MB comment: A recent panel presented data showing that only 6% of adverse drug events are reported. Therefore, you must multiply reported adverse events by a factor of 17 to get a rough estimate of the actual number of adverse events.
Vaccines are pharmaceutical products, not 100% safe magical bullets as they are pitched to consumers.
The FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has 396,000 reports af vaccine adverse reactions. If only 6% of vaccine adverse events are reported, the actual number of vaccine adverse reactions is 6.6 million.
The total number of deaths in VAERS is 5,040. If only 6% are reported, the actual number of vaccine-associated deaths is 84,000.
Looking at an individual year, in 2011 there were 30,540 VAERS reports.If only 6% were reported, the actual number of vaccine adverse events in 2011 was 509,000.
The systematic underreporting of drug and vaccine adverse events is no accident, it is how pharmaceutical companies keep their gravy train going. And if you think anyone cares or follows up vaccine adverse reactions, you are sadly mistaken.
Dr. Louis Cooper, former President of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Dr. Louis Cooper ( former head of the American Academy of Pediatrics) dismissed VAERS data on deaths and injury from the hepatitis B vaccine in a speech I gave at the NY City Rotary Club saying: ‘VAERS is garbage.’ When I asked him what he would do to improve the vaccine safety reporting system, his reply was ‘There’s no money for that.’
There’s no money for that. That epitomizes the medical profession’s attitude toward vaccine safety and the victims of vaccine adverse reactions.
Dr. Cooper also stated that a woman at Merck (the largest manufacturer) had called him up and told him to come to the NYC Rotary Club meeting (he was not a member) to refute me. This is a clear example of how American Academy of Pediatrics officials take their marching orders from vaccine manufacturers.
*****************************************************************************************
Voluntary Drug Event Reporting Systems Woefully Lacking
Medscape June 29, 2012
Health systems that rely primarily on voluntary reporting of adverse drug events identify as few as 6% of events, according to information presented here at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists Summer Meeting 2012 (ASHP SM12).
For this reason, several different methods should be used, explained James M. Hoffman, PharmD, MS, BCPS, medication outcomes and safety officer and associate member in pharmaceutical sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.
Dr. Hoffman was part of a panel that presented strategies for improving detection of adverse drug events. The other speakers were Mike Cohen, RPh, MS, from the Institute for Safe Medication Practices in Hershey, Pennsylvania; David Classen, MD, MS, from Pascal Metrics, Washington, DC; and David Stockwell, MD, MBA, from Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, DC.
Dr. Hoffman answered questions about the best methods for detecting adverse drug events in an e-mail interview with Medscape Medical News.
Medscape: Why are current traditional methods of adverse drug event detection inadequate?
Dr. Hoffman: Each approach for detecting adverse events has strengths and weaknesses. Different event detection methods find different opportunities for improvement. For example, some methods might find a particular phase of the medication use process better than others (eg, one method may find prescribing errors very well but not do a good job finding dispensing or administration errors; some methods are better at finding adverse drug events instead of medication errors). Therefore, multiple event detection methods are needed to get a more complete understanding of opportunities to improve the medication use process.
Voluntary incident (or event) reporting systems are common, and an important method of event detection. Many hospitals may rely primarily on voluntary event reporting systems, and when planning the conference session, one of our overarching objectives was to encourage session participants to go beyond voluntary reporting systems. Underreporting is a key limitation of error reporting systems. The estimates vary, but this is very well documented.