The data in VAERS can be used to prove the vaccines are killing people. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Here's how to respond to all their arguments and turn the tables on them.
Figure 1. Death reports in VAERS. Can you spot the unsafe vaccine? If you can’t, you can get a job as a “fact checker” for any mainstream media. Or a job in safety monitoring at the CDC! Despite what the CDC wants you to believe, the higher red bars are not due to social media hype, more doses, or different reporting requirements. I can’t get anyone on the record to explain the cause of this.
Executive summary
The single most devastating piece of evidence showing that the COVID vaccines have killed hundreds of thousands of Americans is the data in the VAERS system. Why? Because it’s the ground zero reporting system for adverse events for vaccines in the US.
This is why fact checkers are so diligent in attacking any articles that use the VAERS data to make a claim that is counter-narrative.
In this article, I will arm you with the tools you need to debunk the fact checkers and turn the tables on them so they are caught in their lies.
They will claim this is just over-reporting of “background events” caused by a rule change and social media exposure in combination with more people getting vaccinated and a shift to older people who are more likely to die.
It sounds plausible, but they never provide the math to “check” that their explanation can explain the data. The key word is NEVER.
They basically hope that everyone buys the hand-waving argument and nobody actually checks the math.
While all of those statements are true, you have to show causality. For example, just because there is a rule change doesn’t mean that anyone notices it and actually changes their behavior to produce a different outcome. Can you name a single hospital which instructed doctors on the new VAERS rules and required them to report all the new incidents?
So basically, debunking these “fact checkers” is as simple as calling their bluff and asking to see the evidence for their claims and asking them to explain other observations that are easily verifiable that are inconsistent with their hypothesis.
Keep in mind that you cannot have it both ways. There is only one truth here. The correct hypothesis is the hypothesis which is a better fit to all the available evidence from all sources.
The counter-arguments demonstrating VAERS is not simply “over-reported”
How can you prove the data in VAERS shows the vaccines are killing people? Because there is simply no other way to explain the massive number of death reports.
Here are a few argument that their claims that the vaccine is perfectly safe don’t match up with observations:
In 2021, there were 525 deaths reported for all vaccines combined (which was atypically high), but 22397 for the COVID vaccine alone. So that’s a 42X differential. Show me the data you have explaining how you can close that gap based on the reasons you cited.
I had an independent survey of healthcare workers (who are responsible for the majority of the reports in VAERS) done and it showed that their propensity to report events to VAERS didn’t change over time. So the behavioral change you thought was there, wasn’t actually there. Is there data showing my survey is wrong?
If you read the text of dozens of death reports in VAERS (something few people take the time to do; they prefer to opine definitively on VAERS without spending hours doing searches and reading the records), you find that some people died, who would not be normally expected to die, right after the injection. While that might happen by chance, it’s happening at a higher frequency than would normally be expected. You can see the difference in this chart which is flu vaccines over the entire 30 year history of VAERS vs. the COVID vaccines:
The adverse event report mix in VAERS doesn’t match what would be expected if these are just background deaths (the plot of AE’s on the X axis and event count on the Y axis doesn’t have the same shape as a “safe” vaccine). So you clearly are not reporting background deaths. I don’t see how you can counter this argument, but I’m willing to be educated.
Over 770 safety signals were triggered (including death) which is unprecedented. And the CDC didn’t notify the public. The mainstream media and medical community didn’t think this was a problem. Do you have an issue with that? Did you speak out about it? Note that safety signals are only triggered when there is a significantly disproportionate increase in an adverse event. So if these are all just background events and there is just an increase in the rate of reporting, there would be no triggering of safety signals at all. This should have set off alarm bells, but the medical community and the CDC looked the other way. Why did they ignore it? The CDC could make a hand-waving argument that the EUA reporting requirement shifted the mix of reports to certain types of events (thus generating a safety signal because of the disproportionality), but where is the evidence that anyone’s reporting behavior was skewed by that requirement? Instead, doctors simply continued to report what they saw, regardless of the rules (required vs. optional).
