Over 42,000 Adverse Reaction Reports Revealed In First Batch Of Pfizer Vax Docs

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

3 hours ago, jg121783 said:

So you agree that adverse events are under reported then?

I agree that VAERS is a collection  of anecdotes.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,327]

26 minutes ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

I have seen several made believers when it hit home 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

3 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I have seen several made believers when it hit home 

I and I truly wish that path to revelation on no one.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,327]

1 hour ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

I and I truly wish that path to revelation on no one.

Truly me either. 

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

Someone doesn't know how to maff very well.  2 million plus adverse events puts the covid EUA drugs above ALL OTHER VACCINES COMBINED since vaccine adverse events have been tracked.

Also, 2 million may seem anecdotal to some, but to others, it's more indicative of a trend.

 

 

 

Just anecdotes, eh?

[laylalex 7,253]

VigiAccess can be thought of as essentially "VAERS for the WHO." All of the same issues with VAERS -- the reports are not authenticated as confirmed side effects, it's a starting point for more research -- are compounded by the contributing organizations reporting different types of information. Not only that, VigiAccess states:

Quote

VigiAccess cannot be used to infer any confirmed link between a suspected side effect and any specific medicine.

Even the person who maintains the database has said:

Quote

it is not possible to draw any conclusions about the safety of a medicinal product just from looking in VigiAccess.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-115845554856?fbclid=IwAR1E7BtJM06YMHoT2NH_YuWHNLMdjTNE04-J2tR6En30jomnwAgKQU_iyao

 

This stuff really isn't hard to find out. All I did was google "Vigiaccess" which is in that graphic and this was the second result after the link after the Vigiaccess website itself. Be skeptical of everything you read, even if it chimes with what you want to believe. Especially if it chimes with what you want to believe.

 

If you think I'm just relying on recent info as well that somehow might have been manipulated to fit some COVID-era narrative about Vigiaccess, here is a direct quote from a 2018 document they published:

Quote

 

A report in VigiAccess represents a suspicion that an adverse effect could have occurred as a result of treatment with a medicinal product, but it is not a systematic register of adverse effects. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the medicinal product in question, or the active ingredient(s), generally causes the observed effect or is unsafe to use.

 

VigiAccess data is heterogeneous, due to e.g. differences in national legislation and policies. Reporting may be influenced by many different factors, such as the availability and extent of use of the product, and the nature of the adverse effects.

 

Spontaneous reports must be interpreted with caution; it is not possible to calculate the frequency of any adverse effect, as only a small proportion of occurring events are reported and there is no information available on the total number of patients that have been using the product, so comparisons between various medicinal products based on spontaneous reports are misleading. 

 

https://www.lareb.nl/media/3175/vigiaccess-disclaimer-201811.pdf

 

Don't rely on graphics you find floating out there on the internet. 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

15 minutes ago, laylalex said:

VigiAccess can be thought of as essentially "VAERS for the WHO." All of the same issues with VAERS -- the reports are not authenticated as confirmed side effects, it's a starting point for more research -- are compounded by the contributing organizations reporting different types of information. Not only that, VigiAccess states:

Even the person who maintains the database has said:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-115845554856?fbclid=IwAR1E7BtJM06YMHoT2NH_YuWHNLMdjTNE04-J2tR6En30jomnwAgKQU_iyao

 

This stuff really isn't hard to find out. All I did was google "Vigiaccess" which is in that graphic and this was the second result after the link after the Vigiaccess website itself. Be skeptical of everything you read, even if it chimes with what you want to believe. Especially if it chimes with what you want to believe.

 

If you think I'm just relying on recent info as well that somehow might have been manipulated to fit some COVID-era narrative about Vigiaccess, here is a direct quote from a 2018 document they published:

https://www.lareb.nl/media/3175/vigiaccess-disclaimer-201811.pdf

 

Don't rely on graphics you find floating out there on the internet. 

I learned that in grade school from Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,327]

26 minutes ago, laylalex said:

VigiAccess can be thought of as essentially "VAERS for the WHO." All of the same issues with VAERS -- the reports are not authenticated as confirmed side effects, it's a starting point for more research -- are compounded by the contributing organizations reporting different types of information. Not only that, VigiAccess states:

Even the person who maintains the database has said:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-115845554856?fbclid=IwAR1E7BtJM06YMHoT2NH_YuWHNLMdjTNE04-J2tR6En30jomnwAgKQU_iyao

 

This stuff really isn't hard to find out. All I did was google "Vigiaccess" which is in that graphic and this was the second result after the link after the Vigiaccess website itself. Be skeptical of everything you read, even if it chimes with what you want to believe. Especially if it chimes with what you want to believe.

 

If you think I'm just relying on recent info as well that somehow might have been manipulated to fit some COVID-era narrative about Vigiaccess, here is a direct quote from a 2018 document they published:

https://www.lareb.nl/media/3175/vigiaccess-disclaimer-201811.pdf

 

Don't rely on graphics you find floating out there on the internet. 

