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

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.

Why we shouldn't be using VAERS? Because it doesn't suit your argument? You are mistaken entirely.

You think we should be using our local bakery or local fast-food restaurant?!

a reply to: Xtrozero

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 and denialism of reality.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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...

You don't know that.
It is just an assertion again.

There are many who don't know they can report their problems. They don't know anything.

Take a look at excess non COVID deaths. In the US there are 300,000 from the beginning of 2020 until end of 2022.

Lockdowns and mass vaccinations be pinpointed. It's not climate change or the republicans.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Why we shouldn't be using VAERS? Because it doesn't suit your argument? You are mistaken entirely.

You think we should be using our local bakery or local fast-food restaurant?!

I have no argument on deaths, it's you all that are putting out the crazy numbers. I'm just trying to see where you all come up with them. Once again where are the million or more deaths so many here are suggesting?


you asked this...

I want to see some evidence that there are tons of problematic reports on VAERS as you have claimed. Not just random arguments.

And I provided you this directly 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.

And you still ask

Why we shouldn't be using VAERS?

Really? You ask that after what I provided with "real" proof as why we should not use the raw data of VAERS...lol you kill me at times...

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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

You seem to go down the wrong rabbit hole time and time again. The CDC says "VAERS reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Reports to VAERS can also be biased." so what the hell does that mean to you?

And once again it isn't an issue with VAERS it is an issue with people like you who use VAERS incorrectly. The BIG one is unverifiable... So instead of going to your baker for information you should allow the CDC to do their job and verify, validate and apply causation where correct and then use those numbers.

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.

Ya so, the CDC, as I said like 100 times, mandated its use since the COVID vaccine. We already know only about 5% was being registered in the past and if by mandates and general awareness 25% is now being inputting than that is a 5x increase with the same adverse reaction numbers. The overall awareness and focus on COVID is like 1000x than anything in the past, so of course we will see more in VAERS even if the overall adverse reactions have not changed.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Why we shouldn't be using VAERS? Because it doesn't suit your argument? You are mistaken entirely.

You think we should be using our local bakery or local fast-food restaurant?!

I have no argument on deaths, it's you all that are putting out the crazy numbers. I'm just trying to see where you all come up with them. Once again where are the million or more deaths so many here are suggesting?


you asked this...

I want to see some evidence that there are tons of problematic reports on VAERS as you have claimed. Not just random arguments.

And I provided you this directly 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.

And you still ask

Why we shouldn't be using VAERS?

Really? You ask that after what I provided with "real" proof as why we should not use the raw data of VAERS...lol you kill me at times...

Again the claim there are tons of problematic reports doesn't stand. And what you have shown is not evidence.

It is your opinion we shouldn't be using VAERS.
And only yours. The members of the Health Department in Florida and elsewhere think otherwise.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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

You seem to go down the wrong rabbit hole time and time again. The CDC says "VAERS reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Reports to VAERS can also be biased." so what the hell does that mean to you?

And once again it isn't an issue with VAERS it is an issue with people like you who use VAERS incorrectly. The BIG one is unverifiable... So instead of going to your baker for information you should allow the CDC to do their job and verify, validate and apply causation where correct and then use those numbers.

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.

Ya so, the CDC, as I said like 100 times, mandated its use since the COVID vaccine. We already know only about 5% was being registered in the past and if by mandates and general awareness 25% is now being inputting than that is a 5x increase with the same adverse reaction numbers. The overall awareness and focus on COVID is like 1000x than anything in the past, so of course we will see more in VAERS even if the overall adverse reactions have not changed.

May contain... That doesn't make your argument correct. Especially when there are many more than altogether from all other vaccines in the last 30 years. To don't dismiss them just as you are trying to do.

The stats at the bottom of your message have come out of your head. Only independent scientists and statisticians can shade some light later on.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
You don't know that.
It is just an assertion again.

There are many who don't know they can report their problems. They don't know anything.

The CDC stated it, so ask them. If a person goes to the hospital, it is reported

After someone receives a COVID-19 vaccine, their healthcare provider is required by law to report all serious adverse health events, even if the provider does not think the vaccine caused that event. These events can include death, inpatient hospitalization or a serious case of COVID-19. That reporting protocol is due to the fact that the FDA authorized the COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use.

Take a look at excess non COVID deaths. In the US there are 300,000 from the beginning of 2020 until end of 2022.

Lockdowns and mass vaccinations be pinpointed. It's not climate change or the republicans.

So what does this have to do with my post or me...lol

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

It is your opinion we shouldn't be using VAERS.
And only yours. The members of the Health Department in Florida and elsewhere think otherwise.

Not to use as raw data... CDC says this over and over again... But that is exactly what you all use it for. It's like you are dumpster diving for facts.

Of course, it's my opinion you should not use VAERS in this way. After the cases are verified and causation is established all your doom porn goes out the window, that is why you all use it as you do in pulling anything that looks big and saying look this is pure fact.. lol

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
You don't know that.
It is just an assertion again.

There are many who don't know they can report their problems. They don't know anything.

The CDC stated it, so ask them. If a person goes to the hospital, it is reported

After someone receives a COVID-19 vaccine, their healthcare provider is required by law to report all serious adverse health events, even if the provider does not think the vaccine caused that event. These events can include death, inpatient hospitalization or a serious case of COVID-19. That reporting protocol is due to the fact that the FDA authorized the COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use.

Take a look at excess non COVID deaths. In the US there are 300,000 from the beginning of 2020 until end of 2022.

Lockdowns and mass vaccinations be pinpointed. It's not climate change or the republicans.

So what does this have to do with my post or me...lol

That's different from you reporting it. And many don't know how to do it. Are you sure the hospital will report them?!

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

It is your opinion we shouldn't be using VAERS.
And only yours. The members of the Health Department in Florida and elsewhere think otherwise.

Not to use as raw data... CDC says this over and over again... But that is exactly what you all use it for. It's like you are dumpster diving for facts.

Of course, it's my opinion you should not use VAERS in this way. After the cases are verified and causation is established all your doom porn goes out the window, that is why you all use it as you do in pulling anything that looks big and saying look this is pure fact.. lol

It doesn't say that by the way. Cause and effect cannot be proven this way as it says. But that can be true on some cases and not true on other cases.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Again the claim there are tons of problematic reports doesn't stand. And what you have shown is not evidence.

Comprehension is not strong with this one...

You keep repeating something I never said... You swap to some argument that was never my point....

It is an open-source reporting system, not verified, not validated, zero causation applied... I think you are using the wrong words or something, it is not problematic at all since it is just a way to report. The CDC straight up say...

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.

But you and others "interpreted as evidence of a causal association" all the damn time...lol geez just let it rest.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

May contain... That doesn't make your argument correct.

I have no argument other than you and others use it incorrectly as per guidance from the CDC.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Are you sure the hospital will report them?!

It is mandated...

After someone receives a COVID-19 vaccine, their healthcare provider is required by law to report all serious adverse health events, even if the provider does not think the vaccine caused that event. These events can include death, inpatient hospitalization or a serious case of COVID-19. That reporting protocol is due to the fact that the FDA authorized the COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use.

This has never been done to this level with any other vaccine. Do you see the by law part... It goes on to say if health professionals do not report of if anyone false reports it will be fines and/or prison, so you tell me.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

It doesn't say that by the way. Cause and effect cannot be proven this way as it says. But that can be true on some cases and not true on other cases.

Right, and you have zero way of knowing. Also, since a low percentage actually turns out to be causal then you are basically providing completing wrong information, but hey it's a bigger number so all is good.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Because the MRNA vax is relatively new and it is in no way shape or form "like every other drug in the last 100 years" I cant point you to my prior posts because i was not a member back then.. Yes everyone has their opinion on the vax because it's been shoved down our throats 24/7 365 for the last 3 years.. What do you expect would happen? You're 100% correct.. Before 2019 i didn't care about vaccines because i never took them aside from when i had to in middle school.. I only started to have a "opinion" when i was forced to..

How did you come to the conclusion that we act as if this is only a american event? I don't understand this line of logic.. It's clearly a world wide issue.. I mean earlier today i was talking about what i seen inside of wuhan back in nov 2019. So where are you going with that?

What's the reasoning in posting your statistics? Is that suppose to sway my personal opinion? I would love to see the adverse event log after those trials are done.. I hope they don't match the prior ones.. Cause that list was insanely long and had alot of extreme events.. 10 vaccines auth'd by the WHO and what is it? 3 or 4 of them are the cause of this uproar.. When in history has this ever happened? I personally do not trust anything that comes out of tedros's mouth nor the WHO for its prior history... But you do you boo.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Are you sure the hospital will report them?!

It is mandated...

After someone receives a COVID-19 vaccine, their healthcare provider is required by law to report all serious adverse health events, even if the provider does not think the vaccine caused that event. These events can include death, inpatient hospitalization or a serious case of COVID-19. That reporting protocol is due to the fact that the FDA authorized the COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use.

This has never been done to this level with any other vaccine. Do you see the by law part... It goes on to say if health professionals do not report of if anyone false reports it will be fines and/or prison, so you tell me.

You don't know whether they will report these adverse reactions and to what degree they will do it. There is plenty of resistance and reluctance from the establishment when it comes to these adverse reactions. We have discussed it several times in the past. If anything there is massive underreporting.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

It doesn't say that by the way. Cause and effect cannot be proven this way as it says. But that can be true on some cases and not true on other cases.

Right, and you have zero way of knowing. Also, since a low percentage actually turns out to be causal then you are basically providing completing wrong information, but hey it's a bigger number so all is good.

The 'low percentage' is just an assertion of yours and might not be true in this case where the products are known for causing a range of debilitating conditions and death. The number of adverse reactions from these products is much higher than all adverse reactions from all vaccines in the last 30 years.

You keep going in circles I am afraid.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

May contain... That doesn't make your argument correct.

I have no argument other than you and others use it incorrectly as per guidance from the CDC.

May contain... It's a key phrase.
There needs to be independent evaluation and assessment of the adverse reactions.

No we are not using it incorrectly.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Again the claim there are tons of problematic reports doesn't stand. And what you have shown is not evidence.

Comprehension is not strong with this one...

You keep repeating something I never said... You swap to some argument that was never my point....

It is an open-source reporting system, not verified, not validated, zero causation applied... I think you are using the wrong words or something, it is not problematic at all since it is just a way to report. The CDC straight up say...

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.

But you and others "interpreted as evidence of a causal association" all the damn time...lol geez just let it rest.

And since when an open source reporting system is unreliable or non credible. Yes it may contain some errors, some unverifiable cases, but that itself doesn't make it unreliable or non credible. If it was then it would have never existed in the first place.


When you have a very large number of adverse reactions following vaccination with a specific product then you have very strong correlation regardless of the attempts made by the establishment to dismiss them. And regardless of your attempts here.

You cannot ignore that that the number of adverse reactions is much more than the number of all adverse reactions from all the vaccines in the 30 years or so. Only that fact merits an independent investigation.

Apart from the very strong correlation and the actual number of harms and deaths you also have excess non COVID deaths in most countries that have used lockdowns and mass vaccinations.

So what walks like a duck and quacks like a duck must be a duck...