Igor, thank you for writing this thorough post debunking the VAERS propaganda. I have been repeatedly pushing back against the “dropbox” talking point used to discredit this vitally important monitoring system, but the brainwashed bots are fairly impenetrable on this matter. I do plan to cover this topic in an upcoming essay and appreciate having your article as a reference.
BTW, my favorite source for viewing the VAERS data is https://openvaers.com/ (https://openvaers.com/covid-data for the COVID data). They present the data in a much more accessible format and also make it easy to view/search reports. I have read through several hundred reports there and have found all of them highly credible.
Closed minds are extremely impenetrable and this is very unfortunate. I cannot change that. I am hoping that my data driven article can reach somebody who is intelligent and open minded, like you.
I wanted to "do it the hard way" and start from raw data about my own state, as opposed to just copying a few memes. I hope that someone else could write something similar about their own state, it is really not difficult at all.
Igor, yes, those are the individuals I’m trying to reach, too! I call them the “swing thinkers” :-)
I appreciate the state-level analysis as well as your citations of specific examples.
You may have seen my extensive comment about this on Charles Eisenstein’s post, “The Rehearsal Is Over” (https://charleseisenstein.substack.com/p/the-rehearsal-is-over/), but I’ll repeat it here for those who missed it since it focuses specifically on VAERS:
———
I’m seeing some BigPharma disinformation about VAERS here so thought I’d offer a few references for those who are curious about the scientific literature on VAERS. Any talking points you’re hearing about VAERS being a “dropbox” and similar nonsense have been concocted to smear a reporting system that has been successfully used in the early detection of adverse reactions for decades, is frequently referenced in peer-reviewed scientific journals, is understood in the scientific community to be significantly underreported, and has been used to pull previous vaccines after as few as 25 deaths in the past (that is, when pharmaceutical corporations actually had to face the possibility of liability for their products and hadn’t been granted immunity by the emergency use authorization act).
First off, let’s address the issue of correlation and causation. The American Council on Science & Health notes, “It is oft-repeated that correlation does not imply causation. But it does. That’s precisely why epidemiologists and economists are so fascinated by correlations. Thus, it is far more accurate to say that correlation does not prove causation.” (https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/31/acsh-explains-hills-criteria-determining-causality-correlation-12013)
Dr. Jessica Rose, a viral immunologist and computational virologist with a PhD in computational biology and two postdoc degrees in molecular biology, demonstrated the satisfaction of Hill’s Criteria in a recent presentation, but it doesn’t take a PhD and an understanding of statistics to see what is glaringly obvious to anyone who hasn’t been lobotomized by BigPharma propaganda.
Here is a peer-reviewed paper Dr. Rose authored titled, “Critical Appraisal of VAERS Pharmacovigilance: Is the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) a Functioning Pharmacovigilance System?” (Science, Public Health Policy, & the Law, October 2021):
This quote is from one of hundreds of examples of VAERS use in peer-reviewed scientific papers:
“Underreporting is a limitation common to passive surveillance systems, including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that monitors the safety of U.S.-licensed vaccines. Nonetheless, previous reports demonstrate substantial case capture for clinically severe adverse events (AEs).” —Vaccine, 2020 Nov 3;38(47):7458-7463. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.09.072. Epub 2020 Oct 7.
If VAERS is so unreliable—as BigPharma propaganda suddenly started claiming in 2021—why does the CDC admit to using it in its determination about whether or not to recall a vaccine?
“CDC analyzed reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to search for any side effects that might have been caused by the irregularity …”
I encourage those who have bought into the Ministry of Truth sound bytes about VAERS (and everything else in this preposterous narrative) to read through some of the 778,683 (through 10/1/21) reports by physicians, nurses, medical professionals, patients, and family members of victims. You can find all of the reports here: https://openvaers.com/openvaers
It boggles belief that some people could be so hoodwinked by propaganda that they don’t have even an inkling of concern about nearly a million adverse reactions, including hundreds of thousands of fatalities, disabilities, and life-threatening conditions. Why are they so eager to rush to the defense of BigPharma and so dismissive of the actual human beings who are suffering? Why aren’t they intellectually curious enough to investigate for themselves? Why do they double down on their disinformation talking points in the face of an avalanche of scientific evidence proving the errors of their fallacious arguments?
