Florida Health Department: Health Alert on mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Safety

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Yes we know what VAERS is. But there is no evidence it is now misused to propagate an agenda. If anything there is massive underreporting when it comes to vaccine injuries.

It has been misused by many here alone. The evidence is how they use the data there...lol geez.

There is very strong correlation between the excess deaths (non Covid) the lockdowns and the rolling of these products.

Correlation doesn't also mean causation as that is very hard thing to figure out most of the time even with true scientific studies.

You are mistaken about Dr Ladapo. He is not acting on his own accord and it is the Department of Health in Florida has taken these decisions. There is no evidence either that their data is flawed or is lacking good analysis.

This has been looked at by peers who disagree, so the peer review says it sucks...lol You can say this above 100 times more and it doesn't make it true.

What is flawed is the absurd vaccine campaign.

Florida is actively trying to ban these products and Idaho is trying to make their administration illegal.

Well great for them, but the BIG flaw was the mandates...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Yes we know what VAERS is. But there is no evidence it is now misused to propagate an agenda. If anything there is massive underreporting when it comes to vaccine injuries.

It has been misused by many here alone. The evidence is how they use the data there...lol geez.

There is very strong correlation between the excess deaths (non Covid) the lockdowns and the rolling of these products.

Correlation doesn't also mean causation as that is very hard thing to figure out most of the time even with true scientific studies.

You are mistaken about Dr Ladapo. He is not acting on his own accord and it is the Department of Health in Florida has taken these decisions. There is no evidence either that their data is flawed or is lacking good analysis.

This has been looked at by peers who disagree, so the peer review says it sucks...lol You can say this above 100 times more and it doesn't make it true.

What is flawed is the absurd vaccine campaign.

Florida is actively trying to ban these products and Idaho is trying to make their administration illegal.

Well great for them, but the BIG flaw was the mandates...

Yes it can be misused if some people want to misuse it. However there is an agreement that when it comes to cases in VAERS there is underreporting. Real cases maybe much higher than what is on VAERS.

I find no evidence so far that the system has been misused or abused. It looks that the number of registered adverse reactions is multiple times all adverse reactions from all other other vaccines combined together in the past 30 years or so. I don't think there is a conspiracy where everyone gets to register adverse reactions so to blame the vaccines.

There are many real case of harm caused by these products and deaths. And although on correlation on its own doesn't price causation the number of excess deaths in all countries that have used lengthy lockdowns and mass vaccinations is a catalyst.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You don't? Somewhere in my history there are links of people claiming a death before the person was hospitalized(that date is after death). Vaccination dates before it was available, no documentation, no note of any outside involvement, such as hospital records, coronor etc. There's tons of what appear to be very problematic reports on VAERS.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Yes it can be misused if some people want to misuse it. However there is an agreement that when it comes to cases in VAERS there is underreporting. Real cases maybe much higher than what is on VAERS.

So here is the problem in all this. We can agree there is underreporting, BUT I would bet it is much lower number not reporting than you think. If you go back prior to the pandemic only about 5% reporting was being done in VAERS, but now that the CDC has mandated its use and the overall awareness the general public has of it now, it has greatly increased that 5%. We also are seeing once the cases are investigated the percentage is very low for the vaccine to be a causation in the end. Some reports suggest below 5% are connected. But even if we said 50% are connect and then said the reporting has gone up but only to 25% now, we are still below 50k total deaths, so where are the other 950k or more...

I find no evidence so far that the system has been misused or abused. It looks that the number of registered adverse reactions is multiple times all adverse reactions from all other vaccines combined together in the past 30 years or so. I don't think there is a conspiracy where everyone gets to register adverse reactions so to blame the vaccines.

When VAERS reports 20,000 uninvestigated reports and people say WOW! 20k people died to the vaccine because they are in VAERS then that is misuse and has been a very common theme here on ATS and Twitter over the past year plus.

originally posted by: frogs453

You don't? Somewhere in my history there are links of people claiming a death before the person was hospitalized(that date is after death). Vaccination dates before it was available, no documentation, no note of any outside involvement, such as hospital records, coronor etc. There's tons of what appear to be very problematic reports on VAERS.

Well add in that you or I can go on there right now and report whatever we want to add to it all and that is why the CDC says it is just a passive reporting system that they use to investigate and nothing in there is true until they follow-up with each case to determine the validity and causation of what is reported.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: tanstaafl
It absolutely changes the facts when people don't know how to disseminate the data.

Disseminate? Do you mean evaluate?

It doesn't matter though, because sane rational people understand exactly what is up.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: tanstaafl
It absolutely changes the facts when people don't know how to disseminate the data.

