How does this theory, because they fail to provide the actual count margins or documentation for adverse effects, apply?

 Europe may have a different standard or documentation, but why isn't anyone coming forward with the tens of thousands of results that should be available?  Not one family member thinks this is relevant?

 Now I get it if some "news" source says something different to manipulate how actual medical documentation works, but by the logic used here, if somebody else lies about something that makes the source the liar.  Not the actual liar.

And when is the/a family member, told the entire truth ?

 I doubt most would even know what the lie is.  How many of these tens of thousands people could have predicted this exact analysis would happen?  All those people just decided it wasn't relevant to state they took a vaccine and then had an adverse reaction because it might be analyzed later under this specific algorithm?

 Smart if they somehow managed to get tens of thousands of adverse reactions and their families to not say a word about it before the information would be available.

"How very convenient."

 How would you know about this analysis before it happens?  

 This "tell the truth" means they somehow knew this exact evaluation would be done months after they visited a hospital.  How would any of those family members know this doctor would look at these exact statistics and think "Gee Wally I better keep my family members adverse reaction to a vaccine quiet."  Even at that how are they being dishonest?

 By the numbers presented here tens of thousands of people had adverse reactions, how did they manage to keep that many people from saying anything?

 They lied?  That doesn't make any sense.

"Gosh, ya 'don't know' ?"

 I don't.

 Are you trying to say tens of thousands of people had adverse reactions after the first shot and every single person connected to them predicted this doctor would do this analysis so they never said a single word?  

 Even if they did, how is that a lie?

 That's got to be over a hundred thousand people that all agreed to never mention an adverse reaction.  I do not think that's plausible because the doctor in JoG's article references adverse reaction reports.

"Bullshit. They have been playing games with how a patient is labeled. You are NOT vaccinated until two weeks have passed. Pretend otherwise, it changes nothing."

 A human is not "Fully" vaccinated. You ARE stage one of the Primary series, and that will reflect in medical records, millions of them exist in the US.  Millions.  How are the references You provide here on this forum using partial vaccination records if they don't count?  Your own references use them.

 Then you mix VAERS information with data from countries that don't even use it.  You think nobody notices that?

"Pointing out vaers lack in a post that includes places that don't use vaers."

 You bring up VAERS and the under-reporting then provide references from Europe.  Europe doesn't use VAERS.  It's like bringing up NTSB data then showing how many accidents happened in Australia.  Who cares what happened in Australia if you are using NTSB data?


"You're not actually counted as jabbed for two weeks."

  Millions of US medical records show partial Primary Series, your own references include them.  You say you aren't counted unless two weeks have passed, but also provide references containing single-dose events.

 You are counted in the US as partially vaccinated.  Explain the thousands and thousands of records in the information I provided if single-dose adverse reactions are not recorded.

 What does "Single Dose" mean to you?


POP them wrinkles out of that cape,swoop in and
Rattle that keyboard, save everyone from JoG,,,

 Look you post stuff like 1 in 10 and don't realize that means over 2000 kids per day.  Nobody here needs my input to know how wrong that is, the local obituaries would be loaded with dead kids.   You choose to post numbers like that, I choose to post what the implications are.  Do you really expect anyone to believe 2000 kids per day are having heart attacks?

"What kind of, 'proof', do you need/use/accept,
to, 'prove', one or the other is true or false ?"

 The Deleted entries and  "Don’t Fall for the ‘VAERS Scare’" is Apples and Oranges so I would say they are not providing a directly contradictory stance, but they are still good examples.  The deleted entries are a basic math issue, 12,000 went to 6000.  "VAERS scare" is about the fact that VAERS are not verified causal events.  If anyone thinks all those entries are verified issues directly from the vaccine they are wrong.  Even if it were true and you included every single entry the number comes out to 0.0019%.  Golf resorts report higher levels of injury and people aren't scared of those.  The proof that the events are not causal is that no evidence is required to make an entry in VEARS.  You and I could do it all day long.


 As for proof I would use website archiving data and recover the actual source.  For instance the 6000 deleted deaths came from a Facebook post.   Then I would use the CDC archiving and cross reference with the self-proclaimed watch dogs that active-track VAERS and .gov sites.  I then check those with the information provided by the original source.

 For instance the 6,000 Covid vaccine deaths being deleted was actually entries categorized incorrectly that was removed and re-uploaded in the correct locations.  The CDC was correcting entries, my proof is screenshots, site archives, Facebook posts, 3 different independent monitors of VAERS and a calculator I used to add.  Turns out the entries are still in VAERS if anyone bothers to do the math.

 Given the 6000 entries still exist I would say the claim that they were "deleted" is incorrect because mathematically the only way the entries could have been "deleted" would be to ignore that they are actually there.


https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html...[/url]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html...[/url]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html...[/url]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html...[/url]


 Another issue that most people are unaware of is the double reporting that can happen when US drug companies have batch reporting from foreign subsidiaries.  When this happens those dual reports, one from the US, one from a subsidiary are consolidated, so corrections in VAERS is not anything new.

  .