[Sivad]

I noticed that you did not refute anything.

No, I did, you're just struggling to keep up.

Why would a medical professional not do that?

There are many reasons discussed in the literature. And it's not just vaccines, underreporting of adverse reactions is a problem with all drugs as well as medical devices.

[Godstud]

underreporting of adverse reactions is a problem with all drugs as well as medical devices.

Your own source said that VAERS is capable of detecting possible safety problems through disproportionality analyses and the other methods described above. It may be a problem, but it's not one that they seem to be capable of not over-coming.

[Sivad]

Please pay attention to the rest of the sentence, which explains that this isn't a problem. 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.

Where does it explain that it's not a problem? and how in the hell would underreporting not be a problem? It would be a big problem for safety surveillance, it's like the biggest problem there is for that issue. Normally I would say what you're doing here is trolling but with you I'm pretty sure it's your actual thinking and that makes me just feel kind of sorry for you.

[Godstud]

I'm not trolling you. I am merely pointing out that your statement is not true. They even state that they can maintain the safety despite under-reporting, through other methods. I don't know why you can't accept that your source doesn't support what you said. There are other methods to maintain vaccine safety.

[Drlee]

Where does it explain that it's not a problem? and how in the hell would underreporting not be a problem? It would be a big problem for safety surveillance, it's like the biggest problem there is for that issue.

You need to get a PhD in epidemiology and then you will know exactly how under reporting may not be a problem. So you are wrong about safety surveillance. And it is not the "biggest problem" for anything.

The devil is in the details. You do not understand game theory. You do not understand sampling. You do not understand how these studies are made.

You do not understand that you are making claims about some hyperendemic diseases. And you don't know why that is a thing.

You do not understand what sentinel surveillance is. You do not know if it is being employed in this program and probably never will.

In other words. You are a shit slinger. Just another amateur know-it-all copying and pasting some shit they read on the nets.

[Sivad]

You need to get a PhD in epidemiology and then you will know exactly how under reporting may not be a problem.

Here's what the Associate Professor in Population Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Director of Bioinformatics at the Channing Laboratory has to say about that:

Adverse events from vaccines are common but underreported, with less than one percent reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Low reporting rates preclude or delay the identification of "problem" vaccines, potentially endangering the health of the public. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.

This guy actually designed an active surveillance system for the CDC but "Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation."

[Sivad]

Here's what the IOM has to say about passive surveillance:

Means of Data Collection

As noted above, routine monitoring for adverse events following vaccination depends primarily on spontaneous reports of cases of adverse events. Such reports can signal possible vaccine-related problems but cannot be used to determine incidence rates of adverse events. Because such reporting is mostly voluntary, the data collected are typically incomplete and unrepresentative of the overall experience of the population of vaccine recipients. Reporting can be affected by factors such as the seriousness of the event, the time that has elapsed since vaccination, and levels of awareness or suspicion of an association between a particular adverse event and vaccination.
https://www.nap.edu/read/10310/chapter/6#88

So Drlee, once again, is wrong as fuck.

[Drlee]

Sigh. Still googling your confirmation bias I see.

You do not understand what they are saying.

Reporting can be affected by factors such as the seriousness of the event, the time that has elapsed since vaccination, and levels of awareness or suspicion of an association between a particular adverse event and vaccination

Think about this will your bias turned off for a moment. You won't be able to but try. You are fond of speaking of "intellect". Try to use what you have. There is a good chap.

You know. I could 'spain this to you but I will not bother. Casting pearls.....

[Sivad]

You know. I could 'spain this to you but I will not bother. Casting pearls.....

No you couldn't, you like to pretend you can but you've never explained anything ever. You've never provided one single substantive criticism on any point in any of these threads. You haven't demonstrated any technical proficiency at all, you just go around trying to bluff everyone with your alleged expertise. You don't cast pearls because you don't have any pearls to cast.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, I did, you're just struggling to keep up.