I suppose Mark Twain has the answer: “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Anyway, want to analyze your own state? Some people in your state may thank you for it. It is very easy to do and I can give some tips if you want them.
Just download raw VAERS data for your state, load it into your spreadsheet program, and read every entry and classify it.
My suggestion is, go to vaers, search for covid vaccine deaths in your state, and download the data in a .txt file. Then import into a spreadsheet and see if you can read the descriptions. You might calculate statistics, or just report interesting finds.
If you write about your state, I will edit my article and place a link to your own article.
Thanks for the instructions! I’ll let you know if I end up including my state analysis in my upcoming article (already getting pretty overloaded, so I may save it for a future one).
You asked: "Why are they so eager to rush to the defense of BigPharma and so dismissive of the actual human beings who are suffering? Why aren’t they intellectually curious enough to investigate for themselves?"
It may be a rhetorical question, but I'll add a few thoughts either way:
(1) Trust. Also, a lot of people trust authority figures like Fauci. Some people literally only get their news through one or two sources, like CNN, so they haven't even considered a fraction of the things we've considered.
(2) Commitment. When they accept a vaccine, they're buying into the idea that it is good for them. People like to be consistent with their commitments.
(3) Denial. Once they've been jabbed, they don't want to believe they've just injected something that might potentially damage them.
Haha, yes, that was a pleasant surprise to discover it on ZeroHedge and even more exciting to see it went viral! Lew Rockwell is on my mailing list and has been publishing most of my articles, bless him. The Burning Platform and Straight Line Logic (Robert Gore), too. I have a special loyalty to OffGuardian since they were the first to publish my work and have published nearly all of my submissions, but it usually takes a while for them to get through their backlog, so it’s nice to have my work articles redistributed right after I publish them thanks to Lew, TBP, and SLL! I don’t know how to reach ZeroHedge directly so just have to hope they pick up my articles, as they did with my first piece, A Primer for the Propagandized: Fear Is the Mind-Killer (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/a-primer-for-the-propagandized).
Great analysis. Nicely written. It shows that the "fact-checkers" are probably... well, maybe sponsored by certain well-known multinational corporations, shall we say.
Thanks for this analysis. Shocking how people are being gaslighted and many have become good little gaslighters. Steve Kirsch (stkirsch on Twitter) wrote about the dara too, a group combed the reports and came to the same conclusions you did. He has been betting $1 million to anyone who can prove that the data are wrong.
Yeah, gaslit like "no, your mom did not die", it is very sad to watch.
Unfortunately people will believe just about anything. I purposely write long and data driven articles, with a bit of drama mixed in, in hopes that smart people would read them and make some conclusions. The smart people are opinion leaders and count for more than the regular brainwashed persons.
Very nicely written, Igor. I have looked through the data and the vast majority seems very legitimate. Truly I do not understand why VAERS is being ignored. It makes me very upset to know so many people are dying (or being injured) needlessly because the government and health officials do not recognize the red flags.
Someone, on one of the Substacks I follow shared this interview with a nurse (url below). She discusses how the hospital system did not teach them to use VAERS and she was not aware that it was required by law for them to submit reports. In the video, she also mentions that it takes a while to fill out a VAERs report and there is no save function.
In 2010 Harvard Pilgrim published a study of VAERs reporting. They concluded that adverse events are grossly underreported, showing only 1 to 10% of adverse events.
The system was designed to deter false reports. It is cumbersome to use, intrusive, crashes frequently requiring re-entry from the start. According to a Professional hospital worker turned whistleblower who took it upon herself to enter reports for clinics until her hospital forbade it, it takes 2 hours to enter a single report.
A few years ago I joined an online group of people studying VAERS for various reasons. The group included statisticians, data analysts, health care providers, vaccine-injured adults, and parents of vaccine-injured children. At least four of the members downloaded the entire VAERS database frequently, often working with it in a spreadsheet program. There was ZERO concern in this group about fake reports ("anybody can report anything") skewing the data. There was great concern about underreporting, about incomplete/inadequate-detail reports (generally submitted by patients or parents), and about reports with internal inconsistencies that made data analysis tricky (such as reports where DIED = NO but the written narrative stated that the patient died).
