Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NickB79

(20,397 posts)
43. Relying on VAERS, are we? Watch out you don't turn into the Incredible Hulk
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 12:51 AM
Apr 2012
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/01/how_vaccine_litigation_distorts_the_vaer.php

Unfortunately, the VAERS database is highly unreliable. The reason is that anyone can submit a report to it, and no one actually verifies the accuracy of the report. Indeed, James Laidler once tested the system by submitting a report that the influenza virus had turned him into The Incredible Hulk. The report was accepted and duly entered into the database. This report was so out of the ordinary that a representative actually contacted him and, amazingly, asked his permission to remove the report from the database (proving that it's not easy being green). If Laidler had not given it, the report of an adverse reaction in which the flu vaccine turned a man into a huge, immensely powerful green monster would still be in VAERS. Now, via Kathleen Seidel, who alerted me to this, comes more evidence of the corruption of the VAERS database. This evidence comes in the form of a study by Michael J. Goodman and James Nordin published in the most recent issue of the journal Pediatrics, in which the authors examine the question of how much of the seeming increase in autism related to vaccines reported to the VAERS database over the last several years might be related to litigation. Naturally, I couldn't resist downloading the complete article and reading it.


Anyone who relies heavily on VAERS rather than the peer-reviewed, published science shows just how little they know about how the scientific research community works.

BTW, I have a degree in biochemistry. I've wasted entire weekends reading the same misconceptions like those found in your post over the years, and despite all the evidence to the contrary it never seems to change. Funny that.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Who are Blacks? The Rugby Team? HipChick Apr 2012 #1
Ask the AP. They wrote the headline. Iris Apr 2012 #2
In the UK dipsydoodle Apr 2012 #3
It's probably the best term to use muriel_volestrangler Apr 2012 #5
"African-American" is not a synonym for "black". Spider Jerusalem Apr 2012 #6
Not all Black people live in America via Africa HotRodTuna Apr 2012 #8
Interesting. Nt xchrom Apr 2012 #4
Sex With Neanderthals: The Ultimate Immunity Boost FarCenter Apr 2012 #7
All the more reason for young people to get the HPV vaccine NickB79 Apr 2012 #9
You may want to read more before you sign your kid up for the vaccine. davsand Apr 2012 #10
I have read extensively about the HPV vaccine NickB79 Apr 2012 #11
Did you bother to READ those articles or did you dismiss them out of hand? davsand Apr 2012 #12
Relying on VAERS, are we? Watch out you don't turn into the Incredible Hulk NickB79 Apr 2012 #43
Blacks should be cautious about calls for mass inoculations. MD20 Apr 2012 #13
Technically, there are no "pure" white or black genes... antigone382 Apr 2012 #21
Race is horseshit, and therefore racial correlations are horseshit too. bemildred Apr 2012 #14
Ever heard of a caucasian getting sickle cell anemia? Beacool Apr 2012 #15
"Caucasian" is also horseshit. bemildred Apr 2012 #16
I'm not going to argue. Beacool Apr 2012 #18
OK. nt bemildred Apr 2012 #24
Look, it's like thinking if a dog has brown hair, then you know something about it's metabolism. bemildred Apr 2012 #17
If those genetic markers were not evenly distributed in all types of dogs hack89 Apr 2012 #20
Yeah, I know about that, but those are just statistical correlations. bemildred Apr 2012 #22
If I was a public health official hack89 Apr 2012 #27
The problem is that populations don't develop diseases. bemildred Apr 2012 #30
Multifactorial polygenic diseases hack89 Apr 2012 #32
Which still happens only to individuals. bemildred Apr 2012 #33
But two individuals from seperate groups may require different treatments for the same disease. hack89 Apr 2012 #35
I really think we have wrung all the juice out of this for the moment. bemildred Apr 2012 #38
Just think in terms of genetic groups and it is less of an issue. hack89 Apr 2012 #40
That's really all I'm saying, just leave race out of it. bemildred Apr 2012 #41
A very rational position... rayofreason Apr 2012 #42
Genetics determines lots of things. bemildred Apr 2012 #34
Yes they do. hack89 Apr 2012 #36
Here is the argument I'm making: bemildred Apr 2012 #39
Humans are divided into numerous distinct genetic groups called haplogroups. hack89 Apr 2012 #19
Right, and we've been mixing them all together rapidly for the last 500 years. bemildred Apr 2012 #23
Wrong hack89 Apr 2012 #25
A couple of centuries HAVE undone millions of years of evolution already. bemildred Apr 2012 #26
Except genetically halogroups are still there hack89 Apr 2012 #28
There is no evidence that any of those events have impacted the human genome. nt hack89 Apr 2012 #29
Right. bemildred Apr 2012 #31
I wouldn't say millions of years, more like about 100 to 50 thousand years ago when humans... Humanist_Activist Apr 2012 #37
Interesting thread. After a review I tend to agree with Liber-AL Apr 2012 #44
Hey. bemildred Apr 2012 #45
YW Liber-AL Apr 2012 #46
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Blacks have trouble clear...»Reply #43