A Real, Detailed Informed Consent Template for Covid-19- Iteration 7
Providing information or data to Grok to encorporate into its response, and attempting to expand Grok's sources to other than the political orthodoxy plus miscellaneous corrections
1 Introduction
This post’s objective is to introduce Grok to a list of web sites and request that these sites be encorporated into its response on the efficacy and adverse events section of the informed consent document. Grok declines to review all the web sites and asks me to recommend one. I recommended VAERSAWARE. And Grok responded.
I should list the series of dialogues/posts I have had to this point:
Iteration 1: Motivation: an honest, reliable informed consent document; inability to pass state legislation to provide even a little improvement in the informed consent process for South Carolina) and first iteration
Iteration 2: Correcting terminology; separating modRNA from LNP adverse effects
Iteration 3: Adding liability coverage; patient should initial major topics to demonstrate the topic has been read; add a child informed consent, where the parents are providing their consent.
Iteration 4: Adding comorbidity discussion; adding PCR discussion; adding dual immune system discussion; adding government reward system to healthcare systems and provider for coding certain diagnoses.
Iteration 5: This is the first full version of the informed consent document. There’s a lot to go, but it is beginning to take shape.
Iteration 6: Providing information or data to Grok to encorporate into its response, and attempting to expand Grok's sources to other than the political orthodoxy plus miscellaneous corrections
To start, Grok’s last response to me was:
To move forward, could you share a smaller portion of the index or list a few of the key sites you’ve evaluated for Covid-19 data? That way, I can help create the list and provide guidance for patients without needing the full document just yet. What are a few of the top resources you’d recommend from your survey?
Guidance to Grok
My response was to copy the index entries from my document:
3 General Source Large Databases and Analytics 7
3.1 Israel 7
3.2 UK 11
3.3 Our World in Data 19
3.4 Phinance Technologies Web Site 21
3.5 Data from Life Insurance Companies 23
3.6 WHO 24
3.7 OECD 24
3.8 USMORTALITY.COM 26
3.9 OECD.Stat 27
4 Adverse Events Large Databases 29
4.1 Introduction 29
4.2 FDA 29
4.3 CDC 30
4.4 VAERS 35
4.4.1 Introduction 35
4.4.2 VAERS Front Ends 35
4.5 V-Safe 57
4.6 ICAN 73
4.7 UK Yellow Card System 74
4.8 DAEN (Australia) 77
4.9 SMARS (New Zealand) 78
4.10 WHO 80
4.11 The Collateral Global Database 81
4.12 Data from the Military 82
4.13 Data From Morticians and Autopsies 84
4.13.1 Coroner Autopsy Guides 86
4.14 Data From Health Insurance Companies 91
5 Web Sites 93
5.1 Introduction 93
5.2 How Bad and How Bad Is My Batch 93
5.3 DailyClout 98
5.4 React19.org 99
5.5 Truth for Health Foundation 100
5.6 Real Not Rare Website 100
5.7 Doctors for Covid Ethics 101
5.8 TrialSiteNews.com 103
5.9 The Epoch Times 103
5.10 Substack.com 103
Grok’s Response
Thank you for sharing the index! I can now extract and list the key sites and databases you’ve evaluated for Covid-19 efficacy, risks, and adverse events. Below is a concise list of the resources you’ve included in your survey, categorized as they appear in the index: {Grok repeated the list above.}
This list covers a wide range of reputable databases (like WHO, CDC, FDA, VAERS, and OECD) and independent websites (like DailyClout, React19.org, and TrialSiteNews.com) that patients can use to explore Covid-19 data in detail. Each resource likely provides unique insights, from raw data and analytics to adverse event reporting and investigative journalism.
Regarding your earlier question about the PDF: if you upgrade to a plan that supports file uploads (like SuperGrok), I’d be able to analyze the full PDF, including the 100+ diagrams, and provide a more detailed breakdown. However, since you’re on a fixed income, you can check the pricing at https://x.ai/grok to see if it’s feasible. For now, I can continue working with the text you provide.
Would you like to dive deeper into any of these resources, such as how patients can use VAERS or Our World in Data to find specific Covid-19 information?
1.1.1.1 Guidance to Grok
What I provide in the document I uploaded is something a meatsack would understand: example, issues, shortcomings and advantages. OK, here's one I don't even see on the list that is probably the best:
See what you can do with that.
1.1.1.2 Grok’s Response
I appreciate your perspective, and I’m glad you’ve pointed out
https://www.vaersaware.com/
as a resource you find valuable—it’s a great example to work with, especially since it ties into your survey of tools for understanding Covid-19 vaccine data. Since the document you uploaded didn’t format properly (as we discussed earlier), I’ll focus on evaluating vaersaware.com based on the information available to me, aiming to break it down in a way that’s clear and useful for someone trying to navigate this complex topic. I’ll look at its purpose, potential advantages, shortcomings, and issues, as you suggested, to help patients or researchers use it effectively.
Overview of VaersAware.com
VaersAware.com is a third-party platform that aggregates and analyzes data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a U.S.-based system co-managed by the CDC and FDA to monitor vaccine safety. VAERS itself is a passive reporting system established in 1990, where anyone—healthcare providers, patients, or even the public—can submit reports of adverse events following vaccination. VaersAware takes this raw VAERS data (which spans from 1990 to the present) and provides tools to search, filter, and visualize it, often focusing on aspects like deleted reports, toxic vaccine lots, and specific demographics (e.g., pregnant women or adolescents).
Example Use Case
Let’s say a patient wants to investigate whether their Covid-19 vaccine batch might be linked to higher rates of adverse events. They could use VaersAware’s “ToxicLot Search” feature to look up their vaccine lot number and see if it’s associated with a higher-than-average number of reports. The site claims to improve on tools like “How Bad Is My Batch” (which you listed in your survey under Section 5.2) by offering more detailed filters, such as searching by symptoms, vaccine type, manufacturer, or even deleted reports (over 34,000 since 2007, with 24,000 being Covid-19-related).
Advantages
Enhanced Accessibility to VAERS Data: VaersAware provides a user-friendly dashboard to search the entire VAERS database (1990 to current), which can be daunting to navigate on the official VAERS site (vaers.hhs.gov). It offers filters for symptoms, vaccine types, and adverse event severity, making it easier for a layperson to explore data without needing advanced technical skills.
Focus on Deleted Reports: The site highlights over 34,000 deleted VAERS reports, including 24,000 Covid-19-related ones, and provides direct links to archived versions via Medalerts.org’s Wayback Machine. This transparency can help users investigate potential data suppression or inconsistencies in official reporting.
Specialized Insights: VaersAware includes unique analyses, like data on pregnant women and 133,000 adolescents from V-Safe (a CDC system for monitoring vaccine side effects), which aren’t as easily accessible on the official VAERS site. This can be particularly useful for patients in specific demographics.
Additional Tools: Features like the NDC Search Tool (for vaccine identification numbers) and “Mortality Watch Dashboards” provide extra layers of data analysis, such as all-cause death at the county level or place of death (e.g., inpatient, emergency room), which can contextualize vaccine-related reports.
Shortcomings
Reliance on VAERS Limitations: Since VaersAware pulls directly from VAERS, it inherits VAERS’ inherent flaws. VAERS is a passive system, meaning reports are unverified and can include incomplete, inaccurate, or coincidental events. For example, a death reported after a vaccine might be unrelated but still appear in the data, leading to potential misinterpretation.
No Causality Determination: Like VAERS itself, VaersAware cannot confirm if a vaccine caused an adverse event. This is a critical limitation for patients who might assume a correlation (e.g., a high number of reports for a specific lot) implies causation, which isn’t necessarily true without further investigation.
Potential for Misinformation: The site’s focus on deleted reports and “toxic lots” might alarm users unnecessarily, especially if they lack the context to interpret the data. Posts on X have highlighted concerns about VAERS data being misused to inflate vaccine risks, and third-party sites like VaersAware can amplify this issue if users don’t understand the data’s limitations.
Incomplete Development: The site notes that its dashboard is “still under construction,” with 7.5 million records uploaded but 3 million more to go. This means some data might be missing or incomplete, which could affect the reliability of searches.
Issues
Risk of Misinterpretation by Laypeople: While VaersAware aims to make VAERS data more accessible, it doesn’t provide enough guidance on interpreting the data responsibly. For instance, a patient might see a high number of adverse events for their vaccine lot and panic, not realizing that VAERS data isn’t vetted for causality. Official sources like Johns Hopkins have noted that VAERS is often misused by anti-vaccine activists to sow distrust, and third-party tools can exacerbate this if not handled carefully.
Lack of Official Oversight: Unlike the CDC or FDA, VaersAware isn’t an official government resource. This raises questions about its data handling, accuracy, and potential biases. For example, its emphasis on deleted reports might suggest a narrative of cover-ups, which could be misleading without evidence of why reports were removed (e.g., duplicates or errors).
Underreporting and Overreporting Bias: VAERS is known to capture only a small fraction of adverse events—studies like a 2011 Harvard Pilgrim report estimate less than 1% are reported—while also including potentially exaggerated or unrelated claims. VaersAware doesn’t address this dual bias, which can skew perceptions of vaccine safety.
Ethical Concerns with Advocacy Features: The site includes a petition for investigations into alleged “crimes against humanity” related to Covid-19 hospital protocols, which introduces a clear advocacy stance. This could undermine its credibility as an objective data tool, as it might be seen as pushing an agenda rather than neutrally presenting data.
How Patients Can Use VaersAware Effectively
For a patient looking into Covid-19 vaccine risks, VaersAware can be a starting point to explore raw data, especially if they’re interested in their specific vaccine lot or demographic trends (e.g., adolescents or pregnant women). However, they should:
Cross-check findings with official sources like the CDC or FDA, which provide context on VAERS limitations.
Understand that VAERS data isn’t conclusive—reports don’t equal causation. For example, if a lot has 100 adverse event reports, it might just reflect higher usage or reporting bias, not a safety issue.
Consult a healthcare provider to interpret findings, especially if they’re concerned about their own health or vaccine batch.
Final Thoughts
VaersAware.com is a powerful tool for diving into VAERS data, offering more detailed search options and transparency (like deleted reports) than the official VAERS site. However, its reliance on unverified VAERS data, lack of causality determination, and potential to mislead without proper context make it a double-edged sword. Patients should use it as a supplementary resource, not a definitive one, and always pair it with guidance from trusted medical professionals or official health agencies.
Would you like to explore another resource from your list, like how patients can use Our World in Data or the CDC’s database, to complement this?
Author’s Comments: Grok’s response is rich. No, I mean it. It is the perfect immitation of the world’s political orthodoxy with respect to medical policy. It’s a gotcha if you do and gotcha if you don’t response. VAERS et al are unrealiable, but all that are available, so even though they are THE government public sources for adverse events, they aren’t legitimate to include, apparently without qualifications, etc. I’ll pin this down in the next couple of posts and get Grok, in its own words, own up what is driving its response; that is, why it will always land on the orthodoxy, regardless of the science. But, as it is, isn’t this a direct indictment of government (and healthcare in general) management of disease in general and informed consent in particular: “However, its reliance on unverified VAERS data, lack of causality determination, and potential to mislead without proper context make it a double-edged sword.”
What are your thoughts?