Log in

View Full Version : Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Guess who is Sicker?



Ares
6th May 2017, 07:52 AM
http://info.cmsri.org/hs-fs/hubfs/Vaxed%20Unvaxed%20Memes/VaxVsUnvaxed%20Survey%20Graphic-Updated.png?t=1493930164641&width=531&height=531&name=VaxVsUnvaxed%20Survey%20Graphic-Updated.png

It’s never been done before. The first-of-its-kind study (http://oatext.com/Pilot-comparative-study-on-the-health-of-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-6-to-12-year-old-U.S.-children.php) of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated American homeschooled children shows who is really ailing…and parents should be worried

Something is wrong with America’s children. They are sick – allergic, asthmatic, anxious, autoimmune, autistic, hyperactive, distracted and learning disabled. Thirty-two million American children – a full 43% of them – suffer from at least one of 20 chronic illnesses not including obesity. Across the board, once rare pediatric disorders from autism and ADD to Type 1 diabetes and Tourette’s syndrome are soaring, though few studies pool the data. Compared to their parents, children today are four times more likely to have a chronic illness. And while their grandparents might never have swallowed a pill as children, the current generation of kids is a pharmaceutical sales rep’s dream come true: More than one million American children under five years old takes a psychiatric drug. More than 8.3 million kids under 17 have consumed psychiatric drugs, and in any given month one in four is taking at least one prescription drug for something.

Fast food, bad genes, too much TV, video games, pesticides, plastics – name the environmental factor and it has been implicated in the surge of sickness, although none adequately explains the scale or scope of the epidemic. There is one exposure, however, that has evaded the search, despite that children have received it by direct injection in steadily accumulating doses far beyond anything past generations ever saw: 50 doses of 14 vaccines by age six, 69 doses of 16 pharmaceutical vaccines containing powerfully immune-altering ingredients by age 18.

We’re assured vaccines are “safe and effective” even though public health officials acknowledge they sometimes have serious side-effects including death and despite the troubling fact that no long-term study of their effects on overall health has ever been conducted. Remarkably, not a single published study has ever compared vaccinated kids to unvaccinated kids to see who is healthier years after the shots. Until now.

A pilot study of 666 homeschooled six to 12-year-olds from four American states published on April 27th in the Journal of Translational Sciences, compared 261 unvaccinated children with 405 partially or fully vaccinated children, and assessed their overall health based on their mothers' reports of vaccinations and physician-diagnosed illnesses. What it found about increases in immune-mediated diseases like allergies and neurodevelopmental diseases including autism, should make all parents think twice before they ever vaccinate again:

*Vaccinated children were more than three times as likely to be diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum (OR 4.3)

*Vaccinated children were 30-fold more likely to be diagnosed with allergic rhinitis (hay fever) than non-vaccinated children

* Vaccinated children were 22-fold more likely to require an allergy medication than unvaccinated children

*Vaccinated children had more than quadruple the risk of being diagnosed with a learning disability than unvaccinated children (OR 5.2)

*Vaccinated children were 300 percent more likely to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder than unvaccinated children (OR 4.3)

* Vaccinated children were 340 percent (OR 4.4) more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia than unvaccinated children

*Vaccinated children were 300 percent more likely to be diagnosed with an ear infection than unvaccinated children (OR 4.0)

*Vaccinated children were 700 percent more likely to have surgery to insert ear drainage tubes than unvaccinated children (OR 8.01)

* Vaccinated children were 2.5-fold more likely to be diagnosed with any chronic illness than unvaccinated children

Homeschooler vs. homeschooler

The trouble with doing a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study a century or so after it should have been done is that virtually all American children are vaccinated today. When 95 percent of children get injections, there are few ‘controls’ left for studying long-term outcomes. Comparing American children at large to small pockets of unvaccinated children like those in the Amish community is revealing, but critics say they are comparing apples to oranges. There are too many other variables -- diet, fresh air, computer time, for example – that might explain differences in health besides vaccination status.

So, Anthony Mawson, a professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics in the School of Public Health, Jackson State University, along with colleagues Azad Bhuiyan and Binu Jacob, collaborated with Brian D. Ray, president of the National Home Education Research Institute in Salem, OR, to engage and enrol homeschooling families to participate in the study. In this way, homeschoolers were compared to homeschoolers (apples to apples), but with the added advantage that homeschoolers as a population match the profiles of American families at large. The families who responded to the anonymous online survey were recruited through homeschooling associations in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oregon.

