Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

1289290292294295419

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone




  • Registered Users Posts: 16,421 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Because the VAERS data isn't differing from general population numbers for the events that occur.

    I guess you should be clarifying this post was a joke or be reprimanded for calling other posters sock puppets.



  • Registered Users Posts: 594 ✭✭✭Fr0g


    Fact checking articles are not proof of anything and this does not debunk the infertility claim. In fact it references another fact checker to back up it's own fact check.

    Circular reasoning.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    Its a joke lol I know you're not a sock puppet lol



  • Administrators Posts: 13,531 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    @Big Bag of Chips , similarly, if a poster is presenting misinformation as "fact" should they be reported to clarify that it is their opinion?

    Yes, someone can think or believe anything they like. It's up to others to either agree or disagree.

    If someone states something of course other posters can question if this is what they think, their opinion. Or if they are stating it as fact, a definite. If they are stating it as fact, it needs something to back it up. If it's their opinion, you don't have to agree. You can post a counter opinion, or indeed evidence that supports your postition, but circular arguments like "No it's not" "Yes it is" are boring to read and add nothing to the discussion.

    And in this thread in particular, either side is unlikely to convince the other, whether it's 5 posts or 50 posts later.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Circular reasoning would be if both fact checking articles referenced each other for the same point without referencing anything else.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,043 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    But it's not being ignored. Where are you getting this data from? A bunch of government statistics and reporting departments around the world are who is producing this data.

    They know about it because they created it, they have analyzed it and then stuck disclaimers on it to warn people not to misinterpret the data. You then see the number, don't understand them, create some alternative meaning for them and post about it here.

    Which causes of death listed in the likes of the VAERS and equivalent data sets has you particularly concerned? It's all there and you surely haven't just looked at the headline total listed and assumed that is all due to the vaccine?

    Do the injuries reported about sunburn concern you, or the decapitation, or death during childbirth, or people reported as having taken up smoking, or reported as having given up smoking, or falling off a ladder. Which bits of the data exactly are you saying are definitely due to the vaccines, and what number are you putting on that?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I have said before that VAERS is used as a safety signal. What I'd like to know is why this very alarming safety signal is being ignored.

    I agree this. I get that VAERS comes with a warning that not a reported is not proof of causality, but it's whole purpose is to act as an early warning alarm. i.e if an inordinately high number of adverse reactions were happening alarm vaccinations would get halted under the precautionary principle.

    This does not seem to be happening, just a general nothing to see here reaction, repeated ad nauseam by fact checkers who now seem to be an authority on pharmacovigilance.

    According to the CDC just over 3.1 billion doses of flu vaccines have been administered since 1990 in the US.

    A VAERS search for deaths reported as an adverse reaction of all influenza vaccines lists 1295 reports since 1990.

    There have been about 600m doses of Covid vaccines administered since 2020 in the US.

    A VAERS search for deaths reported as an adverse reaction of Covid vaccines lists 13,604 reports since 2020.

    In my opinion, this is a red flag. Why should so many more deaths per Covid vaccine be reported than flu vaccine?



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,384 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Evidence it is being ignored- none.

    Your claim is baseless.

    "Just asking a question" as a deliberate way to misuse and abuse VAERS data and to drop in unfounded baseleess claims about vaccines.

    Because Covid jabs were originally authorised in the United States under emergency-use provisions, healthcare providers are required to report all deaths following vaccination, whether a doctor suspects a "plausible" link or not.

    "No vaccine in recent history has undergone the degree of examination and monitoring that the COVID-19 vaccines have," Dr. John Su, head of the VAERS team on the COVID-19 response and member of the CDC's Immunization Safety Office, said. "The more serious adverse events are really rare and I would encourage people to talk with their care providers to learn more about these vaccines, and of course the CDC's website as well. They're safe. Go get them."

    There you go. Question answered. Claim baseless.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Fair enough, it is not being ignored, it's being dismissed as nothing to see here.

    How by pointing out the difference between the reports of deaths from the flu vaccine and those of the Covid vaccine is this a misuse and abuse of VAERS data?

