COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed(reuters.com)
reuters.com
COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/covid-vaccine-injury-claims-mount-recourse-is-lacking-those-harmed-2021-10-19/
62 comments
Novavax looks like an interesting alternative. Not quite available yet, but probably soon.
There was just an announcement of major delays in production and availability relating to the supply chain problems going on. More generally, I'm skeptical that it's advisable to continue administering vaccines which target the spike protein of the original Wuhan strain.
Referring to the Politico article based on the anonymous source? Not sure about that; Novavax immediately put out a release today that they are still on target to submit for approval in various countries yet this year.
Agreed, I'm not sure of the value of continuing to target the original virus, but it sounds like Novavax offers decent protection against known variants also.
More interestingly, their vaccine directly exposes you to the spike protein, rather than telling your body to fabricate it.
Agreed, I'm not sure of the value of continuing to target the original virus, but it sounds like Novavax offers decent protection against known variants also.
More interestingly, their vaccine directly exposes you to the spike protein, rather than telling your body to fabricate it.
Yeah it definitely seems less risky than the mRNA/adenoviral-vector approach. I know a guy in the Phase 3 trials who had some really bad side effects from the shots, but they only lasted a day. Unfortunately now he's stuck because the mandates all require one of the authorized vaccines, and there's essentially no data on whether it would be safe for him to take one after Novavax.
I have heard of companies accepting Novavax trial participants as meeting the mandate requirements. Might be worth asking.
Or if he is needing a booster shot... yeah, that's a little harder right now. I think some trial participants (in England?) were approved for taking a different vaccine as a booster, but if can possibly hold out, waiting for more Novavax seems to make more sense to me.
Or if he is needing a booster shot... yeah, that's a little harder right now. I think some trial participants (in England?) were approved for taking a different vaccine as a booster, but if can possibly hold out, waiting for more Novavax seems to make more sense to me.
The CDC guidelines explicitly state clinical trial participants are ok for the mandate. My company has a mandate and I’m fine since I was part of the AstraZeneca trial.
It makes sense that wealthy and powerful people would invest in popular companies.
It makes sense that vaccine producers would be popular companies during two years of pandemic.
It makes sense that vaccine producers would be popular companies during two years of pandemic.
> It makes sense that wealthy and powerful people would invest in popular companies.
It should also be noted that even in the US, the bastion of economic liberalism and extreme capitalism, only 15% of all families own stock[1].
Also, it was reported a couple off days ago that 89% of all stock are owned by only 10% of americans[2]. So, Bill Gates owning stock is not relevant or meaningful.
Lastly, Bill Gates at most invested 55 million on BioNTech[3]. We're talking about a guy whose fortune is evaluated at around 135 BILLION dollars. To put things in perspective, this is equivalent to a guy who has $1 million investing $350 on a company. Come on.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2020/08/31/mo...
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/18/the-wealthiest-10percent-of-...
[3] https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-det...
It should also be noted that even in the US, the bastion of economic liberalism and extreme capitalism, only 15% of all families own stock[1].
Also, it was reported a couple off days ago that 89% of all stock are owned by only 10% of americans[2]. So, Bill Gates owning stock is not relevant or meaningful.
Lastly, Bill Gates at most invested 55 million on BioNTech[3]. We're talking about a guy whose fortune is evaluated at around 135 BILLION dollars. To put things in perspective, this is equivalent to a guy who has $1 million investing $350 on a company. Come on.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2020/08/31/mo...
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/18/the-wealthiest-10percent-of-...
[3] https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-det...
> Why are people with COVID antibodies from successful recovery forced to get vaccines?
"Successful recoveries" alone is not an indication that you are now immune to COVID-19 or able to handle a reinfection well. There are reported cases of reinfections, with the second COVID-19 infection being far more serious and even deadly.
