In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled 6-Year-Old Canadian Kid Child Suddenly Dead After Suffering “Massive Stroke” – Doctor Diagnosed her with “Myocarditis due to the Flu”, CatHerd wrote: You keep posting a graph purportedly based on VAERS data from an unknown site you have never provided a link for. How about a link? Who can gauge its credibility with no link, no explanation of how the VAERS data was gathered and interpreted? Are you ashamed of your source?
ransomnote: Gosh. You really ARE pathetic. I provided links for about 2 years of posting and didn't include the same link this time? When I do provide links you ignore them. When I don't, you proclaim catastrophe!
I use a few sites and all of them use data released in exports by the CDC for dissemination and reporting. What a SCANDAL, eh?
https://medalerts.org/index.php
Furthermore, see my #71 for how VAERS actually works:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4114885/posts?page=71#71
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled 6-Year-Old Canadian Kid Child Suddenly Dead After Suffering “Massive Stroke” – Doctor Diagnosed her with “Myocarditis due to the Flu”, CatHerd wrote: Good points. Another problem is relying on VAERS. The vax doomers claim “it’s the tip of the iceberg” but in reality anyone can report anything to VAERS, including hypochondriacs, people self-diagnosing all sorts of conditions the are not competent to diagnose, people paranoid about the vaccines after reading garbage in The Expose, and vax doomers who are flat lying in an effort to push their agenda and “prove” it right.
ransomnote: Okay, you're lying alot right now so I don't want to spend a whole lot of time taking apart your dishonest post. VAERS gives itself 6 - 8 weeks to review any report it received and it has a bad reputation for withholding reports. So if trash was admitted to VAERS, it is the intention of the CDC to include it.
The Harvard 'Pilgrim' study demonstrated VAERS only receives about 10% of actual events reports. A few researchers have since reported that VAERS under reports by a factor of 41.
Healthcare professionals are required to report *any* serious side effect or death following vaccination, even if the vaccine had nothing to do with the symptom, illness or death.
ransomnote: However, in this highly politicized 'plandemic' some health care proffesionals are punished for reporting anything, some ER doctors tell patients not to report anything, I recall a nurse whistleblower being fired for trying to report this stuff.
Also, VAERS is intentionally awkward in order to discourage reporting by citizens; you have more than 20 minutes of boxes to fill out online but you are automatically logged out without warning at the 20 minute mark and have to start all over again.
In a year in which more adults received a vaccine than in any other, and this vaccine was using a new technology and issued under an EUA, and there has been so much fearporn over it, it’s no wonder the numbers be interpreted as scary, especially when manipulated by ignorant and/or unscrupulous vax doom grifters.
ransomnote: The fake Covid 'vaccine' is far worse than those fearful of it initially thought. There was no need for the EUA because drugs like Ivermectin and HCQ work. It's not exactly new technology though, because it's been around for awhile and all experiments on animals failed, it was never tested on humans prior to Covid, in which case it became the bioweapon of choice.
>>>Ransomnote wrote “This sentence is false “According to the JAMA article, 1626 out of 192,405,448 developed myocarditis after the Covid vaccine.””<<<<<
Did you not check the JAMA article? Or can you not read? It clearly states:
“Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis.”
Here’s the link again. Please check it this time:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346
How can you possibly claim that was a false statement?
ransomnote: You're the one who didn't check the JAMA article or you willfully rewrote their study to be deceptives. YOU WROTE: “According to the JAMA article, 1626 out of 192,405,448 developed myocarditis after the Covid vaccine,” and I correctly stated that your statement is false. Your wording makes the broad false statement that 1626 people out of 192 million developed myocarditis post Covid vax and then when called on your hideous understatement, you provide the JAMA quote that specifies 'cases reported to VAERS' and we know VAERS is just a fragment of the actual number of persons with myocarditis.
So you tried to sneak in the small subset reported to VAERS as if it was the known total of actually occurring myo in the entire vaxxed population. Sneaky.
>>>>Random note wrote: “And this one is false to a bizarre degree “According to these studies, one is far more likely to develop myocarditis after a smallpox vaccine than a Covid vaccine. Still, there is an elevated risk with the Covid.””<<<<<<
Really, dear? How so? I proved its truth it my post #63.
Here is the proof again, quoted from my #63:
******
“The incidence of confirmed myocarditis secondary to smallpox vaccination is estimated to be 16.1 per 100 000 service members, with a recent Department of Defense study estimating 12 per 100 000 in a review of 730 000 service members.” (See pages 6-7)[Link (again) to BMJ article referenced in quote above:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5878341/ ]
According to the JAMA article, 1626 out of 192,405,448 developed myocarditis after the Covid vaccine. That’s less than 0.08/100,000, right? (yes, please check my math — doing this in my head.). Compared to 12/100,000 to 16/100,000 for the smallpox vaccine.
