News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Sorry, but you clearly do not know what you are talking about. You are likely parroting whatever you heard the talking heads on TV said during Covid. You know you are. You likely have never looked as VAERS or know how it works, aside what you knee-jerk as a response.
VAERS was literally created by big pharma and the Feds as the first line of defence against harm signals. You saying it is not a reliable source is as nonsensical as saying that because planes are usually safe, that no one ever dies in them. The study was a quick review of the very first years of VAERS, by the government.
It is a Federal Crime to knowingly submit lies in VAERS, and despite what you heard on TV or new media not anyone can enter whatever they want in them. At some point you have to enter medical IDs, either yours or your health provider's to validate the results. Your mom cannot go to VAERS and enter whatever they want. That is just a meme. Sure, wrong assessments may he entered but they do get studied and sorted. Too slowly, in my opinion but I digress, the BS you read during the pandemic was people taking pre-parsed data and claiming that to be sorted data when it is was not. But to say the system is not realible in the aggregate as a good frontline tool makes you sound as conspirational as the so called anit-vaxxers. If it was not realible post-parsing, it would not exist.
Second, you clearly did not bother to click on the link and the read the study, if you had, you would be eating your own words. The study was extracted from VAERS by government employees and data was parsed by a government formed comittee. It was not Joe and his buddies shooting the shit. You sound ridiculous.
It was the Institute of Medicine (US) Vaccine Safety Committee; Stratton KR, Howe CJ, Johnston RB Jr., et all. Plus, I specifically looked for pre-Covid studies so I can by-pass exactly the parroting that sprang from 2020-circa onward. Before 2018, 99.9999% of most had never heard of VAERS. Thus almost all entries were done by medical proffessionals that had at least some feasible merit and not just some casual heart attack after a shot.
Also, you may not know this but many shots do come with a fairly large amount of documentation regarding side effects, Doctors will normally will just not show it to patients, so if there is no reasons to expect for a heart attack for say a polio shot, then they would likely not even enter it. If you do not believe me, ask your doctor to open a package any shots come in in front of you. It is no crime to ask.They usually won't and will think you are crazy if you ask, but it is part of informed consent, but that has gone to the wayside because they may sometimes think patients are too stupid to rationalise staristical risks and perhaps think vaccine uptake would suffer. So they do not, but they should.
Anyway, if heart attacks are not expected, they would not even think about it. So clearly again, your example of a heart attack reeks to Covid BS.
For all the, "follow the Science," pro-vaxxie people spout, they have become so obsessed to own the anit-vaxxers and knee jerk responses --specially online-- that they have for years now parrot the same level of useless misinformation as the anit-vaxxers and will go after any reasonable discourse on the topic of medical interventions because AnTi-VaXxeR CoNsPiRACY!! 11.
Is there an actual, reasonable argument that you have? That is not assuming that I have no idea of what I am talking, or that I do not know want VAERS is, or of what it entails and its limitations? I am open to it, if you are.
Of we can go back to the politics of it.
This is not coming from me btw.
VAERS is not designed to assess cause and effect, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event (AE) or illness. Some reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to bias. Data from VAERS reports should be interpreted with these limitations in mind.
VAERS reporting can be done by anyone: Vaccine providers, other health care professionals, local public health agencies, vaccine recipients, patients, and/or family members of people who have received a vaccine are encouraged to submit a VAERS report when an adverse event occurs after vaccination.
Seems pretty clear to me. Not sure how you can sit there and say that this is a reliable data source. This may help detect certain issues and patterns, but it's not a data source in which you can call a source of truth. Someone would need to further investigate each report to make a better determination.
You say it's against the law to make false statements, but this doesn't matter when there is no control and these statements can be made with complete bias. It's not that people are lying, they believe what they are saying, but it doesn't mean the information is actually true.
There are plenty of other studies around vaccines that show the risks like you mentioned, but they also show that the benefits far outweigh the downside. I don't even know why politics has anything to do with this. We are talking about facts and science and I don't understand how politics has anything to do with this.
I honestly don't even understand what you are even arguing for. You just sound like an old guy yelling at the kids to get off his lawn.
Hi friend,
"VAERS is not designed to assess cause and effect, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event (AE) or illness. Some reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to bias. Data from VAERS reports should be interpreted with these limitations in mind... Etc..."
Did you even try to read my claims? I never claimed this.
My claim: Government did an observational study where they designated a Vaccine Committee and which looked at the first two years of data and then, the government designated a vaccine satey committee and then they went through the data and sorted and still found examples where they begrudgingly admitted some connection regarding safety.
Again, I ask you, is your claim the source is useless? Yes or No? If is is useless then why are you, if American paying for it? Is your claim that VAERS is then all smoke and mirrors?
So which one is it? Is VAERS next to useless, so why does big pharma and taxes pay for it for about 35 years? Or it is useful once the data is parsed and thus can in fact show us vaccine injuries? You can't have both narratives exist. The study I showed was Government sactioned so are the Feds lying? Which one is it?
When they say "anyone," they do not mean, anons, you have to enter some medical info. You could be a rand9m pereon bit you have to enter a Doctor or some medical proffessionals persons name/ID. It is not like a random lottery. Have you actually try to fill a form and upload it to the HHS? Please. Try. Stop reading this and GO fill a fake report. There is nothing to lose, as you say. Go, do it. Let us know once you have downloaded the PDF filled it up and uploaded it back. We will all wait.
If someone enters bad info and lies, but add no Medical ID or Doctor's into, etc then they just ignore the data point. Easy come, easy go. You clearly have never worked with any databases of this type. Obviously. To say there is no or 0 control is outstanding and I cannot believed you think that would fly. Logically.
Do you even understand what you are copy/pasting? When they say "VAERS" alone they mean using the RAW data. Cool. I literally stated that before, Data needs to be sorted -- AKA: Investigated before you can use it. I did say that and I did state that people DID that in the study I posted. Like, you are not really reading or understanding what I am say? Honestly asking, is English your first language? It is not mine, bit I think I am being clear enough. Yes, friends, the reports DO get investigated. It takes a wild and we can question how well they investigate those entries and hiwnfast, butbthey do. Science is not magic.
Politics in general and in my mind should not have anything to do with vaccines or Science, in general. But in the real world, they do, because people are attention monkeys l, Left or Right or UP and Dow. and there is money and ego and voting power involved via PR, so it js. A sad reality of the world. I wish politics had nothing to do with it. That would be ideal. I'm my opinion.
I can tell for a fact now that you actually do not read Vaccine Studies cover to cover. At the risk of sounding bad, I do not just abstracts or conclusions. And if you actually read any studies in general then you know that there is plenty of room for a lot of questions and an unreasonable level of lies by omission.
A point here, is how off you are about VAERS and how you push so-called pro-vaxxie misinformation, not so much different than anit-vaxxers in zest that only harms actual scientific discussions, because you parrot things without fully understanding the nuances involved.