The disease trade

Both vaccinated and unvaccinated children in the study got sick sometimes. As expected, vaccinated children were less likely to have some infections they were vaccinated against: they were 71% less likely to have had chickenpox (Odds Ratio = 0.26), 75% less likely to have had whooping cough (pertussis) (OR = 0.3), and 87% less likely to have had a rubella infection (OR = 0.1) (see Table 2) -.

However, in spite of public health hysteria over outbreaks of measles at Disneyland and mumps resurgence, there was no evidence that vaccinated children were any more protected against these so-called “vaccine-preventable diseases”. Children in both groups had about the same rates of infection with measles, mumps, Hepatitis A and B, influenza, rotavirus and meningitis (both viral and bacterial).

Unvaccinated children in the study were actually better protected against some “vaccine-preventable diseases” than children who got the shots. Since 2000, the CDC has recommended four shots against seven different strains of pneumococcal infections before age 15 months (13 strains since 2010), but vaccinated children in the study were 340 percent more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia compared to unvaccinated children (OR = 4.4).

Brain drain

So, what is the cost for this weak vaccine protection against chickenpox, pertussis and rubella?

The link between autism and vaccination is the biggest tornado in the vaccine storm. Autism has soared from a rare disorder to something affecting a child in every other classroom: in the 80s, it struck one in 10,000 children, by the early 1990s, one in 2,500. Five years ago it was one in 88 children was diagnosed as autistic and today it is one in 68.

In the homeschooler study, the risk of being diagnosed on the autism spectrum was more than four-fold higher among vaccinated children than unvaccinated children (OR 4.3).

“We do not know all of the causes of ASD,” the Centers for Disease Control says– which avoids saying they haven't identified any cause for it. Or any treatment.

They still quote a 2004 Pediatrics study claiming to refute a link between autism and vaccines even though one of its authors, their own top scientist William Thompson, has admitted that he and his colleagues colluded to obscure and then shred data (he kept copies) which showed a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. “Oh my God, I can’t believe we did what we did,” Thompson confessed in one taped telephone chat to Brian Hooker, a bioengineer professor at Simpson University and the father of an autistic child.

The Thompson whistleblower case is the basis of the 2016 documentary Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe by Andrew Wakefield, the gastroenterologist who was among the first to suggest a link the MMR vaccine and autism in the late ‘90s, and who has become a symbol of how the system deals with dissenters. It’s the film the CDC does not want anyone to see.

The CDC also fails to mention that the federal government has been forced to acknowledge vaccination’s role in inducing autism and has awarded compensation to some parents of damaged children. Other courts have recognized the connection between autism and vaccination too. Besides that, there are the thousands of parents the courts and federal government pretend don’t exist who all tell the same story over and over again: that they watched their children regress into autism following vaccination.

Brain and nervous system damage from vaccines is nothing new. Crippling and potentially blinding Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis, for example, (which causes MRI-visible white spots on the brain and can progress to multiple sclerosis,) has been described in the medical literature for decades and is a documented side effect for virtually every vaccine. Narcolepsy and Guillain Barré Syndrome are other examples.

So, what role might vaccines have in subtler brain damage? Don’t ask the CDC because they’ve never looked. But the JSU study found the odds for vaccinated children having a learning disability was five-fold that of unvaccinated children (OR = 5.2), four-fold for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (OR = 4.3) and more than three-fold for any neurodevelopmental disorder (i.e., impairment of growth and development of the brain or central nervous system associated with a diagnosis of Learning Disability, ADHD or ASD) (OR = 3.67).

Mercury, aluminum and what else?

Vaccine ingredients are known to cause brain damage. Robert Kennedy Jr. has been highlighting the dangers of mercury as thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines and its relationship to autism.

Aluminium is another well-documented neurotoxin added to vaccines as an adjuvant to evoke an immune system response. Recent research has thrown everything scientists used to say about it (and the CDC still does) in the bin: aluminum is not excreted from the body within hours or days, but it persists for years and can migrate to organs including lymph, spleen and brain. Aluminum in vaccines has been implicated in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Macrophagic Myofasciitis in numerous autoimmune diseases, Alzheimer’s disease, in sudden deaths following vaccination and in autism.

