What Drs. Geier say ... in rebuttal to Quacks Gorski & Probert

I've been trying for 3 hours to reply to your post above that includes
RICHARD PISCOPO,Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent. Google keeps telling me "Oops. Can't post right now. Try
again in a few minutes."

This is just a test post to see if I can reply to this particular
message. If so, I'll post the above reply here.

Max.

Mark Probert wrote:
Max C. wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
We are not talking "viewpoints" which are merely opinions. Orac posted
links to well documented analyses of Geier's recent work which
demonstrate that he used inappropriate datasets and incorrect
statistical analysis to reach his conclusions.

Please find some rebuttal of those two well documented arguments about
Geier's work.

Opinions deleted as non-responsive to the discussion.

I just tried to post this question above, but Google gave me an error
message. I'll try it here again:

I've seen you make these claims many times. I'm curious to know which
datasets are in question and what subject you're talking about.

Was easier than I thought...it is the database maintained by the
California Department of Developmental Services. On their webpage this
warning is linked:

http://www.dds.cahwnet.gov/FactsStats/quarterly.cfm

http://www.dds.cahwnet.gov/FactsStat...imitations.pdf

Data Interpretation Considerations and Limitations

Although information published by DDS in the Quarterly Client
Characteristics Report is often used by media and research entities to
develop statistics and draw conclusions, some of these findings may
misrepresent the quarterly figures. The following information is
provided to help users of the Quarterly Client Characteristics Report
understand what changes in the numbers represent. When comparing numbers
reported in one quarter to numbers reported in another quarter, the
following factors should be considered.

Increases in the number of persons reported from one quarter to the next
do not necessarily represent persons who are new to the DDS system. This
is because:
· Individuals may not have a Client Development Evaluation Report (CDER)
on file for months or even years after entering the system.
· Individuals who already have a CDER may have new data, including
clinical data, entered at a later date.

Differences in the numbers from quarter to quarter reflect the net
changes between individuals who are newly reported (i.e., included in
the later report but not included in the earlier report) and individuals
who dropped out (i.e., included in the earlier report but no
longer included in the later report).

Newly reported may include:
· Individuals newly entering the system who have a CDER
· Individuals already active in the system who have a CDER in the
current quarter but did not have a CDER in the prior quarter
· Individuals already in the system who have a CDER and active status1
in the current quarter whose status was closed2 or inactive3 in the
prior quarter
· Individuals who had changes made to their CDER in the current quarter
that resulted in them being reported under new categories
Dropped out may include:
· Individuals who were included in the prior quarter but are not
included in the current quarter due to a change in status (e.g., from
active status to inactive or closed status)
· Individuals who had changes made to their CDER in the current quarter
that resulted in them no longer being reported under certain categories
In addition to the considerations noted above, individuals using DDS
Quarterly Client Characteristics Report data for any type of trend
analysis should be informed about the causes of increased CDER
population numbers first reflected in the report for the quarter
ending September 2002. Over 4,000 CDER records were added to the CDER
database in July 2002 due to a revision in the information system
transmission program and a change in DDS policy to include the records
of CDERs not updated within the required three years of last report
date. For more information, please read the page on "Changes to CDER
Quarterly Reports" at www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/QuarterlyChanges.cfm.

1Active status for purposes of the Quarterly Client Characteristics
Report includes persons with CDERs who are currently being served by DDS
in a State Developmental Center or in a community setting, including the
home of parent.

2Closed status includes persons who moved out of state, died, were
determined ineligible, or could not be located/chose not to continue
pursuing eligibility determination.

3Inactive status includes persons who were determined eligible but
currently do not want services.

-------------

With this warning, Geier went right ahead and ignored it.

Simply, it suited his needs as he manipulated the numbers to prove his
point.

Well, that worked. Let's try to paste in the original reply:
_____________
I doubt that you actually took the time to type all of that out for us
(I wouldn't have) but I can't seem to find any sentence in it that
Google knows about. How did you acquire that court document?

As for your answer to my above question, I agree that using the VAERS
database would be a haphazard way of running numbers... but for the
opposite reason than the critics you've quoted. According to most
estimates I've read, not more than 10% of actual adverse reactions are
actually reported. Some estimates put the figure as low as 1%.
Additionally, I understand that it's also possible that one reaction
may be reported 2 or 3 times.

However, given the thousands of reports each year, one could reasonably
expect the number of double or triple reporting to average around the
same percentage each year. One could also expect the percentage of the
population that knows about VEARS to slightly increase each year as
more and more people learn about it. Given that more and more people
are learning about it, I would expect the number of adverse reactions
reported to go up each year.

In fact, typing this out made me curious to know if this data is
available online. I hadn't seen the data myself before just a few
minutes ago, when I found it at: http://vaers.hhs.gov/scripts/data.cfm
As I expected, the total number of reported cases each year has an
upward trend, indicating either 1 - that more and more people are
learning about the VAERS (which is probably the case) 2 - more
children are having adverse reactions (let's hope that's NOT the case)
3 - more cases are being reported multiple times. While I readily
admit that # 3 is a possibility, I personally believe it is most likely
#1.

Now that I have the data in question, do you happen to have a link to
show how the Geiers crunched the numbers?

BTW, reading through some of the symptoms on this list is heart
breaking. Time after time I read about children, previously healthy,
who writhed in pain and screamed uncontrollably after a vaccination...
one even said the child screamed for *days.* I have a hard time
reading through these files and believing that vaccines had nothing to
do with the symptoms. I think everyone here should download a few of
those files and go through them.

Max.
_____________

Max C. wrote:
I've been trying for 3 hours to reply to your post above that includes
RICHARD PISCOPO,Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent. Google keeps telling me "Oops. Can't post right now. Try
again in a few minutes."

This is just a test post to see if I can reply to this particular
message. If so, I'll post the above reply here.

Max.

Mark Probert wrote:
Max C. wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
We are not talking "viewpoints" which are merely opinions. Orac posted
links to well documented analyses of Geier's recent work which
demonstrate that he used inappropriate datasets and incorrect
statistical analysis to reach his conclusions.

Please find some rebuttal of those two well documented arguments about
Geier's work.

Opinions deleted as non-responsive to the discussion.

I just tried to post this question above, but Google gave me an error
message. I'll try it here again:

I've seen you make these claims many times. I'm curious to know which
datasets are in question and what subject you're talking about.

Was easier than I thought...it is the database maintained by the
California Department of Developmental Services. On their webpage this
warning is linked:

http://www.dds.cahwnet.gov/FactsStats/quarterly.cfm

http://www.dds.cahwnet.gov/FactsStat...imitations.pdf

Data Interpretation Considerations and Limitations

Although information published by DDS in the Quarterly Client
Characteristics Report is often used by media and research entities to
develop statistics and draw conclusions, some of these findings may
misrepresent the quarterly figures. The following information is
provided to help users of the Quarterly Client Characteristics Report
understand what changes in the numbers represent. When comparing numbers
reported in one quarter to numbers reported in another quarter, the
following factors should be considered.

Increases in the number of persons reported from one quarter to the next
do not necessarily represent persons who are new to the DDS system. This
is because:
· Individuals may not have a Client Development Evaluation Report (CDER)
on file for months or even years after entering the system.
· Individuals who already have a CDER may have new data, including
clinical data, entered at a later date.

Differences in the numbers from quarter to quarter reflect the net
changes between individuals who are newly reported (i.e., included in
the later report but not included in the earlier report) and individuals
who dropped out (i.e., included in the earlier report but no
longer included in the later report).

Newly reported may include:
· Individuals newly entering the system who have a CDER
· Individuals already active in the system who have a CDER in the
current quarter but did not have a CDER in the prior quarter
· Individuals already in the system who have a CDER and active status1
in the current quarter whose status was closed2 or inactive3 in the
prior quarter
· Individuals who had changes made to their CDER in the current quarter
that resulted in them being reported under new categories
Dropped out may include:
· Individuals who were included in the prior quarter but are not
included in the current quarter due to a change in status (e.g., from
active status to inactive or closed status)
· Individuals who had changes made to their CDER in the current quarter
that resulted in them no longer being reported under certain categories
In addition to the considerations noted above, individuals using DDS
Quarterly Client Characteristics Report data for any type of trend
analysis should be informed about the causes of increased CDER
population numbers first reflected in the report for the quarter
ending September 2002. Over 4,000 CDER records were added to the CDER
database in July 2002 due to a revision in the information system
transmission program and a change in DDS policy to include the records
of CDERs not updated within the required three years of last report
date. For more information, please read the page on "Changes to CDER
Quarterly Reports" at www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/QuarterlyChanges.cfm.

1Active status for purposes of the Quarterly Client Characteristics
Report includes persons with CDERs who are currently being served by DDS
in a State Developmental Center or in a community setting, including the
home of parent.

2Closed status includes persons who moved out of state, died, were
determined ineligible, or could not be located/chose not to continue
pursuing eligibility determination.

3Inactive status includes persons who were determined eligible but
currently do not want services.

-------------

With this warning, Geier went right ahead and ignored it.

Simply, it suited his needs as he manipulated the numbers to prove his
point.

"Eric Bohlman" wrote in message
...
"Skeptic" wrote in
news:Wsvcg.743082$084.710282@attbi_s22:

great, now you're a parrot. Do you want a cracker?

It's called "echolalia." More than half of Jan's post consist of either
repetition of something she previously posted, or unmodified copies of
something someone else posted.

lol...

It is noted..Eric didn't comment on the FACT..Skeptic could not answer,
Max's question!

Jan Drew wrote:
"Eric Bohlman" wrote in message
...
"Skeptic" wrote in
news:Wsvcg.743082$084.710282@attbi_s22:

great, now you're a parrot. Do you want a cracker?
It's called "echolalia." More than half of Jan's post consist of either
repetition of something she previously posted, or unmodified copies of
something someone else posted.

lol...

It is noted..Eric didn't comment on the FACT..Skeptic could not answer,
Max's question!

And it is noted that neither you or Max have indicated in any manner
that you have read the Geier report or the criticisms and or defenses
thereof.

However, that does not stop you from supporting Geier merely because he
supports your opinion.

Max C. wrote:
I've been trying for 3 hours to reply to your post above that includes
RICHARD PISCOPO,Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent. Google keeps telling me "Oops. Can't post right now. Try
again in a few minutes."

It is a plot.

This is just a test post to see if I can reply to this particular
message. If so, I'll post the above reply here.

It worked.


Max.

Mark Probert wrote:
Max C. wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
We are not talking "viewpoints" which are merely opinions. Orac posted
links to well documented analyses of Geier's recent work which
demonstrate that he used inappropriate datasets and incorrect
statistical analysis to reach his conclusions.

Please find some rebuttal of those two well documented arguments about
Geier's work.

Opinions deleted as non-responsive to the discussion.
I just tried to post this question above, but Google gave me an error
message. I'll try it here again:

I've seen you make these claims many times. I'm curious to know which
datasets are in question and what subject you're talking about.
Was easier than I thought...it is the database maintained by the
California Department of Developmental Services. On their webpage this
warning is linked:

http://www.dds.cahwnet.gov/FactsStats/quarterly.cfm

http://www.dds.cahwnet.gov/FactsStat...imitations.pdf

Data Interpretation Considerations and Limitations

Although information published by DDS in the Quarterly Client
Characteristics Report is often used by media and research entities to
develop statistics and draw conclusions, some of these findings may
misrepresent the quarterly figures. The following information is
provided to help users of the Quarterly Client Characteristics Report
understand what changes in the numbers represent. When comparing numbers
reported in one quarter to numbers reported in another quarter, the
following factors should be considered.

Increases in the number of persons reported from one quarter to the next
do not necessarily represent persons who are new to the DDS system. This
is because:
· Individuals may not have a Client Development Evaluation Report (CDER)
on file for months or even years after entering the system.
· Individuals who already have a CDER may have new data, including
clinical data, entered at a later date.

Differences in the numbers from quarter to quarter reflect the net
changes between individuals who are newly reported (i.e., included in
the later report but not included in the earlier report) and individuals
who dropped out (i.e., included in the earlier report but no
longer included in the later report).

Newly reported may include:
· Individuals newly entering the system who have a CDER
· Individuals already active in the system who have a CDER in the
current quarter but did not have a CDER in the prior quarter
· Individuals already in the system who have a CDER and active status1
in the current quarter whose status was closed2 or inactive3 in the
prior quarter
· Individuals who had changes made to their CDER in the current quarter
that resulted in them being reported under new categories
Dropped out may include:
· Individuals who were included in the prior quarter but are not
included in the current quarter due to a change in status (e.g., from
active status to inactive or closed status)
· Individuals who had changes made to their CDER in the current quarter
that resulted in them no longer being reported under certain categories
In addition to the considerations noted above, individuals using DDS
Quarterly Client Characteristics Report data for any type of trend
analysis should be informed about the causes of increased CDER
population numbers first reflected in the report for the quarter
ending September 2002. Over 4,000 CDER records were added to the CDER
database in July 2002 due to a revision in the information system
transmission program and a change in DDS policy to include the records
of CDERs not updated within the required three years of last report
date. For more information, please read the page on "Changes to CDER
Quarterly Reports" at www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/QuarterlyChanges.cfm.

1Active status for purposes of the Quarterly Client Characteristics
Report includes persons with CDERs who are currently being served by DDS
in a State Developmental Center or in a community setting, including the
home of parent.

2Closed status includes persons who moved out of state, died, were
determined ineligible, or could not be located/chose not to continue
pursuing eligibility determination.

3Inactive status includes persons who were determined eligible but
currently do not want services.

-------------

With this warning, Geier went right ahead and ignored it.

Simply, it suited his needs as he manipulated the numbers to prove his
point.

Max C. wrote:
Well, that worked. Let's try to paste in the original reply:
_____________
I doubt that you actually took the time to type all of that out for us
(I wouldn't have) but I can't seem to find any sentence in it that
Google knows about. How did you acquire that court document?

Magic. Hocus Pocus.

Actually, I conducted a very simple search. Ms. Rosenthal has posted an
article(?) from 2003 praising Geier, and, having been doing some
research on him, I knew of at least one, now two, decisions where the
judge trashed him. Accordingly, I searched on 'Geier "special master"
and it was #1 in the hit parade.

As for your answer to my above question, I agree that using the VAERS
database would be a haphazard way of running numbers... but for the
opposite reason than the critics you've quoted. According to most
estimates I've read, not more than 10% of actual adverse reactions are
actually reported. Some estimates put the figure as low as 1%.
Additionally, I understand that it's also possible that one reaction
may be reported 2 or 3 times.

Take those valid criticisms, add them to the equally valid criticisms
that I posted, especially the VAERS warning not to do what Geier did,
and, voila! you do have the measure of the deceitfulness of the man.

I cannot think of a valid argument he could make to justify the use of
the VAERS database. I'll assume that he is not stupid, and, therefore,
his motivation in using it must be suspect. The only conclusion I can
reach is that he needed something to prove his point, and he was hoping
that no one would notice. I cannot think of anything else.

