3 ms·

>VAERS is an open database, it can be easily submitted to by anyone, it's not a good source of truth and may contain statistical bias. This is 100% true, but i

>VAERS is an open database, it can be easily submitted to by anyone, it's not a good source of truth and may contain statistical bias. This is 100% true, but it leaves out some context. Prior to covid, it was thought that vaccine side effects were statistically underreported by a significant amount in VAERS. For the signal we are seeing in VAERS to be totally spurious seems highly unlikely, given this fact. It's also worth noting that effects which have a significant time-delay are unlikely to be captured. All this is to say: yes the data are noisy, but we'd need to erase/explain away the numbers by at least an order of magnitude to erase the spike we are seeing, and that seems like a tall order. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232983/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232983/

throwawayboise 5y ago
Other vaccines e.g. the common "childhood" ones are uncontroverisal and given on a rather steady basis as people reach the appropriate ages. The COVID vaccines were pushed to everybody in a time window of months, and with a huge amount of controversy and media attention. Given that, I would expect a spike not only in the raw number of adverse reactions, but also a higher proportion of them actually being reported.
ceejayoz 5y ago
> All this is to say: yes the data are noisy, but we'd need to erase/explain away the numbers by at least an order of magnitude to erase the spike we are seeing, and that seems like a tall order. That's fairly easy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion