Vaccine Mandates in Communist New York and other cities

Vaers is not fake news, it is a government website.

I'm pretty sure that's not the official CDC government VAERS site.

If you look at the actual real one it has different numbers than the one you posted. (way lower)

I don't think your site is "fake", it's just that it's not vetted like the official one is. Even looking at the first entry on your site, a patient got jabbed in Feb 2021 and 200 days later died and had a whole bunch of pre-existing life threatening co-morbities that had nothing to do with the vax. The CDC vets those types of entries and makes a determination whether it was vax related or not. Your site does not do any vetting. It's just the raw data from every entry ever made and anyone can make an entry.

The official VAERS site: https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html

Vaers is not fake news, it is a government website.

Bzzzt WRONG.   Liz Willner is reportedly behind OpenVAERS, an "anti-vax site" that misleadingly presents the number of people who died after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

She's just one of the right wing loonies another pushing covid disinformation.  Not a Government website.   As I said  Fake News.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8mm3/this-woman-secretly-runs-one-of-the-worlds-biggest-anti-vax-websites-from-her-house

Anti vaxxers often try to have a 'legit sounding' website to push their views. For a bunch of people that's all about personal choices, why are they so eager to push theirs onto people?

While some are probably too dumb to crawl out the rabbit hole, humans overall should be intelligent enough to have working BS filters. How else did we become apex predators?

Openvaers website comes directly off of the vaers website. The government run site is extremely difficult to use. So openvaers let's you see the same data easily.

Even the websites criticizing it admit that the data is really from VAERS.

They claim that the VAERS data is unreliable, which is even more concerning since it is the only government run reporting mechanism for adverse vaccine side effects across the public. By attempting to discredit VAERS you are telling us that we have no reported safety data from the public's reactions to the vaccine.

Even the websites criticizing it admit that the data is really from VAERS.

They claim that the VAERS data is unreliable, which is even more concerning since it is the only government run reporting mechanism for adverse vaccine side effects across the public. By attempting to discredit VAERS you are telling us that we have no reported safety data from the public's reactions to the vaccine.

From your article:

"...reports submitted to VAERS are reviewed by experts, like doctors, pharmacists, and statisticians, and serious events are given additional scrutiny. VAERS initially detected a dangerous intestinal obstruction linked to RotaShield, a rotavirus vaccine subsequently withdrawn from the market by its manufacturer."

"So far, a total of 4.43 billion COVID-19 vaccines doses have been administered worldwide, according to the Financial Times."

"According to the CDC website, “VAERS received 6,490 reports of death (0.0019 percent) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine."

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 03, 2021, 09:52:02 AM

Even the websites criticizing it admit that the data is really from VAERS.

They claim that the VAERS data is unreliable, which is even more concerning since it is the only government run reporting mechanism for adverse vaccine side effects across the public. By attempting to discredit VAERS you are telling us that we have no reported safety data from the public's reactions to the vaccine.

From your article:

"...reports submitted to VAERS are reviewed by experts, like doctors, pharmacists, and statisticians, and serious events are given additional scrutiny. VAERS initially detected a dangerous intestinal obstruction linked to RotaShield, a rotavirus vaccine subsequently withdrawn from the market by its manufacturer."

"So far, a total of 4.43 billion COVID-19 vaccines doses have been administered worldwide, according to the Financial Times."

"According to the CDC website, “VAERS received 6,490 reports of death (0.0019 percent) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine."

OpenVAERS lists a bit over twice that amount because that figure only includes the US deaths.

https://openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality

Quote from: Stash on October 03, 2021, 10:44:13 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 03, 2021, 09:52:02 AM

Even the websites criticizing it admit that the data is really from VAERS.

They claim that the VAERS data is unreliable, which is even more concerning since it is the only government run reporting mechanism for adverse vaccine side effects across the public. By attempting to discredit VAERS you are telling us that we have no reported safety data from the public's reactions to the vaccine.

From your article:

"...reports submitted to VAERS are reviewed by experts, like doctors, pharmacists, and statisticians, and serious events are given additional scrutiny. VAERS initially detected a dangerous intestinal obstruction linked to RotaShield, a rotavirus vaccine subsequently withdrawn from the market by its manufacturer."

