Might I suggest a TLDR or in academic terms an abstract / Findings section at the top of your posts? Most people won't read extensive processes of data analysis for various reasons (time, lack of expertise, too much info) but would benefit from knowing conclusions.
Follow-up reports aren't always more complete than the original reports. For instance, in your last example, the original report includes several symptoms that are not in the follow-up report, and at least some of these symptoms appear in the write-up in both reports. There is also information in the original report on other medications, current illness, pre-existing conditions, and allergies that doesn't appear in the follow-up report.
One way to summarize this might be to say that follow-up reports generally have more information than original reports but sometimes may lack information included in the original reports, too.
I wonder how much of these differences is due errors the reporter makes and how much might be due to VAERS staff "editing" reports. Clearly, the VAERS staff make coding errors in not capturing symptoms that appear in the write-up. Another question is why VAERS staff have to delete follow-up or duplicate reports for a given case if they are applying the supposed rule of including only the first report for a case. Altogether, these kinds of errors suggest incompetent administration/execution of the VAERS program. Because these errors don't show a _consistent_ bias toward lessening the apparent negative impact of vaccines, incompetence seems to be more relevant than malicious intent.
I am not sure if you have read the latest article on Aaron Siri's Substack.
But if this is mere incompetence from the CDC, their incompetence has become so bad, and the feedback loop (of the effects of their incompetence) is so badly broken, that the outcome is no different than if the CDC were actually malicious.
Thank you for the link. I have a good deal of direct professional experience with CDC officials. In recent decades, some of CDC's actions appeared to be competent, some incompetent, and others malicious, varying by topic. Since Covid, however, CDC's malicious actions may be the rule. However, CDC/FDA don't run VAERS -- they hire a contractor to administer the program (General Dynamics, a defense contractor). I suspect that General Dynamics tries to cut corners on VAERS and produces a mediocre to poor product as a result. CDC/FDA clearly are hostile to the VAERS and likely give little oversight or demand quality in the administration of the VAERS.
If the problems with VAERS were due to malice, I would expect the errors to be _consistently_ in the direction of minimizing the apparent harm of the vaccines. But that's not the case -- not in any critical analysis or audit I've seen. I don't minimize the problems with the VAERS, and it's crucial that you and others monitor the quality of the VAERS data.
Even though malice from government agencies (and other institutions) may be a driving force related to Covid, incompetence (especially in government and government contractors!) doesn't disappear as a result.
Would like to make sure everyone is aware that CDC keeps an additional, secret database.
The CDC states they follow up to gather more information on "serious" reports while also adding ... no you can't have it.
They publish the list of their state entity/agency contacts. That source has access to all of the medical records on individuals in their state. If it were not true, already by tomorrow there would be a fact check page calling this a wild-eyed conspiracy theory and ensuring us that we can rest easy, we're safe because no federal or state agency anywhere cares to be gathering accurate or detailed information about our health, that when you meet with your doctor and they are sitting at a screen typing everything you say, it is just because they like to practice their typing, not that it is being submitted to a database collecting everything.
The additional reports are secret.
If it were not true, then the 200,000+ heart/vascular vaccine reports have no real, additional information of substance because obviously all of those people got well so nothing to see.
The 90K female reproductive system and baby reports have nothing really new, only small changes here and there to keep us titillated.
If it were not true, then among those now 14,000+ blood clot reports (that moved [called embolism] and got stuck in lungs [pulmonary]), of those excluded, where I had to exclude them in that total count because they were not definitive as the CT scans had not yet been received at the time the VAERS report was submitted for example, in those cases, actually nothing more happened, nothing to report. If there were not a secret, separate database, then in every case the labs always failed to return any results, the cases all evaporated, the patients never had to revisit the ER with hospital staff busily, diligently reporting everything and stating whether the patient is contactable or whether a followup is possible (as they do), for example, no further information is available except small change red herrings because the vaccines are safe for administrators and effective at saving planet earth (by sterilizing us to stem our 385,000 new babies per day which one could look up and start connecting the dots with pzp & gonacon, a perfectly compassionate plan, but no one ever does so yeah we're toast).
[See George Carlin for additional information, specifically "Nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care"]
This is good info.
Might I suggest a TLDR or in academic terms an abstract / Findings section at the top of your posts? Most people won't read extensive processes of data analysis for various reasons (time, lack of expertise, too much info) but would benefit from knowing conclusions.
thanks.