Jessica Rose's research on VAERS has been excellent and I highly recommend her written report ("Critical Appraisal of VAERS Pharmacovigilance") which was published in IPAK's journal "Science, Public Health Policy and the Law." A good interview with Rose is:
I've accessed VAERS data at times with NVIC's MedAlerts system but I generally use OpenVAERS, which provides a "Red Box Page" with summary statistics on a variety of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines. Eudravigilance gives adverse event summary data for COVID-19 vaccines in a helpful graph form (I recommend the display-by-seriousness option). Eudravigilance obscures deaths but the Vaccine Impact email newsletter gives summary statistics from Eudravigilance, including deaths, about once a month.
I call the vaccine zealots the third woke wave. The first one, mostly in Europe, was the 2015 refugee crisis where the narcissistic moral posers found SOME as a platform for virtue signalling and they loved it! Then when Hillary was not elected and Trump was, it turned into a turbocharged second wave, later also with the BLM/Georg Floyd stuff and solidified this online virtue signalling and group hating.
Then there was nothing to latch on for a while with Biden for these moral posers. Supposedly "Adults were back in charge" as they said but they needed something to virtue signal like addicts searching for the next fix.
With the new mRNA-vaccines the same woke persons said late last year, they are not going to take that "poisonous Trump vaccine" but within weeks last spring they flip-flopped! Eventually this started the third wave and it turned into demands of mandatory mass vaccinations. They have found a new issue to latch on!
Just like with the two first waves it is very difficult to argue with facts because these over-aged mental teenagers with lord of the flies, toddler like minds are using it for their narcissistic needs.
When Pfizer sponsors the news channel or online publication that "fact checks" you, you can rest assured they are just following orders. What you've done here is a great example of critical inquiry. It is the same phenomenon as "did Trump really say Mexican immigrants are animals?" or "does the Constitution really say that blacks are 3/5 of a person?". It doesn't take much source-document research to reveal that the lie is paper thin, and that reality--true reality--vindicates rational and critical thought. Thank you for this example.
I did not check the covid risk independently, but you are on the right track with your calculations. I wish more people just tried to add or divide reported numbers to see if they make sense.
The numbers themselves are the difficulty. Most people are incapable of visualizing and grasping these values much less comparing them to make informed assessments. It’s unfortunate that “I’m bad at math” is almost a badge of honor among the average person.
There is no reason to vaccinate almost anyone under 60, much less kids and young people. There is no reason EVEN IF VAERS numbers are not understated, and of course they are grossly understated.
And the fault, for the mass psychosis, is squarely on Google and the social platforms. Without censorship, there would not be any lasting psychosis. They made it self reinforcing.
Igor, thank you for writing this thorough post debunking the VAERS propaganda. I have been repeatedly pushing back against the “dropbox” talking point used to discredit this vitally important monitoring system, but the brainwashed bots are fairly impenetrable on this matter. I do plan to cover this topic in an upcoming essay and appreciate having your article as a reference.
BTW, my favorite source for viewing the VAERS data is https://openvaers.com/ (https://openvaers.com/covid-data for the COVID data). They present the data in a much more accessible format and also make it easy to view/search reports. I have read through several hundred reports there and have found all of them highly credible.
Closed minds are extremely impenetrable and this is very unfortunate. I cannot change that. I am hoping that my data driven article can reach somebody who is intelligent and open minded, like you.
I wanted to "do it the hard way" and start from raw data about my own state, as opposed to just copying a few memes. I hope that someone else could write something similar about their own state, it is really not difficult at all.
Igor, yes, those are the individuals I’m trying to reach, too! I call them the “swing thinkers” :-)
I appreciate the state-level analysis as well as your citations of specific examples.
