First, I don't know how the standards in Canada compare with those in the US. I just based my statements off of historical precedent.
I notice you mentioned hundreds of reports of serious adverse effects. I'm talking specifically about deaths, which are generally treated a little more seriously. The US also gets hundreds of reports of effects each year. The covid vaccines spiked that into over a million.
10-50 serious adverse events would be a ridiculous standard to use. It would simply be impossible to uphold. 10-50 deaths, which are much rarer, is not. And again, you said that we've batted eyes at this sort of thing before. When? When have we disregarded 50,000 people reporting that someone died from a vaccine?

If there were only 50 reports, then sure, there wouldn't be much to worry about. Most of those would probably be false alarms and we'd be left with maybe 10 or 20 actually related to the vaccine, if that. Cause for a reconsideration of the vaccines safety, but nothing on a major scale.

But 50,000? No other vaccine has received anywhere near that many reports in the history of the FDA. Perhaps they're studied, sure. But investigations don't mean much when the reports are still coming in. For previous vaccines, this level of reports would've caused an immediate pulling of the vaccine from the market to return to testing, and yet while these reports were coming in fastest, lawmakers were pushing to mandate it.

You actually don't think any other vaccine has experienced more than 50 reports of serious side effects? Doesn't that strain credulity? In a single year Canada (1/10th the US population) gets hundreds of reports for serious adverse effects from its flu shot (e.g., https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/canada-communicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2018-44/issue-12-december-6-2018/article-4-vaccine-safety-in-canada-2017.html). They don't just take the shots off the market as a result. They investigate some subset of the serious incidences to look for causality. Most cases are coincidental (e.g., a flu shot given to an extremely elderly person, who goes on to have unrelated health events), but potentially causal cases are treated extremely seriously. 650m+ COVID doses have been given to Americans. You really think they'd call the whole thing off after only 50 *self-reports* of supposed vaccine deaths?

And I'm so confused why you think no one is looking into this. VAERS exists for the purpose of having US public health agencies investigate potential adverse health consequences from the vaccine. They publish the data. They investigate a significant subset of the cases to determine whether the vaccine may be causing issues. On the basis of these investigations they've discovered real risks (e.g., myocarditis in young men, worse safety profile for the early J&J shot) and made changes to their approach. Moreover, every other developed country in the world has public health agencies doing the same investigations independently. These checks come in addition to clinical trials and extraordinary study by medical academia. Potential health risks from the COVID-19 shots are one of the most studied phenomena of all time.

Yeah, not every report is a death. That much is obvious, many, probably most, are false alarms. But that doesn't mean we should just totally ignore the primary warning systems that we have, especially not with such an extreme amount of reports.

You say, "We've batted eyes at many such reports." When? When did we ignore 50,000 reports of death?

My point is simply that 50,000 reported deaths is hundreds if not thousands of times greater than any vaccine has received, yet it is brushed off like nothing. Even if most of those reports are false alarms, you still end up with one of the most deadly vaccines since the FDA's founding.

My question is simply: Why do we allow such a high threshold of reports without requiring any pause, hesitation, or even scrutiny, when such reports would historically have caused an immediate stop to the vaccine's distribution?

Regarding the 10-50 reported deaths, I'm using the Cutter incident (Polio vaccine), which killed 10 and led to much tighter regulation, and the Swine Flu vaccinations, which stopped after 53 reported deaths. These are the most major incidents I could find in recent history of this sort of thing. So I'm using real examples as reference.

In summary: many fewer people died from the shot than you're claiming, the safety of the COVID-19 shots is among the most scientifically scrutinized propositions in history, and the confluence of evidence from a variety of actors, each of which would have much to gain by discovering the genuine truth of the matter, still has not uncovered some abnormal incidence of adverse effects caused by the vaccine.

You might still be unconformable with how it was mandated (as am I), but the idea that it's actually much more dangerous than we were led to believe is wrong, and the idea that the safety of these vaccines hasn't been studied earnestly is just silly.

