Printable View
My issue is not with VAERS or the collection with the data. It is with someone pontificating about "do your research" and then intentionally and recklessly claiming that the vaccines were the direct cause of death of over 6,000 people by citing to VAERS as proof. Doing so either shows the quality of his research or the depths of desire to spread disinformation to get some weird high by trolling on the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by UCGRAD4X
Frankly, it’s no different than citing COVID we’re the direct cause of death for most cases. The CDC states that only occurs about 6% of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by STL_XUfan
I'm sorry but this is, at best, a misleading statement. It's very different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
Roughly 600K deaths have been attributed to COVID in the United States thus far. If you look at 'excess deaths' (all causes) in the United States during that same time you get over 500K excess deaths. That does point to a potential 'overcount', but nowhere near the level you seem to be implying.
I assume your point lies in your distinction of what 'direct cause of death' means, and that you are playing the game where is someone has diabetes, obesity, heart disease, etc. and contracts COVID and subsequently dies, COVID isn't the 'direct cause of death'. The thing is most of those people wouldn't be dead if they hadn't contracted COVID.
The number of all cause deaths in the United States has been relatively stable for 20+ years. Except for this year where it's almost 500K higher (roughly 20%, I believe). The only thing that has really changed in COVID. That seems to suggest that COVID caused those deaths, whether directly or indirectly.
Take it up with the CDC data. The 6% is their number not mine. It’s not misleading because it doesn’t neatly fit the narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound
There’s a post somewhere in this thread showing the 6% is what was written in the line of “cause of death” on the death certificate without any other causes listed. It’s probably lower now than it was then because that is not an appropriate direct cause of death. And perhaps you can’t truly understand cause of death until you complete a death certificate but the disease itself is almost never a true cause of death. For example, “respiratory arrest” as cause of death, due to “covid infection” would not count in the 6%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
Ok, now explain the difference between this and the VAERS data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Wait, are you accusing the CDC of publishing misinformation? Are you saying they're lying?Quote:
Originally Posted by STL_XUfan
What I described was what is reported on death certificates to the CDC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
VAERS data is a tabulation of adverse effects from a vaccine that is reported by the patient. That information is then transmitted to the VAERS database.
So, if looking at deaths - one is reported and documented by a physician, the other can be reported by anyone. See if you can find how many death certificates have “covid vaccine” as a cause of death. It would probably be 0% as the vaccine didn’t kill the person, it was the sequelae. For example- If someone died from an anaphylactic reaction to the covid vaccine the cause of death would likely be “anaphylaxis” contributed by “covid vaccination” or something similar (respiratory arrest, etc).
Ok, so similarly listing "respiratory arrest", due to COVID after receiving the vaccine?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Frankly, I don't think either is necessarily accurate but I'm not dismissing either as misinformation. Both are information that can help someone to analyze what works best for them. I was aware the vaccine had risks and decided to get it. It is misinformation to say there are no health risks associated with the vaccine.
Exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
Moreover, to pooh-pooh VAERS data because it is reported by patients (under penalty of law if caught lying - and don't forget it is widely accepted that most people don't report their adverse issues to this system), while ignoring the financial incentives dropped at the feet of doctors and hospitals is a bit disingenuous as well.
Look up a blank death certificate and pretend you are a doctor filling it out. Go down to the section that asks for cause of death and fill it out. Let me know how you would fill it out it both scenarios.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
I also don’t see where someone said there aren’t risks with the vaccine in this thread. Maybe I missed it.
Easy, respiratory arrest, due to COVID. Patient had received two doses of Moderna (or another) vaccine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Inferring the VAERS data to be misinformation is downplaying the risk.
impfung macht frei
That promise - that vaccines will set you free - is already proven to be as much of a lie as "arbeit macht frei".
Things are getting ugly in Germany: https://noqreport.com/2021/08/02/pre...ckdown-speech/
And in France: https://www.revolver.news/2021/08/fr...s-vaxx-moment/
Where is this all going? If world governments continue to clamp down on our freedoms it's guaranteed that there will be far more deaths than from covid.
"99.99% 0f the vaccinated don't go to a hospital or die"(CDC) What else do you need to know?
You are arguing semantics and a technicality, as LloydBraun has already pointed out. A better measure might be the numbers of death certificates in which COVID appears at all. Some of the people who 'died from COVID' were going to die anyways from old age or other ailments. Probably around 100K of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
How would you explain the 500K 'extra' deaths if not attributable to COVID?
You got the numbers backwards. 6% of total deaths are attributed to COVID alone. That’s ~36k.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound
Cause of death is “received covid vaccine”??? Cmon. Thankfully that is not how death certificates are completed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
Inferring 99.8 percent of people don’t die is downplaying the risk. See what I did there? Goes both ways. Truly there is risk with everything, as we have gone around and around.