However, given the thousands of reports each year, one could reasonably
expect the number of double or triple reporting to average around the
same percentage each year. One could also expect the percentage of the
population that knows about VEARS to slightly increase each year as
more and more people learn about it. Given that more and more people
are learning about it, I would expect the number of adverse reactions
reported to go up each year.

However, that is the reports of *suspected* adverse reactions, not
necessarily the absolute number of them.

In fact, typing this out made me curious to know if this data is
available online. I hadn't seen the data myself before just a few
minutes ago, when I found it at: http://vaers.hhs.gov/scripts/data.cfm
As I expected, the total number of reported cases each year has an
upward trend, indicating either 1 - that more and more people are
learning about the VAERS (which is probably the case) 2 - more
children are having adverse reactions (let's hope that's NOT the case)
3 - more cases are being reported multiple times. While I readily
admit that # 3 is a possibility, I personally believe it is most likely
#1.

Considering the publicity of the anti-vac community, coupled with the
search and destroy tactics of the attorneys who are pursuing the
litigation, etc. you do have a sound basis for that belief.

Now that I have the data in question, do you happen to have a link to
show how the Geiers crunched the numbers?

I have been reading GoodMath-BadMath for a while. Math has never been my
strongest suit, and, it has been instructive. The Blogger is a PhD. He
wrote this:

http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/04...m-studies.html

BTW, reading through some of the symptoms on this list is heart
breaking. Time after time I read about children, previously healthy,
who writhed in pain and screamed uncontrollably after a vaccination...
one even said the child screamed for *days.* I have a hard time
reading through these files and believing that vaccines had nothing to
do with the symptoms. I think everyone here should download a few of
those files and go through them.

I have read several of them. Many of them seem somewhat dramatic and are
designed to evoke your reaction.


Max.
_____________

Max C. wrote:
I've been trying for 3 hours to reply to your post above that includes
RICHARD PISCOPO,Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent. Google keeps telling me "Oops. Can't post right now. Try
again in a few minutes."

This is just a test post to see if I can reply to this particular
message. If so, I'll post the above reply here.

Max.

Mark Probert wrote:
Max C. wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
We are not talking "viewpoints" which are merely opinions. Orac posted
links to well documented analyses of Geier's recent work which
demonstrate that he used inappropriate datasets and incorrect
statistical analysis to reach his conclusions.

Please find some rebuttal of those two well documented arguments about
Geier's work.

Opinions deleted as non-responsive to the discussion.
I just tried to post this question above, but Google gave me an error
message. I'll try it here again:

I've seen you make these claims many times. I'm curious to know which
datasets are in question and what subject you're talking about.
Was easier than I thought...it is the database maintained by the
California Department of Developmental Services. On their webpage this
warning is linked:

http://www.dds.cahwnet.gov/FactsStats/quarterly.cfm

http://www.dds.cahwnet.gov/FactsStat...imitations.pdf

Data Interpretation Considerations and Limitations

Although information published by DDS in the Quarterly Client
Characteristics Report is often used by media and research entities to
develop statistics and draw conclusions, some of these findings may
misrepresent the quarterly figures. The following information is
provided to help users of the Quarterly Client Characteristics Report
understand what changes in the numbers represent. When comparing numbers
reported in one quarter to numbers reported in another quarter, the
following factors should be considered.

Increases in the number of persons reported from one quarter to the next
do not necessarily represent persons who are new to the DDS system. This
is because:
· Individuals may not have a Client Development Evaluation Report (CDER)
on file for months or even years after entering the system.
· Individuals who already have a CDER may have new data, including
clinical data, entered at a later date.

Differences in the numbers from quarter to quarter reflect the net
changes between individuals who are newly reported (i.e., included in
the later report but not included in the earlier report) and individuals
who dropped out (i.e., included in the earlier report but no
longer included in the later report).

Newly reported may include:
· Individuals newly entering the system who have a CDER
· Individuals already active in the system who have a CDER in the
current quarter but did not have a CDER in the prior quarter
· Individuals already in the system who have a CDER and active status1
in the current quarter whose status was closed2 or inactive3 in the
prior quarter
· Individuals who had changes made to their CDER in the current quarter
that resulted in them being reported under new categories
Dropped out may include:
· Individuals who were included in the prior quarter but are not
included in the current quarter due to a change in status (e.g., from
active status to inactive or closed status)
· Individuals who had changes made to their CDER in the current quarter
that resulted in them no longer being reported under certain categories
In addition to the considerations noted above, individuals using DDS
Quarterly Client Characteristics Report data for any type of trend
analysis should be informed about the causes of increased CDER
population numbers first reflected in the report for the quarter
ending September 2002. Over 4,000 CDER records were added to the CDER
database in July 2002 due to a revision in the information system
transmission program and a change in DDS policy to include the records
of CDERs not updated within the required three years of last report
date. For more information, please read the page on "Changes to CDER
Quarterly Reports" at www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/QuarterlyChanges.cfm.

1Active status for purposes of the Quarterly Client Characteristics
Report includes persons with CDERs who are currently being served by DDS
in a State Developmental Center or in a community setting, including the
home of parent.

2Closed status includes persons who moved out of state, died, were
determined ineligible, or could not be located/chose not to continue
pursuing eligibility determination.

3Inactive status includes persons who were determined eligible but
currently do not want services.

-------------

With this warning, Geier went right ahead and ignored it.

Simply, it suited his needs as he manipulated the numbers to prove his
point.

Mark Probert wrote:
Max C. wrote:
Well, that worked. Let's try to paste in the original reply:
_____________
I doubt that you actually took the time to type all of that out for us
(I wouldn't have) but I can't seem to find any sentence in it that
Google knows about. How did you acquire that court document?

Magic. Hocus Pocus.

Actually, I conducted a very simple search. Ms. Rosenthal has posted an
article(?) from 2003 praising Geier, and, having been doing some
research on him, I knew of at least one, now two, decisions where the
judge trashed him. Accordingly, I searched on 'Geier "special master"
and it was #1 in the hit parade.

Casewatch.com... I should have known. And no citation on the page.
I'm supposed to just take Barrett's word for it? No thanks.

I did continue the search with your suggested search string. The next
link was this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Geier

This page says this:
"Geier has been criticized over his qualifications in these hearings,
wherein one Special Master labeled him "a professional witness" who
"clearly lacks the expertise" required. [5] Critics of the vaccine
injury compensation system question the stringency of the requirements,
which they contend effectively preclude fair presentation in the
hearings of testimony from their experts.

On at least ten separate occasions, the Special Master ruled that Geier
lacked the necessary qualifications or board-certification to offer an
expert opinion. Litigants pressing vaccine injury claims have a dual
challenge, since relatively few experts in relevant fields think
thimerosal causes autism, and even fewer work in specialties required
by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program."

At least ten occasions? Where's the citation? It would appear that
someone just pulled a number right out of their butt and posted it on
wikipedia.com as fact.

but the next paragraph says this:
"However, on November 25, 2003, Special Master French praised Geier's
credentials and vast experience and said Dr. Geier "ranks high among
those who have studied vaccine issues through the medical literature on
vaccines, databases, studies, articles and information on vaccine
safety and efficacy in vaccine policy. The tenor of his testimony in
this case addressed the importance of statistical databases in
providing statistical reliability and validity in interpreting the
epidemiology and issues relating to autism and various vaccines...Dr.
Geier has recently proposed a data-sharing process that would improve
the reliability of present statistical data that would include the
present VAERS statistical database. It would be helpful in interpreting
the epidemiology and issues relating to the autism controversy.""

