A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

VAERS Data: A possible source of bias



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 9th 06, 07:58 AM posted to misc.kids.health,misc.health.alternative
Jan Drew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,707
Default VAERS Data: A possible source of bias

AltNuts...........

Boo and Hiss. How's that for being silent, Markey?

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
PeterB wrote:
Vaccine-man wrote:
Nope, it's dead-on right. I could have predicted this before they did
it. When you do epidemiology studies you *always* want random samples.
Volunteering information selects for those who are *interested*, and
this is not a random sample. When we were doing West Nile prevalence
testing a few years ago we went to the blood bank for our samples,
because that's a more random way of getting samples, thus your data are
more reflective of the general population. You never want to solicit
the public for volunteers - you get biased sample collection.


The fact your sponsors didn't properly study the effects or safety of
vaccines before marketing them is why we're in this mess. VAERS is
still a place to start, but the drug makers cannot be trusted to study
the products they intend to market.


BWHAHAHAHAHA!

"The majority of VAERS reports are sent in by vaccine manufacturers (42%)
and health care providers (30%). "

http://vaers.hhs.gov/vaers.htm

With rare events, it is impossible for a pre-marketing testing program to
find all possible problems. VAERS is the database which fills in the gaps.

Debacles like HRT and Vioxx
(so-called "evidence based medicine") should be proof enough of that.
It's a little late, therefore, to ask Mr. fox to carry your eggs.


If I raised another medication or chemical, etc. your fellow-travelers
would whine about me diverting. Watch the AltNuts remain silent.

This is an old rule of epidemiology.


So get busy.


So, get a clue.

PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 2 February 2006, pp. 387-390
(doi:10.1542/peds.2004-2687) This Article


Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Reporting Source: A Possible
Source of Bias in Longitudinal Studies
Michael J. Goodman, PhD and James Nordin, MD, MPH

HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota

OBJECTIVE. The US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a
passive reporting system to which anyone can report an event.
Publicity
related to potential adverse events may change reporting patterns. The
objective of this paper is to show how litigation-related reports have
influenced the trends in possible adverse event reports to VAERS.

METHODS. The VAERS public-use data files were downloaded in July 2004
and translated into identical SAS data sets for analysis. Cases that
were related to litigation were identified using a word search
algorithm. All cases for the most frequently reported symptoms in
litigation (overdose, neuropathy, autism, "mental retardation,"
arthralgia, and "speech disorder") were reviewed.

RESULTS. In recent years, most case reports to VAERS that were related
to overdose, neuropathy, and thimerosal were related to litigation.
Many
cases that were related to autism and mental retardation were as well.

CONCLUSIONS. This review shows a previously undisclosed rise in the
number of reports to the VAERS related to pending litigation for
vaccine
injury. The implications of this for understanding longitudinal
reporting patterns are discussed.

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

Documentation of the fact that the Geiers use of VAERS data is bogus.

Pathetic, Markey. We are to believe that a rise in vaccine damage
reports using the only vaccine respository available to the public is
suddenly not reliable because people are using it? I suppose we should
just ignore the various side effects that vaccine damage apologists
(like you) have said are not "real." Hey, here's an idea. Just waive
liability for the vaccine makers so no matter how many people suffer
vaccine damage, the VAERS data can simply be ignored. What? You're
telling me that's already happened? Well, there you have it -- shaft
the public often enough and they won't feel a thing.

PeterB




  #12  
Old August 9th 06, 08:03 AM posted to misc.kids.health,misc.health.alternative
Jan Drew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,707
Default VAERS Data: A possible source of bias


"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...

It is a basic rule of investigation. Use appropriate data.


Oh, dear. Your buddy that provides you with your lumbercartel.
Will now be annoyed Oh, forgot he is *selective*.

