3 ms·

I have talked to my Dr. 'you're still better off having the jab.' You are not my Dr. Supposedly vaccine reporting of harm is about 1%, though it would seem t

I have talked to my Dr. 'you're still better off having the jab.' You are not my Dr. Supposedly vaccine reporting of harm is about 1%, though it would seem to be difficult to verify if it is 1% or 3%. 52 dead infants have been reported. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/baby-of-fully-vaccinated-mom-dies-after-being-born-bleeding-from-mouth-nose-vaers-report/?source=patrick.net https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/baby-of-fully-vaccinated-m... It is not better, and not for 'all'.

fer 5y ago
> I have talked to my Dr. Then imagined things in your head. No doctor will write what you suggest. > You are not my Dr. Nobody said I am.
nl 5y ago
> vaccine reporting of harm is about 1% What on earth is that piece of random rumourmongering based on? I felt horrible for ~24 hours after my second Pfizer shot. If that counts as hard then sure, 1% is believable. If it is actually harmful side effects than that is total nonsense. 1% is a huge, huge number of people.
- fer 5y ago
  It's based on antivax nonsense. Now he edited and linked to a site (which is banned everywhere in social media precisely for spreading COVID-19 misinformation) that takes raw data from VAERS at face value without any adjustment for prevalence or comorbidities. They could as well link vaccine shots to trampoline accidents if only VAERS collected such data. I'm all for open data, but antivaxxers without the minimal understanding of statistics extrapolating VAERS data makes me wonder if it's a good idea.
  - walterbell 5y ago
    If VAERS numbers were reduced for co-morbidities, then US Covid deaths would be reduced by ~90% when co-morbidities were excluded, https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-94-percent-covid-among-caus/fact-check-94-of-individuals-with-additional-causes-of-death-still-had-covid-19-idUSKBN25U2IO https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-94-percent-covi... There is also the issue of VAERS being under-reported, which can be estimated by using other sources of health surveillance, like the HMO-driven Vaccine Safety Datalink.

fer 5y ago

> I have talked to my Dr. Then imagined things in your head. No doctor will write what you suggest. > You are not my Dr. Nobody said I am.

nl 5y ago

> vaccine reporting of harm is about 1% What on earth is that piece of random rumourmongering based on? I felt horrible for ~24 hours after my second Pfizer shot. If that counts as hard then sure, 1% is believable. If it is actually harmful side effects than that is total nonsense. 1% is a huge, huge number of people.

fer 5y ago
It's based on antivax nonsense. Now he edited and linked to a site (which is banned everywhere in social media precisely for spreading COVID-19 misinformation) that takes raw data from VAERS at face value without any adjustment for prevalence or comorbidities. They could as well link vaccine shots to trampoline accidents if only VAERS collected such data. I'm all for open data, but antivaxxers without the minimal understanding of statistics extrapolating VAERS data makes me wonder if it's a good idea.
- walterbell 5y ago
  If VAERS numbers were reduced for co-morbidities, then US Covid deaths would be reduced by ~90% when co-morbidities were excluded, https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-94-percent-covid-among-caus/fact-check-94-of-individuals-with-additional-causes-of-death-still-had-covid-19-idUSKBN25U2IO https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-94-percent-covi... There is also the issue of VAERS being under-reported, which can be estimated by using other sources of health surveillance, like the HMO-driven Vaccine Safety Datalink.