Also, it has been observed that vaccination ensures a better antibody response to some variants than a prior infection.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
Even though none of the current batch of vaccines ensure perfect immunity, they all do ensure that the immune response to subsequent infections is good enough to not even warrant any additional care beyond quarantine to avoid transmitting to anyone else.
Anyone can find answers to those questions with a quick Google search. What happened to "I do my own research"?
"Successful recoveries" alone is not an indication that you are now immune to COVID-19 or able to handle a reinfection well. There are reported cases of reinfections, with the second COVID-19 infection being far more serious and even deadly.
Also, it has been observed that vaccination ensures a better antibody response to some variants than a prior infection.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
Even though none of the current batch of vaccines ensure perfect immunity, they all do ensure that the immune response to subsequent infections is good enough to not even warrant any additional care beyond quarantine to avoid transmitting to anyone else.
Anyone can find answers to those questions with a quick Google search. What happened to "I do my own research"?
When you get to "reported cases of" anecdotes that the researchers were specifically targeting to find you might want to consider the reduction factors involved. Or even the potential for selecting a biased dataset based on false positives.
Correct interpretation of research is more important than finding this or that paper. Kentucky study was not about antibody response so I'm not sure how you are using that to back up your assertion. Instead it was a theoretically more direct look in to patient outcomes, however follow own studies over larger populations seem to be in tension with the Kentucky result.
Correct interpretation of research is more important than finding this or that paper. Kentucky study was not about antibody response so I'm not sure how you are using that to back up your assertion. Instead it was a theoretically more direct look in to patient outcomes, however follow own studies over larger populations seem to be in tension with the Kentucky result.
"reported cases" is not the same thing as "statistics show." As someone who was diagnosed with COVID in August, was out of commission for a week and a half, and recovered fully, I'll need more convincing than "this happened once, maybe even twice" to believe it's worth it to get the shot.
> "reported cases" is not the same thing as "statistics show."
Do you understand that statistics are calculated from reported cases? I mean, statistics is literally the discipline that concerns the collection, organization, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data.
Do you understand that statistics are calculated from reported cases? I mean, statistics is literally the discipline that concerns the collection, organization, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data.
my pet theory on the new push to vaccinate children is they didn’t get as many adults as they expected and need to make up for the sales so now they are marketing to children/parents
Actually, delta is hospitalizing and killing children at a significantly increased rate relative to the initial virus.
Congress is going to hold blue chip stocks..what specious argument are you're trying to make?
Congress is going to hold blue chip stocks..what specious argument are you're trying to make?
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
COVID deaths ages 0-17: 542, out of a total of 723,880 total COVID deaths.
0.075% of COVID deaths.
COVID deaths ages 0-17: 542, out of a total of 723,880 total COVID deaths.
0.075% of COVID deaths.
source on "significantly increased"? children are more at risk from the flu
> source on "significantly increased"?
Perhaps the New York Times newspiece from a couple months ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/health/coronavirus-childr...
Perhaps the New York Times newspiece from a couple months ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/health/coronavirus-childr...
It's pretty wild that prior to vaccination, smallpox prevention was done by inoculation with actual live smallpox. That story of Washington forcing his troops to be 'vaccinated' is wrong - he exposed them to actual smallpox. Something like 1% of people receiving inoculation would develop full-blown smallpox. No vaccine courts for those folks.
There are going to be a lot of one in a million coincidences with this broad of a vaccination campaign - a lot of people who were going to develop blood clots for unrelated reasons are going to coincidentally get them after getting vaccinated. Same goes for myocarditis - vaccination can cause it in rare cases, but so can adenovirus, herpes, hepatitis, various bacteria, parasites, and fungi. There are going to be a lot of coincidences at this scale so it's important that they're carefully reviewed by the court so the covid vaccine isn't wrongly tarred, especially now when misinformation will make several laps around the world before the facts can get their pants on.