You may have seen my extensive comment about this on Charles Eisenstein’s post, “The Rehearsal Is Over” (https://charleseisenstein.substack.com/p/the-rehearsal-is-over/), but I’ll repeat it here for those who missed it since it focuses specifically on VAERS:
———
I’m seeing some BigPharma disinformation about VAERS here so thought I’d offer a few references for those who are curious about the scientific literature on VAERS. Any talking points you’re hearing about VAERS being a “dropbox” and similar nonsense have been concocted to smear a reporting system that has been successfully used in the early detection of adverse reactions for decades, is frequently referenced in peer-reviewed scientific journals, is understood in the scientific community to be significantly underreported, and has been used to pull previous vaccines after as few as 25 deaths in the past (that is, when pharmaceutical corporations actually had to face the possibility of liability for their products and hadn’t been granted immunity by the emergency use authorization act).
First off, let’s address the issue of correlation and causation. The American Council on Science & Health notes, “It is oft-repeated that correlation does not imply causation. But it does. That’s precisely why epidemiologists and economists are so fascinated by correlations. Thus, it is far more accurate to say that correlation does not prove causation.” (https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/31/acsh-explains-hills-criteria-determining-causality-correlation-12013)
That is where Hill’s Criteria of Causality (https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/31/acsh-explains-hills-criteria-determining-causality-correlation-12013) comes in. It can be used to assess causation when it comes to statistically anomalous correlations—like the monumental ones that started occurring in January 2021 and have been rising at historically unprecedented rates ever since.
Dr. Jessica Rose, a viral immunologist and computational virologist with a PhD in computational biology and two postdoc degrees in molecular biology, demonstrated the satisfaction of Hill’s Criteria in a recent presentation, but it doesn’t take a PhD and an understanding of statistics to see what is glaringly obvious to anyone who hasn’t been lobotomized by BigPharma propaganda.
Here is a peer-reviewed paper Dr. Rose authored titled, “Critical Appraisal of VAERS Pharmacovigilance: Is the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) a Functioning Pharmacovigilance System?” (Science, Public Health Policy, & the Law, October 2021):
https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-9fe2d3ad957f.filesusr.com/ugd/adf864_0490c898f7514df4b6fbc5935da07322.pdf
This quote is from one of hundreds of examples of VAERS use in peer-reviewed scientific papers:
“Underreporting is a limitation common to passive surveillance systems, including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that monitors the safety of U.S.-licensed vaccines. Nonetheless, previous reports demonstrate substantial case capture for clinically severe adverse events (AEs).” —Vaccine, 2020 Nov 3;38(47):7458-7463. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.09.072. Epub 2020 Oct 7.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33039207/
If VAERS is so unreliable—as BigPharma propaganda suddenly started claiming in 2021—why does the CDC admit to using it in its determination about whether or not to recall a vaccine?
“CDC analyzed reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to search for any side effects that might have been caused by the irregularity …”
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/recalls.html
I encourage those who have bought into the Ministry of Truth sound bytes about VAERS (and everything else in this preposterous narrative) to read through some of the 778,683 (through 10/1/21) reports by physicians, nurses, medical professionals, patients, and family members of victims. You can find all of the reports here: https://openvaers.com/openvaers
It boggles belief that some people could be so hoodwinked by propaganda that they don’t have even an inkling of concern about nearly a million adverse reactions, including hundreds of thousands of fatalities, disabilities, and life-threatening conditions. Why are they so eager to rush to the defense of BigPharma and so dismissive of the actual human beings who are suffering? Why aren’t they intellectually curious enough to investigate for themselves? Why do they double down on their disinformation talking points in the face of an avalanche of scientific evidence proving the errors of their fallacious arguments?
I suppose Mark Twain has the answer: “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Correlations always hint at causations!
Anyway, want to analyze your own state? Some people in your state may thank you for it. It is very easy to do and I can give some tips if you want them.
Just download raw VAERS data for your state, load it into your spreadsheet program, and read every entry and classify it.
Igor, sure, I’d love your tips!
My suggestion is, go to vaers, search for covid vaccine deaths in your state, and download the data in a .txt file. Then import into a spreadsheet and see if you can read the descriptions. You might calculate statistics, or just report interesting finds.
If you write about your state, I will edit my article and place a link to your own article.