The FDA does not deny its toxicity – just that there is enough aluminum toxin in vaccines to cause harm. But it calculates risk based on oral exposure. Even so it describes memory impairment in lab mice and “very young animals [which] appeared weaker and less active [and] less coordinated when their mothers were exposed to large amounts of aluminum during pregnancy and while nursing.”

Injected exposure can hardly be safer. “It should be obvious that the route of exposure which bypasses the protective barriers of the gastrointestinal tract and/or the skin will likely require a much lower dose to produce a toxic outcome,” says a 2014 review implicating aluminium in the autism epidemic.

Besides toxic metals like aluminum and mercury, vaccines may contain contaminants from DNA from human aborted fetus cells, animal DNA and retroviruses and a host of debris and metal contaminants that are not measured by oversight agencies and whose health effects have never been studied.

The ear infection connection

Vaccinated children in the study were four-fold more likely than unvaccinated children in the study to have had a doctor-diagnosed ear infection (OR4.0), and they were 700% as likely to have had surgery to implant ear tubes for repeat or persistent infections. (OR 8.01)

Acute ear infections have increased worldwide in recent decades and are so common they are almost unremarkable now; they affect 80% of American children by age three and are the leading reason for child doctor visits, antibiotic use and the number one pediatric surgical procedure –insertion of plastic tubes in the ears. Childhood ear infections cost the health care system almost three billion dollars a year.

The study points to reports of middle ear infection filed with the government's Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). A VAERS database search for children younger than one year of age who developed otitis media within one week of vaccination revealed 438,573 cases reported between 1990 and 2011, “often with fever and other signs and symptoms of inflammation and central nervous system involvement.” If that was the reported number for children under a year old within one week, how many children of all ages get common ear infections following vaccination? No one knows.

Messed up microbiomes

As a possible mechanism for vaccine-induced ear infection, study authors Mawson and colleagues cite a 2006 study that looked at the types of bacteria in the nasal passages of children immunized with pneumococcal vaccine vs. “historical control” – kids from the prePCV-7 era -- and found an increased colonization of a bacteria called M. catarrhalis in the vaccinated group. M. catarrhalis, it turns out, is associated with an increased risk of ear infection.

No surprise then that vaccinated children in the study were over two-fold more likely to have taken antibiotics (OR 2.7). They were also hospitalized more often (OR 1.8).

Broad spectrum antibiotics like those frequently used for ear infections are like napalm on the microbiome -- they may wipe out bugs that cause ear infections but they affect many other microbes as well, shifting microbiome composition in ways that science is only beginning to understand how profoundly this impacts health. New research links microbiome shifts to a growing list of diseases from irritable bowel syndrome, obesity, Crohn’s disease, diabetes and multiple sclerosis to mood disorders such as anxiety and depression, mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and autism.

In a 2011 Lancet study, Danish researchers concluded the pneumococcal vaccine had a “much broader effect...on the microbial community than currently assumed, and highlights the need for careful monitoring when implementing vaccines...”

Another recent study found it isn't just pneumococcal bugs that are affected, but several unexpected types of infectious bugs rush in to colonize where vaccines have been. What is the net effect of 69 vaccines on a developing child’s microbiome? Public health officials haven’t even asked the question.

Wheezy and itchy

The JSU study shows that vaccinated children’s risk of being diagnosed with allergic rhinitis (hay fever) was 30-fold higher than that of unvaccinated children (OR == 30.1), which exceeds the strength of the association between smoking and lung cancer. They also had a higher odds of overall allergies (OR = 3.9), and three-fold higher odds of getting eczema. (OR = 3.1).

All this allergic disease was leading to more medication. The vaccinated children in the study were 22-fold more likely to have taken allergy medicine than the unvaccinated.

Allergic rhinitis (hay fever) is another one of those current inexplicably soaring pediatric plagues; in 2012, it affected 6.6 million children. It is strongly associated with another spiking childhood disorder, asthma. More than three million American kids have a food allergy and one in four children have eczema. Worldwide, allergies have been increasing and they now affect almost half of all American school kids.

As with autism, public health has no answers to explain the explosion of immune-mediated allergic disease. But researchers routinely create animal models of allergic disease by exposing them to aluminum adjuvants – the sort used in vaccines – at the same time as allergens. Recent experiments (here , here and here, for example) describe how scientists use aluminum to stimulate allergic rhinitis (hay fever) in mice.

This 2014 study describes how researchers used aluminum hydroxide bound to a bordetella pertussis (that's whooping cough bacteria in every child's two, four, six and 18-month DTaP which also contains aluminum) and exposed the animal to an oral antigen (ie., food, like peanuts or soya) to produce rats with food allergies.

Studies like these (here and here) describe how aluminum hydroxide linked to egg white protein (another vaccine ingredient) is used to create animal models of asthma.

So how does the CDC fail to consider if the very thing scientists are using to create allergic disease in animals is also creating allergic disease in children?

No explanation?

“There was no explanation for the differences in health outcomes observed between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups of children other than vaccination itself,” the study's authors concluded. Although the design of the study limits causal interpretation, they added, there is an apparent dose-response relationship between vaccination and chronic illness too, with the partially vaccinated showing intermediate odds of being diagnosed with chickenpox and whooping cough as well as ear infection, pneumonia, allergic rhinitis, ADHD, eczema, and learning disability (see Table 4).

“The extent to which these findings apply to the population of homeschooled children as well as the general population awaits further research on vaccinated and unvaccinated children,” Mawson and colleagues say. “Investigating and understanding the biological basis of these unexpected nonspecific outcomes of vaccination is essential for ensuring evidence-based vaccine policies and decisions.”

There is little evidence, however, that the mainstream medical establishment has any interest in understanding unexpected outcomes. Its message is clear: vaccines are modern medicine's greatest miracle, an intervention that has saved millions of lives and improved quality of life for millions more. The fine print, acknowledged since vaccines began, is that a few children will suffer serious consequences from vaccines, including death, but their lives are a small sacrifice for the greater good of protecting of humanity from plagues of infectious disease.

For more than a century it has been accepted public health dogma that vaccine benefits outweigh risks. What's more, with the introduction of five new vaccines since 1995 bringing the total inoculations to 35 by kindergarten age, studies of the combined effect of vaccines have never been done. The reality is: real vaccine benefits are theoretical and real vaccine risks are unknown.

The emerging “vaccine war” is really just growing numbers of “hesitant” parents (and health practitioners) questioning the CDC vaccine schedule for good reasons: Why are doctors who profit from vaccines the spokesmen for public health? Can government health agencies really be trusted to protect our children when they are so wedded to the pharmaceutical industry? Why are toxins in vaccines? Does my kid really need this vaccine or is somebody selling it, like Coca Cola and video games? Why is it acceptable to knowingly sacrifice some children for the greater good? Is that greater good real or is it a mirage?

That vaccines may sometimes curb natural infections like chickenpox sometimes appears to be the case. What’s not been answered is the cost? What else do vaccines do? And if they are such a miracle, then why are American kids so sick?

This pilot study shows us that if mainstream medicine and our public health agencies are really interested in children's health, not just vaccine profits or defending vaccine religion against blasphemy, what is needed is not the will to make everyone believe, but the courage to find out.

http://info.cmsri.org/the-driven-researcher-blog/vaccinated-vs.-unvaccinated-guess-who-is-sicker

crimethink
6th May 2017, 08:13 AM
None of that matters. Only this matters:

1) unquestioned compliance with government orders;
2) worship of "medical experts";
3) corporate profits from vaccines.

Ares
6th May 2017, 08:16 AM
None of that matters. Only this matters:

1) unquestioned compliance with government orders;
2) worship of "medical experts";
3) corporate profits from vaccines.

1.) I've never been one to follow blindly, just ask my drill instructor in boot camp... lol
2.) I worship nothing of man.
3.) EARNED profits are just, unearned profits by fraud, government mandate, or deceit are unjust and no one has a duty to comply.

singular_me
6th May 2017, 08:35 AM
3.) EARNED profits are just, unearned profits by fraud

and profit by ignorance then? Considering that everything evolves and thus is continually wrong/false intentionally or not...

just saying. Assuming that just profits can be earned would mean that one is omniscient.

crimethink
6th May 2017, 08:58 AM
1.) I've never been one to follow blindly, just ask my drill instructor in boot camp... lol
2.) I worship nothing of man.
3.) EARNED profits are just, unearned profits by fraud, government mandate, or deceit are unjust and no one has a duty to comply.