Vaccine-man wrote:
Nope, it's dead-on right. I could have predicted this before they did
it. When you do epidemiology studies you *always* want random samples.
Volunteering information selects for those who are *interested*, and
this is not a random sample. When we were doing West Nile prevalence
testing a few years ago we went to the blood bank for our samples,
because that's a more random way of getting samples, thus your data are
more reflective of the general population. You never want to solicit
the public for volunteers - you get biased sample collection.

This is an old rule of epidemiology.

PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 2 February 2006, pp. 387-390
(doi:10.1542/peds.2004-2687) This Article


Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Reporting Source: A Possible
Source of Bias in Longitudinal Studies
Michael J. Goodman, PhD and James Nordin, MD, MPH

HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota

OBJECTIVE. The US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a
passive reporting system to which anyone can report an event. Publicity
related to potential adverse events may change reporting patterns. The
objective of this paper is to show how litigation-related reports have
influenced the trends in possible adverse event reports to VAERS.

METHODS. The VAERS public-use data files were downloaded in July 2004
and translated into identical SAS data sets for analysis. Cases that
were related to litigation were identified using a word search
algorithm. All cases for the most frequently reported symptoms in
litigation (overdose, neuropathy, autism, "mental retardation,"
arthralgia, and "speech disorder") were reviewed.

RESULTS. In recent years, most case reports to VAERS that were related
to overdose, neuropathy, and thimerosal were related to litigation.
Many
cases that were related to autism and mental retardation were as well.

CONCLUSIONS. This review shows a previously undisclosed rise in the
number of reports to the VAERS related to pending litigation for
vaccine
injury. The implications of this for understanding longitudinal
reporting patterns are discussed.

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

Documentation of the fact that the Geiers use of VAERS data is bogus.

Pathetic, Markey. We are to believe that a rise in vaccine damage
reports using the only vaccine respository available to the public is
suddenly not reliable because people are using it? I suppose we should
just ignore the various side effects that vaccine damage apologists
(like you) have said are not "real." Hey, here's an idea. Just waive
liability for the vaccine makers so no matter how many people suffer
vaccine damage, the VAERS data can simply be ignored. What? You're
telling me that's already happened? Well, there you have it -- shaft
the public often enough and they won't feel a thing.

PeterB




  #13  
Old August 9th 06, 10:43 PM posted to misc.kids.health,misc.health.alternative
Vaccine-man
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default VAERS Data: A possible source of bias


PeterB wrote:
Vaccine-man wrote:
PeterB wrote:

The fact your sponsors


Excuse me? What do you mean by my "sponsors"?


You are here defending the vaccine makers and their products in a
newsgroup devoted to the alternatives, which means you are promoting
vaccine. Your sponsors are those who have a vested interest in that
effort. Simple enough?


They don't sponsor me in any way. I have no affiliation with any
vaccine company. Please issue a retraction of your assertion.


didn't properly study the effects or safety of
vaccines before marketing them is why we're in this mess.


There is no mess.


Sure there is. Whenever you don't actually know the risk-adjusted
benefit for a particular medical intervention, you have a mess on your
hands. It was the case with HRT, it was the case with Vioxx, and it's
also the case with vaccine.

A lot of people are alive and well today because of
vaccines.


Studies show that not more than 3.5% of the decline in infectious
disease mortality occured after introduction of vaccine, and no proof
exists to show what portion of that 3.5% can be attributed to vaccine.
All you have is tally stroking health surveys, which is little more
than guesswork.


Nonsense. There are plenty of examples of vaccines controlling
infectious diseases. Take the hard lesson Japan learned about vaccines
and pertussis. In the early 1970s, Japan didn't see any deaths from
pertussis. But becauses of two deaths within two years of one another
(that may or may not have been associated with the vaccine),
legislators passed a law delaying the first pertussis immunization to
two years of age (despite objections from the public health community).
Within a few years the incidence of pertussis skyrocketed and there
were dozens of deaths and hundreds with permanent disabilities. They
then returned to their previous vaccination regimen and within a few
years the incidence of pertussis returned to the earlier levels and
deaths were virtually unheard of. Vaccines work and are safe, plain and
simple.