Note those last 2 sentences. How could that possibly be a bad thing?
The data currently "trapped" inside the CDC should be public knowledge.
It should be open to public scrutiny. Geier reveals several
disgusting practices in the CDC designed to prevent that data from
being read by the public. I've already posted a link to that
interview.

Furthermore, it's not like the Geiers are anti-vac. They are
pro-vaccination. They just want the vaccines to be as safe as
possible. They mention 2 studies in the last video of their interview
that I need to research. One reportedly shows brain tissue samples
that are destroyed by amounts of thimerosal MUCH lower than that found
in vaccines. I'll post my findings about that after I dig in to it.

On another link from Google:
http://www.curtiswebb.net/cases/estep.dsp
"The court also rejects the Secretary's arguments with regard to
the testimony of Dr. Geier. The Secretary asserts that Dr. Geier's
methodology is not generally accepted in the scientific community,
because Dr. Geier "opined to a 51% confidence level," and because
Dr. Geier has not published his theories, which would subject them to
the rigors of peer review. These arguments are unpersuasive because the
special master relied not only on Dr. Geier's opinions, but also on
other expert testimony plus the case studies on which their testimony
was based, to conclude that a reputable medical or scientific theory
supported a finding of causation. Based on the testimony of experts and
his review of the literature, the special master concluded that Dr.
Geier's methodology was generally accepted in the scientific
community. The court finds no basis for disturbing that conclusion."

So, even though the Secretary asserted the same notion as the above
link, the special master in this case did not agree.

I found this paragraph very interesting:
"The special master's factual conclusions were neither arbitrary
nor capricious. Three experts agreed that a DPT vaccination can cause
an acute encephalopathy, and that anything that can cause an acute
encephalopathy can cause permanent neurologic damage. Dr. Geier's
opinion was based on case reports, controlled case studies such as the
NCES, animal tests, known biological properties of bacterium causing
pertussis, and other data. On this record as a whole, a reasonable
person could find by a preponderance of the evidence that a generally
accepted medical or scientific theory supported a logical sequence of
cause and effect. Though a different factfinder might have assigned
greater weight to the IOM Report, "such arguments as to the weighing
of evidence, particularly where, as here, witness credibility is
involved, do not demonstrate reversible error." Hines, 940 F.2d at
1527."

Obviously many pieces of evidence were weighed for this case. In the
end, Dr. Geier was found to be reputable.

As for your answer to my above question, I agree that using the VAERS
database would be a haphazard way of running numbers... but for the
opposite reason than the critics you've quoted. According to most
estimates I've read, not more than 10% of actual adverse reactions are
actually reported. Some estimates put the figure as low as 1%.
Additionally, I understand that it's also possible that one reaction
may be reported 2 or 3 times.

Take those valid criticisms, add them to the equally valid criticisms
that I posted, especially the VAERS warning not to do what Geier did,
and, voila! you do have the measure of the deceitfulness of the man.

I cannot think of a valid argument he could make to justify the use of
the VAERS database. I'll assume that he is not stupid, and, therefore,
his motivation in using it must be suspect. The only conclusion I can
reach is that he needed something to prove his point, and he was hoping
that no one would notice. I cannot think of anything else.

I can. More credible data (which SHOULD be available from the CDC)
seems impossible to obtain. What other large databases are there that
one could get adverse vaccine reaction information from? (I'm really
asking, because if such a database exists, I want to know.) The CDC
seems incapable or completely unwilling to allow that information to be
released, which is ABSURD! It would seem to me that Dr. Geier went
with the only data publically available.

Of course, while reading the above web sites, I did run across this:
http://www.909shot.com/Loe_Fisher/blf0804vsd.htm
"SLIDE: U.S. Court of Claims Relies on IOM Reports
"I find it quite appropriate to utilize the 2004 IOM Report as a tool
for identifying the items of evidence that are available concerning the
general issue of whether MMR vaccines cause autism....the Institute of
Medicine seems clearly to be an appropriate source of expert assistance
for a special master in a Vaccine Act proceeding......I note that
during the 15-year history of the Vaccine Act, special masters have
consistently referred to and relied upon [those] reports of the
Institute of Medicine."
- July 16, 2004 Special Master Ruling in the U.S. Court of Claims
In Claims for Vaccine Injuries Resulting in Autism Spectrum
Disorder or Similar Neurodevelopmental Disorder"

So, it would appear that if the IOM database is available, that should
be a suitable start for crunching numbers. This is the first I've
heard of the IOM database, so I don't know anything about it.

However, given the thousands of reports each year, one could reasonably
expect the number of double or triple reporting to average around the
same percentage each year. One could also expect the percentage of the
population that knows about VEARS to slightly increase each year as
more and more people learn about it. Given that more and more people
are learning about it, I would expect the number of adverse reactions
reported to go up each year.

However, that is the reports of *suspected* adverse reactions, not
necessarily the absolute number of them.

Of course it's not the absolute number. It's no where NEAR the
absolute number. The real number is 10 to 100 times larger, depending
on the source.

In fact, typing this out made me curious to know if this data is
available online. I hadn't seen the data myself before just a few
minutes ago, when I found it at: http://vaers.hhs.gov/scripts/data.cfm
As I expected, the total number of reported cases each year has an
upward trend, indicating either 1 - that more and more people are
learning about the VAERS (which is probably the case) 2 - more
children are having adverse reactions (let's hope that's NOT the case)
3 - more cases are being reported multiple times. While I readily
admit that # 3 is a possibility, I personally believe it is most likely
#1.

Considering the publicity of the anti-vac community, coupled with the
search and destroy tactics of the attorneys who are pursuing the
litigation, etc. you do have a sound basis for that belief.

What publicity? I've never accidentally run across any "anti-vac"
literature, ads or suggestions. The only time I've found it is when
I've been looking for it. Furthermore, what attorneys are pursuing
it? It's my understanding that under current US law, you can't sue a
vaccine manufacturer for adverse effects from their vaccines. That's
what the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was set up for.
So, do you have a sound basis for thinking that those conditions *ARE*
the reason for the increase?

Now that I have the data in question, do you happen to have a link to
show how the Geiers crunched the numbers?

I have been reading GoodMath-BadMath for a while. Math has never been my
strongest suit, and, it has been instructive. The Blogger is a PhD. He
wrote this:

http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/04...m-studies.html

Yes, I've read that. It doesn't really address my question, though.

BTW, reading through some of the symptoms on this list is heart
breaking. Time after time I read about children, previously healthy,
who writhed in pain and screamed uncontrollably after a vaccination...
one even said the child screamed for *days.* I have a hard time
reading through these files and believing that vaccines had nothing to
do with the symptoms. I think everyone here should download a few of
those files and go through them.

I have read several of them. Many of them seem somewhat dramatic and are
designed to evoke your reaction.

"Designed?" What evidence do you have that those entering those
reaction descriptions were intentionally trying to evoke an emotional
response? Personally, I find it appalling that you would minimize the
suffering I read in those documents.

Max.

Max C. wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
Max C. wrote:
Well, that worked. Let's try to paste in the original reply:
_____________
I doubt that you actually took the time to type all of that out for us
(I wouldn't have) but I can't seem to find any sentence in it that
Google knows about. How did you acquire that court document?
Magic. Hocus Pocus.

Actually, I conducted a very simple search. Ms. Rosenthal has posted an
article(?) from 2003 praising Geier, and, having been doing some
research on him, I knew of at least one, now two, decisions where the
judge trashed him. Accordingly, I searched on 'Geier "special master"
and it was #1 in the hit parade.