[quote=CaptainFritz28 post_id=389894 time=1711994725 user_id=25902]
My point is this:
We have 50,000 reports of death on our hands. Usually, 10-50 reports are enough to pause a vaccine's usage for further testing. We'll use 50, to be generous. This would mean that if all 50,000 reports are true, we exceed that threshold by 100,000%.
[/quote]

You've pulled the 10-50 reports number out of your ass, there is no such threshold beyond which a vaccine gets pulled from the market. It depends on the incidence, severity, and provable causality of incidences relative to the number of doses administered - COVID-19 shots performed well by these metrics.

[quote=CaptainFritz28 post_id=389894 time=1711994725 user_id=25902]
Obviously not every report is an actual death caused by the vaccine. Let's say 50% are inaccurate. That leaves us with 50,000% over the threshold. Let's say 90% are inaccurate. That leaves us 10,000% over the threshold. If 99% are inaccurate, we remain 1,000% over the threshold, with 500 deaths, ten times more than would normally be enough to cause a stop in the distribution. Added to that, we've already gone over the fact that many cases go unreported.
[/quote]

You've gone from making up numbers about the deaths to making up a threshold to cause a vaccine to be pulled from market. 50 deaths =/= taking something off the market.

[quote=CaptainFritz28 post_id=389894 time=1711994725 user_id=25902]
My point is - why do we not bat an eye at 50,000 reports? Why is nothing done to even address the possibility that some of those deaths are accurate reports? Why are vaccines mandated when the very system in place to alert us that the vaccine might be killing people is ringing off the hook with red flags?
[/quote]

We've batted many eyes at such reports. Every public health agency in every developed country, huge shares of health academia, the drug makers, journalism, etc. dedicated enormous resources to determining the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines. It would have been the story of the century if the vaccines were much more dangerous than promised. The incentives of every researcher, public health agency, and drug company competitor were to find issues with the shot. And this process did help to improve safety - some still quite safe vaccines were pulled from the market because they had a worse safety profile than others. The overwhelming evidence from billions of administered shots suggests that vaccine injuries from COVID-19 shots are indeed exceptionally rare, in accordance with the evidence from massive clinical trials.

My point is this:
We have 50,000 reports of death on our hands. Usually, 10-50 reports are enough to pause a vaccine's usage for further testing. We'll use 50, to be generous. This would mean that if all 50,000 reports are true, we exceed that threshold by 100,000%.

Obviously not every report is an actual death caused by the vaccine. Let's say 50% are inaccurate. That leaves us with 50,000% over the threshold. Let's say 90% are inaccurate. That leaves us 10,000% over the threshold. If 99% are inaccurate, we remain 1,000% over the threshold, with 500 deaths, ten times more than would normally be enough to cause a stop in the distribution. Added to that, we've already gone over the fact that many cases go unreported.

My point is - why do we not bat an eye at 50,000 reports? Why is nothing done to even address the possibility that some of those deaths are accurate reports? Why are vaccines mandated when the very system in place to alert us that the vaccine might be killing people is ringing off the hook with red flags?

I'm confused what your point is.

You said 30,000 Americans were killed by the vaccine on the basis of a conspiratorial misrepresentation of self report data. The implication being that the vaccine was much more unsafe than we were led to believe.

Now you've backed away from this view, suggest some thousands died due to vaccine complications. Obviously some number died because of the vaccine, no one anywhere is disputing that.

The vaccine injury rate from COVID-19 is extremely low, but not 0. We know that from clinical trials +literally billions of administered shots.

[quote]
It should matter to you that the "source" you're relying on to back up this *wrong* interpretation of VAERS data is proferred by folks who make money and political careers from anti-vax conspiracies and whose incentives have nothing to do with an honest discussion of the data.
[/quote]

Again with this? Did you not read anything I said? The report merely presents the numbers present from such reporting systems as VAERS. They're reports, not verified deaths. Duh, I'm not contesting that. Nor is the WCH. All I'm saying is, why do we do nothing with fifty thousand reports? Even if 90, 95, heck, even 99% are false, that's still WAYY more than it should be.

And I think it should matter to you that the vaccine mandates themselves are proferred by folks who make money and political careers from mega pharmaceutical corporations whose incentives have nothing to do with an honest discussion of the data.

You've just repeated what I already refuted. All that the Reuters article said is that VAERS is unverified. Again, even if 90% of the reports are false, we are still dealing with thousands of deaths.

