VAERS data

Discuss autism theories, media stories, and efforts to put ASD on the government agenda here.

Moderator: ModeratorBill

Forum rules
Please limit quotes from articles to five paragraphs. Also, researchers may post study information here.
LittleManzParents
Posts: 2317
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:27 am

VAERS data

Postby LittleManzParents » Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:47 am

I would be interested in hearing about why VAERS data is not trusted by all as an unbiased, reliable source of information.

Also, any opinions about the interpretation of the data presented or the source of interpretation in the following article are welcome by all.

http://tinyurl.com/mx2qs


Let's try to keep our inner children from participating in this thread if at all possible.

srinath
Posts: 941
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:33 pm

Re: VAERS data

Postby srinath » Sun Jun 04, 2006 8:51 am

LittleManzParents wrote:I would be interested in hearing about why VAERS data is not trusted by all as an unbiased, reliable source of information.

Also, any opinions about the interpretation of the data presented or the source of interpretation in the following article are welcome by all.

http://tinyurl.com/mx2qs


Let's try to keep our inner children from participating in this thread if at all possible.


It is not available to the public, in fact its not available to anyone.
It has been sold to a private firm by the CDC and they paid them 190 million for safe keeping. Yes that's right. They paid money and gave them the data. So the only way to know about the vaers data is what the CDC prefers to tell us.
Correct me if I am wrong on this guys. And Dr and Mr G are the only people to see it ever.
Cool.
Srinath.

BTDT
Posts: 3492
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:02 pm

Postby BTDT » Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:11 am

It is not available to the public, in fact its not available to anyone.
It has been sold to a private firm by the CDC and they paid them 190 million for safe keeping. Yes that's right. They paid money and gave them the data. So the only way to know about the vaers data is what the CDC prefers to tell us.

Correct me if I am wrong on this guys. And Dr and Mr G are the only people to see it ever.


The VAERS data is available online to the public here:

http://vaers.hhs.gov/info.htm

(Also at this link you can see the cautions given about using this data, and the limitations of the data.)

And this quote is from the G's study:

In this study, the online public access VAERS database (updated
through December 31, 2004) was examined using Microsoft AccessTM.

http://www.usautism.org/PDF_files_newsl ... n_nds1.pdf

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Postby Winnie » Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:36 pm

I would be interested in hearing about why VAERS data is not trusted by all as an unbiased, reliable source of information.


Anyone can report an "adverse" vaccine reaction to this database -- a physician, a parent, a plaintiff's attorney -- anyone. In fact, VAERS encourages reporting an "event" even if there does not appear to be a causal relationship to the vaccine (from the link that BTDT posted):

Therefore, doctors and other vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccinations, whether or not they believe that the vaccination was the cause.


These reports are not verified in any way. Anyone can report anything. Anyone can check the box "resulted in permanent disablity" or write "autism" in box 7 on the reporting form:

http://vaers.hhs.gov/pdf/vaers_form.pdf

When a patient lapses into seizures, or even a life-threatening condition, immediately after receiving a vaccine, it is easy to assume a cause/effect relationship -- and there is a small percentage of children that will experience serious adverse reactions. An "event" weeks or months post vaccination is more difficult to attribute to a vaccine, even though that may be possible. A diagnosis received months or years post vaccination is a farther stretch still (even if it is possible).

Therefore, when one uses data, that by its own admission is unverified and not intended for assessing cause/effect, that is collected in this manner, to extrapolate further upon in the hope of insinuating a cause/effect relationship, it is difficult to place confidence in any trend noted. Extrapolation by nature is inexact, and repeated extrapolation/manipulation on such inexact data leaves us with some very questionable trends.

In the case of reporting autism as an "adverse" event -- I wonder who is reporting the diagnosis. In the article, the Gs note that less than 5% of reports are submitted by parents (I assume this is a number across all adverse events reported). I wonder how many "autism" reports were submitted by parents (perhaps over 5%?). Considering the general distrust of mainstream physicians by parents of "vaccine injured" children, I wonder how many reports citing "autism" as an adverse event were submitted by mainstream pediatricians.

