Jun 13, 2023·edited Jun 13, 2023Liked by Aravind Mohanoor
Great write up. When I run my code to check for duplicates, I check duplicate IDs and I search for duplicate entries by matching a number of variable fields simultaneously. The search algorithm I use is actually quite strict: I check for dups based on exact field matches in the AGE_YRS, STATE, SEX, VAX_LOT, VAX_SITE, VAX_ROUTE, VAX_DATE, VAX_NAME, VAX_MANU, RECVDATE, CAGE_YR, CAGE_MO, DIED, HOSPITAL, ER_ED_VISIT, ALLERGIES, ONSET_DATE, PRIOR_VAX, VAX_DOSE_SERIES, L_THREAT, DISABLE, BIRTH_DEFECT variables. I really think you might be onto something with the idea that the follow-up filings might be the ones removed due to the fact that there are multiple field matches. If I got that wrong from your write-up, I think it may be right. For example, the algorithm I made to suss out duplicates checks for both ID dups and multiple and simultaneous variable field dups (variables listed above) since the same person can remain with permanent ID in VAERS under two different IDs. So theoretically, the VAERS data wranglers might do the same thing to remove duplicates, but perhaps their 'algorithm' to seek and remove duplicates based on duplicate simultaneous multiple field entries is always 'running' (for lack of a better way to express this) and thus maybe that's precisely why people's follow-ups don't get into the front end of VAERS. We have to assume that the temporary VAERS ID entries would be cross-checked against permanent VAERS IDs: how else would they know if 'someone' had previously filed a report? So if matches were found across many variables, maybe their 'algorithm' removes it prematurely? The only weird part about this idea is that, well, we would see none of it. But, I agree, this would not be nefariousness, but it would be stupid and something that needs to be fixed. The shitty part is there's no way for us to check this theory since we don't have access to the uncooked books with the temp IDs. We need a study: people who receive temp IDs and subsequent perm IDs trying to submit a follow-up. Like hundreds of these. Just to see what happens. Would any of their perm IDs get updated? Would they get a new perm ID? Jess
I agree with everything you have said (I think), but I wanted to clarify that I am only referring to the VAERS reports which have permanent IDs when I say the deletions are not nefarious
I would agree with the additional new file by CDC with a column explaining each deletion.
The discussion above must be about reports that were visible but then deleted.
But there seem to be 60K that have never been published. 230K at one time so at least 170K of those were eventually released. That's the effect in action we all know that each week some are held back, showing up later, with others being held back.
Did you find a match for deleted death report ID# 1631954? It was one of the recent JJ mass purge reports? There is much more philosophy and discussion that needs to go into "deleted" reports, and the exact concept of duplicate and follow-up. Duplicate, as in meaning a victim filed a report then a physician/hospital filed a report say within the same week? Duplicate, as in two different family members submitted the same "initial" report? Duplicate as in two different departments or hospitals/SNF submitted the same "initial" report? Or any combination? And of course a true follow-up usually at a pre-determined time like a 60-90-180-365 day follow-up? There are clearly follow-up going into VAERS via their automated follow-up questionnaire, like the ones I received for my uncle. Anyhow, it's good more people are putting in more critical thought to deleted reports. I agree with you or one of your readers that a better "design" can be implemented but the CDC does not want transparency. VAERS should be more designed like a medical billing/EMR system. Not hard and not a original concept. Here is something to ponder, it's VAERS automated follow-up correspondence at 1yr: https://imgur.com/gallery/nKhfkwa. Keep in mind the "E-report" number I blacked out is the aka Temp ID# you need to request your finalized ID# in the very beginning of the process to activate the whole follow-up system. Don't think for a second VAERS is automatically returning to submitters their finalized ID# when new reports are published. So many of these little factoids I was able to collaborate with React19 and conduct audits on their injured population that wanted to participate in the audit. It was clear that many React19 thought their temp ID# was the actual final ID#. During the audit we actually found final ID#'s that the victim had never seen before. Some we were not able to find a final report. Still some were under the impression that they or their physicians can submit initial reports again as a follow-up? https://react19.org/vaers-audit/. Isn't it ironic that Liz and Jessica do not reference me or my dashboards? I totally understand it's not comfortable to sharpen iron sometimes. If they were true lovers of humanity or dare I say Godly people they would acknowledge me. But instead we read each others mail through tweets, substacks, and comments! Kind of sad. Darkness always runs from the light, not saying they are dark but I am saying they are not totally genuine and sincere. Kind of sad again. Oh well God Bless
I'm about ready to find anybody to file a new VAERS report so I can see what the temp ID# is now in relation to what the final ID# is. You see that temp ID# is also a simple sequential six digit number. The temp ID# is probably not six digits any longer, but what ever it is it would be very revealing and shed additional light on to submitted/published/unpublished/backlog reports! Working with various peeps like react19, helping people file reports, etc. I have a healthy cross cut of tempID# and their corresponding final ID#. Like I said it's sad this freedom movement can't work together, but that won't stop me, it only stops the people who ignore or don't find it interesting.
