If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 2 February 2006, pp. 387-390
(doi:10.1542/peds.2004-2687) This Article Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Reporting Source: A Possible Source of Bias in Longitudinal Studies Michael J. Goodman, PhD and James Nordin, MD, MPH HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota OBJECTIVE. The US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a passive reporting system to which anyone can report an event. Publicity related to potential adverse events may change reporting patterns. The objective of this paper is to show how litigation-related reports have influenced the trends in possible adverse event reports to VAERS. METHODS. The VAERS public-use data files were downloaded in July 2004 and translated into identical SAS data sets for analysis. Cases that were related to litigation were identified using a word search algorithm. All cases for the most frequently reported symptoms in litigation (overdose, neuropathy, autism, "mental retardation," arthralgia, and "speech disorder") were reviewed. RESULTS. In recent years, most case reports to VAERS that were related to overdose, neuropathy, and thimerosal were related to litigation. Many cases that were related to autism and mental retardation were as well. CONCLUSIONS. This review shows a previously undisclosed rise in the number of reports to the VAERS related to pending litigation for vaccine injury. The implications of this for understanding longitudinal reporting patterns are discussed. --------------- Documentation of the fact that the Geiers use of VAERS data is bogus. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
Mark Probert wrote: PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 2 February 2006, pp. 387-390 (doi:10.1542/peds.2004-2687) This Article Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Reporting Source: A Possible Source of Bias in Longitudinal Studies Michael J. Goodman, PhD and James Nordin, MD, MPH HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota OBJECTIVE. The US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a passive reporting system to which anyone can report an event. Publicity related to potential adverse events may change reporting patterns. The objective of this paper is to show how litigation-related reports have influenced the trends in possible adverse event reports to VAERS. METHODS. The VAERS public-use data files were downloaded in July 2004 and translated into identical SAS data sets for analysis. Cases that were related to litigation were identified using a word search algorithm. All cases for the most frequently reported symptoms in litigation (overdose, neuropathy, autism, "mental retardation," arthralgia, and "speech disorder") were reviewed. RESULTS. In recent years, most case reports to VAERS that were related to overdose, neuropathy, and thimerosal were related to litigation. Many cases that were related to autism and mental retardation were as well. CONCLUSIONS. This review shows a previously undisclosed rise in the number of reports to the VAERS related to pending litigation for vaccine injury. The implications of this for understanding longitudinal reporting patterns are discussed. --------------- Documentation of the fact that the Geiers use of VAERS data is bogus. Pathetic, Markey. We are to believe that a rise in vaccine damage reports using the only vaccine respository available to the public is suddenly not reliable because people are using it? I suppose we should just ignore the various side effects that vaccine damage apologists (like you) have said are not "real." Hey, here's an idea. Just waive liability for the vaccine makers so no matter how many people suffer vaccine damage, the VAERS data can simply be ignored. What? You're telling me that's already happened? Well, there you have it -- shaft the public often enough and they won't feel a thing. PeterB |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
Nope, it's dead-on right. I could have predicted this before they did
it. When you do epidemiology studies you *always* want random samples. Volunteering information selects for those who are *interested*, and this is not a random sample. When we were doing West Nile prevalence testing a few years ago we went to the blood bank for our samples, because that's a more random way of getting samples, thus your data are more reflective of the general population. You never want to solicit the public for volunteers - you get biased sample collection. This is an old rule of epidemiology. PeterB wrote: Mark Probert wrote: PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 2 February 2006, pp. 387-390 (doi:10.1542/peds.2004-2687) This Article Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Reporting Source: A Possible Source of Bias in Longitudinal Studies Michael J. Goodman, PhD and James Nordin, MD, MPH HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota OBJECTIVE. The US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a passive reporting system to which anyone can report an event. Publicity related to potential adverse events may change reporting patterns. The objective of this paper is to show how litigation-related reports have influenced the trends in possible adverse event reports to VAERS. METHODS. The VAERS public-use data files were downloaded in July 2004 and translated into identical SAS data