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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reported
Mark Probert wrote:
... The problems with VARS is that it is a garbage dump.It takes any and all reports with no screening whatsoever. That's its strength. If you *suspect* that a problem *might be* caused by a vaccine, it should be reported. Some people mistakenly think that just because something has been reported as an adverse event, that means that it was caused by the vaccine. Some adverse events are caused by the vaccines, but many aren't. The whole idea of VAERS is that it is better to have every event that might be caused by vaccines reported, so that if there is a problem with a vaccine, it won't be missed. I assume you are familiar with the Laidler story where he called in a report and described a situation where the imaginary patient turned into the incredible hulk? DHHS did call him to question the story. VAERS had a major spike in reports a few years back when the lawyers in the Omnibus claim decided it would be a good idea to have more reports, thus inflating the numbers. Unfortunately, people misuse the system. You have that whenever members of the species homo sapiens are around. Jeff |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reported
"Mark Probert" wrote in message news:UY57i.3868$Au6.542@trndny04... Mark Probert wrote: Roman Bystrianyk wrote: On May 25, 11:37 pm, Mark Probert wrote: Roman Bystrianyk wrote: On May 25, 3:14 am, "JOHN" wrote: 1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reportedhttp://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSReports.pdf Accuracy of Reports. VAERS is a passive surveillance system, and the large number of reports to VAERS precludes checking the specifics of the vast majority of reports, especially the less serious ones. Few reports to VAERS include full medical record documentation, and some doubtless include errors. In addition, the VAERS forms often have missing data; even simple data such as age, sex, vaccination date and adverse event onset date are missing for about 11%, 8%, 10% and 14%, respectively, of domestic VAERS reports. Hey, Roman, we fact based evidence types have been saying that to John and his ilk for years. They still insist that VAERS provides useful information. It is a waste of taxpayer money and should be shut down and replaced with something useful. Good day. I would certainly say that VAERS isn't extremely accurate being that it is a passive surveillance system. I personally know approximately two dozen people that have had severe reactions - several very severe - and none of them are in the VAERS database either because they didn't feel it was worthwhile or were actively discouraged from submitting information. That being said I feel there is some information that can be gleaned from the database even if only say 5 to 10% of reactions are actually recorded. A mandatory recording system to replace VAERS simply is not going to occur at this time so some recording of information I feel is better than none. In actuality I believe the only real way to obtain valuable information on effectiveness and adverse effects is by using a double-blind placebo controlled large scale study. The problems with VARS is that it is a garbage dump.It takes any and all reports with no screening whatsoever. I assume you are familiar with the Laidler story where he called in a report and described a situation where the imaginary patient turned into the incredible hulk? DHHS did call him to question the story. VAERS had a major spike in reports a few years back when the lawyers in the Omnibus claim decided it would be a good idea to have more reports, thus inflating the numbers. Hit send too soon. These attorneys, numbering around 100 or so, needed to inflate the numbers in the hope that they would further support their nebulous claims and make t seem like there is an "epidemic". A disbarred attorney who was disbarred for 22 counts of unprofessional behavior, tells us about other attorneys. Oh the irony......... and NERVE........... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reported
"Jeff" wrote in message news:Y067i.1218$WZ6.396@trnddc03... Mark Probert wrote: ... The problems with VARS is that it is a garbage dump.It takes any and all reports with no screening whatsoever. That's its strength. If you *suspect* that a problem *might be* caused by a vaccine, it should be reported. Some people mistakenly think that just because something has been reported as an adverse event, that means that it was caused by the vaccine. Some adverse events are caused by the vaccines, but many aren't. A parent who sees their child quit speaking soon about a vacicnation...KNOWS. But YOU wouldn't know because you have no children. The whole idea of VAERS is that it is better to have every event that might be caused by vaccines reported, so that if there is a problem with a vaccine, it won't be missed. I assume you are familiar with the Laidler story where he called in a report and described a situation where the imaginary patient turned into the incredible hulk? DHHS did call him to question the story. VAERS had a major spike in reports a few years back when the lawyers in the Omnibus claim decided it would be a good idea to have more reports, thus inflating the numbers. Unfortunately, people misuse the system. You have that whenever members of the species homo sapiens are around. Jeff |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reported
"Jan Drew" wrote:
A disbarred attorney KACHING!! - $1 -- Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reported
A disbarred attorney who was disbarred for 22 counts of unprofessional
behavior, tells us about other attorneys. Oh the irony......... and NERVE........... Good day. I fail to see how this comment is helpful. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Enjoy your day. Roman |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reported
On May 29, 11:12 pm, Mark Probert
wrote: Mark Probert wrote: Roman Bystrianyk wrote: On May 25, 11:37 pm, Mark Probert wrote: Roman Bystrianyk wrote: On May 25, 3:14 am, "JOHN" wrote: 1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reportedhttp://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSReports.pdf Accuracy of Reports. VAERS is a passive surveillance system, and the large number of reports to VAERS precludes checking the specifics of the vast majority of reports, especially the less serious ones. Few reports to VAERS include full medical record documentation, and some doubtless include errors. In addition, the VAERS forms often have missing data; even simple data such as age, sex, vaccination date and adverse event onset date are missing for about 11%, 8%, 10% and 14%, respectively, of domestic VAERS reports. Hey, Roman, we fact based evidence types have been saying that to John and his ilk for years. They still insist that VAERS provides useful information. It is a waste of taxpayer money and should be shut down and replaced with something useful. Good day. I would certainly say that VAERS isn't extremely accurate being that it is a passive surveillance system. I personally know approximately two dozen people that have had severe reactions - several very severe - and none of them are in the VAERS database either because they didn't feel it was worthwhile or were actively discouraged from submitting information. That being said I feel there is some information that can be gleaned from the database even if only say 5 to 10% of reactions are actually recorded. A mandatory recording system to replace VAERS simply is not going to occur at this time so some recording of information I feel is better than none. In actuality I believe the only real way to obtain valuable information on effectiveness and adverse effects is by using a double-blind placebo controlled large scale study. The problems with VARS is that it is a garbage dump.It takes any and all reports with no screening whatsoever. I assume you are familiar with the Laidler story where he called in a report and described a situation where the imaginary patient turned into the incredible hulk? DHHS did call him to question the story. VAERS had a major spike in reports a few years back when the lawyers in the Omnibus claim decided it would be a good idea to have more reports, thus inflating the numbers. Hit send too soon. These attorneys, numbering around 100 or so, needed to inflate the numbers in the hope that they would further support their nebulous claims and make t seem like there is an "epidemic". Good day. Do you have evidence of this story? Do you have access to internal emails, direct witness accounts, etc? Where they all fake reports or were they helping people submit to VAERS? I'm quite interested in anything you may have in this regard. Also, what was the alleged number of "inflated" and presumably fraudulent reports? What percentage of the total of VAERS were these reports? Thank you and have a good day. Roman |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reported
Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
A disbarred attorney who was disbarred for 22 counts of unprofessional behavior, tells us about other attorneys. Oh the irony......... and NERVE........... Good day. I fail to see how this comment is helpful. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Remember Animal Farm? Some people are more entitled than others. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reported
Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
On May 29, 11:12 pm, Mark Probert wrote: Mark Probert wrote: Roman Bystrianyk wrote: On May 25, 11:37 pm, Mark Probert wrote: Roman Bystrianyk wrote: On May 25, 3:14 am, "JOHN" wrote: 1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reportedhttp://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSReports.pdf Accuracy of Reports. VAERS is a passive surveillance system, and the large number of reports to VAERS precludes checking the specifics of the vast majority of reports, especially the less serious ones. Few reports to VAERS include full medical record documentation, and some doubtless include errors. In addition, the VAERS forms often have missing data; even simple data such as age, sex, vaccination date and adverse event onset date are missing for about 11%, 8%, 10% and 14%, respectively, of domestic VAERS reports. Hey, Roman, we fact based evidence types have been saying that to John and his ilk for years. They still insist that VAERS provides useful information. It is a waste of taxpayer money and should be shut down and replaced with something useful. Good day. I would certainly say that VAERS isn't extremely accurate being that it is a passive surveillance system. I personally know approximately two dozen people that have had severe reactions - several very severe - and none of them are in the VAERS database either because they didn't feel it was worthwhile or were actively discouraged from submitting information. That being said I feel there is some information that can be gleaned from the database even if only say 5 to 10% of reactions are actually recorded. A mandatory recording system to replace VAERS simply is not going to occur at this time so some recording of information I feel is better than none. In actuality I believe the only real way to obtain valuable information on effectiveness and adverse effects is by using a double-blind placebo controlled large scale study. The problems with VARS is that it is a garbage dump.It takes any and all reports with no screening whatsoever. I assume you are familiar with the Laidler story where he called in a report and described a situation where the imaginary patient turned into the incredible hulk? DHHS did call him to question the story. VAERS had a major spike in reports a few years back when the lawyers in the Omnibus claim decided it would be a good idea to have more reports, thus inflating the numbers. Hit send too soon. These attorneys, numbering around 100 or so, needed to inflate the numbers in the hope that they would further support their nebulous claims and make t seem like there is an "epidemic". Good day. Do you have evidence of this story? Do you have access to internal emails, direct witness accounts, etc? Where they all fake reports or were they helping people submit to VAERS? I'm quite interested in anything you may have in this regard. Also, what was the alleged number of "inflated" and presumably fraudulent reports? What percentage of the total of VAERS were these reports? If you examine the number of claims filed in the Omnibus proceeding, and then look at the increase in VAERS reports, you would see the similarity. There has been prior discussion of how the attorney driven reports have skewed the VAERS data. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reported
Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
