VAERS accepts reports of adverse events following vaccination without judging the cause or seriousness of the event. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused an adverse event, but it is good at detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of reporting that might indicate possible safety problems that need a closer look.
I've tracked vaccine injury claims long before the current trendiness regarding the medical community and Big Pharma due to COVID. Vaccine injured have always been told to report to VAERS so it could be tracked, but deniers of Vaccine injured have always used this line of reasoning. Many in Big Pharma and many in the medical community.
Yes, VAERS is not meant to make a direct one-for-one conclusion that this vaccine did that, but it's also kind of contradictory to set the system up and then for the medical community to make that argument. Someone should be assigned to sift through the database, at least. When the public sees mass numbers like that in a database set up for vaccine injury reports and then see mass denials by the medical community often framed that "there's no evidence that [insert vaccine here] caused [insert medical issue here]" when they didn't really bother to do any deep investigation, it raises alarms and all people see are the massive report numbers.
Like what? So far, I haven't seen anything significant.
Like Fauci's emails showing he knew masks were pointless but encouraged policy to pretty much fear monger people into wearing masks anyway. Like CDC going back and forth, no not because of research because research still shows masks don't do anything, on masks since the height of the COVID stuffs. Like claiming initially that vaccinated people do not carry COVID, vaccinated people can't get COVID anymore, etc. after it was shown to be demonstrably false and even then the mantra was still out there because of the talking heads claiming the above about vaccinated people. Like initially going against known science about natural immunity just for the sake of Big Pharma and vaccines only to have to ultimately admit that was a thing and walk it back later.
You'd think, wouldn't you? But they don't. They use it as if all those incidents were real effects of the vaccine. Since you can't tell from the database which are real, which are conincidental, and which are faked. And all of that is in there.
When I first replied to you, I was at work and didn't want to click on all of JLB's original post links. It's late now and I don't have time to watch the video of the second link, but letting it play in the background, all it seems to be is people reporting their experiences. The first link is simply doing what I said above, listing the numbers reported without further detailed examination, which is alarming to people. If the medical community simply admitted that a certain amount of those reports are this or that, people would back off. The second link a video, has dozens of links under it supporting their conclusions. Hand waving away people's experiences, which is what Vaccine supporters tend to do as well as Big Pharma, and only a small segment of the medical community seem to take seriously and official story proponents deny and by which the mass population believes, causes a response like this.
That's what it's for. Each of those reports, unless they are obviously faked (like a 3 YO getting the shot and getting sick) or absurd, like an auto accident, has to be chased down and checked.
Fake reports doesn't change what the database can be used for. You're only secure argument here is that using the numbers in mass without any additional details or scrubbing of false reports is what's the problem. But VAERS is intended for Vaccine adverse event reporting. As I said,
it's in the name.
Could you cite the research papers you've read? I'd be interested in seeing them.
It's late, and I came home from work and fell asleep early in the evening and woke up to take care of some things, but have to get back to bed, so here are a few:
Paper written in the New England Journal of Medicine used VAERS to start research on pregnant women during summer of 2021:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983
National Library of Medicine Journal uses VAERS for their research on potential COVID-19 vaccine injuries Spring of this year, 2022:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35233819/
Dr. Jessica Rose used VAERS to speak about vaccine safety and analyze VAERs and adverse events overall as well as the mass reporting during COVID. She challenged the consensus that the reports in VAERS had nothing to do with COVID:
Her paper, warning it opens a PDF in your browser:
https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-9fe...d/adf864_0490c898f7514df4b6fbc5935da07322.pdf
Her presentation given sometime late spring, early summer 2021:
2021 research criticizing VAERS for being underreported and not handled properly at the time at the time in regard to mortality risk:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...n_and_age-stratified_all-cause_mortality_risk
Honestly, it's well known among medical researchers that VAERS has been a tool used for research. But if you're curious what the dissenters were saying in public and not research but trying to inform people, you can look into Dr. Robert Malone who worked early into mRNA technology, I don't advise reading hit pieces on him. Epoch Times has good interviews, but really any podcast or interview that allows him to speak is preferable. You can look up Dr. Martin Kulldroff, an epidemiologist, you can look up Professor Aaron Kheriaty, Dr. Paul Alexander, Dr. Peter Mcullough, Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Jay Bahattachary, Dr. Scott Atlas, and Dr. Harvey Risch to name a few. Again, of course, media hit pieces were obviously written on them because they were dissenting voices during the height of the COVID fear mongering. Many of them were simply interviewing or doing their own research and in some of their interviews they may speak about other research.
expose-news.com
