[native_samples]

Paragraphs would help me work through your questions.

Firstly, the claims aren't extraordinary. There is a long history of vaccines being suspended for being more dangerous than is worth it, for example here's a CNN archival story about that:

https://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/30/swine.flu.1976/ind...

"ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- The man who led the response to the 1976 swine flu outbreak is defending the vaccination campaign that led to more deaths than the disease, but says he's sorry for the people killed or sickened ... the program was suspended after at least 25 people died from vaccine reactions"

In 2010 there was another Swine Flu scare but not much was learned: Pandemrix was authorized and sold in Europe but turned out to occasionally create narcolepsy in teenagers. Although rare, swine flu was sufficiently mild that this was much worse for the affected people than actually getting the disease would have been. There was a coverup and the true nature of what happened only came out 5 years later thanks to lawsuits.

So there's nothing odd about the idea that a vaccine may yield more injuries or deaths than it can save. It's happened before.

Now, I've already cited the evidence you require: the data from national vaccine reporting systems. That's the graph at the top of the page I linked. You appear to have simply ignored the graph and then gone off on some other link to a paper you found there, which isn't what I was referring to, and at any rate seems to actually support my point. Multiply the Y axis of the graph by 0.85 if you want - the numbers are still radically higher than the normal expected rate of vaccine side effects. Or don't. But actual government data cannot be handwaved away with an argument of the form, "some random paper looking at the data has some limitations that it openly admits to" because I wasn't basing my point on that paper to begin with.

[vampirical]

Sorry on a limited device where I can't do much formatting.

You made a pretty explicit claim earlier in this thread "The mRNA vaccines are not "adequate": they are being treated by governments as if they aren't working whilst also being significantly more dangerous than every other vaccine programme out there by a long way". Talking about historic or generalized vaccine ROI is different and is a new claim that isn't really on topic. I have no interest in arguing that all vaccines have always been perfect or that you can't have a generalized concern. Your claim that current mRNA vaccines for an ongoing pandemic are not adequate and are dangerous is an extraordinary claim and do need evidence.

Which brings us back to the point. I went into the analysis of the VAERS data because it needs analysis. It is a fairly raw data set meant for usage and analysis by professionals. We pumped millions of data points in to it this year, seeing a spike doesn't mean anything without analysis. How many people out of the population who were vaccinated were expected to be dying of strokes and heart attacks in the same time period? Here's a great write-up that goes into the details: https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/underreporting-and-po...

[native_samples]

Alright. Let's break down the question of adequacy; as it's a vague word that we may be using differently.

1. Does it work? In the UK even people who have completed both rounds of vaccination are having restrictions imposed on them. Contact tracing has not been ended there and is now triggering a full blown "pingdemic" that is causing a generalized economic crisis in which supermarket shelves are emptying, port authorities are warning of further supply chain disruptions and TV shows have been knocked off the air. This is incompatible with the idea that vaccines work and very incompatible with the narrative that was previously being sold, that vaccines were a way out and would mark the end of the restrictions.

Hence, governments are acting as if the vaccines are not adequate solutions to the crisis.

2. Are they dangerous? You raise good questions. Unfortunately the article you link to is paywalled. However, I've also read deeper analyses of VAERS data + similar databases from other countries that look at this and conclude:

2a. Background reporting rates for other vaccines are similar to what would be expected normally. There is no evidence that current events are inflating the reporting rate (or decreasing it).

2b. Studies of reporting rates in pre-COVID years have indicated a very high rate of under-reporting. https://www.openvaers.com/images/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-r...

Fundamentally although the Y axis may not be accurate, the trend is hard to ignore. The data has gone vertical in 2021. Once massively increased awareness is excluded as a possibility, I don't see how other conclusions are possible.

[vampirical]

Here's an archive of the Medium post so you can read it without dealing with their soft paywall: https://archive.is/uKzSZ

[native_samples]

Thank you. The article is very reasonable. It makes limited and tight claims, mostly similar points to ones I make elsewhere in this thread: that risk is relative, under-reporting is real and so on.