Since receiving the diagnosis of autism rarely immediately coincides with receiving a vaccine, wouldn't the possiblity of autism being an "adverse" vaccine event have to be "suggested" to the parent or "insisted" to the reporting physician?

Thus, is it possible that reports of autism as an "adverse" event also coincide with promotion of vaccine litigation or public awareness? I wonder how many internet plaintiff's attorneys, having advertised this widely, and have influenced parents to report to the database and engage the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Is it possible that the loud, though often dubious, claims of organization(s) that autism = mercury poisoning influences the reporting by parents and others?

Which brings me to my next point -- the source of the article and "potential conflicts of interest." In the link provided, please note that persons submitting a "study" must disclose potential conflicts of interest. This is because the "source" DOES matter -- and persons reading or citing a study should be aware of the authors' potential for personal gain. In the case of the Gs -- both have tried to gain financially via vaccine litigation, as listed on the article link provided:

G1 (doc) "has been an expert witness and consultant in vaccine cases before the no-fault NVICP and in civil litigation."

G2 (grad school guy) "has been a consultant in vaccine cases before the no-fault National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and in civil litigation."

Here is some information regarding G1's experiences in court as an "expert witness:"

Nonetheless, he has opined in his first affidavit, that Christopher had an acute encephalopathy beginning on the night of January 24, 2000, 14 days after receipt of his MMR vaccination based on the information in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Mrs. Weiss' affidavit. In his supplemental affidavit #1, he discusses in depth how MMR can cause acute encephalopathy and encephalitis. Those portions of his supplemental affidavit #1 discussing acute encephalopathy and encephalitis are hereby STRICKEN from the record as irrelevant since Christopher had neither an acute encephalopathy nor encephalitis.


and more:

In other vaccine cases, Dr. G's testimony has similarly been accorded no weight: Thompson v. Secretary of HHS, No. 99-0436,2003 WL 221439672 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 23, 2003); Bruesewitz v. Secretary of HHS, No. 95-0266,2002 WL 3 1965744 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 20,2002); Raj v. Secretary of HHS, No. 96-0294V, 2001 WL 963984, * 12 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 3 1,2001); Haim v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-1 03 lV, 1993 WL 346392 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 27, 1993) ("Dr G's testimony is not reliable, or grounded in scientific methodology and procedure. His testimony is merely subjective belief and unsupported speculation."); Marascalco v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-1571V, 1993 WL 277095 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 9, 1993) (where the special master described Dr. G's testimony as intellectually dishonest); Einspahr v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-923V, 1992 WL 336396 (Cl. Ct. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 28, 19921, a, 17 F.3d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Aldridge v . Secretary of HHS, No. 90-2475V, 1992 WL 153770 (Cl. Ct. Spec. Mstr. June 11,1992); Ormechea v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-1 683V, 1992 WL 15 18 16 (Cl. Ct. Spec. Mstr. June 10, 1992) ("Because Dr. G has made a profession of testifying in matters to which his professional background (obstetrics, genetics) is unrelated, his testimony is of limited value to the court."); Daly v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-590V, 1991 WL 15473 (Cl. Ct. Spec. Mstr. July 26, 1991) ("The court is inclined not to allow Dr. G to testify before it on issues of Table injuries. Dr. G clearly lacks the expertise to evaluate the symptomatology of the Table injuries and render an opinion thereon.").


http://www.casewatch.org/civil/geier.shtml

(BTW, I am not going to waste time defending the website on which this legal information appears -- it was posted over a year ago. If the information was untrue, the Gs could have it removed. In questions of defamation or libel, however, the truth is an absolute defense).

Bottom line: Shaky data (for the purpose undertaken), repeated extrapolation and interpretation of the shaky data, by persons with a potential conflict of interest. Really doesn't add up as convincing to me.