VAERS is
still a place to start, but the drug makers cannot be trusted to study
the products they intend to market. Debacles like HRT and Vioxx


"Debacles"? Wow you make it sound like doom and gloom. Besides, what do
these have to do with vaccines. Please stay on topic.


My point is that the drug makers are an inappropriate source of safety
data for products they themselves market. And if you don't think an
elevated risk of stroke, breast cancer, heart attack, and attendant
lifespan reductions are a negative for public health, why are you
posting to mha?


I don't follow mha. I follow mkh. I didn't start this thread, so I
reply to all groups that are listed in the original post.


(so-called "evidence based medicine") should be proof enough of that.
It's a little late, therefore, to ask Mr. fox to carry your eggs.


You can bury your head in the sand - that is your prerogative. But
keep in mind, if you leave it buried long enough you'll suffer brain
damage, and even death.


The total loss of neuronal activity can be attributed to your comments
in this post. Mission accomplished.


I doubt it.

  #14  
Old August 12th 06, 03:50 AM posted to misc.kids.health,misc.health.alternative
David Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 718
Default VAERS Data: A possible source of bias

In article .com,
PeterB wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:
PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 2 February 2006, pp. 387-390
(doi:10.1542/peds.2004-2687) This Article


Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Reporting Source: A Possible
Source of Bias in Longitudinal Studies
Michael J. Goodman, PhD and James Nordin, MD, MPH

HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota

OBJECTIVE. The US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a
passive reporting system to which anyone can report an event. Publicity
related to potential adverse events may change reporting patterns. The
objective of this paper is to show how litigation-related reports have
influenced the trends in possible adverse event reports to VAERS.

METHODS. The VAERS public-use data files were downloaded in July 2004
and translated into identical SAS data sets for analysis. Cases that
were related to litigation were identified using a word search
algorithm. All cases for the most frequently reported symptoms in
litigation (overdose, neuropathy, autism, "mental retardation,"
arthralgia, and "speech disorder") were reviewed.

RESULTS. In recent years, most case reports to VAERS that were related
to overdose, neuropathy, and thimerosal were related to litigation. Many
cases that were related to autism and mental retardation were as well.

CONCLUSIONS. This review shows a previously undisclosed rise in the
number of reports to the VAERS related to pending litigation for vaccine
injury. The implications of this for understanding longitudinal
reporting patterns are discussed.

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

Documentation of the fact that the Geiers use of VAERS data is bogus.



Pathetic, Markey. We are to believe that a rise in vaccine damage
reports using the only vaccine respository available to the public is
suddenly not reliable because people are using it?


No, we're supposed to believe it's unreliable because nobody is
checking it and because there were suddenly lots of lawyers
encouraging lots of people to file reports.

That's quite obvious if you read what the authors wrote. Can you
read?

suppose we should just ignore the various side effects that vaccine
damage apologists (like you) have said are not "real."


There are unquestionably side effects to vaccines. The open question
is "what are they, and how often do they happen?" You, I'm sure, will
assure us that vaccines cause autism, for example.

Hey, here's an idea. Just waive liability for the vaccine makers so
no matter how many people suffer vaccine damage, the VAERS data can
simply be ignored.


No, they can't. Because if there are indeed side effects, those are
real people suffering them. Ignoring them would be stupid. That's
why we now use the acellular pertussis vaccine instead of the
whole-cell vaccine. For example. That's why we're back to using
injected polio vaccine and not the oral vaccine. I'm sure it's very
inconvenient for you and your sponsors that I bring up these changes,
but that's the way it goes.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
  #15  
Old August 12th 06, 03:53 AM posted to misc.kids.health,misc.health.alternative
David Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 718
Default VAERS Data: A possible source of bias

In article .com,
PeterB wrote:

Vaccine-man wrote:
Nope, it's dead-on right. I could have predicted this before they did
it. When you do epidemiology studies you *always* want random samples.
Volunteering information selects for those who are *interested*, and
this is not a random sample. When we were doing West Nile prevalence
testing a few years ago we went to the blood bank for our samples,
because that's a more random way of getting samples, thus your data are
more reflective of the general population. You never want to solicit
the public for volunteers - you get biased sample collection.