    Surely that is the whole point of VAERS data? Asking why the death report rate for a new vaccine released under emergency use might be higher than anything that has gone before it?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,384 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Except there is no evidence it is higher in reality than what has gone before.

    It was already explained in the earlier post. It is down to the reporting protocol differences. You cant just look at the raw numbers.

    Because Covid jabs were originally authorised in the United States under emergency-use provisions, healthcare providers are required to report all deaths following vaccination, whether a doctor suspects a "plausible" link or not.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    It isn't being ignored. You guys keep misusing it. Or more accurately your Twitter grifters are misusing it.


    The VAERS data cannot be used to make any conclusions about the safety of the vaccine.


    You've dodged my questions.

    You have no evidence to link the vaccines to any rises in death. And you've no evidence to link the vaccine to a decline in birth rates.


    Why do you believe these things are not being investigated?



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But thats a misuse of the VAERS data. You cannot use the number of reports to make any conclusions or statement like that.

    It might be your opinion, but that opinion is at odd what that the people who run VAERS actually state.

    This is precisely because of the reasons odyssey has pointed out.


    When you did you search on the VAERS page how did you ensure that all of those deaths were actually plausibly caused by the vaccine? (For example did you exclude things like the decapitation?)

    What did you do to adjust for the differences in reporting between the reporting of the flu vaccines and the covid ones?

    I'm going to guess you didn't do either of these.


    Conspiracy theorists are going to insinutate and claim that the VAERS data is being ignore because the governments of the world are trying to cover up how deadly the vaccine.

    Do you believe this is the case? Do you believe this is a more plausible explanation than just you guys are wrong?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I totally get that the reporting rate is likely to be higher than non EUA vaccines. It does also seem to be significantly higher than previous vaccines with EUA approval.

    86.34% of all death reports from any vaccine for any illness reported to VAERS since 1990 were from COVID-19 vaccines.

    That is the data. Saying that this seems to be extraordinarily high is not a misuse of the data.

    The study in the Lancet that generated the "Covid vaccines not linked to deaths, major US study finds" headline in the article linked above noted that the 3663 reports of death without a death certificate or autopsy - i,e most of them - "causes of death were most commonly unknown or unclear", which really does not rule out the vaccines as far as I can see.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Saying that the VAERS numbers show that the vaccine is or could be dangerous is a misuse of them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    The language you use is all wrong and shows that you deliberately chose to misrepresent the data.

    “86.34% of all death reports from any vaccine for any illness reported to VAERS since 1990 were from COVID-19 vaccines.” The deaths reported are not necessarily any very unlikely from the vaccine, and just occurred within a certain timeframe after vaccine administration, therefore stating they are from the vaccine is the deliberate misrepresentation.

    Post edited by Fighting Tao on


  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭hometruths


    But I am not stating all of these deaths are from the vaccine. I am pointing out how high the numbers of reports of deaths are in total relative to other vaccines.

    I understand that VAERS cannot be used to establish causality, it is intended to be a method for spotting red flags for safety alerts.

    If 86.34% of all reports of death out of all vaccines since 1990 is not a red flag, what would be concerning?

    90%? 95%? Maybe 99%?



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    And what experts and medical organisations also have stated that this is a red flag?

    If the answer is none, then why do none of them agree with you?



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,384 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    This is a dangerous and baseless medical misinformation claim.

    If you are going to stick with it as your 'opinion' that is your opinion, but if you raise it a matter of concern and imply there is evidence to support it will continue to be challenged.

    It has already been explained to you multiple times why the numbers reported for Covid vaccines are not comparable with other vaccines. There are different reporting protocols.

    In response you link dumped to this site which is no way supports your claim.

    You continue to wilfully and deliberately misuse VAERS data in an attempt to generate dangerous fake medical misinformation.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    It's also been pointed out to him that the person in charge of VAERS for covid doesn't agree with his opinion.

    He outright ignored that.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,702 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    For the umpteenth time, you aren't qualified to look at those figures, you have no idea whether that number is high or low or anything.