******So, are you claiming that a 0.8 per 100,000 incidence after Covid vaccine is not lower than the 12 per 100,000 or 16 per 100,000 incidence after the smallpox vaccine? Really? If you are having trouble doing math or understanding these numbers, perhaps you could ask someone to help you.
ransomnote: LOOK.AT.THE.GRAPH I've posted. Smallpox and all other post vax reports compared with Covid post vax reports. It refutes your pointless assertions. Small Pox vaccines are in the graph but so small and inconsequential. You're still using the VAERS subset as if it is the actual number of cases per Covid vax in the entire vaxxed population.
>>>>>Ransomnote wrote: “I see nothing in your response but smarmy whitewashing apologetics from a pharma-phile defending the CDC ‘narrative’.”<<<<<<
I see nothing but someone plugging her ears and shouting “no no no no” in yours. See above. You just say “false” with zero proof to back it up. I provided proof. As for the last bit, insults and name calling do not help your case, but rather are the mark of desperation from one who has no facts or reputable references to back up her case. And especially rich coming from someone who has repeatedly shilled for donations for The Expose here, a site run by some machine shop guy in England.
ransomnote: This from the morally superior person who rewrote my user name as 'random note' in your response? I've posted scientific articles for almost 2 years now and I object to your distorting quotes from JAMA to deceive people.
I also note you did not address the high likelihood the little girl in question never received any Covid vaccine. Hmm. Yet you insist it was the vaccine that killed her, not the severe case of influenza she had. Interesting.
ransomnote: There is no valid test for Covid - the PCR was based on influenza. The PCR methodology is not appropriate for diagnosing any illness, including influenza, so we don't know what, if any, infection she had.
Sadly, Covid 'vaccine' harm is clinically identical to illnesses like influenza. The Covid 'vaccine' failed animal trials because, while the animals developed the desired antibodies, when they were exposed to an actual virus, their immune systems over reacted (because of the vax) and created the congestion, coughing, fever etc. all signs of influenza. But the immune system overheats until the person or lab animal dies. So we don't know if she had influenza and her symptoms are also compatible with vaccine harm.
You're pretending there's no medical crisis going on post Covid vax so all of this will be WAY over your head and you'll pretend to find it confusing. It's the 'pretend' part of your answers that wastes the most time.
You still have not provided the link for that graph you keep posting. Why is that? As you will not provide it yourself, I will oblige. It has been passed around on social media and originated from a dubious site operated by some woman in California who has no background in science but does have an axe to grind (no wonder you are ashamed to post the link):
https://openvaers.com/covid-data/myo-pericarditis
Your graph has been checked and found to be based on wildly inflated numbers:
*********
The data [reflected in the graph] includes reports after all vaccines from the years 2010 to 2021 and appears to show more than 11,000 reports for 2021 alone, compared to very low numbers in previous years.
The graph, originally published on website OpenVAERS (here), shows reports of the conditions after all available vaccines.
OpenVAERS has yet to respond to a Reuters request to detail their search methodology but a Reuters analysis of VAERS entries for “myocarditis” and “pericarditis” found fewer than 3,500 instances.
The CDC confirmed to Reuters a total of 2,337 reports of myocarditis in VAERS for all vaccines from 1990 to Nov. 11, 2021.
Of those, 1,969 myocarditis or pericarditis reports concerned people aged 30 and younger who received COVID-19 vaccines.
The CDC and FDA investigated the reports and, through interviews with medical providers and medical record reviews, confirmed 1,005 cases met the criteria for myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis. The CDC’s case definitions can be found here (page 978, Table 1).
******
Yes, I know you’ll holler about Reuters being lefty, but the numbers are what they are. And they square with the numbers in peer-reviewed studies in respected medical journals, while those in your graph from a highly dubious website do not. And you have offered no corroborating sources. Do you have any, or you only have this lone graph which is unsupported and has no annotation and no explanation of methodology?
You have repeatedly championed VAERS as a reliable source, yet disparage it when the numbers are not to your liking. You can’t have it both ways. Same with the CDC.
I have not lied. I faithfully copied and pasted the figures given in the studies I cited.
You carry on about underreporting to VAERS, yet seem to believe this only happens with the Covid vaccines. Again, you can’t have it both ways. You claim “some health care providers” are “punished” for reporting to VAERS, but this is merely your assertion.
You say “if trash is reported to VAERS it is their intention to include it” — yet the figures given in the JAMA study and the Reuters piece above are the numbers checked and verified by the CDC, not the raw numbers.
I did not “rewrite” the numbers in the JAMA article, but correctly copied them. Anyone can check it. If you have a problem with the numbers cited in the JAMA article, then you need to say the JAMA article is wrong rather than accusing me of being wrong or lying or rewriting. I snuck in nothing and was not “sneaky”. I simply provided the figures as given in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and a highly respected one at that. You have only a graph created by some woman in California with no methodology provided, and which conflicts with the CDC figures (see the Reuters article, above) — one might call it “ hideous overstatement” if given to tabloid style purple prose.