sets for analysis. Cases that were related to litigation were identified using a word search algorithm. All cases for the most frequently reported symptoms in litigation (overdose, neuropathy, autism, "mental retardation," arthralgia, and "speech disorder") were reviewed. RESULTS. In recent years, most case reports to VAERS that were related to overdose, neuropathy, and thimerosal were related to litigation. Many cases that were related to autism and mental retardation were as well. CONCLUSIONS. This review shows a previously undisclosed rise in the number of reports to the VAERS related to pending litigation for vaccine injury. The implications of this for understanding longitudinal reporting patterns are discussed. --------------- Documentation of the fact that the Geiers use of VAERS data is bogus. Pathetic, Markey. We are to believe that a rise in vaccine damage reports using the only vaccine respository available to the public is suddenly not reliable because people are using it? I suppose we should just ignore the various side effects that vaccine damage apologists (like you) have said are not "real." Hey, here's an idea. Just waive liability for the vaccine makers so no matter how many people suffer vaccine damage, the VAERS data can simply be ignored. What? You're telling me that's already happened? Well, there you have it -- shaft the public often enough and they won't feel a thing. PeterB |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
Vaccine-man wrote: Nope, it's dead-on right. I could have predicted this before they did it. When you do epidemiology studies you *always* want random samples. Volunteering information selects for those who are *interested*, and this is not a random sample. When we were doing West Nile prevalence testing a few years ago we went to the blood bank for our samples, because that's a more random way of getting samples, thus your data are more reflective of the general population. You never want to solicit the public for volunteers - you get biased sample collection. The fact your sponsors didn't properly study the effects or safety of vaccines before marketing them is why we're in this mess. VAERS is still a place to start, but the drug makers cannot be trusted to study the products they intend to market. Debacles like HRT and Vioxx (so-called "evidence based medicine") should be proof enough of that. It's a little late, therefore, to ask Mr. fox to carry your eggs. This is an old rule of epidemiology. So get busy. PeterB wrote: Mark Probert wrote: PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 2 February 2006, pp. 387-390 (doi:10.1542/peds.2004-2687) This Article Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Reporting Source: A Possible Source of Bias in Longitudinal Studies Michael J. Goodman, PhD and James Nordin, MD, MPH HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota OBJECTIVE. The US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a passive reporting system to which anyone can report an event. Publicity related to potential adverse events may change reporting patterns. The objective of this paper is to show how litigation-related reports have influenced the trends in possible adverse event reports to VAERS. METHODS. The VAERS public-use data files were downloaded in July 2004 and translated into identical SAS data sets for analysis. Cases that were related to litigation were identified using a word search algorithm. All cases for the most frequently reported symptoms in litigation (overdose, neuropathy, autism, "mental retardation," arthralgia, and "speech disorder") were reviewed. RESULTS. In recent years, most case reports to VAERS that were related to overdose, neuropathy, and thimerosal were related to litigation. Many cases that were related to autism and mental retardation were as well. CONCLUSIONS. This review shows a previously undisclosed rise in the number of reports to the VAERS related to pending litigation for vaccine injury. The implications of this for understanding longitudinal reporting patterns are discussed. --------------- Documentation of the fact that the Geiers use of VAERS data is bogus. Pathetic, Markey. We are to believe that a rise in vaccine damage reports using the only vaccine respository available to the public is suddenly not reliable because people are using it? I suppose we should just ignore the various side effects that vaccine damage apologists (like you) have said are not "real." Hey, here's an idea. Just waive liability for the vaccine makers so no matter how many people suffer vaccine damage, the VAERS data can simply be ignored. What? You're telling me that's already happened? Well, there you have it -- shaft the public often enough and they won't feel a thing. PeterB |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
PeterB wrote: The fact your sponsors Excuse me? What do you mean by my "sponsors"? didn't properly study the effects or safety of vaccines before marketing them is why we're in this mess. There is no mess. A lot of people are alive and well today because of vaccines. They are effective and safe. There are some risks, just like driving a car, but they are extremely rare. VAERS is still a place to start, but the drug makers cannot be trusted to study the products they intend to market. Debacles like HRT and Vioxx "Debacles"? Wow you make it sound like doom and gloom. Besides, what do these have to do with vaccines. Please stay on topic. (so-called "evidence based medicine") should be proof enough of that. It's a little late, therefore, to ask Mr. fox to carry your eggs. You can bury your head in the sand - that is your prerogative. But keep in mind, if you leave it buried long enough you'll suffer brain damage, and even death. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
