Question? the case cited indicates a vaccine damage registered jan-22. The update from CDC is i8-22, 7 months later. What is the significance? The person was not listed as dead in January but suffered vaccine damage. Very typical--yes? Then he died with apparent kidney failure problems as he was on dialysis. Where is the aberration? Please explain.
Mind you I am not supporting the CDC which is a criminally based anti-science agency but I do want to understand accusation when they are made.
VAERS policy is to make public only the initial report. For VAERS ID 2039214, it seems he died after the initial report, yet VAERS updated his report (with such updated information constituting a follow-up report -- not supposed to be published). As WelcomeTheEagle and others have showed, VAERS usually does abide by its policy and will not publish updated information, even if patients or their families beg VAERS to do so.
The Dutch woman who died shows the intentionally poor control of data quality at VAERS. Any modern interface to such a database would prevent a staff member from entering an impossible date (such as a death in the future). And even without such a standard control, a responsible agency would at least conduct an automatic computerized check for such inconsistencies before publishing. VAERS does neither. I believe it is because VAERS is a "make work" project for the contractor that administers the VAERS. It seems that VAERS operations are inefficient and require lots of human fiddling _by design_ to increase the work (and value of the contract) and perhaps also to make VAERS look shoddy so people will discredit it.
Or for a sense of the number of upcodes by CDC to document deaths (or vice-versa most easily), grab the lines containing 'DIED' in the Run Output linked there.
Question? the case cited indicates a vaccine damage registered jan-22. The update from CDC is i8-22, 7 months later. What is the significance? The person was not listed as dead in January but suffered vaccine damage. Very typical--yes? Then he died with apparent kidney failure problems as he was on dialysis. Where is the aberration? Please explain.
Mind you I am not supporting the CDC which is a criminally based anti-science agency but I do want to understand accusation when they are made.
VAERS policy is to make public only the initial report. For VAERS ID 2039214, it seems he died after the initial report, yet VAERS updated his report (with such updated information constituting a follow-up report -- not supposed to be published). As WelcomeTheEagle and others have showed, VAERS usually does abide by its policy and will not publish updated information, even if patients or their families beg VAERS to do so.
The Dutch woman who died shows the intentionally poor control of data quality at VAERS. Any modern interface to such a database would prevent a staff member from entering an impossible date (such as a death in the future). And even without such a standard control, a responsible agency would at least conduct an automatic computerized check for such inconsistencies before publishing. VAERS does neither. I believe it is because VAERS is a "make work" project for the contractor that administers the VAERS. It seems that VAERS operations are inefficient and require lots of human fiddling _by design_ to increase the work (and value of the contract) and perhaps also to make VAERS look shoddy so people will discredit it.
CDC edits after the initial report are tracked in the 'changes' column in this spreadsheet:
https://deepdots.substack.com/p/new-vaers-flat-file-easy-data-mining
Or for a sense of the number of upcodes by CDC to document deaths (or vice-versa most easily), grab the lines containing 'DIED' in the Run Output linked there.