Cui Bono. Metatron - your subtitle points to the total lack of reporting on these results. Given that you have amazing data mining abilities, do you think it would be instructive to plot the total compensation package changes of, say, hospital administrators, over the same time period? What do you think?
I suppose the response to this, to play devil's advocate, is that the absolute numbers don't tell us anything because it could just be that people are being more vigilant about reporting? I'm not trying to be cute, genuinely trying to steelman what I would guess the response to this would be. I've been playing around with VAERS data myself just now and, just to give an idea, of the total events reported (serious or not) 2021 makes up ~43% of events since 1900 and ~62% since 2010. How do we know there isn't simply more *reporting* of events as opposed to more events in reality?
I’ve heard this argument and it has merit, but if we presume that it’s true, then it also means that we have absolutely no way to measure potential SAEs on a large scale. That’s almost as concerning as taking these stats at face value.
This question applies to every chart you've posted here. I'm not making any assertion here, but just trying to be as impartial as possible about the data. There probably is increased awareness of VAERS so it makes sense there are more total reports.
Agreed (replying from my other account). Thanks for all your work. It is greatly appreciated. I just launched my own substack. Not quite as data-focused as yours is, but a more general attempt at sense-making. https://myorb.substack.com/
It seems to me that the main thing you are missing is that the 6-17 yr olds need to catch up with everyone else on adverse effects.
It'd be funny if it wasn't so serious! :-(
Maybe we actually have just been seriously shit since 1900, at reporting pharmaceutical iatrogenicity. Like, neglectfully shit.
You will never qualify for a safety signal analyst job at the CDC. There is nothing to see. ;)
Cui Bono. Metatron - your subtitle points to the total lack of reporting on these results. Given that you have amazing data mining abilities, do you think it would be instructive to plot the total compensation package changes of, say, hospital administrators, over the same time period? What do you think?
I suppose the response to this, to play devil's advocate, is that the absolute numbers don't tell us anything because it could just be that people are being more vigilant about reporting? I'm not trying to be cute, genuinely trying to steelman what I would guess the response to this would be. I've been playing around with VAERS data myself just now and, just to give an idea, of the total events reported (serious or not) 2021 makes up ~43% of events since 1900 and ~62% since 2010. How do we know there isn't simply more *reporting* of events as opposed to more events in reality?
I’ve heard this argument and it has merit, but if we presume that it’s true, then it also means that we have absolutely no way to measure potential SAEs on a large scale. That’s almost as concerning as taking these stats at face value.
This question applies to every chart you've posted here. I'm not making any assertion here, but just trying to be as impartial as possible about the data. There probably is increased awareness of VAERS so it makes sense there are more total reports.
For such a matter, a poll or something could easily be done to test that hypothesis.
Agreed (replying from my other account). Thanks for all your work. It is greatly appreciated. I just launched my own substack. Not quite as data-focused as yours is, but a more general attempt at sense-making. https://myorb.substack.com/