The fact your sponsors didn't properly study the effects or safety of
vaccines before marketing them is why we're in this mess.


Who says they didn't? You? You like to *tell* us they didn't, but
since your accounts of what happened are greatly at variance to the
facts, that's hardly convincing.

VAERS is still a place to start, but the drug makers cannot be
trusted to study the products they intend to market. Debacles like
HRT and Vioxx (so-called "evidence based medicine")


Yet another term you should stop using, as you clearly do not
understand what it means.

should be proof enough of that.


Sorry, but the flaws of Vioxx do not prove that vaccines don't work.
After all, Vioxx is an effective painkiller; it's just that it's too
hard on the heart.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
  #16  
Old August 13th 06, 05:07 PM posted to misc.kids.health,misc.health.alternative
David Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 718
Default VAERS Data: A possible source of bias

In article .com,
PeterB wrote:

Vaccine-man wrote:
PeterB wrote:

The fact your sponsors


Excuse me? What do you mean by my "sponsors"?


You are here defending the vaccine makers and their products in a
newsgroup devoted to the alternatives, which means you are promoting
vaccine.


Which, in and of itself, is nothing to condemn.

Your sponsors are those who have a vested interest in that
effort. Simple enough?


Yes, your paranoia is simply shining through again.

didn't properly study the effects or safety of
vaccines before marketing them is why we're in this mess.


There is no mess.


Sure there is. Whenever you don't actually know the risk-adjusted
benefit for a particular medical intervention, you have a mess on your
hands.


Not so. You have a *possible* mess on your hands. You only have an
actual mess if the intervention does, in fact, have nasty side effects
that are common enough to make its use a bad idea.

It was the case with HRT, it was the case with Vioxx, and it's
also the case with vaccine.


For the first two, we have actual data backing up your assertion. For
vaccines, we do not.

A lot of people are alive and well today because of
vaccines.


Studies show that not more than 3.5% of the decline in infectious
disease mortality occured after introduction of vaccine, and no proof
exists to show what portion of that 3.5% can be attributed to vaccine.
All you have is tally stroking health surveys, which is little more
than guesswork.


It wouldn't be "guesswork" in your mind if it were backing up your
beliefs about the horrors of vaccines, now would it?

Despite your scorn for "tally stroking health surveys," you've yet to
prove any convincing rationale for why they are bad.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
  #17  
Old August 13th 06, 09:32 PM posted to misc.kids.health,misc.health.alternative
Sdores
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default VAERS Data: A possible source of bias


"PeterB" wrote in message
oups.com...
(snipped for clarity)

The fact your sponsors



You are here defending the vaccine makers and their products in a
newsgroup devoted to the alternatives, which means you are promoting
vaccine. Your sponsors are those who have a vested interest in that
effort. Simple enough?

Did you not notice that this is cross posted to another group other than
MHA? UM MOM Susan


  #18  
Old August 13th 06, 11:45 PM posted to misc.kids.health,misc.health.alternative
Jan Drew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,707
Default VAERS Data: A possible source of bias


"Sdores" wrote in message
...

"PeterB" wrote in message
oups.com...
(snipped for clarity)

The fact your sponsors


You are here defending the vaccine makers and their products in a
newsgroup devoted to the alternatives, which means you are promoting
vaccine. Your sponsors are those who have a vested interest in that
effort. Simple enough?

Did you not notice that this is cross posted to another group other than
MHA? UM MOM Susan

Nah, Sue he didn't notice that. Your point?