Casewatch.com... I should have known. And no citation on the page.
I'm supposed to just take Barrett's word for it? No thanks.

I should have posted the URL:

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinio...NE.Piscopo.pdf

another one:

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinio...IAMS.Weiss.pdf

I did continue the search with your suggested search string. The next
link was this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Geier

This page says this:
"Geier has been criticized over his qualifications in these hearings,
wherein one Special Master labeled him "a professional witness" who
"clearly lacks the expertise" required. [5] Critics of the vaccine
injury compensation system question the stringency of the requirements,
which they contend effectively preclude fair presentation in the
hearings of testimony from their experts.

On at least ten separate occasions, the Special Master ruled that Geier
lacked the necessary qualifications or board-certification to offer an
expert opinion. Litigants pressing vaccine injury claims have a dual
challenge, since relatively few experts in relevant fields think
thimerosal causes autism, and even fewer work in specialties required
by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program."

At least ten occasions? Where's the citation? It would appear that
someone just pulled a number right out of their butt and posted it on
wikipedia.com as fact.

Actually, that reference is in the order dismissing the Weiss case where
the appeal is cited above. I cannot locate a 'pure source' such as the
decision, above, which refused to hear the appeal of the family as being
premature. However, this is the case, FWIW, and, the decision of the
Federal Court of Claims is clearly consistent with the blogger report.

http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2005/...hy-autism.html

or, for that matter, this one:

http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forum.as...TIME-TEN-TIMES

Note how they stole my post from Google.

but the next paragraph says this:
"However, on November 25, 2003, Special Master French praised Geier's
credentials and vast experience and said Dr. Geier "ranks high among
those who have studied vaccine issues through the medical literature on
vaccines, databases, studies, articles and information on vaccine
safety and efficacy in vaccine policy. The tenor of his testimony in
this case addressed the importance of statistical databases in
providing statistical reliability and validity in interpreting the
epidemiology and issues relating to autism and various vaccines...Dr.
Geier has recently proposed a data-sharing process that would improve
the reliability of present statistical data that would include the
present VAERS statistical database. It would be helpful in interpreting
the epidemiology and issues relating to the autism controversy.""

Note those last 2 sentences. How could that possibly be a bad thing?

It is not a bad thing. However, it has to be properly used within its
design parameters. Simply put, the database is not designed for what
Geier wants to use it for.

The data currently "trapped" inside the CDC should be public knowledge.

YOU accessed it on line.

It should be open to public scrutiny. Geier reveals several
disgusting practices in the CDC designed to prevent that data from
being read by the public. I've already posted a link to that
interview.

So he says. Nothing like a conspiracy to fill in the blanks.

Furthermore, it's not like the Geiers are anti-vac. They are
pro-vaccination. They just want the vaccines to be as safe as
possible. They mention 2 studies in the last video of their interview
that I need to research. One reportedly shows brain tissue samples
that are destroyed by amounts of thimerosal MUCH lower than that found
in vaccines. I'll post my findings about that after I dig in to it.

On another link from Google:
http://www.curtiswebb.net/cases/estep.dsp
"The court also rejects the Secretary's arguments with regard to
the testimony of Dr. Geier. The Secretary asserts that Dr. Geier's
methodology is not generally accepted in the scientific community,
because Dr. Geier "opined to a 51% confidence level," and because
Dr. Geier has not published his theories, which would subject them to
the rigors of peer review. These arguments are unpersuasive because the
special master relied not only on Dr. Geier's opinions, but also on
other expert testimony plus the case studies on which their testimony
was based, to conclude that a reputable medical or scientific theory
supported a finding of causation. Based on the testimony of experts and
his review of the literature, the special master concluded that Dr.
Geier's methodology was generally accepted in the scientific
community. The court finds no basis for disturbing that conclusion."

A legal interpretation. However, not necessarily a scientific one.

So, even though the Secretary asserted the same notion as the above
link, the special master in this case did not agree.

I found this paragraph very interesting:
"The special master's factual conclusions were neither arbitrary
nor capricious. Three experts agreed that a DPT vaccination can cause
an acute encephalopathy, and that anything that can cause an acute
encephalopathy can cause permanent neurologic damage. Dr. Geier's
opinion was based on case reports, controlled case studies such as the
NCES, animal tests, known biological properties of bacterium causing
pertussis, and other data. On this record as a whole, a reasonable
person could find by a preponderance of the evidence that a generally
accepted medical or scientific theory supported a logical sequence of
cause and effect. Though a different factfinder might have assigned
greater weight to the IOM Report, "such arguments as to the weighing
of evidence, particularly where, as here, witness credibility is
involved, do not demonstrate reversible error." Hines, 940 F.2d at
1527."

However, this has to do with the vaccine and not thimerosal. In this
case Geier was going with the flow.

Obviously many pieces of evidence were weighed for this case. In the
end, Dr. Geier was found to be reputable.

Because he was not outside of the mainstream and had others supporting
his opinions.

As for your answer to my above question, I agree that using the VAERS
database would be a haphazard way of running numbers... but for the
opposite reason than the critics you've quoted. According to most
estimates I've read, not more than 10% of actual adverse reactions are
actually reported. Some estimates put the figure as low as 1%.
Additionally, I understand that it's also possible that one reaction
may be reported 2 or 3 times.
Take those valid criticisms, add them to the equally valid criticisms
that I posted, especially the VAERS warning not to do what Geier did,
and, voila! you do have the measure of the deceitfulness of the man.

I cannot think of a valid argument he could make to justify the use of
the VAERS database. I'll assume that he is not stupid, and, therefore,
his motivation in using it must be suspect. The only conclusion I can
reach is that he needed something to prove his point, and he was hoping
that no one would notice. I cannot think of anything else.

I can. More credible data (which SHOULD be available from the CDC)
seems impossible to obtain. What other large databases are there that
one could get adverse vaccine reaction information from? (I'm really
asking, because if such a database exists, I want to know.)

I personally do not know of any. The problem is with developing one. You
and I have enumerated several problems with the current system.
Overcoming those may be impossible.

The CDC
seems incapable or completely unwilling to allow that information to be
released, which is ABSURD! It would seem to me that Dr. Geier went
with the only data publically available.

Even assuming that the CDC did not cooperate, which they eventually did,
Geier still should not have used that database as it is not designed to
be used his way.

Of course, while reading the above web sites, I did run across this:
http://www.909shot.com/Loe_Fisher/blf0804vsd.htm
"SLIDE: U.S. Court of Claims Relies on IOM Reports
"I find it quite appropriate to utilize the 2004 IOM Report as a tool
for identifying the items of evidence that are available concerning the
general issue of whether MMR vaccines cause autism....the Institute of
Medicine seems clearly to be an appropriate source of expert assistance
for a special master in a Vaccine Act proceeding......I note that
during the 15-year history of the Vaccine Act, special masters have
consistently referred to and relied upon [those] reports of the
Institute of Medicine."
- July 16, 2004 Special Master Ruling in the U.S. Court of Claims
In Claims for Vaccine Injuries Resulting in Autism Spectrum
Disorder or Similar Neurodevelopmental Disorder"

So, it would appear that if the IOM database is available, that should
be a suitable start for crunching numbers. This is the first I've
heard of the IOM database, so I don't know anything about it.

I have never heard of it. I think you may have misread the paragraph.

However, given the thousands of reports each year, one could reasonably
expect the number of double or triple reporting to average around the
same percentage each year. One could also expect the percentage of the
population that knows about VEARS to slightly increase each year as
more and more people learn about it. Given that more and more people
are learning about it, I would expect the number of adverse reactions
reported to go up each year.
However, that is the reports of *suspected* adverse reactions, not
necessarily the absolute number of them.