There are going to be a lot of one in a million coincidences with this broad of a vaccination campaign - a lot of people who were going to develop blood clots for unrelated reasons are going to coincidentally get them after getting vaccinated. Same goes for myocarditis - vaccination can cause it in rare cases, but so can adenovirus, herpes, hepatitis, various bacteria, parasites, and fungi. There are going to be a lot of coincidences at this scale so it's important that they're carefully reviewed by the court so the covid vaccine isn't wrongly tarred, especially now when misinformation will make several laps around the world before the facts can get their pants on.
> Something like 1% of people receiving inoculation would develop full-blown smallpox. No vaccine courts for those folks.
They at least got the benefit of being inoculated against a virus which would have a 30% chance of killing them. This made it very likely for the inoculations to be positive risk tradeoff for all the troops who were ordered to get them. The same is not necessarily true for a healthy 19 year old without comorbidities who is forced to get a Covid vaccination to attend college.
Another point of contrast is that smallpox inoculation was sterilizing and prevented the inoculated from being able to spread the disease.
They at least got the benefit of being inoculated against a virus which would have a 30% chance of killing them. This made it very likely for the inoculations to be positive risk tradeoff for all the troops who were ordered to get them. The same is not necessarily true for a healthy 19 year old without comorbidities who is forced to get a Covid vaccination to attend college.
Another point of contrast is that smallpox inoculation was sterilizing and prevented the inoculated from being able to spread the disease.
> The same is not necessarily true for a healthy 19 year old without comorbidities who is forced to get a Covid vaccination to attend college.
True, if you only narrowly focus on the immediate benefit to the individual there are head-spinning number of laws and rules that don't make sense in civilization.
True, if you only narrowly focus on the immediate benefit to the individual there are head-spinning number of laws and rules that don't make sense in civilization.
What other sort of benefit is there supposed to be? The reduction in infection and transmission risk for Delta from the vaccines is marginal at best, wanes quickly, and might well be defeated completely by future variants. If we're acknowledging that the immediate risk tradeoff might be negative, these would be the first vaccines in history that people were widely expected to take on those terms.
> The reduction in infection and transmission risk for Delta from the vaccines is marginal at best
That's not what the New England Journal of Medicine says[1]:
> Only modest differences in vaccine effectiveness were noted with the delta variant as compared with the alpha variant after the receipt of two vaccine doses.
[1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2108891
That's not what the New England Journal of Medicine says[1]:
> Only modest differences in vaccine effectiveness were noted with the delta variant as compared with the alpha variant after the receipt of two vaccine doses.
[1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2108891
This study stopped collecting data on May 30, it's way out of date at this point especially wrt Delta and could not have captured the waning efficacy the vaccines have exhibited over time.
> Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus.
A reduction was also observed in people vaccinated with the jab made by US company Pfizer and German firm BioNTech. The risk of spreading the Delta infection soon after vaccination with that jab was 42%, but increased to 58% with time.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
> Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus.
A reduction was also observed in people vaccinated with the jab made by US company Pfizer and German firm BioNTech. The risk of spreading the Delta infection soon after vaccination with that jab was 42%, but increased to 58% with time.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
> vaccine effectiveness
does not mean "effectiveness at preventing the spread of the virus", it means "effectiveness at preventing severe illness and death".
does not mean "effectiveness at preventing the spread of the virus", it means "effectiveness at preventing severe illness and death".
> The reduction in infection and transmission risk for Delta from the vaccines is marginal at best, wanes quickly, and might well be defeated completely by future variants.
In case you are unaware, reducing the spread of a virus also lowers the odds of sparking new variants, not to mention the fact that limiting or eliminating the spread of a virus also contains and limits the risk posed by new variants.
In case you are unaware, reducing the spread of a virus also lowers the odds of sparking new variants, not to mention the fact that limiting or eliminating the spread of a virus also contains and limits the risk posed by new variants.
I hear this point raised often with no scientific evidence ever offered to back it up. Actually, some recent research found that the vaccinated were more likely to host antibody-resistant escape variants (in this case Delta): https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.19.21262139v...
