Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 8:13:42 GMT
"Due to the program's open and accessible design and its allowance of unverified reports, incomplete VAERS data is often used in false claims regarding vaccine safety. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has warned that data from VAERS is not enough to determine whether a vaccine can cause a particular adverse event." ...was the first thing I've read about VAERS Notice how that is a subjective interpretation of the use of VAERS data. Isn't it interesting that's the first thing you read? Stick to the facts: (1) What is VAERS?
Isn't everything subjective? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 8:15:38 GMT
I don't care what VAERS is, or does.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jul 18, 2021 8:17:05 GMT
heh heh .. yeah, well, the flip side to that is (... drumroll please ...). Competition.  Exclude the deplorables at the risk of your own economic health. Just go ask Woka Cola.  Coke was bloated to begin with. Economies adjust, we'll be fine.   |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jul 18, 2021 8:20:12 GMT
Notice how that is a subjective interpretation of the use of VAERS data. Isn't it interesting that's the first thing you read? Stick to the facts: (1) What is VAERS?
Isn't everything subjective? No. As far as I understand it, VAERS is a voluntary, passive self-reporting system intended for use by physicians to report adverse reactions to vaccinations.
Here's what's not subjective: the spike in reports about the covid-19 vaccines is an order of magnitude relative to past uses of the system.
Now, what that spike means, in terms of interpretation, involves subjectivity, and I'm sure there have been anti-vaxer's saying all kinds of crazy shit. But, the spike, in and of itself, is objective, quantitative, fact.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 8:20:13 GMT
The responsible peeps took the damn shot. There is almost no viable excuse for not taking it. Here are several potential good reasons: (1) Do you know what VAERS is? If not, if this is the first time you are hearing about it, then why do you think that is? (2) None of the vax are approved by the FDA in the same sense that other vaccines have been, which involve processes that take years. The approval is on an emergency basis, with the understanding that these vax are experimental. (3) The mRNA technology is novel, in terms of deployment, and even relatively novel in terms of when it was first invented. (4) The manufacturers, distributors and administrators of the vax have been granted sweeping and unprecedented immunity from civil liabilities that might arise from the effects of taking it. (5) A significant % of reported new covid cases are among the jabbed. (6) There are credible medical professionals and scientists backed with data that claim treatment of covid with alternatives such as ivermectine is highly effective. (7) The CDC has since had to issue several warnings about potential side effects for various groups, including pregnant women, children, young people who have already had covid and adolescent males between certain ages (I think between 16-19, but might be wront). The effects in question differ among those groups. (8) The stats on survival rate are over 99.97% or thereabouts .. why is there such attention on this cause of death that didn't prove to be even a small fraction of what was predicted, and why should someone pollute their body with a vaccine as a precaution against such a low risk?
(9) The media/tech censorship of these simple facts along with the nine new vax-billionares would suggest that the push to vaccinate everyone and the rather over-emotional characterization of the vax-hesitant including various forms of ridicule and scorn isn't motivated by an interest in public health and well being. That's not to say that everyone involved in the push is cynical - I'm sure most of them actually believe that vaxing the population is a valid public health goal. But, it would seem from these other factors that there is more than just a good intention involved. Whether those doing the jacovidian pushing are conscious of that, or not. Moving on to 2) Well obviously it was a rush job to get it done. But if it works (which it does) who cares? |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jul 18, 2021 8:21:07 GMT
I don't care what VAERS is, or does. Then your assertion that there is no good reason for vax hesitancy is based, at least in part, on willful ignorance.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 8:22:44 GMT
Isn't everything subjective? No. As far as I understand it, VAERS is a voluntary, passive self-reporting system intended for use by physicians to report adverse reactions to vaccinations. Here's what's not subjective: the spike in reports about the covid-19 vaccines is an order of magnitude relative to past uses of the system. Now, what that spike means, in terms of interpretation, involves subjectivity, and I'm sure there have been anti-vaxer's saying all kinds of crazy shit. But, the spike, in and of itself, is objective, quantitative, fact. No, I can't go back to 1) now. I'm moving on to 3).  |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jul 18, 2021 8:23:40 GMT
Here are several potential good reasons: (1) Do you know what VAERS is? If not, if this is the first time you are hearing about it, then why do you think that is? (2) None of the vax are approved by the FDA in the same sense that other vaccines have been, which involve processes that take years. The approval is on an emergency basis, with the understanding that these vax are experimental. (3) The mRNA technology is novel, in terms of deployment, and even relatively novel in terms of when it was first invented. (4) The manufacturers, distributors and administrators of the vax have been granted sweeping and unprecedented immunity from civil liabilities that might arise from the effects of taking it. (5) A significant % of reported new covid cases are among the jabbed. (6) There are credible medical professionals and scientists backed with data that claim treatment of covid with alternatives such as ivermectine is highly effective. (7) The CDC has since had to issue several warnings about potential side effects for various groups, including pregnant women, children, young people who have already had covid and adolescent males between certain ages (I think between 16-19, but might be wront). The effects in question differ among those groups. (8) The stats on survival rate are over 99.97% or thereabouts .. why is there such attention on this cause of death that didn't prove to be even a small fraction of what was predicted, and why should someone pollute their body with a vaccine as a precaution against such a low risk?
(9) The media/tech censorship of these simple facts along with the nine new vax-billionares would suggest that the push to vaccinate everyone and the rather over-emotional characterization of the vax-hesitant including various forms of ridicule and scorn isn't motivated by an interest in public health and well being. That's not to say that everyone involved in the push is cynical - I'm sure most of them actually believe that vaxing the population is a valid public health goal. But, it would seem from these other factors that there is more than just a good intention involved. Whether those doing the jacovidian pushing are conscious of that, or not. Moving on to 2) Well obviously it was a rush job to get it done. But if it works (which it does) who cares? Because the reason for that process is to assure that there are no long term side effects. Because it wasn't done, we don't have that information about these vaccines. It's a valid reason for hesitancy.
And the question of whether these vaccines are effective is an open one as well, with - by my understanding - significant reports of infection among the jabbed. That's another purpose for the process that wasn't accomplished, determining efficacy, using, you know. Science.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jul 18, 2021 8:24:46 GMT
No. As far as I understand it, VAERS is a voluntary, passive self-reporting system intended for use by physicians to report adverse reactions to vaccinations. Here's what's not subjective: the spike in reports about the covid-19 vaccines is an order of magnitude relative to past uses of the system. Now, what that spike means, in terms of interpretation, involves subjectivity, and I'm sure there have been anti-vaxer's saying all kinds of crazy shit. But, the spike, in and of itself, is objective, quantitative, fact. No, I can't go back to 1) now. I'm moving on to 3).  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 8:30:51 GMT
I don't care what VAERS is, or does. Then your assertion that there is no good reason for vax hesitancy is based, at least in part, on willful ignorance. I already said there were lots of lame excuses (like that one). That one ranks somewhere between "but I don't like shots" and "there's a bug in it". |
|
