“Vaccine adverse event reporting systems are an essential element of the official testing and monitoring process intended to ensure vaccine safety.
Vaccine pre-licensure clinical trials are relatively limited in scope and cannot identify uncommon adverse health events or susceptible population subgroups. As a result, computerized reporting systems were developed in the US and other countries for the collection of adverse event reports from healthcare professionals, pharmaceutical companies, and the general public.
These systems are supposed to identify unusual patterns and warn against potential safety issues of widely used vaccines.
Unfortunately, the promise of vaccine adverse event reporting systems has not been realized because these systems are intentionally designed to be unable to fulfill their stated mission.
Since healthcare professionals are not required to report, and system operators are not soliciting reports (passive reporting), the reporting rate for the system is very low, estimated to be between 1 and 10 percent of the actual rate. In addition, reports are not verified for content or followed up by system personnel.
Consequently, the system cannot provide reliable estimations of the true magnitude of vaccine adverse events. In addition, since system rates cannot be meaningfully compared to population background rates or rates observed in vaccine clinical trials, it cannot produce reliable warnings about unusual adverse events of specific vaccines.
The flaws inherent in vaccine adverse events reporting systems are well known to the agencies that operate them and to the researchers who analyze their data.
However, neither seems to be bothered by it.
On the contrary, health authorities appear quite comfortable with deficient and unreliable-by-design reporting systems, whose data cannot be used to challenge their Vaccines are safe! message, as exemplified by the CDC inexplicably blocking a government-funded project to improve VAERS.
Nevertheless, these agencies try to have it both ways by exploiting VAERS’s unreliable and underreported data to concoct deceptive, scientifically shaky studies that bolster their claim that adverse events are extremely rare.
Health authorities’ decision to create and maintain deficient-by-design vaccine adverse event reporting systems is even more jarring when one considers that the very same agencies have been operating high-quality mandatory reporting systems for infectious diseases for decades.
Evidently there is a common thread running through vaccine clinical trials, the lack of basic scientific research into vaccine adverse events, and vaccine adverse event reporting systems.
In the next two chapters, we will look into epidemiological studies, yet another component of the vaccine safety testing and monitoring process, and examine how they fit into this picture.
Ask your doctor: • Are you familiar with the VAERS system? Have you ever filed a case with VAERS? • If your patient experiences an adverse health event following vaccination, do you check VAERS for reports of similar symptoms before deciding how to proceed with the case? Do you report it to VAERS? • Do you think healthcare professionals should be required by law to report adverse health events following vaccination, similar to their obligation to report cases of notifiable infectious diseases?”
— Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth by Anonymous
Available on Kindle for $10.49
Published by Children’s Health Defence
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: brianpeckford
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://peckford42.wordpress.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.