Vaccine-man wrote: PeterB wrote: The fact your sponsors Excuse me? What do you mean by my "sponsors"? You are here defending the vaccine makers and their products in a newsgroup devoted to the alternatives, which means you are promoting vaccine. Your sponsors are those who have a vested interest in that effort. Simple enough? didn't properly study the effects or safety of vaccines before marketing them is why we're in this mess. There is no mess. Sure there is. Whenever you don't actually know the risk-adjusted benefit for a particular medical intervention, you have a mess on your hands. It was the case with HRT, it was the case with Vioxx, and it's also the case with vaccine. A lot of people are alive and well today because of vaccines. Studies show that not more than 3.5% of the decline in infectious disease mortality occured after introduction of vaccine, and no proof exists to show what portion of that 3.5% can be attributed to vaccine. All you have is tally stroking health surveys, which is little more than guesswork. They are effective and safe. There are some risks, just like driving a car, but they are extremely rare. What data do you have to back that up? VAERS is still a place to start, but the drug makers cannot be trusted to study the products they intend to market. Debacles like HRT and Vioxx "Debacles"? Wow you make it sound like doom and gloom. Besides, what do these have to do with vaccines. Please stay on topic. My point is that the drug makers are an inappropriate source of safety data for products they themselves market. And if you don't think an elevated risk of stroke, breast cancer, heart attack, and attendant lifespan reductions are a negative for public health, why are you posting to mha? (so-called "evidence based medicine") should be proof enough of that. It's a little late, therefore, to ask Mr. fox to carry your eggs. You can bury your head in the sand - that is your prerogative. But keep in mind, if you leave it buried long enough you'll suffer brain damage, and even death. The total loss of neuronal activity can be attributed to your comments in this post. Mission accomplished. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote: PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 2 February 2006, pp. 387-390 (doi:10.1542/peds.2004-2687) This Article Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Reporting Source: A Possible Source of Bias in Longitudinal Studies Michael J. Goodman, PhD and James Nordin, MD, MPH HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota OBJECTIVE. The US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a passive reporting system to which anyone can report an event. Publicity related to potential adverse events may change reporting patterns. The objective of this paper is to show how litigation-related reports have influenced the trends in possible adverse event reports to VAERS. METHODS. The VAERS public-use data files were downloaded in July 2004 and translated into identical SAS data sets for analysis. Cases that were related to litigation were identified using a word search algorithm. All cases for the most frequently reported symptoms in litigation (overdose, neuropathy, autism, "mental retardation," arthralgia, and "speech disorder") were reviewed. RESULTS. In recent years, most case reports to VAERS that were related to overdose, neuropathy, and thimerosal were related to litigation. Many cases that were related to autism and mental retardation were as well. CONCLUSIONS. This review shows a previously undisclosed rise in the number of reports to the VAERS related to pending litigation for vaccine injury. The implications of this for understanding longitudinal reporting patterns are discussed. --------------- Documentation of the fact that the Geiers use of VAERS data is bogus. Pathetic, Markey. We are to believe that a rise in vaccine damage reports using the only vaccine respository available to the public is suddenly not reliable because people are using it? You may believe whatever you wish. I expected that you would not address the substantive issues raised. People are using it. No question. However, with what is reported, there is a clear chance that there is a significant selection bias. You do know what a selection bias is, and why it should be avoided, don't you? I suppose we should just ignore the various side effects that vaccine damage apologists (like you) have said are not "real." Strawman. You should ignore those side effects which have been shown to not exist, like autism. The rest, you should investigate on a one by one basis. Hey, here's an idea. HOORAY! That is a first! National Holiday Time! Just waive liability for the vaccine makers so no matter how many people suffer vaccine damage, the VAERS data can simply be ignored. What? You're telling me that's already happened? Well, there you have it -- shaft the public often enough and they won't feel a thing. Here are some quotes from the VAERS website: "When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause and effect relationship has been established. VAERS is interested in all *potential* associations between vaccines and adverse events. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it *coincidental* or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event." (emphasis mine) And, most important: VAERS data have a number of limitations you should remember: VAERS data are derived from a passive surveillance system and represent unverified reports of health events, both minor and serious, that occur after vaccination. Such data are subject to limitations of under-reporting, simultaneous administration of multiple vaccine antigens (making it difficult to know to which of the vaccines, if any, the event might be attributed), reporting bias, and lack of incidence rates in unvaccinated comparison groups. While some events reported to VAERS are truly caused by vaccines, others may be related to an underlying disease or condition, to drugs being taken concurrently, or may occur by chance shortly after a vaccine was administered. VAERS occasionally receives case reports from US manufacturers that were reported to their foreign subsidiaries. Under FDA regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and unexpected (in other words, it does not appear in the product labeling), they are required to submit it to VAERS. It is important to realize that these case reports are of variable data quality and completeness, due to the many differences in country reporting practices and surveillance system quality. For this reason they are provided as separate files. In some media reports and on some web sites on the Internet, VAERS reports are presented as verified cases of vaccine deaths and injuries. Statements such as these misrepresent the nature of the VAERS surveillance system. ---------------------- IOW, Petey, it was NOT designed to be used as Geier, et al, uses it, and, with the study I posted, it is inherently BAD SCIENCE to do so. BTW, are you aware of the famous James Laidler report? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
It is a basic rule of investigation. Use appropriate data. Vaccine-man wrote: Nope, it's dead-on right. I could have predicted this before they did it. When you do epidemiology studies you *always* want random samples. Volunteering information selects for those who are *interested*, and this is not a random sample. When we were doing West Nile prevalence testing a few years ago we went to the blood bank for our samples, because that's a more random way of getting samples, thus your data are more reflective of the general population. You never want to solicit the public for volunteers - you get biased sample collection. This is an old rule of epidemiology. PeterB wrote: Mark Probert wrote: PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 2 February 2006, pp. 387-390 (doi:10.1542/peds.2004-2687) This Article Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Reporting Source: A Possible Source of Bias in Longitudinal Studies Michael J. Goodman, PhD and James Nordin, MD, MPH HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota OBJECTIVE. The US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a passive reporting system to which anyone can report an event. Publicity related to potential adverse events may change reporting patterns. The objective of this paper is to show how litigation-related reports have influenced the trends in possible adverse event reports to VAERS. METHODS. The VAERS public-use data files were downloaded in July 2004 and translated into identical SAS data sets for analysis. Cases that were related to litigation were identified using a word search algorithm. All cases for the most frequently reported symptoms in litigation (overdose, neuropathy, autism, "mental retardation," arthralgia, and "speech disorder") were reviewed. RESULTS. In recent years, most case reports to VAERS that were related to overdose, neuropathy, and thimerosal were related to litigation. Many cases that were related to autism and mental retardation were as well. CONCLUSIONS. This review shows a previously undisclosed rise in the number of reports to the VAERS related to pending litigation for vaccine injury. The implications of this for understanding longitudinal reporting patterns are discussed. --------------- Documentation of the fact that the Geiers use of VAERS data is bogus. Pathetic, Markey. We are to believe that a rise in vaccine damage reports using the only vaccine respository available to the public is suddenly not reliable because people are using it? I suppose we should just ignore the various side effects that vaccine damage apologists (like you) have said are not "real." Hey, here's an idea. Just waive liability for the vaccine makers so no matter how many people suffer vaccine damage, the VAERS data can simply be ignored. What? You're telling me that's already happened? Well, there you have it -- shaft the public often enough and they won't feel a thing. PeterB |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
PeterB wrote:
