Sociopath Community

Inquirer said: 

LiYang said: 

the low estimate in the US is deaths from the vaccine. The under reporting factor in VAERS is 41. You could use the Yellow Card system in UK, The EU has something also, don't know what it is.

https://openvaers.com/covid-data

The data is clearly showing the risk of the vaccine is much greater than the risk of covid, esp for young people. Don't be a manipulated sheeple and take more vaccines. its Russian roulette.

Do you have a source proving the under-reporting for VAERS when it comes to fatalities is 41? I find the figure hard to believe.

It's more likely most deaths have been reported. Perhaps even too many has been reported considering you don't even need an indication that the death was related to the vaccination itself to report. Either way it doesn't support your claim.

check this guy out https://www.normanfenton.com/

"The UK Government's own data does not support the claims made for vaccine effectiveness/safety. "

 

You're going to have to link to the actual blog post to back up a claim/quote like that.

 "Do you have a source proving the under-reporting for VAERS when it comes to fatalities is 41? I find the figure hard to believe."

I do

Do you agree VAERS under reported? Studies have shown 1% actual reporting. That is, only 1% of adverse events are reported to VAERS. I've seen another number of 10 for deaths. I think the actual number is closer to 41. I think there are different numbers for different types of adverse events.

Why do you think governments are not doing the under reporting factor calculation and publishing the information? VAERS was designed as a warning system. Why are they not using there own system?

How about we do the calculation here? I have the paper from the CDC. Lets do the calculation and then I will show my source. Confirm the number.

"You're going to have to link to the actual blog post" I'm not going to do your work for you. You have to read the material.

LiYang said: 

Inquirer said: 

LiYang said: 

the low estimate in the US is deaths from the vaccine. The under reporting factor in VAERS is 41. You could use the Yellow Card system in UK, The EU has something also, don't know what it is.

https://openvaers.com/covid-data

The data is clearly showing the risk of the vaccine is much greater than the risk of covid, esp for young people. Don't be a manipulated sheeple and take more vaccines. its Russian roulette.

Do you have a source proving the under-reporting for VAERS when it comes to fatalities is 41? I find the figure hard to believe.

It's more likely most deaths have been reported. Perhaps even too many has been reported considering you don't even need an indication that the death was related to the vaccination itself to report. Either way it doesn't support your claim.

check this guy out https://www.normanfenton.com/

"The UK Government's own data does not support the claims made for vaccine effectiveness/safety. "

 

You're going to have to link to the actual blog post to back up a claim/quote like that.

 "Do you have a source proving the under-reporting for VAERS when it comes to fatalities is 41? I find the figure hard to believe."

I do

Do you agree VAERS under reported? Studies have shown 1% actual reporting. That is, only 1% of adverse events are reported to VAERS. I've seen another number of 10 for deaths. I think the actual number is closer to 41. I think there are different numbers for different types of adverse events.

Why do you think governments are not doing the under reporting factor calculation and publishing the information? VAERS was designed as a early warning system. Why are they not using there own system?

How about we do the calculation here? I have the paper from the CDC. Lets do the calculation and then I will show my source. Confirm the number.

 

 

 

"You're going to have to link to the actual blog post" I'm not going to do your work for you. You have to read the material.

"Do you have a source proving the under-reporting for VAERS when it comes to fatalities is 41? I find the figure hard to believe."

I do

Do you agree VAERS is under reported? Studies have shown 1% actual reporting. That is, only 1% of adverse events are reported to VAERS. I've seen another number of 10 for deaths. I think the actual number is closer to 41. I think here are different numbers for different types of adverse events.

Why do you think governments are not doing the under reporting factor calculation and publishing the information? VAERS was designed as a early warning system. Why are they not using there own system?

How about we do the calculation here? I have the paper from the CDC. Lets do the calculation and then I will show my source. Confirm the number.

"You're going to have to link to the actual blog post" I'm not going to do your work for you. You have to read the material.

LiYang said: 

Do you agree VAERS is under reported? Studies have shown 1% actual reporting. That is, only 1% of adverse events are reported to VAERS. I've seen another number of 10 for deaths. I think the actual number is closer to 41. I think here are different numbers for different types of adverse events.

Why do you think governments are not doing the under reporting factor calculation and publishing the information? VAERS was designed as a early warning system. Why are they not using there own system?

Sigh. Then link me these studies? You're throwing around a lot of figures while refusing to source any.

Governments are using systems like VAERS to find out whether there are issues with vaccines. There's been a number of follow-up studies to make sure vaccines are safe, such as this one. They're probably not coming out with an under-reporting factor in VAERS because it's really difficult to calculate and most likely varies wildly between vaccines, adverse effects and due to current events.

How about we do the calculation here? I have the paper from the CDC. Lets do the calculation and then I will show my source. Confirm the number.

Just post your sources so we can actually look at them.

"You're going to have to link to the actual blog post" I'm not going to do your work for you. You have to read the material.

Does that mean I can claim something and then link you to wikipedia's main page? Lol.

Lmao why even bother with LiYang you wont be able to make him listen to reason anyway

Inquirer said: 

LiYang said: 

Do you agree VAERS is under reported? Studies have shown 1% actual reporting. That is, only 1% of adverse events are reported to VAERS. I've seen another number of 10 for deaths. I think the actual number is closer to 41. I think here are different numbers for different types of adverse events.

Why do you think governments are not doing the under reporting factor calculation and publishing the information? VAERS was designed as a early warning system. Why are they not using there own system?

