PVS: Post Vaccination Syndrome (1 Viewer)

[TheAristocrat]

Totally not politics but let me show you my own research that I'm parroting from somewhere for totally not political reasons.

 

[[icon]]

Interesting study published by the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science (IJIRMS).

View of Association Between COVID-19 Vaccination and Neuropsychiatric Conditions

ijirms.in

Abstract
Introduction: This study explores the potential associations between COVID-19 vaccination and neuropsychiatric conditions.
Methods: Data were collected from the CDC and FDA. The VAERS database was queried from January 1, 1990, to December 27, 2024, for adverse events (AEs) involving neuropsychiatric complications following COVID-19 vaccination. The timeframe included 420 months for all vaccines except COVID-19 vaccines which have been available to the public for only 48 months. Proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) were calculated by time comparing AEs after COVID-19 vaccination to those after influenza vaccination and to those after all other vaccines. The CDC/FDA stipulates a safety concern if a PRR is ≥ 2.

Results: Comparing COVID-19 vaccination to influenza vaccinations, the CDC/FDA’s safety signals (PRR, 95% confidence interval, p-value, Z-score) were breached for the following combinations: 47 AEs associated with cognitive impairment (PRR: 118, 95% CI: 87.2-160, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.9); 28 AEs associated with general psychiatric illness (PRR: 115, 95% CI: 85.1-156, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.8); and 11 AEs associated with suicide/homicide (PRR: 80.1, 95% CI: 57.3-112, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 25.7)
Conclusions: There are alarming safety signals regarding neuropsychiatric conditions following COVID-19 vaccination, compared to the influenza vaccinations and to all other vaccinations combined.

The only thing interesting about that “study” Is how people still bite the stinky bait that is VAERS misuse as a backbone of a poorly structured “study”

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Not going to wade back into this one, but will say i filled out a VAERS report for adverse effects and received no follow-up of and kind and don't know of anyone else getting a follow-up. I actually updated the info periodically as things worsened so there was ample opportunities to confirm with me and my doctors. No matter how you feel on the topic VAERS data is likely extremely lacking.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

This thread is the epitome of what I have termed "Roganing"

On Joe Rogan's podcast he platforms "opposing viewpoints" out of a nod to "fairness"

But then he platforms a flat earther next to Neil DeGrasse Tyson and gives each equal credence. It is a true false equivalency and it ends up lending credibility to a many-times-over debunked "theory."

Its how we get a US Secretary of Health and Human Services that *still* believes vaccines cause autism, even though its been debunked over and over.

If we can't call out conspiracy theories for what they are, then we can't have a discussion either.

Feel free to delete this if deemed too political.

 

[Max Power]

Interesting study published by the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science (IJIRMS).

View of Association Between COVID-19 Vaccination and Neuropsychiatric Conditions

ijirms.in

Abstract
Introduction: This study explores the potential associations between COVID-19 vaccination and neuropsychiatric conditions.
Methods: Data were collected from the CDC and FDA. The VAERS database was queried from January 1, 1990, to December 27, 2024, for adverse events (AEs) involving neuropsychiatric complications following COVID-19 vaccination. The timeframe included 420 months for all vaccines except COVID-19 vaccines which have been available to the public for only 48 months. Proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) were calculated by time comparing AEs after COVID-19 vaccination to those after influenza vaccination and to those after all other vaccines. The CDC/FDA stipulates a safety concern if a PRR is ≥ 2.

Results: Comparing COVID-19 vaccination to influenza vaccinations, the CDC/FDA’s safety signals (PRR, 95% confidence interval, p-value, Z-score) were breached for the following combinations: 47 AEs associated with cognitive impairment (PRR: 118, 95% CI: 87.2-160, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.9); 28 AEs associated with general psychiatric illness (PRR: 115, 95% CI: 85.1-156, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.8); and 11 AEs associated with suicide/homicide (PRR: 80.1, 95% CI: 57.3-112, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 25.7)
Conclusions: There are alarming safety signals regarding neuropsychiatric conditions following COVID-19 vaccination, compared to the influenza vaccinations and to all other vaccinations combined.

The only thing interesting about that “study” Is how people still bite the stinky bait that is VAERS misuse as a backbone of a poorly structured “study”

The study used the government's own data to show the CDC/FDA's own "red flag" criteria was crossed. Yet here we still are pretending like all risks are too minimal to care about. It deserved a closer look or potentially a pause in vaccination.

The FDA just reviewed the myocarditis risk associated with the vaccine and are making the manufacturers post updated warning labels for 12-24 year old males. Once the data (not vears) was stratified for age it showed that demographic is at an elevated risk. Sadly before this change the data (risk) was lumped into everyone 0-64 years old which made it appear to be less of a risk than it actually was to certain groups.

Part of the reason the US is changing its vaccine strategy. We have a better understanding of risk vs benefit.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

When discussing the potential harms from a vaccine, it seems extremely important to keep the benefits in mind, namely that ~20 million lives were saved in just the first year according the Lancet.

I’m 100% onboard with continual studies to access the negative impacts of the Covid vaccine, but the best information we have now overwhelmingly suggests that the vaccine is one of the greatest achievements in the history of medical science. And it’s the gift that keeps giving, as Covid vaccine development will undoubtedly save millions more lives in the future as scientists use the research to prevent and mitigate future pandemics.

I have no problems with modern medicine and I trust science and technology generally. However, I do like for new drugs to be throughly studied before approving it. I know there was a lot of pressure to get a COVID vaccine out, so I get that, but I don't fault anyone who worries that it wasn't studied long enough. Like I said earlier, I drank the kool-aid and will just hope for the best. I'm 66, so if there are negative effects in the future I'll probably be too old to care anyway, so I said what the hell. However, if I was a young man it would give me more pause.

I’m not versed enough to confidently state a definite opinion on the vaccine as a whole. But like you I drank the kool-aid and got vaccinated, plus one booster. I didn’t get my 5 yrs old (at the time) vaccinated as she didn’t seem at risk. 5 yrs later my only barometer is how I feel about it now. And that is…. I’m glad I didn’t have my daughter get it and if I could go back in time now and redo it knowing what I know now, I wouldn’t get the shot for myself. Not because I’m anti covid vaccine, I don’t know what I am (refer to my first sentence here), but my risk level wasn’t high enough to need to do it.

I got the vax, and subsequent boosters. So did my kids. I'll continue to follow the consensus advice of the NAID and CDC. I'm not medically trained and acknowledge that like most humans, I'm not very good at accessing risk, thus I'll follow the experts in the field.

That's good. The problem all along was trying to force others to take it that might be better at assessing their own risk.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Edit. Nevermind. Sitting this out is best.

 

[[icon]]

Interesting study published by the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science (IJIRMS).

View of Association Between COVID-19 Vaccination and Neuropsychiatric Conditions

ijirms.in

Abstract
Introduction: This study explores the potential associations between COVID-19 vaccination and neuropsychiatric conditions.
Methods: Data were collected from the CDC and FDA. The VAERS database was queried from January 1, 1990, to December 27, 2024, for adverse events (AEs) involving neuropsychiatric complications following COVID-19 vaccination. The timeframe included 420 months for all vaccines except COVID-19 vaccines which have been available to the public for only 48 months. Proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) were calculated by time comparing AEs after COVID-19 vaccination to those after influenza vaccination and to those after all other vaccines. The CDC/FDA stipulates a safety concern if a PRR is ≥ 2.

Results: Comparing COVID-19 vaccination to influenza vaccinations, the CDC/FDA’s safety signals (PRR, 95% confidence interval, p-value, Z-score) were breached for the following combinations: 47 AEs associated with cognitive impairment (PRR: 118, 95% CI: 87.2-160, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.9); 28 AEs associated with general psychiatric illness (PRR: 115, 95% CI: 85.1-156, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.8); and 11 AEs associated with suicide/homicide (PRR: 80.1, 95% CI: 57.3-112, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 25.7)
Conclusions: There are alarming safety signals regarding neuropsychiatric conditions following COVID-19 vaccination, compared to the influenza vaccinations and to all other vaccinations combined.

The only thing interesting about that “study” Is how people still bite the stinky bait that is VAERS misuse as a backbone of a poorly structured “study”

The study used the government's own data to show the CDC/FDA's own "red flag" criteria was crossed. Yet here we still are pretending like all risks are too minimal to care about. It deserved a closer look or potentially a pause in vaccination.

The FDA just reviewed the myocarditis risk associated with the vaccine and are making the manufacturers post updated warning labels for 12-24 year old males. Once the data (not vears) was stratified for age it showed that demographic is at an elevated risk. Sadly before this change the data (risk) was lumped into everyone 0-64 years old which made it appear to be less of a risk than it actually was to certain groups.

Part of the reason the US is changing its vaccine strategy. We have a better understanding of risk vs benefit.

If you view VAERS as some sort of official government data, you’re making it clear from jump that you don’t belong in this conversation.

Just stop. Seriously.

Some thoughts from Grok because this doesn’t even merit me taking the time to craft a response.

First off, the claim that a study used “the government’s own data” from VAERS to show that the CDC/FDA’s “red flag” criteria was crossed needs some scrutiny. VAERS, or the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, is a passive surveillance system where anyone—doctors, patients, or even random folks—can report adverse events after vaccination. It’s a valuable tool for detecting potential signals, but it’s not designed to prove causation. The data is raw and unverified, meaning reports aren’t necessarily confirmed as being caused by the vaccine. So, when someone says VAERS data shows a “red flag” was crossed, it’s often a misrepresentation of what VAERS can actually tell us.

Studies or claims relying solely on VAERS without further validation (like clinical studies or epidemiological analysis) are on shaky ground. The CDC and FDA don’t base their “red flag” criteria on unverified VAERS reports alone—they use multiple data sources, including active surveillance systems like V-safe and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, to assess risks.

Now, about the idea that risks are being downplayed or ignored, leading to calls for a “pause in vaccination”—this doesn’t hold up when you look at the broader evidence. Vaccine safety monitoring is ongoing and rigorous. When signals of potential issues arise, they’re investigated thoroughly.