Great write up. When I run my code to check for duplicates, I check duplicate IDs and I search for duplicate entries by matching a number of variable fields simultaneously. The search algorithm I use is actually quite strict: I check for dups based on exact field matches in the AGE_YRS, STATE, SEX, VAX_LOT, VAX_SITE, VAX_ROUTE, VAX_DATE, VAX_NAME, VAX_MANU, RECVDATE, CAGE_YR, CAGE_MO, DIED, HOSPITAL, ER_ED_VISIT, ALLERGIES, ONSET_DATE, PRIOR_VAX, VAX_DOSE_SERIES, L_THREAT, DISABLE, BIRTH_DEFECT variables. I really think you might be onto something with the idea that the follow-up filings might be the ones removed due to the fact that there are multiple field matches. If I got that wrong from your write-up, I think it may be right. For example, the algorithm I made to suss out duplicates checks for both ID dups and multiple and simultaneous variable field dups (variables listed above) since the same person can remain with permanent ID in VAERS under two different IDs. So theoretically, the VAERS data wranglers might do the same thing to remove duplicates, but perhaps their 'algorithm' to seek and remove duplicates based on duplicate simultaneous multiple field entries is always 'running' (for lack of a better way to express this) and thus maybe that's precisely why people's follow-ups don't get into the front end of VAERS. We have to assume that the temporary VAERS ID entries would be cross-checked against permanent VAERS IDs: how else would they know if 'someone' had previously filed a report? So if matches were found across many variables, maybe their 'algorithm' removes it prematurely? The only weird part about this idea is that, well, we would see none of it. But, I agree, this would not be nefariousness, but it would be stupid and something that needs to be fixed. The shitty part is there's no way for us to check this theory since we don't have access to the uncooked books with the temp IDs. We need a study: people who receive temp IDs and subsequent perm IDs trying to submit a follow-up. Like hundreds of these. Just to see what happens. Would any of their perm IDs get updated? Would they get a new perm ID? Jess
I agree with everything you have said (I think), but I wanted to clarify that I am only referring to the VAERS reports which have permanent IDs when I say the deletions are not nefarious
https://vaccinedatascience.substack.com/p/a-clarification-about-vaers-deletions
I would agree with the additional new file by CDC with a column explaining each deletion.
The discussion above must be about reports that were visible but then deleted.
But there seem to be 60K that have never been published. 230K at one time so at least 170K of those were eventually released. That's the effect in action we all know that each week some are held back, showing up later, with others being held back.
See the never published chart:
https://deepdots.substack.com/p/new-vaers-flat-file-easy-data-mining
The current list of VAERS_IDs never published, they change each week:
https://univaers.com/download/flatfile/never_published.txt
Did you find a match for deleted death report ID# 1631954? It was one of the recent JJ mass purge reports? There is much more philosophy and discussion that needs to go into "deleted" reports, and the exact concept of duplicate and follow-up. Duplicate, as in meaning a victim filed a report then a physician/hospital filed a report say within the same week? Duplicate, as in two different family members submitted the same "initial" report? Duplicate as in two different departments or hospitals/SNF submitted the same "initial" report? Or any combination? And of course a true follow-up usually at a pre-determined time like a 60-90-180-365 day follow-up? There are clearly follow-up going into VAERS via their automated follow-up questionnaire, like the ones I received for my uncle. Anyhow, it's good more people are putting in more critical thought to deleted reports. I agree with you or one of your readers that a better "design" can be implemented but the CDC does not want transparency. VAERS should be more designed like a medical billing/EMR system. Not hard and not a original concept. Here is something to ponder, it's VAERS automated follow-up correspondence at 1yr: https://imgur.com/gallery/nKhfkwa. Keep in mind the "E-report" number I blacked out is the aka Temp ID# you need to request your finalized ID# in the very beginning of the process to activate the whole follow-up system. Don't think for a second VAERS is automatically returning to submitters their finalized ID# when new reports are published. So many of these little factoids I was able to collaborate with React19 and conduct audits on their injured population that wanted to participate in the audit. It was clear that many React19 thought their temp ID# was the actual final ID#. During the audit we actually found final ID#'s that the victim had never seen before. Some we were not able to find a final report. Still some were under the impression that they or their physicians can submit initial reports again as a follow-up? https://react19.org/vaers-audit/. Isn't it ironic that Liz and Jessica do not reference me or my dashboards? I totally understand it's not comfortable to sharpen iron sometimes. If they were true lovers of humanity or dare I say Godly people they would acknowledge me. But instead we read each others mail through tweets, substacks, and comments! Kind of sad. Darkness always runs from the light, not saying they are dark but I am saying they are not totally genuine and sincere. Kind of sad again. Oh well God Bless
I'm about ready to find anybody to file a new VAERS report so I can see what the temp ID# is now in relation to what the final ID# is. You see that temp ID# is also a simple sequential six digit number. The temp ID# is probably not six digits any longer, but what ever it is it would be very revealing and shed additional light on to submitted/published/unpublished/backlog reports! Working with various peeps like react19, helping people file reports, etc. I have a healthy cross cut of tempID# and their corresponding final ID#. Like I said it's sad this freedom movement can't work together, but that won't stop me, it only stops the people who ignore or don't find it interesting.
"dumpster diving" huh?
i suppose they should also ignore the police that find things in the garbage too...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/patrick-de-la-cerda-murder-gregory-bender-trash-48-hours/
Arvind, I hope you can comment on a recently published vaccine study for Children's Health Defense. Can you get in touch? Angelodp@gmail.com
It's impossible to email any of these bloggers. They are as insulated as the rest of media.
Thank you.