VAERS analysis.
I lost the reference for the VAERS article.
After a long search I found it..
perhaps it was buried by a google algorithm and a few paid fact checkers.
"
During early May television reports, such as one made by Tucker Carlson on FOX News11,
suggested we should consider the number of adverse event and death reports being recorded in the VAERS database for COVID vaccines when deciding whether young and healthy people who are not otherwise at risk from COVID-19 should even receive these medications. Tucker asks a number of simple but relevant questionsin regards to the social, political and potentially legal coercion being used to promote the taking of COVID vaccines:
“How many people have died after taking COVID vaccines?”,
“what are the potential risks from taking these vaccinations?” and
“what do we really know about the potential risks from taking these vaccinations?”....
In any event, the questions being asked here are those
which are normally asked of any new medication.
They are important and necessary and should not be waved away
simply by virtue of an application of the term ‘vaccine’.
Self-titled fact checkers and journalists in the mainstream media immediately discredited Carlson’s ..
They imputed that VAERS was a breeding-ground for anti-vaccine misinformation
and pointed to the twitter posts of generalist doctors as vaccine experts
that rejected Carlson’s VAERS death claims by claiming all the deaths were coincidence
and asserting unproven facts about ongoing death rates,
and without also pointing out that the same expert in a subsequent post acknowledges that VAERS data was used to identify the clotting issue with the J&J vaccine (McCarthy, 2021).
It is incredible to decry VAERS as rubbish self-reported nonsense when that data suggests something that goes against your particular views, while also suggesting
it provides data that was relevant or helpful in other circumstances....