  #19  
Old August 14th 06, 10:48 AM posted to misc.kids.health,misc.health.alternative
Sdores
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default VAERS Data: A possible source of bias


"Jan Drew" wrote in message
m...

"Sdores" wrote in message
...

"PeterB" wrote in message
oups.com...
(snipped for clarity)

The fact your sponsors


You are here defending the vaccine makers and their products in a
newsgroup devoted to the alternatives, which means you are promoting
vaccine. Your sponsors are those who have a vested interest in that
effort. Simple enough?

Did you not notice that this is cross posted to another group other than
MHA? UM MOM Susan

Nah, Sue he didn't notice that. Your point?

My name is Susan but of course you knew that. You also know that UM in my
signature doesn't stand for my my son's initials so knock yourself out being
rude. My point is that this thread is posted to more than MHA! UM MOM
Susan


  #20  
Old August 14th 06, 08:47 PM posted to misc.kids.health,misc.health.alternative
PeterB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 150
Default VAERS Data: A possible source of bias


David Wright wrote:
In article .com,
PeterB wrote:

Vaccine-man wrote:
PeterB wrote:

The fact your sponsors

Excuse me? What do you mean by my "sponsors"?


You are here defending the vaccine makers and their products in a
newsgroup devoted to the alternatives, which means you are promoting
vaccine.


Which, in and of itself, is nothing to condemn.


Guess again. Promotion of vaccine should be confined to venues showing
no interest in properly tested pharmaceuticals, such as drug maker
websites and courtroom fools like Barrett.

Your sponsors are those who have a vested interest in that
effort. Simple enough?


Yes, your paranoia is simply shining through again.


How creative.

didn't properly study the effects or safety of
vaccines before marketing them is why we're in this mess.

There is no mess.


Sure there is. Whenever you don't actually know the risk-adjusted
benefit for a particular medical intervention, you have a mess on your
hands.


Not so. You have a *possible* mess on your hands. You only have an
actual mess if the intervention does, in fact, have nasty side effects
that are common enough to make its use a bad idea.


All pharmaceuticals have side effects, but no one knows for whom a drug
will be deadly, as opposed to just "nasty."

It was the case with HRT, it was the case with Vioxx, and it's
also the case with vaccine.


For the first two, we have actual data backing up your assertion. For
vaccines, we do not.


Sure we do, it's called VAERs. You said the other day that even an
imperfect collection of data on dietary suppelements would be better
than nothing, but this argument magically fails when it comes to a
collection of patient complaints following vaccination.

A lot of people are alive and well today because of
vaccines.


Studies show that not more than 3.5% of the decline in infectious
disease mortality occured after introduction of vaccine, and no proof
exists to show what portion of that 3.5% can be attributed to vaccine.
All you have is tally stroking health surveys, which is little more
than guesswork.


It wouldn't be "guesswork" in your mind if it were backing up your
beliefs about the horrors of vaccines, now would it?


Evidence based medicine means assessing the risk adjusted benefit for
any medical intervention. If you don't do that, you're engaging in
quackery. If people get sick following vaccine and bother to report
it, it's worth reviewing. It doesn't mean every problem will be
related to vaccine, but you can't know the extent of the problem if you
racing toward your next vaccine campaign with your eyes closed.

Despite your scorn for "tally stroking health surveys," you've yet to
prove any convincing rationale for why they are bad.


As I've said repeatedly, they don't prove anything more than
association. Getting wet while doing a rain dance....

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What Drs. Geier say ... in rebuttal to Quacks Gorski & Probert Ilena Rose Kids Health 65 June 5th 06 02:11 PM
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 [email protected] Info and FAQ's 3 January 18th 06 06:47 AM
10 day old stolen 6 years ago - WHY does the state have jurisdiction? Kane General 27 March 12th 04 06:51 AM
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed Kane Spanking 11 September 16th 03 11:59 AM
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed Kane Foster Parents 10 September 16th 03 11:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.