Someone sent me the following link:
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/defining-away-vaccine-safety-signals
In short, the CDC calculate a parameter called Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) as a safety signal in VAERS.
It seems to me that this PRR is only a representation of how much specific Adverse Events stand out from the rest - for the same vaccine. If this variation is greater than other vaccines, a signal is produced. Nowhere in this signal is there a measure of the net AEs because it is just a ratio.
For a jab that is cytotoxic, its impact may be equally spread over many body organs and functions - and thus AEs. It seems, therefore, that CDC's adoption of PRR as a safety signal particularly favours covid jabs.
But why even have a measure like this? The number of deaths per jab is two orders higher than previous jabs that got pulled. Why not follow the "bleedin' obvious"?
Mathematics may sometimes be a useful tool to represent the world, but it must never replace one's actual observation of it. We see the same problem that SAGE and Ferguson propound. It is why evidence-based approaches are much better.
Someone sent me the following link:
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/defining-away-vaccine-safety-signals
In short, the CDC calculate a parameter called Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) as a safety signal in VAERS.
It seems to me that this PRR is only a representation of how much specific Adverse Events stand out from the rest - for the same vaccine. If this variation is greater than other vaccines, a signal is produced. Nowhere in this signal is there a measure of the net AEs because it is just a ratio.
For a jab that is cytotoxic, its impact may be equally spread over many body organs and functions - and thus AEs. It seems, therefore, that CDC's adoption of PRR as a safety signal particularly favours covid jabs.
But why even have a measure like this? The number of deaths per jab is two orders higher than previous jabs that got pulled. Why not follow the "bleedin' obvious"?
Mathematics may sometimes be a useful tool to represent the world, but it must never replace one's actual observation of it. We see the same problem that SAGE and Ferguson propound. It is why evidence-based approaches are much better.
Here is my guess. Some very senior bureaucrats at the CDC are thinking ahead to when the EUA is removed and the current SARs CoV 2 vaccines reenter the standard FDA regulatory approval timeline. As they must.
Once they reenter the approval process the adverse response case data will have to be reviewed by a FDA committee. By all normal historical standards of these FDA review committees none of the current SARs CoV 2 vaccines would pass or gain approval. Not only that but any serious review of the adverse response data using historical standard would leave the whole process open to very serious product liability litigation in the future. Not just the pharmaceutical companies but the FDA, the Federal Government and everyone involved in the vaccine distribution chain.
There is a good discussion of how the FDA process works for product safety and adverse response in clinical trials in Chapter 25 of this book..
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Clinical-Trials-Endpoints-Biomarkers-Guidelines-ebook/dp/B01CEBM1E0
Which is why I think this step is the first part of The Fix to deal with future regulatory and political problems with the catastrophic levels of adverse responses with the current SARs CoV 2 vaccines. At least in the US.
So purely an institutional CYA action.
@jmc I am not quite sure what you are suggesting here.
Do you think the CDC are seeking to establish this PRR nonsense for all 'vaccines' in future, and that historical standards will be abandoned?
Or are you suggesting that CDC are deliberately carrying the can for the pharma industries in this particular case by adopting this nonsens? If so, CDC is not practising CYA but pulling their own trousers down to save the pharma's backside.
In any case, it should be absolutely clear to even the slow-witted that the PRR assessment is utter nonsense and simply misses the huge death toll and adverse reactions entirely.
@jmc I am not quite sure what you are suggesting here.
Do you think the CDC are seeking to establish this PRR nonsense for all 'vaccines' in future, and that historical standards will be abandoned?
Or are you suggesting that CDC are deliberately carrying the can for the pharma industries in this particular case by adopting this nonsens? If so, CDC is not practising CYA but pulling their own trousers down to save the pharma's backside.
In any case, it should be absolutely clear to even the slow-witted that the PRR assessment is utter nonsense and simply misses the huge death toll and adverse reactions entirely.
Just for SARs Cov2. Its a straight coverup.
Whatever the CDC might have been in decades past the CDC post 2009 bears not the slightest relationship to what they were before. As a reputable scientific organization. By 2012/14 the old CDC was dead in buried.
In 2009 the guy who had totally destroyed the NYC Health Dept reputation for medical excellence was made head of the CDC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Frieden
Staff was increased by 400%. All the experienced middle managers who had serious medical and scientific backgrounds were sidelined or retired. The CDC under Frieden decided that infectious disease in the general population were now unimportant and that "health equity" was all that mattered. In order words "systemic racism" was a bigger health threat than TB or West Nile Virus.
Soon upper management at the CDC was all "health equity" hucksters with little or no actual scientific or clinical experience. So the huge institutional memory of high quality medical and scientific knowledge that they had build up soon walked out the door as all the good researchers went elsewhere. The CDC was just left with the time serving dregs, civil services types, or juniors fresh out of college no nothing grads.
By 2017 there was just a shell left and nothing to be saved. Which is all the CDC is today. A worthless shell.
That why it took the CDC almost 6 weeks to correct sending out the wrong primer / probes for SARs CoV 2 in Feburary 2020. Even though commercial labs offered substitutes within 48 hours of the problem being notified.
So I would put the CDC in the same category as the WHO. A purely political organization who scientific pronouncement should be treated with extreme skepticism.
