If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |