1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reported

Mark Probert wrote:
...

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

That's its strength. If you *suspect* that a problem *might be* caused
by a vaccine, it should be reported.

Some people mistakenly think that just because something has been
reported as an adverse event, that means that it was caused by the
vaccine. Some adverse events are caused by the vaccines, but many aren't.

The whole idea of VAERS is that it is better to have every event that
might be caused by vaccines reported, so that if there is a problem with
a vaccine, it won't be missed.

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.

Unfortunately, people misuse the system. You have that whenever members
of the species homo sapiens are around.

Jeff

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news:UY57i.3868$Au6.542@trndny04...
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".

A disbarred attorney who was disbarred for 22 counts of unprofessional
behavior, tells us about other attorneys.

Oh the irony......... and NERVE...........

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:Y067i.1218$WZ6.396@trnddc03...
Mark Probert wrote:
...

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

That's its strength. If you *suspect* that a problem *might be* caused by
a vaccine, it should be reported.

Some people mistakenly think that just because something has been reported
as an adverse event, that means that it was caused by the vaccine. Some
adverse events are caused by the vaccines, but many aren't.

A parent who sees their child quit speaking soon about a
vacicnation...KNOWS.

But YOU wouldn't know because you have no children.

The whole idea of VAERS is that it is better to have every event that
might be caused by vaccines reported, so that if there is a problem with a
vaccine, it won't be missed.

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.

Unfortunately, people misuse the system. You have that whenever members of
the species homo sapiens are around.

Jeff

"Jan Drew" wrote:

A disbarred attorney

KACHING!! - $1

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

A disbarred attorney who was disbarred for 22 counts of unprofessional
behavior, tells us about other attorneys.

Oh the irony......... and NERVE...........

Good day.

I fail to see how this comment is helpful. Everyone is entitled to
their opinion.

Enjoy your day.
Roman

On May 29, 11:12 pm, Mark Probert
wrote:
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".

Good day.

Do you have evidence of this story? Do you have access to internal
emails, direct witness accounts, etc? Where they all fake reports or
were they helping people submit to VAERS? I'm quite interested in
anything you may have in this regard. Also, what was the alleged
number of "inflated" and presumably fraudulent reports? What
percentage of the total of VAERS were these reports?

Thank you and have a good day.
Roman

Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
A disbarred attorney who was disbarred for 22 counts of unprofessional
behavior, tells us about other attorneys.

Oh the irony......... and NERVE...........

Good day.

I fail to see how this comment is helpful. Everyone is entitled to
their opinion.

Remember Animal Farm? Some people are more entitled than others.

Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
On May 29, 11:12 pm, Mark Probert
wrote:
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".

Good day.

Do you have evidence of this story? Do you have access to internal
emails, direct witness accounts, etc? Where they all fake reports or
were they helping people submit to VAERS? I'm quite interested in
anything you may have in this regard. Also, what was the alleged
number of "inflated" and presumably fraudulent reports? What
percentage of the total of VAERS were these reports?

If you examine the number of claims filed in the Omnibus proceeding, and
then look at the increase in VAERS reports, you would see the similarity.

There has been prior discussion of how the attorney driven reports have
skewed the VAERS data.

Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
On May 29, 11:12 pm, Mark Probert
wrote:
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".

Good day.

Do you have evidence of this story? Do you have access to internal
emails, direct witness accounts, etc? Where they all fake reports or
were they helping people submit to VAERS? I'm quite interested in
anything you may have in this regard. Also, what was the alleged
number of "inflated" and presumably fraudulent reports? What
percentage of the total of VAERS were these reports?

Thank you and have a good day.


Try this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

and this

http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2006/0...-distorts.html

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news:T5z7i.6329$Au6.853@trndny04...
Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
On May 29, 11:12 pm, Mark Probert
wrote:
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".

Good day.

Do you have evidence of this story? Do you have access to internal
emails, direct witness accounts, etc? Where they all fake reports or
were they helping people submit to VAERS? I'm quite interested in
anything you may have in this regard. Also, what was the alleged
number of "inflated" and presumably fraudulent reports? What
percentage of the total of VAERS were these reports?

Thank you and have a good day.


Try this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

The authors give msleading information.

And are in tight with the AMA.

and this

http://orac

Ia a known and proven liar. Lies for and with Mark.