Kid deaths reported to VAERS don’t match the normal way kids die. The reporting requirements cannot skew this because this is not a safety signal test; this is a comparison with the normal causes of death of young people. Here, teenagers are dying from bleeding the brain as a common cause of death. Since when has bleeding in the brain been one of the top causes of death for kids? There is no explanation for this. The CDC reported the mix of causes and refused to comment on how abnormal the mix was. This should be very troubling to everyone because it shows that the CDC has a blind eye when kids are killed by the vaccine. Everyone looked the other way. Explain to me how this is normal.
Doctors are noticing a 10X higher rate of AEs in vaccinated patients vs. unvaccinated patients. There is the issue of doctor observations where some doctors who never needed to file a VAERS report in the past, now are seeing over a 1,000-fold increase in reportable events (and not because of the rule change). If the vaccine is safe, how do you explain this? This is not over-reporting because the doctor is reporting more because there are more events. Explain how this can happen.
The gold-standard CMS data shows that deaths in people who were vaccinated don’t match background deaths. It’s supposed to “flatten” any COVID humps, i.e., decrease deaths. But the CMS data shows deaths go up after vaccination when the background death rates are going down. If the vaccine is safe, how do you explain this? I’ve made the Medicare data public and nobody has come forward to explain that the data is showing the vaccine is safe. Why not?
If nothing is wrong, why is CDC withholding the autopsy reports as requested by Aaron Siri? Shouldn’t the death investigations be made public? Is there a benefit to keeping these investigations secret?
We were told by the CDC that the vaccine is safe to take in pregnancy. That’s nice. But the Pfizer study of the vaccine for use in pregnancy didn’t conclude until July 15, 2022. Shouldn’t the CDC have waited? And why haven’t the results of that trial been made public yet since it’s now been nearly a year since the trial completed? Surely, they must know something by now? Why the silence?
How come menstrual issues for the COVID vaccines are off the charts in VAERS (around 1,000X normal)? That cannot be just elevated background reporting because it is disproportionate. Please explain.
Pulmonary embolism rates are about 1,000X normal. How can that be just “over-reporting”?
If nothing is wrong, why has the CDC NEVER done the proper stains on the tissue samples of people who died after they got vaccinated? That would be dispositive.
Why doesn’t the NIH fund a study to look at 100 bodies of people who died within 30 days of their last COVID vaccination. They’d do the proper stains on each body and report the results. We’d know instantly. Is it really better to not do this study and see if people can guess who is right?
The Schwab study showed at least 14% of the people who die within 20 days of the vaccine were killed by the vaccine. Peter McCullough believes the rate could be higher than 70%.
If this is just over-reporting, then how come multiple polls of households done by different organizations all find the same thing: that the vaccine has killed a comparable number of people as the virus. The latest poll was done by Rasmussen.
Why do large scale studies (such as Rancourt, Skidmore) show the VAERS estimated death rate is the same as the death rate estimated from the VAERS data?
The biggest disparity in favor of males is as you get into the younger age groups. Every death below 15 years of age in the dataset at the time was male. So this can’t be over-reporting since it would have a more even mix of males and females.
There are no positive anecdotes. We couldn’t find a single funeral home, nursing home, or geriatric practice anywhere in the world where adverse events and deaths went down after the vaccines rolled out.
The negative anecdotes are stunning. For example Wayne Root held an event attended by an equal number of vaccinated and unvaccinated friends. A year later, there were 52 serious injuries/illnesses (including 12 deaths) in the vaccinated group vs. 3 deaths in the unvaccinated group.
Why didn’t Pfizer do the proper stains on the people who died in the vaccine arm to assess whether or not the vaccine killed them. Instead, they took the advice of the investigators who had a clear conflict of interest. This is irresponsible. The FDA should have demanded to see the histopathology on everyone who died, but instead the FDA chose to look the other way.
The precautionary principle of medicine requires us to take all of these observations above seriously and consider that the vaccine is unsafe until proven otherwise.
All you have to do to figure out whether the vaccine is dangerous or not is to pick up the phone and talk to an honest doctor who trusts you (otherwise, they’ll play it safe and say nothing). In my case, I chatted with a neurologist with a 20,000 patient neurology practice close to where I live to get a sense of what is going on. She said that in the 11 years of the practice, they’ve never needed to file a single VAERS report. This year, they need to file over 1,000. Why? Because the side-effect profile of the vaccine is off-the-charts, not because of a rule change or social media.
I spoke to another doctor who has been in practice for 35 years and he’s never in his career seen anything like this vaccine in terms of negative impact on his patients. He spent the next 15 minutes rattling off the adverse effects of at least 23 of his vaccinated patients that started after they got vaccinated. He said, “Thank you for listening, there are so many, these are just some of what I recall.... I know statistically things happen in life, but in 38 years I’ve never seen so many conditions in a condensed time, that right there tells us the answer!!!” Those were his exact words. He estimated that 10% of his 300 patients who took the vaccine were adversely impacted by the vaccine. This is simply not consistent with a “safe and effective” vaccine that is simply being over-reported to VAERS.
Understanding how fact checkers work
In general, most of the arguments used by fact checkers in the COVID era are hand-waving arguments or expert opinion with either absolutely no evidentiary basis or references to a flawed study without mention of contradictory studies.
For example, the CDC used the same technique (“it’s just over-reporting”) with the HPV vaccine and the authors of Turtles All the Way Down mentioned this as well.
The fact checkers talk to experts who will say something like “the association between death and the COVID vaccine has never been established” even when it pops out like a sore thumb if you do a VAERS query.
The COVID narrative “fact checkers” never consult with experts on both sides of the issue in doing their fact check. They will only quote experts who oppose the fact being checked, never any experts who support the fact. I’m not aware of a single counter-example.
So it will always be a one-sided presentation. This isn’t journalism; it’s “propaganda.”
In general, to counter their argument, you simply say, “Oh really? What actual evidence do you have in support of the statement you just made? Opinions, even when from experts, don’t count. Can you show me the actual data that backs up what you just said?”
Don’t let them get away with an insufficient answer. For example, they’ll say “it’s overreporting” and you’ll ask for proof and they’ll say “rule change.” Sounds good, but insufficient. You have to prove that it was the rule change that caused the over-reporting. They never do that. And they never fact check themselves on their explanation.
The essence of the fact check is that all the huge numbers of adverse event reports in VAERS is because:
The reporting requirements for the EUA vaccines are more inclusive so more reports will be filed. Note: the first part of this sentence is true (see link to the VAERS reporting requirements), but the second half is an assumption with no evidentiary support.
Due to social media, people are more aware of VAERS so they’ve reported more
More people were vaccinated in total
More elderly and sick people were vaccinated than normal
and so there is absolutely nothing to worry about.
This sounds plausible if you don’t ask the next level of question which is: “Does this explanation fit the observed data?” The fact checkers never go there. Once they have their hand-waving argument that sounds good, there is no need to actually ask to see if it actually can explain the data (a 42X higher death rate than all other vaccines combined in the same year). For example, can they show that healthcare workers are now making 42 death reports when in the past they only made 1?
Some more insight into VAERS
Some people have claimed that VAERS numbers are up because social media attention is causing individuals to report at a huge rate. These claims always come without any evidentiary support.
VAERS actually has a field for the reporter type, but this field is not exposed to the public! Apparently, the CDC has determined that providing greater transparency into the reporter mix is not beneficial to public health outcomes. I have no clue why they think this and of course, they never answer any of my questions.
To find out the mix of consumer reports for domestic VAERS reports, we can do VAERS queries such as asking for “father” or “mother” in the body of the report. These keywords are typical of a self-report. The percentages of such reports are very small.
In addition the ratio of domestic to foreign reports has remained constant and the foreign reports are around 96% from healthcare providers. So that’s further confirmation.
So it doesn’t appear that there has been a huge influx of consumer reports into VAERS. If there was, I’m open to seeing evidence of that.
Summary
I made a list of over 25 items that would have to be explained away in order to convince me and my colleagues that the COVID vaccines are safe and that there is nothing to see in VAERS.
I’m hoping someone will answer these questions and show me how I got it wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment