As far as capturing a near complete universe of the adverse events associated with vaxxination, VAERS was built to fail by design, plus the voluntary nature of it will always lead to under-reporting. That being said, VAERS has produced unmistakable danger signals with regards to the covid vaxxines that should be obvious to anyone who bothers to do a simple comparison against the other traditional vaxxines. So the greatest single point of failure is not VAERS itself, but the people who are tasked with investigating signs of harm that VAERS is revealing. They are either completely incompetent (hard to believe), or they are intentionally ignoring the danger signals. VAERS itself is an antiquated (technology-wise) system which could have been replaced back in 2010 during that Pilgrim Healthcare study, during which, if the CDC chose to move forward, a new system could have been implemented that would be more transparent and would allow for real-time electronic collection of data and integration into healthcare systems such that doing root cause analyses would be more efficient and accurate. The fact that they did not choose to move forward with such a new system tells you everything you need to know. The data inside the VAERS system is poorly QC'd and maintained and overall reveals gross negligence at best. Yet despite all this, the signals of unprecedented human harm are clear.
Hi Wayne! Absolutely, you are totally correct about that. And, that actually has an effect on whether people are motivated to report their adverse reaction or not. I have a close friend, and his wife became sick after getting her second vaccine. She went to see her gynecologist who explained that she was having a spontaneous abortion. This, I knew about early on when it first happened. He took the survey yesterday, and we happen to be talking on the phone when he took the survey and it was sort of fun for him to go through it and then tell me his thoughts about it. It turns out, that his wife has been having periods that are twice as long as normal and very heavy ever since that first event. She gets exhausted, it’s not good for her it’s really a problem. But his answer about whether or not they would report was no, and the reason given was that he didn’t feel like it would make a difference. Because no one was going to look at the information or do anything with it in a credible way. So the exciting thing about the survey is that it will highlight so many different ways in which our natural inclination to raise her hand and say that something happened and it might be a problem and he don’t people wanna know about it, gets turned into keeping our hand down and our mouth shut and not saying anything. So long as we are willing to not say anything, those people doing a bad job find it very easy to continue doing a bad job. So, I feel like we’re choosing a good angle to come at the problem from, but there are multiple angles for sure.
You are incorrect about reporting the vaccine adverse effects.
Here is what the 2007-2010 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care study found:
"Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported."
Hello! I’m not exactly sure what you mean I am being incorrect about. Could you clarify? There are some details that I didn’t get into while writing this article because he can’t write everything in one article or turns into a book. If you can clarify what inaccuracy you’re noticing, I will better understand and be able to respond.
"Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported."
Now, if actually 25% of patients had AE and less than 1% reported we have the undereporting factor of >25x. Many calculations based on today's VAERS reporting for CV19 vaccines SAE came up with the numbers for URF between 20x and 49x. If today VAERS reports ~10,200 deaths and avg URF is 30 we have 306,000 fatalities. The number of permanent disabilities (PD) is about 20% higher than the # of deaths.
Hello Jeff, I was pretty sure that was your question. So, here’s the prevarication. Or how I’m trying to air on the side of caution and not overstate some thing. The Harvard study that came out in 2010 was focused specifically upon the level of reporting conducted specifically by doctors in a doctors office. They did not do any study into what percentage of people in the average population do you or do not report adverse events following vaccination. In other words, the Harvard study Took a segment of society and produced results based upon that segment. We cannot extrapolate that to be representative of the hall of society. And historically, in previous reports from the FDA itself, they have stated an expectation that under 10% of adverse reactions following vaccination are reported to this system. So, to avoid a person challenging the one percent and having a good argument to do so, I chose to put down a range which touches upon the previous statistics from the FDA and touches upon the Harvard study in 2010.
Well you may feel that I have suggested a higher percentage of success than is true, what I have also done is I have avoided giving someone ammunition or fuel to be used against me by giving them the ability to argue that I have overstated the case. It is bad enough, if we were at the 10% threshold. That is an F minus minus minus minus, so I think the point still stands and I have avoided giving someone else the opportunity to make me look like I am exaggerating the point. If people believe I am exaggerating then they will lose trust in what I’m saying. Your thoughts? And please forgive typos, I am using voice to text.