Take myocarditis, for instance, which you mentioned. The FDA and CDC did identify a rare but elevated risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in younger males (12-24 years old) after mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna. This isn’t something that was swept under the rug. Studies, including those published in journals like *JAMA* and *The Lancet*, have quantified this risk, showing it’s higher in that demographic but still very rare—on the order of about 40-70 cases per million doses in young males, depending on the study. Compare that to the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 itself, which is significantly higher, often by a factor of 5-10, even in the same age group. The benefit of vaccination in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and long COVID still outweighs this rare risk for most people, which is why vaccination hasn’t been paused but rather tailored with updated guidance.

You’re right that the FDA has updated warning labels for myocarditis risk in that 12-24 age group, and that’s a good example of the system working. When data showed a clearer picture after stratifying by age, agencies acted by updating labels and informing healthcare providers to monitor for symptoms like chest pain post-vaccination.

The claim that risks were “lumped” into a 0-64 age group to downplay them isn’t accurate, though. Risk assessments have always involved breaking down data by demographics when possible, and early on, the signal for myocarditis in younger males was identified precisely because of this stratification. It wasn’t hidden; it just took time to gather enough data for statistical significance. Public health communication sometimes lags behind the science as they balance clarity with avoiding unnecessary panic, but the data wasn’t manipulated or obscured.

As for the US changing its vaccine strategy due to a better understanding of risk versus benefit, that’s partially true but not in the way the anti-vax take might imply. Strategies evolve as we learn more about who’s most at risk from COVID-19 and who benefits most from vaccination. For example, booster recommendations have been refined to prioritize older adults and immunocompromised individuals over younger, healthy people in some cases, because the risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 is much higher in those groups.

This isn’t about vaccines being “too risky” overall; it’s about optimizing public health resources and tailoring recommendations. The myocarditis risk, while real, hasn’t led to a wholesale rejection of vaccines in younger groups—rather, it’s led to informed consent and monitoring protocols.

The bottom line is that the anti-vax narrative around VAERS often overstates the data’s implications while ignoring the broader context of vaccine safety monitoring and the overwhelming evidence of benefit over risk. VAERS is a starting point for investigation, not a conclusion.

 

[[icon]]

This thread is the epitome of what I have termed "Roganing"

On Joe Rogan's podcast he platforms "opposing viewpoints" out of a nod to "fairness"

But then he platforms a flat earther next to Neil DeGrasse Tyson and gives each equal credence. It is a true false equivalency and it ends up lending credibility to a many-times-over debunked "theory."

Its how we get a US Secretary of Health and Human Services that *still* believes vaccines cause autism, even though its been debunked over and over.

If we can't call out conspiracy theories for what they are, then we can't have a discussion either.

Feel free to delete this if deemed too political.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

This thread is the epitome of what I have termed "Roganing"

When you say things like this it lets me know the opposite of what youre saying. Also, using Joe Rogans name as mockery is definitely not something you originated as there are millions of like minded people parroting similar terms.

I just cant take the parroting. It drives me up a wall.

 

[RCon]

They are using the ratio of reporting to show the signal. There were about 350 Million covid shots given within a year's timeframe. Of course that will cause a spike in reporting, but it also increased the likelihood of an adverse event.

Some basic math here, using your own theory that "Prior to COVID, VAERS was underutilized". Numbers are made up for ease of math.

* Pretend there were 1 million vaccines for "something" in the pre-COVID underutilized days. Pretend there were 20,000 adverse events, which is a 2% rate. Next, pretend that due to VAERS being utilized, only 10% of those people bothered reporting to VAERS. VAERS would calculate that the rate of adverse events was 0.2%.

* Now pretend there were 1 million vaccines during COVID. Pretend there were the same 20K adverse events, again a 2% rate. Pretend that VAERS is not underutilized, and 100% of those people bothered reporting. VAERS would calculate the rate of adverse events at 2%, even though the real rate was the same.

In short, VAERS being underutilized at one point and "normally utilized" at another point makes comparisons between the two points useless.

 

[RCon]

How do you know significant swaths of people are filing false reports?

I don't know how many people did/are, but I do know...
* There were lots of social media posts of people claiming to have filed a false report
* There were lots of social media posts/videos encouraging people to file false reports
* There is no check on people filing false reports. That is, literally anyone can click and file a report. Bots can do it.

 

[Mister CIA]

This thread is the epitome of what I have termed "Roganing"

When you say things like this it lets me know the opposite of what youre saying. Also, using Joe Rogans name as mockery is definitely not something you originated as there are millions of like minded people parroting similar terms.

I just cant take the parroting. It drives me up a wall.

I see what you did there.

 

[RCon]

If you view VAERS as some sort of official government data, you’re making it clear from jump that you don’t belong in this conversation.

This. As currently constructed, VAERS data is the equivalent of an anonymous survey on the New England Patriots website asking whether Peyton Manning or Tom Brady was the better QB. It's the poster child for "garbage in, garbage out".

 

[Max Power]

Interesting study published by the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science (IJIRMS).

View of Association Between COVID-19 Vaccination and Neuropsychiatric Conditions

ijirms.in

Abstract
Introduction: This study explores the potential associations between COVID-19 vaccination and neuropsychiatric conditions.
Methods: Data were collected from the CDC and FDA. The VAERS database was queried from January 1, 1990, to December 27, 2024, for adverse events (AEs) involving neuropsychiatric complications following COVID-19 vaccination. The timeframe included 420 months for all vaccines except COVID-19 vaccines which have been available to the public for only 48 months. Proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) were calculated by time comparing AEs after COVID-19 vaccination to those after influenza vaccination and to those after all other vaccines. The CDC/FDA stipulates a safety concern if a PRR is ≥ 2.

Results: Comparing COVID-19 vaccination to influenza vaccinations, the CDC/FDA’s safety signals (PRR, 95% confidence interval, p-value, Z-score) were breached for the following combinations: 47 AEs associated with cognitive impairment (PRR: 118, 95% CI: 87.2-160, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.9); 28 AEs associated with general psychiatric illness (PRR: 115, 95% CI: 85.1-156, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.8); and 11 AEs associated with suicide/homicide (PRR: 80.1, 95% CI: 57.3-112, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 25.7)
Conclusions: There are alarming safety signals regarding neuropsychiatric conditions following COVID-19 vaccination, compared to the influenza vaccinations and to all other vaccinations combined.

The only thing interesting about that “study” Is how people still bite the stinky bait that is VAERS misuse as a backbone of a poorly structured “study”

The study used the government's own data to show the CDC/FDA's own "red flag" criteria was crossed. Yet here we still are pretending like all risks are too minimal to care about. It deserved a closer look or potentially a pause in vaccination.

The FDA just reviewed the myocarditis risk associated with the vaccine and are making the manufacturers post updated warning labels for 12-24 year old males. Once the data (not vears) was stratified for age it showed that demographic is at an elevated risk. Sadly before this change the data (risk) was lumped into everyone 0-64 years old which made it appear to be less of a risk than it actually was to certain groups.

Part of the reason the US is changing its vaccine strategy. We have a better understanding of risk vs benefit.

If you view VAERS as some sort of official government data, you’re making it clear from jump that you don’t belong in this conversation.

Just stop. Seriously.

Some thoughts from Grok because this doesn’t even merit me taking the time to craft a response.

First off, the claim that a study used “the government’s own data” from VAERS to show that the CDC/FDA’s “red flag” criteria was crossed needs some scrutiny. VAERS, or the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, is a passive surveillance system where anyone—doctors, patients, or even random folks—can report adverse events after vaccination. It’s a valuable tool for detecting potential signals, but it’s not designed to prove causation. The data is raw and unverified, meaning reports aren’t necessarily confirmed as being caused by the vaccine. So, when someone says VAERS data shows a “red flag” was crossed, it’s often a misrepresentation of what VAERS can actually tell us.

Studies or claims relying solely on VAERS without further validation (like clinical studies or epidemiological analysis) are on shaky ground. The CDC and FDA don’t base their “red flag” criteria on unverified VAERS reports alone—they use multiple data sources, including active surveillance systems like V-safe and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, to assess risks.

Now, about the idea that risks are being downplayed or ignored, leading to calls for a “pause in vaccination”—this doesn’t hold up when you look at the broader evidence. Vaccine safety monitoring is ongoing and rigorous. When signals of potential issues arise, they’re investigated thoroughly.

Take myocarditis, for instance, which you mentioned. The FDA and CDC did identify a rare but elevated risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in younger males (12-24 years old) after mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna. This isn’t something that was swept under the rug. Studies, including those published in journals like *JAMA* and *The Lancet*, have quantified this risk, showing it’s higher in that demographic but still very rare—on the order of about 40-70 cases per million doses in young males, depending on the study. Compare that to the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 itself, which is significantly higher, often by a factor of 5-10, even in the same age group. The benefit of vaccination in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and long COVID still outweighs this rare risk for most people, which is why vaccination hasn’t been paused but rather tailored with updated guidance.

You’re right that the FDA has updated warning labels for myocarditis risk in that 12-24 age group, and that’s a good example of the system working. When data showed a clearer picture after stratifying by age, agencies acted by updating labels and informing healthcare providers to monitor for symptoms like chest pain post-vaccination.

The claim that risks were “lumped” into a 0-64 age group to downplay them isn’t accurate, though. Risk assessments have always involved breaking down data by demographics when possible, and early on, the signal for myocarditis in younger males was identified precisely because of this stratification. It wasn’t hidden; it just took time to gather enough data for statistical significance. Public health communication sometimes lags behind the science as they balance clarity with avoiding unnecessary panic, but the data wasn’t manipulated or obscured.

As for the US changing its vaccine strategy due to a better understanding of risk versus benefit, that’s partially true but not in the way the anti-vax take might imply. Strategies evolve as we learn more about who’s most at risk from COVID-19 and who benefits most from vaccination. For example, booster recommendations have been refined to prioritize older adults and immunocompromised individuals over younger, healthy people in some cases, because the risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 is much higher in those groups.

This isn’t about vaccines being “too risky” overall; it’s about optimizing public health resources and tailoring recommendations. The myocarditis risk, while real, hasn’t led to a wholesale rejection of vaccines in younger groups—rather, it’s led to informed consent and monitoring protocols.

The bottom line is that the anti-vax narrative around VAERS often overstates the data’s implications while ignoring the broader context of vaccine safety monitoring and the overwhelming evidence of benefit over risk. VAERS is a starting point for investigation, not a conclusion.

VAERS is the CDC's approved method to monitor safety signals. How is that not a government database?

 

[TheAristocrat]

Interesting study published by the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science (IJIRMS).