I do agree with some points mentioned in the conclusion of this article -- generally stated -- that further evaluation of other registries and databases for trends of ND disorders would be useful. Unfortunately, a reliable and valid database just is not available at this time.
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

Mary
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:28 am

Postby Mary » Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:10 pm

The VAERS data is available online to the public here:

http://vaers.hhs.gov/info.htm

(Also at this link you can see the cautions given about using this data, and the limitations of the data.)


I posted this in another thread but one problem with VAERS is how often pediatricians DON'T report adverse vaccine reactions. My kids have had well-documented, serious vaccine reactions that are in their medical charts. Years later, I asked the doctor if he reported them to VAERS; this was after I learned of VAERS' existence on the internet. He said no, he doesn't do that. I asked my friend whose son got ill after the MMR if her doctor reported it. She asked the doctor, and he said no, even though the vaccine reaction resulted in a hospital visit.
If your children had vaccine reactions, did your doctor report them??

dgdavis64
Posts: 5241
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:51 pm

Postby dgdavis64 » Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:50 pm

Mary wrote:
The VAERS data is available online to the public here:

http://vaers.hhs.gov/info.htm

(Also at this link you can see the cautions given about using this data, and the limitations of the data.)


I posted this in another thread but one problem with VAERS is how often pediatricians DON'T report adverse vaccine reactions. My kids have had well-documented, serious vaccine reactions that are in their medical charts. Years later, I asked the doctor if he reported them to VAERS; this was after I learned of VAERS' existence on the internet. He said no, he doesn't do that. I asked my friend whose son got ill after the MMR if her doctor reported it. She asked the doctor, and he said no, even though the vaccine reaction resulted in a hospital visit.
If your children had vaccine reactions, did your doctor report them??



No my son's wasn't reported. Luke had a bad reaction to the chicken pox vaccine with a high fever. The girl at the peds office acted like this is SO routine, why did I bother calling? After that, neither one had any more shots. Mine never had the MMR and never will.
Yes, it makes me wonder how many go unreported as well. I don't think most parents are even aware that this system exists to report a vaccine injury/illness/reaction. I didn't, before autism.

Beware of the pharma trollbot shills posting from anonymous proxy servers

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Postby Winnie » Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:03 pm

Yes, it makes me wonder how many go unreported as well. I don't think most parents are even aware that this system exists to report a vaccine injury/illness/reaction. I didn't, before autism.


I agree that the data can be misreported in both directions.

Have either of you (or your physicians) reported autism as an adverse reaction to VAERS?
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

Mary
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:28 am

Postby Mary » Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:26 pm

Have either of you (or your physicians) reported autism as an adverse reaction to VAERS?


Our doctor didn't report the adverse reactions that occurred within hours of vaccination, although he was concerned and he did make a note in the charts to discontinue further administration of the vaccines involved. I asked him years later if he had made a report or would make a report; this was after I learned about VAERS on the internet. At that point, autism had been diagnosed. He said he didn't report the vaccine reactions. He made a comment indicating that this did not fall into the category in which he would consider a VAERS report.

Can parents report to VAERS? My understanding is that doctors have to make the reports as they have the documentation (medical charts).

dgdavis64
Posts: 5241
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:51 pm

Postby dgdavis64 » Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:32 pm

Winnie wrote:
Yes, it makes me wonder how many go unreported as well. I don't think most parents are even aware that this system exists to report a vaccine injury/illness/reaction. I didn't, before autism.


I agree that the data can be misreported in both directions.

Have either of you (or your physicians) reported autism as an adverse reaction to VAERS?


No, as far as I know. I'm not sure if our DAN reported it. Maybe I'll ask her.

Beware of the pharma trollbot shills posting from anonymous proxy servers

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Postby Winnie » Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:37 pm

Can parents report to VAERS? My understanding is that doctors have to make the reports as they have the documentation (medical charts).