Disseminate? Do you mean evaluate?

It doesn't matter though, because sane rational people understand exactly what is up.

Yes, evaluate and disseminate the data is what I meant.

It does matter though because misinformation may cost lives.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3
So far all your sources are not credible.

Rotflmao!

Your definition of credible is someone who agrees with your false premise.

There are lots of real scientists who are starting to see and tell the truth, and quite a few that have been doing so the whole time. You just don't like what they are saying.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3
So far all your sources are not credible.

Rotflmao!

Your definition of credible is someone who agrees with your false premise.

There are lots of real scientists who are starting to see and tell the truth, and quite a few that have been doing so the whole time. You just don't like what they are saying.

It's not a matter of liking or disliking, it's about believing in the evidence-based science and the peer reviewers, a.k.a. credible.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: tanstaafl
It's not a matter of liking or disliking,

For you apparently it is...

it's about believing in the evidence-based science and the peer reviewers, a.k.a. credible.

Credible? Spoken like a 'true believer', your religiosity is showing methinks...

Apparently yuou are unaware that modern medicine has been hijacked and totally taken over by big pharma.

The illusion of evidence based medicine

Let's stop pretending peer review works

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: tanstaafl
It does matter though because misinformation may cost lives.

Yes, and the Twitter files are revealing just how many lives the lies and mis/dis-information of the MSM and its minions/shills has cost the world in just the last few years alone. Now extrapolate that out to the last 100 years, and the mind boggles.

a reply to: quintessentone

You mean the evidence based science that was bought and paid for by the very people pushing the vax?.. Please enlighten me.. What happens when you don't promote a sponsor that has paid you to promote them? Oh i know! you don't get sponsored again and it goes to the next lap dog who will do and say exactly what they want.. Because millions.

What are you gona do if that state passes that law? Are you arrogant enough to think your "flawless science" opinion out weighs a entire states vote? What will you do if say for instance other states follow along? What will do you if the usa totally bans it? IS your dogma greater then a entire county's worth of experts?

Seriously are you still gona be here saying everyone is wrong but in no way are you wrong?

How many times has your "flawless science" been wrong in the past? hundreds if not thousands.. But in no way shape or form could they have gotten this one wrong "like they've done in the past" "or maybe they knew and purposefully went ahead anyways.. "because billions"

Just know if that does happen ill be here taking every shot i can to rub it in your face.. and ill enjoy every minute of it..


You seem to live in this fairy tale world were people want to help each other and no one ever lies or gets things wrong but that is not the world we live in.. Your science is not infallible.. At this point it feels more like a religion then a belief.. Praise all mighty fauci lord and savior AMEN.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Your definition of credible is someone who agrees with your false premise.

There are lots of real scientists who are starting to see and tell the truth, and quite a few that have been doing so the whole time. You just don't like what they are saying.

I love this point... Our top notched experts on ATS are way ahead of the real scientist "who are starting to see" what you all have known for over a year now. Damn you are all so good, if someone disagrees just ask you all and you will tell them how good you are....

The deal is none of us are deigning anything as we keep saying let the data drive the point. The problem is many here grab faulty data that fits their narratives and ignore or suggest it is fake any data that does not fit their narrative.

I and others just want correct data and not hyperbole the crap out of it no matter what direction it ends up being.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You don't? Somewhere in my history there are links of people claiming a death before the person was hospitalized(that date is after death). Vaccination dates before it was available, no documentation, no note of any outside involvement, such as hospital records, coronor etc. There's tons of what appear to be very problematic reports on VAERS.

I want to see some evidence that there are tons of problematic reports on VAERS as you have claimed. Not just random arguments. I am sure that there would be some problematic cases but the exaggerations you made are not true.

originally posted by: tacoman101

How many times has your "flawless science" been wrong in the past? hundreds if not thousands.. But in no way shape or form could they have gotten this one wrong "like they've done in the past" "or maybe they knew and purposefully went ahead anyways.. "because billions"

You all act like the vaccine is some new event and the reality is it is the same as any other drug in the last 100 years. Point to me all your posts prior to COVID where you were on your soap box like you are now. Everyone now is an expert in the field of vaccines and before 2020 they didn't care less one way or another.

You all act as this is only an American event, and it is so much larger than evil Pfizer

368…. that’s how many Covid vaccines there are in development and/or use – at least
4.3 million…. people already participating in, or planned for, clinical trials of Covid vaccines so far
943…. the number of those trials (just over half of them randomized)
34…. the number of Covid vaccines authorized for use in at least 1 country
10…. vaccines authorized by WHO (and 1 of those has had supply suspended)

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Yes it can be misused if some people want to misuse it. However there is an agreement that when it comes to cases in VAERS there is underreporting. Real cases maybe much higher than what is on VAERS.