Thanks. We should be good on that subject  for 24 hours and then ground hog day

[Dashinka 23,329]

46 minutes ago, laylalex said:

VigiAccess can be thought of as essentially "VAERS for the WHO." All of the same issues with VAERS -- the reports are not authenticated as confirmed side effects, it's a starting point for more research -- are compounded by the contributing organizations reporting different types of information. Not only that, VigiAccess states:

Even the person who maintains the database has said:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-115845554856?fbclid=IwAR1E7BtJM06YMHoT2NH_YuWHNLMdjTNE04-J2tR6En30jomnwAgKQU_iyao

 

This stuff really isn't hard to find out. All I did was google "Vigiaccess" which is in that graphic and this was the second result after the link after the Vigiaccess website itself. Be skeptical of everything you read, even if it chimes with what you want to believe. Especially if it chimes with what you want to believe.

 

If you think I'm just relying on recent info as well that somehow might have been manipulated to fit some COVID-era narrative about Vigiaccess, here is a direct quote from a 2018 document they published:

https://www.lareb.nl/media/3175/vigiaccess-disclaimer-201811.pdf

 

Don't rely on graphics you find floating out there on the internet. 

So what is the solution for such an inadequate reporting system for adverse reactions of an experimental drug?

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,327]

2 hours ago, laylalex said:

VigiAccess can be thought of as essentially "VAERS for the WHO." All of the same issues with VAERS -- the reports are not authenticated as confirmed side effects, it's a starting point for more research -- are compounded by the contributing organizations reporting different types of information. Not only that, VigiAccess states:

Even the person who maintains the database has said:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-115845554856?fbclid=IwAR1E7BtJM06YMHoT2NH_YuWHNLMdjTNE04-J2tR6En30jomnwAgKQU_iyao

 

This stuff really isn't hard to find out. All I did was google "Vigiaccess" which is in that graphic and this was the second result after the link after the Vigiaccess website itself. Be skeptical of everything you read, even if it chimes with what you want to believe. Especially if it chimes with what you want to believe.

 

If you think I'm just relying on recent info as well that somehow might have been manipulated to fit some COVID-era narrative about Vigiaccess, here is a direct quote from a 2018 document they published:

https://www.lareb.nl/media/3175/vigiaccess-disclaimer-201811.pdf

 

Don't rely on graphics you find floating out there on the internet. 

I think also worth to note. Its only been around since 2015 so probably not a lot of data in the database for vaccines that have been around many many years.   Over 8 billion doses of the corona vaccine have been given in the last year or so naturally the reports are going to be much higher. If you do the MAFF  it comes out to about .00030717 reactions reported per dose given. I dont have data on how many units of other vaccines were given last year but I would suspect .0003071 reactions of any kind per dose given would be in line of better than other vaccines.  For me personally get the corona virus or risk a .0003071 chance of some kind of reaction which could be as mild as headache or sore arm. Well you dont have to be a Las Vegas odds' maker to figure out those odds.

Yes context means things

[laylalex 7,253]

2 hours ago, Dashinka said:

So what is the solution for such an inadequate reporting system for adverse reactions of an experimental drug?

Scientific researchers who understand how to sift through and analyze the data? 🤷‍♀️

[Dashinka 23,329]

1 minute ago, laylalex said:

Scientific researchers who understand how to sift through and analyze the data? 🤷‍♀️

What data, the VAERS or Vigiaccess data?  It has been proffered that this data is less than reliable, so what data wil these vaunted researchers use?

[laylalex 7,253]

No, you misunderstand what I'm saying. The data may be incomplete, or misleading, etc. but the people who work with this data understand its worth and limitations. The data is supposed to act like a canary in the coal mine: like look here, something may be happening. It's the first step, not the end point. That's all. Some of the data is junk, some is very useful, some is neutral. 

[yuna628 9,536]

1 minute ago, laylalex said:

No, you misunderstand what I'm saying. The data may be incomplete, or misleading, etc. but the people who work with this data understand its worth and limitations. The data is supposed to act like a canary in the coal mine: like look here, something may be happening. It's the first step, not the end point. That's all. Some of the data is junk, some is very useful, some is neutral. 

Do people not realize that anyone right now could type into the database that the vaccine gave them a prehensile tail, immaculate conception, organ failure, and a spontaneous British accent?

 

Like I said before my husband experienced an adverse side effect. He has been to a variety of doctors that have warily watched him and cleared him for good health after a couple of weeks of rest. While his family doctor had never seen this in a patient before, his cardiologist had, and believed it was mild and not long lasting (which was the truth). His doctor does not currently advise a booster, though she is vaccinated and encourages vaccination. Maybe it's a CYA type thing, or maybe she's genuinely a little more concerned that her patient could potentially end up in the hospital, but understood if he is willing to take an informed risk. His cardiologist is less concerned, and we await his final advice on the subject. It is not actually an unusual finding, though it is rare, some doctors have written a paper about it on patients with the same exact issue after the vaccine. All recovered - one required some emergency medication and was fine within a week. The paper's conclusion was that it was rare but could happen, and that ER physicians should be aware lest they treat a patient with things they do not need. Doctors and scientists are needed to go over the data and help us determine the risk involved. Looking at a database that is misleading to the public is quite silly.