The vaccines are obviously safe, but can someone explain 2021 data from openvaers?
Or maybe we should ignore data in the interest of science.
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2021
-3 points (36.4% liked)
COVID-19 Pandemic
984 readers
1 users here now
Any news or discussion around the pandemic. Anti-vaccination posts and comments will be removed, as well as personal attacks.
Relevant:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The amount of spoonfeeding you need is an anomaly in itself. Here, definition of the word from :
a·nom·a·ly (ə-nŏm′ə-lē)
n. pl. a·nom·a·lies
Now check the graph again.
They obviously are a bad faith actor, so many replies and they weren't even willing to make a proper claim.
Ok I thought so, but wanted to say it for others who will read this :D
So you are here not to discuss the data but to do your prejudiced advocacy of vaccines, regardless of what your actual findings are. How are your own actions, not in bad faith?
Your claim that there is no anomaly amounts to claiming that the data of 2021 is in line with other data in the chart. Even a 13 year old can see that that is not the case just by looking at the chart.
I even posted dictionary definition of the word anomaly, but it seems many have lost the ability to understand from that and somehow faith becomes the central issue.
Is medical science a religion now?
Is that all you need me to chant or some chants of "praise the lord" will also be needed after this?
The claim is simple enough : there is a chart summarizing some data where one value doesn't fit the pattern. An anomaly. The reason for its existence is sought.
I agree with you that the issue is with faith. A rational mind wouldn't jump so many hoops to deny the existence of anomaly as some of the folks here.
EDIT : slight altering of sentences for clarity; fixed typos.
I'd like to see just one "rebuttal" that makes sense or even rationally holds together.
I am yet to prove anything either way, and this must have been clear to anyone interacting in good faith. I could even refer you to dictionary definition of proof, but your capacity to benefit from that exercise is questionable.
You keep on saying "flawed data." "Flawed data." Like it will magically make things good.
VAERS data has been used to detect unsafe vaccines since ages. No new factor lowering quality of data has been reported for current vaccines. There is no inherent reason to believe that VAERS data is not pointing in the right direction, except the fact that official line is to be reluctant to criticize any COVID vaccine for any reason.
If you can't find good arguments, just say so.
That has nothing to do with wether there is a problem in this case or not.
How many cases did the vaccines cause before this year? What was the pre COVID value of X?
And you fail to explain every time why should that matter when the data being analyzed is aggregate of all vaccines.
What exactly is different about covid vaccines? Why should they be seggregated from other vaccines for your purposes?
How is this a good argument?
Every vaccine is a different vaccine when it is first developed. Has a different reaction. You appear to be saying the same thing about covid vaccines.
Since each vaccine is different and has different reaction, vaccines are tested over years, sometimes decades, before they are labelled safe. I recall reading about a vaccine which was found to be causing fatal side effects after 27 years of examining, and officially stopped only after that.
Since mRNA is an untested technology, a rational mind would ask more questions about it, not less. Seek answers. To accept it on basis of faith without due testing, due questioning, and due skeptical thought is textbook example of cult behaviour.
We aren't against asking more questions. Especially people in the field should totally investigate if the vaccines are safe. They currently think that they are safe though, so that's my opinion as well.
Until 1990's, argument from authority was automatically disqualified as an argument. Unless you defend what these "people in the field" are saying, you are commiting a logical fallacy.