Mary...yes ... VAERS links are in BTDT's post and in mine (there is a link to the form in my post). :( I guess you didn't read them :(
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

respect
Posts: 2402
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:52 am

Postby respect » Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:06 pm

If I was of a mind to vaccinate, I sure would change my mind after reading the Vaers site.

the entire of the USA is obviously NOT recording vaccine injury on the Vaers site. It only provides a snippet.

What you want to have access to is the compensation agency which deals with the litigation for injury.

r's mom
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:39 am

Postby r's mom » Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:33 pm

I know if my son were having a reaction to a vaccine I wouldn't be thinking "hmmmmmm - I really must see that this gets reported somewhere", I would be panicing and making sure that he was getting treatment and afterwards the focus would be on managing all that hadn't been done while my child was sick and recovering. And if he didn't totally recover back to where he was before the vaccination I would be trying to manage that.

Just a guess but that would be the focus of most parents, when you are in the trenches it is hard to bring your head out to make an objective assessment of the situation.

Mary
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:28 am

Postby Mary » Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:50 pm

Winnie wrote:
Can parents report to VAERS? My understanding is that doctors have to make the reports as they have the documentation (medical charts).


Mary...yes ... VAERS links are in BTDT's post and in mine (there is a link to the form in my post). :( I guess you didn't read them :(


I used BTDT's link, not yours, and assumed only a doctor could use the site to submit (my bad), but once I clicked around a few times, I found the reporting form.

Nonetheless, I will need the doctor to provide me with the medical records in order to make a meaningful report to VAERS. FYI for people considering doing this: you will need the date of administration, the vaccine name and manufacturer, the vaccine lot number, how it was purchased, the date of the reaction, a description of the reaction, and any medical tests ordered and results. You also need to know who gave the vaccine to your child and their address. Not an impossible thing to reconstruct years after the fact, but it may take a little effort and a fairly cooperative doctor's office.

To find the form more quickly than I did, use the link in Winnie's post. :)

respect
Posts: 2402
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:52 am

Postby respect » Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:24 pm

If there is the suggestion being made here that people are just reporting willy nilly to the Vaers reporting form or even worse "lying", well that is downright ridiculous. I have read a lot of the reports from people and they certainly seem legitimate in terms of information provided. What would be the logic of the site existing, if it was open to abuse? It would only further the cause of those who believe that vaccine causes injury.

Would the government want to allow this in any big way? Would they put the site online for public display? No they would trash it and say that people were telling lies and distorting things to suit their own "agendas".

LittleManzParents
Posts: 2317
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:27 am

Postby LittleManzParents » Sun Jun 04, 2006 8:03 pm

respect wrote:If there is the suggestion being made here that people are just reporting willy nilly to the Vaers reporting form or even worse "lying", well that is downright ridiculous. I have read a lot of the reports from people and they certainly seem legitimate in terms of information provided. What would be the logic of the site existing, if it was open to abuse? It would only further the cause of those who believe that vaccine causes injury.

Would the government want to allow this in any big way? Would they put the site online for public display? No they would trash it and say that people were telling lies and distorting things to suit their own "agendas".


Hi respect,

I don't think that it was being suggested that most are lying in their reports (although if we look at the world around us, it is not unthinkable that some might). I think the point is that because anyone can submit a report, it is a possible that some of the information is innacurate or lacking additional, neccesary information to determine a clear-cut cause and effect.

As far as the government goes, without trying to lend to anti-government sentiments, I would suggest that IF the government wanted to dismiss cause or cover it up, a site like this that is open to such speculation is the PERFECT way to justify not looking further or minimizing the issue.

BTDT
Posts: 3492
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:02 pm

Postby BTDT » Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:02 pm

As far as the government goes, without trying to lend to anti-government sentiments, I would suggest that IF the government wanted to dismiss cause or cover it up, a site like this that is open to such speculation is the PERFECT way to justify not looking further or minimizing the issue.