View of Association Between COVID-19 Vaccination and Neuropsychiatric Conditions

ijirms.in

Abstract
Introduction: This study explores the potential associations between COVID-19 vaccination and neuropsychiatric conditions.
Methods: Data were collected from the CDC and FDA. The VAERS database was queried from January 1, 1990, to December 27, 2024, for adverse events (AEs) involving neuropsychiatric complications following COVID-19 vaccination. The timeframe included 420 months for all vaccines except COVID-19 vaccines which have been available to the public for only 48 months. Proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) were calculated by time comparing AEs after COVID-19 vaccination to those after influenza vaccination and to those after all other vaccines. The CDC/FDA stipulates a safety concern if a PRR is ≥ 2.

Results: Comparing COVID-19 vaccination to influenza vaccinations, the CDC/FDA’s safety signals (PRR, 95% confidence interval, p-value, Z-score) were breached for the following combinations: 47 AEs associated with cognitive impairment (PRR: 118, 95% CI: 87.2-160, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.9); 28 AEs associated with general psychiatric illness (PRR: 115, 95% CI: 85.1-156, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.8); and 11 AEs associated with suicide/homicide (PRR: 80.1, 95% CI: 57.3-112, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 25.7)
Conclusions: There are alarming safety signals regarding neuropsychiatric conditions following COVID-19 vaccination, compared to the influenza vaccinations and to all other vaccinations combined.

Other bangers from the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science:

The CDC Denies Magnetic Elements in COVID Injectables While DARPA Promotes Mind-Control Research with Magnetic Nanoparticles Migrated to the Brain (Keywords: biodefense research, biosemiotic depth hypothesis, iatrogenic magnetism, magnetofection, prion diseases, proteinaceous clots, stroke, sudden unexpected death, turbo cancer)

Clinical Manifestations of Iatrogenic Magnetism in Subjects After Receiving COVID-19 Injectables: Case Report Series (Keywords: vaccine-associated adverse effects, COVID-19, ferromagnetism, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), contamination)

 

[Max Power]

They are using the ratio of reporting to show the signal. There were about 350 Million covid shots given within a year's timeframe. Of course that will cause a spike in reporting, but it also increased the likelihood of an adverse event.

Some basic math here, using your own theory that "Prior to COVID, VAERS was underutilized". Numbers are made up for ease of math.

* Pretend there were 1 million vaccines for "something" in the pre-COVID underutilized days. Pretend there were 20,000 adverse events, which is a 2% rate. Next, pretend that due to VAERS being utilized, only 10% of those people bothered reporting to VAERS. VAERS would calculate that the rate of adverse events was 0.2%.

* Now pretend there were 1 million vaccines during COVID. Pretend there were the same 20K adverse events, again a 2% rate. Pretend that VAERS is not underutilized, and 100% of those people bothered reporting. VAERS would calculate the rate of adverse events at 2%, even though the real rate was the same.

In short, VAERS being underutilized at one point and "normally utilized" at another point makes comparisons between the two points useless.

I think VAERS is a broken system and it's not a great method to track vaccine injuries, but it's the system the CDC uses. I don't think there is proof that VAERS was all of a sudden over utilized during Covid. I'm sure it became more well known, but more data should improve accuracy, not detract from it.

ETA: The good news is that HHS has plans to revamp the reporting system as there are better ways to monitor injuries.

 

[RCon]

They are using the ratio of reporting to show the signal. There were about 350 Million covid shots given within a year's timeframe. Of course that will cause a spike in reporting, but it also increased the likelihood of an adverse event.

Some basic math here, using your own theory that "Prior to COVID, VAERS was underutilized". Numbers are made up for ease of math.

* Pretend there were 1 million vaccines for "something" in the pre-COVID underutilized days. Pretend there were 20,000 adverse events, which is a 2% rate. Next, pretend that due to VAERS being utilized, only 10% of those people bothered reporting to VAERS. VAERS would calculate that the rate of adverse events was 0.2%.

* Now pretend there were 1 million vaccines during COVID. Pretend there were the same 20K adverse events, again a 2% rate. Pretend that VAERS is not underutilized, and 100% of those people bothered reporting. VAERS would calculate the rate of adverse events at 2%, even though the real rate was the same.

In short, VAERS being underutilized at one point and "normally utilized" at another point makes comparisons between the two points useless.

I think VAERS is a broken system and it's not a great method to track vaccine injuries, but it's the system the CDC uses. I don't think there is proof that VAERS was all of a sudden over utilized during Covid. I'm sure it became more well known, but more data should improve accuracy, not detract from it.

ETA: The good news is that HHS has plans to revamp the reporting system as there are better ways to monitor injuries.

You stated that prior to COVID, VAERS was underutilized. If that statement is true, then one can't reliably compare VAERS data pre-COVID to COVID-era VAERS data. This is just basic math and shouldn't be controversial.

The study you posted cannot be presented as accurate or useful info, per your own statement.

 

[Max Power]

They are using the ratio of reporting to show the signal. There were about 350 Million covid shots given within a year's timeframe. Of course that will cause a spike in reporting, but it also increased the likelihood of an adverse event.

Some basic math here, using your own theory that "Prior to COVID, VAERS was underutilized". Numbers are made up for ease of math.

* Pretend there were 1 million vaccines for "something" in the pre-COVID underutilized days. Pretend there were 20,000 adverse events, which is a 2% rate. Next, pretend that due to VAERS being utilized, only 10% of those people bothered reporting to VAERS. VAERS would calculate that the rate of adverse events was 0.2%.

* Now pretend there were 1 million vaccines during COVID. Pretend there were the same 20K adverse events, again a 2% rate. Pretend that VAERS is not underutilized, and 100% of those people bothered reporting. VAERS would calculate the rate of adverse events at 2%, even though the real rate was the same.

In short, VAERS being underutilized at one point and "normally utilized" at another point makes comparisons between the two points useless.

I think VAERS is a broken system and it's not a great method to track vaccine injuries, but it's the system the CDC uses. I don't think there is proof that VAERS was all of a sudden over utilized during Covid. I'm sure it became more well known, but more data should improve accuracy, not detract from it.

ETA: The good news is that HHS has plans to revamp the reporting system as there are better ways to monitor injuries.

You stated that prior to COVID, VAERS was underutilized. If that statement is true, then one can't reliably compare VAERS data pre-COVID to COVID-era VAERS data. This is just basic math and shouldn't be controversial.

The study you posted cannot be presented as accurate or useful info, per your own statement.

And I think it highlights the broken system. It's the CDC's and FDA's database to track and monitor vaccine related adverse events. Then any warning produced by their chosen tracking method and red flag criteria can be dismissed as unreliable. It's almost the perfect system to avoid any sort of accountability.

 

[RCon]

They are using the ratio of reporting to show the signal. There were about 350 Million covid shots given within a year's timeframe. Of course that will cause a spike in reporting, but it also increased the likelihood of an adverse event.

Some basic math here, using your own theory that "Prior to COVID, VAERS was underutilized". Numbers are made up for ease of math.

* Pretend there were 1 million vaccines for "something" in the pre-COVID underutilized days. Pretend there were 20,000 adverse events, which is a 2% rate. Next, pretend that due to VAERS being utilized, only 10% of those people bothered reporting to VAERS. VAERS would calculate that the rate of adverse events was 0.2%.

* Now pretend there were 1 million vaccines during COVID. Pretend there were the same 20K adverse events, again a 2% rate. Pretend that VAERS is not underutilized, and 100% of those people bothered reporting. VAERS would calculate the rate of adverse events at 2%, even though the real rate was the same.

In short, VAERS being underutilized at one point and "normally utilized" at another point makes comparisons between the two points useless.

I think VAERS is a broken system and it's not a great method to track vaccine injuries, but it's the system the CDC uses. I don't think there is proof that VAERS was all of a sudden over utilized during Covid. I'm sure it became more well known, but more data should improve accuracy, not detract from it.

ETA: The good news is that HHS has plans to revamp the reporting system as there are better ways to monitor injuries.

You stated that prior to COVID, VAERS was underutilized. If that statement is true, then one can't reliably compare VAERS data pre-COVID to COVID-era VAERS data. This is just basic math and shouldn't be controversial.

The study you posted cannot be presented as accurate or useful info, per your own statement.

And I think it highlights the broken system. It's the CDC's and FDA's database to track and monitor vaccine related adverse events. Then any warning produced by their chosen tracking method and red flag criteria can be dismissed as unreliable. It's almost the perfect system to avoid any sort of accountability.

Agreed. It is absolutely a broken system. And that's exactly why studies based on the data contained within that broken system are unreliable, which was my point from the beginning.

 

[Max Power]

They are using the ratio of reporting to show the signal. There were about 350 Million covid shots given within a year's timeframe. Of course that will cause a spike in reporting, but it also increased the likelihood of an adverse event.

Some basic math here, using your own theory that "Prior to COVID, VAERS was underutilized". Numbers are made up for ease of math.

* Pretend there were 1 million vaccines for "something" in the pre-COVID underutilized days. Pretend there were 20,000 adverse events, which is a 2% rate. Next, pretend that due to VAERS being utilized, only 10% of those people bothered reporting to VAERS. VAERS would calculate that the rate of adverse events was 0.2%.

* Now pretend there were 1 million vaccines during COVID. Pretend there were the same 20K adverse events, again a 2% rate. Pretend that VAERS is not underutilized, and 100% of those people bothered reporting. VAERS would calculate the rate of adverse events at 2%, even though the real rate was the same.

In short, VAERS being underutilized at one point and "normally utilized" at another point makes comparisons between the two points useless.

I think VAERS is a broken system and it's not a great method to track vaccine injuries, but it's the system the CDC uses. I don't think there is proof that VAERS was all of a sudden over utilized during Covid. I'm sure it became more well known, but more data should improve accuracy, not detract from it.

ETA: The good news is that HHS has plans to revamp the reporting system as there are better ways to monitor injuries.

You stated that prior to COVID, VAERS was underutilized. If that statement is true, then one can't reliably compare VAERS data pre-COVID to COVID-era VAERS data. This is just basic math and shouldn't be controversial.

The study you posted cannot be presented as accurate or useful info, per your own statement.

And I think it highlights the broken system. It's the CDC's and FDA's database to track and monitor vaccine related adverse events. Then any warning produced by their chosen tracking method and red flag criteria can be dismissed as unreliable. It's almost the perfect system to avoid any sort of accountability.

