[qsera]

>VAERS

When you got your vaccine, were you told to report at VAERS if you have any problems? Most people does not even know such a thing exists.

Even then the reports from that database is not really considered trust worthy. It is often dismissed with a statement that "anyone can report anything there!"

[defrost]

Anyone can report anything there and it is meaningless in any single specific case what the after affects of single vaccine applied to a specific person might be when extending to the population wide results of that vaccine.

There was a particular case in the UK where a vaccine was about to be administered, there was a fumble and a slight delay during which the patient went into cardiac arrest. Had that occurred after the vaccine was administered then that would go as a (possible) adverse reaction into VAERS and entered as such by the medical staff (who do know such a thing exists). As it happened before any vaccine was applied, it didn't.

VAERS isn't "dismissed" though - correctly used it is statistically analysed to investigate whether tens of thousands of reported events after a vaccine application differ in frequency than such events in the absence of a vaccine.

[qsera]

>correctly used it is statistically analysed to investigate whether tens of thousands of reported events after a vaccine application differ in frequency

Yes, then that report is rejected because it used data from VAERS..

[RandomLensman]

What's an example of a report rejected because of the use of VAERS data itself?