I'm really not sure what you mean by this, maybe you could explain it further, but dismissing cause or covering up information is not the intent of VAERS.

http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaers/what.htm
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a valuable tool for post-marketing safety surveillance (monitoring after a product has been approved and is on the market). Although extensive studies are required for licensure of new vaccines, post-marketing research and surveillance are necessary to identify safety issues that may only be detected following vaccination of a much larger and more diverse population. Rare events may not come to light before licensure. Sometimes an event is noted, but the evidence may not be adequate to conclude that a noted event is due to the vaccine.

VAERS is a program created as an outgrowth of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA) and is administered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). VAERS accepts reports of adverse events that may be associated with U.S. licensed vaccines from health care providers, manufacturers, and the public. The FDA continually monitors VAERS reports for any unexpected patterns or changes in rates of adverse events.


This review abstract gives a good synopsis of the strengths and weaknesses of VAERS:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... med_DocSum
Understanding vaccine safety information from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

Varricchio F, Iskander J, Destefano F, Ball R, Pless R, Braun MM, Chen RT.

Division of Epidemiology, Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration/NIH/DHHS, Rockville MD, USA.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is administered by the Food and Drug Administration and CDC and is a key component of postlicensure vaccine safety surveillance. Its primary function is to detect early warning signals and generate hypotheses about possible new vaccine adverse events or changes in frequency of known ones. VAERS is a passive surveillance system that relies on physicians and others to voluntarily submit reports of illness after vaccination. Manufacturers are required to report all adverse events of which they become aware. There are a number of well-described limitations of such reporting systems. These include, for example, variability in report quality, biased reporting, underreporting and the inability to determine whether a vaccine caused the adverse event in any individual report. Strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and timely. The information in VAERS reports is not necessarily complete nor is it verified systematically. Reports are classified as serious or nonserious based on regulatory criteria. Reports are coded by VAERS in a uniform way with a limited number of terms using a terminology called COSTART. Coding is useful for search purposes but is necessarily imprecise. VAERS is useful in detecting adverse events related to vaccines and most recently was used for enhanced reporting of adverse events in the national smallpox immunization campaign. VAERS data have always been publicly available. However, it is essential for users of VAERS data to be fully aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the system. VAERS data contain strong biases. Incidence rates and relative risks of specific adverse events cannot be calculated. Statistical significance tests and confidence intervals should be used with great caution and not routinely. Signals detected in VAERS should be subjected to further clinical and descriptive epidemiologic analysis. Confirmation in a controlled study is usually required. An understanding of the system's defined objectives and inherent drawbacks is vital to the effective use of VAERS data in vaccine safety investigations.

LittleManzParents
Posts: 2317
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:27 am

Postby LittleManzParents » Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:14 pm

BTDT (I always think of R2D2 when I type your name, by the way :P ) - I didn't mean to imply that it was, hence the capitalization of the word "IF". I was responding to respect's statements:

[quote]Would the government want to allow this in any big way? Would they put the site online for public display? No they would trash it and say that people were telling lies and distorting things to suit their own "agendas".[quote]

And, now that I have re-read it, I think she answered her own question - or rather, I repeated or agreed with her last sentence. In other words, allowing such a site to be publicly viewed and submitted to by anyone could give them the "out" of: This data is not reliable because of x, y and z.

In short, it means it's time for me to take a break from this site, as I am spending an uhealthy amount of time here. :shock: Peace out for now...
Last edited by LittleManzParents on Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

srinath
Posts: 941
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:33 pm

Excellent opportunity to bash the ge1ers

Postby srinath » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:01 pm

Winnie wrote:
I would be interested in hearing about why VAERS data is not trusted by all as an unbiased, reliable source of information.


Anyone can report an "adverse" vaccine reaction to this database -- a physician, a parent, a plaintiff's attorney -- anyone. In fact, VAERS encourages reporting an "event" even if there does not appear to be a causal relationship to the vaccine (from the link that BTDT posted):

Therefore, doctors and other vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccinations, whether or not they believe that the vaccination was the cause.


