Notice they said "following COVID shots" and not caused by COVID shots. Comparing VAERS data does not allow you to conclude that a vaccine is causing deaths, but noticing a spike in the trend should be alarming. We aren't even allowed to be alarmed now, great.
Neither of these are from the CDC, this is VAERS data, yes. VAERS is HHS proper as a joint effort between the FDA and CDC and none of the information is vetted or evaluated before entry, because it is intended to detect patterns, not verify events, as you say.
VAERS is also
consumer data, which is why you're being misled.
How many other years factored in have we had with unprecedented public & physician attention, controversial vaccines, etc? None of them. VAERS deaths in other years are notoriously under-documented, and now they are not. The "spike in the trend" is that physicians are now reporting any and all to do their part in keeping patients safe in case the vaccines do turn out to be shit. It's like thinking that fires only happen if you call the firemen- no, campfires and bonfires happen too, it's just not until a drought that it's a good idea to keep the fire squad on hand.
If there were a spike in the trend that indicated unknown rare etiologies (HIT-like clotting) or abnormally high rates of relatively common disorders (anthrax vaccine controversy) then the medical community would be losing its shit and the vaccines would be pulled. All eyes are on VAERS. There isn't one yet.
It is also the case that it's deliberately easy to submit a VAERS report. The platform is notoriously abused, and I would not be surprised if there were also "interested individuals" attempting to shuffle in garbage for personal gain. It's old hat for grifters and lawyers and they may be active enough to make a dent.
Age 25 prego female 7 months along
Age 49 overweight male diabete
Age 50 female healthy
And none of them were on their death bed.
The virus is a nothing burger with extra fear sauce
Two of those I would not regularly expect to have complications and the last one (the diabete) still has acceptable odds, though he won a coin toss on hospitalization.
I'm just speculating, but could the death data be somewhat to do with old people getting vaccinated? Previously, old people did not receive very many vaccines at all, but they are the most prioritized for this vaccine, especially people living in nursing homes who are already having problems by definition. Being over 80 is a pretty good predictor of death. That, in combination with increased vigilance, could explain some of the change.
Also a good factor I didn't even consider, vaccinations were relatively infrequent in the elderly and physicians rarely reported deaths in the elderly even when they should have, prior to 2020/2021. Bolding my point.
Are you saying the $1.5 billion USD Moderna received from the feds plus
joint development with the NIH was no facilitation and "modest" funding? 1.5 bil plus NIH's help sounds like a lot of help.
Defending any use of masks in light of the actual reality of human behavior and Florida faring quite well despite the lack of mask use is telling, and is being conveniently ignored by mask lovers.
You can disagree with the meta analyses put forth by that Stanford academic. It doesn't mean it's false, especially taking into account human behaviors. The abstract does not mention N95 explicitly, IDK what you're citing. The study explores all kinds of facemasks. The sentence you cite, claiming the whole study is not compelling is a comment the author makes on one of many meta analyses used to explore the efficacy of masks. It is not the overall conclusion of the paper. The paper concludes the exact opposite thing:
"The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks."
You can keep wearing your mask. I won't.
1.5 billion is a drop in the water for vaccine development normally (market minimum 3 billion USD to break even, up to 9 billion for new tech), and the NIH helps pretty much everyone in the US develop drugs. I am curious how deep the partnership was now though, I don't recall seeing "joint" before. I'm not overly enthralled with Moderna in the first place, and neither are the outcomes, really.
Mask usage in Florida was not abnormally low. Surveys indicate between a 50% and 70% mask participation rate, without mandates. That was my point: the mandates are not the debate I'm having, the fact that the velocity of new cases generally decreased in Florida as mask rates went up
is. It's a multifaceted issue, but one semi-anecdote with so many confounders does not constitute a reason to outright abandon the data.
On the topic of the Stanford academic, I agree with the meta analysis he cites and think they are good data, I believe he cites them in bad faith and likely hasn't read them. Even though
he makes the final conclusion that the data is supporting against (?) the use of facemask, a cursory read of his sources say the opposite, when they're even relevant. It's my fault for not linking the one I discussed directly though:
here you go. Read it yourself. He makes shit up about it and you don't need to get past the abstract to see it. That was where I stopped trying to rationalize his mistakes and realized he was most likely being dishonest
I don't have the time to run through every source and see how he lied about/misrepresented this one or that one, especially when he has zero confidence in
his own data, which is why he cites larger and more thorough analysis that concludes literally the opposite of what he wants to be true.
This paper is not a rock in the ocean, it isn't a good thing to base all these conclusions off of. That's why I said you should look into it more- just because it makes it on the PMC does not mean that it is good research. It is not well-cited, fuck, it isn't even poorly cited, the dude chucked as many citations in as he could hoping for quid pro quo and he got two back. That's dismal, even for science review. Stanford has disavowed the guy and claimed he was a
visiting scholar, and this is not his specialty, by the way.
While researching this paper again I found out that at least one website has
helped address some of the bullshit.
Finally, as I hoped I made abundantly clear, I don't care if you wear your mask. I am giving you as much possible support as I can muster on an autistic cowtipping forum on the internet in figuring out why you
should do so if you want to avoid infection and have not been vaccinated, but it's not exactly the end of the world if you turn that down. It's not an emotional or moralizing thing.
This post already got way too long as new things to reply to trickled in, but I wanted to add on the "Stanford guy," part of why I'm being so hard on him is because deliberately misusing a single source is a cardinal sin in methodological science, you don't get a "but I couldn't help it, the evidence disagreed with me!!!" free pass. The article would never be published in a peer reviewed journal with QC because they do read sources and they do make sure you aren't just making shit up and claiming to cite someone else. Which is why it wasn't, it was published in Med Hypotheses instead, the non-peer-reviewed "debate journal" notorious for publishing AIDS denialism, a conspiracy which is a distant memory now, but is the unabashed belief that HIV doesn't cause AIDS spread primarily from Africa.
It isn't a bad journal per se, simply reviewed for debate, not scientifically sound conclusions. In other words, it's only as credible or compelling as the author is. I would not trust him to conclude what I'd eat for dinner, let alone overwrite dozens upon dozens of studies corroborating the efficacy of masks.
