns after a vaccine has been authorized or approved in the U.S. It’s often described as a “frontline” system, since it’s frequently the first vaccine safety system to detect a problem. But it’s also noisy and prone to distortion. “Most of the anti-vaccine stuff that you hear, when they start to talk about how vaccines caused whatever, they’ll point to VAERS data,” Dr. Paul A. Offit, a vaccine expert at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told us. “It is just manna from heaven to get bad information out there.”

While VAERS distortions were already a staple of vaccine misinformation prior to the pandemic, misuse of VAERS exploded with the arrival of the COVID-19 vaccines in late 2020. At FactCheck.org, we’ve written story after story debunking false or misleading claims about the COVID-19 vaccines that were based on misunderstandings about VAERS — and so have our fellow fact-checkers.

And now, one of the most notorious abusers of VAERS data is running for president. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nephew of assassinated President John F. Kennedy and a prominent anti-vaccine advocate, announced his campaign challenging President Joe Biden in April. (Kennedy has stated that he is for safer vaccines and is not “anti-vaccine,” but many of his arguments against vaccination are inaccurate or misleading and typical of the movement.)

In 2016, Kennedy founded a group that would become Children’s Health Defense, a nonprofit that traffics in anti-vaccine misinformation and disinformation. Hundreds of stories on Kennedy’s website mention VAERS. Given the misuse and confusion around VAERS, a research team at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center — led by APPC Director Kathleen Hall Jamieson and in partnership with Critica Science — has proposed renaming VAERS “Vaccination Safety Monitor” or “Vaccination Safety Watch.” APPC is FactCheck.org’s parent organization."

And there’s no simple way of determining how much underreporting exists. Anti-vaccine groups commonly cite a 2010 report from Harvard Pilgrim Health Care that stated “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.”

But Dr. Michael Klompas, a public health surveillance researcher at Harvard Medical School and one of the authors of the report, told us in an email that the 1% number “takes into account that many adverse effects of vaccines are mild and expected so not worth reporting (sore arm, fatigue, local redness, etc.).”

Other researchers have attempted to estimate what’s called the reporting efficiency, or reporting sensitivity, of certain adverse events in VAERS, generally finding that the system more completely collects serious adverse events than mild ones.

An early effort in 1995, for example, found that VAERS detected 68% of vaccine-associated polio cases following the oral polio vaccine, but less than 1% of rashes after the MMR vaccine. (The oral polio vaccine has since been replaced in the U.S. with an injected vaccine that cannot give people the disease.) Other work has found that for anaphylaxis, a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction that occurs rarely with any vaccine, VAERS captured anywhere from 13% to 76% of cases, depending on the vaccine. Another study estimated that VAERS caught 47% of cases of intussusception after the RotaShield vaccine.

But as that paper noted, “Although the reporting completeness of VAERS has been evaluated for some specific vaccine-event associations, this information cannot be generalized.” “The magnitude of underreporting varies widely, depending upon factors such as the severity of the event, proximity in time of the event to vaccination, and preexisting awareness on the possible association of the event to the vaccine,” it reads. While underreporting is a legitimate limitation of VAERS, the system is not intended to capture everything. And applying ad hoc estimates for underreporting, particularly to all adverse events, or for adverse events that have not been linked to vaccination, is scientifically unsound and misleading.

Ignorant antivaxx "whistle blowers" can do likewise. But the antivaxx-by-numbers statement is noted. Hell of a lot of experts all agreeing with each other but they don't count, whereas the tiny majority supporting batshit "telling the truf" do. MEH!

OFF TOPIC! Find it yourself so that you can then ignore all the conclusions, because the experts don't agree with the antivaxx lies!

Badly. The VAERS data is constantly looked at for the reasons it was created for, to provide visible patterns that can be analyzed against statistical occurrences. It's ludicrous antivaxx hyperbole to suggest every one should be looked at!
Example:
If after administration of a vaccine 300 people complain of something, statistically the same number occurs without vaccine, the pattern suggests nothing untoward. If the statistics show much lower numbers, then they would investigate. THAT is what the damn thing was created for, not to cater for foolish and noisy antivaxxers who lie about the data and have no idea what they are doing!

 

What is the motivation for faking serious adverse reactions after being vaccinated?

McCarthy, Ken. What the Nurses Saw: An Investigation Into Systemic Medical Murders That Took Place in Hospitals During the COVID Panic and the Nurses Who Fought Back ... Their Patients (Medical System Corruption) (pp. 188-189). Brasscheck Press. Kindle Edition.

 

More on the antivaxx failure/lies
ibid.
"5) Incorrectly Assuming All Reports Are Serious
Finally, another misconception is the incorrect notion that all reports in VAERS are serious. Again, part of this hinges on the use of technical language. “Adverse event” sounds serious to many people, but it includes minor incidents, such as a sore arm.

