2019-nCoV

[Lozza Mate]

Nobody is attacking you amram. Calm down.

The point is that vaers data is not verified, and therefore should not be considered a definitive picture.

If it were, scientists would not make their own studies after finding something of interest in the gossip that is vaers.

 

[chaiwalla]

incredible

 

[amRam]

The system exists for a reason and is absolutely invaluable for this kind of shit.

 

[Lozza Mate]

The system exists for a reason and is absolutely invaluable for this kind of shit.

Yeah, and all I said is that anything found in vaers needs to be verified.

Someone posted it earlier and said 'whatever we find in vaers is probably only 1% of the real picture.'

That is a misappropriation of vaers.

Since its so invaluable, I'd have thought you would want it to be used appropriately and not taken as definitive, since that's not what its for.

 

[amRam]

oh is that "all" you said

 

[Lozza Mate]

The point is that vaers is not for drawing conclusions, but rather for deciding if something warrants investigation.

 

[amRam]

We know. Everybody knows.

Its invaluable data, and its underused and underreported. If it wasn't for these self reporting systems set up around the world, you'd never even know about the rate of serious side effects of these garbage injections.

 

[JuggerNaught]

The point is that vaers is not for drawing conclusions, but rather for deciding if something warrants investigation.

Funny, because thats exactly what the CDC and even faucci uses vaers for

 

[samUwell]

The point is that vaers is not for drawing conclusions, but rather for deciding if something warrants investigation.

What about the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED)?

Is that fake news too?

 

[Lozza Mate]

I guess I need to say it again - it's not reliable data.

In the other covid thread, gandalf told us about his brother. Ppl like havbot and amram immediately asked 'how do you know it was covid?' And so on.

That's all fine and reasonable, IMO.

But when I do the inverse - pointing out that vaers data is not definitive, and should be investigated properly before drawing conclusions - the same ppl jump down my throat and put words in it.

 

[lemon]

I love how a copy/paste of some random newspaper comment has got looza in a tizzy.

IT'S NOT DATA!

 

[JuggerNaught]

Yes, even though VAERS is constantly referenced by the CDC, Fauci, is run by a government entity that bases their policies on data that vaers has...its not reliable folks.

So sayeth some random internet retard on the other. side. of. the. planet.

 

[Lozza Mate]

Christ. Projection off the charts here.

You lot point at vaers data and say 'omg look at what's happening!'
I chime into say 'don't count your chickens yet, this data is not verified'

And suddenly you all come out of the woodwork to accuse me of things I never said,and then point to my attempts to correct your misrepresentations of my position as me being 'in a tizzy'.

 

[cael]

can someone help me put my case in vaers ive been harmed by the vaxx

 

[samUwell]

How can doctors verify the data when they are paid to keep quiet or get fired should they publicly discuss the potential damage caused by the mystery shots?

 

[amRam]

I chime into say 'don't count your chickens yet, this data is not verified'

Actually no you chime in to say

Vaers is not data.

But now apparently its data. Just not 'verified' data. But it doesn't matter, because the risk profile for some of the adverse events is fairly clear (and underrepresented)... because the VAERS (and other self reporting systems) data prompted scientists to dig in.

 

[Lozza Mate]

Yes, even though VAERS is constantly referenced by the CDC, Fauci, is run by a government entity that bases their policies on data that vaers has...its not reliable folks.

So sayeth some random internet retard on the other. side. of. the. planet.

You've repeatedly called all of those ppl/organizations into question, but now you're using them to justify a point against a position I've never held.
Could it be because... You're a reactionary?

The weirdest thing about this whole exchange is that I never once said that vaers is not valuable, or doesn't perform a genuine function. I just said that it produces unverified data.
Some of you have agreed that vaers data is unverified, but for some reason have decided that I'm against vaers in general and are arguing against that - a point I never made.

 

[amRam]

pfizer shillbot set to 11

 

[Lozza Mate]

Actually no you chime in to say

But now apparently its data. Just not 'verified' data.

Yes.

But it doesn't matter, because the risk profile for some of the adverse events is fairly clear (and underrepresented)... because the VAERS (and other self reporting systems) data prompted scientists to dig in.

I have no idea what you're saying here. Can you clarify?

 

[amRam]

VAERS (and other similar systems) flagged risk signals which were then corroborated by researchers.