A similar effect has been observed for leaky vaccines in chickens, where for Marek's disease they actually encouraged the breeding of hotter and more virulent strains.
In terms of playing host to new variants the biggest risk may be the immunocompromised, who are not able to be vaccinated: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/03/11/immunocompr...
A similar effect has been observed for leaky vaccines in chickens, where for Marek's disease they actually encouraged the breeding of hotter and more virulent strains.
In terms of playing host to new variants the biggest risk may be the immunocompromised, who are not able to be vaccinated: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/03/11/immunocompr...
> In terms of playing host to new variants the biggest risk may be the immunocompromised, who are not able to be vaccinated
The immunocompromised absolutely can be vaccinated, it just might not work as well for them, see: Powell, Colin
The best way to keep these immunocompromised people from becoming infected and playing host to a variant factory is to vaccinate everyone around them, even 19 year olds and elementary students who themselves aren't in as high of a risk category personally. The fact that the vaccine isn't perfect only makes it more essential that everyone is vaccinated - if the vaccine were perfect we might get to herd immunity with 70% of the population vaccinated, but with a less effective vaccine we need even higher numbers to get there. The vaccine hesitant are only dragging out the pandemic further and creating new risks.
The immunocompromised absolutely can be vaccinated, it just might not work as well for them, see: Powell, Colin
The best way to keep these immunocompromised people from becoming infected and playing host to a variant factory is to vaccinate everyone around them, even 19 year olds and elementary students who themselves aren't in as high of a risk category personally. The fact that the vaccine isn't perfect only makes it more essential that everyone is vaccinated - if the vaccine were perfect we might get to herd immunity with 70% of the population vaccinated, but with a less effective vaccine we need even higher numbers to get there. The vaccine hesitant are only dragging out the pandemic further and creating new risks.
"The worse the vaccines work the more we need to mandate them"?
Herd immunity is not going to happen with Covid, it's a pipe dream. Certainly not with vaccines with a peak 37% effectiveness against the currently dominant variant which wanes after a few months (cf. the Nature article I referenced elsewhere in the thread), never mind ones that might arise in the future in response to evolutionary pressures created by mass vaccination.
The vaccine hesitant are not dragging out the "pandemic," the people complying with undemocratic diktats and mandates are. The people running this show have no intention of ever letting you go back to normal -- the draconian restrictions still being applied to 95%+ vaccinated college campuses make this clear.
If you need counterexamples to your baseless notion that mass vaccination will prevent COVID outbreaks have a look at Singapore or Gibraltar, or the case studies of outbreaks in 95% vaccinated hospitals and care homes. But I suppose there is no evidence that could possibly change your mind on this -- after all, the worse the vaccines are, the more we need to push them on people.
Herd immunity is not going to happen with Covid, it's a pipe dream. Certainly not with vaccines with a peak 37% effectiveness against the currently dominant variant which wanes after a few months (cf. the Nature article I referenced elsewhere in the thread), never mind ones that might arise in the future in response to evolutionary pressures created by mass vaccination.
The vaccine hesitant are not dragging out the "pandemic," the people complying with undemocratic diktats and mandates are. The people running this show have no intention of ever letting you go back to normal -- the draconian restrictions still being applied to 95%+ vaccinated college campuses make this clear.
If you need counterexamples to your baseless notion that mass vaccination will prevent COVID outbreaks have a look at Singapore or Gibraltar, or the case studies of outbreaks in 95% vaccinated hospitals and care homes. But I suppose there is no evidence that could possibly change your mind on this -- after all, the worse the vaccines are, the more we need to push them on people.
> I hear this point raised often with no scientific evidence ever offered to back it up.
Oh really? In that case I'm sorry to tell you that you are totally oblivious to how very basic princples of biology work.
Here's a helpful reading.
https://now.tufts.edu/articles/how-viruses-mutate-and-create...