Of course it's not the absolute number. It's no where NEAR the
absolute number. The real number is 10 to 100 times larger, depending
on the source.

And, again, only suspected.

In fact, typing this out made me curious to know if this data is
available online. I hadn't seen the data myself before just a few
minutes ago, when I found it at: http://vaers.hhs.gov/scripts/data.cfm
As I expected, the total number of reported cases each year has an
upward trend, indicating either 1 - that more and more people are
learning about the VAERS (which is probably the case) 2 - more
children are having adverse reactions (let's hope that's NOT the case)
3 - more cases are being reported multiple times. While I readily
admit that # 3 is a possibility, I personally believe it is most likely
#1.
Considering the publicity of the anti-vac community, coupled with the
search and destroy tactics of the attorneys who are pursuing the
litigation, etc. you do have a sound basis for that belief.

What publicity? I've never accidentally run across any "anti-vac"
literature, ads or suggestions.

You have not been around long enough.

The only time I've found it is when
I've been looking for it. Furthermore, what attorneys are pursuing
it? It's my understanding that under current US law, you can't sue a
vaccine manufacturer for adverse effects from their vaccines.

However, there is an Omnibus Claim pending in the courts.

That's
what the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was set up for.
So, do you have a sound basis for thinking that those conditions *ARE*
the reason for the increase?

Personal opinion, coupled with some reading.


Now that I have the data in question, do you happen to have a link to
show how the Geiers crunched the numbers?
I have been reading GoodMath-BadMath for a while. Math has never been my
strongest suit, and, it has been instructive. The Blogger is a PhD. He
wrote this:

http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/04...m-studies.html

Yes, I've read that. It doesn't really address my question, though.

It is the best around, unless you use the study itself.

BTW, reading through some of the symptoms on this list is heart
breaking. Time after time I read about children, previously healthy,
who writhed in pain and screamed uncontrollably after a vaccination...
one even said the child screamed for *days.* I have a hard time
reading through these files and believing that vaccines had nothing to
do with the symptoms. I think everyone here should download a few of
those files and go through them.
I have read several of them. Many of them seem somewhat dramatic and are
designed to evoke your reaction.

"Designed?" What evidence do you have that those entering those
reaction descriptions were intentionally trying to evoke an emotional
response?

I am skeptical of many of the claims. To me, they sound far fetched, and
possibly the basis for litigation.

Personally, I find it appalling that you would minimize the
suffering I read in those documents.

You need a healthy dose of skepticism. Many of the reports are from
litigants looking to prejudice the database.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Max C. wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
Max C. wrote:
Well, that worked. Let's try to paste in the original reply:
_____________
I doubt that you actually took the time to type all of that out for us
(I wouldn't have) but I can't seem to find any sentence in it that
Google knows about. How did you acquire that court document?
Magic. Hocus Pocus.

Actually, I conducted a very simple search. Ms. Rosenthal has posted an
article(?) from 2003 praising Geier, and, having been doing some
research on him, I knew of at least one, now two, decisions where the
judge trashed him. Accordingly, I searched on 'Geier "special master"
and it was #1 in the hit parade.

Casewatch.com... I should have known. And no citation on the page.
I'm supposed to just take Barrett's word for it? No thanks.

I should have posted the URL:

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinio...NE.Piscopo.pdf

another one:

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinio...IAMS.Weiss.pdf

I did continue the search with your suggested search string. The next
link was this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Geier

This page says this:
"Geier has been criticized over his qualifications in these hearings,
wherein one Special Master labeled him "a professional witness" who
"clearly lacks the expertise" required. [5] Critics of the vaccine
injury compensation system question the stringency of the requirements,
which they contend effectively preclude fair presentation in the
hearings of testimony from their experts.

On at least ten separate occasions, the Special Master ruled that Geier
lacked the necessary qualifications or board-certification to offer an
expert opinion. Litigants pressing vaccine injury claims have a dual
challenge, since relatively few experts in relevant fields think
thimerosal causes autism, and even fewer work in specialties required
by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program."

At least ten occasions? Where's the citation? It would appear that
someone just pulled a number right out of their butt and posted it on
wikipedia.com as fact.

Actually, that reference is in the order dismissing the Weiss case where
the appeal is cited above. I cannot locate a 'pure source' such as the
decision, above, which refused to hear the appeal of the family as being
premature. However, this is the case, FWIW, and, the decision of the
Federal Court of Claims is clearly consistent with the blogger report.

http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2005/...hy-autism.html

By Paul Lee

QUACK QUACK QUACK!!

or, for that matter, this one:

http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forum.as...TIME-TEN-TIMES

Quoting himself ....

lol....

Note how they stole my post from Google.

but the next paragraph says this:
"However, on November 25, 2003, Special Master French praised Geier's
credentials and vast experience and said Dr. Geier "ranks high among
those who have studied vaccine issues through the medical literature on
vaccines, databases, studies, articles and information on vaccine
safety and efficacy in vaccine policy. The tenor of his testimony in
this case addressed the importance of statistical databases in
providing statistical reliability and validity in interpreting the
epidemiology and issues relating to autism and various vaccines...Dr.
Geier has recently proposed a data-sharing process that would improve
the reliability of present statistical data that would include the
present VAERS statistical database. It would be helpful in interpreting
the epidemiology and issues relating to the autism controversy.""

Note those last 2 sentences. How could that possibly be a bad thing?

It is not a bad thing. However, it has to be properly used within its
design parameters. Simply put, the database is not designed for what Geier
wants to use it for.

The data currently "trapped" inside the CDC should be public knowledge.

YOU accessed it on line.

It should be open to public scrutiny. Geier reveals several
disgusting practices in the CDC designed to prevent that data from
being read by the public. I've already posted a link to that
interview.

So he says. Nothing like a conspiracy to fill in the blanks.

Furthermore, it's not like the Geiers are anti-vac. They are
pro-vaccination. They just want the vaccines to be as safe as
possible. They mention 2 studies in the last video of their interview
that I need to research. One reportedly shows brain tissue samples
that are destroyed by amounts of thimerosal MUCH lower than that found
in vaccines. I'll post my findings about that after I dig in to it.

On another link from Google:
http://www.curtiswebb.net/cases/estep.dsp
"The court also rejects the Secretary's arguments with regard to
the testimony of Dr. Geier. The Secretary asserts that Dr. Geier's
methodology is not generally accepted in the scientific community,
because Dr. Geier "opined to a 51% confidence level," and because
Dr. Geier has not published his theories, which would subject them to
the rigors of peer review. These arguments are unpersuasive because the
special master relied not only on Dr. Geier's opinions, but also on
other expert testimony plus the case studies on which their testimony
was based, to conclude that a reputable medical or scientific theory
supported a finding of causation. Based on the testimony of experts and
his review of the literature, the special master concluded that Dr.
Geier's methodology was generally accepted in the scientific
community. The court finds no basis for disturbing that conclusion."

A legal interpretation. However, not necessarily a scientific one.

So, even though the Secretary asserted the same notion as the above
link, the special master in this case did not agree.