Agreed. It is absolutely a broken system. And that's exactly why studies based on the data contained within that broken system are unreliable, which was my point from the beginning.

That's a fair position. My issue is more when the government sets up the reporting system and criteria for alerts, but also dismisses all data as invalid... it's real goal is to not find anything

 

[Ministry of Pain]

***Please, Please, Please***

Keep this conversation civil, respectful and non-partisan. Healthcare and its discusssion should never be political!

A just-released Yale University study points to the striking similarities between 'Long Covid' and 'Covid Vax Injuries', aka Post-Vax Syndrome...

Yale Researchers Find COVID Spike Protein in Blood 709 Days After Vaccination, Positing Millions of Long COVID Patients May Actually Be Vaccine Injured

NIH has poured $1.6 billion into Long COVID research, but little or nothing to study vaccine harms, causing patient advocates to hide vaccine injury.

disinformationchronicle.substack.com

So many theories have emerged about MRNA- and DNA-based Covid vaxxes and their effects on living beings that it warrants conversation well beyond Covid, considering MRNA vax research is currently ongoing with the intent to expand that medical tech into many other illnesses.

Can we have such conversation?... In this thread, without becoming political or disrespectful can we please discuss this topic?

100% believe people are suffering from having gone thru the vaccination process
I also believe that a majority of folks that took the vaccine in the most at risk group be it age or just weaker immune systems likely benefitted
I applaud you for starting this thread
I had 2 or 3 of my tennis friends in the age range of about 65-75 that experienced blood clots be it in the legs or one guy had to have open heart surgery to have clots there removed

-it's not an indictment or finger pointing or blaming, it's just what I know to be true based on my "on the gorund/in the field" reporting
Unfortunately there are folks that simply refuse to believe anyone could have suffered from taking the vaccine and will try and bully you for speaking out

I choose not to go back and forth with anyone that wants to challenge any of this
Like Bill Maher says...i don't know that it's a fact, i just know it's true

 

[RCon]

That's a fair position. My issue is more when the government sets up the reporting system and criteria for alerts, but also dismisses all data as invalid... it's real goal is to not find anything

I don't know about that. A more likely explanation is the original intent was altruistic and well-intended, just poorly implemented. To paraphrase Hanlon's Razor, poor implementation <> malicious intent. One might also suggest that the idea was never properly funded to allow for rigorous vetting and validating of the data entered.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Are you saying that you know that the blood clots suffered by 65-75 year olds are the result of COVID vaccines?
Or are you just passing anecdotes?

As was stated upthread, of course some people will have a negative reaction to the vaccine. The same is true of all vaccines or any medication. Or food. Or just about anything.
But I don't think a couple of elderly people getting blood clots a few years after getting a shot shows any sort of causation.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Are you saying that you know that the blood clots suffered by 65-75 year olds are the result of COVID vaccines?
Or are you just passing anecdotes?

As was stated upthread, of course some people will have a negative reaction to the vaccine. The same is true of all vaccines or any medication. Or food. Or just about anything.
But I don't think a couple of elderly people getting blood clots a few years after getting a shot shows any sort of causation.

There was a large increase in blood clots and strokes immediately after the covid vaccine and not just in 65-75 year olds. In 30-50 year old healthy people. Perhaps it was all a coincidence.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

"I did my own research"

Yes, in rare cases, adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines, like the Johnson & Johnson (J&J/Janssen) vaccine, have been linked to a rare but serious blood clotting condition known as Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS).
Important points to understand:

• Rarity: The occurrence of TTS following these vaccines is extremely rare. For instance, after millions of doses of the J&J vaccine administered in the U.S., a very small number of cases were reported.
• Specific Vaccine Type: This risk has primarily been associated with adenovirus-vector vaccines, such as the J&J/Janssen and AstraZeneca vaccines. The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines have not been linked to blood clots in this way.
• Mechanism: TTS involves blood clots in combination with low platelet counts. This is a distinct and unusual type of blood clotting.
• CDC Recommendations: Due to this rare risk, the CDC updated its recommendations to prefer the use of mRNA vaccines over the J&J vaccine when possible.
• COVID-19 vs. Vaccine Risk: It's important to remember that the risk of blood clots is significantly higher from a COVID-19 infection than it is from vaccination. Vaccination provides protection against the virus and its associated complications, including blood clots.
• Recognizing Symptoms: If someone receives the J&J vaccine and experiences symptoms such as severe headache, blurred vision, shortness of breath, chest pain, leg swelling, persistent abdominal pain, or easy bruising, they should seek immediate medical attention.

In summary, while a rare association between adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines and TTS has been identified, it's crucial to understand the extremely low risk and that vaccination provides significantly greater protection against severe illness and related complications like blood clots caused by COVID-19 infection itself.

 

[BlackCrowes]

"

This thread is the epitome of what I have termed "Roganing"

On Joe Rogan's podcast he platforms "opposing viewpoints" out of a nod to "fairness"

But then he platforms a flat earther next to Neil DeGrasse Tyson and gives each equal credence. It is a true false equivalency and it ends up lending credibility to a many-times-over debunked "theory."

Its how we get a US Secretary of Health and Human Services that *still* believes vaccines cause autism, even though its been debunked over and over.

If we can't call out conspiracy theories for what they are, then we can't have a discussion either.

Feel free to delete this if deemed too political.

"I'm just asking questions"

21st century Gish Gallup. It takes seconds to make up some claim and much, much longer to properly debunk it. you never catch up

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Extremely rare leads me to believe that MoP's tennis buddies probably got blood clots because they were 65-75

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

(Must fight urge to go down this road)

I'm not asking questions, I'm giving answers. Blood clots and lots of them to go with an assortment of other painful symptoms almost took me out immediately following my 3rd moderna shot. Four years later i finally have my health back. Rare? Sure, probably. Real? Like the nose on the end of your face.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

"I did my own research"

Yes, in rare cases, adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines, like the Johnson & Johnson (J&J/Janssen) vaccine, have been linked to a rare but serious blood clotting condition known as Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS).
Important points to understand:

• Rarity: The occurrence of TTS following these vaccines is extremely rare. For instance, after millions of doses of the J&J vaccine administered in the U.S., a very small number of cases were reported.
• Specific Vaccine Type: This risk has primarily been associated with adenovirus-vector vaccines, such as the J&J/Janssen and AstraZeneca vaccines. The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines have not been linked to blood clots in this way.
• Mechanism: TTS involves blood clots in combination with low platelet counts. This is a distinct and unusual type of blood clotting.
• CDC Recommendations: Due to this rare risk, the CDC updated its recommendations to prefer the use of mRNA vaccines over the J&J vaccine when possible.
• COVID-19 vs. Vaccine Risk: It's important to remember that the risk of blood clots is significantly higher from a COVID-19 infection than it is from vaccination. Vaccination provides protection against the virus and its associated complications, including blood clots.
• Recognizing Symptoms: If someone receives the J&J vaccine and experiences symptoms such as severe headache, blurred vision, shortness of breath, chest pain, leg swelling, persistent abdominal pain, or easy bruising, they should seek immediate medical attention.

In summary, while a rare association between adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines and TTS has been identified, it's crucial to understand the extremely low risk and that vaccination provides significantly greater protection against severe illness and related complications like blood clots caused by COVID-19 infection itself.

That's your choice. Some chose to take their chances they wouldn't get Covid or that their immune system would work against Covid instead of risk something like a blood clot. Everyone should be free to make the choice they want for themselves.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

(Must fight urge to go down this road)

I'm not asking questions, I'm giving answers. Blood clots and lots of them to go with an assortment of other painful symptoms almost took me out immediately following my 3rd moderna shot. Four years later i finally have my health back. Rare? Sure, probably. Real? Like the nose on the end of your face.

I am not questioning your lived experience. I am truly saddened you went through this.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

"I did my own research"

Yes, in rare cases, adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines, like the Johnson & Johnson (J&J/Janssen) vaccine, have been linked to a rare but serious blood clotting condition known as Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS).
Important points to understand:

• Rarity: The occurrence of TTS following these vaccines is extremely rare. For instance, after millions of doses of the J&J vaccine administered in the U.S., a very small number of cases were reported.
• Specific Vaccine Type: This risk has primarily been associated with adenovirus-vector vaccines, such as the J&J/Janssen and AstraZeneca vaccines. The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines have not been linked to blood clots in this way.
• Mechanism: TTS involves blood clots in combination with low platelet counts. This is a distinct and unusual type of blood clotting.
• CDC Recommendations: Due to this rare risk, the CDC updated its recommendations to prefer the use of mRNA vaccines over the J&J vaccine when possible.
• COVID-19 vs. Vaccine Risk: It's important to remember that the risk of blood clots is significantly higher from a COVID-19 infection than it is from vaccination. Vaccination provides protection against the virus and its associated complications, including blood clots.
• Recognizing Symptoms: If someone receives the J&J vaccine and experiences symptoms such as severe headache, blurred vision, shortness of breath, chest pain, leg swelling, persistent abdominal pain, or easy bruising, they should seek immediate medical attention.

In summary, while a rare association between adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines and TTS has been identified, it's crucial to understand the extremely low risk and that vaccination provides significantly greater protection against severe illness and related complications like blood clots caused by COVID-19 infection itself.

That's your choice. Some chose to take their chances they wouldn't get Covid or that their immune system would work against Covid instead of risk something like a blood clot. Everyone should be free to make the choice they want for themselves.

1. If you read, blood clots are more likely a result OF Covid and less likely the result of the vaccine.
2. No one is making you get the shot (anymore). You may have disagreed with the mandate during the actual pandemic and I suppose we can disagree on that, but no one is making you take it now.
3. For other, more "tested" vaccines, MMR, for example no one is making anyone take it (but they are required for participation in some thing, which I agree are merited). And recent measles outbreaks are a good reason people should continue to take them.

 

[Max Power]

That's a fair position. My issue is more when the government sets up the reporting system and criteria for alerts, but also dismisses all data as invalid... it's real goal is to not find anything

I don't know about that. A more likely explanation is the original intent was altruistic and well-intended, just poorly implemented. To paraphrase Hanlon's Razor, poor implementation <> malicious intent. One might also suggest that the idea was never properly funded to allow for rigorous vetting and validating of the data entered.

