With between 1%-10% and indicators looking around 3%-5%, very easily over a million murders.
With between 1%-10% and indicators looking around 3%-5%, very easily over a million murders.
My estimate of the VAERS under-reporting factor (URF) at 41 was based on anaphylaxis rates reported in the Blumenthal paper published in JAMA.
I have argued that the anaphylaxis rate is an appropriate number to use to (under) estimate deaths because I believed that deaths would be less reported than anaphylaxis to VAERS for two reasons: 1) usually lacks the time proximity to vaccination, 2) the person seeing the death may not know the vaccination status of the victim and may not technically be required to report the death.
Some people have quibbled with that assumption, including my friend Professor John Ioannidis, who argued that there is no evidence that that is true and it could be the other way around. It’s a fair point and I told John it’s only an estimate and I’m happy to modify it when we have more data.
That day has arrived courtesy of Wayne at VAERS Analysis.
Wayne did a URF computation using death data in CMS. This overcomes any objections about the validity of using anaphylaxis rates as a proxy for death rates.
The VAERS URF he computed was 44.64.
This seems reasonable to me. It’s really not far from the 41 I calculated.
Also, Wayne subsequently looked at the numbers for 9 states. The average value was 40, not far from the 41 I calculated from anaphylaxis.
I had two team members (Albert Benavides and Jessica Rose) double check his numbers. No mistake.
Now, let’s see what that means.
As of Dec 14, 2021, there are 9,136 deaths reported into VAERS for domestic deaths (if you are using OpenVAERS, flip the switch at the top to see the US only deaths). If we subtract out more than twice the total number of deaths reported in any previous year (to be super conservative about estimating background deaths):
My estimate of the VAERS under-reporting factor (URF) at 41 was based on anaphylaxis rates reported in the Blumenthal paper published in JAMA.
I have argued that the anaphylaxis rate is an appropriate number to use to (under) estimate deaths because I believed that deaths would be less reported than anaphylaxis to VAERS for two reasons: 1) usually lacks the time proximity to vaccination, 2) the person seeing the death may not know the vaccination status of the victim and may not technically be required to report the death.
Some people have quibbled with that assumption, including my friend Professor John Ioannidis, who argued that there is no evidence that that is true and it could be the other way around. It’s a fair point and I told John it’s only an estimate and I’m happy to modify it when we have more data.
That day has arrived courtesy of Wayne at VAERS Analysis.
Wayne did a URF computation using death data in CMS. This overcomes any objections about the validity of using anaphylaxis rates as a proxy for death rates.
The VAERS URF he computed was 44.64.
This seems reasonable to me. It’s really not far from the 41 I calculated.
Also, Wayne subsequently looked at the numbers for 9 states. The average value was 40, not far from the 41 I calculated from anaphylaxis.
I had two team members (Albert Benavides and Jessica Rose) double check his numbers. No mistake.
Now, let’s see what that means.
As of Dec 14, 2021, there are 9,136 deaths reported into VAERS for domestic deaths (if you are using OpenVAERS, flip the switch at the top to see the US only deaths). If we subtract out more than twice the total number of deaths reported in any previous year (to be super conservative about estimating background deaths):
VAERS is self-reporting information, is it not? No way to verify if any of the information entered is true or not.
I could go on there and report that the vaccine killed me, my neighbors, my best friend, and my dog, and you'd count it as valid data.
Wikipedia:
Like other spontaneous reporting systems, VAERS has several limitations, including underreporting, unverified reports, inconsistent data quality, and inadequate data about the number of people vaccinated. Indeed, an autism activist named Jim Laidler once reported to VAERS that a vaccine had turned him into The Incredible Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database, but the dubious nature thereof prompted a VAERS representative to contact Mr. Laidler, who then gave his consent to delete the report.
If there is no way to verify that any of the source data is true, your results are suspect at best, garbage at worst. Some people have a particular agenda (spreading information that the vaccine is harmful, whether or not this is true) and they enter bad data on purpose. This bad data is picked up by you and analyzed as if it is a fact. If this guy had picked almost anything else other than "The Incredible Hulk", the info would have been left in the VAERS database.
A guy on reddit with a brand new account said he personally knew 13 young men whose hearts had stopped due to the vaccine. When others called him out as spreading bullshit, he deleted his account. See how that works? Spread unverified information, and a few people will treat it as factual. You need to verify the information you are working with or you are responsible for spreading misinformation.
VAERS is self-reporting information, is it not? No way to verify if any of the information entered is true or not.
I could go on there and report that the vaccine killed me, my neighbors, my best friend, and my dog, and you'd count it as valid data.
Wikipedia:
>Like other spontaneous reporting systems, VAERS has several limitations, including underreporting, unverified reports, inconsistent data quality, and inadequate data about the number of people vaccinated. Indeed, an autism activist named Jim Laidler once reported to VAERS that a vaccine had turned him into The Incredible Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database, but the dubious nature thereof prompted a VAERS representative to contact Mr. Laidler, who then gave his consent to delete the report.
If there is no way to verify that any of the source data is true, your results are suspect at best, garbage at worst. Some people have a particular agenda (spreading information that the vaccine is harmful, whether or not this is true) and they enter bad data on purpose. This bad data is picked up by you and analyzed as if it is a fact. If this guy had picked almost anything else other than "The Incredible Hulk", the info would have been left in the VAERS database.
A guy on reddit with a brand new account said he personally knew 13 young men whose hearts had stopped due to the vaccine. When others called him out as spreading bullshit, he deleted his account. See how that works? Spread unverified information, and a few people will treat it as factual. You need to verify the information you are working with or you are responsible for spreading misinformation.
VAERS is reported by the doctor from my understanding.
VAERS is reported by the doctor from my understanding.
Here is a current link to someone who is falsifying entries in VAERS. https://saidit.net/s/AskSaidIt/comments/8q0u/how_are_you_guys_getting_your_lot_numbers_to_help/
Here is a current link to someone who is falsifying entries in VAERS. https://saidit.net/s/AskSaidIt/comments/8q0u/how_are_you_guys_getting_your_lot_numbers_to_help/
How did the dude get The Incredible Hulk information entered into the database? He was an autism activist, not a doctor.
How did the dude get The Incredible Hulk information entered into the database? He was an autism activist, not a doctor.
Considering 1% of adverse reactions are reported to VAERS I'd say it isn't a very "respected" part of the CDC. After all, they are in bed with the Pharma industry. Some things are there just for show.
Considering 1% of adverse reactions are reported to VAERS I'd say it isn't a very "respected" part of the CDC. After all, they are in bed with the Pharma industry. Some things are there just for show.
(post is archived)