    If e.g. 40k people are reported to have died within 30 days of taking the annual flu jab, it could mean zero have died as a result of flu jab. As a lay-person you aren't in any position to "analyse" those particular figures. The related experts are.

    If you think you know as much as the experts, or that you have spotted something they "missed" - you are on the forum for people who have those beliefs.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭hometruths


    It has already been explained to you multiple times why the numbers reported for Covid vaccines are not comparable with other vaccines. There are different reporting protocols.

    And I've acknowledged this. The unique circumstances of the Covid vaccines undoubtedly caused an increase in reporting to VAERS, not just for deaths but everything else, like somebody getting cramps in their legs. My point is that looking at the reports of deaths alone, the figures are way off the charts compared to anything in history. That is not a misrepresentation.

    On the VAERS homepage there is a link to more information on Post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring using VAERS, a very comprehensive document authored in 2015 addressing all the strengths and weaknesses of the VAERS system, including that of "stimulated reporting" - i.e increased public awareness of a vaccination campaign will lead to increased reporting from all quarters, including the general public.

    However it also points out:

    Vaccine manufacturers, which accounted for >99% of foreign source reporting, are required by law to submit foreign source adverse event reports that are both serious and unexpected [21], but not other types of foreign source reports.

    Death, unsurprisingly is considered serious and unexpected. It is possible to search VAERS for all the foreign reports from all vaccines from 1990 - 2022.

    As far as foreign reports are concerned the reporting protocol was no different. Vaccine manufacturers were obliged by law to submit reports of deaths as part of the post licensing monitoring requirements, irrespective of whether the drug was EUA or not.

    Covid vaccines account for 79.29% of all foreign source reports of deaths from any vaccine since 1990. That seems remarkably high.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But it's not remarkably high to experts, including the guy actually running VAERS for covid.

    You cannot explain this issue and keep ignoring it because it exposes the issue with your claims.


    Also, the page you linked to said some other things you seem to have missed:

    Perhaps the two most common misconceptions about VAERS are that temporally associated reports represent true adverse reactions caused by vaccination, and that VAERS reports equate to rates of adverse events or indicate risk of adverse events associated with vaccination. The VAERS website has specific guidance on interpreting case report information, which includes the statement: “When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established … VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine” [38]. Despite this cautionary guidance, VAERS reports have been misinterpreted and erroneously communicated as definitive evidence of causally associated adverse events. For example, during the U.S. multi-state measles outbreak of 2015 [39], unsubstantiated claims of over 100 deaths caused by MMR vaccine in the United States during the previous decade began circulating on the Internet [40,41]. The claim was based on VAERS reports in the public data. The authors of the Internet article further stated that no measles related deaths had been reported in the United States during the same time period, implying that MMR vaccine was doing more harm than good. In fact, many of the death reports after MMR vaccination involved children with serious preexisting medical conditions or were likely unrelated to vaccination (e.g., accidents). The complete VAERS reports and accompanying health records, autopsy reports and death certificates were reviewed in depth by CDC and FDA physicians and no concerning patterns emerged that would suggest a causal relationship with MMR vaccination and death [42].

    And, ever more relevant:

    The relatively rapid increase in numbers of reports to VAERS following the introduction and initial uptake of a new vaccine, an expected occurrence [43], has been misinterpreted as actual increases in incidence of adverse events and vaccine related risk. This has been the case with VAERS reports following quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV4) vaccination [44], which as expected, increased as uptake of HPV4 vaccine increased following licensure in 2006. However, post-licensure epidemiologic studies have consistently demonstrated the safety of HPV4 vaccine [45-51], confirming the limitations of passive surveillance systems like VAERS.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,384 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    You haven't shown that the number of US produced vaccines used outside the US for covid was comparable with non covid vaccines.

    You haven't shown that the reports were done on the same basis as per the increased awareness disclaimer. For example, is there a spike in reports for 'new vaccines', if so all things being equal a new vaccine rolled out in large numbers will generate more reports.

    You haven't shown that the age distribution of the vaccines were the same. Are you comparing covid vaccines in high use in older demographics with vaccines in high use in children?

