It looks like VAERS use to append follow up data to the initial reports. You can actually see it if you study reports pre-2011. See item #4 in image: https://i.imgur.com/IZ4K9iU.jpg . I won't bother with with much explanation, but maybe check out this relevant video: https://www.bitchute.com/video/YmI5hQeAjSfd/ Only publishing initial reports begs the question, how many people are now since dead in VAERS? How many of the ~13K "inappropriate aged" kids that are basically in the lowest event (None of the Above) now have myocarditis? The public won't made aware, but CDC knows as they continue to collect follow-up data. Makes me wonder if the Harvard Pilgrim Study had anything to do with VAERS making this huge paradigm shift of not "appending" to initial reports since 2011? https://www.vaersaware.com/deleted-reports-2007-2022
Thanks for the comment. You are clearly extremely knowledgeable about VAERS. Can you please write all this up as articles instead of creating videos? It is much easier to quote and then link to articles.
And the videos you are citing are not particularly short either. It takes a couple of minutes to skim a written article, you can do a search for keywords etc. If you don't have the time, maybe you can pay to transcribe your videos for ~$2/min and put the transcript on your website right under the video embed, which can solve both problems at once. I have used this company for some of my past course videos, they are very good:
My rule of thumb when watching technical material in video format is to multiply the video length by 2 to estimate how long it will take to watch and also understand. That means your 60 minute video will take me about 120 minutes to actually grasp. Maybe I am just very slow, but there is a huge difference between spending 2 minutes to skim an article and spending 2 hours to watch an entire video. And unlike an article, I cannot even go back and quickly find what I already learnt.
"Only publishing initial reports begs the question, how many people are now since dead in VAERS?"
It is certainly a non-zero number, I will be writing an article on this soon.
Thanks for the heads up about the Harvard Pilgrim Study. I did not know that's where the 1% under-reporting factor comes from. For those who haven't heard about it before, here is a link:
Thank you for your follow-up analysis, Aravind, and for your history lesson, Albert (WelcomeTheEagle88).
I didn't argue for favoring the original report over the follow-up report, or vice versa. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the best policy is to have ALL of the data, even if they include inconsistencies between original and follow-up reports.
The results of your most recent analysis are consistent with my point that there is no consistent bias in the deletion of reports. Follow-up reports naturally will tend to have somewhat more information than original reports, as symptoms develop and clinicians perform more diagnostic procedures.
My question of how the duplicate reports enter the public version of the database remains. It is very easy to design a database and entry interface to prevent this. Are the VAERS contractors so incompetent that they haven't done so? Maybe they have an incentive to be sloppy, if they negotiate the contract with FDA/CDC based on amount of work. Creating easily preventable errors and then fixing them adds up to a lot of time. And CDC/FDA probably don't care -- they want something that meets just the letter of the law, and might like that VAERS looks shoddy.
A greater concern is deleted reports that aren't duplicates. Albert Benavides has investigated this, and while they represent a very small proportion of all reports, it is very troubling.
It looks like VAERS use to append follow up data to the initial reports. You can actually see it if you study reports pre-2011. See item #4 in image: https://i.imgur.com/IZ4K9iU.jpg . I won't bother with with much explanation, but maybe check out this relevant video: https://www.bitchute.com/video/YmI5hQeAjSfd/ Only publishing initial reports begs the question, how many people are now since dead in VAERS? How many of the ~13K "inappropriate aged" kids that are basically in the lowest event (None of the Above) now have myocarditis? The public won't made aware, but CDC knows as they continue to collect follow-up data. Makes me wonder if the Harvard Pilgrim Study had anything to do with VAERS making this huge paradigm shift of not "appending" to initial reports since 2011? https://www.vaersaware.com/deleted-reports-2007-2022
Thanks for the comment. You are clearly extremely knowledgeable about VAERS. Can you please write all this up as articles instead of creating videos? It is much easier to quote and then link to articles.
And the videos you are citing are not particularly short either. It takes a couple of minutes to skim a written article, you can do a search for keywords etc. If you don't have the time, maybe you can pay to transcribe your videos for ~$2/min and put the transcript on your website right under the video embed, which can solve both problems at once. I have used this company for some of my past course videos, they are very good:
https://gotranscript.com/
My rule of thumb when watching technical material in video format is to multiply the video length by 2 to estimate how long it will take to watch and also understand. That means your 60 minute video will take me about 120 minutes to actually grasp. Maybe I am just very slow, but there is a huge difference between spending 2 minutes to skim an article and spending 2 hours to watch an entire video. And unlike an article, I cannot even go back and quickly find what I already learnt.
"Only publishing initial reports begs the question, how many people are now since dead in VAERS?"
It is certainly a non-zero number, I will be writing an article on this soon.
Thanks for the heads up about the Harvard Pilgrim Study. I did not know that's where the 1% under-reporting factor comes from. For those who haven't heard about it before, here is a link:
https://rickjaffeesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-20116.pdf
Thank you for your follow-up analysis, Aravind, and for your history lesson, Albert (WelcomeTheEagle88).
I didn't argue for favoring the original report over the follow-up report, or vice versa. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the best policy is to have ALL of the data, even if they include inconsistencies between original and follow-up reports.
The results of your most recent analysis are consistent with my point that there is no consistent bias in the deletion of reports. Follow-up reports naturally will tend to have somewhat more information than original reports, as symptoms develop and clinicians perform more diagnostic procedures.
My question of how the duplicate reports enter the public version of the database remains. It is very easy to design a database and entry interface to prevent this. Are the VAERS contractors so incompetent that they haven't done so? Maybe they have an incentive to be sloppy, if they negotiate the contract with FDA/CDC based on amount of work. Creating easily preventable errors and then fixing them adds up to a lot of time. And CDC/FDA probably don't care -- they want something that meets just the letter of the law, and might like that VAERS looks shoddy.
A greater concern is deleted reports that aren't duplicates. Albert Benavides has investigated this, and while they represent a very small proportion of all reports, it is very troubling.
A responsible agency would keep a public file with any/all changes and/or deletions