No conspiracy, just physics.

You mean chemistry right? Specifically bio chemistry?

No. Buildings don't fall at free fall speeds into their own footprints. No other building in history has done that, except ones that were demolitioned.

Oh dear god did you think I meant 9/11 instead of 9 out of 10?

Look I’m gonna cut you a break and chalk that up to a brain fart but my god context my man context.

Sorry I misread that. My bad.

There isn't "antivaxer nonsense" only science. You are against the science now.

Do you want to skip to the end where you stop responding because I proved you wrong again or do you want me to post the facts that are based on real science?

"I'm gonna give you a point for trying.

For real. You really tried with this one.

But. Here's the thing.

You need to actually read the whole article. Not just the parts you did a google search on..."

Nah, I ignored their opinions and went with the actual science in the article. Which states that VAERS is massively underreporting the vaccine side effect numbers

yes. you began with a conclusion: this information supports my belief that vaccines are bad.

Another example of what I was talking about. you started with 'vaccines are bad' and only saw the information you believed supported your pre-formed conclusion.

No. I know vaccines are bad because of their ingredients and past evidence. This wasn't a vaccine it was gene therapy, but the science says it's bad and the statistics agree. Also look up the ingredients in it. You might be surprised.

Nah, I stop commenting because your comment gets hidden and I don't have time to argue with people that don't even know the basic facts.

Also, "science" for you is just "things that sound like they support what I want to be true" and aren't actually science.

BUT Let's break it down anyway!

Pre covid, what was the rate of myocarditis? According to the CDC, 9 per 100,000.

Now. HOw many people who received at least 1 shot developed myocarditis? Of the 1900 reported to VAERs only 1626 of those reported cases could be confirmed.

So, 1626 is a confirmed hard number. At the time of the study, how many people had received at least 1 shot? 19+ million.

HOw many per 100,000 developed myocarditis? 0.8.

ZERO POINT EIGHT.

Not even 1 per 100,000. That's well below the pre-covid rate.

But let's add in a third data point- how many people developed mycarditis after surviving a covid infection? According to the CDC, 150 per 100,000.

So! Let's put those together.

Myocarditis rates:
Pre-covid: 9 per 100,000
Post 1 Covid Vaccination: 0.8 per 100,000
Post Covid Infection: 150 per 100,000.

So. As you can plainly see, in order for the vaccine to cause myocarditis at a higher than normal rate, that would have to exceed 9 per 100,000.

It doesn't.

But you know what does? Getting covid.

So. LIke I said.

Anti-vaxxer nonsense.

The issue with your numbers is they count people they don't know the vaccine status of as having not got the vaccine. They also count people that have been vaccinated for less than 14 days as not having been vaxxed. Most side effects including death and myocarditis happen in the first 14 days.

So your entire post is meaningless.

No. They know the vaccine status because they asked them.

That's the confirmed 1626 cases.

Remember, there were 1900ish reported to VAERs. They went and tracked down each one of those 1900ish cases. Then they checked with the people (along with their actual medical records). The difference between the 1900 number and the 1626 number are the people who could not be reached or declined to participate.

Since that 300ish number could not be confirmed as having myocarditis or having been vaccinated, they were removed from the data set.

The 1626 people were confirmed to have had at least 1 dose.

So we know from these hard numbers that the rate of myocarditis in the vaccinated population is less than 1 per 100,000.

Well below pre-covid rates.

Just like we know from post-covid rates that those who contracted the virus have a rate of 150 per 100,000.

So. Again. Anti-vaxxer nonsense.

Uh no. They intentionally don't verify VAERS data because it sounds price how bad the vaccine was.

Uh. No.

They have to verify the reports coming in from VAERS because the V is voluntary.

As in, "hey, this is what happened to me."

Then they have to follow up to make sure that its accurate. Because that voluntary reporting can be very very wrong because people are often wrong. Or even outright lie.

It's important to verify the accuracy of your data, otherwise whatever you produce is nonsense.

No, medical professionals are required by law to report vaccine injuries.

Okay. The VAERs system is still voluntary. They report it.

And then the data has to be verified.

The 1900 some cases were reported.

The CDC then had to go and verify each one.

Of that 1900-some, 1626 were confirmed. Confirmed that they'd had at least 1 vaccine dose. Confirmed they had not be diagnosed with myocarditis previously, AND that they had been diagnosed with it after the shot.

Otherwise, you're literally making things up.

Key thing: confirmed. Most people don't know they have it until they have a heart attack.

Yes. You have indeed struck upon the key thing: confirmed.

Because if you don't confirm the information, you're making it up. It's a fantasy.

