Strategic placement of two new billboard ads right outside CDC campus!

Up voted

Awesome! ☝️😎👍

But it’s fake

Wrong.

Lol so they are, placed by a right wing BS group.
https://www.vacsafety.org/

Trying to educate and save lives is BS? The facts and statistics are there to support the truth. If you choose to ignore them, it means either you are entrenched in leftist ideology or you are on the payroll to benefit from this medical malpractice. Why do you think the CDC wanted 75 years before releasing jab data?

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/why-a-judge-ordered-fda-to-release-covid-19-vaccine-data-pronto

😄 Your premise has been countered by a link to a left wing BS group

VAERS is unverifiable nonsense.
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

VAERS Data Limitations

Millions of vaccines are given each year to children less than 1 year old in the United States, usually between 2 and 6 months of age. At this age, infants are at greatest risk for certain medical adverse events, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Some infants will experience these medical events shortly after a vaccination by coincidence.

These coincidences make it difficult to know whether a particular adverse event resulted from a medical condition or from a vaccination. Therefore, vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccination, whether or not they believe the vaccination was the cause.

When reviewing data from VAERS, please keep in mind the following limitations:

VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning that reports about adverse events are not automatically collected, but require a report to be filed to VAERS. VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.

Lol, again…. Read their own statements on verifiability. Correlation isn’t causation.

You read it, AN0NYM0US. They admit that the side effects are way underreported. And, of course, they would call it all coincidental, ETC. So sad when little babies have reactions and they are labelled as 'coincidence'....

I did read it. It says the info is not verifiable.

You seemed to have much insight into VAERS but I reckon you actually do not.

There is a reason the reporting system exists.

If the reports are not being investigated then the system is a fraudulent method of providing the illusion of safety and protection from harm to the general public.

Every reaction, death, etc., cannot be summarily dismissed.

Surely a portion of them are legitimate and warrant action...a warning at a minimum.

You should ask why a biotech company would provide the forum and then mock those that submit comments.

What biotech company?

Please explain why VAERS exists.

No idea. Seems dumb.

The one of which you have zero knowledge, of course.

So, go on….

Who created/proctors VAERS?

No idea. Who? Why?

You have already stated that you have no idea what you are commenting about.

I have no counter argument to your self admitted lack of knowledge.

so you don't know either. Got it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-walensky-study-idUSL1N2TS0S2

I was not the one pretending authority on VAERS.

That was you.

When questioned you stated you know nothing about the system.

Then you project your lack of knowledge onto me.

CDC/FDA created the system and are responsible for the investigation of the reports received.

It's been around for years but nobody spoke about it until the COVID-19 injectable toxin reached the market.

Their determination on myocarditis, for example: yes it happens, mainly in the younger age groups, BUT the benefits outweigh the risks, citing a higher incidence of myocarditis in those that are infected with the virus itself.

However, they are silent on myocarditis in those "vaccinated" and then infected.

That is to say I cannot locate any study on this.

Even something as benign as reporting a headache should be looked into. Blood clots cause headaches. COVID-19 "vaccine" has been proven to cause blood clots.

Is that causation or merely correlative happenstance?

I believe when it comes to COVID-19 the general narrative is this:

You have comorbidities and die while infected, COVID-19 was the cause of death - no investigation warranted.

You have comorbidities and die after reporting "vaccination" reaction, your comorbidities were the cause of death - no investigation warranted.

Deaths absolutely have been caused from the COVID-19 "vaccine".

Every manufacturer and government agency admit this, followed by the benefits v risks mantra.

Reduced symptoms (benefit) versus dying from an adverse event caused by the "vaccine" (risk).

I believe there is some effort being put into downplaying the extent of illness and death caused by the "vaccine".

Anyway, I'm starting to bore myself so I will end with this:

Time will tell.

Im not an authority I’m pointing out facts on their website.

Whose website?

ummmmm......the organization we've been talking about since forever...VAERS. Below is my previous post with a link and verbatim copy and paste text from the site. Image is ALL the text.

VAERS is unverifiable nonsense.

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

VAERS Data Limitations

Millions of vaccines are given each year to children less than 1 year old in the United States, usually between 2 and 6 months of age. At this age, infants are at greatest risk for certain medical adverse events, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Some infants will experience these medical events shortly after a vaccination by coincidence.

