@nanook i was going to make this argument because flu shots are taken yearly, flu shots are cycled yearly, and it doesn't look like any flu shots have single handedly created anomalies in the graph in the past ten years, but i just figured it'd be told i'm stupid because "well see the tyrannical forcing of this one is *obviously* why so you're an idiot quinn."
@freemo @Pat @meowski @sergeantcat
@freemo @Pat @meowski @sergeantcat
🇳🇱
Are you seriously going to just ignore the fact that Flu shots do not require VARES reporting on AE events whereas COVID vaccine shots DO require doctors to report events even if the doctor knows it to be unrelated? You dont think that would have a significant effect on the numbers huh?
@freemo the fda inserts for flu shots still carry the same tags about vaers having a fuzz factor.
i'm not actually sure why vaers exists because the exact same arguments you people are using now have always been used whenever someone tries to cite anything from it, which makes you wonder why we bother keeping it around if not to watch for when anomalies occur in it
@meowski @nanook @sergeantcat @Pat
i'm not actually sure why vaers exists because the exact same arguments you people are using now have always been used whenever someone tries to cite anything from it, which makes you wonder why we bother keeping it around if not to watch for when anomalies occur in it
@meowski @nanook @sergeantcat @Pat
Follow
Of course there is a fuzz factor.. No the presence of a fuzz factor doesn't invalidate it, yes citing data based on VARES is fine... **if** you know enough about statistics to actually **normalize** the data.. What you cant do is just take a raw number without normalization and expect it to mean something.
