"Pranksters" and "false positives" stood out in this piece to me. Pranksters are taking great risks to prank to joke in that it considered a felony to file a false report aka "federal crime". More over if you've ever filed a report you will quickly notice they want to know everything about the submitter just short of your ss#. Your address, tel#, relationship to patient, at the very least they have would also have an IP address to the submitter? 2) They have a very reasonable and comfortable "up to" 4-6wks to authenticate and request additional info if needed, before finalizing and publishing report. The false positives is a very worthy topic and thought provoking discussion in term AI and machine learning in the context of extracting meaning results for further observation in this context. Since you like to refer to openvaers and Jessica Rose often, maybe you can deduce how Dr. Rose addresses her false positives in this article: https://jessicar.substack.com/p/the-lost-myocarditis-death-neuropathy . Also it is clear to me that openvaers has the same challenges with "false positives" and therefore overstating the myocarditis/periC signal per their "red box". Maybe you could help them out with that? Subjectively I want to say there is more "myocarditis" in vaers by the mere fact that the ~40K reports of victims with chest pain (without a dx of myo or pericarditis) had not been clinically diagnosed before reports were filed? Objectively these ladies are challenged to address their false positives in their code and algorithms and therefore are overstating the statistics openvaers presents? Dare to confirm? The world would be appreciative. I'll be coming out with my own critical analysis shortly. https://www.vaersaware.com/
"Pranksters" and "false positives" stood out in this piece to me. Pranksters are taking great risks to prank to joke in that it considered a felony to file a false report aka "federal crime". More over if you've ever filed a report you will quickly notice they want to know everything about the submitter just short of your ss#. Your address, tel#, relationship to patient, at the very least they have would also have an IP address to the submitter? 2) They have a very reasonable and comfortable "up to" 4-6wks to authenticate and request additional info if needed, before finalizing and publishing report. The false positives is a very worthy topic and thought provoking discussion in term AI and machine learning in the context of extracting meaning results for further observation in this context. Since you like to refer to openvaers and Jessica Rose often, maybe you can deduce how Dr. Rose addresses her false positives in this article: https://jessicar.substack.com/p/the-lost-myocarditis-death-neuropathy . Also it is clear to me that openvaers has the same challenges with "false positives" and therefore overstating the myocarditis/periC signal per their "red box". Maybe you could help them out with that? Subjectively I want to say there is more "myocarditis" in vaers by the mere fact that the ~40K reports of victims with chest pain (without a dx of myo or pericarditis) had not been clinically diagnosed before reports were filed? Objectively these ladies are challenged to address their false positives in their code and algorithms and therefore are overstating the statistics openvaers presents? Dare to confirm? The world would be appreciative. I'll be coming out with my own critical analysis shortly. https://www.vaersaware.com/