Sigh. Then link me these studies? You're throwing around a lot of figures while refusing to source any.

Governments are using systems like VAERS to find out whether there are issues with vaccines. There's been a number of follow-up studies to make sure vaccines are safe, such as this one. They're probably not coming out with an under-reporting factor in VAERS because it's really difficult to calculate and most likely varies wildly between vaccines, adverse effects and due to current events.

How about we do the calculation here? I have the paper from the CDC. Lets do the calculation and then I will show my source. Confirm the number.

Just post your sources so we can actually look at them.

"You're going to have to link to the actual blog post" I'm not going to do your work for you. You have to read the material.

Does that mean I can claim something and then link you to wikipedia's main page? Lol.

One of many links... this link below puts the URF at 31. Several other researchers put the URF at 41 and even higher

with the current data and the Japanese Study(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34128049/), my calculated number is 22.7X under reported.

9295 US deaths in VAERS * 22.7 = 210,997 deaths in the US by covid vaccine and rising

One of several links calculating the URF. One thing is for sure, the URF is not 1.0.

https://www.publichealthpolicyjournal.com/general-5

Jessica Rose, 2021. Critical appraisal of VAERS Pharmacovigilance: Is the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) a functioning pharmacovigilance system? Sci, Publ Health Pol & Law 3:100-129

https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-9fe2d3ad957f.filesusr.com/ugd/adf864_0490c898f7514df4b6fbc5935da07322.pdf

"To calculate the URF, the expected number
of SAEs (E SAE ) is divided by the observed number
of SAEs (O SAE ). The E SAE is calculated by
multiplying the total number of doses administered
in the U.S. (assuming a single dose can result in an
AE) by the number of SAEs recorded in COVID-
19 product safety trials. According to the FDA
Safety Overview of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-
19 product (Study C4591001 – refer to section 5.2.6
page 33) [47,48]. 0.7% of Pfizer/BioNTech
COVID-19 product recipients suffered SAEs. As of
August 10th, 2021, 197,399,471 million Pfizer/
BioNTech COVID-19 product doses had been
administered in the U.S. [49,50] and therefore the
number of expected SAE occurrences in the U.S.
volunteer recipients of the Pfizer/BioNTech
products should be ~1.4 million SAEs, if we use
this reported rate. Thus, the ratio of E SAE to O SAE is
31 to 1, suggesting a URF of 31
(N SAE_Pfizer_trial /N SAE_Pfizer_VAERS = ~1.4M/43,948).
Using this URF for all VAERS-classified SAEs,
estimates to date are as follows: 205,809 dead,
818,462 hospitalizations, 1,830,891 ER visits,
230,113 life-threatening events, 212,691 disabled
and 7,998 birth defects to date [38]. Since the URF
for MAEs is very likely larger than for SAEs, it is
satisfactory to assume that 31 is a humble estimate
URF for all AEs (refer to Supplementary Table 2)."

Jessica Rose is a Canadian researcher living in Israel. No conflicts of interests are reported.

Governments are hiding this data from you, why?

Instrument said: 

Lmao why even bother with LiYang you wont be able to make him listen to reason anyway

Reason has nothing to do with it. It's all about the data. I don't subscribe to your religious belief system.

If you an show me data and why I am wrong, I will happily change my hypothesis. That's how science works.

Use vaccine Anaphylactic  reacting to do the calculation.

From Jessica's paper "the expected number of SAEs (E SAE ) is divided by the observed number
of SAEs (O SAE )".

Anaphylactic reactions are used because hey happen right away and you can't hide them.

The Japan paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8344519/

found 204.2 cases per million doses vaccine administered, another paper showed a high rate.

looks like VAERS is showing 6 cases of Anaphylactic per 1000000 vaccines

204/6 = 34

I've come up with 21-41 depending on the references I use.

I think the US Governments number of people vaccinated is 25% high.

They are using the large group psychology tribalism for manipulation. The sheep people fall for this joining the large herd group group. The rate of Anaphylactic would then be 9 per 1000000 vaccines.

I wonder what the EU EudraVigilance system or UK Yellow Card systems are showing for a URF?

"We retrieved data on 8940 anaphylaxis cases post-COVID-19 vaccination from the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and the European EudraVigilance from week 52/2020 through week 31/2021 and compared them with those of other vaccines. Overall, 837,830,000 COVID-19 vaccine doses were delivered in the US and Europe during the study period, for which the vaccine name was known. The mean anaphylaxis rate was estimated at 10.67 cases per 1000000 doses of COVID-19 vaccines (range: 7.99-19.39 cases per 1000000 doses depending on the vaccine). COVID-19 vaccines ranked fifth in reported anaphylaxis rates, behind rabies, tick-borne encephalitis, measles-mumps-rubella-varicella, and human papillomavirus vaccines (70.77, 20, 19.8, and 13.65 cases per 106 vaccine doses, respectively). COVID-19 vaccines are within the range of anaphylaxis rates reported across several common vaccines in these two passive reporting systems. These data should be communicated to reassure the general population about the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34863620/

LiYang said: 

Instrument said: 

Lmao why even bother with LiYang you wont be able to make him listen to reason anyway

Reason has nothing to do with it. It's all about the data. I don't subscribe to your religious belief system.

If you an show me data and why I am wrong, I will happily change my hypothesis. That's how science works.

 

 no you won't, you'll claim its satanic liars faking data for bill gates

Maybe not satanic liars, but certainly left-wing.