Replies

"VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors."

Good enough for me! I trust these individuals over FRAUDci, or any gov't entity.

"A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described."

Do you have proof that it does not?

"No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report."

Again....DO YOU HAVE PROOF that it was NOT??

See how that works?

So, please stop spamming with your anti-VAERS nonsense. These medical professionals and private citizens should be trusted as much, or more, than FRAUDci, FDA, CDC or any other gov't, or BigPharma group.

TIA.

I see you have used the dog whistle to summon the disruption.

Your argument is antithetical to logic. The VAERS database specifically states that there is no requirement for causation. This is the fundamental premise. Your argument is but what is does not exclude causation is completely irrelevant

The fact is that VAERS is an unconfirmed database. It accepts incodormed reports. It is like an online poll.

So please understand that your insistence to prove that it is not true is a false argument and illogical at best. Prove pink elephants don’t exist. Toj can’t? Then they must exist. This is the intellectual fire power of your argument. It gets tiring to deal with the lack of logic and intellectual pursuit that your side is the equation insists upon

Good night.

Do you understand that familyop was simply quoting from the official guide to the users of the VAERS data... taken from the actual VAERS site. Familyop wasn’t spamming.

It’s a guide written by the folks who set up and maintain VAERS. It’s kinda like going to John, Mark and Matthew and asking THEM what was meant by their gospels. Of course, YOU may prefer YOUR interpretation of what they meant in the gospels to what they (the writers) tell you they meant.

"Good enough for me! I trust these individuals over FRAUDci, or any gov't entity."

Jane Long, VAERS is run by the CDC and the FDA.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vaers/index.html
"VAERS is part of the larger vaccine safety system in the United States that helps make sure vaccines are safe. The system is co-managed by CDC and FDA."

And just below that on the same page,...

"Specifically, a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event."

And...

"VAERS accepts reports from anyone, including patients, family members,..."

And you responded to a quote from VAERS, "A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described."

...with:

"Do you have proof that it does not?"

Moving the goalpost. Red herring. Straw man fallacy. You just responded to a quote from VAERS--not me.

"Again....DO YOU HAVE PROOF that it was NOT?? See how that works?"

Repetition of fallacy, appeal to force with implied yelling: Argumentum Ad Baculum. Appeal to emotion (demonstration). I probably shouldn't bother responding to your displays again.

"So, please stop spamming with your anti-VAERS nonsense. These medical professionals and private citizens should be trusted as much, or more, than FRAUDci, FDA, CDC or any other gov't, or BigPharma group."

Another repetition and other fallacies. You are again responding to a direct quotation from VAERS, which is administered by the CDC and FDA.