Dr. Jessica Rose, we work with, excellent intellect, voracious analyst, has grouped AEs due to the COVID vaccines reported in VAERS since the very beginning back in January 2021: what do they tell us?
Dr. Jessica Rose, we work with, excellent intellect, voracious analyst, has grouped AEs due to the COVID vaccines reported in VAERS since the very beginning back in January 2021: what do they tell us?
I have made some serious groupings of Adverse Events (AEs) in VAERS since the very beginning back in January 2021. By serious, I mean I hand picked hundreds of specific pathology-related MedDRA codes and written algorithms that seek these codes in the column lists of SYMPTOMS in VAERS and then outputs them into a single group. For example, I have made such groups for Cardiovascular, Neurological, Immunological and Hepatological adverse event types. Besides the sheer numbers of reports made to VAERS being off-the-charts in 2021 when compared to report frequencies from previous years, the hepatological injury reports being made by young people is quite interesting to note.
Fascinating. I, too, am part of that "confidence" age group, as Jessica terms it. But I call it skepticism. Hopefully we will pass along our critical thinking skills to the next generation.
So is this showing that those who have higher aE relates to the amount of doses, and chances of AE may relate to age ? Because what I picking up is that the age group is just under the risk threshold yet close enough to it , do the 86% get the first dose and the fewest get the second or third. This suggests that the AE may be higher resulting in fewer taking the chance on another. There may even be some kind of logic to extract a range of AE that may point to unreported figures
Fascinating. I, too, am part of that "confidence" age group, as Jessica terms it. But I call it skepticism. Hopefully we will pass along our critical thinking skills to the next generation.
It would appear 'safe and effective' is quite relative if not meaningless.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Interesting. I wish I knew how to read the graphs better
So is this showing that those who have higher aE relates to the amount of doses, and chances of AE may relate to age ? Because what I picking up is that the age group is just under the risk threshold yet close enough to it , do the 86% get the first dose and the fewest get the second or third. This suggests that the AE may be higher resulting in fewer taking the chance on another. There may even be some kind of logic to extract a range of AE that may point to unreported figures