VAERS UNCONFIRMED REPORT

You mean this?

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html
Evaluating VAERS Data

When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

Yeah, that's the one.
5sm2ww.jpg (click to show)

It's hilarious people try to use the numbers without the caveats that go with it or the stated purpose and limitations of the database.

Thank you for your expert statistical analysis of VAERS. Your ability to copy and paste text from three letter public health agency web sites is truly mind boggling. I'm glad you find serving as a shill for entities suffering from big pharma regulatory capture so entertaining. You receive a 'C' grade for 'C'redibility.

The instructions for the use of the site are to report all adverse effects regardless of whether cause and affect are obvious. The reason is because sometimes linkages might not be obvious. If they analyze and find that a lot of people have night terrors after, it might be easy to ignore, but patterns can be spotted in large populations.

The difference between skepticism and just making stuff up is you have to be skeptical of the things that support your views as well as the things that don't.

Your suspicions aren't evidence. Your assumption that the parts of a dataset you want to be true are true, but not the rest of it is flawed reasoning, and you should work on that.

"Your suspicions aren't evidence. Your assumption that the parts of a dataset you want to be true are true, but not the rest of it is flawed reasoning, and you should work on that."

Sounds like "flawed reasoning" is your "superpower". Accusing others of your your own faults and shortcomings is obviously your forte. That's the truth. You should stick with a copy and paste format.

Naw, in pretty good at reasoning. I can make mistakes like anyone else, but not this time.

A browse through openVAERS and filtering based on suicide and then cancer shows a lot of cases that weren't directly vaccine related.

Like dying 'with' covid, or dying 'from' covid? Whatever fits your narrative.

Daily numbers report all positive tests regardless of actual cause, but the final count is based on death certificates.

The with COVID or from COVID isn't really a thing. The instructions for filling out a death certificate state cause I'd death is filled out as a chain of events. If COVID leads to pneumonia, then COVID is still the cause of death. If it is just a positive case and not the cause of death then it is noted, but not as the cause.

It's the same for VAERS. Everything is reported and an individual is to investigate and only those cases that are vaccine related are counted.

Who decides wether an adverse event is vaccine related or not? Some CDC pencil pushing number cruncher whose prime directive is to generate statistics that aligns with the big pharma covid vaccine narrative? A situation that promotes great confidence in the whole process. Just blow it all off because it isn't considered "really a thing".

There is likely some pressure for a vaccine narrative, how not? But I also think there would be pressure to make sure that any adverse events are caught. We have three potential vaccines. We can definitely decide to go with one over the others if needed. Also, they could prescribe a low dose blood thinner as a preventative. That would be even more money for the pharmaceutical industry. In fact any side effect they could market a drug to address would be 💰.

True skepticism demands doubt of all narratives. Then picking the one that is most likely. Obviously, not everyone will agree on what that is, but the most likely is not the "VAERS can be trusted in the reports that are there, but but reporting guidelines".