Why are you complaining that the figures in the JAMA article are from VAERS data and therefore wrong, yet claim the graph you posted that is purportedly based on VAERS data is correct? Hello? Why do you think your graph supposedly using VAERS data is correct, but the JAMA article is “wrong” and “sneaky” because it uses VAERS data? You *do* understand your graph claims to use VAERS data, don’t you?
>>>>>”ransomnote: LOOK.AT.THE.GRAPH I’ve posted. Smallpox and all other post vax reports compared with Covid post vax reports. It refutes your pointless assertions. Small Pox vaccines are in the graph but so small and inconsequential. You’re still using the VAERS subset as if it is the actual number of cases per Covid vax in the entire vaxxed population.”<<<<<<
Your graph claims there were over 11,000 reports of myocarditis to VAERS in 2021 alone. From the Reuters article: “The CDC confirmed to Reuters a total of 2,337 reports of myocarditis in VAERS for all vaccines from 1990 to Nov. 11, 2021. Of those, 1,969 myocarditis or pericarditis reports concerned people aged 30 and younger who received COVID-19 vaccines. The CDC and FDA investigated the reports and, through interviews with medical providers and medical record reviews, confirmed 1,005 cases met the criteria for myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis.”
So yes, there were *considerably* more cases reported for the Covid vaccines than for all other vaccines. No question there. But only a small fraction of the number shown in your graph.
Your graph does not include smallpox vaccines, other than perhaps the few given this year for monkeypox and a few other rare uses. The only time smallpox vaccines have been given in the US since 1972 in any significant numbers were to military deployed to specific areas, and the even then, the numbers are tiny compared to the numbers of Covid vaccines given in 2021 and 2022. Therefore the incidence of myocarditis per 100,000 for each vaccine can be compared, but not the total numbers of cases reported. Your graph shows total numbers, not incidence per 100,000. See:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00042032.htm
You claim “vaccine harm”is clinically identical to influenza without providing any proof for your assertion.
Furthermore, you continue to ignore the very low rate of vaccination in children five and under in Canada (7%), and the very low rate of children 5-11 who received a Covid vaccine or booster within the past six months (7.8%). You have no idea whether the little girl received a Covid vaccine. Odds are she did not.
You claim “The PCR methodology is not appropriate for diagnosing any illness, including influenza, so we don’t know what, if any, infection she had.” Again, with no evidence. This is merely your assertion. You bragged about using CDC data earlier in your post, so here’s this:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/molecular-assays.htm
Where is your evidence that such tests are “not appropriate”? Why are you twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to claim this poor child died of a vaccine she very likely never received rather than from influenza as diagnosed in a hospital? When, statistically, myocarditis is far more likely caused by a viral infection than by the vaccine, especially in a girl her age?
>>>>>>Ransomnote wrote: “The Covid ‘vaccine’ failed animal trials because, while the animals developed the desired antibodies, when they were exposed to an actual virus, their immune systems over reacted (because of the vax) and created the congestion, coughing, fever etc. all signs of influenza. But the immune system overheats until the person or lab animal dies.”<<<<<<<
Care to provide evidence for this? How about a link?
It’s true that vaccines for SARS-1 when tested on animals resulted in pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. The animals did not die of illness in the studies I read, but rather were sacrificed so their lung tissue could be studied. This is why these types of vaccines were not even tried for Covid-19.
I did not intentionally mistype your name. Spellchecker did. I will ignore the rest of your outbursts and unwarranted insults and accusations. I think any sane person of goodwill can see who is being honest and using fact based reason here, and providing links so others can check the source.
>>>>>Ransomnote wrote: “I’ve posted scientific articles for almost 2 years now and I object to your distorting quotes from JAMA to deceive people.” ≤<<<<<<
I have not distorted any quotes from the JAMA article. I provided links to the JAMA article and quoted from it. Anyone can check my quotes and the article itself and ascertain I did not distort anything, but faithfully copied the figures given.
As your posting history shows, you have mainly posted articles from The Expose, a dodgy website run by a machine shop guy in England, blog posts from Steve Kirsch’s substack and the like for two years. You have praised and defended the likes of Robert O. Young, a grifter twice arrested for practicing medicine without a license and sentenced to prison, who claims all sorts of ridiculous things are in the vaccines and believes viruses do not exist — and Brian Ardiss, a chiropractor who laughably claims the vaccines contain snake venom. You have even stated that Covid is not caused by a virus, but rather by vaccines given to people unawares in some grand conspiracy, and said you got that idea from Ardiss.
If you want to believe all this stuff, fine. That’s your prerogative. I prefer verifiable facts. You are free to prefer your graph, for which you have provided no supporting documentation or explanation of methodology, and to imagine this little girl died of a vaccine she likely never received.