The CDC knew 20+ years ago it was only capturing a fraction of the data and still said "this is good enough" to keep using.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Are you saying that you know that the blood clots suffered by 65-75 year olds are the result of COVID vaccines?
Or are you just passing anecdotes?

As was stated upthread, of course some people will have a negative reaction to the vaccine. The same is true of all vaccines or any medication. Or food. Or just about anything.
But I don't think a couple of elderly people getting blood clots a few years after getting a shot shows any sort of causation.

Hi IB, good to see you and I assume you were talking to me

-The answer is Yes based upon what their doctors told them when they were diagnosed with blood clots
The doctors said it was due to the vaccine and they had other patients with similar issues post vaccination and these folks had never had a blood clot in their life
I'm just sharing what was told to me and based on my relationships with these people, I doubt they would lie to me

Why is it so hard to believe?
-I had to go to the emergency room at the start of the pandemic because I had a bug fly in my ear when i was out walking in my neighborhood, I had to have wax poured in there to kill the mosquito/fly and then they sucked it out, still have the big in a little jar to remind me. I told that story to tell you that the nurse working alongside the doctor told me to go home and burn my clothes because I likely had ben exposed just walking into the ER for an unrelated matter...and I can just keep going but I'm not gonna

Whatever helps people sleep better at night or fits their narrative because that's what its all about and where the tug of war/in fighting begins
We all know the teams and colors, the scoreboard right now speaks for itself

Nobody seems to doubt when people raise their hand and use mental illness as an excuse for making bad decisions yet when folks speak up about the vaccine and post vaccination issues it sure feels like they get interrogated hard around here

Observations

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Bug in the ear sounds awful and I think its great that you kept it as a warning to all other bugs.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

We all know the teams and colors, the scoreboard right now speaks for itself

Also, viewing the nation as teams and colors with a scoreboard with winners and losers is largely what's wrong with this country and is a topic for a forum that no longer exists.

If we view ourselves as two different teams, there are no winners, only losers.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Extremely rare leads me to believe that MoP's tennis buddies probably got blood clots because they were 65-75

You're not gonna bully me or goad me into a fight over this
You're free to believe whatever you want
The people you obviously have put your faith and trust in have been proven repeatedly to lie and be compromised based on recent books written, and hearings in recent years

Let it go IB and please try and honor the house rules around here, you want to make it personal because you don't have a leg to stand on, and each one of these posts is done with obvious malice which is disappointing.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

(Must fight urge to go down this road)

I'm not asking questions, I'm giving answers. Blood clots and lots of them to go with an assortment of other painful symptoms almost took me out immediately following my 3rd moderna shot. Four years later i finally have my health back. Rare? Sure, probably. Real? Like the nose on the end of your face.

I am not questioning your lived experience. I am truly saddened you went through this.

Thank you, and i really mean that. It's such a messy conversation for me to navigate. I know more about this topic from a practical life experience standpoint than most. I know what getting completely dismissed feels like, i know what being the target of grifting at your lowest feels like.

It's a raw subject that's best for me to stay out of irl and online. I deleted every comment i made in this thread prior to today, i know quotes will still exist, but even though my intentions were to just tell my story i didn't get very far and i get why, so i won't revisit that.

All i can really expect and want from these conversations is for people to know that injury from the mRNA vaccines have happened and people got really hurt. I'm not going to question the rarity of that, risk v reward favors getting vaccinated, but i wish more people could understand the risk isn't zero and people shouldn't be dismissed if they have concerns.

Prior to my issues i was as gung ho vaccine as you could be to the point of practically cutting out people that weren't on board and citing all the facts i see cited today. My education background is in science, environmental and biology. I trust science, but what happened, happened. Sucks that experience gets used as a prop by both sides of the argument.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

"I did my own research"

Yes, in rare cases, adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines, like the Johnson & Johnson (J&J/Janssen) vaccine, have been linked to a rare but serious blood clotting condition known as Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS).
Important points to understand:

• Rarity: The occurrence of TTS following these vaccines is extremely rare. For instance, after millions of doses of the J&J vaccine administered in the U.S., a very small number of cases were reported.
• Specific Vaccine Type: This risk has primarily been associated with adenovirus-vector vaccines, such as the J&J/Janssen and AstraZeneca vaccines. The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines have not been linked to blood clots in this way.
• Mechanism: TTS involves blood clots in combination with low platelet counts. This is a distinct and unusual type of blood clotting.
• CDC Recommendations: Due to this rare risk, the CDC updated its recommendations to prefer the use of mRNA vaccines over the J&J vaccine when possible.
• COVID-19 vs. Vaccine Risk: It's important to remember that the risk of blood clots is significantly higher from a COVID-19 infection than it is from vaccination. Vaccination provides protection against the virus and its associated complications, including blood clots.
• Recognizing Symptoms: If someone receives the J&J vaccine and experiences symptoms such as severe headache, blurred vision, shortness of breath, chest pain, leg swelling, persistent abdominal pain, or easy bruising, they should seek immediate medical attention.

In summary, while a rare association between adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines and TTS has been identified, it's crucial to understand the extremely low risk and that vaccination provides significantly greater protection against severe illness and related complications like blood clots caused by COVID-19 infection itself.

Let's not fight, I appreciate you posting all this but it doesn't change what many people actually experienced and what real doctors told them...
How could anyone that represents the medical community be wrong?

-My inbox is open if you want to chat further than what the board will allow, I've usually enjoyed you even if the feeling isn't always mutual

 

[jhib]

I'd be charitable and chalk it up to breaks in the line of communication along the way to the 3rd+ person accounts, but I can't believe any reputable doctor would definitively tell a 70 year old patient with a blood clot that it was due to the vaccine.

(I feel that I need to add the following note to account for the way in which such statements are sometimes interpreted here: the above statement does not mean that I don't believe any adverse effects ever happen to individuals by vaccination. )

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

My layman's understanding is that clots from covid/covid vaccine  may differ in identifiable ways from other causes. Someone with a better understanding into clotting and cause can correct me if I'm way off base.

ETA. These clots were explained to me as fibrinogen clots more typically seen in patients with diabetes.

COVID-19 and the Blood

Some people with COVID-19 develop abnormal blood clots, including in the smallest blood vessels. The clots may also form in multiple places in the body, includi

www.nhlbi.nih.gov

(The little video goes into what i suffered from with the small vessel blockage)

 

[fatness]

Fact Check: Viral posts misuse VAERS data to make false claims about COVID-19 vaccines

Yet over and over websites and social media posts improperly cite unverified raw data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, an alert system managed by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration to detect possible safety issues in vaccines, as evidence that the approved COVID-19 vaccines cause deaths and serious events.

Take this Instagram video, seen by over 36,000 users. In the video, a female narrator walks viewers through the VAERS website and shows them how to find adverse reactions reported to the database after people received the COVID-19 vaccines. “Acute myocardial infarction. That is a stroke, if you guys aren’t aware of what that means,” she says incorrectly at the 2:30 mark, as she scrolls down through the results. A myocardial infarction is a heart attack. And a couple of minutes later: “Death. And here we are y’all — this is exactly what you guys wanted to see. Death. Patient passed away in her sleep. Look at all these deaths you guys,” the narrator says scrolling down through dozens of death reports. “Do your own research,” writes the account owner on the post, a man under the name “Truth Bombs,” who in a second similar post says he’s not a scientist or a doctor but a concerned father, patriot and digital soldier. “There are very serious side effect from getting the vaccines. Here’s your PROOF.” Except, as the VAERS website warns, any report submitted to the database “is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.”

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

"I did my own research"

Yes, in rare cases, adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines, like the Johnson & Johnson (J&J/Janssen) vaccine, have been linked to a rare but serious blood clotting condition known as Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS).
Important points to understand:

• Rarity: The occurrence of TTS following these vaccines is extremely rare. For instance, after millions of doses of the J&J vaccine administered in the U.S., a very small number of cases were reported.
• Specific Vaccine Type: This risk has primarily been associated with adenovirus-vector vaccines, such as the J&J/Janssen and AstraZeneca vaccines. The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines have not been linked to blood clots in this way.
• Mechanism: TTS involves blood clots in combination with low platelet counts. This is a distinct and unusual type of blood clotting.
• CDC Recommendations: Due to this rare risk, the CDC updated its recommendations to prefer the use of mRNA vaccines over the J&J vaccine when possible.
• COVID-19 vs. Vaccine Risk: It's important to remember that the risk of blood clots is significantly higher from a COVID-19 infection than it is from vaccination. Vaccination provides protection against the virus and its associated complications, including blood clots.
• Recognizing Symptoms: If someone receives the J&J vaccine and experiences symptoms such as severe headache, blurred vision, shortness of breath, chest pain, leg swelling, persistent abdominal pain, or easy bruising, they should seek immediate medical attention.

In summary, while a rare association between adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines and TTS has been identified, it's crucial to understand the extremely low risk and that vaccination provides significantly greater protection against severe illness and related complications like blood clots caused by COVID-19 infection itself.

That's your choice. Some chose to take their chances they wouldn't get Covid or that their immune system would work against Covid instead of risk something like a blood clot. Everyone should be free to make the choice they want for themselves.

1. If you read, blood clots are more likely a result OF Covid and less likely the result of the vaccine.
2. No one is making you get the shot (anymore). You may have disagreed with the mandate during the actual pandemic and I suppose we can disagree on that, but no one is making you take it now.
3. For other, more "tested" vaccines, MMR, for example no one is making anyone take it (but they are required for participation in some thing, which I agree are merited). And recent measles outbreaks are a good reason people should continue to take them.

I can read thank you

 

[warpig33]

Interesting study published by the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science (IJIRMS).

View of Association Between COVID-19 Vaccination and Neuropsychiatric Conditions

ijirms.in

Abstract
Introduction: This study explores the potential associations between COVID-19 vaccination and neuropsychiatric conditions.
Methods: Data were collected from the CDC and FDA. The VAERS database was queried from January 1, 1990, to December 27, 2024, for adverse events (AEs) involving neuropsychiatric complications following COVID-19 vaccination. The timeframe included 420 months for all vaccines except COVID-19 vaccines which have been available to the public for only 48 months. Proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) were calculated by time comparing AEs after COVID-19 vaccination to those after influenza vaccination and to those after all other vaccines. The CDC/FDA stipulates a safety concern if a PRR is ≥ 2.

