Thank you. Your datasets will be useful as a back-up to see if I missed anything. A future project is to see which report should have been "up-coded" say from OV to hospital. NOA to something higher, etc...
We need the teachers Exam answers aka VAERS to update May data. I have a feeling people will be catching VAERS red handed on many reports. If this wasn't a mistake, then I do see them giving us more retroactive data the following month. It's seems like every report should have a order 1 at minimum. I think some fields should or will be treated as "appendments" like the summary narrative while others will be treated like "replacements" like from a Unknown vax type to covid vax type. All the free text fields should be treated like "appendments" basically. There probably will be event level up-codes and event level down-codes. We should be really vigilant to document the down-codes especially.
"followup deaths?". They did append follow-up data to initial reports prior to Jan 2011. Probably not coincidently after the Harvard Pilgrim Report in late 2010? Study blurb #4 here: https://postimg.cc/bGhDPyKy
They basically tell us five times in the help documents "only initial reports" are now being published. aka since Jan 2011.
"They basically tell us five times in the help documents "only initial reports" are now being published. aka since Jan 2011."
Don't you think it is reasonable to expect that the CDC should explicitly mention that "it follows that the aggregate death numbers are undercounts"? Why is that never mentioned in any of the CDC's own publications?
It's reasonable to believe they should and are obligated to tell us, but it's becoming clear these are not reasonable people or entities managing a pharmacovigilance system. They have ulterior motives, and that's to protect a billion or trillion dollar cash cow that serves a purpose and greases the wheels for so many other industries. Welcome to America, we just may be the new Sodom & Gomorrah and have been for a very long time.
As you can see prior to Jan 2011 when they appending initial report with follow-up data, they were still covering carnage. We can see it now with this new data. I hope this wasn't a mistake for VAERS to publish this data, because technically they didn't yet. Who else would have the wisdom to download the data anyways? Only Steve Rubin. Then he tells me 1st.
I'm so glad you guys work together uncovering the truth.
Thank you. Your datasets will be useful as a back-up to see if I missed anything. A future project is to see which report should have been "up-coded" say from OV to hospital. NOA to something higher, etc...
I already see they have missed a LOT of disabilities, so I will be looking into that next I think
We need the teachers Exam answers aka VAERS to update May data. I have a feeling people will be catching VAERS red handed on many reports. If this wasn't a mistake, then I do see them giving us more retroactive data the following month. It's seems like every report should have a order 1 at minimum. I think some fields should or will be treated as "appendments" like the summary narrative while others will be treated like "replacements" like from a Unknown vax type to covid vax type. All the free text fields should be treated like "appendments" basically. There probably will be event level up-codes and event level down-codes. We should be really vigilant to document the down-codes especially.
Agreed
"followup deaths?". They did append follow-up data to initial reports prior to Jan 2011. Probably not coincidently after the Harvard Pilgrim Report in late 2010? Study blurb #4 here: https://postimg.cc/bGhDPyKy
They basically tell us five times in the help documents "only initial reports" are now being published. aka since Jan 2011.
"They did append follow-up data to initial reports prior to Jan 2011"
Not always, obviously
There are some example reports from 1990s itself where the followup data was not appended to the initial report:
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=57652
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=57652&FOLLOWONHISTORY=ON
"They basically tell us five times in the help documents "only initial reports" are now being published. aka since Jan 2011."
Don't you think it is reasonable to expect that the CDC should explicitly mention that "it follows that the aggregate death numbers are undercounts"? Why is that never mentioned in any of the CDC's own publications?
It's reasonable to believe they should and are obligated to tell us, but it's becoming clear these are not reasonable people or entities managing a pharmacovigilance system. They have ulterior motives, and that's to protect a billion or trillion dollar cash cow that serves a purpose and greases the wheels for so many other industries. Welcome to America, we just may be the new Sodom & Gomorrah and have been for a very long time.
As you can see prior to Jan 2011 when they appending initial report with follow-up data, they were still covering carnage. We can see it now with this new data. I hope this wasn't a mistake for VAERS to publish this data, because technically they didn't yet. Who else would have the wisdom to download the data anyways? Only Steve Rubin. Then he tells me 1st.