And, yes, if the death was reported to the VAERS network as a part of the autopsy, it would have been part of the 1900. If the family allowed access to the medical records, they would have confirmed vaccination status, previous heart conditions, etc.

You are missing the point. There are countless others that have myocarditis that don't know it yet from the vaccine, or they simply haven't reported it because they haven't had a heart attack yet.

That's not how reality works, Lokiare.

You don't get to decide "there are countless others that have myocarditis from the vaccine." just because you want it that way.

That's literally making it up.

I know you want it to be true.

But your feelings are not facts.

You need hard evidence that you can point to. Specific physical evidence. With documentation. You need facts.

Without hard real facts, your claims are just a fantasy.

It's not real.

Wanting it to be true doesn't make it true.

If you filled a stadium with 100,000 people and gave them all at least 1 dose of the vaccine, let's round up for this, 1 person would develop myocarditis.

If you filled a stadium with 100,000 unvaccinated people and gave them all covid, 150 of them would develop myocarditis.

Until you come up with documentation of 1000s upon 1000s of people developing myocardits after being vaccinated, it's simply not real.

It's a fantasy.

"That's not how reality works, Lokiare.

You don't get to decide "there are countless others that have myocarditis from the vaccine." just because you want it that way.

That's literally making it up.

I know you want it to be true.

But your feelings are not facts.

You need hard evidence that you can point to. Specific physical evidence. With documentation. You need facts.

Without hard real facts, your claims are just a fantasy.

It's not real.

Wanting it to be true doesn't make it true.

If you filled a stadium with 100,000 people and gave them all at least 1 dose of the vaccine, let's round up for this, 1 person would develop myocarditis.

If you filled a stadium with 100,000 unvaccinated people and gave them all covid, 150 of them would develop myocarditis.

Until you come up with documentation of 1000s upon 1000s of people developing myocardits after being vaccinated, it's simply not real.

It's a fantasy."

Actually we know that VAERS gets underreported from 50% to 99%

from https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/underreporting-and-post-vaccine-deaths-in-vaccine-adverse-event-reporting-system-vaers-explained-14fe22b2a65f
"A 1995 study found that 68% of poliomyelitis (severe nerve disorder) cases from the oral poliovirus vaccine were reported to VAERS (reporting sensitivity: 68%). But this number was <1% for non-severe rashes from the mumps/measles/rubella (MMR) vaccine. (This data can also be misused to say that only <1% of vaccine adverse events get reported).
A 2001 study found that 47% of cases of rotavirus vaccine-associated intussusception (severe intestinal disorder) were successfully reported to VAERS (reporting sensitivity: 47%).
A 2013 survey study in the U.S. found that 73% of healthcare providers were very or extremely likely to report a serious vaccine adverse event, whereas only 13% were keen to report a minor one.
A 2020 study tracked the reporting sensitivity of anaphylaxis (severe allergic reaction) and Guillain–Barré syndrome (severe nerve disorder) from various vaccines. Results (see table below) showed that the reporting sensitivity of anaphylaxis ranges from 13–76% from seven different vaccines. For Guillain–Barré syndrome, the reporting sensitivity is 12% from the 2012–2013 influenza vaccine, 15–55% from the 2009 influenza vaccine, and 64% from the 2006–2015 human papillomavirus vaccine."

I'm gonna give you a point for trying.

For real. You really tried with this one.

But. Here's the thing.

You need to actually read the whole article. Not just the parts you did a google search on.

Because it systematically destroys your argument about the vaccines being unsafe and deaths being under reported.

Here's the conclusion:

While 6000 post-Covid-19 vaccine deaths have occurred in the U.S. as of July 2021, it’s crucial to note that the denominator is 334 million vaccine doses, equating to a rate of 0.0018%. Plus, VAERS is not meant to confirm that a vaccine caused something, but that doesn't stop people from assuming that Covid-19 vaccines have killed thousands of people in the U.S. About 7,800 people died in the U.S. every day in 2019, so it’s actually not surprising to see a spike in post-vaccine deaths in 2021 as mass vaccination is happening, especially in the vulnerable populations.

All that said, back to the intro, this article is not meant to say that vaccines are completely safe or unsafe. But the claims that the Covid-19 vaccines are unsafe based on what has been reported to VAERS are simply misleading.

I'm going to repeat the important part for you:

But the claims that the Covid-19 vaccines are unsafe based on what has been reported to VAERS are simply misleading.

In all seriousness, you have to stop doing a few things. The first is stop beginning with a conclusion. The 2nd is stop only accepting information that supports that previously formed conclusion.

Is it okay to question that the vaccine is safe? Of course.

But here's the thing: you can't reject the data that says it's safe or unsafe because you already decided it's one or the other.