1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reported

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:wLV5i.813$D31.296@trnddc01...


Yet, more serious reactions are more likely to get reported.

A little soreness after the shots are less likely to get reported. Go
figure.

Jeff

so most reactions that don't get reported, the 99% are just soreness. Yeah,
my arse!

In article ,
JOHN wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:wLV5i.813$D31.296@trnddc01...


Yet, more serious reactions are more likely to get reported.

A little soreness after the shots are less likely to get reported. Go
figure.

Jeff

so most reactions that don't get reported, the 99% are just soreness. Yeah,
my arse!

Well, yeah, if that's where you get injected.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any."
-- Bill Maher

On May 26, 3:08�pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article ,

JOHN wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:wLV5i.813$D31.296@trnddc01...

Yet, more serious reactions are more likely to get reported.

A little soreness after the shots are less likely to get reported. Go
figure.

Jeff

so most reactions that don't get reported, the 99% are just soreness. *Yeah,
my arse!

Well, yeah, if that's where you get injected.

* -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
* * *These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
* * *"Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Bill Maher

To me there is a big difference between severe pain and soreness.
There are obvious differences in the detail that even reporting
physicians have. The fact that a number of people had syncope, had
problems speaking, and FELL off of the table is pretty significant in
and of itself.

Chris wrote:
On May 26, 3:08�pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article ,

JOHN wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:wLV5i.813$D31.296@trnddc01...
Yet, more serious reactions are more likely to get reported.
A little soreness after the shots are less likely to get reported. Go
figure.
Jeff
so most reactions that don't get reported, the 99% are just soreness. �Yeah,
my arse!
Well, yeah, if that's where you get injected.

� -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
� � �These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
� � �"Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any."
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � -- Bill Maher

To me there is a big difference between severe pain and soreness.
There are obvious differences in the detail that even reporting
physicians have. The fact that a number of people had syncope, had
problems speaking, and FELL off of the table is pretty significant in
and of itself.

Yet, that doesn't mean that the vaccine was the cause. It may have been
a reaction to the injection, without regard to what was in it.

Jeff

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:y106i.266$Au6.129@trndny04...
Chris wrote:
On May 26, 3:08?pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article ,

JOHN wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:wLV5i.813$D31.296@trnddc01...
Yet, more serious reactions are more likely to get reported.
A little soreness after the shots are less likely to get reported. Go
figure.
Jeff
so most reactions that don't get reported, the 99% are just soreness.
?Yeah,
my arse!
Well, yeah, if that's where you get injected.

? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
? ? ?These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
? ? ?"Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any."
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -- Bill Maher

To me there is a big difference between severe pain and soreness.
There are obvious differences in the detail that even reporting
physicians have. The fact that a number of people had syncope, had
problems speaking, and FELL off of the table is pretty significant in
and of itself.

Yet, that doesn't mean that the vaccine was the cause. It may have been a
reaction to the injection, without regard to what was in it.

Jeff

I'll bet it was the peas!

Yet, that doesn't mean that the vaccine was the cause. It may have been
a reaction to the injection, without regard to what was in it.

Jeff- Hide quoted text -


And disturbingly, the "possible" differentiation isn't being made.

Chris wrote:
On May 26, 3:08�pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article ,

JOHN wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:wLV5i.813$D31.296@trnddc01...
Yet, more serious reactions are more likely to get reported.
A little soreness after the shots are less likely to get reported. Go
figure.
Jeff
so most reactions that don't get reported, the 99% are just soreness. �Yeah,
my arse!
Well, yeah, if that's where you get injected.

� -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
� � �These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
� � �"Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any."
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � -- Bill Maher

To me there is a big difference between severe pain and soreness.
There are obvious differences in the detail that even reporting
physicians have. The fact that a number of people had syncope, had
problems speaking, and FELL off of the table is pretty significant in
and of itself.


Only if the problems are related to the vaccination by something other
than temporal sequencing.

On May 25, 11:37 pm, Mark Probert
wrote:
Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
On May 25, 3:14 am, "JOHN" wrote:
1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reportedhttp://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSReports.pdf

Accuracy of Reports. VAERS is a passive surveillance system, and the
large number of reports to VAERS precludes checking the specifics of
the vast majority of reports, especially the less serious ones. Few
reports to VAERS include full medical record documentation, and some
doubtless include errors. In addition, the VAERS forms often have
missing data; even simple data such as age, sex, vaccination date and
adverse event onset date are missing for about 11%, 8%, 10% and 14%,
respectively, of domestic VAERS reports.

Hey, Roman, we fact based evidence types have been saying that to John
and his ilk for years. They still insist that VAERS provides useful
information.

It is a waste of taxpayer money and should be shut down and replaced
with something useful.

Good day.

I would certainly say that VAERS isn't extremely accurate being that
it is a passive surveillance system. I personally know approximately
two dozen people that have had severe reactions - several very severe
- and none of them are in the VAERS database either because they
didn't feel it was worthwhile or were actively discouraged from
submitting information. That being said I feel there is some
information that can be gleaned from the database even if only say 5
to 10% of reactions are actually recorded. A mandatory recording
system to replace VAERS simply is not going to occur at this time so
some recording of information I feel is better than none. In
actuality I believe the only real way to obtain valuable information
on effectiveness and adverse effects is by using a double-blind
placebo controlled large scale study.

Enjoy your day.
Roman

Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
On May 25, 11:37 pm, Mark Probert
wrote:
Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
On May 25, 3:14 am, "JOHN" wrote:
1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reportedhttp://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSReports.pdf
Accuracy of Reports. VAERS is a passive surveillance system, and the
large number of reports to VAERS precludes checking the specifics of
the vast majority of reports, especially the less serious ones. Few
reports to VAERS include full medical record documentation, and some
doubtless include errors. In addition, the VAERS forms often have
missing data; even simple data such as age, sex, vaccination date and
adverse event onset date are missing for about 11%, 8%, 10% and 14%,
respectively, of domestic VAERS reports.
Hey, Roman, we fact based evidence types have been saying that to John
and his ilk for years. They still insist that VAERS provides useful
information.

It is a waste of taxpayer money and should be shut down and replaced
with something useful.

Good day.

I would certainly say that VAERS isn't extremely accurate being that
it is a passive surveillance system. I personally know approximately
two dozen people that have had severe reactions - several very severe
- and none of them are in the VAERS database either because they
didn't feel it was worthwhile or were actively discouraged from
submitting information. That being said I feel there is some
information that can be gleaned from the database even if only say 5
to 10% of reactions are actually recorded. A mandatory recording
system to replace VAERS simply is not going to occur at this time so
some recording of information I feel is better than none. In
actuality I believe the only real way to obtain valuable information
on effectiveness and adverse effects is by using a double-blind
placebo controlled large scale study.


The problems with VARS is that it is a garbage dump.It takes any and all
reports with no screening whatsoever.

I assume you are familiar with the Laidler story where he called in a
report and described a situation where the imaginary patient turned into
the incredible hulk? DHHS did call him to question the story.

VAERS had a major spike in reports a few years back when the lawyers in
the Omnibus claim decided it would be a good idea to have more reports,
thus inflating the numbers.

Mark Probert wrote:
Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
On May 25, 11:37 pm, Mark Probert
wrote:
Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
On May 25, 3:14 am, "JOHN" wrote:
1,637 Gardasil reactions have been
reportedhttp://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSReports.pdf

Accuracy of Reports. VAERS is a passive surveillance system, and the
large number of reports to VAERS precludes checking the specifics of
the vast majority of reports, especially the less serious ones. Few
reports to VAERS include full medical record documentation, and some
doubtless include errors. In addition, the VAERS forms often have
missing data; even simple data such as age, sex, vaccination date and
adverse event onset date are missing for about 11%, 8%, 10% and 14%,
respectively, of domestic VAERS reports.
Hey, Roman, we fact based evidence types have been saying that to John
and his ilk for years. They still insist that VAERS provides useful
information.

It is a waste of taxpayer money and should be shut down and replaced
with something useful.

Good day.

I would certainly say that VAERS isn't extremely accurate being that
it is a passive surveillance system. I personally know approximately
two dozen people that have had severe reactions - several very severe
- and none of them are in the VAERS database either because they
didn't feel it was worthwhile or were actively discouraged from
submitting information. That being said I feel there is some
information that can be gleaned from the database even if only say 5
to 10% of reactions are actually recorded. A mandatory recording
system to replace VAERS simply is not going to occur at this time so
some recording of information I feel is better than none. In
actuality I believe the only real way to obtain valuable information
on effectiveness and adverse effects is by using a double-blind
placebo controlled large scale study.


The problems with VARS is that it is a garbage dump.It takes any and all
reports with no screening whatsoever.

I assume you are familiar with the Laidler story where he called in a
report and described a situation where the imaginary patient turned into
the incredible hulk? DHHS did call him to question the story.

VAERS had a major spike in reports a few years back when the lawyers in
the Omnibus claim decided it would be a good idea to have more reports,
thus inflating the numbers.

Hit send too soon.

These attorneys, numbering around 100 or so, needed to inflate the
numbers in the hope that they would further support their nebulous
claims and make t seem like there is an "epidemic".