Truth in Numbers (Daniel) on Twitter posted a widely shared VAERS "deep dive" thread, but it has all the usual blind spots that affects the analysis of the vaccine pushers
Given the purge of FR reports in nov 2022 if he were to learn and employ NLP, we should provide him that dataset... of course that will never happen. It has however been on todo list. We may hit you up at that point on a second dataset.
The reason I mention it here is it came to mind while digging into Aravind's search tool at the mention above around "This means only 3265/16792 = 19.5%" and because I'm not totally certain my list is really all of ==> Got vaxxed but then got covid anyway <== [Let me think for a moment, what was that about effective? I digress]
... or that there aren't even more while not tagged with any of those by CDC.
Others might just mention in the writeup different things like ... Patient has covid, or does have covid or has contracted covid ... etc .... on-and-on, without any of those official tags added.
To a casual reader, it's an illustration of how difficult this work is because of data inconsistency and as we see so thoroughly, variations in wording. A report that coincidentally happens to be on the screen in front of me, just to highlight the point ( 2001383 ) DOES HAVE a couple of those entries, and DIED changed back and forth by the way between Yes and No ... Positive COVID-19 PCR on 12/27/2021,"Per System, patient received 2 doses of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines on 7/26/2021 and 8/16/2021 and was subsequently diagnosed with COVID-19 at our hospital on 12/27/2021", ... _|_COVID-19_|_SARS-CoV-2 test positive_|_
There ought to be millionaires stepping forward to each transfer something like $50,000 a year to people like Aravind along with all the others doing significant work in this area.
I am only looking at death reports in foreign VAERS because Daniel's Twitter thread looks only at death reports and I wanted to do an apples-to-apples comparison.
I do remember checking for other coded symptoms suggestion COVID19 infection, and did not find any (but I could have missed some).
Suppose the writeup says that the patient did have COVID19 in the past, but at least a few months back. And then died soon after taking the vaccine. Is that a death "with" COVID19 for the purposes of THIS analysis? I would say No. And usually this should not be coded as a COVID19 infection because it isn't one.
If it is OK to consider someone who had COVID19 a long while ago and then died (say) on the day of vaccination, as a "death with COVID19", I do agree that would negate a lot of my analysis. On the other hand, it would do so at the cost of contraindicating everyone who contracted the disease in the past. I doubt if Pfizer would like that conclusion :-)
But I do agree that this can become a really complex analysis depending on how we set these thresholds.
Given the purge of FR reports in nov 2022 if he were to learn and employ NLP, we should provide him that dataset... of course that will never happen. It has however been on todo list. We may hit you up at that point on a second dataset.
Some of the symptom entries I have regarded as vaccinated and got covid anyway (but these numbers are among all rather than just DIED):
215736 COVID-19
79561 Vaccination failure
74825 Drug ineffective
63262 SARS-CoV-2 test positive
8735 Vaccine breakthrough infection
8186 COVID-19 pneumonia
3726 Exposure to SARS-CoV-2
3293 Asymptomatic COVID-19
549 Breakthrough COVID-19
101 Occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2
457,974 Total
... over at https://deepdots.substack.com/p/85-are-serious-in-vaers-reports-not ... 85% are Serious in VAERS Reports, NOT 20%, Study Reveals
The reason I mention it here is it came to mind while digging into Aravind's search tool at the mention above around "This means only 3265/16792 = 19.5%" and because I'm not totally certain my list is really all of ==> Got vaxxed but then got covid anyway <== [Let me think for a moment, what was that about effective? I digress]
... or that there aren't even more while not tagged with any of those by CDC.
Others might just mention in the writeup different things like ... Patient has covid, or does have covid or has contracted covid ... etc .... on-and-on, without any of those official tags added.
To a casual reader, it's an illustration of how difficult this work is because of data inconsistency and as we see so thoroughly, variations in wording. A report that coincidentally happens to be on the screen in front of me, just to highlight the point ( 2001383 ) DOES HAVE a couple of those entries, and DIED changed back and forth by the way between Yes and No ... Positive COVID-19 PCR on 12/27/2021,"Per System, patient received 2 doses of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines on 7/26/2021 and 8/16/2021 and was subsequently diagnosed with COVID-19 at our hospital on 12/27/2021", ... _|_COVID-19_|_SARS-CoV-2 test positive_|_
The "Positive COVID-19 PCR on 12/27/2021" is in LAB_DATA, a field that doesn't receive a lot of notice. For some purposes I search all fields at once using the flat file: https://deepdots.substack.com/p/new-vaers-flat-file-easy-data-mining
There ought to be millionaires stepping forward to each transfer something like $50,000 a year to people like Aravind along with all the others doing significant work in this area.
I am only looking at death reports in foreign VAERS because Daniel's Twitter thread looks only at death reports and I wanted to do an apples-to-apples comparison.
I do remember checking for other coded symptoms suggestion COVID19 infection, and did not find any (but I could have missed some).
Suppose the writeup says that the patient did have COVID19 in the past, but at least a few months back. And then died soon after taking the vaccine. Is that a death "with" COVID19 for the purposes of THIS analysis? I would say No. And usually this should not be coded as a COVID19 infection because it isn't one.
If it is OK to consider someone who had COVID19 a long while ago and then died (say) on the day of vaccination, as a "death with COVID19", I do agree that would negate a lot of my analysis. On the other hand, it would do so at the cost of contraindicating everyone who contracted the disease in the past. I doubt if Pfizer would like that conclusion :-)
But I do agree that this can become a really complex analysis depending on how we set these thresholds.