"So far, a total of 4.43 billion COVID-19 vaccines doses have been administered worldwide, according to the Financial Times."

"According to the CDC website, “VAERS received 6,490 reports of death (0.0019 percent) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine."

OpenVAERS lists more than twice that amount because that figure only includes the US deaths.

https://openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality

So it's 0.0040%? And that's assuming that every death entry is directly attributable to the vaccines.

For someone who perpetually calls into question Covid case statistics logged by physicians it seems odd that you don't call into question any VAERs entries logged by anyone. Very odd, hypocritical, indeed.

So it's 0.0040%? And that's assuming that every death entry is directly attributable to the vaccines.

For someone who perpetually calls into question Covid case statistics logged by physicians it seems odd that you don't call into question any VAERs entries logged by anyone. Very odd, hypocritical, indeed.

Wrong. I do question VAERS. Multiple studies have confirmed that people are underreporting to it.

https://www.icandecide.org/ican_press/underreporting-of-serious-injuries-to-vaers-confirmed-by-new-study/

UNDERREPORTING OF SERIOUS INJURIES TO VAERS CONFIRMED BY NEW STUDY

The CDC tells the public that “Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination is rare and occurred in approximately 2 to 5 people per million vaccinated in the United States based on events reported to VAERS.”  However, ICAN reviewed a recent study at Mass General Brigham that assessed anaphylaxis in a clinical setting after the administration of COVID-19 vaccines.  This study, in stark contrast to the CDC’s claim, found “severe reactions consistent with anaphylaxis occurred at a rate of 2.47 per 10,000 vaccinations.”  This is equivalent to 50 times to 120 times more cases than what VAERS and the CDC are reporting!

In a letter to Dr. Walensky, ICAN explained that this alarming underreporting of anaphylaxis by the CDC and VAERS is particularly troubling because it is mandatory for medical providers to report anaphylaxis after any COVID-19 vaccine to VAERS.  In addition, the CDC reports that most of these reactions occur within 30 minutes of vaccination.  The study reported that the mean time to reaction is 17 minutes post-vaccination.  This means that vaccine administrators, then, should be aware of a majority, if not all, of these cases as vaccine recipients are supposed to be observed for 15 to 30-minute periods following vaccination at all vaccination sites.

Additionally, and specifically with regard to COVID-19 vaccines, there has actually been a push by health authorities to inform medical providers that they need to report anaphylaxis to VAERS. Despite this, the rate of reporting still appears to be only around 0.8 to 2 percent of all cases of anaphylaxis.  (This is close to the Harvard Pilgrim study which found that approximately 1% of adverse events are reported to VAERS).

ICAN explained to Dr. Walensky that this raises serious concerns regarding (i) under-reporting of other serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, and (2) adverse events following other vaccines for which there has not been the same push to report adverse events. The anaphylaxis study highlights the urgency of the ongoing, well-known problem with adverse event reporting post-vaccination which ICAN has been pointing out for years.

Even the websites criticizing it admit that the data is really from VAERS.

They claim that the VAERS data is unreliable, which is even more concerning since it is the only government run reporting mechanism for adverse vaccine side effects across the public. By attempting to discredit VAERS you are telling us that we have no reported safety data from the public's reactions to the vaccine.

Nope,  the reason VAERS data is inherently unreliable is that it's unconfirmed reporting.  People are using the data to push misinformation about vaccine safety.

To re-iterate my earlier point Correlation =/= Causality.

Quote from: Stash on October 03, 2021, 12:54:17 PM

So it's 0.0040%? And that's assuming that every death entry is directly attributable to the vaccines.

For someone who perpetually calls into question Covid case statistics logged by physicians it seems odd that you don't call into question any VAERs entries logged by anyone. Very odd, hypocritical, indeed.

Wrong. I do question VAERS. Multiple studies have confirmed that people are underreporting to it.

https://www.icandecide.org/ican_press/underreporting-of-serious-injuries-to-vaers-confirmed-by-new-study/

UNDERREPORTING OF SERIOUS INJURIES TO VAERS CONFIRMED BY NEW STUDY

You're quoting the "letter", not the actual study the letter is referring to. If you click on the link to the actual study from the letter, it is completely benign. Here from the results of the study:

"In this prospective cohort of health care employees, 98% did not have any symptoms of an allergic reaction after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The remaining 2% reported some allergic symptoms; however, severe reactions consistent with anaphylaxis occurred at a rate of 2.47 per 10 000 vaccinations. All individuals with anaphylaxis recovered without shock or endotracheal intubation.