Recently several U.S. and German mathematicians and physicists after deep analysis of the worldwide data independently came to a very close estimate - 1 death per 2300 jabs. With 546,000 M injections in the U.S. that translates to 546,000 / 2300 = 237,390 deaths. Today VAERS lists 10,747 covid deaths. So, the underreporting factor is 237,390 / 10,747 = 22.
you know, I totally understand. The problem is, most people in society don’t care about extrapolation. They don’t care about estimates or guesses, when it challenges what they already believe to be true. Guesstimates and estimates worked great when society expected a bunch of illness and a bunch of PCR test gave them what they wanted. But Mark Twain was absolutely correct when he mentioned it is much easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
In other words, these statistical analysis and numbers will mean a lot to people who we already have on board, but they are so readily discounted by the people who are still drinking the Kool-Aid, that I haven’t wanted to put a lot of energy into this aspect of the situation. I am hoping that we will be more successful shifting opinion through some concrete evidence….And I think very powerful concrete evidence will come from people who have been injured or who lost a loved one and believe their loved one died because of the injection. Getting these people to step up and tell their stories, I think is more concrete than the statistical extrapolation. Your thoughts?
Though even without any statistical extrapolation we have ~23,000 deaths recorded in VAERS, ~40,000 in EudraVigilance, ~2,000 in the UK, a total of ~65,000! In the U.S. we have 10,200 CV deaths in 2021 but on average only ~140 deaths in any previous years from all other 75 vaccines together... with more than a billion jabs a year (vs~ 500M covid jabs). That is a ~73-fold increase (or 150-fold per 1 jab). Maybe that very clear point is much easier to sell?
I'd have to read their report again, but I think what actually may have happened is that you simply selected their quote on adverse drug events, and omitted their quote saying less than 1% of VACCINE adverse events are reported historically.
As far as capturing a near complete universe of the adverse events associated with vaxxination, VAERS was built to fail by design, plus the voluntary nature of it will always lead to under-reporting. That being said, VAERS has produced unmistakable danger signals with regards to the covid vaxxines that should be obvious to anyone who bothers to do a simple comparison against the other traditional vaxxines. So the greatest single point of failure is not VAERS itself, but the people who are tasked with investigating signs of harm that VAERS is revealing. They are either completely incompetent (hard to believe), or they are intentionally ignoring the danger signals. VAERS itself is an antiquated (technology-wise) system which could have been replaced back in 2010 during that Pilgrim Healthcare study, during which, if the CDC chose to move forward, a new system could have been implemented that would be more transparent and would allow for real-time electronic collection of data and integration into healthcare systems such that doing root cause analyses would be more efficient and accurate. The fact that they did not choose to move forward with such a new system tells you everything you need to know. The data inside the VAERS system is poorly QC'd and maintained and overall reveals gross negligence at best. Yet despite all this, the signals of unprecedented human harm are clear.
https://vaersanalysis.info/2021/09/21/what-does-the-quality-of-the-vaers-data-tell-us-about-the-most-intense-safety-monitoring-in-us-history/
Hi Wayne! Absolutely, you are totally correct about that. And, that actually has an effect on whether people are motivated to report their adverse reaction or not. I have a close friend, and his wife became sick after getting her second vaccine. She went to see her gynecologist who explained that she was having a spontaneous abortion. This, I knew about early on when it first happened. He took the survey yesterday, and we happen to be talking on the phone when he took the survey and it was sort of fun for him to go through it and then tell me his thoughts about it. It turns out, that his wife has been having periods that are twice as long as normal and very heavy ever since that first event. She gets exhausted, it’s not good for her it’s really a problem. But his answer about whether or not they would report was no, and the reason given was that he didn’t feel like it would make a difference. Because no one was going to look at the information or do anything with it in a credible way. So the exciting thing about the survey is that it will highlight so many different ways in which our natural inclination to raise her hand and say that something happened and it might be a problem and he don’t people wanna know about it, gets turned into keeping our hand down and our mouth shut and not saying anything. So long as we are willing to not say anything, those people doing a bad job find it very easy to continue doing a bad job. So, I feel like we’re choosing a good angle to come at the problem from, but there are multiple angles for sure.