These coincidences make it difficult to know whether a particular adverse event resulted from a medical condition or from a vaccination. Therefore, vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccination, whether or not they believe the vaccination was the cause.

When reviewing data from VAERS, please keep in mind the following limitations:

VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning that reports about adverse events are not automatically collected, but require a report to be filed to VAERS. VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.

The semantics are yours.

Ah yes, the “I know you are but what am I” technique. Fun.

you can’t dispute the facts. VAERS “data” is unverified. Therefore none of it can be considered on its own as “evidence” of anything.

It’s a hard conundrum one to argue your way out of. On one hand you want the information to be true, because it suits your needs, but you can’t use the information as facts because they aren’t proven to be.

By the way there are plenty of actual studies that show blood clots are a minuscule “risk” or side effect to the vaccine regardless of how many people reported them on VAERS.

VAERS is the carcomplaints.com, Glassdoor, indeed, yelp etc of the medical world. No vetting, just people uploading their own content for their own needs. Once VAERS was made more public to a certain audience, they flooded the site with their own “experiences”.

Don’t hang your hat on VAERS. As they openly admit.

It is verifiable.

As you concurred, verification only requires one invest effort to investigate.

In this era of electronic medical records the effort required is greatly minimized.

Anecdotal evidence that is not scientifically tested remains anecdotal.

They, the CDC and FDA, should analyze every report to verify it positively or negatively.

•Positive verification
•Negative verification
•Cannot verify positively or negatively

There could be overlooked correlations and/or causes.

This is how it was discovered that the "vaccines" had a correlation with blood clots occurring in recipients and subsequently determined to be the cause of the blood clots.

You are arguing the reports are nonsensical, unproven mumbo jumbo, because they haven't been held up to scientific scrutiny.

I am arguing that the agencies tasked with subjecting the reports to scientific scrutiny are not doing so.

You say because it is time consuming.

I say they have all day every day.

Perhaps you incorrectly assume that I am stating every report is proof of fact that every described reaction is absolutely caused by the "vaccine".

I am leary, not looney.

OH I see....it's semantics for you. OK. So the information may be "verifiable" in that it *could* be verified. BUT as it stands- The information is not verified. There are zero "checks" in place to verify the incoming information that is essentially immediately reported back to the public.

You are banging pots and pans with a wooden spoon.

I do not know why you refuse to acknowledge that the reports have not been determined to be affirmatively or negatively correlated and/or causative due to the fact the reports have not been properly investigated. Ignored even.

Don't hang your hat on contrariness.

Blood clots were reported through VAERS. A "vaccine" was found to be a causative agent. The "vaccine" was suspended from use for a period of time and I think eventually withdrawn.

Repeat that investigation with the remaining reported issues.

You have an equally miniscule risk of serious illness or death from contracting the wild virus.

If they'd have left it alone it would have been gone already, same as happened with SARS-CoV-1.

This has become boring having to repeat myself in response to your repeating yourself.

To summarize:

Me: determine if the reports are fact or fiction

You: that is a waste of time because they aren't facts.

Me: they haven't been investigated to determine that.

You: that is a waste of time because they aren't facts.

“ You have an equally miniscule risk of serious illness or death from contracting the wild virus”

lol no. That’s simply incredibly wrong.

The fact you stated that shows your ignorance along with confidence and I’m done with you.

You mean the same VAERS program you repeatedly said you know nothing about?

It is not "unverifiable nonsense".

It is nonsense that the events reported are largely unverified because the CDC and FDA neglect to investigate them.

There are reactions believed to have occurred by those injected that are ignored.

There very well could be correlations and even causation.

One only need to take the time to do the work.

Why promote the VAERS safety measure and then neglect the reports?

It renders the program an impotent false sense of security.

LOL I know what I saw on their site. They admit the info they present is UNVERIFIABLE.

As I said, correlation is not NECESSARILY causation. That stands universally. The fact nothing they present is verifiable means nothing can even be verified as CORRELATED let alone causing of anything.

The "work" you may think is so easy, would require a ton of resources. I agree though, the only way to trust the science is to perform ACTUAL science. Actual science doesn't include unverifiable anecdotal information pretending to be "evidence."