It’s bizarre trying to discuss this with you when you pretend there isn’t a massive effort to censor doctors speaking about vaccine harm, and more specifically, doctors and nurses being pressured not to report post VAERS injuries.
It’s everywhere so you do see it - you simply deny it. There’s never been a propaganda carrot/stick like the one smothering Covid. The CDC likes to insist that there is no evidence of vaccine harm and ignores the autopsies, ignores Maddie Degary (wheel chair, feeding tube for life).
So watching you try to poke holes in Kirsch’s data while pretending that there’s no reason to suspect that VAERS is WILDLY under reported, even when the CDC release V-Safe to every person getting vaccinated for Covid. Gosh - wouldn’t giving someone a phone app to report their adverse events to a PRIVATE, separate database reduce the already abysmal history of reporting to VAERS? Ah but you’re not about truth - you’re just trying to conceal vaccine harm by any means necessary.
I think Steve’s ACIP report has more along the estimate.
You said:
"I didn't think you'd go for Kirsch's data though because he outlines how he arrived at his estimate so that people understand where the number is from and if they disagree, can dispute it with their own estimate etc."
When I asked how he arrived at his estimate you waved your hands and offered no specifics so I researched it myself.
What I found wasn't very good for Steve, and I went into quite some detail as to why his calculations didn't hold water.
I also linked to similar criticism from the head of Biostatistics for the University of Pennsylvania.
So how do you respond? Do you question my critique of Kirsch's methods? Do you offer any rebuttal to my points?
Of course not.
You go off on a rant about how I don't recognize big conspiracies keeping doctors from reporting to VAERS.
You're right about that, I don't.
You also demonstrate you don't understand the purpose of V-Safe. V-Safe is an acknowledgement by the CDC of the limitations of VAERS.
Instead of passively relying on people to report adverse events the CDC provides an app that proactively solicits symptom input for several days following vaccination. It's the difference between passive and active monitoring and shows CDC is actually trying to figure out what the reactions are.
Unsurprisingly, you see it as another conspiracy.
You pay lip service to the idea of data until someone presents some that doesn't fit your narrative, then you change the subject.