You do not "fit" within the System, and, therefore are a "human resource" who will need to be "deleted."

crimethink
6th May 2017, 08:59 AM
Assuming that just profits can be earned would mean that one is omniscient.

Someone grows organic apples, then sells them for 20% above actual cost. That is just profit.

Or, someone raises butterflies, and sells them... :D

palani
6th May 2017, 09:17 AM
That is just profit.

USE, civil law. A right of receiving so much of the natural profits of a thing as is necessary to daily sustenance; it differs from usufruct, which is a right not only to use but to enjoy.

I enjoy an apple by eating it rather than selling it. But the law prescribes that the selling of the thing is the enjoyment. The Decl of Independence pretty much takes the same approach ... 'the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' where 'pursuit of happiness' is the long form declaration of PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Anytime you find yourself purchasing something so you can sell it to someone else for a profit you have a usufruct with respect to that thing. Government taxes the enjoyment you derive. All income tax is is an entertainment tax. Under this system you don't have any right to the enjoyment of your own labor. You just have the usufruct of it.

singular_me
6th May 2017, 12:31 PM
well we all see what profits in the field have done... cartelization of the entire the food chain

no longer with that butterfly farm, owners do not get along well enough to do "business", what I became aware of 1 month later, so now I am looking for another job. As soon as my partner become a solar installation contractor, I will be working with him, as his employee

But the whole world suffered from the same disease, the world is crashing upon us because of it.





Someone grows organic apples, then sells them for 20% above actual cost. That is just profit.

Or, someone raises butterflies, and sells them... :D

cheka.
6th May 2017, 01:54 PM
this chart might play a part too - as it is made up of welfare state spawns....which have high uptake of vaccs

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2016/11/23/2016.11.23%20-%20SNAP%202_1.jpg

crimethink
6th May 2017, 11:12 PM
this chart might play a part too - as it is made up of welfare state spawns....which have high uptake of vaccs

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2016/11/23/2016.11.23%20-%20SNAP%202_1.jpg

The massive amount of junk "food" bought with Food Ftamps is disgusting.

I know many here would like to abolish Food Stamps altogether. My position is that Food Stamps should be restricted-list like WIC: you can buy real food, from preselected lists of items, specific categories, e.g., milk, rice, potatoes, simple meats, etc. Soda pop, potato chips, and so on should not be on the list. That would also eliminate a large percentage of fraudulent use (buying luxury foods in exchange for cash).

Cebu_4_2
7th May 2017, 04:00 AM
The massive amount of junk "food" bought with Food Ftamps is disgusting.

I know many here would like to abolish Food Stamps altogether. My position is that Food Stamps should be restricted-list like WIC: you can buy real food, from preselected lists of items, specific categories, e.g., milk, rice, potatoes, simple meats, etc. Soda pop, potato chips, and so on should not be on the list. That would also eliminate a large percentage of fraudulent use (buying luxury foods in exchange for cash).

Fucking retard. The WIC mandates mostly garbage food you twat. You really are stupider than I thought.

crimethink
7th May 2017, 06:14 AM
Fucking retard. The WIC mandates mostly garbage food you twat. You really are stupider than I thought.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/wic/SNAPSHOT-of-WIC-Child-Women-Food-Pkgs.pdf

100% juice, milk, cereal, cheese, eggs, fruits & vegetables, whole grain bread, fish, and legumes or peanut butter.

Clearly, you consumed a plentiful helping of lead as a child.

7th trump
7th May 2017, 08:26 AM
Fucking retard. The WIC mandates mostly garbage food you twat. You really are stupider than I thought.

And that surprises you?

Cebu_4_2
7th May 2017, 10:15 PM
https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/wic/SNAPSHOT-of-WIC-Child-Women-Food-Pkgs.pdf

100% juice, milk, cereal, cheese, eggs, fruits & vegetables, whole grain bread, fish, and legumes or peanut butter.

Clearly, you consumed a plentiful helping of lead as a child.

And you looked at that chart and determined it's 100% healthy? What about all the sections where it's NA? So breakfast cereal is healthy along with sugary juice and wheat bread. Wash it down with some cows milk and good to go.

I stand with my previous statement.