These reports are not verified in any way. Anyone can report anything. Anyone can check the box "resulted in permanent disablity" or write "autism" in box 7 on the reporting form:

http://vaers.hhs.gov/pdf/vaers_form.pdf

When a patient lapses into seizures, or even a life-threatening condition, immediately after receiving a vaccine, it is easy to assume a cause/effect relationship -- and there is a small percentage of children that will experience serious adverse reactions. An "event" weeks or months post vaccination is more difficult to attribute to a vaccine, even though that may be possible. A diagnosis received months or years post vaccination is a farther stretch still (even if it is possible).

Therefore, when one uses data, that by its own admission is unverified and not intended for assessing cause/effect, that is collected in this manner, to extrapolate further upon in the hope of insinuating a cause/effect relationship, it is difficult to place confidence in any trend noted. Extrapolation by nature is inexact, and repeated extrapolation/manipulation on such inexact data leaves us with some very questionable trends.

In the case of reporting autism as an "adverse" event -- I wonder who is reporting the diagnosis. In the article, the Gs note that less than 5% of reports are submitted by parents (I assume this is a number across all adverse events reported). I wonder how many "autism" reports were submitted by parents (perhaps over 5%?). Considering the general distrust of mainstream physicians by parents of "vaccine injured" children, I wonder how many reports citing "autism" as an adverse event were submitted by mainstream pediatricians.

Since receiving the diagnosis of autism rarely immediately coincides with receiving a vaccine, wouldn't the possiblity of autism being an "adverse" vaccine event have to be "suggested" to the parent or "insisted" to the reporting physician?

Thus, is it possible that reports of autism as an "adverse" event also coincide with promotion of vaccine litigation or public awareness? I wonder how many internet plaintiff's attorneys, having advertised this widely, and have influenced parents to report to the database and engage the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Is it possible that the loud, though often dubious, claims of organization(s) that autism = mercury poisoning influences the reporting by parents and others?

Which brings me to my next point -- the source of the article and "potential conflicts of interest." In the link provided, please note that persons submitting a "study" must disclose potential conflicts of interest. This is because the "source" DOES matter -- and persons reading or citing a study should be aware of the authors' potential for personal gain. In the case of the Gs -- both have tried to gain financially via vaccine litigation, as listed on the article link provided:

G1 (doc) "has been an expert witness and consultant in vaccine cases before the no-fault NVICP and in civil litigation."

G2 (grad school guy) "has been a consultant in vaccine cases before the no-fault National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and in civil litigation."

Here is some information regarding G1's experiences in court as an "expert witness:"

Nonetheless, he has opined in his first affidavit, that Christopher had an acute encephalopathy beginning on the night of January 24, 2000, 14 days after receipt of his MMR vaccination based on the information in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Mrs. Weiss' affidavit. In his supplemental affidavit #1, he discusses in depth how MMR can cause acute encephalopathy and encephalitis. Those portions of his supplemental affidavit #1 discussing acute encephalopathy and encephalitis are hereby STRICKEN from the record as irrelevant since Christopher had neither an acute encephalopathy nor encephalitis.


and more:

