3 ms·

No they don't. The study that article references is hot garbage. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dumpster-diving-in-vaers-doctors-fall-into-the-same-trap-as-a

No they don't. The study that article references is hot garbage. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dumpster-diving-in-vaers-doctors-fall-into-the-same-trap-as-antivaxxers/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dumpster-diving-in-vaers-do...

Consultant32452 5y ago
85% of VAERS reports are made by physicians. 100% are validated by the CDC. What’s important is to disqualify the best information available so you just have to accept vague assertions from authority.
- phonypc 5y ago
  VAERS is not the best information available by any means, but it is indeed a valid source of information. The issue with the paper is that it misuses the information and draws conclusions that aren't actually indicated.
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    What other dataset are you using to inform yourself about vaccine related harm in the public?
    - phonypc 5y ago
      Your question would seem to imply you've used VAERS to inform yourself, but I would contend you've relied on someone else's interpretation of it.
      - Consultant32452 5y ago
        Is it the best dataset or do you have a better one?
bhk 5y ago
"Garbage"? > In an FDA analysis of the Optum healthcare claims database, the estimated excess risk of myocarditis/pericarditis approached 200 cases per million fully vaccinated males 16-17 years of age and 180 cases per million fully vaccinated males 12-15 years of age. [1] This rate is close to the findings of the Høeg study (even higher, actually). [2] On the one side we have the FDA and multiple scholarly publications largely in alignment. On the other side, we have an internet blog article with hyperbolic language and a generally unprofessional tone. [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download [2] https://twitter.com/TracyBethHoeg/status/1435796382841860099 https://twitter.com/TracyBethHoeg/status/1435796382841860099
- phonypc 5y ago
  Different data sets. The sentence preceding your quote from the FDA estimates rates of 71.5 and 42.6 per million using VAERS, vs. the garbage paper's 164 and 92 per million. i.e. less than half the incidence. Regarding that other data set, see page 24 of this report: https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download Importantly, in relies on unconfirmed cases of myo/pericarditis, and concludes vaccine benefits outweigh risks even in a hypothetical worst case scenario anyway. Hyperbolic language doesn't discredit any of the blogger's criticisms, but here's another more calmly worded one if you'd like: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-of-a-vaers-dumpster-dive/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-of-a-vaers-dump...
  - bhk 5y ago
    The Hoeg findings are off by 2X from the VAERS-based numbers cited by the FDA, but Hoeg examines "probable" vs. "medical chart-confirmed" cases. A factor of 2 is small in the scheme of things considering (a) the apple-to-oranges nature of the comparison, (b) the confidence intervals, and (c) the unacknowledged uncertainties that stem from our lack of understanding of reporting rates. This new blog article you cite points out problems with 7 of the 257 cases included by the Hoeg study -- intermixed with a healthy dose of stay-in-your-lane-bro rhetoric. It also makes unfounded criticisms, such as "The claim from the study authors is that they replicate the [ACIP analysis] and found a much higher incidence than previously reported." In fact, the paper is clear that they follow a different method, and it claims "using these broader [emphasis mine] search and inclusion criteria, we found post-vaccination rates ... that exceed the rates previously reported." This looks like someone is nit-picking when, in the big picture, considering the general concurrence with results from other studies, including other data sets, the findings are not misleading. One recent publication: 370 / 1,000,000 rate of acute myocarditis/pericarditis following 2nd dose of Comirnaty in male adolescents between June and September of 2021. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab989/6445179 https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article-abstract/doi/10...

Consultant32452 5y ago

85% of VAERS reports are made by physicians. 100% are validated by the CDC. What’s important is to disqualify the best information available so you just have to accept vague assertions from authority.

phonypc 5y ago
VAERS is not the best information available by any means, but it is indeed a valid source of information. The issue with the paper is that it misuses the information and draws conclusions that aren't actually indicated.
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  What other dataset are you using to inform yourself about vaccine related harm in the public?
  - phonypc 5y ago
    Your question would seem to imply you've used VAERS to inform yourself, but I would contend you've relied on someone else's interpretation of it.
    - Consultant32452 5y ago
      Is it the best dataset or do you have a better one?

bhk 5y ago

"Garbage"? > In an FDA analysis of the Optum healthcare claims database, the estimated excess risk of myocarditis/pericarditis approached 200 cases per million fully vaccinated males 16-17 years of age and 180 cases per million fully vaccinated males 12-15 years of age. [1] This rate is close to the findings of the Høeg study (even higher, actually). [2] On the one side we have the FDA and multiple scholarly publications largely in alignment. On the other side, we have an internet blog article with hyperbolic language and a generally unprofessional tone. [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download [2] https://twitter.com/TracyBethHoeg/status/1435796382841860099 https://twitter.com/TracyBethHoeg/status/1435796382841860099

phonypc 5y ago
Different data sets. The sentence preceding your quote from the FDA estimates rates of 71.5 and 42.6 per million using VAERS, vs. the garbage paper's 164 and 92 per million. i.e. less than half the incidence. Regarding that other data set, see page 24 of this report: https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download Importantly, in relies on unconfirmed cases of myo/pericarditis, and concludes vaccine benefits outweigh risks even in a hypothetical worst case scenario anyway. Hyperbolic language doesn't discredit any of the blogger's criticisms, but here's another more calmly worded one if you'd like: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-of-a-vaers-dumpster-dive/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-of-a-vaers-dump...
- bhk 5y ago
  The Hoeg findings are off by 2X from the VAERS-based numbers cited by the FDA, but Hoeg examines "probable" vs. "medical chart-confirmed" cases. A factor of 2 is small in the scheme of things considering (a) the apple-to-oranges nature of the comparison, (b) the confidence intervals, and (c) the unacknowledged uncertainties that stem from our lack of understanding of reporting rates. This new blog article you cite points out problems with 7 of the 257 cases included by the Hoeg study -- intermixed with a healthy dose of stay-in-your-lane-bro rhetoric. It also makes unfounded criticisms, such as "The claim from the study authors is that they replicate the [ACIP analysis] and found a much higher incidence than previously reported." In fact, the paper is clear that they follow a different method, and it claims "using these broader [emphasis mine] search and inclusion criteria, we found post-vaccination rates ... that exceed the rates previously reported." This looks like someone is nit-picking when, in the big picture, considering the general concurrence with results from other studies, including other data sets, the findings are not misleading. One recent publication: 370 / 1,000,000 rate of acute myocarditis/pericarditis following 2nd dose of Comirnaty in male adolescents between June and September of 2021. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab989/6445179 https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article-abstract/doi/10...