I found this paragraph very interesting:
"The special master's factual conclusions were neither arbitrary
nor capricious. Three experts agreed that a DPT vaccination can cause
an acute encephalopathy, and that anything that can cause an acute
encephalopathy can cause permanent neurologic damage. Dr. Geier's
opinion was based on case reports, controlled case studies such as the
NCES, animal tests, known biological properties of bacterium causing
pertussis, and other data. On this record as a whole, a reasonable
person could find by a preponderance of the evidence that a generally
accepted medical or scientific theory supported a logical sequence of
cause and effect. Though a different factfinder might have assigned
greater weight to the IOM Report, "such arguments as to the weighing
of evidence, particularly where, as here, witness credibility is
involved, do not demonstrate reversible error." Hines, 940 F.2d at
1527."

However, this has to do with the vaccine and not thimerosal. In this case
Geier was going with the flow.

Obviously many pieces of evidence were weighed for this case. In the
end, Dr. Geier was found to be reputable.

Because he was not outside of the mainstream and had others supporting his
opinions.

As for your answer to my above question, I agree that using the VAERS
database would be a haphazard way of running numbers... but for the
opposite reason than the critics you've quoted. According to most
estimates I've read, not more than 10% of actual adverse reactions are
actually reported. Some estimates put the figure as low as 1%.
Additionally, I understand that it's also possible that one reaction
may be reported 2 or 3 times.
Take those valid criticisms, add them to the equally valid criticisms
that I posted, especially the VAERS warning not to do what Geier did,
and, voila! you do have the measure of the deceitfulness of the man.

I cannot think of a valid argument he could make to justify the use of
the VAERS database. I'll assume that he is not stupid, and, therefore,
his motivation in using it must be suspect. The only conclusion I can
reach is that he needed something to prove his point, and he was hoping
that no one would notice. I cannot think of anything else.

I can. More credible data (which SHOULD be available from the CDC)
seems impossible to obtain. What other large databases are there that
one could get adverse vaccine reaction information from? (I'm really
asking, because if such a database exists, I want to know.)

I personally do not know of any. The problem is with developing one. You
and I have enumerated several problems with the current system. Overcoming
those may be impossible.

The CDC
seems incapable or completely unwilling to allow that information to be
released, which is ABSURD! It would seem to me that Dr. Geier went
with the only data publically available.

Even assuming that the CDC did not cooperate, which they eventually did,
Geier still should not have used that database as it is not designed to be
used his way.

Of course, while reading the above web sites, I did run across this:
http://www.909shot.com/Loe_Fisher/blf0804vsd.htm
"SLIDE: U.S. Court of Claims Relies on IOM Reports
"I find it quite appropriate to utilize the 2004 IOM Report as a tool
for identifying the items of evidence that are available concerning the
general issue of whether MMR vaccines cause autism....the Institute of
Medicine seems clearly to be an appropriate source of expert assistance
for a special master in a Vaccine Act proceeding......I note that
during the 15-year history of the Vaccine Act, special masters have
consistently referred to and relied upon [those] reports of the
Institute of Medicine."
- July 16, 2004 Special Master Ruling in the U.S. Court of Claims
In Claims for Vaccine Injuries Resulting in Autism Spectrum
Disorder or Similar Neurodevelopmental Disorder"

So, it would appear that if the IOM database is available, that should
be a suitable start for crunching numbers. This is the first I've
heard of the IOM database, so I don't know anything about it.

I have never heard of it. I think you may have misread the paragraph.

However, given the thousands of reports each year, one could reasonably
expect the number of double or triple reporting to average around the
same percentage each year. One could also expect the percentage of the
population that knows about VEARS to slightly increase each year as
more and more people learn about it. Given that more and more people
are learning about it, I would expect the number of adverse reactions
reported to go up each year.
However, that is the reports of *suspected* adverse reactions, not
necessarily the absolute number of them.

Of course it's not the absolute number. It's no where NEAR the
absolute number. The real number is 10 to 100 times larger, depending
on the source.

And, again, only suspected.

In fact, typing this out made me curious to know if this data is
available online. I hadn't seen the data myself before just a few
minutes ago, when I found it at: http://vaers.hhs.gov/scripts/data.cfm
As I expected, the total number of reported cases each year has an
upward trend, indicating either 1 - that more and more people are
learning about the VAERS (which is probably the case) 2 - more
children are having adverse reactions (let's hope that's NOT the case)
3 - more cases are being reported multiple times. While I readily
admit that # 3 is a possibility, I personally believe it is most likely
#1.
Considering the publicity of the anti-vac community, coupled with the
search and destroy tactics of the attorneys who are pursuing the
litigation, etc. you do have a sound basis for that belief.

What publicity? I've never accidentally run across any "anti-vac"
literature, ads or suggestions.

You have not been around long enough.

The only time I've found it is when
I've been looking for it. Furthermore, what attorneys are pursuing
it? It's my understanding that under current US law, you can't sue a
vaccine manufacturer for adverse effects from their vaccines.

However, there is an Omnibus Claim pending in the courts.

That's
what the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was set up for.
So, do you have a sound basis for thinking that those conditions *ARE*
the reason for the increase?

Personal opinion, coupled with some reading.


Now that I have the data in question, do you happen to have a link to
show how the Geiers crunched the numbers?
I have been reading GoodMath-BadMath for a while. Math has never been my
strongest suit, and, it has been instructive. The Blogger is a PhD. He
wrote this:

http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/04...m-studies.html

Yes, I've read that. It doesn't really address my question, though.

It is the best around, unless you use the study itself.

BTW, reading through some of the symptoms on this list is heart
breaking. Time after time I read about children, previously healthy,
who writhed in pain and screamed uncontrollably after a vaccination...
one even said the child screamed for *days.* I have a hard time
reading through these files and believing that vaccines had nothing to
do with the symptoms. I think everyone here should download a few of
those files and go through them.
I have read several of them. Many of them seem somewhat dramatic and are
designed to evoke your reaction.

"Designed?" What evidence do you have that those entering those
reaction descriptions were intentionally trying to evoke an emotional
response?

I am skeptical of many of the claims. To me, they sound far fetched, and
possibly the basis for litigation.

Personally, I find it appalling that you would minimize the
suffering I read in those documents.

You need a healthy dose of skepticism. Many of the reports are from
litigants looking to prejudice the database.

"Mark Probert" wrote
Max C. wrote:
I've been trying for 3 hours to reply to your post above that includes
RICHARD PISCOPO,Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent. Google keeps telling me "Oops. Can't post right now. Try
again in a few minutes."


This is just a test post to see if I can reply to this particular
message. If so, I'll post the above reply here.

It worked.

Poor Mark.

At 2:10

Max wrote:

Well, that worked. Let's try to paste in the original reply:
_____________
I doubt that you actually took the time to type all of that out for us
(I wouldn't have) but I can't seem to find any sentence in it that
Google knows about. How did you acquire that court document?

As for your answer to my above question, I agree that using the VAERS
database would be a haphazard way of running numbers... but for the
opposite reason than the critics you've quoted. According to most
estimates I've read, not more than 10% of actual adverse reactions are
actually reported. Some estimates put the figure as low as 1%.
Additionally, I understand that it's also possible that one reaction
may be reported 2 or 3 times.

However, given the thousands of reports each year, one could reasonably
expect the number of double or triple reporting to average around the
same percentage each year. One could also expect the percentage of the
population that knows about VEARS to slightly increase each year as
more and more people learn about it. Given that more and more people
are learning about it, I would expect the number of adverse reactions
reported to go up each year.

In fact, typing this out made me curious to know if this data is
available online. I hadn't seen the data myself before just a few
minutes ago, when I found it at: http://vaers.hhs.gov/scripts/data.cfm
As I expected, the total number of reported cases each year has an
upward trend, indicating either 1 - that more and more people are
learning about the VAERS (which is probably the case) 2 - more
children are having adverse reactions (let's hope that's NOT the case)
3 - more cases are being reported multiple times. While I readily
admit that # 3 is a possibility, I personally believe it is most likely
#1.

