[Godstud]

No, @Sivad, that's not what the article you posted was saying. You ignored the very next sentence:
Although underreporting is a limitation, VAERS is capable of detecting possible safety problems through disproportionality analyses and the other methods described above.

You also didn't quote a previous sentence:
The amount of VAERS reporting (30,000 U.S. reports annually) makes it impractical to conduct detailed follow-up on all reports to obtain missing and incomplete information and correct inconsistencies and errors. Because VAERS data do not include an unvaccinated comparison group, it is not possible to calculate and compare rates of adverse events in vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals and determine if vaccination is associated with an increased risk of an adverse event.

This is also you quoting from a 23 year old study.

Who cares, you people have abandoned reason, it's not like arguments actually work with your kind.

That's simply because you don't have a reasonable argument that a reasonable person would consider to be rational. I can only assume that "your kind" applies to intelligent and reasonable people, judging by your childish response.

"Your kind" = Not Conspiracy Theorists.

[Sivad]

This is also you quoting from a 23 year old study.

The study was published in 2015 and the shit you highlighted doesn't apply to anything we're talking about here, like at all.

[Godstud]

It's entirely relevant to what you posted, as it surrounded your quoted statement, and was all about it. If you can't post the full facts, and only cherry-pick, your posts are going to get picked apart for the rubbish that they are.

In a 1995 study, reporting sensitivities ranged from 68% for vaccine-associated polio following oral poliovirus vaccine to <1% for rash following MMR .

So far, all I can see is your F-Game. If you're not going to at least attempt an honest discussion, why bother atall?

[Sivad]

It's entirely relevant

How? I know you won't explain the relevance because you have no idea what you're talking about but it would be hilarious to see you try.

Walter Sobchak:
Were you listening to The Dude's story, Donny?

Donny:
What?

Walter Sobchak:
Were you listening to The Dude's story?

Donny:
I was bowling.

Walter Sobchak:
So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

[Godstud]

It was entirely relevant to what you posted. I can't help it if you post shit that you don't even fully understand.

[Sivad]

Sivad wrote:
In a 1995 study, reporting sensitivities ranged from 68% for vaccine-associated polio following oral poliovirus vaccine to <1% for rash following MMR .

The study I quoted was published in Vaccine in august 2015, it referenced an earlier study from 1995. Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation

[Sivad]

I was entirely relevant to what you posted. I can't help it if you post shit that you don't even fully understand.

I knew you had nothing. You just figured you'd post some shit you didn't understand as a bluff and then pretend like you caught me cherry picking. lol.

[Sivad]

I'm just glad I have enough awareness to know when I'm out of my depth. Godstud has zero awareness, he just blunders in and keeps right on blundering. It's spectacular.

[Godstud]

@Sivad You cherry-picked a statement, out of a paragraph, because you thought it supported what you said, except that the preceding and following statements were qualifiers that didn't fully support it.

[Sivad]

[Godstud]

Here's a nice quote from the following paragraph.

Except in unambiguous biologically plausible cases (like pain and redness at the injection site), it generally cannot be determined if a vaccine caused an adverse event using VAERS data.

So much for the evidence of under-reporting that you were talking about.

[Sivad]

So much for the evidence of under-reporting that you were talking about.

Total non sequitur. I think Godstud walked across his cat's keyboard.

[Godstud]

I think that it's quite evident that you cannot defend your own statements, and then quote things you don't understand, out of context.

Don't use big words you don't understand. It doesn't make your argument any more valid.

If you think your quote needs more clarification, then by all means, clarify. I merely quoted you the preceding and following statements after your quote. Are you telling me you can't defend your own position?

[Sivad]

[Godstud]

I see your only argument is insults. I guess you don't have an argument if you can't even defend it.

[Drlee]

I'm just glad I have enough awareness to know when I'm out of my depth.

All evidence to the contrary.

I am interested in mentioning two things here.

This system is funded by a tax on vaccines. There is no reason for manufacturers to fudge any of their data as they are protected from claims. This is a very wise decision on the part of the government. Besides. They pay less than 160 claims a year on average.

Now we have Sivad mentioning Lupus in association with vaccines. There is a lovely scare tactic. It takes on average five years for someone with Lupus just to get diagnosed. It is more prevalent in people of color... Women......People between 15 and 45..... But lets tie it to vaccines too. Maybe spend a billion dollars chasing this rabbit down the hole. And to what end?

[Pants-of-dog]

Your breakdown is bullshit. Underreporting is a major problem with the VAERS system, estimates are between 50% and 90% of adverse reactions go unreported. The unrelated findings are based on the received wisdom that vaccines don't cause any of these serious conditions, so the reports are just dismissed out of hand and no further study is undertaken. Trying to pretend that the system isn't completely dysfunctional and fake is just more obtuse denial.

I noticed that you did not refute anything.

You are now, instead, trying to argue that people do not report serious AEs to VAERS.

Why would a medical professional not do that?

[Godstud]

Sivad attempted to argue(poorly) that doctors were under-reporting, but the article he posted even stated:

Although underreporting is a limitation, VAERS is capable of detecting possible safety problems through disproportionality analyses and the other methods described above.

[Sivad]

Godstud debunks a claim of underreporting with a quote saying "underreporting is a limitation".

[Godstud]

Please pay attention to the rest of the sentence, which explains that this isn't actually critical. Is reading comprehension a problem?

Although underreporting is a limitation, VAERS is capable of detecting possible safety problems through disproportionality analyses and the other methods described above.