How many vaccines are given each year?

There are many reasons discussed in the literature. And it's not just vaccines, underreporting of adverse reactions is a problem with all drugs as well as medical devices.

So is over-reporting.

You seem to think that any imperfection whatsoever is reason to get rid of vaccination entirely.

Also, doctors are not the reason for any underreporting. Medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies are required by law to report AEs to VAERS. Most underreporting seems to be for insignificant AEs. If I lived in the US, I would not bother telling VAERS that my kid was cranky and had a red spot for a day after.

[Drlee]

No you couldn't, you like to pretend you can but you've never explained anything ever.

Read the thread again son. Resorting to falsehood is not a good tactic. Get over it.

[Sivad]

Read the thread again son. Resorting to falsehood is not a good tactic. Get over it.

I've been commenting on your refusal to substantively engage with the criticisms all the way through this thread. I just called you out point blank and you're still fronting. There are a lot of pretenders on the internet and so far you haven't given us any reason to think you have any level of technical expertise in this area. Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation

[Sivad]

So is over-reporting.

Yeah, so let's err on the side of massive underreporting. Brilliant safety strategy there, it'll keep all that pesky data from mucking up the science.

You seem to think that any imperfection whatsoever is reason to get rid of vaccination entirely.

You seem to think that a major flaw in this system is like inconceivable or something, but maybe it is, after all government bureaucracies are known for their perfect record of getting shit right.

And I have never suggested "getting rid of vaccination entirely", that's just more blatant bullshitting from you.

Also, doctors are not the reason for any underreporting.

I just posted the IOM article explaining why doctors fail to report. You're just making shit up.

[Drlee]

The others can read son. I am not going to repost what I have already posted in this thread or others.

As to your calling me a poser. There are those here who know very well whether I am competent to comment or not. Your opinions about me are chlidish and laughable. The last resort of the defeated.

Note that the entire extent of your knowledge on the subject is what you have read on anti-vaxer websites and googled. Frequently you do not understand what you are reading and it is glaringly obvious to the rest of us.

Yeah, so let's err on the side of massive underreporting. Brilliant safety strategy there, it'll keep all that pesky data from mucking up the science.

Naive at best. Under reporting what? Which data set? What method would you use (since you brought up Lupus) to report association between vaccines and SLE? Tell me how to structure that reporting in a way that is not being done already and presents usable data. (Pro-hint: You can't.)

You seem to think that a major flaw in this system is like inconceivable or something,

A major flaw in the safety of vaccines is highly unlikely given their save use all around the world for generations. Where is the data to even suggest a "major flaw"? That is something you have seemed to forget to post.

but maybe it is, after all government bureaucracies are known for their perfect record of getting shit right.

I see. You base your rejection of vaccine use on some general paranoia about governments getting shit wrong. And you accuse others of being unscientific? The arrogance of youth.

In this case you have concluded that every country in the world is getting this shit wrong. Every college, every university, every health department, every researcher, and every manufacturer has fucked it up.

And I have never suggested "getting rid of vaccination entirely", that's just more blatant bullshitting from you.

Really? What do you want? A 100% guarantee that life will not deal you a misfortune? That for something to be a good idea it must be a 100% solution? Life is not like that.

We have a term for what you are doing. "Pole vaulting over mouse turds."

There are very few things that have been more carefully studied and successfully used for so long as vaccines. Every year they save quite literally millions of lives. You are far too young to remember life when diseases that most doctors have never seen killed thousands of Americans and millions world wide. And maimed many times more than that.

The year I graduated from high school smallpox killed 2 million people and maimed 15 million more. In the 20th centrury (half of which I experienced) 500 million people died of smallpox. Now it has been eradicated. But WAIT! What if it caused a tiny fraction of people to have a reaction? Well it did. And some died. We knew that it was contraindicated in some patients. But they were protected by the almost universal vaccination of others. Any way you parse the numbers we are infinitely better off without smallpox and the tiny fraction of those injured by the vaccine, while sad in each case, died that others might live.

