Yellow card system is a great tool for ant-vaxxers. They can cherry pick data to support their crack-pot theories. They don't need to worry that is the data is completely unverified. They can consider someone dying after a jab, as conclusive proof of causality.
Why on earth do anti-vaxxers want to replace the system?
Yellow card system is a great tool for ant-vaxxers. They can cherry pick data to support their crack-pot theories. They don't need to worry that is the data is completely unverified. They can consider someone dying after a jab, as conclusive proof of causality.
Why on earth do anti-vaxxers want to replace the system?
Fascinating. So a vaccine safety early warning monitoring systems that has been in place for decades is now purely a propaganda device because people are using it for its intended purpose. As an early warning system for potential problems with new vaccines
You maybe able to spell causality but you seem to have not the slightest clue of what it is in a clinical setting. The causality strength of VAERS entries (where we have the full case info) is just as strong as the one used by every doctor you have ever dealt with during your lifetime. You'd be surprised at just how weak the diagnosis proof chain was for most treatments. Well it looks like this so lets give them some of this and see if it the symptoms go away.. Thats pretty typical.
By the way. How were your holidays?. It must have been somewhere without an internet connection because you had not posted for weeks. Or perhaps you were on a "course" somewhere. We will soon know which it was if there is a sudden improvement in the previous very weak arguments you have used in the past. And better use of this months official "message management" talking points.
You mean arguments like "where is the evidence for your assertion"
It never gets a reply beyond....
"If you knew anything about......."
"It's just basic mathematics....."
Addressing your reasoning from your post.
You seem to tell us that the causality strength of VAERS is poor, thereby telling me that you agree with me. That's odd since you pepper your post with insults directed at me.
Always a pleasure.
You mean arguments like "where is the evidence for your assertion"
It never gets a reply beyond....
"If you knew anything about......."
"It's just basic mathematics....."
Addressing your reasoning from your post.
You seem to tell us that the causality strength of VAERS is poor, thereby telling me that you agree with me. That's odd since you pepper your post with insults directed at me.
Always a pleasure.
@thinksaboutit
Well over the months the quality of your posts never improve, never veer away from parroting the official line. By someone who betrays only the most tenuous grasp of the subject. You know this is a skeptics forum? Not the official media propaganda echo chamber forum. Which seem to be your only contribution.
Keep posting stupid comments and you will keep being called an idiot. Like all idiots you seem to mistake pig headedness for consistency. You are little more than the local pub bore. Or maybe village idiot by this stage.
VAERS is the official US vaccine adverse effect monitoring system and has been for more than thirty years. The vast majority of case entries are by people who have been trained to use it as part of their training to give vaccinations. Its part of the state certification process in most states.
Of course if you actual had very extensive experiences with the US medical system or FDA regulatory process over many decades you might have some idea what I am talking about. But you dont. And show little ability to understand anything outside your very tiny universe of personal experience.
So unless you start posting half way intelligent opinions that are just not this weeks official government talking points I will keep treating you with the contempt you deserve.
Your co-workers must consider you a total cockwomble based on the evidence presented here.
Insulting enough? Plenty were that came from.
Nobody....how many people do you think you influence with this garbage?
Give up!
I guess the Gaurdian article is a bit behind being two months old, but I wouldn't call it "informative" since it only looks at one risk profile, and seems very limited in scope.
Something more relevant for longer term risk, and slightly more worrying, are the indications the Spike protein enters the cell nucleus and impairs DNA repair, there's other indications it can reprogram the immune response mechanisms...
SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro
https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056
This paper is discussed by Dr Mobeen Syed in this 38min lecture, although the subject is complex, his lecture is presented in such a way as to make it accessible to a wider audience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SYL-iU0E9Q
Regarding reprogramming the immune response...
The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.03.21256520v1
The response of innate immune cells to TLR4 and TLR7/8 ligands was lower after BNT162b2 vaccination
TLR4 is Toll like receptor 4, TLR4 is also expressed on several types of tumor cells and plays an important role in carcinogenesis, metastasis, and cancer progression, so a lower immune response is concerning.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/toll-like-receptor-4
The vaccine is "safe and effective" - only around 17,000 dead now in the UK by mhra current reporting data extrapolated using a government estimated under reporting expectation of 90%. (ie 1 in 10 adverse events reported).
https://www.globalresearch.ca/steven-gundry-warns-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-more-than-double/5762410
The vaccine is "safe and effective"
Well said.
The vaccines are excellent.
It turns out they reduce the chance of dying from Covid by a factor of 10.
Obviously won't work on those stupid enough to refuse vaccination.
The vaccine is "safe and effective" - only around 17,000 dead now in the UK by mhra current reporting data extrapolated using a government estimated under reporting expectation of 90%. (ie 1 in 10 adverse events reported).
https://www.globalresearch.ca/steven-gundry-warns-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-more-than-double/5762410
So you are saying that deaths are under reported by a factor of 10, do you?
This why you take the liberty of multiplying the reported number of closely timed deaths after vaccination.
Lets help you out with some analysis... deaths are reported by doctors on death certificates, and runs at about 1% of the population per year. So your 10x proposition were true, then that means 10% die each year, so the mean life span would be 10 years. So I think we can dismiss your proposition as junk.
Next let's consider the ~1700 deaths close to vaccination. To a rationale person "proximity to vaccination" does not mean "caused by vaccination". A good idea would be to think about the normal rate of death with a view to understanding.
We have a population of 63million, with 1% dying each year. That's 0.63million deaths.
Vaccination has been running at pace for 11 months, so we can estimate 1 year as a first approximation.
There have been about 95million first and second dose vaccinations roughly evenly split. So 47 million people spending 2 periods within 1 day of a vaccination.
probability of a person dying in normal circumstances in one of those days is
0.01 x 2/365 = 0.000055
Multiply by the 47 million people involved
47000000 x 0.000055 = 2575.
Now that is quite close to the number of deaths reported near to a vaccination.
So we can conclude that there is no evidence that vaccination causes excess deaths.
In other words, you are talking WRONG.