Thanks for the instructions! I’ll let you know if I end up including my state analysis in my upcoming article (already getting pretty overloaded, so I may save it for a future one).
Wow. That's a lot of gold.
You asked: "Why are they so eager to rush to the defense of BigPharma and so dismissive of the actual human beings who are suffering? Why aren’t they intellectually curious enough to investigate for themselves?"
It may be a rhetorical question, but I'll add a few thoughts either way:
(1) Trust. Also, a lot of people trust authority figures like Fauci. Some people literally only get their news through one or two sources, like CNN, so they haven't even considered a fraction of the things we've considered.
(2) Commitment. When they accept a vaccine, they're buying into the idea that it is good for them. People like to be consistent with their commitments.
(3) Denial. Once they've been jabbed, they don't want to believe they've just injected something that might potentially damage them.
OliveTrees, I think you nailed it on all three counts! Now, how to penetrate the programming and shatter the spell they’re under? 🤔 I try a different tack in every article of mine. My fairy tale (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/the-vapor-the-hot-hat-and-the-witches) appears to have had the most success thus far as the fictional format bypasses their standard barriers. My Letters series also attempts to reach different segments, from die-hard Covidians (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-covidian-a-time-travel) to Colluders (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-colluder-stop-enabling) to the scientifically-minded but still duped (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-scientifically-minded).
Ahhhh, you wrote that Letter To A Covidian! I remember reading that on ZeroHedge a short time ago, and really enjoyed it. Small world :)
Haha, yes, that was a pleasant surprise to discover it on ZeroHedge and even more exciting to see it went viral! Lew Rockwell is on my mailing list and has been publishing most of my articles, bless him. The Burning Platform and Straight Line Logic (Robert Gore), too. I have a special loyalty to OffGuardian since they were the first to publish my work and have published nearly all of my submissions, but it usually takes a while for them to get through their backlog, so it’s nice to have my work articles redistributed right after I publish them thanks to Lew, TBP, and SLL! I don’t know how to reach ZeroHedge directly so just have to hope they pick up my articles, as they did with my first piece, A Primer for the Propagandized: Fear Is the Mind-Killer (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/a-primer-for-the-propagandized).
Great analysis. Nicely written. It shows that the "fact-checkers" are probably... well, maybe sponsored by certain well-known multinational corporations, shall we say.
Yeah, I am also suspicious of that
Mikk Willis covers who pays the "fact checkers" in Plandemic (second video at bottom of link)...
https://plandemicseries.com
Tim Gielen goes into detail about all the connections...who owns the world...
https://rumble.com/vn7lf5-monopoly-who-owns-the-world-must-see.html?fbclid=IwAR3Ybjn_rH78u0e98wP61FItEtAMndA1do5-K6GtMNtnPObet18HKXTD1Ao
Thanks for this analysis. Shocking how people are being gaslighted and many have become good little gaslighters. Steve Kirsch (stkirsch on Twitter) wrote about the dara too, a group combed the reports and came to the same conclusions you did. He has been betting $1 million to anyone who can prove that the data are wrong.
Yeah, gaslit like "no, your mom did not die", it is very sad to watch.
Unfortunately people will believe just about anything. I purposely write long and data driven articles, with a bit of drama mixed in, in hopes that smart people would read them and make some conclusions. The smart people are opinion leaders and count for more than the regular brainwashed persons.
Very nicely written, Igor. I have looked through the data and the vast majority seems very legitimate. Truly I do not understand why VAERS is being ignored. It makes me very upset to know so many people are dying (or being injured) needlessly because the government and health officials do not recognize the red flags.
Someone, on one of the Substacks I follow shared this interview with a nurse (url below). She discusses how the hospital system did not teach them to use VAERS and she was not aware that it was required by law for them to submit reports. In the video, she also mentions that it takes a while to fill out a VAERs report and there is no save function.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIydr2ZqZto
Yeah, this "debunking" of VAERS is one of the worst lies and gaslighting that is used against vaccine victims.
It is very dehumanizing to the grieving relatives.
In 2010 Harvard Pilgrim published a study of VAERs reporting. They concluded that adverse events are grossly underreported, showing only 1 to 10% of adverse events.
