HNewsWire-According to an examination of data from the Vaccination Adverse Event Reporting System, various health issues experienced by persons after getting one of the COVID-19 vaccine doses are more likely to be caused by the vaccines than to be coincidental (VAERS).
Since the immunizations were introduced in late 2020, VAERS has received over a million complaints of different health concerns and over 21,000 death reports. Some scientists and government authorities have downplayed the relevance of the stories, pointing out that just because a health condition arises after receiving the injection does not indicate it was caused by it.
According to Jessica Rose, a computational biologist who has been researching the data for at least nine months, a closer review of the data reveals that many of the negative consequences are more than simply a coincidence.
"The safety signals being sent in VAERS currently are off the charts," she told The Epoch Times.
There are many methods for parsing data to determine if the causal relationship between an adverse event and immunization is genuine or illusory. Vaccines, for example, are often available in two doses. A random adverse event unrelated to the vaccination should be dose-independent. A stroke that happened at random and coincided with a vaccine shouldn't be finicky about which dosage it was. However, according to the VAERS statistics, a lot of the observed issues are dose-dependent. Myocarditis, for example, is reported three times more often after the second dosage than after the first. Rose discovered that after a booster injection, the frequency is substantially lower than after the initial dosage.
Times of the Epoch A graph depicting the relationship between age and the absolute number of myocarditis reports made to VAERS for doses 1, 2, and 3 of the COVID-19 vaccinations. (Jessica Rose) Formalized paraphrase,Other academics and health officials have previously stated that the injections are linked to an increased risk of myocarditis, particularly in adolescent males, but they generally also state that the risk is modest.
However, dose-dependency appears in VAERS data for other disorders as well, such as fainting and dizziness, which are more prevalent after the first dosage. Epoch Times Photo A graph comparing age to the absolute number of syncope (fainting) reports recorded to VAERS for COVID-19 dosages 1 and 2. (Jessica Rose) Formalized paraphrase
Rose admitted that statistical analysis seldom yields conclusive conclusions. For example, there might be some undiscovered cause that leads to an increase in reports of unrelated health issues after the first or second dose. However, the evidence, in her opinion, points away from such a conclusion. Previous study revealed that the majority of VAERS reports are made by medical personnel, who should not neglect to record adverse events based on the dosage provided. According to Rose, it seems more probable that if patients have health issues after an injection of a new chemical, and if the symptoms alter significantly between the first and second dose, the substance was definitely involved.
"In lieu of being able to explain this occurring for any other reason," she added of the myocarditis findings, "it meets the dose-response point fairly well, in my view." She hasn't uncovered a convincing explanation for why the reports stopped after the "booster" doses. It's possible that folks who didn't feel good after the first two injections might be hesitant to obtain more. As a result, individuals who are most vulnerable to an unfavorable response are less likely to get the booster.
Rose came at her conclusions by analyzing the VAERS data using the Bradford Hill criteria, which are a collection of nine questions used by epidemiologists to assess whether any given factor is likely to be the source of an observed health impact.
She claimed to have discovered proof to positively answer all of the questions.
When Rose initially attempted to disseminate her findings, she received opposition from the scientific community. Last year, just as her report on VAERS myocarditis data was about to be published, the publisher retracted it for unknown reasons.