So here is the problem in all this. We can agree there is underreporting, BUT I would bet it is much lower number not reporting than you think. If you go back prior to the pandemic only about 5% reporting was being done in VAERS, but now that the CDC has mandated its use and the overall awareness the general public has of it now, it has greatly increased that 5%. We also are seeing once the cases are investigated the percentage is very low for the vaccine to be a causation in the end. Some reports suggest below 5% are connected. But even if we said 50% are connect and then said the reporting has gone up but only to 25% now, we are still below 50k total deaths, so where are the other 950k or more...

I find no evidence so far that the system has been misused or abused. It looks that the number of registered adverse reactions is multiple times all adverse reactions from all other vaccines combined together in the past 30 years or so. I don't think there is a conspiracy where everyone gets to register adverse reactions so to blame the vaccines.

When VAERS reports 20,000 uninvestigated reports and people say WOW! 20k people died to the vaccine because they are in VAERS then that is misuse and has been a very common theme here on ATS and Twitter over the past year plus.

The underreporting has been one of the greatest problems when it comes to register vaccine injuries.

Just because there might be an increased number of reports doesn't make the reports less credible. There is still underreporting despite a possible increase in reported cases.

Some cases may not be investigated for political reasons and because the system is reluctant. But because there is no connection. That's a massive issue that has been discussed all over the internet and when many cases are identical with cases if vaccine deaths but the only difference is we have now a mysterious death with unknown causes. See some of my threads.

The official narrative will try to dismiss pretty much all of them but deaths post vaccination especially in young and healthy adults is a massive issue.

There is definitely very strong correlation that these are partly or wholly responsive for Ill health. This strong correlation becomes much stronger when you look at excess non Covid deaths pretty much everywhere. The excess non Covid deaths represents a huge amount of people. Almost 300,000 since the beginning of 2020 (see my thread)

The two major components of these excess deaths are lockdowns and restrictions and mass vaccinations.

a reply to: LordAhriman

Do your friends routinely tell you about their medical health and doctor's appointments? I know none of mine do.

In my workplace the amount of people out of office for doctor's appointments has skyrocketed the last year. Not to mention people out sick. Far more than pre 2021

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I want to see some evidence that there are tons of problematic reports on VAERS as you have claimed. Not just random arguments. I am sure that there would be some problematic cases but the exaggerations you made are not true.

Your question makes zero sense...

From the CDC

VAERS reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Reports to VAERS can also be biased. As a result, there are limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted as evidence of a causal association between a vaccine and an adverse event, or as evidence about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.

Where the problem lies is that people much like yourself take the raw data and use it as 100% proof of causality. The reality is the actual percentage after investigations is extremely small. So, there is nothing wrong with the way VAERS system works, it's the people who abuse the information in it to their own biases.

I have stated a number of times we should not be using VAERS for anything, but it seems it consistently come into every other post.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The underreporting has been one of the greatest problems when it comes to register vaccine injuries.

Just because there might be an increased number of reports doesn't make the reports less credible. There is still underreporting despite a possible increase in reported cases.

The vast majority of what they call underreporting is mild conditions. The more serious they are the lesser underreporting there is. When we talk death here, I do not think they are underreporting the worst-case scenario at any level you might think it is.

Some cases may not be investigated for political reasons and because the system is reluctant.

Why we do not have information on something seems to always come back to a government coverup whether we talk aliens or 20 million vaccine deaths.

You need a better fall guy...this one gets old...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I want to see some evidence that there are tons of problematic reports on VAERS as you have claimed. Not just random arguments. I am sure that there would be some problematic cases but the exaggerations you made are not true.

Your question makes zero sense...

From the CDC

VAERS reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Reports to VAERS can also be biased. As a result, there are limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted as evidence of a causal association between a vaccine and an adverse event, or as evidence about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.

Where the problem lies is that people much like yourself take the raw data and use it as 100% proof of causality. The reality is the actual percentage after investigations is extremely small. So, there is nothing wrong with the way VAERS system works, it's the people who abuse the information in it to their own biases.

I have stated a number of times we should not be using VAERS for anything, but it seems it consistently come into every other post.

That doesn't prove anything in this case: The assertion there are tons of problematic reports. There is no evidence for it.

The reality of a very small number of adverse reactions is just an assertion ot yours and nowhere proven.

The number registered at present is multiple times all others for the last 30 years. They may not be all true but that doesn't make your assertion correct.

You seem to be engaging in vaccine apologetics.