,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Here's yet another example why the VAERS database is not a reliable tool to establish adverse events as caused by vaccines or to estimate their frequency. It was never intended for that purpose. Rather, it was intended as an early warning system to alert health officials. 1/
Unfortunately, VAERS is no longer even that useful as a "canary in the coalmine" early warning system, as it's been hopelessly distorted by vaccine litigation and antivaxers. 2/respectfulinsolence.com/2008/01/18/how…
Indeed, maybe 12 years ago one pro-vaccine activist reported that a vaccine turned him into the Incredible Hulk. VAERS accepted it. If this activist had insisted on leaving his report of vaccine-induced Hulkness in the database when questioned, it would still be there. 3/
Because VAERS is a passive reporting system, any symptom noticed after a vaccine can be reported, whether a vaccine might plausibly have caused it or not. That's one reason why antivaxers love VAERS so much, even as they complain about it for "underreporting." 4/
And it is true that in general passive reporting systems are subject to underreporting. That's why VAERS isn't the only system monitoring vaccine safety. 5/
There are much better active surveillance reporting systems. There's the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). Also the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project (CISA) and @US_FDA's Post-licensure Rapid Immunization Safety Monitoring System (PRISM). 6/ respectfulinsolence.com/2017/12/15/rob…
Bottom line: Although antivaxers love to misuse and abuse VAERS while complaining about it as inadequate, VAERS was never intended as the be-all and end-all of vaccine safety monitoring. It serves one purpose, and there are multiple other systems to monitor vaccine safety. 7/7
