VAERS Covid Report

a reply to: MotherMayEye

A lot of VAERS reports come from consumers -- like pharmacies --

A pharmacy is not a consumer. A pharmacy is a provider.

who contact their company representative from the vaccine maker to report deaths.

And lot numbers, and doses, and dates. And probably some means of verification that someone actually died. Little details like that.

That report is so absurd that I wonder if it was done to deliberately discredit VAERS reporting.

a reply to: havok

Remember that one? And all the talk of inflating numbers?

Well, something seems to have happened in 2020. This is from death certificates, not "consumers."

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

A lot of VAERS reports come from consumers -- like pharmacies --

A pharmacy is not a consumer. A pharmacy is a provider.

who contact their company representative from the vaccine maker to report deaths.

And lot numbers, and doses, and dates. And probably some means of verification that someone actually died. Little details like that.

A consumer can be a person who was administered a vaccine or bought vaccines to administer.

Yeah...I agree. Dates and lot numbers should be included. Why isn't it? It came from the company representative. I put that on them rather than the consumer (singular, not plural as in 726 people).


ETA: But if 726 people did call to report deaths...I don't think that should be ignored either.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

It came from the company representative.

What company? And how do you know it was submitted by a "representative?"

There is no information except "726 people died."

Absurd.

But if 726 people did call to report deaths...I don't think that should be ignored either.

With no way to follow up? I disagree. The "information" is useless.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

It came from the company representative.

What company? And how do you know it was submitted by a "representative?"

Because the report says so.

Write-up: DEATH; This spontaneous report received from a consumer via company representative...

You just keep omitting that part when you copy & paste.

And there is zero doubt in my mind the representative took more information than they provided in the VAERS report.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You just keep omitting that part when you copy & paste.

Because there is no more reason to think that claim is any more accurate than that 726 number?

And there is zero doubt in my mind the representative took more information than they provided in the VAERS report.

I have a great deal of doubt that there is any representative of any company involved. If there is, and they submitted such a report, then they are highly irresponsible.

There is no useful information there. The whole point of VAERS is to gather useful information and sort through it to see if there are specific sources of concern.

"ummm...726 people died. That's all I know because a consumer told me."

a reply to: Phage

VAERS reports aren't filed anonymously and it's a crime to file a false report.

Knowingly filing a false VAERS report with the intent to mislead the Department of Health and Human Services is a violation of
Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment.

Link to VAERS report form

You forgot this statistic.
701,559 Reports
Through September 10, 2021



a reply to: Blue_Jay33

a reply to: MotherMayEye

VAERS reports aren't filed anonymously and it's a crime to file a false report.

Yes, I know. It is also a crime to vote illegally.

a reply to: Phage

And lot numbers, and doses, and dates. And probably some means of verification that someone actually died. Little details like that.

Could have used that kind of scrutiny on the covid-19 death count. You amuse me with your willful ignorance.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

It's there, if you take the time to look.

Something seems to have happened in 2020. This is from death certificates, not "consumers", not daily reports.

I'd imagine a lot more people are aware of it now yes.




a reply to: sciencelol

a reply to: fringeofthefringe
I'm not saying you are right or wrong and I'm Phage is right or wrong but bantering back and forth with Phage will get you one massive headache and bruises up aside your head. Something like you would receive if you beat it up against a brick wall.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

VAERS reports aren't filed anonymously and it's a crime to file a false report.

Yes, I know. It is also a crime to vote illegally.

and its hard to arrest a corpse.

a reply to: Phage

VAERS has a strict SOP which is followed which each of these claims. They make direct contact with the person, pharmacy, clinic or hospital that submitted report to verify that it is indeed a genuine report where more information can be derived:

www.cdc.gov...

Could they do more? Undoubtedly, in fact the VAERS system is severely flawed. In 2010/2011 Harvard Medical School was tasked with discovering the weaknesses in this system and noted these weaknesses in their 2011 Lazarus Report. After conclusion of the weaknesses Harvard Medical School provided the CDC with a plan of action for upgrading the VAERS system to increase the accuracy and the collection rate of adverse events (current system collects between 1% - 10% at best).

digital.ahrq.gov...
digital.ahrq.gov...
truthsnitch.com...