You are incorrect about reporting the vaccine adverse effects.
Here is what the 2007-2010 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care study found:
"Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported."
Only 1% for vaccine!!!
I noticed the same thing.
Hello! I’m not exactly sure what you mean I am being incorrect about. Could you clarify? There are some details that I didn’t get into while writing this article because he can’t write everything in one article or turns into a book. If you can clarify what inaccuracy you’re noticing, I will better understand and be able to respond.
Vaccine AE are separated:
"Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported."
Now, if actually 25% of patients had AE and less than 1% reported we have the undereporting factor of >25x. Many calculations based on today's VAERS reporting for CV19 vaccines SAE came up with the numbers for URF between 20x and 49x. If today VAERS reports ~10,200 deaths and avg URF is 30 we have 306,000 fatalities. The number of permanent disabilities (PD) is about 20% higher than the # of deaths.
Hello Jeff, I was pretty sure that was your question. So, here’s the prevarication. Or how I’m trying to air on the side of caution and not overstate some thing. The Harvard study that came out in 2010 was focused specifically upon the level of reporting conducted specifically by doctors in a doctors office. They did not do any study into what percentage of people in the average population do you or do not report adverse events following vaccination. In other words, the Harvard study Took a segment of society and produced results based upon that segment. We cannot extrapolate that to be representative of the hall of society. And historically, in previous reports from the FDA itself, they have stated an expectation that under 10% of adverse reactions following vaccination are reported to this system. So, to avoid a person challenging the one percent and having a good argument to do so, I chose to put down a range which touches upon the previous statistics from the FDA and touches upon the Harvard study in 2010.
Well you may feel that I have suggested a higher percentage of success than is true, what I have also done is I have avoided giving someone ammunition or fuel to be used against me by giving them the ability to argue that I have overstated the case. It is bad enough, if we were at the 10% threshold. That is an F minus minus minus minus, so I think the point still stands and I have avoided giving someone else the opportunity to make me look like I am exaggerating the point. If people believe I am exaggerating then they will lose trust in what I’m saying. Your thoughts? And please forgive typos, I am using voice to text.
Great points!
Recently several U.S. and German mathematicians and physicists after deep analysis of the worldwide data independently came to a very close estimate - 1 death per 2300 jabs. With 546,000 M injections in the U.S. that translates to 546,000 / 2300 = 237,390 deaths. Today VAERS lists 10,747 covid deaths. So, the underreporting factor is 237,390 / 10,747 = 22.
you know, I totally understand. The problem is, most people in society don’t care about extrapolation. They don’t care about estimates or guesses, when it challenges what they already believe to be true. Guesstimates and estimates worked great when society expected a bunch of illness and a bunch of PCR test gave them what they wanted. But Mark Twain was absolutely correct when he mentioned it is much easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
In other words, these statistical analysis and numbers will mean a lot to people who we already have on board, but they are so readily discounted by the people who are still drinking the Kool-Aid, that I haven’t wanted to put a lot of energy into this aspect of the situation. I am hoping that we will be more successful shifting opinion through some concrete evidence….And I think very powerful concrete evidence will come from people who have been injured or who lost a loved one and believe their loved one died because of the injection. Getting these people to step up and tell their stories, I think is more concrete than the statistical extrapolation. Your thoughts?
Absolutely, totally agree.
Though even without any statistical extrapolation we have ~23,000 deaths recorded in VAERS, ~40,000 in EudraVigilance, ~2,000 in the UK, a total of ~65,000! In the U.S. we have 10,200 CV deaths in 2021 but on average only ~140 deaths in any previous years from all other 75 vaccines together... with more than a billion jabs a year (vs~ 500M covid jabs). That is a ~73-fold increase (or 150-fold per 1 jab). Maybe that very clear point is much easier to sell?
I'd have to read their report again, but I think what actually may have happened is that you simply selected their quote on adverse drug events, and omitted their quote saying less than 1% of VACCINE adverse events are reported historically.