    You have shown none of these things.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    And we've still not seen a single expert or organisation that shares his opinion.


    Again he's trapped himself in a corner. The typical conspiracy response would be to accuse all experts, including the fellow who runs VAERS are all part of a coverup. But he can't claim that as he understands that's ridiculous.

    He also can't claim that he's simply discovered something all of these experts missed. Which again he can't claim cause it's ridiculous.


    There are no other options. Hence he plugs his ears and keeps pretending not to see it.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭hometruths


    You haven't shown that the number of US produced vaccines used outside the US for covid was comparable with non covid vaccines.

    As I understand it this makes no difference. VAERS logs reports of deaths of all vaccines available in the US, irrespective of country of manufacture. A domestic report is a death on US soil, a foreign report is a death outside the US. If the vaccine is available in the US the manufacturer is obliged to report it.

    You haven't shown that the reports were done on the same basis as per the increased awareness disclaimer. For example, is there a spike in reports for 'new vaccines', if so all things being equal a new vaccine rolled out in large numbers will generate more reports.

    A death is a death irrespective of whether the vaccine is new or not. And the manufacturers are obliged to report deaths irrespective of whether the vaccine is new or not.

    You haven't shown that the age distribution of the vaccines were the same. Are you comparing covid vaccines in high use in older demographics with vaccines in high use in children?

    The figures are for all vaccines administered in the last 30 years. Undoubtedly there will be differences in age profiles between the different individual vaccines.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,384 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Nope.

    This is your claim "VAERS logs reports of deaths of all vaccines available in the US, irrespective of country of manufacture."

    You haven't shown the quantities are the same. Available in the US means FDA approved. Not just any other vaccine in use anywhere else in the world. How many such vaccines are there? What is their quantity? It if your claim, if you are raising it as concern to others it is up to you to support it.

    You haven't shown that the reports are logged as diligently for new vaccines as vaccines in long use. It is specifically listed as a VAERS disclaimer in the page you linked to:

    VAERS is subject to reporting bias, including underreporting of adverse events – especially common, mild ones [33,34] – and stimulated reporting, which is elevated reporting that might occur in response to intense media attention and increased public awareness

    And you accept that the age profile of the vaccines distributed may be significantly different. Therefore you are not comparing like with like, unless you somehow expect there to be the same number of incidental deaths in 80 years olds as 8 or 28 year olds.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭hometruths


    elevated reporting that might occur in response to intense media attention and increased public awareness

    Intense media attention and increased public awareness leads unsurprisingly to elevated domestic reporting, particularly from the general public.

    It makes no difference to the reports that the manufacturers are required to submit by the law, irrespective of the headlines. Hence why I quoted the figures for foreign reports. These are the reports that over 99% are submitted by manufacturers as part of their obligations to comply with licensing requirements.

    And you accept that the age profile of the vaccines distributed may be significantly different. Therefore you are not comparing like with like, unless you somehow expect there to be the same number of incidental deaths in 80 years olds as 8 or 28 year olds.

    No, of course not. That would be ridiculous. Just as I wouldn't expect the same number of Covid deaths in 8 year olds or 28 year olds as 80 year olds.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,384 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    So two of the three claims you made to support your argument have been rebutted.

    You cannot demonstrate that the quanitites were comparable.

    You cannot demonstrate that the age profile of distribution and risk of death were comparable.

    And on the third claim, VAERS specifically lists it as a disclaimer in relation to public awareness.

    How does the manufacturer know if someone has died or had a severe reaction in order to submit this mandatory report? So the public awareness disclaimer applies here also.

    Your claim is baseless and is not supported by evidence.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,421 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Unsurprising that when proven factually wrong on all else, it's back to VAERS again, only to be proven factually wrong again (mixed in with a bit of emergency approval, even when CMA was used in Europe and they're fully approved by the FDA now).

    Some conspiracy though, make all data and information public, have multiple different groups analyse and publish papers using that public data.

    When asked why the experts find no issue, offer no explanation.

    Also, let's just mix in all vaccine data when it suits, but specify only 1 vaccine at other times randomly.



Advertisement