It's litteraly the first search hit from a very basic google search, which goes to show how well informed is your remark on "no scientific evidence".
Oh really? In that case I'm sorry to tell you that you are totally oblivious to how very basic princples of biology work.
Here's a helpful reading.
https://now.tufts.edu/articles/how-viruses-mutate-and-create...
It's litteraly the first search hit from a very basic google search, which goes to show how well informed is your remark on "no scientific evidence".
This isn't scientific evidence, it's theoretical discussion and a priori reasoning.
You do not get a flu shot to not get killed by flu. Nobody really expects that it would be likely. You take it to not get a bad case of flu. Well, bad case of COVID-19 is worse than bad case of flu. This alone should be enough to get vaccinated but there is more: you may also develop long lasting symptoms (aka long covid) or get some more serious complication like myocarditis (more likely than from a vaccine).
Specifically inoculation against smallpox was termed variolation. It was application of the virus to the skin as opposed to infection via the air/lungs. For those curious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation
I apologize for going out on a tangent, but I jus have to draw some attention to this quote from the article:
> McFadden, 44, said she was previously healthy and needed two emergency surgeries to remove massive clots in her lungs, heart and left leg. She spent nine days in the hospital, racking up $489,153 in medical bills, she said.
Seriously, US of A. What the hell is this? How is this even possible?
> McFadden, 44, said she was previously healthy and needed two emergency surgeries to remove massive clots in her lungs, heart and left leg. She spent nine days in the hospital, racking up $489,153 in medical bills, she said.
Seriously, US of A. What the hell is this? How is this even possible?
The estimate for the birth of our baby was over $30,000 for a normal, natural birth.
It ended up being a c-section, so I can’t wait to see what the actual total is. We don’t have a “healthcare is private” problem, we have a cost problem. Doctors, nurses, medical device companies, prescription drug makers, and everyone else get paid significantly more here than pretty much anywhere else.
Now is definitely not the time to bring up that medical professionals should be paid less though.
It ended up being a c-section, so I can’t wait to see what the actual total is. We don’t have a “healthcare is private” problem, we have a cost problem. Doctors, nurses, medical device companies, prescription drug makers, and everyone else get paid significantly more here than pretty much anywhere else.
Now is definitely not the time to bring up that medical professionals should be paid less though.
> We don’t have a “healthcare is private” problem, we have a cost problem.
Isn't the problem actually the lack of any public healthcare service compounded by the extensive reliance on private health insurances, which completely eliminates any competition based on cost and actually puts pressure for end-user prices to grow?
The reason why healthcare costs in the US are extremely high is not due to quality at all, but because those selling services can get away with it.
Isn't the problem actually the lack of any public healthcare service compounded by the extensive reliance on private health insurances, which completely eliminates any competition based on cost and actually puts pressure for end-user prices to grow?
The reason why healthcare costs in the US are extremely high is not due to quality at all, but because those selling services can get away with it.
One could easily argue that a public healthcare system would also eliminate competition based on cost. Our federal government isn't especially known for keeping costs low. That's why, personally, I'd be all for individual states running healthcare but not for the federal government to do so. If one state is mismanaged in that taxes are too high or the healthcare quality is shoddy you could still move and at least be in the same country.
The invisible hand guiding our healthcare system has an unfortunate tendency to reach into your pocket and leave you bankrupt.
That's "the bill". Actual, negotiated insurance rates are significantly lower.
how lower?
where is the recourse for those who suffer from covid due to negligence of others?
You can still spread while vaccinated and while it may still lower the chance, it means it would be nearly impossible to prove who you were infected by.
Additionally, where is the recourse for those who suffer from the adverse effects? Why are the pharma companies protected from lawsuits when they have so much profit from this? Maybe they should set the precedent here, and then we could hold those who don't take it accountable as well.
They get to sacrifice a scapegoat to appease the gods which will make them feel better at living in a chaotic world.
