The double standard of VAERS analysis
Base rate fallacy magically disappears a few days post vaccination
This will be a short article.
In a previous article, I pointed out the pull-forward effect:
One of the most striking things about deaths post-vaccine is that a large percentage have symptom onset inside 48 hours of vaccination, and they do not taper off gradually (which is what a background rate of death would forecast) but steeply plummet between the 3-7 day mark.
I also mentioned that I have not seen a good explanation for this yet.
Then I saw this tweet from Roger Seheult MD
Base rate fallacy magically disappears a few days post vaccination
But remember the argument used by the vaccine promoters when asked why there are suddenly so many reports in VAERS after Jan 2021? (emphasis mine)
Successful misuse of data this way relies upon the base rate fallacy. When vast sections of the population are involved, background mortality and morbidity become significant. Adverse events and deaths are reported in such numbers not because the vaccine is responsible, but because so many people are being vaccinated on any given day. Each person is given literature on how to report adverse reactions to VAERS. The V-Safe initiative includes regular text messages asking about any symptoms or changes to health. Attention given COVID-19 vaccination is unparalleled and this is reflected in data.
So people are more likely to report to VAERS after Jan 2021, more likely to report to VAERS up to 3 days post vaccination, and then suddenly their anti-vaccine sentiment plummets after that?
Or maybe people simply decide to stop watching and reading the news on precisely the 4th day after vaccination?