The 3K deaths is at ID# 1345770. My other examples are some that indicate they are part of a "group" of reports and that's true, but many times I can not compile the complete "set/group"? This also applies to other event levels like Life Threatening, etc... There are also many "studies" when multiple people have died yet only one report was submitted. I think it could all be quantified by a funded group if someone was willing to take it that far. I'm just glad I can inform people to all the details most people miss.
Thank you, Eagle, for clarifying. There is absolutely no substitute for scrutinizing individual reports like you do, and you have uncovered a lot of warts in VAERS.
The report for ID #1345770, to me, isn't concerning about the possibility of bundling, but about the quality of the report. It's garbage. The source is not clear -- is it from a social media account run by Pfizer, a "consumer", or what? If someone said on a social media post "there have been 3,000 deaths due to Pfizer", and somebody takes that to make a VAERS report -- that is something that should never have made it through VAERS' process. No details of any kind, and no connection between the reporter and cases. Such bogus bulk reports likely also would duplicate some genuine individual reports. So if reports like this get missed by analysts, I say that's good. They should never have been included in the first place.
And I forgot that you already made this point below. I'm not sure that VAERS does this to discredit itself, because the powers that be can and do discredit VAERS in the public eye simply by pointing out VAERS' obvious shortcoming -- it's a passive registry.
Absolutely correct Devon, that's why I rarely reference this report only in context to the quality of work VAERS does or allows to be published? I think they do it so pro-vaxx types can point to it to discredit a system they probably never wanted in the first place. It's still the best and the only thing we have, but when I see the system in it's entirety I realize it must be only the very tip of the iceberg! God Bless
726 deaths in one report. Death as the single symptom, the report (by clicking Eagle's image) cites everything else as unknown and unknowable.
Gave me an idea, it's kind of way outside the box but howsabout we creates us an agency that cares about -- umm lemme think here ..... oh yeah, people and their health, all like competent and stuff.
I didn't include because it's a pretty jenky. Somebody read it in the newspaper or saw an article online type of stuff. The deeper point is what about the vetting process, what is VAERS doing to authenticate claims coming in before they publish? Surely they could add validity, request additional info, or consider reports to be garbage and not publish at all? The point is they do stuff in such a way that causes people not to trust VAERS, as if to discredit the people that can really look and size up all the data and realize there are plenty of signs that all vaccines are dog shit, and they been using VAERS not as a pharmacovigilance tool, but a tool to run cover for these dog shit vaccines.
Yes at a minimum. 18 months from now here in Tombstone we survivors are asked to vote on a new face or an old face. The old grifter or the new. The deaths will be a non issue up to a point due to complacency and faith in the System being reformable.
My two cents based on the Mass General anaphylaxis study:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777417
16 anaphylaxis/52,805 dose 1 = 303/million.
303/million anaphylaxis rate from the survey of their workforce. CDC on their website alleged an anaphylaxis rate of 2-5/million.
That puts URF = 61-152x. Conservatively, that's 61x. In-the-middle, its around 106x.
Thank you for this post. The bundling of multiple reports into one is concerning. The Janssen case is clear as is https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1034985&WAYBACKHISTORY=ON.
But the others don't seem to be clear cases.
https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1015614&WAYBACKHISTORY=ON: wording implies there is a separate report for each of the 19
https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1518174&WAYBACKHISTORY=ON: wording implies there is a separate report for each of the 4
https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1010689&WAYBACKHISTORY=ON: seems to be a single report/case
In a comment below, you (Eagle) cite this report as having bundled 3,000 deaths:
https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=50793&WAYBACKHISTORY=ON
When I go to that link, I see a single death. Did the links get messed up?
The 3K deaths is at ID# 1345770. My other examples are some that indicate they are part of a "group" of reports and that's true, but many times I can not compile the complete "set/group"? This also applies to other event levels like Life Threatening, etc... There are also many "studies" when multiple people have died yet only one report was submitted. I think it could all be quantified by a funded group if someone was willing to take it that far. I'm just glad I can inform people to all the details most people miss.
Thank you, Eagle, for clarifying. There is absolutely no substitute for scrutinizing individual reports like you do, and you have uncovered a lot of warts in VAERS.
The report for ID #1345770, to me, isn't concerning about the possibility of bundling, but about the quality of the report. It's garbage. The source is not clear -- is it from a social media account run by Pfizer, a "consumer", or what? If someone said on a social media post "there have been 3,000 deaths due to Pfizer", and somebody takes that to make a VAERS report -- that is something that should never have made it through VAERS' process. No details of any kind, and no connection between the reporter and cases. Such bogus bulk reports likely also would duplicate some genuine individual reports. So if reports like this get missed by analysts, I say that's good. They should never have been included in the first place.
And I forgot that you already made this point below. I'm not sure that VAERS does this to discredit itself, because the powers that be can and do discredit VAERS in the public eye simply by pointing out VAERS' obvious shortcoming -- it's a passive registry.
Absolutely correct Devon, that's why I rarely reference this report only in context to the quality of work VAERS does or allows to be published? I think they do it so pro-vaxx types can point to it to discredit a system they probably never wanted in the first place. It's still the best and the only thing we have, but when I see the system in it's entirety I realize it must be only the very tip of the iceberg! God Bless
https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1669577&WAYBACKHISTORY=ON
726 deaths in one report. Death as the single symptom, the report (by clicking Eagle's image) cites everything else as unknown and unknowable.
Gave me an idea, it's kind of way outside the box but howsabout we creates us an agency that cares about -- umm lemme think here ..... oh yeah, people and their health, all like competent and stuff.
Here one that says 3000 deaths on one report: https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=50793&WAYBACKHISTORY=ON
I didn't include because it's a pretty jenky. Somebody read it in the newspaper or saw an article online type of stuff. The deeper point is what about the vetting process, what is VAERS doing to authenticate claims coming in before they publish? Surely they could add validity, request additional info, or consider reports to be garbage and not publish at all? The point is they do stuff in such a way that causes people not to trust VAERS, as if to discredit the people that can really look and size up all the data and realize there are plenty of signs that all vaccines are dog shit, and they been using VAERS not as a pharmacovigilance tool, but a tool to run cover for these dog shit vaccines.
Ooops sorry Hawk, this is the right link:
https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1345770&WAYBACKHISTORY=ON
Yes at a minimum. 18 months from now here in Tombstone we survivors are asked to vote on a new face or an old face. The old grifter or the new. The deaths will be a non issue up to a point due to complacency and faith in the System being reformable.