Results: Comparing COVID-19 vaccination to influenza vaccinations, the CDC/FDA’s safety signals (PRR, 95% confidence interval, p-value, Z-score) were breached for the following combinations: 47 AEs associated with cognitive impairment (PRR: 118, 95% CI: 87.2-160, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.9); 28 AEs associated with general psychiatric illness (PRR: 115, 95% CI: 85.1-156, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.8); and 11 AEs associated with suicide/homicide (PRR: 80.1, 95% CI: 57.3-112, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 25.7)
Conclusions: There are alarming safety signals regarding neuropsychiatric conditions following COVID-19 vaccination, compared to the influenza vaccinations and to all other vaccinations combined.

The only thing interesting about that “study” Is how people still bite the stinky bait that is VAERS misuse as a backbone of a poorly structured “study”

The study used the government's own data to show the CDC/FDA's own "red flag" criteria was crossed. Yet here we still are pretending like all risks are too minimal to care about. It deserved a closer look or potentially a pause in vaccination.

The FDA just reviewed the myocarditis risk associated with the vaccine and are making the manufacturers post updated warning labels for 12-24 year old males. Once the data (not vears) was stratified for age it showed that demographic is at an elevated risk. Sadly before this change the data (risk) was lumped into everyone 0-64 years old which made it appear to be less of a risk than it actually was to certain groups.

Part of the reason the US is changing its vaccine strategy. We have a better understanding of risk vs benefit.

If you view VAERS as some sort of official government data, you’re making it clear from jump that you don’t belong in this conversation.

Just stop. Seriously.

Some thoughts from Grok because this doesn’t even merit me taking the time to craft a response.

First off, the claim that a study used “the government’s own data” from VAERS to show that the CDC/FDA’s “red flag” criteria was crossed needs some scrutiny. VAERS, or the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, is a passive surveillance system where anyone—doctors, patients, or even random folks—can report adverse events after vaccination. It’s a valuable tool for detecting potential signals, but it’s not designed to prove causation. The data is raw and unverified, meaning reports aren’t necessarily confirmed as being caused by the vaccine. So, when someone says VAERS data shows a “red flag” was crossed, it’s often a misrepresentation of what VAERS can actually tell us.

Studies or claims relying solely on VAERS without further validation (like clinical studies or epidemiological analysis) are on shaky ground. The CDC and FDA don’t base their “red flag” criteria on unverified VAERS reports alone—they use multiple data sources, including active surveillance systems like V-safe and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, to assess risks.

Now, about the idea that risks are being downplayed or ignored, leading to calls for a “pause in vaccination”—this doesn’t hold up when you look at the broader evidence. Vaccine safety monitoring is ongoing and rigorous. When signals of potential issues arise, they’re investigated thoroughly.

Take myocarditis, for instance, which you mentioned. The FDA and CDC did identify a rare but elevated risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in younger males (12-24 years old) after mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna. This isn’t something that was swept under the rug. Studies, including those published in journals like *JAMA* and *The Lancet*, have quantified this risk, showing it’s higher in that demographic but still very rare—on the order of about 40-70 cases per million doses in young males, depending on the study. Compare that to the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 itself, which is significantly higher, often by a factor of 5-10, even in the same age group. The benefit of vaccination in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and long COVID still outweighs this rare risk for most people, which is why vaccination hasn’t been paused but rather tailored with updated guidance.

You’re right that the FDA has updated warning labels for myocarditis risk in that 12-24 age group, and that’s a good example of the system working. When data showed a clearer picture after stratifying by age, agencies acted by updating labels and informing healthcare providers to monitor for symptoms like chest pain post-vaccination.

The claim that risks were “lumped” into a 0-64 age group to downplay them isn’t accurate, though. Risk assessments have always involved breaking down data by demographics when possible, and early on, the signal for myocarditis in younger males was identified precisely because of this stratification. It wasn’t hidden; it just took time to gather enough data for statistical significance. Public health communication sometimes lags behind the science as they balance clarity with avoiding unnecessary panic, but the data wasn’t manipulated or obscured.

As for the US changing its vaccine strategy due to a better understanding of risk versus benefit, that’s partially true but not in the way the anti-vax take might imply. Strategies evolve as we learn more about who’s most at risk from COVID-19 and who benefits most from vaccination. For example, booster recommendations have been refined to prioritize older adults and immunocompromised individuals over younger, healthy people in some cases, because the risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 is much higher in those groups.

This isn’t about vaccines being “too risky” overall; it’s about optimizing public health resources and tailoring recommendations. The myocarditis risk, while real, hasn’t led to a wholesale rejection of vaccines in younger groups—rather, it’s led to informed consent and monitoring protocols.

The bottom line is that the anti-vax narrative around VAERS often overstates the data’s implications while ignoring the broader context of vaccine safety monitoring and the overwhelming evidence of benefit over risk. VAERS is a starting point for investigation, not a conclusion.

I gotta admit I just popped in here. But seeing someone use Grok as a reference makes me chuckle. An AI platform that can be manipulated and "force fed" by its developers. I feel sorry for the younger generation and their AI fascination. "Hey Grok, do my job for me".

Carry on...

 

[[icon]]

Interesting study published by the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science (IJIRMS).

View of Association Between COVID-19 Vaccination and Neuropsychiatric Conditions

ijirms.in

Abstract
Introduction: This study explores the potential associations between COVID-19 vaccination and neuropsychiatric conditions.
Methods: Data were collected from the CDC and FDA. The VAERS database was queried from January 1, 1990, to December 27, 2024, for adverse events (AEs) involving neuropsychiatric complications following COVID-19 vaccination. The timeframe included 420 months for all vaccines except COVID-19 vaccines which have been available to the public for only 48 months. Proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) were calculated by time comparing AEs after COVID-19 vaccination to those after influenza vaccination and to those after all other vaccines. The CDC/FDA stipulates a safety concern if a PRR is ≥ 2.

Results: Comparing COVID-19 vaccination to influenza vaccinations, the CDC/FDA’s safety signals (PRR, 95% confidence interval, p-value, Z-score) were breached for the following combinations: 47 AEs associated with cognitive impairment (PRR: 118, 95% CI: 87.2-160, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.9); 28 AEs associated with general psychiatric illness (PRR: 115, 95% CI: 85.1-156, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.8); and 11 AEs associated with suicide/homicide (PRR: 80.1, 95% CI: 57.3-112, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 25.7)
Conclusions: There are alarming safety signals regarding neuropsychiatric conditions following COVID-19 vaccination, compared to the influenza vaccinations and to all other vaccinations combined.

The only thing interesting about that “study” Is how people still bite the stinky bait that is VAERS misuse as a backbone of a poorly structured “study”

The study used the government's own data to show the CDC/FDA's own "red flag" criteria was crossed. Yet here we still are pretending like all risks are too minimal to care about. It deserved a closer look or potentially a pause in vaccination.

The FDA just reviewed the myocarditis risk associated with the vaccine and are making the manufacturers post updated warning labels for 12-24 year old males. Once the data (not vears) was stratified for age it showed that demographic is at an elevated risk. Sadly before this change the data (risk) was lumped into everyone 0-64 years old which made it appear to be less of a risk than it actually was to certain groups.

Part of the reason the US is changing its vaccine strategy. We have a better understanding of risk vs benefit.

If you view VAERS as some sort of official government data, you’re making it clear from jump that you don’t belong in this conversation.

Just stop. Seriously.

Some thoughts from Grok because this doesn’t even merit me taking the time to craft a response.

First off, the claim that a study used “the government’s own data” from VAERS to show that the CDC/FDA’s “red flag” criteria was crossed needs some scrutiny. VAERS, or the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, is a passive surveillance system where anyone—doctors, patients, or even random folks—can report adverse events after vaccination. It’s a valuable tool for detecting potential signals, but it’s not designed to prove causation. The data is raw and unverified, meaning reports aren’t necessarily confirmed as being caused by the vaccine. So, when someone says VAERS data shows a “red flag” was crossed, it’s often a misrepresentation of what VAERS can actually tell us.

Studies or claims relying solely on VAERS without further validation (like clinical studies or epidemiological analysis) are on shaky ground. The CDC and FDA don’t base their “red flag” criteria on unverified VAERS reports alone—they use multiple data sources, including active surveillance systems like V-safe and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, to assess risks.

Now, about the idea that risks are being downplayed or ignored, leading to calls for a “pause in vaccination”—this doesn’t hold up when you look at the broader evidence. Vaccine safety monitoring is ongoing and rigorous. When signals of potential issues arise, they’re investigated thoroughly.

Take myocarditis, for instance, which you mentioned. The FDA and CDC did identify a rare but elevated risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in younger males (12-24 years old) after mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna. This isn’t something that was swept under the rug. Studies, including those published in journals like *JAMA* and *The Lancet*, have quantified this risk, showing it’s higher in that demographic but still very rare—on the order of about 40-70 cases per million doses in young males, depending on the study. Compare that to the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 itself, which is significantly higher, often by a factor of 5-10, even in the same age group. The benefit of vaccination in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and long COVID still outweighs this rare risk for most people, which is why vaccination hasn’t been paused but rather tailored with updated guidance.

You’re right that the FDA has updated warning labels for myocarditis risk in that 12-24 age group, and that’s a good example of the system working. When data showed a clearer picture after stratifying by age, agencies acted by updating labels and informing healthcare providers to monitor for symptoms like chest pain post-vaccination.

The claim that risks were “lumped” into a 0-64 age group to downplay them isn’t accurate, though. Risk assessments have always involved breaking down data by demographics when possible, and early on, the signal for myocarditis in younger males was identified precisely because of this stratification. It wasn’t hidden; it just took time to gather enough data for statistical significance. Public health communication sometimes lags behind the science as they balance clarity with avoiding unnecessary panic, but the data wasn’t manipulated or obscured.

As for the US changing its vaccine strategy due to a better understanding of risk versus benefit, that’s partially true but not in the way the anti-vax take might imply. Strategies evolve as we learn more about who’s most at risk from COVID-19 and who benefits most from vaccination. For example, booster recommendations have been refined to prioritize older adults and immunocompromised individuals over younger, healthy people in some cases, because the risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 is much higher in those groups.

