[Pants-of-dog]

No, you copied and pasted a table of contents of all the adverse events that had been reported for a given time period.

You also pointed out that for the majority of these adverse events, there was not enough information to determine a causal link.

That does not prove that anyone has refused to do proper science.

[Sivad]

HHS FAILED VACCINE SAFETY PROVISIONS
In 1986, Congress charged Health and Human Services (HHS) with the primary responsibility of ensuring vaccine safety after removing product liability from vaccine manufacturers as part of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act. As part of the 1986 Act, HHS is required to create a task force and submit bi-annual reports to Congress detailing actions taken to ensure vaccine safety. This stipulated order shows that HHS has not acted in its duties regarding vaccine safety, forcing 78 million American children into a vaccine program with no safety provisions.

THE VACCINE SAFETY WHITE PAPER

Introduction to vaccine safety and policy in the united states

ICAN spent months researching the state of vaccine safety in the United States. The shocking result of this effort was presented to the heads of the National Institutes of Health with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in May of 2017.

The information contained in that presentation has been distilled into an easy to read, thorough white paper that goes through many of the shortcomings and failures of the vaccine safety program.

[Godstud]

@Sivad Your belief that the so-called "fake" public health establishment refuses to do proper science, is not valid, nor an argument, either.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Sivad

How exactly has the HHS failed?

[Sivad]

No, you copied and pasted a table of contents of all the adverse events that had been reported for a given time period.

I posted the link to the report and if you bothered to read it you'd find that the majority of the vaccine-adverse event pairs have not been thoroughly studied and a good chunk of them haven't been studied at all. Not even a single case study for a lot of them.


"The committee did not identify literature reporting clinical, diagnostic, or experimental evidence"

"No studies were identified in the literature for the committee to evaluate"


That's despite the tens of thousands of reports that come in from VAERS every year so we know that the reason for the lack of study isn't that these injuries are too rare to study, that excuse is just desperately flailing babbittry. And we know there is massive under-reporting with VAERS but for some reason the public health establishment refuses to set up an automated reporting system. "Too rare to study" is just a lame bullshit excuse from the fake public health establishment for its gross negligence. Just more fraud from corrupt lying scumbag fraudsters.

[Sivad]

[Pants-of-dog]

I posted the link to the report and if you bothered to read it you'd find that the majority of the vaccine-adverse event pairs have not been thoroughly studied and a good chunk of them haven't been studied at all. Not even a single case study for a lot of them.

I read the entire chapter that you cited.

I doubt you read the entire book.

But if you are saying that for many of these there was only one case study, then that shows the rarity of these adverse events, even if we assume causality.

"The committee did not identify literature reporting clinical, diagnostic, or experimental evidence"

"No studies were identified in the literature for the committee to evaluate"

Out of comtext quotes seem to be your weapin of choice.

That's despite the tens of thousands of reports that come in from VAERS every year so we know that the reason for the lack of study isn't that these injuries are too rare to study, that excuse is just desperately flailing babbittry. And we know there is massive under-reporting with VAERS but for some reason the public health establishment refuses to set up an automated reporting system. "Too rare to study" is just a lame bullshit excuse from the fake public health establishment for its gross negligence. Just more fraud from corrupt lying scumbag fraudsters.

More insults instead of arguments.

This is not informative.

[Godstud]

@Sivad is arguing like the kind of person he claims to hate... a babbit.

[Sivad]

But if you are saying that for many of these there was only one case study, then that shows the rarity of these adverse events, even if we assume causality.

That is just some asinine logic. It could mean that but it could also mean it just has never been studied and we know it's the latter because thousands of these cases have been reported so there's more than ample opportunity for study. We also know that the fake public health establishment has no interest in studying these events because it refuses to even look for them. The IOM has repeatedly stated that the current reporting system is inadequate but public health refuses to automate.

[Sivad]

More insults instead of arguments.

No, it's an argument. It's a good argument, it is peppered with contempt but you're just ignoring it because you can't think of a bullshit response.

[Drlee]

Well. Nothing Sivad presents a shred of evidence that vaccines are unsafe. We know from the mandatory reporting that they are. Sivad's ignorance of this subject is laughable.

He completely ignores that not one single health department/ministry of a single nation has disputed the safety of vaccines. But Sivad has secret wires in his brain that lets him see into the souls of the entire planet's epidemiologists and immunologists and divine that they are all secretly on the take because...big corporations.

What an unmitigated load of shit. He posts incomplete reports and rumors and we post actual safety research. He does not have the education to even understand the data if he saw it. He chooses to believe that every health department/ministry on the planet would kill children for money and we point to the number saved every year. He tries, with rumor and innuendo to discourage parents from protecting their children or themselves over a statistically insignificant risk and we try to get them to take action that has been incontrovertibly proven to save millions of lives every year.

His actions are not only intellectually dishonest they are dangerous bordering on psychopathic. He has nothing. Nothing that would suggest that a single parent in the world, unless advised by their physician of a specific condition precluding vaccination should fail to have their children vaccinated.

I posted the fact that 80,000 Americans died of the flu last season and an estimate that as many or more will die of it this year. He wants to talk about the absurdly small chance that someone would have a reaction to the vaccine and even if they have that, are unlikely to suffer anything but inconvenience.

In my line of work I frequently deal with jerkoffs who believe they know it all because...google....Robert Kennedy Jr....lib'rals.... They are annoying and a danger to themselves and others. I usually come here for some nice debate but lately I am running into the same folks. Sad. As Sivad's hero Donald Trump famously said, “I know words. I have the best words.” So does he. Good ones. Like Babbitt. He just knows absolutely nothing about vaccines, epidemiology and immunology.