You are regurgitating media garbage with the 6% stat that is almost a year old. Interpreting and contorting data for a narrative.
Sure and about the same % under 60 don’t die from COVID.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
My point was it goes both ways….
The 6% is likely garbage but the media didn’t make it up. They’re more like the trash collector in this case.
What the hell are you talking about? That came directly from the CDC!!! And if you don't think that number is still accurate - who do you have to blame but the same CDC!!! What are they hiding?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
“What they got in that bag”, Ludacris.Quote:
Originally Posted by XU_Lou
Natural Immunity:
Real curious as to why Fauci, Biden and the media never mention it, or even recognize it when they're begging or threatening everyone to take a jab. Funny, because here's what the CDC has published on its website (written before the covid scam politicized the organization):
"Active immunity results when exposure to a disease organism triggers the immune system to produce antibodies to that disease. Exposure to the disease organism can occur through infection with the actual disease (resulting in natural immunity), or introduction of a killed or weakened form of the disease organism through vaccination[*] (vaccine-induced immunity). Either way, if an immune person comes into contact with that disease in the future, their immune system will recognize it and immediately produce the antibodies needed to fight it.
Active immunity is long-lasting, and sometimes life-long."
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/immunity-types.htm
* note: the covid jab does not meet this definition of a vaccine, as there is no "introduction of a killed or weakened form of the disease organism"
------------------------------------------
From another pre-covid (3/19) study:
"In conclusion, the antibody response to natural influenza virus infection seems to be broader and longer-lived than the antibody response induced by influenza virus vaccines."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-019-0143-6
-----------------------------------------
This was just published a few weeks ago (and was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health):
"Recovered COVID-19 patients retain broad and effective longer-term immunity to the disease, suggests a recent Emory University study, which is the most comprehensive of its kind so far. The findings have implications for expanding understanding about human immune memory as well as future vaccine development for coronaviruses.
The longitudinal study, published recently on Cell Reports Medicine, looked at 254 patients with mostly mild to moderate symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection over a period for more than eight months (250 days) and found that their immune response to the virus remained durable and strong.
Emory Vaccine Center director Rafi Ahmed, PhD, and a lead author on the paper, says the findings are reassuring, especially given early reports during the pandemic that protective neutralizing antibodies did not last in COVID-19 patients.
The study serves as a framework to define and predict long-lived immunity to SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection. We also saw indications in this phase that natural immunity could continue to persist,” Ahmed says."
"The study suggests that patients who survived COVID-19 are likely to also possess protective immunity even against some SARS-CoV-2 variants. "
https://news.emory.edu/stories/2021/...nce/index.html
-----------------------------
From June:
"Scientists from the Cleveland Clinic, USA, have recently evaluated the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 COVID-19) vaccination among individuals with or without a history of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.
The study findings reveal that individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection do not get additional benefits from vaccination, indicating that COVID-19 vaccines should be prioritized to individuals without prior infection."
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20...nic-study.aspx
Ah the guardians of "truth" at your service:
https://www.outkick.com/new-york-tim...s-of-covid-19/
Private enterprise around here is starting to “require” vaccinations. It is not really a mandate as the other option is a weekly test but I would think after a couple of tests, it will be a welcome option. Also hearing rumblings that health insurance companies may start a surcharge to premiums for those who are unvaccinated. Thank goodness private enterprise is stepping up again when government pees all over itself.
I guess my question is which is better? I would almost like to see pressure coming from private and limited public entities rather than a mandate from the federal government that would be difficult to impose and would just turn into a giant culture war (even more so than we have now). I think airlines, stadiums, and work places self-imposing vaccine requirements may be effective. That way those that don't want it do not "have" to get it, but those that are on the fence, lazy, or not motivated to get it may decide to go and get vaccine so that they can go to a concert or take a flight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
On the other hand, as a private business owner, I know I was ecstatic when the Governor and Hamilton County issued a mask mandate last year, that way I didn't have to make the call. For our customers that were happy and felt more safe, great. For our customers that were angry and annoyed, we could deflect blame on the governor. I bet a lot of these businesses would be happy if they could hide behind a similar order on vaccines.
Anyone else wonder if XU Lou owns a chain of funeral homes and that's why he's so against the Vax?
I watched part of a video from the Executive Committee of my wife’s large employer (over 50k employees). While it’s a tricky issue, the bottom line is they want to get people back into the office, but you have to be vaccinated to get in. Certain accommodations will be made, but it’s clear what they want. I think there will be quite a few people who come off the fence as a result. Hard core anti-vaccination folks may have troubles without good cause. A couple NFL “Tier 1” coaches have lost their jobs already for refusing to get vaccinated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
Well the Ohio State University just mandated masks for inside and masks outdoors/indoors for the unvaccinated with stipulations. Currently 73% students and faculty have been fully vaxed. Hmmm.