The incidence rate of confirmed anaphylaxis in this study is larger than that reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention based on passive spontaneous reporting methods (0.025-0.11 per 10 000 vaccinations).1 However, the overall risk of anaphylaxis to an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine remains extremely low and largely comparable to other common health care exposures.4 Although cases were clinically compatible with anaphylaxis, the mechanism of these reactions is unknown."

Out of 52,000 people in the study, "One patient was admitted to intensive care, 9 (56%) received intramuscular epinephrine, and all recovered. Three employees, with prior anaphylaxis history, did not seek care."

I'd say underreporting of SERIOUS INJURIES is quite a dubious statement considering there was 1 person who was sent to ICU for an anaphylaxis reaction and recovered completely.

How do you find this garbage?

The only garbage I see here is the argument that you made. The author is not arguing that "2.47 anaphylaxis per 10 000 vaccinations" is high, or that there is a great risk to the symptom of anaphylaxis. The argument is that this is 50 times to 120 times more cases than what VAERS is reporting. It say anaphylaxis happens to 2 to 5 people per million, which is a big difference.

This discrepancy verifies the other Harvard Pilgrim VAERS study cited in the article that says that only a very small percentage of adverse reactions are being reported. The argument in the article is that all the symptoms and adverse effects seen in VAERS may be severely underreported.

This material is evidence in favor of underreporting, whereas you have provided literally none showing overreporting. Your arguments weakly rely on possibilities and contention. You are arguing on what could *possibly* be occurring with the VAERS reports. This means nothing in the face of data which says otherwise.

Vaers says women can get pregnant from the vaccine. I’m going to write a paper and win the Nobel Prize. BRB.

Did you or will you ever get the vaccine Tom?

Please dont

You're a net negative and it's good all your fellow repugnicunts are scrambling for a Darwin award

Kamala Harris 2024!!  (won't be a surprise when so many repugs have offed themselves to 'own the libs') lol

The only garbage I see here is the argument that you made. The author is not arguing that "2.47 anaphylaxis per 10 000 vaccinations" is high, or that there is a great risk to the symptom of anaphylaxis. The argument is that this is 50 times to 120 times more cases than what VAERS is reporting. It say anaphylaxis happens to 2 to 5 people per million, which is a big difference.

This discrepancy verifies the other Harvard Pilgrim VAERS study cited in the article that says that only a very small percentage of adverse reactions are being reported. The argument in the article is that all the symptoms and adverse effects seen in VAERS may be severely underreported.

This material is evidence in favor of underreporting, whereas you have provided literally none showing overreporting. Your arguments weakly rely on possibilities and contention. You are arguing on what could *possibly* be occurring with the VAERS reports. This means nothing in the face of data which says otherwise.

I could believe VAERS has perhaps underreported allergy symptoms or even anaphylaxis for several reasons.

The paper references 17 minutes as the average time onset of allergic symptoms may have exhibited. The "letter" mentions something about 30 minutes. All my jabs were at a local pharmacy. Each time I was asked to wait 15 minutes before I could leave. At the 15 minute mark I bolted. I would have been on my way home when allergic reactions set in. Then it would be up to me (if I didn't seek medical attention for my symptoms, which most didn't seem to require) to know that a thing called VAERS even exists. And then I would have to set up the ability to log into the VAERS system, then type up a report of my allergic reaction, however slight.

I didn't know VAERS even existed until like 2 weeks ago when it popped up in some article.

Have you been to the VAERS site? It's a nightmare. It took me like 15 minutes just to navigate through all the disclaimers and such to search on something as simple as deaths reported. And that wasn't super easy to figure out.

A) Do regular people widely even know such a self-reporting tool exists?
B) Even if I did know it existed, I wouldn't waste my time self-reporting for some allergic reaction that didn't cause a need for an epipen shot. Especially if I have known allergies.
C) And I wonder too, if pharmacy folks are taking the time to log into VAERS and write up a report if someone exhibits an allergic reaction while still on site that doesn't require medical intervention. That's pure speculation, but I could see a lot of people skipping that thinking it's not entirely relevant nor urgent.
D) If a serious side effect occurred and I needed some medical intervention, I'm assuming Dr's know about VAERS and would probably report. Can't say for sure though.

