Kookyfrog

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@Navarp @UmbraSight @gryffindorcxnt Not everyone had a better health outcome. This is why trials exist to find risk factors so that people can make informed decisions.

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@Navarp @UmbraSight @gryffindorcxnt Which is exactly why you need a large population over a long period to capture those risk factors. You might only be able to make inferences through continual followups.

My point here is that it's worthwhile to take time to assess vaccines for safety.

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@Navarp @UmbraSight @gryffindorcxnt It's not a question that there were risk factors that the trials missed. Myocarditis/Pericarditis risks were not known about. People with heart conditions will have taken them and been endangered as a result. Should this inform how we improve vaccine development during pandemics?

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@Navarp @UmbraSight @gryffindorcxnt At this point, you're straying beyond misleading assumptions and omissions, and into outright falsehoods.

Traditional clinical trials have followups spanning years. Without them, there's no way to measure long term effects. You can't get those results in two months.

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@SenatorMurray @Navarp I didn't say to take a broad approach to vaccine harms. I said I was making a broad point. The point is to keep a skeptical mindset about the possibility of vaccine harms. That's it.

You're almost arguing with yourself at this point.

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@Navarp @UmbraSight @gryffindorcxnt The Covid vaccines did not. They were approved quickly because it was considered an emergency.

You're making the assumption that despite the lack of testing there was no higher risk of adverse reactions. What I'm doing is questioning that assumption.

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@SenatorMurray @Navarp I'm not interested in defending that position because it's literally the scientific method.

I'm not trying to meet your bar for evidence on any one claim, I'm inviting you to answer your own questions with an open mind. If you're not interested in doing that, good luck to you.

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@SenatorMurray @Navarp I'm sticking to a very broad point about how we should view vaccine harms.

Rather than this being a debate about defending or prosecuting specific claims, I'm trying to suggest having a skeptical mindset towards claims of harm and using that to inform a risk based approach.

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@idkmanwow @gryffindorcxnt @Navarp I think that's interesting. Does it indicate a lower capability in handling/administering vaccines? Is that a risk factor people in those states should consider?

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@Navarp @UmbraSight @gryffindorcxnt The safety of a vaccine shouldn't be assumed until proven dangerous. It should be the opposite.

If such a large number of reports miss a 1 year filing deadline, is that because of a delayed reaction? Were they too ill to provide records?

How do we know without asking?

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@SenatorMurray @Navarp To say vaccines are the same everywhere is a false assumption. People administering them, refrigeration methods, distribution of different brands, etc. Differences exist, that may impact safety, that may be reflected in report data.

I'm not making a wider point than that.

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@SenatorMurray @Navarp My point is that some vaccines, in some places, for some people, are more harmful than others, and we can use that to improve their safety.

Showing a blank map ala @Navarp as if there is no statistically significant relationship between any of that data is disingenuous.

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@RhetoricalHype @Navarp @UmbraSight @gryffindorcxnt Data on surgical harms is also constantly reviewed to understand how to improve surgeries. This is why it's a lot safer to have a surgery now compared to the 19th century.

Vaccines aren't perfect, it's worthwhile to scrutinize them.

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@Navarp @UmbraSight @gryffindorcxnt Half the cases have not been reviewed.

76% of the rejected cases were because medical records were not submitted, or they missed a one-year filing deadline.

20% were rejected because they did not actually meet the standard for injury.

See how misleading that is?

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@RhetoricalHype @Navarp @UmbraSight @gryffindorcxnt Nobody questions that vaccines harm people. I'm advocating that we examine the data to understand risk factors.

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@SenatorMurray @Navarp I pulled it from here: https://t.co/bEpxLR4QK6

The researchers classified whether a report was serious themselves. VAERS has a field for life threatening, fatal, disabling injuries, birth defects, hospital stays etc. The chart represents where those reports were made.

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@Navarp @UmbraSight @gryffindorcxnt I haven't raised a specific point until now, but many question whether covid vaccines are more likely to cause injury.

Those claims are not handled by VICP, but a different program, CICP. They handled over 10,000 cases between 2021 and 22. Does that not warrant further inquiry?

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@RhetoricalHype @Navarp @UmbraSight @gryffindorcxnt It's not "pumping numbers" it's trying to find a definition that captures vaccine harms accurately.

If you were trying to understand minor symptoms for example, this would be useless because most people would not take the time to pursue a full compensation claim.

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@Navarp @UmbraSight @gryffindorcxnt Do you not have concerns that what *legally* constitutes a vaccine injury in the US doesn't capture the full incidence of vaccine harms?

Presumably, not everyone who's suffered symptoms will seek compensation, and fewer will win their case.

[Kookyfrog @kookyfrogs]

@ladboy0 @gryffindorcxnt @Navarp Yes. But those can inform better quality studies that build the body of evidence. Many facts we take for granted today began with studies using highly questionable data.