Now that I have the data in question, do you happen to have a link to
show how the Geiers crunched the numbers?

BTW, reading through some of the symptoms on this list is heart
breaking. Time after time I read about children, previously healthy,
who writhed in pain and screamed uncontrollably after a vaccination...
one even said the child screamed for *days.* I have a hard time
reading through these files and believing that vaccines had nothing to
do with the symptoms. I think everyone here should download a few of
those files and go through them.

Max.
_____________

Max C. wrote:
I've been trying for 3 hours to reply to your post above that includes
RICHARD PISCOPO,Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent. Google keeps telling me "Oops. Can't post right now. Try
again in a few minutes."

This is just a test post to see if I can reply to this particular
message. If so, I'll post the above reply here.

Max.

Mark Probert wrote:
Max C. wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
We are not talking "viewpoints" which are merely opinions. Orac
posted
links to well documented analyses of Geier's recent work which
demonstrate that he used inappropriate datasets and incorrect
statistical analysis to reach his conclusions.

Please find some rebuttal of those two well documented arguments
about
Geier's work.

Opinions deleted as non-responsive to the discussion.

I just tried to post this question above, but Google gave me an error
message. I'll try it here again:

I've seen you make these claims many times. I'm curious to know which
datasets are in question and what subject you're talking about.

Was easier than I thought...it is the database maintained by the
California Department of Developmental Services. On their webpage this
warning is linked:

http://www.dds.cahwnet.gov/FactsStats/quarterly.cfm

http://www.dds.cahwnet.gov/FactsStat...imitations.pdf

Data Interpretation Considerations and Limitations

Although information published by DDS in the Quarterly Client
Characteristics Report is often used by media and research entities to
develop statistics and draw conclusions, some of these findings may
misrepresent the quarterly figures. The following information is
provided to help users of the Quarterly Client Characteristics Report
understand what changes in the numbers represent. When comparing numbers
reported in one quarter to numbers reported in another quarter, the
following factors should be considered.

Increases in the number of persons reported from one quarter to the next
do not necessarily represent persons who are new to the DDS system. This
is because:
· Individuals may not have a Client Development Evaluation Report (CDER)
on file for months or even years after entering the system.
· Individuals who already have a CDER may have new data, including
clinical data, entered at a later date.

Differences in the numbers from quarter to quarter reflect the net
changes between individuals who are newly reported (i.e., included in
the later report but not included in the earlier report) and individuals
who dropped out (i.e., included in the earlier report but no
longer included in the later report).

Newly reported may include:
· Individuals newly entering the system who have a CDER
· Individuals already active in the system who have a CDER in the
current quarter but did not have a CDER in the prior quarter
· Individuals already in the system who have a CDER and active status1
in the current quarter whose status was closed2 or inactive3 in the
prior quarter
· Individuals who had changes made to their CDER in the current quarter
that resulted in them being reported under new categories
Dropped out may include:
· Individuals who were included in the prior quarter but are not
included in the current quarter due to a change in status (e.g., from
active status to inactive or closed status)
· Individuals who had changes made to their CDER in the current quarter
that resulted in them no longer being reported under certain categories
In addition to the considerations noted above, individuals using DDS
Quarterly Client Characteristics Report data for any type of trend
analysis should be informed about the causes of increased CDER
population numbers first reflected in the report for the quarter
ending September 2002. Over 4,000 CDER records were added to the CDER
database in July 2002 due to a revision in the information system
transmission program and a change in DDS policy to include the records
of CDERs not updated within the required three years of last report
date. For more information, please read the page on "Changes to CDER
Quarterly Reports" at www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/QuarterlyChanges.cfm.

1Active status for purposes of the Quarterly Client Characteristics
Report includes persons with CDERs who are currently being served by DDS
in a State Developmental Center or in a community setting, including the
home of parent.

2Closed status includes persons who moved out of state, died, were
determined ineligible, or could not be located/chose not to continue
pursuing eligibility determination.

3Inactive status includes persons who were determined eligible but
currently do not want services.

-------------

With this warning, Geier went right ahead and ignored it.

Simply, it suited his needs as he manipulated the numbers to prove his
point.



Max.

Mark Probert wrote:
Max C. wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
We are not talking "viewpoints" which are merely opinions. Orac posted
links to well documented analyses of Geier's recent work which
demonstrate that he used inappropriate datasets and incorrect
statistical analysis to reach his conclusions.

Please find some rebuttal of those two well documented arguments about
Geier's work.

Opinions deleted as non-responsive to the discussion.
I just tried to post this question above, but Google gave me an error
message. I'll try it here again:

I've seen you make these claims many times. I'm curious to know which
datasets are in question and what subject you're talking about.
Was easier than I thought...it is the database maintained by the
California Department of Developmental Services. On their webpage this
warning is linked:

http://www.dds.cahwnet.gov/FactsStats/quarterly.cfm

http://www.dds.cahwnet.gov/FactsStat...imitations.pdf

Data Interpretation Considerations and Limitations

Although information published by DDS in the Quarterly Client
Characteristics Report is often used by media and research entities to
develop statistics and draw conclusions, some of these findings may
misrepresent the quarterly figures. The following information is
provided to help users of the Quarterly Client Characteristics Report
understand what changes in the numbers represent. When comparing numbers
reported in one quarter to numbers reported in another quarter, the
following factors should be considered.

Increases in the number of persons reported from one quarter to the next
do not necessarily represent persons who are new to the DDS system. This
is because:
· Individuals may not have a Client Development Evaluation Report (CDER)
on file for months or even years after entering the system.
· Individuals who already have a CDER may have new data, including
clinical data, entered at a later date.

Differences in the numbers from quarter to quarter reflect the net
changes between individuals who are newly reported (i.e., included in
the later report but not included in the earlier report) and individuals
who dropped out (i.e., included in the earlier report but no
longer included in the later report).

Newly reported may include:
· Individuals newly entering the system who have a CDER
· Individuals already active in the system who have a CDER in the
current quarter but did not have a CDER in the prior quarter
· Individuals already in the system who have a CDER and active status1
in the current quarter whose status was closed2 or inactive3 in the
prior quarter
· Individuals who had changes made to their CDER in the current quarter
that resulted in them being reported under new categories
Dropped out may include:
· Individuals who were included in the prior quarter but are not
included in the current quarter due to a change in status (e.g., from
active status to inactive or closed status)
· Individuals who had changes made to their CDER in the current quarter
that resulted in them no longer being reported under certain categories
In addition to the considerations noted above, individuals using DDS
Quarterly Client Characteristics Report data for any type of trend
analysis should be informed about the causes of increased CDER
population numbers first reflected in the report for the quarter
ending September 2002. Over 4,000 CDER records were added to the CDER
database in July 2002 due to a revision in the information system
transmission program and a change in DDS policy to include the records
of CDERs not updated within the required three years of last report
date. For more information, please read the page on "Changes to CDER
Quarterly Reports" at www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/QuarterlyChanges.cfm.

1Active status for purposes of the Quarterly Client Characteristics
Report includes persons with CDERs who are currently being served by DDS
in a State Developmental Center or in a community setting, including the
home of parent.

2Closed status includes persons who moved out of state, died, were
determined ineligible, or could not be located/chose not to continue
pursuing eligibility determination.

3Inactive status includes persons who were determined eligible but
currently do not want services.

-------------

With this warning, Geier went right ahead and ignored it.

Simply, it suited his needs as he manipulated the numbers to prove his
point.