When I've been sick in the past I've often thought that it would be nice to have recourse against the people who infected me.
This is life though. It's not practical, moral, or enforceable.
The best thing one can do is put effort into the factors they can control—diet, exercise, avoiding unnecessary conflict to keep stress low, etc.
This is life though. It's not practical, moral, or enforceable.
The best thing one can do is put effort into the factors they can control—diet, exercise, avoiding unnecessary conflict to keep stress low, etc.
It’s their personal responsibility to get vaccinated if they want to avoid that outcome
I've had the influenza vaccine every year with no side effects.
3 weeks of chest pains on the 1st Pfizer (+emergency visit) and 1 week of chest pains on the 2nd Pfizer. ECG, x-ray and blood tests normal. Four different doctors: "we don't know what the side effect is, can't diagnose it, and we're seeing it quite often". Yeah that was concerning.
3 weeks of chest pains on the 1st Pfizer (+emergency visit) and 1 week of chest pains on the 2nd Pfizer. ECG, x-ray and blood tests normal. Four different doctors: "we don't know what the side effect is, can't diagnose it, and we're seeing it quite often". Yeah that was concerning.
2.2M+ adverse reactions in the WHO database. Of course Google, the corporate press, and "independent fact checkers" are saying it lacks context.
Most people I know, know at least a few people that had adverse reactions already; let alone ADE or long-term consequences.
http://www.vigiaccess.org/
Most people I know, know at least a few people that had adverse reactions already; let alone ADE or long-term consequences.
http://www.vigiaccess.org/
> 2.2M+ adverse reactions in the WHO database.
That's a big stretch.
Take everything on the site with a block of salt, given that that's exactly what they tell you to do:
> The information on this website, therefore, does not reflect any confirmed link between a medicinal product and a side effect
People have been abusing the validity of VigiAccess to make specious claims about adverse effects and it's already been debunked[1].
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/10/15/fac...
That's a big stretch.
Take everything on the site with a block of salt, given that that's exactly what they tell you to do:
> The information on this website, therefore, does not reflect any confirmed link between a medicinal product and a side effect
People have been abusing the validity of VigiAccess to make specious claims about adverse effects and it's already been debunked[1].
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/10/15/fac...
You can't argue with anything that comes out of the corporate press.
I personally think the WHO has been comprised and don't trust them, but I used data associated with them since a lot of people do trust them still.
If you won't trust this data what will you trust?
The most trustworthy source is anecdotal but I know that's not accepted in arguments either.
The censorship is so bad you can't even Google anything anymore so where do you go?
I personally think the WHO has been comprised and don't trust them, but I used data associated with them since a lot of people do trust them still.
If you won't trust this data what will you trust?
The most trustworthy source is anecdotal but I know that's not accepted in arguments either.
The censorship is so bad you can't even Google anything anymore so where do you go?
> You can't argue with anything that comes out of the corporate press.
Your comment is very disingenuous. You name-drop the WHO while making an outstanding and frankly unbelievable claim, but instead of citing the WHO you point to a conspiracy theory site.
Then you have the gall to repeat the old conspiracy loon trope of the press not being trustworthy when asked to provide a source to support your claims.
Well, no one asked you to quore the press. Why not quote the WHO, for example? Or is the WHO also not trustworthy to backup claims made regarding WHO's data?
Your comment is very disingenuous. You name-drop the WHO while making an outstanding and frankly unbelievable claim, but instead of citing the WHO you point to a conspiracy theory site.
Then you have the gall to repeat the old conspiracy loon trope of the press not being trustworthy when asked to provide a source to support your claims.
Well, no one asked you to quore the press. Why not quote the WHO, for example? Or is the WHO also not trustworthy to backup claims made regarding WHO's data?
Also, where is the block of salt for the death rate? It was already absurdly low without factoring in everyone that got sick, recovered easily, and never reported.
Happy to have my perspective changed.
Happy to have my perspective changed.