So let me give you an example of the kind of shit anti-vaxer sites believe would be important to illustrate the naivety of their claims.

The year my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer she got a flu shot. Was the flu shot a contributing factor to her developing breast cancer? How do you know? Perhaps the CDC should ask all doctors to ask all newly diagnosed breast cancer patients whether or not they had received the flu vaccine that year. What would the numbers show? 36.5% of all new breast cancer cases were in women who received flu vaccine! Holy shit! Did you learn anything from this very real number?

Imagine what would happen if, acting on nothing more than a suggestion of a correlation, the CDC required all doctors to report all new cases of breast cancer in women who received flu vaccine. What would these data tell us? More importantly, how many women would be frightened into not getting flu vaccine because.... "there must be some reason the CDC is investigating this stuff and I can survive flu but not breast cancer"....and so she does not get vaccinated for flu, gets it, takes a few days off work, and her coworker, who she gave it to, dies.

You see, young man, there are consequences to even suggesting a problem or solution.

A few decades ago there was a Nobel Prize winner (chemistry and peace) named Linus Pauling. He got Brights disease and treated it with vitamins. He published a book pushing the value of vitamin C to fight everything from cancer to the common cold. Soon everyone and their brother were taking massive doses of vitamin C. I did too on occasion. The anecdotal stories of colds prevented and other diseases cured abounded. The sale of Vitamin C went through the ozone. It is still there by the way as deluded people eat the shit like candy. Too bad that it was all bullshit. Mayo disproved the cancer cure myth during controlled studies in the early 80s. Other claims fell and continue to fall. But you are the guy who would google the Nobel winner, post his youtube video, and conclude that government and the "cancer industry" were suppressing this miracle cure because there is money in it and governments are fuck-ups.

You want me to post data to refute the claims of a very few. The data on vaccine safety has been around for generations. You simply chose out of hand to reject it. Or to propose a solution that very well may do vastly more harm than good.

Research into vaccine safety has not stopped. It is ongoing. It is not a subject for the five o'clock news. Why? Because people like you don't understand how these studies are done and come to absurd conclusions.
Dangerous ones.

Meanwhile I am going to go today to get my second Hep A+B shot with complete confidence.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yeah, so let's err on the side of massive underreporting. Brilliant safety strategy there, it'll keep all that pesky data from mucking up the science.

I have no idea how this is a reply to my point.

You seem to think that a major flaw in this system is like inconceivable or something, but maybe it is, after all government bureaucracies are known for their perfect record of getting shit right.

And I have never suggested "getting rid of vaccination entirely", that's just more blatant bullshitting from you.

As far as I can tell, there are no major flaws. Underreporting of AEs, the way the study has shown it, is not major.

And if you are not arguing that we should not vaccinate, what are you arguing?

I just posted the IOM article explaining why doctors fail to report. You're just making shit up.

No, nothing you have quoted says that doctors are underreporting.

Also...

VAERS was established in 1990 [17,18] to fulfill a requirement of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 [19]. By law, vaccine manufacturers are required to report adverse events that come to their attention, and healthcare professionals are required to report adverse events that are considered a contraindication to further doses of vaccine and those specified in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination [20-23]. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 also authorized establishment of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program [24]. Adverse events on the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination mirror the “illness, disability, injury or condition covered” conditions in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program’s Vaccine Injury Table [25] used to help adjudicate petitioner claims of vaccine related injury.

Anyone can report an adverse event to VAERS, including healthcare professionals, vaccine manufacturers, patients, parents and caregivers, and others. Reports are submitted voluntarily either directly from individual reporters, who may be reporting for themselves or others, or secondarily from vaccine manufacturers, that also receive spontaneous reports and in turn submit them to VAERS. Reporting is encouraged for any clinically important or unexpected adverse event, even if the reporter is not sure if a vaccine caused the event [20]. VAERS accepts all reports without rendering judgment on clinical importance or whether vaccine(s) might have caused the adverse event.