I didn't know VAERS even existed until like 2 weeks ago when it popped up in some article.

So you admit that you are ignorant of the subject, yet pretend to know how it works and how reliable it is and why others are wrong about it. Typical.

Quote from: Stash

I didn't know VAERS even existed until like 2 weeks ago when it popped up in some article.

So you admit that you are ignorant of the subject, yet pretend to know how it works and how reliable it is and why others are wrong about it. Typical.

What an odd and irrelevant deflection. Typical.

I’ve been looking into the system since I found out about it. Am I to assume you have an in-depth knowledge of the system due to your exhaustive research over many months and perhaps years. Do tell us more.

Since you’re simply deflecting as usual I’ll ask again broadly - do you really think the regular public are even aware of a cdc vaccine self-reporting system? Let alone how to use it?
Do you think VAERS is the only place the cdc gets any side effect info from?

The cdc has disclaimers all over it saying since anyone can log anything they want it’s not meant to be the defacto end all be all sole source of side effect data.
They look for meaningful trends then do more research and advise accordingly.
I really don’t see what sort of relevant point you have. But that’s typical as well.

Kind of funny seeing Tom talk about ignorance of others..... His entire post history is nothing but..... Ignorance.....

Well, at least he won't be around for too much longer lol

What an odd and irrelevant deflection.

I don't find it irrelevant that you want me to debate something that you are ignorant on. I find that to be very relevant. If you want to debate something I would suggest that you smarten up on it first.

Quote from: Stash on October 03, 2021, 11:48:58 PM

What an odd and irrelevant deflection.

I don't find it irrelevant that you want me to debate something that you are ignorant on. I find that to be very relevant. If you want to debate something I would suggest that you smarten up on it first.

Unlike yourself he actually educated himself on the matter. He knows a lot more than you on the subject because you still don't know anything other than what repubs tell you to think. And given your hick friends are uneducated drongos who are killing themselves off to 'own the libs' well that says all we need to know regarding your intelligence (or lack thereof)

Quote from: Stash on October 03, 2021, 11:48:58 PM

What an odd and irrelevant deflection.

I don't find it irrelevant that you want me to debate something that you are ignorant on. I find that to be very relevant. If you want to debate something I would suggest that you smarten up on it first.

What constitutes me being ignorant about it? Because I recently heard about something? Is two weeks not enough time to bone up on what VAERS is all about? If you think that’s not enough time, then you must be some low IQ idiot that can’t learn what a web reporting system is, how it works and it’s purpose in a couple of weeks.
It’s ok, I understand that it takes you much longer to get up to speed on these things than most folks.

So what was your point with all this garbage again? Seems like you never really had one to begin with since your knowledge on the matter can’t even muster answering simple questions.

What constitutes me being ignorant about it? Because I recently heard about something? Is two weeks not enough time to bone up on what VAERS is all about?

Sure it is, but you are immediately using your mediocre knowledge to do things like suggest that Harvard Pilgrim VAERS study are wrong about it, calling everything in the previous article we looked at "garbage", which you are now starting to backtrack on. Need a little more time and study there before putting yourself forward as an expert, champ. 

Quote from: Stash on October 04, 2021, 01:18:56 AM

What constitutes me being ignorant about it? Because I recently heard about something? Is two weeks not enough time to bone up on what VAERS is all about?

Sure it is, but you are immediately using your mediocre knowledge to do things like suggest that Harvard Pilgrim VAERS study are wrong about it,  calling it "garbage", which you are now starting to backtrack on. Need a little more time and study there before putting yourself forward as an expert champ. 

The raw data certainly has a lot of potential to have garbage in it. And people who use raw data to draw their own conculsions based on their own biases (like you) are morons

For example

You give 1 million vaccine doses. VAERS checks up on all the people who got a vaccine

6 weeks later, there are 95K people left alive

Morons like you go 'SEE THE VACCINE KILLED 5000 PEOPLE!!!'

Investigations may reveal that the vast bulk of them died naturally as you would expect to see people dying of old age, other illnesses, accidents etc

The vaccine does not make you immortal. People die.