This isn’t about vaccines being “too risky” overall; it’s about optimizing public health resources and tailoring recommendations. The myocarditis risk, while real, hasn’t led to a wholesale rejection of vaccines in younger groups—rather, it’s led to informed consent and monitoring protocols.

The bottom line is that the anti-vax narrative around VAERS often overstates the data’s implications while ignoring the broader context of vaccine safety monitoring and the overwhelming evidence of benefit over risk. VAERS is a starting point for investigation, not a conclusion.

I gotta admit I just popped in here. But seeing someone use Grok as a reference makes me chuckle. An AI platform that can be manipulated and "force fed" by its developers. I feel sorry for the younger generation and their AI fascination. "Hey Grok, do my job for me".

Carry on...

Using AI blindly when things deserve a researched and personalized response is indeed bad.

When someone is parroting a long since disproven narrative, that does not deserve the time required to craft a response.

In those situations, an AI response covering a very well understood bit of misinformation is sufficient.

Unless you take issue with anything Grok said. If so by all means feel free to share your correction and source,

 

[[icon]]

Interesting study published by the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science (IJIRMS).

View of Association Between COVID-19 Vaccination and Neuropsychiatric Conditions

ijirms.in

Abstract
Introduction: This study explores the potential associations between COVID-19 vaccination and neuropsychiatric conditions.
Methods: Data were collected from the CDC and FDA. The VAERS database was queried from January 1, 1990, to December 27, 2024, for adverse events (AEs) involving neuropsychiatric complications following COVID-19 vaccination. The timeframe included 420 months for all vaccines except COVID-19 vaccines which have been available to the public for only 48 months. Proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) were calculated by time comparing AEs after COVID-19 vaccination to those after influenza vaccination and to those after all other vaccines. The CDC/FDA stipulates a safety concern if a PRR is ≥ 2.

Results: Comparing COVID-19 vaccination to influenza vaccinations, the CDC/FDA’s safety signals (PRR, 95% confidence interval, p-value, Z-score) were breached for the following combinations: 47 AEs associated with cognitive impairment (PRR: 118, 95% CI: 87.2-160, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.9); 28 AEs associated with general psychiatric illness (PRR: 115, 95% CI: 85.1-156, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.8); and 11 AEs associated with suicide/homicide (PRR: 80.1, 95% CI: 57.3-112, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 25.7)
Conclusions: There are alarming safety signals regarding neuropsychiatric conditions following COVID-19 vaccination, compared to the influenza vaccinations and to all other vaccinations combined.

The only thing interesting about that “study” Is how people still bite the stinky bait that is VAERS misuse as a backbone of a poorly structured “study”

The study used the government's own data to show the CDC/FDA's own "red flag" criteria was crossed. Yet here we still are pretending like all risks are too minimal to care about. It deserved a closer look or potentially a pause in vaccination.

The FDA just reviewed the myocarditis risk associated with the vaccine and are making the manufacturers post updated warning labels for 12-24 year old males. Once the data (not vears) was stratified for age it showed that demographic is at an elevated risk. Sadly before this change the data (risk) was lumped into everyone 0-64 years old which made it appear to be less of a risk than it actually was to certain groups.

Part of the reason the US is changing its vaccine strategy. We have a better understanding of risk vs benefit.

If you view VAERS as some sort of official government data, you’re making it clear from jump that you don’t belong in this conversation.

Just stop. Seriously.

Some thoughts from Grok because this doesn’t even merit me taking the time to craft a response.

First off, the claim that a study used “the government’s own data” from VAERS to show that the CDC/FDA’s “red flag” criteria was crossed needs some scrutiny. VAERS, or the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, is a passive surveillance system where anyone—doctors, patients, or even random folks—can report adverse events after vaccination. It’s a valuable tool for detecting potential signals, but it’s not designed to prove causation. The data is raw and unverified, meaning reports aren’t necessarily confirmed as being caused by the vaccine. So, when someone says VAERS data shows a “red flag” was crossed, it’s often a misrepresentation of what VAERS can actually tell us.

Studies or claims relying solely on VAERS without further validation (like clinical studies or epidemiological analysis) are on shaky ground. The CDC and FDA don’t base their “red flag” criteria on unverified VAERS reports alone—they use multiple data sources, including active surveillance systems like V-safe and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, to assess risks.

Now, about the idea that risks are being downplayed or ignored, leading to calls for a “pause in vaccination”—this doesn’t hold up when you look at the broader evidence. Vaccine safety monitoring is ongoing and rigorous. When signals of potential issues arise, they’re investigated thoroughly.

Take myocarditis, for instance, which you mentioned. The FDA and CDC did identify a rare but elevated risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in younger males (12-24 years old) after mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna. This isn’t something that was swept under the rug. Studies, including those published in journals like *JAMA* and *The Lancet*, have quantified this risk, showing it’s higher in that demographic but still very rare—on the order of about 40-70 cases per million doses in young males, depending on the study. Compare that to the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 itself, which is significantly higher, often by a factor of 5-10, even in the same age group. The benefit of vaccination in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and long COVID still outweighs this rare risk for most people, which is why vaccination hasn’t been paused but rather tailored with updated guidance.

You’re right that the FDA has updated warning labels for myocarditis risk in that 12-24 age group, and that’s a good example of the system working. When data showed a clearer picture after stratifying by age, agencies acted by updating labels and informing healthcare providers to monitor for symptoms like chest pain post-vaccination.

The claim that risks were “lumped” into a 0-64 age group to downplay them isn’t accurate, though. Risk assessments have always involved breaking down data by demographics when possible, and early on, the signal for myocarditis in younger males was identified precisely because of this stratification. It wasn’t hidden; it just took time to gather enough data for statistical significance. Public health communication sometimes lags behind the science as they balance clarity with avoiding unnecessary panic, but the data wasn’t manipulated or obscured.

As for the US changing its vaccine strategy due to a better understanding of risk versus benefit, that’s partially true but not in the way the anti-vax take might imply. Strategies evolve as we learn more about who’s most at risk from COVID-19 and who benefits most from vaccination. For example, booster recommendations have been refined to prioritize older adults and immunocompromised individuals over younger, healthy people in some cases, because the risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 is much higher in those groups.

This isn’t about vaccines being “too risky” overall; it’s about optimizing public health resources and tailoring recommendations. The myocarditis risk, while real, hasn’t led to a wholesale rejection of vaccines in younger groups—rather, it’s led to informed consent and monitoring protocols.

The bottom line is that the anti-vax narrative around VAERS often overstates the data’s implications while ignoring the broader context of vaccine safety monitoring and the overwhelming evidence of benefit over risk. VAERS is a starting point for investigation, not a conclusion.

VAERS is the CDC's approved method to monitor safety signals. How is that not a government database?

Again, you continue to show you don’t understand what VAERS is.

It was explained thoroughly in the Grok quote I shared if you’d ACTUALLY like an answer to your question as to why you’re using the data incorrectly.

 

[Max Power]

Interesting study published by the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science (IJIRMS).

View of Association Between COVID-19 Vaccination and Neuropsychiatric Conditions

ijirms.in

Abstract
Introduction: This study explores the potential associations between COVID-19 vaccination and neuropsychiatric conditions.
Methods: Data were collected from the CDC and FDA. The VAERS database was queried from January 1, 1990, to December 27, 2024, for adverse events (AEs) involving neuropsychiatric complications following COVID-19 vaccination. The timeframe included 420 months for all vaccines except COVID-19 vaccines which have been available to the public for only 48 months. Proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) were calculated by time comparing AEs after COVID-19 vaccination to those after influenza vaccination and to those after all other vaccines. The CDC/FDA stipulates a safety concern if a PRR is ≥ 2.

Results: Comparing COVID-19 vaccination to influenza vaccinations, the CDC/FDA’s safety signals (PRR, 95% confidence interval, p-value, Z-score) were breached for the following combinations: 47 AEs associated with cognitive impairment (PRR: 118, 95% CI: 87.2-160, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.9); 28 AEs associated with general psychiatric illness (PRR: 115, 95% CI: 85.1-156, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.8); and 11 AEs associated with suicide/homicide (PRR: 80.1, 95% CI: 57.3-112, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 25.7)
Conclusions: There are alarming safety signals regarding neuropsychiatric conditions following COVID-19 vaccination, compared to the influenza vaccinations and to all other vaccinations combined.

The only thing interesting about that “study” Is how people still bite the stinky bait that is VAERS misuse as a backbone of a poorly structured “study”

The study used the government's own data to show the CDC/FDA's own "red flag" criteria was crossed. Yet here we still are pretending like all risks are too minimal to care about. It deserved a closer look or potentially a pause in vaccination.

The FDA just reviewed the myocarditis risk associated with the vaccine and are making the manufacturers post updated warning labels for 12-24 year old males. Once the data (not vears) was stratified for age it showed that demographic is at an elevated risk. Sadly before this change the data (risk) was lumped into everyone 0-64 years old which made it appear to be less of a risk than it actually was to certain groups.

Part of the reason the US is changing its vaccine strategy. We have a better understanding of risk vs benefit.

If you view VAERS as some sort of official government data, you’re making it clear from jump that you don’t belong in this conversation.

Just stop. Seriously.

Some thoughts from Grok because this doesn’t even merit me taking the time to craft a response.

First off, the claim that a study used “the government’s own data” from VAERS to show that the CDC/FDA’s “red flag” criteria was crossed needs some scrutiny. VAERS, or the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, is a passive surveillance system where anyone—doctors, patients, or even random folks—can report adverse events after vaccination. It’s a valuable tool for detecting potential signals, but it’s not designed to prove causation. The data is raw and unverified, meaning reports aren’t necessarily confirmed as being caused by the vaccine. So, when someone says VAERS data shows a “red flag” was crossed, it’s often a misrepresentation of what VAERS can actually tell us.

Studies or claims relying solely on VAERS without further validation (like clinical studies or epidemiological analysis) are on shaky ground. The CDC and FDA don’t base their “red flag” criteria on unverified VAERS reports alone—they use multiple data sources, including active surveillance systems like V-safe and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, to assess risks.

Now, about the idea that risks are being downplayed or ignored, leading to calls for a “pause in vaccination”—this doesn’t hold up when you look at the broader evidence. Vaccine safety monitoring is ongoing and rigorous. When signals of potential issues arise, they’re investigated thoroughly.