And once again, you've entirely ignored the fact that in the past, 10 reports would be enough to cause a pause to the operation. I ask again, why do we do nothing with thirty thousand reports?

All you've done is repeated the same argument over and over again, and then when I refute it you ignore my refutation and ignore the questions I pose. You haven't given any explanation of what you think the "proper" representation of the data is. Are you claiming that no one has died? That's its dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? No one knows, because you've given nothing, and have no evidence to support your side.

Sure, thirty thousand Americans probably haven't died. There is likely error. But the fact that we have thirty thousand reports is absurd, and what error there is is well made up for by the amount of unreported cases.

If all you're going to do is repeat the same useless argument over and over again, disregarding refutation and evidence to the contrary, then your arguments are worthless.

The burden of proof should probably fall to the person making the extreme claims.

How does your VAERS death toll stand up to the arguments presented here: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2LV0NY/

There's no rational debate to be had about misrepresented data. Vaccines definitely kill or injure some people, but your numbers are just wrong.

This is exceedingly stupid.

You don't know what VAERS is or you wouldn't be repeating the "30,000" falsehood. It should matter to you that the "source" you're relying on to back up this *wrong* interpretation of VAERS data is proferred by folks who make money and political careers from anti-vax conspiracies and whose incentives have nothing to do with an honest discussion of the data.

Your argument is "I don't believe you." I understand what VAERS is. I've looked it up, I've researched it, and I know that it's unverified. I also have already addressed that.

You also here misrepresent my stance. I'm not against vaccines, just the ones that do more harm than good, which are few and far between.

You've claimed that I misrepresent the data, but don't say how nor give a warrant.
You've claimed that the WCH is a bunch of grifters who knowingly misrepresent data, but have given no warrant other than "oh no I saw RFK's name and the news says he's bad so everything loosely associated with him is totally flawed."
You've claimed that I don't understand VAERS, but have not given any analysis contrary to mine nor explained what you believe the "proper" understanding is.

On top of that, you refuse to engage with any of the points I brought up.

If you have no interest in actually using logic, then good day.

If you had presented actual evidence I'd discuss it.

Instead you've been duped into a misreading of unverified self-report data. There's nothing there to discuss until you understand what VAERS is and how to interpret it, which is exceedingly easy to do so long as you don't get your info from an RFK-Junior conspiracy site that knowingly misrepresents any piece of info so they can to "prove" that vaccines are bad.

Your only reason is seemingly that VAERS is unverified? I've already gone over that. Even if 75% of all reports were false, even if 90% of all reports were false, the fact remains that only 1% of events are actually reported, according to the government's own data.

And again you haven't answered my question. If 10 reports was enough to cause concern in the past, why does no one bat an eye at thirty or fifty thousand reports?

Your claims are worthless without logic or evidence to back them up.

Please just read about VAERS lol. The data don't mean what you're saying here. 30,000 Americans did not die from the vaccine.

[quote="Esquire Bertissimmo" post_id=389843 time=1711981646 user_id=25229]
This is what I mean about being too open minded.

You're missusing the vaccine injury data. It's as simple as that. And no wonder, since you came to it once it had been knowingly mispurposed by an organization with absolutely no stake in truth telling.
[/quote]

Again, you're using circular terms here, and still haven't given a logical or evidential basis for them. Until you do, they're meaningless.

What would be a proper use of the reports? And no, I'm not talking about injury data. I'm talking about deaths. Thirty thousand of them in the US and fifty thousand total worldwide.

I could accuse you of the same fault. You disregard evidence on a whim, without any actual reason for doing so. Why is it that fifty thousand reports of death were not enough to even cause a tinge of hesitation for mandating these vaccines?

[quote="Esquire Bertissimmo" post_id=389846 time=1711981766 user_id=25229]
It's just funny how hard you'll defend this without doing one more google search. Read anything else about VAERS that isn't written by WCH and you'll have your answer.
[/quote]

I've done so. I've seen the criticism, and I find that criticism to be flawed. As I said, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services, only 1% of vaccine adverse events are actually reported.

But this doesn't address anything I've said. Why is it that, when 10 reports would precipusly have immediately caused pause and investigation, fifty thousand isn't enough?