However, the plan was killed by the CDC before it could get off the ground. The CDC stopped replying to email and phone calls and cut the project off at the knees. But I would argue as far as systems go, VAERS, at this time, is one of the most honest systems the government has in place and honesty in the government is at premium. Now this may seem contradictory but it's simple really, it's honest because its accuracy has been verified by a mostly neutral third party in Harvard Medical School where other systems have not. We know roughly how bad it is and that what VAERS is reporting is the iceberg seen above the water at best.

Finding three reports with lacking information while implying that the whole dataset is irrelevant as a result is a type of pathopsychological trait often expressed by the overly logical. The reality isn't so simple and it's my opinion that the CDC doesn't really care about VAERS, otherwise there would be a dedicated team of doctors and laboratories across the country available to provide a medical review of these events while being well-funded by the government for this public act. In your example the cause of death is unknown and you probably hang your hat on this thinking you've got something but that's not how science works. Science does not prove causation, it probes, and it probes into the inductive relationships of the subject matter and this cannot be accomplished without a medical review. You do not prove causation before you prove causation (I'm using the word 'causation' jovially here) in order to get a funded autopsy by the Government. There is no medical review, there is no searching for answers to these deaths and permanent injuries, they're not looking for it and therefore they will never find it.

These vaccines are experimental and with experimental vaccines every adverse reaction should be treated as guilty until proven innocent. But that's not what's happening here. The vaccines are not even being treated as innocent until proven guilty, they're being treated as they're innocent and you should be cut out of society for saying otherwise. This is what happens when we have The Science, instead of science. What's happening here is that they don't want to find the inductive relationship between these vaccines and the death of the patient; and how do I know this? Because no one is looking and that's the cold, hard truth of this situation we have right now. Where's the funding for autopsies for vaccine deaths? 15k deaths and no public money being set aside for a dedicated team to take the burden off the families and insurance companies for performing the needed, rigorous autopsy for determining the role the vaccines played in their death? The majority of deaths in VAERS for these vaccine happen within the first week of vaccine administration, why is there no urgency here? Something terribly sick is happening with this entire thing and attempting to brush it all away with three reports mean you too are apart of this sick system.

What is clear to me from the VAERS reports is that the side-effects experienced mirror exactly that of the virus itself. I think what would be discovered is that the spike protein is the pathogen and recent science has shown that the spike protein not only induces inflammation but is the main protein inducing inflammation.

www.ahajournals.org...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.jimmunol.org...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Ryan Cole, a pathologist who has his own laboratory where he can't be fired, has been leading the charge by conducting independent autopsies, filling a gap that the government, its regulatory agencies, and the pharmaceutical companies won't fill. Has also confirmed that the spike protein is itself pathogenic with his laboratory's autopsies:

Dr. Ryan Cole Discusses Spike Protein Induced Inflammation / Intramuscular Injection Leakage
americasfrontlinedoctors.org...

He has disclosed some of his findings at the White Coat Summit; however, he has mentioned multiple times during subsequent interviews that his laboratory is now receiving the many more dead bodies, after the White Coat Summit exposure, of vaccine victims from across the country from families that have felt that they have had no recourse for what happened to their family member after vaccination. He mentions that his laboratory will be releasing a public study which consolidates all of their findings and information once they have collected enough data to come to a solid conclusion.

Jump ahead to 14:30 of this interview where he talks about this pending study:
americasfrontlinedoctors.org...

But you have three reports that didn't meet your criteria for satisfaction, might as well throw the whole thing out? Nothing to see here.
Deny Ignorance, right?

That is not even the full amount of reactions. I read in a report that something like only 1 in 10 reactions are reported.
150k deaths?


a reply to: Blue_Jay33

a reply to: chris_stibrany



Some HCP's aren't aware they are required to report adverse effects to VAERS.

Where did you read that then?

Without some solid links it's just hearsay.



a reply to: chris_stibrany

a reply to: nonspecific

Here's one study...

Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Link to study

a reply to: nonspecific

See above . Its extremely widespread.

And putting your head in the sand and saying that all reactions are reported instead of searching for yourself makes you seem silly.