By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Next week, the FDA plans to present data suggesting a link between the COVID vaccine and 25 child deaths, according to a source. This data stems from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a database where anyone can submit reports of adverse events following vaccination, though reports are unverified. Critics, including vaccine policy experts, caution against drawing definitive conclusions from VAERS data, emphasizing the need for larger studies to establish causation. Concerns have been raised over the potential misuse of VAERS data to influence vaccine recommendations during the upcoming Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting.
Read the original article here
FDA to present data it claims ties Covid shots to child deaths at CDC meeting, a prospect that’s certainly stirring up some strong opinions. The core of the issue revolves around a forthcoming presentation by the FDA, claiming to have found a link between COVID-19 vaccinations and child deaths. This announcement is scheduled to be made at a meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP.
The FDA’s claim is reportedly based on an analysis of data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS. This is a publicly accessible database co-managed by the FDA and the CDC, where anyone can submit reports of adverse events they believe are connected to vaccines. While this database serves as a potential starting point for investigations, it’s crucial to remember that the reports are unverified. Many experts caution against drawing definitive conclusions from VAERS data alone, as it doesn’t establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship.
However, questions are being raised about whether the FDA is misusing this database. It’s worth noting that the FDA is using a system that allows anyone to report events, and then claiming it is a direct correlation. These reports are unverified, meaning that there is no specific medical validity to the claims being made. The claim, therefore, is not valid.
The implications of this are wide-ranging. It could significantly damage the trust in the current vaccination program. This would mean that the advancements made over the last century, which greatly improved child mortality rates, could be compromised.
Further complicating matters is the political context. The timing of this announcement and the individuals involved raise questions about the motives behind the claims. It’s vital to distinguish between the science and any underlying political agenda. As with any claim related to public health, it is essential to rely on verified scientific research and not solely on unverified data.
The use of VAERS data is a key point of contention. While the database can highlight potential safety concerns, it cannot prove that a vaccine caused a death. Establishing causation requires more robust studies. The database, however, is being used as a guide, which makes the claim that much more suspect.
Moreover, this situation underscores the need for careful scrutiny of the information we receive, especially when it comes to matters of public health. It’s critical to understand where the data comes from, how it was gathered, and if the information is being used to make a claim.
Looking back on the rapid development of the COVID-19 vaccines during the first Trump administration, we see a stark contrast to what is being said. Operation Warp Speed, despite its name, did bring forth life-saving vaccines, that were credited for saving lives. The current situation highlights how politically charged the topic has become.
It’s important to remember that, while the vaccines are very helpful, they’re not always perfect. They reduce the chances of severe illness, hospitalization, and death, but there’s always a chance that something could still happen. This is especially true for children. The fact that children die from gun violence, school shootings, and other issues is not being addressed in the same vein, making the claim that much more suspect.
Finally, the incident underscores the need for a constant evaluation of the choices we make with our health and in the government. Hopefully, we can learn from this situation.