The vaccines have failed (Was: The vaccines are failing)

[Biker]

from December 14, 2020, through August 30, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 7,218 reports of death (0.0020%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... vents.html

[CaptQuint]

Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 369 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through August 30, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 7,218 reports of death (0.0020%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths pdf icon[1.4 MB, 40 pages].

[Stapes]

The Covid-19 vaccines continue to offer strong protection against severe illness and hospitalization, according to research on more than 1 million people published Wednesday in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Then why the endless booster shots?

Well right now that's about all we got. Ivermectin isnt going to keep you from being in the hospital with a tube down your throat. The Delta variant is causing alot of problems and maybe a newer vaccine version will address it. Pfizer used a small dose of vaccine in its shots (30 mcg) compared to modernas (100mcg) and seems to lose efficacy but is still better than not being vaccinated.

Not sure what your agenda is. We are fucking lucky they were already working on this MrNA tech and we didn't have to wait 5 years for something to fight it. You sound like a spoiled child every time you post your nonsense.

[Stapes]

from December 14, 2020, through August 30, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 7,218 reports of death (0.0020%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... vents.html

Do you even read the links you post?, it was literally describing how effective the vaccine is

[CaptQuint]

Biker loves posting half an article that seems to say his narrative is true. He does it often.

[Biker]

The Covid-19 vaccines continue to offer strong protection against severe illness and hospitalization, according to research on more than 1 million people published Wednesday in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Then why the endless booster shots?

Well right now that's about all we got. Ivermectin isnt going to keep you from being in the hospital with a tube down your throat. The Delta variant is causing alot of problems and maybe a newer vaccine version will address it. Pfizer used a small dose of vaccine in its shots (30 mcg) compared to modernas (100mcg) and seems to lose efficacy but is still better than not being vaccinated.

Not sure what your agenda is. We are fucking lucky they were already working on this MrNA tech and we didn't have to wait 5 years for something to fight it. You sound like a spoiled child every time you post your nonsense.

My point is that the vaccines are not delivering what we were sold. There are a lot of holes in it, no?

As for alternative therapies, why would we not explore more with them? There are dozens of peer reviewed studies that show Ivermectin is effective when taken early

[Biker]

from December 14, 2020, through August 30, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 7,218 reports of death (0.0020%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... vents.html

Do you even read the links you post?, it was literally describing how effective the vaccine is

7200 people is a lot for a safe vaccine. And that all that the CDC is reluctantly willing to admit. I bet the number is double

[CaptQuint]

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to VAERS. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind. The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can quickly provide an early warning of a safety problem with a vaccine. As part of CDC and FDA's multi-system approach to post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as "safety signals." If a safety signal is found in VAERS, further studies can be done in safety systems such as the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) or the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project. These systems do not have the same limitations as VAERS, and can better assess health risks and possible connections between adverse events and a vaccine.

Key considerations and limitations of VAERS data:

Vaccine providers are encouraged to report any clinically significant health problem following vaccination to VAERS, whether or not they believe the vaccine was the cause.

Reports may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.

The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.

VAERS data are limited to vaccine adverse event reports received between 1990 and the most recent date for which data are available.

VAERS data do not represent all known safety information for a vaccine and should be interpreted in the context of other scientific information.

VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public.

It’s impossible to visit the VAERS database without accepting an agreement that you’ve read this disclaimer.

VAERS also has a guide to interpreting VAERS:

When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

Millions of vaccines are given each year to children less than 1 year old in the United States, usually between 2 and 6 months of age. At this age, infants are at greatest risk for certain medical adverse events, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Some infants will experience these medical events shortly after a vaccination by coincidence.

These coincidences make it difficult to know whether a particular adverse event resulted from a medical condition or from a vaccination. Therefore, vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccination, whether or not they believe the vaccination was the cause.

When reviewing data from VAERS, please keep in mind the following limitations:

VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning that reports about adverse events are not automatically collected, but require a report to be filed to VAERS. VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report. Physicians and patients understand that minor side effects of vaccinations often include this kind of discomfort, as well as low fevers. On the other hand, more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones, especially when they occur soon after vaccination, even if they may be coincidental and related to other causes.

A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.

[necronomous]

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to VAERS. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind. The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can quickly provide an early warning of a safety problem with a vaccine. As part of CDC and FDA's multi-system approach to post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as "safety signals." If a safety signal is found in VAERS, further studies can be done in safety systems such as the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) or the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project. These systems do not have the same limitations as VAERS, and can better assess health risks and possible connections between adverse events and a vaccine.

Key considerations and limitations of VAERS data:

Vaccine providers are encouraged to report any clinically significant health problem following vaccination to VAERS, whether or not they believe the vaccine was the cause.

Reports may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.

The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.

VAERS data are limited to vaccine adverse event reports received between 1990 and the most recent date for which data are available.

VAERS data do not represent all known safety information for a vaccine and should be interpreted in the context of other scientific information.

VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public.

It’s impossible to visit the VAERS database without accepting an agreement that you’ve read this disclaimer.

VAERS also has a guide to interpreting VAERS:

When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

Millions of vaccines are given each year to children less than 1 year old in the United States, usually between 2 and 6 months of age. At this age, infants are at greatest risk for certain medical adverse events, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Some infants will experience these medical events shortly after a vaccination by coincidence.

These coincidences make it difficult to know whether a particular adverse event resulted from a medical condition or from a vaccination. Therefore, vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccination, whether or not they believe the vaccination was the cause.

