@nanook no the goal post move is to say that vaers doesn't "count" because reasons. just like the heart and platelet issues didn't count because it's basically impossible to get vaxxers to accept anything as a reaction. i'm not sure how they even got myocardia on that list.

@Pat @freemo @sergeantcat

@icedquinn

Of course VARES counts. What you cant do is just say "hey look I added a all the numbers in this column and got this big number"... THAT is meaningless. If you want to infer things from VARES you need a based understanding of statistics to know how to pick out meaningful patterns. It isnt as simple as adding.

@nanook @sergeantcat @Pat

@freemo @nanook @sergeantcat @Pat

> vaccines are safe
> look at this database we made to prove how little incidents there are
> look at this yearly average
> now stop looking at the database because one of the columns has just exploded and its solely due to one newly approved thing
> quinn you just don't understand statistics

@icedquinn @freemo @Pat @nanook @sergeantcat
>multiply VAERS numbers by approximately 100 because less than 1% of cases get reported

@meowski

Meaningless in this case since you'd also have to multiple the other past vaccines by a similar number and thus would not cause any difference int he normalization.

@icedquinn @sergeantcat @Pat @nanook

@freemo @icedquinn @sergeantcat @Pat @nanook yes, also do mutiply those numbers by 100 because the stonewalling and denial of the VAERS reporting system is not a new thing.

probable exception to this is the anaphylaxis due to it being fairly hard to deny when someone immediately has an allergic reaction

here you go with this slimy shilling for no good reason again. it's like you psychologically just have to jump in and deboonk even when there's nothing to gain from it. indoctrination at its finest

@meowski

No your missing the point. VARES derived absolute numbers arent really all that important. We care about how it compares to the background rates. The rate for a known safe vaccine compared to the rate for a new vaccine. As long as their prevalence for reporting is similar then the absolute real world values arent needed.

@icedquinn @sergeantcat @Pat @nanook

@freemo @icedquinn @sergeantcat @Pat @nanook
no, really the correct absolute numbers are imoortant. you're going to see higher numbers in relation to otyher vaccines because more people have taken this vaccine. we need correct absolute numbers to understand the rate of adverse reactions

@meowski

Absolute numbers are important, but you wont get it from VARES. For that you need double-blind random samples.

Yes you will see higher numbers from this vaccine purely because more people have taken in.. That isnt a problem though, simple normalization adjusts for that. You normalize it to a rate and that becomes a non-issue.

@icedquinn @sergeantcat @Pat @nanook