From your link:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... po=46.0526

How many vaccines are given each year?

[Drlee]

A Texas family is mourning after a young child died from flu complications. But, through their grief, her family is speaking out to help raise awareness for her potentially preventable death. Four-year-old Ashanti Grinage from Garland, Texas, died just days after getting sick and her family has since revealed that the child did not receive her flu shot this year and wasn't tested for pneumonia as symptoms progressed.

On January 29, Ashanti spiked a fever, so her worried mom took her to the hospital. Ashanti's fever reached 103 degrees when she was brought to the hospital, according to Fox 13. She had cold-like symptoms.

She was diagnosed with influenza A during her emergency room visit, and doctors reportedly recommended over-the-counter medicine to keep her fever down. However, she wasn't tested for pneumonia, which can be a flu complication that has similar symptoms, including a high fever, headache, cough and weakness.

"My wife called me and said that Ashanti had a high fever, and that she's taking her to the emergency room because she might have the flu," her dad, Martel Grinage, told WFAA.

But after that first visit, Martel said that Ashanti seemed to be doing better, with her fever going down and only her cough hanging on. "She wasn’t even running fever at this time, we just knew she was very sluggish and she wasn’t eating,” Martel told Fox 13.

But that's because something crucial was missed during that hospital trip. "On Tuesday, when she went to the doctor, she had pneumonia, and we didn't know," he told WFAA.

Two days later, Ashanti's mom was concerned about how lethargic she was and that she was coughing up mucus. So, she took her daughter back to the hospital a second time. When they arrived on Thursday, the girl's vitals were reportedly extremely low.

“When I think about my baby, that tears me down, man. That’s what I was living for,” Martel shared with CBS DFW. “I told her I wasn’t gonna let nothing bad happen to her. I used to preach that to her.”

Martel told WFAA that by the time he arrived, it was nearly too late. Doctors were desperately trying to bring the child back to life.

"The doctors told me when I got there, that her lungs were full of pneumonia and that they did the best that they could do," he said. "I told myself when she hears my voice—I know she's getting up ... I was just praying ... waiting for her to wake up. They were just pumping and pumping, and my daughter never got off that table. I never even got to say goodbye."



Just two days after her symptoms started, Ashanti died at Texas Health Presbyterian from flu-related complications.

According to health officials, Ashanti is the seventh to die from flu-related complications this season and she's the first child to die from influenza in Dallas County. Looking back, Martel wishes he asked doctors to test Ashanti for pneumonia as soon as he realized they hadn't tested her.

"If I even thought that a little bit that she was going to die, I wouldn't have let her," he said. "I'm almost 30, and I'm about to bury my 4-year-old daughter."

Martel also said that it's the clarity from hindsight that's tearing him up. "I'm mad at myself. I'm mad at everyone. I'm mad at the hospital. I'm mad at God. I can't lie to you," he told ABC 13. "See, I feel like I failed ... She was only 4, but that was my best friend."

Now, he's hoping to raise awareness to protect other families from this suffering.

"I just want to save someone else's kid because they don't want this feeling," he said.

Dr. Christopher Perkins, who is a medical director of the Dallas County Health and Human Services is pleading with parents to take this tragic story seriously. “We cannot predict the intensity, severity, or duration of the flu season from year to year,” he told CBS DFW. “The best way to protect yourself and others is to get your seasonal flu shot.”

Good thing she didn't risk having a rash, or getting Lupus. Right Sivad? Good thing her parents exercised their "right" not to have her vaccinated. Right Sivad?

Fucking morons of the world just drag me down.

[Pants-of-dog]

Photo copied from here:
https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-histor ... ed-america

[ness31]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... /17345997/

Ahem.

He should change his ID for a bow tie and it would make perfect sense.

