Looks there could be severe quality-control and/or handling issues if the analysis is correct.
The Pfizer vaccine requires storage a very low temperatures so proper handling may be especially important for that vaccine.
Looks there could be severe quality-control and/or handling issues if the analysis is correct.
All that fear and coercion just to get a tainted lot. 
1 Like
Fun with numbers.
Like everything else VAERS related I expect this report to completely fall apart upon further scrutiny.
1 Like
Exactly when did you start questioning vaers data??
Or more directly, when did you stop questioning it??
It’s not the data, it’s the whacked out conclusions people twist the data to come up with.
It’s the data, too. VAERS has always been bad data.
VAERS has always been bad data. Bad faith actors have recently made it worse.
Never seemed to be any complaint about it until recently.
What are the “real numbers” of adverse reactions to the covid vaccines then??
1 Like
You won’t see this on the pfizer’s corporate cable media
Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention.
Couldn’t tell you.
For me, the take-away from the report is that the chance of getting a jab from a suspect lot is low, and even in you get a jab from one of those lots, it’s not a death sentence.
But more to the point, are they pulling the remaining unused doses from those lots? And are they investigating what’s different about those lots?
I’m aware of it’s problems, and I would think the people who use that data know how to sift through it.
We don’t even know if the data is good. It could be that the data in question is all a result of the falsified reports people put in, or some of it or none of it.
No conclusions whatsoever can be drawn from that report without intense scrutiny of every single data point entered. Hundreds of hours. Without that it is worthless.
Exactly. For example - let’s say there was a email campaign amongst the far-right to file false VAERS reports, with fake information to be cut/pasted in. Maybe those “batch numbers” with all those reports came from that.
Who knows?
1 Like
Linky linky??
Yet you’re certain all the data on vaers is garbage…
Baaaa…
How exactly can I provide a link to you not paying attention?
The data on VAERS is self-reported.
In other words, I could go to VAERS right now, and claim that the flu vaccine caused me to grow a unicorn horn in the middle of my forehead, and it would be accepted.
1 Like
You seemed to imply, in response to my question, that vaers data has been unreliable all along, even before covid vaccines.
Linky, linky?? Thanks in advance.
So naturally that makes all of it wrong and not worth investigating… I’ve seen this same talking point a thousand times before.
Baaaaaa…
2 Likes
I’m not implying that, I’m stating it outright.
A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html
Who do you think should “investigate”?
I don’t think you understand how this all works.
Who?? I’d say any reports of deaths caused by vaccines, which apparently, according to you, have never been reliable reports, or necessarily investigated at all.
Your entire argument seems to be that absolutely no one can, should or would investigate reports or vaccine-related side effects or deaths, and that any expectation that they were investigated is a ridiculous assumption.
And this has been going on for years, it only took until now to expose this fact.
Baaaaaaaaaa!!!..