Vaccine-man wrote: Nope, it's dead-on right. I could have predicted this before they did it. When you do epidemiology studies you *always* want random samples. Volunteering information selects for those who are *interested*, and this is not a random sample. When we were doing West Nile prevalence testing a few years ago we went to the blood bank for our samples, because that's a more random way of getting samples, thus your data are more reflective of the general population. You never want to solicit the public for volunteers - you get biased sample collection. The fact your sponsors didn't properly study the effects or safety of vaccines before marketing them is why we're in this mess. VAERS is still a place to start, but the drug makers cannot be trusted to study the products they intend to market. BWHAHAHAHAHA! "The majority of VAERS reports are sent in by vaccine manufacturers (42%) and health care providers (30%). " http://vaers.hhs.gov/vaers.htm With rare events, it is impossible for a pre-marketing testing program to find all possible problems. VAERS is the database which fills in the gaps. Debacles like HRT and Vioxx (so-called "evidence based medicine") should be proof enough of that. It's a little late, therefore, to ask Mr. fox to carry your eggs. If I raised another medication or chemical, etc. your fellow-travelers would whine about me diverting. Watch the AltNuts remain silent. This is an old rule of epidemiology. So get busy. So, get a clue. PeterB wrote: Mark Probert wrote: PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 2 February 2006, pp. 387-390 (doi:10.1542/peds.2004-2687) This Article Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Reporting Source: A Possible Source of Bias in Longitudinal Studies Michael J. Goodman, PhD and James Nordin, MD, MPH HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota OBJECTIVE. The US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a passive reporting system to which anyone can report an event. Publicity related to potential adverse events may change reporting patterns. The objective of this paper is to show how litigation-related reports have influenced the trends in possible adverse event reports to VAERS. METHODS. The VAERS public-use data files were downloaded in July 2004 and translated into identical SAS data sets for analysis. Cases that were related to litigation were identified using a word search algorithm. All cases for the most frequently reported symptoms in litigation (overdose, neuropathy, autism, "mental retardation," arthralgia, and "speech disorder") were reviewed. RESULTS. In recent years, most case reports to VAERS that were related to overdose, neuropathy, and thimerosal were related to litigation. Many cases that were related to autism and mental retardation were as well. CONCLUSIONS. This review shows a previously undisclosed rise in the number of reports to the VAERS related to pending litigation for vaccine injury. The implications of this for understanding longitudinal reporting patterns are discussed. --------------- Documentation of the fact that the Geiers use of VAERS data is bogus. Pathetic, Markey. We are to believe that a rise in vaccine damage reports using the only vaccine respository available to the public is suddenly not reliable because people are using it? I suppose we should just ignore the various side effects that vaccine damage apologists (like you) have said are not "real." Hey, here's an idea. Just waive liability for the vaccine makers so no matter how many people suffer vaccine damage, the VAERS data can simply be ignored. What? You're telling me that's already happened? Well, there you have it -- shaft the public often enough and they won't feel a thing. PeterB |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
Vaccine-man wrote:
PeterB wrote: The fact your sponsors Excuse me? What do you mean by my "sponsors"? Petey cannot engage in reasoned discussion and resorts to marginalization techniques to dismiss those who he cannot handle. Thus, he created the idiot term, pharmablogger. didn't properly study the effects or safety of vaccines before marketing them is why we're in this mess. There is no mess. A lot of people are alive and well today because of vaccines. They are effective and safe. There are some risks, just like driving a car, but they are extremely rare. VAERS is still a place to start, but the drug makers cannot be trusted to study the products they intend to market. Debacles like HRT and Vioxx "Debacles"? Wow you make it sound like doom and gloom. Besides, what do these have to do with vaccines. Please stay on topic. Petey finds that hard. He has to resort to comments like "sponsors" "handlers" "pharmablogger", etc. Facts confuse him. (so-called "evidence based medicine") should be proof enough of that. It's a little late, therefore, to ask Mr. fox to carry your eggs. You can bury your head in the sand - that is your prerogative. But keep in mind, if you leave it buried long enough you'll suffer brain damage, and even death. I would not have used the term "sand" to describe where Petey keeps his head for storage. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What Drs. Geier say ... in rebuttal to Quacks Gorski & Probert | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 65 | June 5th 06 02:11 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | January 18th 06 05:47 AM |
10 day old stolen 6 years ago - WHY does the state have jurisdiction? | Kane | General | 27 | March 12th 04 05:51 AM |
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed | Kane | Spanking | 11 | September 16th 03 11:59 AM |
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed | Kane | Foster Parents | 10 | September 16th 03 11:59 AM |