If you're genuinely open to new information, I would direct your attention to excess deaths[1]. There is more likely underreporting of deaths than inflation.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid
> I personally think the WHO has been comprised and don't trust them, but I used data associated with them since a lot of people do trust them still.
> If you won't trust this data what will you trust?
Peer reviewed research, for starters. This database is like VAERS, which is likewise useless and filled with garbage reports. It's not vetted for accuracy in any way, it's a dumping ground for any random report that gets submitted.
> The most trustworthy source is anecdotal but I know that's not accepted in arguments either.
Because the plural of anecdote is not data.
> If you won't trust this data what will you trust?
Peer reviewed research, for starters. This database is like VAERS, which is likewise useless and filled with garbage reports. It's not vetted for accuracy in any way, it's a dumping ground for any random report that gets submitted.
> The most trustworthy source is anecdotal but I know that's not accepted in arguments either.
Because the plural of anecdote is not data.
The WHO essentially says it lacks context. Read the "Important points to consider" heading in your link.
Namely "VigiAccess cannot be used to infer any confirmed link between a suspected side effect and any specific medicine."
Namely "VigiAccess cannot be used to infer any confirmed link between a suspected side effect and any specific medicine."
Correlation doesn't imply causation but causation always implies correlation.
The claim that national databases of reports of symptoms occurring just days after a vaccination "cannot be used to infer" anything is just obviously not true. Of course they can be used to infer things. That's the justification for collecting the data in the first place, to enable such inferences. To believe nothing can be inferred from these databases requires you to believe that almost all the reports are spurious noise. Some are spurious for sure, just like some COVID deaths aren't really deaths from COVID. But a lot won't be, especially given that it takes quite some work and dedication to file an AER, and some databases like VAERS are moderated (that's why reports turn up in huge batches).
What's happened here is that the medical establishment has decided that vaccines are going to be considered safe no matter what, but, they have the problem that in the past there were problems and thus such databases are written into law in many parts of the world (like the USA). So they're trying to convince everyone that the databases are useless and so dominated by noise no conclusions can be drawn at all, even though in the past, that wasn't true. Additionally, no evidence for this claim is presented. So people outside the establishment go looking at the reports and this freaks out TPTB, who then insist that the public shouldn't look. It's not very convincing.
The claim that national databases of reports of symptoms occurring just days after a vaccination "cannot be used to infer" anything is just obviously not true. Of course they can be used to infer things. That's the justification for collecting the data in the first place, to enable such inferences. To believe nothing can be inferred from these databases requires you to believe that almost all the reports are spurious noise. Some are spurious for sure, just like some COVID deaths aren't really deaths from COVID. But a lot won't be, especially given that it takes quite some work and dedication to file an AER, and some databases like VAERS are moderated (that's why reports turn up in huge batches).
What's happened here is that the medical establishment has decided that vaccines are going to be considered safe no matter what, but, they have the problem that in the past there were problems and thus such databases are written into law in many parts of the world (like the USA). So they're trying to convince everyone that the databases are useless and so dominated by noise no conclusions can be drawn at all, even though in the past, that wasn't true. Additionally, no evidence for this claim is presented. So people outside the establishment go looking at the reports and this freaks out TPTB, who then insist that the public shouldn't look. It's not very convincing.
The medical establishment is not trying to convince everyone that systems like VAERS are useless. That might be a hyperbolic talking point in some circles on Twitter. The issue is misusing the systems. They exist to generate evidence of possible correlations between adverse events and vaccines, for further investigation. Not so that anyone can infer the real rate of events or causation.
>reports of symptoms occurring just days after a vaccination
To be clear: these systems are not limited to reports of events occurring just days after vaccination.
>reports of symptoms occurring just days after a vaccination
To be clear: these systems are not limited to reports of events occurring just days after vaccination.