Hillbillies like you shouldn't draw conclusions from the raw data VAERS gets. Especially non vetted raw data

TomB king of cherry picking.

In order to claim it's cherry picking you need to show that there is overwhelming evidence of the opposite on the subject.

In order to claim it's cherry picking you need to show that there is overwhelming evidence of the opposite on the subject.

You mean like a few billion people vaccinated with less side effects than aspirin?   That sort of overwhelming evidence?


Currently  6.39 billion vaccine doses administered.   https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/getting-a-covid-jab-is-safer-than-taking-aspirin

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 06, 2021, 08:35:55 PM

In order to claim it's cherry picking you need to show that there is overwhelming evidence of the opposite on the subject.

You mean like a few billion people vaccinated with less side effects than aspirin?   That sort of overwhelming evidence?


Currently  6.39 billion vaccine doses administered.   https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/getting-a-covid-jab-is-safer-than-taking-aspirin

Lol, totally burnt Tom on that one. 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 06, 2021, 08:35:55 PM

In order to claim it's cherry picking you need to show that there is overwhelming evidence of the opposite on the subject.

You mean like a few billion people vaccinated with less side effects than aspirin?   That sort of overwhelming evidence?

So your overwhelming evidence is a sentence made without evidence?

Quote from: Rayzor on October 06, 2021, 09:14:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 06, 2021, 08:35:55 PM

In order to claim it's cherry picking you need to show that there is overwhelming evidence of the opposite on the subject.

You mean like a few billion people vaccinated with less side effects than aspirin?   That sort of overwhelming evidence?

So your overwhelming evidence is a sentence made without evidence?

Why dont you show us the counter evidence then? You know, actual evidence, peer reviewed research. Not some looneys opinion on Facebook or your own biased opinion on how you think things work.

The covid vaccines are the 2nd most effective vaccine we have ever made, 2nd only to Polio which is pretty good Also, show me a vaccine which has been definitely slammed by peer reviewed systematic reviews from reputable organisations that has had long term serious adverse side effects that popped up several months after administration.... Dont worry if you cant. I cant either

So far, all the data we have points to the vaccines preventing serious hospitalizations and death. It's the pandemic of the unvaxxed now. The 'breakthroughs' are mostly by people who are elderly or on immunosupressing drugs or pregnancy where they cant mount an effective immune response to the vaccine (as a vaccine only works if your immune system does). Also the individuals behaviours at the time of vaccination is important. Heavy drinker? Sleep deprived? Dont expect your vaccine to work as well

It seems far fetched to the point of impossibilty that all of a sudden, the vaccine data will do a complete 180 and end up killing or seriously injuring the billions of people who have already taken it thus far


And as for you and your antivaxxer ilks 'ah but vaccinated people are still catching covid!'. This is NOT happening as much as it is made out

The 'covid test' is wrongly worded. It is a Sars Cov2 test. It tests for the presence of the virus. Covid is the term for the disease the virus gets you. And overwhelmingly (in the high 90s%) the vaccine does it's job in PREVENTING you from getting COVID - the disease which fucks your lungs and body up to the point you need a hospital to live and sometimes that is of no use.

Given how virulent and prevalent covid is in the community it is obviously going to be found on vaccinated people. The virus can last for days on surfaces. Your warm, moist mucous membranes in your nose and throat are going to be heaven in comparison to a door handle. But once that virus tries to get inside and invade a vaccinated person, that virus is going to get its arse kicked.

Tom, you embarrass yourself with every post you make. Your ignorance is astounding. Just remember, it's not IF you get covid, but WHEN. And if your avatar is anything to go by and if you aren't trolling and really are an anti vaxxer numnut, then your days to comeuppance are literally numbered.

Quote from: Rayzor on October 06, 2021, 09:14:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 06, 2021, 08:35:55 PM

In order to claim it's cherry picking you need to show that there is overwhelming evidence of the opposite on the subject.

You mean like a few billion people vaccinated with less side effects than aspirin?   That sort of overwhelming evidence?

So your overwhelming evidence is a sentence made without evidence?

So you didn't read what I posted.  Fair enough, I guess burying your head in the sand is a valid approach for some.

Maybe I can interest you in a pair of peril sensitive sunglasses?