Less than 10% to 15% of U.S. reports in VAERS are considered “serious” — a regulatory term that means the event was life-threatening or involved hospitalization, prolonged hospitalization if someone was already hospitalized, persistent disability, a birth defect, death, or required medical attention to prevent one of these outcomes.

The CDC requests follow-up information for all serious reports, which, like their non-serious counterparts, may be entirely coincidental. As the CDC explains, while serious events happen after vaccination, “they are rarely caused by the vaccine.”

The non-serious and serious classification isn’t perfect. “Some degree of misclassification is inherent,” a 2004 review by government scientists explains, noting that injection site reactions typically are “not of great clinical significance but may be classified as serious if they result in a brief hospitalization.” On the other hand, something like Bell’s palsy, a usually temporary facial paralysis, is medically important, but may not be classified as serious because it involves outpatient care.

Still, it’s clear that many of the health issues reported to VAERS — which again, are not necessarily caused by vaccines — are relatively minor, and people who like to highlight the sheer number of reports to suggest vaccines are dangerous are not being fully transparent."

 

You "recommend?" On what basis? I'm looking at research done in Canada which is done by people who can't be manipulated by government. I'm also accessing research done by independent scientists.

Apparently, no more than you.

More of your recommendations?

No, covid is not "over" because people are still contracting new variants.

We haven't had a really nasty variant since Omicron, but there's no guarantee a future variant won't be more virulent. Another reason covid isn't "over."

This country needs a independent commission--not grandstanding pols doing a Senate or House "investigation" just to get soundbites--that will look into every aspect of our covid response. Both parties have repeatedly lied to the American people, so there's almost no chance of a commission.

 

That’s not what the table I posted above indicates. Over 40% of the serious adverse reactions required a visit to the doctor or worse. 12% required hospitalization and 10% went to urgent care.

 

Obviously there is no point in repeating myself.

 

If you have 10,000 reports of a side effect, you need to investigate the condition, not every report.

 

There are ~ 400,000 incidents of hospitalization and urgent care.

 

Wiki:
"OpenVAERS is an American anti-vaccine website created in 2021 by Liz Willner. The website misrepresents data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to promote misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines."

Therefore, it's perfect for batshit conspiracy theories!

 

Not if you're going to pretend covid is "over" and we don't need to fix what's wrong.

 

Show where your lying-ass website source (dedicated to antivaxx movement!) has performed even a scrap of causation or correlation with natural occurrences!

Clue: they haven't!

 

Who wrote the Wikipedia article? Wikipedia can’t be trusted as a source of accurate information.

 

Where is your proof that the data is not accurate?

That is the job of the FDA and CDC.

 

Every incident doesn't have to be investigated. The cost and time delay make that prohibitive.

 

Read the footnotes.

 

The antivaxx-by-numbers response when wiki doesn't support batshit. Wiki involves including citations.
References[edit]

1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i Khandelwal, Devika; Backovic, Nick; Miller, Edie (August 12, 2021). "California Woman Behind Anti-Vax Site Outperforming Government Database". Logically. Archived from the original on August 12, 2021. Retrieved January 11, 2023.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j Gilbert, David (August 12, 2021). "This Woman Secretly Runs One of the World's Biggest Anti-Vax Websites From Her House". Vice. Archived from the original on December 1, 2021. Retrieved January 11, 2023.
3. ^ Khandelwal, Devika; Sethi, Pallavi (August 12, 2021). "Double Check: How Does OpenVAERS Misrepresent Data?". Logically. Archived from the original on January 5, 2023. Retrieved January 11, 2023.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b c Dowd, Katie (August 12, 2021). "Bay Area woman reportedly admits helping run huge 'anti-vax site'". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on January 12, 2023. Retrieved January 11, 2023.
5. ^ Lazarus, David (August 23, 1999). "Monster.com May Have Created One With Online People Auctions". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on January 5, 2023. Retrieved January 11, 2023.
6. ^ Love, Shayla; Merlan, Anna (February 3, 2021). "Anti-Vaxxers Misuse Federal Data to Falsely Claim COVID Vaccines Are Dangerous". Vice. Archived from the original on January 1, 2023. Retrieved January 11, 2023.

 

400,000 hospitalizations and emergency room visits are serious adverse reactions which absolutely must be investigated.

 

Show where your lying-ass website source (dedicated to antivaxx movement!) has performed even a scrap of causation or correlation with natural occurrences!

 

So what? That doesn’t prove anything. Sources to discredit anything can be found or produced.

 

There's isn't enough money to investigate 400,000 VAERS reports.