The system was designed to deter false reports. It is cumbersome to use, intrusive, crashes frequently requiring re-entry from the start. According to a Professional hospital worker turned whistleblower who took it upon herself to enter reports for clinics until her hospital forbade it, it takes 2 hours to enter a single report.
Not in the least bit surprising, I would say. Thanks for mentioning this.
Steve Kirsch in this presentation shows that the Covid vaccine death toll in VAERS could be underestimated by a factor of 41: https://rumble.com/vm8ayu-tfnt-1-covid-vaccines-have-killed-over-200000-americans.html
A few years ago I joined an online group of people studying VAERS for various reasons. The group included statisticians, data analysts, health care providers, vaccine-injured adults, and parents of vaccine-injured children. At least four of the members downloaded the entire VAERS database frequently, often working with it in a spreadsheet program. There was ZERO concern in this group about fake reports ("anybody can report anything") skewing the data. There was great concern about underreporting, about incomplete/inadequate-detail reports (generally submitted by patients or parents), and about reports with internal inconsistencies that made data analysis tricky (such as reports where DIED = NO but the written narrative stated that the patient died).
Jessica Rose's research on VAERS has been excellent and I highly recommend her written report ("Critical Appraisal of VAERS Pharmacovigilance") which was published in IPAK's journal "Science, Public Health Policy and the Law." A good interview with Rose is:
https://live.childrenshealthdefense,org/shows/doctors-and-scientists-with-brian-hooker-phd/0Kc-3wyP2S
and a video of Rose's presentation to Vaccine Choice Canada can be found at:
https:??www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMY2tdFNkRU&t=79s
I've accessed VAERS data at times with NVIC's MedAlerts system but I generally use OpenVAERS, which provides a "Red Box Page" with summary statistics on a variety of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines. Eudravigilance gives adverse event summary data for COVID-19 vaccines in a helpful graph form (I recommend the display-by-seriousness option). Eudravigilance obscures deaths but the Vaccine Impact email newsletter gives summary statistics from Eudravigilance, including deaths, about once a month.
I call the vaccine zealots the third woke wave. The first one, mostly in Europe, was the 2015 refugee crisis where the narcissistic moral posers found SOME as a platform for virtue signalling and they loved it! Then when Hillary was not elected and Trump was, it turned into a turbocharged second wave, later also with the BLM/Georg Floyd stuff and solidified this online virtue signalling and group hating.
Then there was nothing to latch on for a while with Biden for these moral posers. Supposedly "Adults were back in charge" as they said but they needed something to virtue signal like addicts searching for the next fix.
With the new mRNA-vaccines the same woke persons said late last year, they are not going to take that "poisonous Trump vaccine" but within weeks last spring they flip-flopped! Eventually this started the third wave and it turned into demands of mandatory mass vaccinations. They have found a new issue to latch on!
Just like with the two first waves it is very difficult to argue with facts because these over-aged mental teenagers with lord of the flies, toddler like minds are using it for their narcissistic needs.
When Pfizer sponsors the news channel or online publication that "fact checks" you, you can rest assured they are just following orders. What you've done here is a great example of critical inquiry. It is the same phenomenon as "did Trump really say Mexican immigrants are animals?" or "does the Constitution really say that blacks are 3/5 of a person?". It doesn't take much source-document research to reveal that the lie is paper thin, and that reality--true reality--vindicates rational and critical thought. Thank you for this example.
I did not check the covid risk independently, but you are on the right track with your calculations. I wish more people just tried to add or divide reported numbers to see if they make sense.
The numbers themselves are the difficulty. Most people are incapable of visualizing and grasping these values much less comparing them to make informed assessments. It’s unfortunate that “I’m bad at math” is almost a badge of honor among the average person.
I agree. I mean, how hard is it to divide one number by another?
Sorry, somehow I missed your earlier message.
There is no reason to vaccinate almost anyone under 60, much less kids and young people. There is no reason EVEN IF VAERS numbers are not understated, and of course they are grossly understated.
And the fault, for the mass psychosis, is squarely on Google and the social platforms. Without censorship, there would not be any lasting psychosis. They made it self reinforcing.