[Sivad]

"The government has said, in a report by the Insitute of Medicine—and by the way, I'm a member of the Institute of Medicine. I love the Institute of Medicine—but a report in 2004 - it basically said, 'Do not pursue susceptibility groups. Don't look for those patients, those children, who may be vulnerable. I really take issue with that conclusion. The reason why they didn't want to look for those susceptibility groups was because they're afraid if they found them—however big or small they were—that that would scare the public away." - Dr. Bernadine Healy, former Director of the National Institutes of Health


"If you read the 2004 report, and converse with a few of my colleagues, um, who, um, who believe this still to be the case, there is a certain concern - um, I mean, there - Wait. - There is a completely expressed concern that they don't want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people." - Dr. Bernadine Healy, former Director of the National Institutes of Health


"The debate roils on—even about research. The Institute of Medicine in its last report on vaccines and autism in 2004 said that more research on the vaccine question is counterproductive: Finding a susceptibility to this risk in some infants would call into question the universal vaccination strategy that is a bedrock of immunization programs and could lead to widespread rejection of vaccines. The IOM concluded that efforts to find a link between vaccines and autism "must be balanced against the broader benefit of the current vaccine program for all children." - Dr. Bernadine Healy, former Director of the National Institutes of Health

[Drlee]

Make no mistake what I am saying Sivad. I am all for studies. We should look objectively at all the data.

And in the meantime make vaccination mandatory for all but those medically unable. If more people are added to the unable group, fine. If the schedule should be changed, fine. But not vaccinating, and in large numbers, in unacceptable.

And since this thread is about parental rights. No change. Parents should listen to their family doctor and the health authorities. Period.

[Sivad]

[Sivad]

[Pants-of-dog]

That is just some asinine logic. It could mean that but it could also mean it just has never been studied and we know it's the latter because thousands of these cases have been reported so there's more than ample opportunity for study. We also know that the fake public health establishment has no interest in studying these events because it refuses to even look for them. The IOM has repeatedly stated that the current reporting system is inadequate but public health refuses to automate.

Let us break this down. First, there are the number of adverse events reported, wnd the fact that the vast majority of these reports are for annoying but not significant side effects:

Approximately 30,000 VAERS reports are filed each year. About 85-90% of the reports describe mild side effects such as fever, arm soreness, and crying or mild irritability. The remaining reports are classified as serious, which means that the adverse event resulted in permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death. While these problems happen after vaccination, they are rarely caused by the vaccine.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensur ... index.html

So, from those thirty thousand, approximately 4,500 are serious.

Now, these 4500 adverse events can be broken down further:

Adverse Event
An “adverse event” is any health problem that happens after a shot or other vaccine. An adverse event might be truly caused by a vaccine, or it might be pure coincidence.

Types of adverse events include:

True reactions to the vaccine.
These include both common, known side effects and serious reactions, like allergic reactions.
Side Effect
A side effect is any health problem shown by studies to be caused by a vaccine. Like any medication, vaccines can cause side effects. Usually vaccine side effects are minor (for example, a sore arm where a shot was given or a low-grade fever after a vaccine) and go away on their own within a few days.

Unrelated health problems.
These are experiences that would have occurred even if the person had not been vaccinated. They happen after vaccination but are not caused by the vaccine.

Health problems that cannot be related directly to the vaccine.
The cause of these events is unknown, and there is not enough evidence to say whether they are caused by a vaccine.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensur ... index.html

Now, the numbers you have given us do not show how many of these 4500 adverse events (AE for short) are known effects, which are unrelated effects, and which are unknown.

I found some of those numbers here:
https://vaxopedia.org/2018/01/10/vaccin ... d-numbers/

the number of VAERS reports that are thought to be unrelated to a vaccine – 53%
the number of VAERS reports that are thought to be definitely caused by a vaccine – 3%
the number of definite VAERS reports that were serious – 1% (anaphylaxis)

The only way this relates to the other paper you cited is that they looked at al 4500 cases and drew up a list of all the adverse event pairs. An adverse event pair is a possible causal link between a vaccine and an AE that was reported to VAERS. So if you get one or more cases of people having Bell’s palsy after getting the flu vaccine, there would be an adverse event pair for flu and Bell’s palsy.

By the time they finished their list, they had 158 of them. This is the table of contents that you copied and pasted.

Then they got a committee together and looked at all the studies (epidemiological and mechanistic, over 12 000 of them) that analysed these AE pairs and found that for most of them, there was simply not enough studies to make a conclusion one way or the other.

[Sivad]

Let us break this down.

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.

[Godstud]

Underreporting is a major problem with the VAERS system, estimates are between 50% and 90% of adverse reactions go unreported.

Can you prove this by supporting it with some post, or is this just another assumption on your part?

Trying to pretend that the system isn't completely dysfunctional and fake is just more obtuse denial.

Ending every post you make, with an Ad Hominem, doesn't help your argument.

[Sivad]

Reporting efficiency, which is the proportion of adverse events that actually get reported to VAERS, is unknown, but is believed to be higher for clinically serious conditions. In a 1995 study, reporting sensitivities ranged from 68% for vaccine-associated polio following oral poliovirus vaccine to <1% for rash following MMR .
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632204/

So even contracting polio from the polio vaccine only gets reported 68% of the time, it's probably closer to 0% with something weird like systemic lupus erythematosus, any temporal association will just be completely ignored because doctors just don't believe that vaccines could possibly cause something like lupus. Doctors don't believe it because there haven't been any sound studies conducted on it, there haven't been any sound studies conducted on it because the fake public health establishment would rather not know about it because that would be inconvenient.

[Sivad]

Ending every post you make, with an Ad Hominem, doesn't help your argument.

Who cares, you people have abandoned reason, it's not like arguments actually work with your kind. This is me just fucking around and phoning it in, pofo doesn't merit the A game.