[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/second-o ... -1.4672807

How the new Ebola vaccine was made in Canada

Vaccine use the culmination of years of sometimes frustrating efforts by Canadian government scientists

A significant Canadian scientific achievement occurred in Congo. This week, the made-in-Canada Ebola vaccine was used for the first time to control an outbreak of the deadly hemorrhagic fever.


It's the culmination of years of sometimes frustrating efforts by Canadian government scientists.

Ebola first appeared in 1976 near the Ebola River in Zaire, making a terrifying debut by infecting more than 300 people, spreading easily through contact with body fluids, and killing up to 88 per cent of its victims.

For decades, the virus continued to simmer in parts of Africa, causing sporadic outbreaks with alarmingly high death rates.

In 1999, Ebola was a frightening but distant spectre when scientists at Canada's new National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg began probing the virus, searching for the secret to its virulence, while working under strict high-level containment conditions.

Soon they realized they could develop a vaccine. But at the time, not everyone agreed that was the best use of resources.

"It took several years to convince funding agencies of the value of spending the National Microbiology Laboratory's limited resources on Ebola vaccine research over other pressing public health issues in Canada," Dr. Francis Plummer wrote in the CMAJ last year, adding that it took four years to get half of the money they requested.

"There followed the dogged work of building the vaccine program, putting contracts in place and securing sign-off from Ottawa."

In 2005, the Canadian team published evidence that its vaccine was 100 per cent effective in macaques.

The team's next goal was to produce enough vaccine for human clinical trials and also have some extra supply available in case it was ever needed in an emergency.

The government of Canada patented the vaccine and produced more than 800 vials, but it would be up to the private sector to move the vaccine into commercial development.

"There was little interest in the vaccine from the pharmaceutical industry," Plummer wrote in the CMAJ commentary.

Where's that Canadian vaccine?

Everything changed in 2014 when Ebola began spreading in West Africa, eventually killing more than 11,000 people.

Suddenly, the world asked, "where's that Canadian vaccine?"

The answer — a small company in Ames, Iowa, called NewLink was holding the licence. Canada had signed it over in 2010 even though the company had not yet taken a drug to market.

As the world grappled to contain the west African outbreak, news reports said the vaccine had "sat on the shelf."

"It took NewLink more than four years after acquiring its licence simply to register the first clinical trials," University of Ottawa law Prof. Amir Attaran, wrote in a letter to The Lancet in 2014.

By the end of 2014, Merck, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, stepped in and signed a licensing agreement with NewLink to develop the vaccine.

But Canada continued to fund clinical trials. Added up, the Ebola vaccine has been a multimillion-dollar Canadian investment.

'A major public health need'

"The Public Health Agency of Canada and Defence Research and Development Canada were the direct funders of the research and development of the Ebola vaccine," PHAC spokesperson Eric Morrissette told CBC News in an email.

"The total government funding was $5.3 million over a period of more than 10 years. However, this figure does not include the costs covered under the regular operating budget of the National Microbiology Laboratory."

Other international public and non-profit agencies have also supported the clinical trials. They include WHO, the Wellcome Trust and several U.S. federal agencies.

This week, all of those years of effort and investment will culminate in the first use of the vaccine, outside of a clinical trial, to stop an outbreak of Ebola.

Last week, more than 4,000 doses arrived in Kinshasa. On Monday, health officials began vaccinating health care workers and families of people infected with the virus.

This first use is happening even though the vaccine has not been officially approved by any country. But once that approval happens, Merck will market the Canadian vaccine.

"Merck's motivation to pursue licensure is to address a major public health need," Merck spokesperson Pamela Eisele told CBC News in an email.

"Should our investigational vaccine receive appropriate licensing, Merck has pledged to make the vaccine available to the world's poorest countries at the lowest possible, not-for-profit price."

[ness31]

That was very proactive of the Canadian government to kick start that vaccine. How it ended up in Iowa on a shelf collecting dust is anyone’s guess.