- Joined
- Nov 22, 2020
I need a bit of help to understand what this group did.Historically, only 1% of incidents are reported to VAERS. So what we see on VAERS is only a small subset of reality.
If I got this straight, they're using the ESP system (developed by Harvard Medical School) to verify VAERS report submission. The ESP system is basically software that automatically analyzes patient data and can pick up on signs pointing to a disease, or to adverse effects following a vaccination. For example it'll alert a doctor that a certain patient is showing signs that warrant the submission of a VAERS report. It's then for the doctor to decide whether he wants to actually submit the VAERS report.
The way the "Results" part is phrased makes it kind of hard to understand to me. The "OpenVAERS" group used this ESP system to analyze data from 2006 to 2009 of several hundred thousand patients (as stated in the Results at page 6). These patients received a vaccination of some kind, and the ESP system detected adverse effects, based on the sequence of the patient's clinical reports following the date of injection, I assume. Now am I getting this straight? Did they find that only in 1% of these detected cases, the alerted physician decided to submit a VAERS report?
Maybe in the period 2006-2009 the algorithms behind the ESP system were still highly inaccurate and not properly developed yet, and were sending out 99% false flags.