Glass
8th May 2017, 09:43 AM
the name of Walmart should be changed to Food Stamp Distribution Center. And the cards shouldn't be accepted anywhere else. And it should be staffed 100% by food stamp recipients. Management excepted.

Twisted Titan
8th May 2017, 02:43 PM
“We do not know all of the causes of ASD,” the Centers for Disease Control says– which avoids saying they haven't identified any cause for it. Or any treatment.


It's hard to explain a problem to a man, when his livelihood depends on him not understanding it.


Upton Sinclair

keehah
12th March 2022, 10:02 AM
Important study. Was making the rounds of some news feeds last week. So I did some searching to see if their has been an update on the study group.

Could not find updated results but I did come across articles written the months after the study was released and boy were they ever triggered! Pro-vaccine people did not like this study! Unhinged ranting, oversized emojis, general triggered insanity in reports and blogs. Yet none I have read actually found fault with the study, but their uproar did manage to get the article pulled from the first and then the second journal it was published in. I have yet to find any actual scientific reasons given in all the articles that supported and/or reported on the journal retractions.

Example:

scienceblogs.com: The Mawson "vaxed/unvaxed" study retraction: The antivaccine movement reacts with tears of unfathomable sadness (https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2017/05/10/the-mawson-vaxedunvaxed-study-retraction-the-antivaccine-movement-reacts-with-tears-of-unfathomable-sadness)

May 10, 2017
Over the last couple of days, I've been writing about two incredibly bad "studies" by Anthony Mawson, an antivaccinationist and Andrew Wakefield fanboi, who first published one of them in a bottom-feeding predatory open access journal and saw it retracted (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/11/29/antivaccinationists-promote-a-bogus-internet-survey-hilarity-ensues-as-its-retracted/) [Antivaccinationists promote a bogus internet "survey." Hilarity ensues as it's retracted.]. Then he appears to have divided the study up two minimal publishable units and had them published (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2017/05/08/a-horrendously-bad-vaxedunvaxed-study-rises-from-the-dead-yet-again/) as two papers (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2017/05/09/a-boatload-of-fail-were-two-horrendously-bad-zombie-vaxedantivaxed-studies-retracted/) in a bottom-feeding predatory open access journal even lower on the food chain that the first, after having promoted its second coming among the antivaccine crowd (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2017/02/24/another-zombie-antivaccine-study-rises-from-the-grave/). Obviously, I'm not going to go into the details of each study's failings in scientific design and execution, as the links in this paragraph do that at my usual length. I will, however, mention that the studies were funded by two antivaccine groups, Generation Rescue and the Children's Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI), the group associated with Jenny McCarthy and Claire Dwoskin's group, respectively.

I'll also mention that both papers appear to have been retracted by even the lower level bottom-feeding predatory open access journal that had briefly published them. (What will be even more entertaining is when Open Access Text, the publisher of The Journal of Translational Science—the journal in which Mawson's papers were published—explains the reason for the retractions, which it hasn't done yet (http://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/08/retracted-vaccine-autism-study-republished/).) The reason I mention that (besides that it feels good to do so) is that it has made the antivaccine movement very, very unhappy, at least those who've noticed the retraction. Many, if not most, antivaccine activists appear not to have noticed the retraction yet, given the continuing flow of crowing press releases gloating about how there are now definitive studies showing that vaccinated children are sicker than unvaccinated children. Never mind that neither study, both of which were based on the same dataset, shows anything of the sort. The retraction, however, does make the contemplation of how bad these studies are just that more delicious, particularly when groups like the Alliance for Natural Health publish articles using the Mawson studies as a basis for demanding that the FDA study vaccines.

A study reporting on related studies (including the Mawson study) published in 2020:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268563/)

SAGE Open Med. 2020; 8: 2050312120925344.
Published online 2020 May 27. doi: 10.1177/2050312120925344

Discussion
Within this study, the number of vaccines received and vaccination status early in life are related to different acute and chronic conditions. The strongest relationships observed for vaccination status were for asthma, developmental delays and ear infections..