Take myocarditis, for instance, which you mentioned. The FDA and CDC did identify a rare but elevated risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in younger males (12-24 years old) after mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna. This isn’t something that was swept under the rug. Studies, including those published in journals like *JAMA* and *The Lancet*, have quantified this risk, showing it’s higher in that demographic but still very rare—on the order of about 40-70 cases per million doses in young males, depending on the study. Compare that to the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 itself, which is significantly higher, often by a factor of 5-10, even in the same age group. The benefit of vaccination in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and long COVID still outweighs this rare risk for most people, which is why vaccination hasn’t been paused but rather tailored with updated guidance.

You’re right that the FDA has updated warning labels for myocarditis risk in that 12-24 age group, and that’s a good example of the system working. When data showed a clearer picture after stratifying by age, agencies acted by updating labels and informing healthcare providers to monitor for symptoms like chest pain post-vaccination.

The claim that risks were “lumped” into a 0-64 age group to downplay them isn’t accurate, though. Risk assessments have always involved breaking down data by demographics when possible, and early on, the signal for myocarditis in younger males was identified precisely because of this stratification. It wasn’t hidden; it just took time to gather enough data for statistical significance. Public health communication sometimes lags behind the science as they balance clarity with avoiding unnecessary panic, but the data wasn’t manipulated or obscured.

As for the US changing its vaccine strategy due to a better understanding of risk versus benefit, that’s partially true but not in the way the anti-vax take might imply. Strategies evolve as we learn more about who’s most at risk from COVID-19 and who benefits most from vaccination. For example, booster recommendations have been refined to prioritize older adults and immunocompromised individuals over younger, healthy people in some cases, because the risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 is much higher in those groups.

This isn’t about vaccines being “too risky” overall; it’s about optimizing public health resources and tailoring recommendations. The myocarditis risk, while real, hasn’t led to a wholesale rejection of vaccines in younger groups—rather, it’s led to informed consent and monitoring protocols.

The bottom line is that the anti-vax narrative around VAERS often overstates the data’s implications while ignoring the broader context of vaccine safety monitoring and the overwhelming evidence of benefit over risk. VAERS is a starting point for investigation, not a conclusion.

VAERS is the CDC's approved method to monitor safety signals. How is that not a government database?

Again, you continue to show you don’t understand what VAERS is.

It was explained thoroughly in the Grok quote I shared if you’d ACTUALLY like an answer to your question.

No I get it. It's the CDCs primary tool (by choice) to monitor for vaccine safety signals. It's managed by the CDC and FDA on a .gov database. Aka government data.

 

[dkp993]

This thread is the epitome of what I have termed "Roganing"

On Joe Rogan's podcast he platforms "opposing viewpoints" out of a nod to "fairness"

But then he platforms a flat earther next to Neil DeGrasse Tyson and gives each equal credence. It is a true false equivalency and it ends up lending credibility to a many-times-over debunked "theory."

Its how we get a US Secretary of Health and Human Services that *still* believes vaccines cause autism, even though its been debunked over and over.

If we can't call out conspiracy theories for what they are, then we can't have a discussion either.

Feel free to delete this if deemed too political.

So instead of a place where ideas can be discussed openly and allowing the listener to decide what they want to believe you would rather Podcasters independently decide to be the arbiters of truth and not allow people on their shows who might have viewpoints that differ or be considered “conspiracies”?

Well, I’m sure that will work out fantastically and not create a bubble environment at all.

 

[[icon]]

Interesting study published by the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science (IJIRMS).

View of Association Between COVID-19 Vaccination and Neuropsychiatric Conditions

ijirms.in

Abstract
Introduction: This study explores the potential associations between COVID-19 vaccination and neuropsychiatric conditions.
Methods: Data were collected from the CDC and FDA. The VAERS database was queried from January 1, 1990, to December 27, 2024, for adverse events (AEs) involving neuropsychiatric complications following COVID-19 vaccination. The timeframe included 420 months for all vaccines except COVID-19 vaccines which have been available to the public for only 48 months. Proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) were calculated by time comparing AEs after COVID-19 vaccination to those after influenza vaccination and to those after all other vaccines. The CDC/FDA stipulates a safety concern if a PRR is ≥ 2.

Results: Comparing COVID-19 vaccination to influenza vaccinations, the CDC/FDA’s safety signals (PRR, 95% confidence interval, p-value, Z-score) were breached for the following combinations: 47 AEs associated with cognitive impairment (PRR: 118, 95% CI: 87.2-160, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.9); 28 AEs associated with general psychiatric illness (PRR: 115, 95% CI: 85.1-156, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.8); and 11 AEs associated with suicide/homicide (PRR: 80.1, 95% CI: 57.3-112, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 25.7)
Conclusions: There are alarming safety signals regarding neuropsychiatric conditions following COVID-19 vaccination, compared to the influenza vaccinations and to all other vaccinations combined.

The only thing interesting about that “study” Is how people still bite the stinky bait that is VAERS misuse as a backbone of a poorly structured “study”

The study used the government's own data to show the CDC/FDA's own "red flag" criteria was crossed. Yet here we still are pretending like all risks are too minimal to care about. It deserved a closer look or potentially a pause in vaccination.

The FDA just reviewed the myocarditis risk associated with the vaccine and are making the manufacturers post updated warning labels for 12-24 year old males. Once the data (not vears) was stratified for age it showed that demographic is at an elevated risk. Sadly before this change the data (risk) was lumped into everyone 0-64 years old which made it appear to be less of a risk than it actually was to certain groups.

Part of the reason the US is changing its vaccine strategy. We have a better understanding of risk vs benefit.

If you view VAERS as some sort of official government data, you’re making it clear from jump that you don’t belong in this conversation.

Just stop. Seriously.

Some thoughts from Grok because this doesn’t even merit me taking the time to craft a response.

First off, the claim that a study used “the government’s own data” from VAERS to show that the CDC/FDA’s “red flag” criteria was crossed needs some scrutiny. VAERS, or the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, is a passive surveillance system where anyone—doctors, patients, or even random folks—can report adverse events after vaccination. It’s a valuable tool for detecting potential signals, but it’s not designed to prove causation. The data is raw and unverified, meaning reports aren’t necessarily confirmed as being caused by the vaccine. So, when someone says VAERS data shows a “red flag” was crossed, it’s often a misrepresentation of what VAERS can actually tell us.

Studies or claims relying solely on VAERS without further validation (like clinical studies or epidemiological analysis) are on shaky ground. The CDC and FDA don’t base their “red flag” criteria on unverified VAERS reports alone—they use multiple data sources, including active surveillance systems like V-safe and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, to assess risks.

Now, about the idea that risks are being downplayed or ignored, leading to calls for a “pause in vaccination”—this doesn’t hold up when you look at the broader evidence. Vaccine safety monitoring is ongoing and rigorous. When signals of potential issues arise, they’re investigated thoroughly.

Take myocarditis, for instance, which you mentioned. The FDA and CDC did identify a rare but elevated risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in younger males (12-24 years old) after mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna. This isn’t something that was swept under the rug. Studies, including those published in journals like *JAMA* and *The Lancet*, have quantified this risk, showing it’s higher in that demographic but still very rare—on the order of about 40-70 cases per million doses in young males, depending on the study. Compare that to the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 itself, which is significantly higher, often by a factor of 5-10, even in the same age group. The benefit of vaccination in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and long COVID still outweighs this rare risk for most people, which is why vaccination hasn’t been paused but rather tailored with updated guidance.

You’re right that the FDA has updated warning labels for myocarditis risk in that 12-24 age group, and that’s a good example of the system working. When data showed a clearer picture after stratifying by age, agencies acted by updating labels and informing healthcare providers to monitor for symptoms like chest pain post-vaccination.

The claim that risks were “lumped” into a 0-64 age group to downplay them isn’t accurate, though. Risk assessments have always involved breaking down data by demographics when possible, and early on, the signal for myocarditis in younger males was identified precisely because of this stratification. It wasn’t hidden; it just took time to gather enough data for statistical significance. Public health communication sometimes lags behind the science as they balance clarity with avoiding unnecessary panic, but the data wasn’t manipulated or obscured.

As for the US changing its vaccine strategy due to a better understanding of risk versus benefit, that’s partially true but not in the way the anti-vax take might imply. Strategies evolve as we learn more about who’s most at risk from COVID-19 and who benefits most from vaccination. For example, booster recommendations have been refined to prioritize older adults and immunocompromised individuals over younger, healthy people in some cases, because the risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 is much higher in those groups.

This isn’t about vaccines being “too risky” overall; it’s about optimizing public health resources and tailoring recommendations. The myocarditis risk, while real, hasn’t led to a wholesale rejection of vaccines in younger groups—rather, it’s led to informed consent and monitoring protocols.

The bottom line is that the anti-vax narrative around VAERS often overstates the data’s implications while ignoring the broader context of vaccine safety monitoring and the overwhelming evidence of benefit over risk. VAERS is a starting point for investigation, not a conclusion.

VAERS is the CDC's approved method to monitor safety signals. How is that not a government database?

Again, you continue to show you don’t understand what VAERS is.

It was explained thoroughly in the Grok quote I shared if you’d ACTUALLY like an answer to your question.

No I get it. It's the CDCs primary tool (by choice) to monitor for vaccine safety signals. It's managed by the CDC and FDA on a .gov database. Aka government data.

Sigh…

 

[Scoresman]

This thread is the epitome of what I have termed "Roganing"

On Joe Rogan's podcast he platforms "opposing viewpoints" out of a nod to "fairness"

But then he platforms a flat earther next to Neil DeGrasse Tyson and gives each equal credence. It is a true false equivalency and it ends up lending credibility to a many-times-over debunked "theory."

Its how we get a US Secretary of Health and Human Services that *still* believes vaccines cause autism, even though its been debunked over and over.

If we can't call out conspiracy theories for what they are, then we can't have a discussion either.

Feel free to delete this if deemed too political.

So instead of a place where ideas can be discussed openly and allowing the listener to decide what they want to believe you would rather Podcasters independently decide to be the arbiters of truth and not allow people on their shows who might have viewpoints that differ or be considered “conspiracies”?

Well, I’m sure that will work out fantastically and not create a bubble environment at all.

When something that has been debunked many times over like 'flat earth' or 'vaccines cause autism' is still invited to the table as a plausible point of debate, then yeah I do have a problem with that. It's blatant misinformation.

This is not the same thing as discussing ideas openly.