In other vaccine cases, Dr. G's testimony has similarly been accorded no weight: Thompson v. Secretary of HHS, No. 99-0436,2003 WL 221439672 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 23, 2003); Bruesewitz v. Secretary of HHS, No. 95-0266,2002 WL 3 1965744 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 20,2002); Raj v. Secretary of HHS, No. 96-0294V, 2001 WL 963984, * 12 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 3 1,2001); Haim v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-1 03 lV, 1993 WL 346392 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 27, 1993) ("Dr G's testimony is not reliable, or grounded in scientific methodology and procedure. His testimony is merely subjective belief and unsupported speculation."); Marascalco v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-1571V, 1993 WL 277095 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 9, 1993) (where the special master described Dr. G's testimony as intellectually dishonest); Einspahr v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-923V, 1992 WL 336396 (Cl. Ct. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 28, 19921, a, 17 F.3d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Aldridge v . Secretary of HHS, No. 90-2475V, 1992 WL 153770 (Cl. Ct. Spec. Mstr. June 11,1992); Ormechea v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-1 683V, 1992 WL 15 18 16 (Cl. Ct. Spec. Mstr. June 10, 1992) ("Because Dr. G has made a profession of testifying in matters to which his professional background (obstetrics, genetics) is unrelated, his testimony is of limited value to the court."); Daly v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-590V, 1991 WL 15473 (Cl. Ct. Spec. Mstr. July 26, 1991) ("The court is inclined not to allow Dr. G to testify before it on issues of Table injuries. Dr. G clearly lacks the expertise to evaluate the symptomatology of the Table injuries and render an opinion thereon.").


http://www.casewatch.org/civil/------.shtml

(BTW, I am not going to waste time defending the website on which this legal information appears -- it was posted over a year ago. If the information was untrue, the Gs could have it removed. In questions of defamation or libel, however, the truth is an absolute defense).

Bottom line: Shaky data (for the purpose undertaken), repeated extrapolation and interpretation of the shaky data, by persons with a potential conflict of interest. Really doesn't add up as convincing to me.

I do agree with some points mentioned in the conclusion of this article -- generally stated -- that further evaluation of other registries and databases for trends of ND disorders would be useful. Unfortunately, a reliable and valid database just is not available at this time.


I believe I confused the VSD database for VAERS.

And congrads winnie for jumping in many hours after BTDT posted the link and not letting a single opportunity pass you by to bash Dr and Mr Ge1er. Really must feel great missing not a single opening to do so.

BTW yes they had testimony that was unacceptable in court and yes they were not allowed to do this and that ...
But in court who ever has the most $$$ wins, and its no wonder that B1g fharma was able to quash anything that didn't support them. Yes we are fighting with knives while every one else has guns and dynamite and cannons and bombs, and heck these are not even metal knives, plastic knives ...
We are not going to give up just because we are outgunned, we are going to support and thank Dr G for comming to our rescue with a bigger plastic knife and hope that someone on our side invents the nuclear bomb we need to breach their fort. Till then please dont make fun of us because we are attempting to fight with plastic knives. we are hopelessly out gunned ... no way we will ever win in court. the bast we can hope for is to get our kids out of harms way ...
I get your point winne though, we shouldn't try to win a gun fight with a knife.
Cool.
Srinath.

dgdavis64
Posts: 5241
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:51 pm

Postby dgdavis64 » Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:05 pm

Srinath,
You really are too funny! It's definately a David and Goliath type of situation. Keep hope alive......fight the good fight, even with a plastic knife.

Beware of the pharma trollbot shills posting from anonymous proxy servers

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Postby Winnie » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:39 pm

At this point they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills on a plain, and as soon as Don Quixote saw them he said to his squire, "Fortune is arranging matters for us better than we could have shaped our desires ourselves, for look there, friend Sancho Panza, where thirty or more monstrous giants present themselves, all of whom I mean to engage in battle and slay, and with whose spoils we shall begin to make our fortunes; for this is righteous warfare, and it is God's good service to sweep so evil a breed from the face of the earth."

"What giants?" said Sancho Panza.

"Those thou seest there," answered his master, "with the long arms, and some have them nearly two leagues long."

"Look, your worship," said Sancho; "what we see there are not giants but windmills, and what seem to be their arms are the sails that turned by the wind make the millstone go."

"It is easy to see," replied Don Quixote, "that thou art not used to this business of adventures; those are giants; and if thou art afraid, away with thee out of this and betake thyself to prayer while I engage them in fierce and unequal combat."

(From Don Quixote, by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra)
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."


Return to “Autism Articles, Studies & Politics”