I'm afraid that's not what I've seen. So far there have been several studies by professional researchers that got published using VAERS data which were then forcibly retracted (against the will of the researchers themselves), the stated grounds being that they were "correlational". The message is clear now - you may not use VAERS or equivalent data for anything, regardless of who you are.
W.R.T. just days: indeed, they collect other reports. However within 1-3 days seems to be most common. Reports are strongly weighted towards happening quickly. See the histogram here:
https://openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality
W.R.T. just days: indeed, they collect other reports. However within 1-3 days seems to be most common. Reports are strongly weighted towards happening quickly. See the histogram here:
https://openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality
Ya, "correlational" is a legitimate criticism of a study based on VAERS data that wasn't presented as such. Anyway, I'm not aware of studies being retracted as you describe. Certainly there have been problematic pre-prints (never published) making the rounds
It's not a legitimate criticism, it's a Kafka-esque catch 22.
If you say the analysis is merely "correlational" then the establishment says, by the studies own admission there's no evidence vaccines have anything to do with it so it must be ignored.
If you say that people dropping dead less than 24 hours after taking the vaccine were probably killed by it, then you will be told the CDC/etc don't allow the data to be used that way, that it's not valid to infer causation from a "merely" correlational data set, and that this is a retraction-worthy failure, and therefore it must be ignored.
Please. We can see through this kind of stupid mind game. "Science" has decided these databases may not be used for anything, even though they are the only way to understand side effects on a scale that the trials cannot pick up.
Examples:
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/10/17/paper-linking-covid-1...
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/07/02/journal-retracts-pape...
"Unfortunately, in the manuscript by Harald Walach et al. these data were incorrectly interpreted which led to erroneous conclusions. The data was presented as being causally related to adverse events by the authors. This is inaccurate. In The Netherlands, healthcare professionals and patients are invited to report suspicions of adverse events that may be associated with vaccination. For this type of reporting a causal relation between the event and the vaccine is not needed, therefore a reported event that occurred after vaccination is not necessarily attributable to vaccination"
If you say the analysis is merely "correlational" then the establishment says, by the studies own admission there's no evidence vaccines have anything to do with it so it must be ignored.
If you say that people dropping dead less than 24 hours after taking the vaccine were probably killed by it, then you will be told the CDC/etc don't allow the data to be used that way, that it's not valid to infer causation from a "merely" correlational data set, and that this is a retraction-worthy failure, and therefore it must be ignored.
Please. We can see through this kind of stupid mind game. "Science" has decided these databases may not be used for anything, even though they are the only way to understand side effects on a scale that the trials cannot pick up.
Examples:
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/10/17/paper-linking-covid-1...
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/07/02/journal-retracts-pape...
"Unfortunately, in the manuscript by Harald Walach et al. these data were incorrectly interpreted which led to erroneous conclusions. The data was presented as being causally related to adverse events by the authors. This is inaccurate. In The Netherlands, healthcare professionals and patients are invited to report suspicions of adverse events that may be associated with vaccination. For this type of reporting a causal relation between the event and the vaccine is not needed, therefore a reported event that occurred after vaccination is not necessarily attributable to vaccination"
What data on adverse reactions would you all accept?
VAERS and its like are useful data. The issue is abusing them by implying that all reports are causally linked to the vaccine. They track adverse events following vaccination, not adverse reactions to vaccines.
They exist so that professionals can comb through the data and follow up on patterns they may find.
They exist so that professionals can comb through the data and follow up on patterns they may find.
Counterpoint, in my work and social circle, a group of around 50 regular contacts including several with immune issues, the worst adverse reactions that have been talked about are one had a fever for a day.
Top stock owned by members of congress -
Pfizer #6
Johnson and Johnson #7
Moderna stock up 387% YoY: https://investinganswers.com/articles/10-most-popular-stocks...
Bill Gates invested $55million into BioNTech in October 2019: https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-det...
Why are people with COVID antibodies from successful recovery forced to get vaccines? Why are children when COVID presents no risk to them?