Good luck enforcing unvaccinated outdoor mask mandates. Question, “Why did you get suspended from school? Underage drinking?” Answer, “no not wearing a mask outdoors.”
Niece here visiting says you have to prove you’re vaccinated thru some on-line system to be able to attend classes at Vanderbilt. How do you handle paying $75k or whatever it is annually, then be told you can’t attend? Lots of tricky issues here!
EDIT: Apparently they were warned back in April the shots might be required so they had an opportunity to make their decisions. Still, tricky stuff!
On a silly side note, I looked into taking some classes at Kennesaw State near us for fun pre-Covid. They wanted my high school and college transcripts as well as proof of vaccinations. Well, that might be a problem! Apparently there is a special program for old farts like me, but never got as far as figuring that out before the world turned upside down.
.
What a ridiculous statement. I understand VAERS is self reported, and don't know for sure if the 6000 reports are true, but you don't know any of 6000 reports are false! If you are sure they are not, I'd be interested to see your source. Otherwise you are doing the same but opposite of what you are accusing me.Quote:
Originally Posted by STL_XUfan
Now, I do believe that surely the CDC would verify a reported death, given the spotlight on the data and the extreme desire of government officials to get everyone vaccinated. 6000 death verifications would not be an insurmountable task by any stretch, and deaths would be easy to verify. If the CDC let a number like that slide in a readily available public data set, they are far more incompetent than I ever imagined.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...se-events.html
This statement shows they have investigated reported deaths and failed to show causal relationship between vaccination and deaths with the exception of clots from the J&J vaccine. Perhaps some deaths are unrealized or unreported. There has to be at least one right? Most likely scenario is that deaths are extraordinarily rare probably far less than 6,000.Quote:
Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 342 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 26, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,340 reports of death (0.0019%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths.
I don’t think the vax causes death however it doesn’t mean you won’t get COVID or the variants or die from it. The issue is mandating it because it prevents the spread. It does, to what extent is not really known if we’re honest. Also, the vax is not fully approved. These are the reasons I understand why others are reluctant as I can’t claim to know what’s best for anyone else. Neither can the Gov’t.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Good info, thanks. The CDC should be removing them from VAERS with a footnote if truly there is no correlation. IÂ’ll revert to my alternate hypothesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Going back to the what prompted the VAERS data discussion is that there is clearly still some (albeit very small) risk from the vaccine. For many, their risk of COVID is also very small. One should have the choice of which risk they will accept.
Can anyone tell me how many cases, hospitalizations and deaths came from the Delta variant versus the original Covid virus yesterday, last week and last month?
Also, is there a new test now being used nationwide that distinguishes between the Delta variant and the original Covid virus?
This is really the core of the argument. Individualism vs the Common Good. We sacrifice personal freedoms everyday for the common good of society. It’s just that people are used to these sacrifices. Because we live in a primarily Individualistic society any suggestion to contribute to the collective good of society is typically questioned. Which is fine, but when there is a large threat to us as a society the collective approach would likely result in quicker eradication.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton
However, even on the individual level, risk from the disease supersedes risk from the vaccine in the overwhelming vast majority of people. When we remove death and hospitalizations and apply it to those that are considered low risk, long term issues from the disease continue to outnumber any long term issues from the vaccine at a very high rate.
So yes, we should have the choice but also are not free from criticism from society that is frequently harmed from that person’s choice.
The explanation from the CDC is disturbingly vague - just like all of their communications. Notice, no specifics or refutations on those deaths. What is the actual number of deaths with causal links to the vaccine? Why doesn't the CDC provide a follow-up report to the VAERS report that shows verified numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Again, we continue to take Fauci and the CDC at their word, when they have been proven to have lied to us on numerous occasions. Show us the data!
Who determines the "Common Good" and what freedoms of others are worth sacrificing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Twitter and on occasion Facebook/InstaQuote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
Well played. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Right. Of course that shit has been investigated. Probably pretty extensively. Unfortunately that is rarely enough for some guy on the internet who has an 'alternative hypothesis' despite almost certainly having no medical or scientific background or training. If you take a 'you can't prove that it doesn't' approach you sort of always get to 'win' such as it is, since it's exceedingly difficult to prove a negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
The overwhelming majority of the actual real data out there seems to suggest that the vaccine is safe and certainly effective enough to make getting it a good idea for almost everyone from a risk/reward perspective. I doubt there is a single age group for which the vaccine is riskier than getting COVID.
Sure, and there are age groups where it is unnecessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound