The numbers here don't really mean anything without context. We really need to know (to take one category) how many people would have died in the 16 months the vaccines have been in use, how many did die, and what is the excess number of deaths. - broken down by age, and ideally general health. I'm not saying I don't believe that the vaccines have killed people - I do, and very likely far more than have been admitted - but raw numbers reported to VAERS (which are themselves undoubtedly just the tip of a very large iceberg) neither prove nor disprove the risk of taking these vaccines.
VAERS is supposed act like the canary in the coal mine. When the canary drops dead, that's not proof there are dangerous gases in the mine, but the miners should behave as if it's a fact until they know (by testing) otherwise.
I would say that it vividly demonstrates the risk to the point of proof. It doesn’t necessarily accurately quantify the risk, but we know that VAERS is underreported by a wide margin, so it represents a lower bound on the risk.
I've been downloading VAERS data since March of 2020. Regarding the 1 percent reporting originally determined by the Harvard Pilgrim Health care group, using anaphylaxis data I determined the under reporting by the CDC wonder VAERS system more in the 99.1% range. Slightly worse than the Harvard find. Nonetheless, it verifies extreme under reporting. Moreover, we determined the CDC is actually withholding data from the VAERS system related to the covid vaccines. So in the case of covid reporting it's all together likely the under reporting is even worse.
This is so difficult to read, but thank you for this roundup!
I just posted about this from the fraud angle, via Ed Dowd and Dr. Naomi Wolf.
https://etana.substack.com/p/the-arc-of-a-fraud?s=w
The numbers here don't really mean anything without context. We really need to know (to take one category) how many people would have died in the 16 months the vaccines have been in use, how many did die, and what is the excess number of deaths. - broken down by age, and ideally general health. I'm not saying I don't believe that the vaccines have killed people - I do, and very likely far more than have been admitted - but raw numbers reported to VAERS (which are themselves undoubtedly just the tip of a very large iceberg) neither prove nor disprove the risk of taking these vaccines.
Your last sentence is just plain dumb; of course the VAERS data proves there is significant risk of the COVID vaccines.
VAERS is supposed act like the canary in the coal mine. When the canary drops dead, that's not proof there are dangerous gases in the mine, but the miners should behave as if it's a fact until they know (by testing) otherwise.
I like your analogy.
I would say that it vividly demonstrates the risk to the point of proof. It doesn’t necessarily accurately quantify the risk, but we know that VAERS is underreported by a wide margin, so it represents a lower bound on the risk.
I've been downloading VAERS data since March of 2020. Regarding the 1 percent reporting originally determined by the Harvard Pilgrim Health care group, using anaphylaxis data I determined the under reporting by the CDC wonder VAERS system more in the 99.1% range. Slightly worse than the Harvard find. Nonetheless, it verifies extreme under reporting. Moreover, we determined the CDC is actually withholding data from the VAERS system related to the covid vaccines. So in the case of covid reporting it's all together likely the under reporting is even worse.