On May 29, 11:12 pm, Mark Probert wrote: Mark Probert wrote: Roman Bystrianyk wrote: On May 25, 11:37 pm, Mark Probert wrote: Roman Bystrianyk wrote: On May 25, 3:14 am, "JOHN" wrote: 1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reportedhttp://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSReports.pdf Accuracy of Reports. VAERS is a passive surveillance system, and the large number of reports to VAERS precludes checking the specifics of the vast majority of reports, especially the less serious ones. Few reports to VAERS include full medical record documentation, and some doubtless include errors. In addition, the VAERS forms often have missing data; even simple data such as age, sex, vaccination date and adverse event onset date are missing for about 11%, 8%, 10% and 14%, respectively, of domestic VAERS reports. Hey, Roman, we fact based evidence types have been saying that to John and his ilk for years. They still insist that VAERS provides useful information. It is a waste of taxpayer money and should be shut down and replaced with something useful. Good day. I would certainly say that VAERS isn't extremely accurate being that it is a passive surveillance system. I personally know approximately two dozen people that have had severe reactions - several very severe - and none of them are in the VAERS database either because they didn't feel it was worthwhile or were actively discouraged from submitting information. That being said I feel there is some information that can be gleaned from the database even if only say 5 to 10% of reactions are actually recorded. A mandatory recording system to replace VAERS simply is not going to occur at this time so some recording of information I feel is better than none. In actuality I believe the only real way to obtain valuable information on effectiveness and adverse effects is by using a double-blind placebo controlled large scale study. The problems with VARS is that it is a garbage dump.It takes any and all reports with no screening whatsoever. I assume you are familiar with the Laidler story where he called in a report and described a situation where the imaginary patient turned into the incredible hulk? DHHS did call him to question the story. VAERS had a major spike in reports a few years back when the lawyers in the Omnibus claim decided it would be a good idea to have more reports, thus inflating the numbers. Hit send too soon. These attorneys, numbering around 100 or so, needed to inflate the numbers in the hope that they would further support their nebulous claims and make t seem like there is an "epidemic". Good day. Do you have evidence of this story? Do you have access to internal emails, direct witness accounts, etc? Where they all fake reports or were they helping people submit to VAERS? I'm quite interested in anything you may have in this regard. Also, what was the alleged number of "inflated" and presumably fraudulent reports? What percentage of the total of VAERS were these reports? Thank you and have a good day. Try this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m and this http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2006/0...-distorts.html |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reported
"Mark Probert" wrote in message news:T5z7i.6329$Au6.853@trndny04... Roman Bystrianyk wrote: On May 29, 11:12 pm, Mark Probert wrote: Mark Probert wrote: Roman Bystrianyk wrote: On May 25, 11:37 pm, Mark Probert wrote: Roman Bystrianyk wrote: On May 25, 3:14 am, "JOHN" wrote: 1,637 Gardasil reactions have been reportedhttp://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/GardasilVAERSReports.pdf Accuracy of Reports. VAERS is a passive surveillance system, and the large number of reports to VAERS precludes checking the specifics of the vast majority of reports, especially the less serious ones. Few reports to VAERS include full medical record documentation, and some doubtless include errors. In addition, the VAERS forms often have missing data; even simple data such as age, sex, vaccination date and adverse event onset date are missing for about 11%, 8%, 10% and 14%, respectively, of domestic VAERS reports. Hey, Roman, we fact based evidence types have been saying that to John and his ilk for years. They still insist that VAERS provides useful information. It is a waste of taxpayer money and should be shut down and replaced with something useful. Good day. I would certainly say that VAERS isn't extremely accurate being that it is a passive surveillance system. I personally know approximately two dozen people that have had severe reactions - several very severe - and none of them are in the VAERS database either because they didn't feel it was worthwhile or were actively discouraged from submitting information. That being said I feel there is some information that can be gleaned from the database even if only say 5 to 10% of reactions are actually recorded. A mandatory recording system to replace VAERS simply is not going to occur at this time so some recording of information I feel is better than none. In actuality I believe the only real way to obtain valuable information on effectiveness and adverse effects is by using a double-blind placebo controlled large scale study. The problems with VARS is that it is a garbage dump.It takes any and all reports with no screening whatsoever. I assume you are familiar with the Laidler story where he called in a report and described a situation where the imaginary patient turned into the incredible hulk? DHHS did call him to question the story. VAERS had a major spike in reports a few years back when the lawyers in the Omnibus claim decided it would be a good idea to have more reports, thus inflating the numbers. Hit send too soon. These attorneys, numbering around 100 or so, needed to inflate the numbers in the hope that they would further support their nebulous claims and make t seem like there is an "epidemic". Good day. Do you have evidence of this story? Do you have access to internal emails, direct witness accounts, etc? Where they all fake reports or were they helping people submit to VAERS? I'm quite interested in anything you may have in this regard. Also, what was the alleged number of "inflated" and presumably fraudulent reports? What percentage of the total of VAERS were these reports? Thank you and have a good day. Try this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m The authors give msleading information. And are in tight with the AMA. and this http://orac Ia a known and proven liar. Lies for and with Mark. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gardasil reactions must be taken seriously | bigvince | Kids Health | 0 | May 23rd 07 03:13 PM |
Gardasil reactions must be taken seriously | bigvince | Kids Health | 0 | May 23rd 07 03:12 PM |
Gardasil reactions must be taken seriously | bigvince | Kids Health | 0 | May 23rd 07 03:11 PM |