When reviewing data from VAERS, please keep in mind the following limitations:

VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning that reports about adverse events are not automatically collected, but require a report to be filed to VAERS. VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report. Physicians and patients understand that minor side effects of vaccinations often include this kind of discomfort, as well as low fevers. On the other hand, more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones, especially when they occur soon after vaccination, even if they may be coincidental and related to other causes.

A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.

Sounds like the way they were reporting covid.

[Biker]

[Biker]

[Charliesheen]

Common sense is not Germaine.

[necronomous]

It was made up

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1434 ... 53220.html

[Animal]

It was made up

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1434 ... 53220.html

what a surprise! said no one.

[Biker]

More fake news

AP corrects article claiming 70 percent of calls to Mississippi Poison Control were about ivermectin ingestion

The Associated Press admitted it "erroneously reported" based on information provided by the Mississippi Department of Health that 70 percent of recent calls to the Mississippi Poison Control Center were from residents who had ingested the ivermectin version meant for animals.

It's been revealed that the Associated Press has issued an embarrassing correction to its fear-mongering article claiming that 70 percent of calls to Mississippi Poison Control were about ivermectin ingestion. The actual number was 2 percent.

In an article published Aug. 23 about patients taking livestock medicine to try to treat the coronavirus, the Associated Press admitted it "erroneously reported" based on information provided by the Mississippi Department of Health that 70 percent of recent calls to the Mississippi Poison Control Center were from residents who had ingested the ivermectin version meant for animals.

[CaptQuint]

But in an appearance on CNN at the end of last month, Newt Gingrich told a different story, one that should make us all fear what's become of the world where we can't agree on a conclusion even given the same set of facts.


There are three different lines of thinking he explores, and they should all terrify you.

The full suite of facts doesn't say what you want it to say, so you pick out the few facts that support your non-factual position and talk about them.
The average American doesn't think that the facts says what they actually say, and that alone should be a basis for both voting and policymaking.
And that what people feel about an issue is more important than what the actual facts behind the issue are.
In other words, he lies by omitting the full suite of facts and focuses on a few tidbits that mislead the public, the public is not only successfully misled into believing incorrect facts, but that a factually incorrect position is true, and that their feelings about that "truth" will be more important than the actual facts.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 09fa9e5e47

Funny how Biker and Newt use the same methods.

[Stapes]

More fake news

AP corrects article claiming 70 percent of calls to Mississippi Poison Control were about ivermectin ingestion

The Associated Press admitted it "erroneously reported" based on information provided by the Mississippi Department of Health that 70 percent of recent calls to the Mississippi Poison Control Center were from residents who had ingested the ivermectin version meant for animals.

It's been revealed that the Associated Press has issued an embarrassing correction to its fear-mongering article claiming that 70 percent of calls to Mississippi Poison Control were about ivermectin ingestion. The actual number was 2 percent.

In an article published Aug. 23 about patients taking livestock medicine to try to treat the coronavirus, the Associated Press admitted it "erroneously reported" based on information provided by the Mississippi Department of Health that 70 percent of recent calls to the Mississippi Poison Control Center were from residents who had ingested the ivermectin version meant for animals.

They got information from the Mississippi Department of Health and reported it and than "2" days later updated it with correct information? Why do you think that is such a big conspiracy of fake news? They got the info from a legit source and corrected it immediately.


and why are you posting half information from thepostmillenial.com ??? Oh thats right.....because you are a right wing shill spreading misinformation and propaganda.

[Animal]

oh gee. thousands of people od'ing on horse medicine is fake news? Hundreds are dead from drinking bleach, what? fake news? OMG, these seem like such serious stories.

[Antknot]

More fake news

AP corrects article claiming 70 percent of calls to Mississippi Poison Control were about ivermectin ingestion

The Associated Press admitted it "erroneously reported" based on information provided by the Mississippi Department of Health that 70 percent of recent calls to the Mississippi Poison Control Center were from residents who had ingested the ivermectin version meant for animals.

It's been revealed that the Associated Press has issued an embarrassing correction to its fear-mongering article claiming that 70 percent of calls to Mississippi Poison Control were about ivermectin ingestion. The actual number was 2 percent.

In an article published Aug. 23 about patients taking livestock medicine to try to treat the coronavirus, the Associated Press admitted it "erroneously reported" based on information provided by the Mississippi Department of Health that 70 percent of recent calls to the Mississippi Poison Control Center were from residents who had ingested the ivermectin version meant for animals.

They got information from the Mississippi Department of Health and reported it and than "2" days later updated it with correct information? Why do you think that is such a big conspiracy of fake news? They got the info from a legit source and corrected it immediately.


and why are you posting half information from thepostmillenial.com ??? Oh thats right.....because you are a right wing shill spreading misinformation and propaganda.

Why isn't the correction getting the same coverage as the original? Could it be SATIN? ( sorry couldn't help my self) Could it be that the truth dosen't help the lefts agenda?

[Biker]

Thats nice

[Biker]

[Burn1dwn]

https://mobile.twitter.com/FreedomIsrae ... 4113144832

[Biker]

https://mobile.twitter.com/FreedomIsrae ... 4113144832

So its now a three pronged Apartheid state

[Burn1dwn]

https://mobile.twitter.com/FreedomIsrae ... 4113144832

So its now a three pronged Apartheid state

I would hate to be an unvacinnated Palestinian.

[Biker]