Loading...
甚至在这个网站的免责声明里说了，“If a safety signal is found in VAERS, further studies can be done in safety systems such as the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) or the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project. These systems do not have the same scientific limitations as VAERS, and can better assess health risks and possible connections between adverse events and a vaccine." 中文大白话就是：CDC的VSD，以及CISA比我们VERS更有科研实力和资质去评定疫苗的风险。
甚至这个网站的首页，底部小字里写的：OpenVAERS is a private organization that posts publicly available CDC/FDA data of injuries reported post-vaccination. Reports are not proof of causality.
他们自己都不敢强调自己的公信力和资质，你还奉若神明，啥逻辑呀？
It is a voluntary reporting system that has been estimated to account for only 1% (read more about underreporting in VAERS) of vaccine injuries. OpenVAERS is built from the HHS data available for download at vaers.hhs.gov.
The OpenVAERS Project allows browsing and searching of the reports without the need to compose an advanced search (more advanced searches can be done at medalerts.org or vaers.hhs.gov).
这就是我对疫苗安全性的态度：我的知识储备不足以让我判断各路信息的真伪，那我只好选择我认为更有公信力的来源。
就这么简单。
PS, 看了以上一些朋友的发言，似乎更让我觉得，与他们持相反意见是个正确的事情。
