Run the extraction of severe adverse reactions to covid jab AND death and it comes with a figure in the 20s.
Thats not how this DB query front-end works. If you played around with it for even a few minutes you would see its a very simple unitary query system. Trying logical query terms (like & and | ) gets you little relevant information. Most non primary fields are null for almost all case entries. So if someone died thats the only field that is usually ticked in the data entry form. Any two term query will remove almost all deaths from the result. A quick check of individual case records will show you just how few relevant search terms are indexed.
The current number of deaths due to adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccines in the US is 1260. Which is almost 15% of all vaccine related deaths in the US in the last 30 years. Which is around 10,000.
You misunderstand.. The system allows a search on several variables (check-boxes), which are not mutually exclusive. Otherwise, there would be radio-buttons, or greyed out options.
I did not use logical expressions to do a search as you suggest.
These correspond to the boxes, which should be checked with each entry for an adverse reactions.
Thanks to your rebuke about not "playing around enough", I have spent some time looking at the reports that are generated. It would seem that the current contents cannot be relied upon to draw any conclusions. In my few minutes, I have discovered entries as follows.
1. Those where the patient both died and recovered.
2. Those with no dates included at all.
3. Those entered by non-medical people.
4. Those, where the physician has specifically stated the death was NOT vaccine related.
5. At least one entered before vaccination even started.
6. Those, where someone has used an entry to describe multiple cases.
I'd suggest that this database is heavily polluted with spurious entries, which have not yet been processed. It is plausible that ant-vaxx enthusiasts would be motivated to "create evidence" and misrepresent the situation.
There would not have been the same motivation, with regular familiar vaccination processes.
I'd suggest you wait a year or so, to get reliable data on which to base your assertions.
Run the extraction of severe adverse reactions to covid jab AND death and it comes with a figure in the 20s.
Thats not how this DB query front-end works. If you played around with it for even a few minutes you would see its a very simple unitary query system. Trying logical query terms (like & and | ) gets you little relevant information. Most non primary fields are null for almost all case entries. So if someone died thats the only field that is usually ticked in the data entry form. Any two term query will remove almost all deaths from the result. A quick check of individual case records will show you just how few relevant search terms are indexed.
The current number of deaths due to adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccines in the US is 1260. Which is almost 15% of all vaccine related deaths in the US in the last 30 years. Which is around 10,000.
You misunderstand.. The system allows a search on several variables (check-boxes), which are not mutually exclusive. Otherwise, there would be radio-buttons, or greyed out options.
I did not use logical expressions to do a search as you suggest.
These correspond to the boxes, which should be checked with each entry for an adverse reactions.
Thanks to your rebuke about not "playing around enough", I have spent some time looking at the reports that are generated. It would seem that the current contents cannot be relied upon to draw any conclusions. In my few minutes, I have discovered entries as follows.
1. Those where the patient both died and recovered.
2. Those with no dates included at all.
3. Those entered by non-medical people.
4. Those, where the physician has specifically stated the death was NOT vaccine related.
5. At least one entered before vaccination even started.
6. Those, where someone has used an entry to describe multiple cases.
I'd suggest that this database is heavily polluted with spurious entries, which have not yet been processed. It is plausible that ant-vaxx enthusiasts would be motivated to "create evidence" and misrepresent the situation.
There would not have been the same motivation, with regular familiar vaccination processes.
I'd suggest you wait a year or so, to get reliable data on which to base your assertions.
Sorry. You really dont have the slightest idea about how the CDC works or how the VAERS DB works, the entries are inputted , or the regulatory foundation for its existence.
Your "anti-vaxxer" comment just shows how little you know about how these systems work in the US. It is quite simply stupid.
This is a raw data DB. Its the first entry for data. With all that entails. When the data is normalized and cleaned up later on when the meta-analysis is done for every entry that is reclassified and correct at least one or more are added. That is the nature of this type of clinical data. It is a first pass. But it gives you a very good ball park estimate number for adverse reaction types and severity.
Looking at a large sample of the actual case entries, which I have, gives you a good feel for the quality of the data. When it was entered, and by whom. For a start a lot of eipen treatments of anaphylactic shock reactions in younger patients gets flagged as a minor adverse reaction. Which it most certainly is not for the patient. Its just that the health care person entering the case data would consider this a fairly common event. Which it would be for them. Again, that is how this kind of raw data always looks.
So far about 1600 people are recorded of dying immediately (or soon afterwards) after getting vaccinated. At least 10% of those death will be reclassified on further analysis. And at least 10% so far unrecorded vaccine deaths will be added.
The simple fact is that when the data has been cleaned up and the post vaccination pass analysis is done it will show an adverse reaction mortality rate many times greater than the only other adult mass population vaccine. The annual Influenza shot. Which at least 150 million get every year in the US.
Based on EXACTLY equivalently collected data in the VAERS database over the last 30 years the SARS CoV 2 vaccines WILL have a final adverse reaction mortality rate in the range of 50x to 60x the Influenza vaccines. Both vaccines are for infections of above equivalent health risk. Unlike Influenza where the serious health risk of infection is split 60/40, (over 65's, under 65's) the SARS CoV 2 heath risk profile is 90% over 65's. There is absolutely no evidence that the SARS CoV 2 vaccine will provide any more protection again severe infection for over 65's than the Influenza vaccine does. Which according to all published evidence is negligible to nil. For very good scientific reasons.
So I have been using the VAERS DB data for the exact purpose it was set up for in law. To see early indication of adverse reactions, their nature and age profile, and to be able to compare with other equivalent vaccines.
The voluntary VAERS system in the US is mostly underreporting adverse events in all previous studies. I understand that desperate pro mRNA vaccine promoters will claim that antivaxxers distort the reporting system but indication world wide is that mRNA vaccines are more dangerous than flu vaccines which was expected.
The below newly published JAMA article highlights that even anaphylactic reactions to the mRNA vaccine is under reported in the VAER system with a magnitude 10-20 times
“In this prospective cohort of health care employees, 98% did not have any symptoms of an allergic reaction after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The remaining 2% reported some allergic symptoms; however, severe reactions consistent with anaphylaxis occurred at a rate of 2.47 per 10 000 vaccinations. All individuals with anaphylaxis cases recovered without shock or endotracheal intubation.
The incidence rate of confirmed anaphylaxis in this study is larger than that reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention based on passive spontaneous reporting methods (0.025-0.11/10 000 vaccinations).
The angry response seems to be the norm, when people challenge you. Do you do this in person?
Now picking through the actual content of your rant.
Sorry. You really dont have the slightest idea about how the CDC works or how the VAERS DB works, the entries are inputted , or the regulatory foundation for its existence.
Your "anti-vaxxer" comment just shows how little you know about how these systems work in the US. It is quite simply stupid.
How do you know what I understand. Disagreeing with you doesn't make me stupid.
This is a raw data DB. Its the first entry for data. With all that entails. When the data is normalized and cleaned up later on when the meta-analysis is done for every entry that is reclassified and correct at least one or more are added. That is the nature of this type of clinical data. It is a first pass. But it gives you a very good ball park estimate number for adverse reaction types and severity.
This was my point exactly.. when the spurious entries have been filtered out, it will be useful. Not now!
Can you explain why the reported deaths for February are 1/3 of those for reported for January. Isn't this odd? Make you wonder about the quality of the data?
The angry response seems to be the norm, when people challenge you. Do you do this in person?
It's all just bluff and bluster. Send the troll off with some one liners.