Yeah, I have been thinking about adding those for a while now. Will try and do it for future posts.
100
Thank you, Aravind, for another excellent post.
Follow-up reports aren't always more complete than the original reports. For instance, in your last example, the original report includes several symptoms that are not in the follow-up report, and at least some of these symptoms appear in the write-up in both reports. There is also information in the original report on other medications, current illness, pre-existing conditions, and allergies that doesn't appear in the follow-up report.
One way to summarize this might be to say that follow-up reports generally have more information than original reports but sometimes may lack information included in the original reports, too.
I wonder how much of these differences is due errors the reporter makes and how much might be due to VAERS staff "editing" reports. Clearly, the VAERS staff make coding errors in not capturing symptoms that appear in the write-up. Another question is why VAERS staff have to delete follow-up or duplicate reports for a given case if they are applying the supposed rule of including only the first report for a case. Altogether, these kinds of errors suggest incompetent administration/execution of the VAERS program. Because these errors don't show a _consistent_ bias toward lessening the apparent negative impact of vaccines, incompetence seems to be more relevant than malicious intent.
I am not sure if you have read the latest article on Aaron Siri's Substack.
But if this is mere incompetence from the CDC, their incompetence has become so bad, and the feedback loop (of the effects of their incompetence) is so badly broken, that the outcome is no different than if the CDC were actually malicious.
https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/v-safe-part-8-cdc-falsely-claims
Thank you for the link. I have a good deal of direct professional experience with CDC officials. In recent decades, some of CDC's actions appeared to be competent, some incompetent, and others malicious, varying by topic. Since Covid, however, CDC's malicious actions may be the rule. However, CDC/FDA don't run VAERS -- they hire a contractor to administer the program (General Dynamics, a defense contractor). I suspect that General Dynamics tries to cut corners on VAERS and produces a mediocre to poor product as a result. CDC/FDA clearly are hostile to the VAERS and likely give little oversight or demand quality in the administration of the VAERS.
If the problems with VAERS were due to malice, I would expect the errors to be _consistently_ in the direction of minimizing the apparent harm of the vaccines. But that's not the case -- not in any critical analysis or audit I've seen. I don't minimize the problems with the VAERS, and it's crucial that you and others monitor the quality of the VAERS data.
Even though malice from government agencies (and other institutions) may be a driving force related to Covid, incompetence (especially in government and government contractors!) doesn't disappear as a result.
Thanks.
Would like to make sure everyone is aware that CDC keeps an additional, secret database.
The CDC states they follow up to gather more information on "serious" reports while also adding ... no you can't have it.
They publish the list of their state entity/agency contacts. That source has access to all of the medical records on individuals in their state. If it were not true, already by tomorrow there would be a fact check page calling this a wild-eyed conspiracy theory and ensuring us that we can rest easy, we're safe because no federal or state agency anywhere cares to be gathering accurate or detailed information about our health, that when you meet with your doctor and they are sitting at a screen typing everything you say, it is just because they like to practice their typing, not that it is being submitted to a database collecting everything.
The additional reports are secret.
If it were not true, then the 200,000+ heart/vascular vaccine reports have no real, additional information of substance because obviously all of those people got well so nothing to see.
The 90K female reproductive system and baby reports have nothing really new, only small changes here and there to keep us titillated.
Or https://deepdots.substack.com/p/13585-pulmonary-embolism-reports
If it were not true, then among those now 14,000+ blood clot reports (that moved [called embolism] and got stuck in lungs [pulmonary]), of those excluded, where I had to exclude them in that total count because they were not definitive as the CT scans had not yet been received at the time the VAERS report was submitted for example, in those cases, actually nothing more happened, nothing to report. If there were not a secret, separate database, then in every case the labs always failed to return any results, the cases all evaporated, the patients never had to revisit the ER with hospital staff busily, diligently reporting everything and stating whether the patient is contactable or whether a followup is possible (as they do), for example, no further information is available except small change red herrings because the vaccines are safe for administrators and effective at saving planet earth (by sterilizing us to stem our 385,000 new babies per day which one could look up and start connecting the dots with pzp & gonacon, a perfectly compassionate plan, but no one ever does so yeah we're toast).
[See George Carlin for additional information, specifically "Nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care"]
Thanks again. Have a nice day everybody.