At one point it claims the only vaccine to be withdrawn post-approval is for rotavirus. Perhaps he means, in the USA and only after VAERS was set up. There were other vaccines withdrawn post-rollout than that one. The CNN article I cited already is one American example but there are others. Note that "withdrawn" is a slightly vague standard, for example, in the Pandemrix case, German doctors refused to use it in Germany even though it had been approved elsewhere, which in hindsight turned out to be the right call. Does that count as withdrawn: hard to say.

My own views aren't exclusively based on VAERs. I am convinced there must be very widespread under-reporting because of how ideological vaccination has become. The reason I think this is that I keep encountering anecdotes in my daily life from people who had extremely severe reactions to the vaccine but are blowing it off as no big deal. I'm not seeking these anecdotes out. I don't ask people about their vaccines. Yet, I keep hearing about these problems anyway. For example:

Two neighbours of the parents of my partner, who both died after taking the vaccine.

A scientist I know was trying to convince me the vaccines are perfectly safe, then almost in the same breath admitted that it knocked him flat for days and made him so sick he could hardly move. That does not meet my definition of "safe".

A friend told me he'd been walking down the street when he overheard a conversation by a guy on a phone behind him. The guy was saying that someone in his close family had died days after taking the vaccine.

I had a similar experience: I overheard a conversation when people who knew each other bumped into each other near where I was sitting in a park. One of the women had clearly not been seen for a while because of severe reactions to her first dose. She described having high fever, difficulty breathing and being unable to leave her bed for a week. She also said she "thought she was dying".

Outside of daily life, I read a news story a few days ago about a guy whose wife died just days after taking the vaccine. She was perfectly healthy before, early 60s, no signs of any problems.

All this is really quite disturbing. I've never heard such a constant flow of stories about any other vaccine. Also, the symptoms people describe are very similar to actually having COVID itself, which is not a big surprise when you look at how the vaccines work. Actually the most disturbing thing is people's reactions to it. The guy whose wife died stressed in the news story that he's a big supporter of the vaccines, and just wanted people to know that some families are "affected" by it. The women who got so sick she thought she was dying went back for her second shot anyway. The scientist was telling me how perfectly, totally, undoubtably fine mRNA Tech is and how it also made him so sick he couldn't work. The point of the vaccines is to stop people getting sick! But, they've been presented as a moral issue, one of collectivist responsibility, and governments have all committed themselves to vaccines-or-bust. I quite simply do not believe we have anything approaching valid data on how dangerous these things are.

[sampo]

> In 2010 there was another Swine Flu scare but not much was learned: Pandemrix was authorized and sold in Europe but turned out to occasionally create narcolepsy in teenagers.

A protein in the Swine Fly virus triggered narcolepsy in some people. You can get exposed to this protein both from the Pandemrix vaccine, and from getting sick from Swine Flu. China didn't vaccinate, but there was a spike in narcolepsy cases in China, from people who were infected by the virus.

https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/7/294/294ra105

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/E368.short

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/health/23global.html

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ana.22587

[native_samples]

Yes ... which leads where? Those teenagers probably wouldn't have got Swine Flu if they'd just done nothing. So it probably leads to the conclusion that if the vaccines have similar effects to being exposed to the virus itself, that's not obviously a win?

The whole point of vaccines is that they are much better than getting the virus itself, and for the classical vaccines that established the reputation of the technique, that's definitely the case. For cases like swine flu and now it seems maybe COVID, it's not at all clear that the vaccines are universally preferable to the disease, especially for the young. For one, COVID is mostly not dangerous to people under the age of 65 or so. For another, the symptoms are often mild. And the symptoms of the vaccine are often quite intense. mRNA vaccines create the same kind of cell death as the disease itself, they aren't just presenting the immune system with inactivated virus and letting it target practice on the vaccine particles: they turn the bodies own cells into target practice. That's a fundamental difference in approach.

When it gets into these sorts of grey zones of a vaccine with strong side effects and a not very deadly virus (for certain risk groups), a repeat of the Pandemrix disaster is not out of the realm of possibility.