The IOM19 Immunization Safety Review Committee conducted an evaluation regarding thimerosal-containing vaccines and concluded that “the hypothesis that exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines could be associated with neurodevelopment disorders” was biologically plausible. Mawson et al. found a relationship between vaccination status and learning disability and neurodevelopmental disorders. Delong also reported a significant relationship to neurodevelopmental disorders (autism and speech and language delay) when looking at the proportions of vaccine uptake in US children. Other research, focused more on the uptake of specific vaccines, has elucidated such relationships. Gallagher and Goodman saw a greater number of boys receiving special education services if they had received the entire hepatitis B vaccine series in infancy. Geier et al. also documented a link between neurodevelopmental disorders and thimerosal-containing vaccines. (Although thimerosal has been phased out of most vaccines administered in the United States, it still remains in some formulations of the influenza vaccine given to pregnant women and infants.)

Mawson et al. reported a significant relationship between vaccination status and ear infections. Wilson et al. found that for both males and females, top reasons for emergency room visits and/or hospital admissions after their 12-month vaccinations included ear infections and non-infective gastroenteritis or colitis.

keehah
7th August 2023, 03:05 PM
cureus.com/articles: Neonatal, Infant, and Under Age Five Vaccine Doses Routinely Given in Developed Nations and Their Association With Mortality Rates
(https://www.cureus.com/articles/164423-neonatal-infant-and-under-age-five-vaccine-doses-routinely-given-in-developed-nations-and-their-association-with-mortality-rates#!/)Neil Z. Miller • Gary S. GoldmanPublished: July 20, 2023

Introduction

In 2011, using 2009 data, we observed that several nations had better infant mortality rates (IMRs) than the US, yet they all required fewer vaccine doses for their infants than the US. Thus, we conducted a study to explore a potential relationship between the number of vaccine doses that these nations required of their infants and their IMRs. Linear regression analysis yielded a coefficient of determination, r2 = 0.49 (r = 0.70; p < .0001 [p = probability of obtaining the observed results, assuming that the null hypothesis vaccines do not affect IMR is true]). Among the 30 nations with the best IMRs, those requiring the most vaccine doses for their infants tended to have the least favorable IMRs. This positive correlation challenges the conventional scientific consensus that more vaccine doses always equate with fewer deaths.

Twelve years later, we published a response [8] (https://www.cureus.com/articles/134233-reaffirming-a-positive-correlation-between-number-of-vaccine-doses-and-infant-mortality-rates-a-response-to-critics#!/) to several claims made by critics of our paper. In addition, we replicated our original study using 2019 data. Linear regression analysis yielded a coefficient of determination, r2 = 0.20 (r = 0.45; p < .002), corroborating the positive trend reported in our initial paper...

Materials & Methods

In this present ecological study, we used simple linear regression (i.e., bivariate regression) between the number of vaccine doses (the independent variable) that nations routinely require and these nations' reported mortality rates (the dependent variable). Thus, we conducted twelve different linear regression analyses (six each for 2019 and 2021) to investigate potential correlations between the number of vaccine doses that the nations in our datasets required of their neonates, infants, and under age five children and these nations' neonatal, infant, and under age five mortality rates...

Other studies using different methodologies provide additional evidence that younger age and lower weight increase the risk of serious adverse reactions to vaccines... One-third (33.3%) of premature infants vaccinated at 70 days of age or less had major adverse reactions compared with none when vaccinated over 70 days of age. Mawson et al. found that vaccinated infants born prematurely were five times more likely to be diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder than vaccinated non-preterm children (OR 5.4, 95% CI: 2.5 to 11.9), and 14 times more likely when compared to children who were born full term and not vaccinated (OR 14.5, 95% CI: 5.4 to 38.7).

...Pourcyrous et al. found that when premature infants were given more than one vaccine concurrently, they were four times more likely to have adverse cardiorespiratory events (apnea, bradycardia, or oxygen desaturation) and abnormal C-reactive protein levels compared to preterm infants who received a single vaccine...

Effect of additional vaccine doses on mortality

In our 2021 analysis of the top 50 nations whereby vaccine doses range from 12 to 26, IMR increased by a factor of 0.167 deaths/1000 live births (95% CI: 0.0766 to 0.257) for each additional vaccine dose added to the immunization schedule (Table 6). Conversely, each reduction of six vaccine doses improves IMR by one death per 1000 live births.

Neonatal vaccine doses appear to have a significant impact on mortality. In 2021, there was a statistically significant difference of 1.28 (95% CI: 0.43-2.14) deaths per 1000 live births (p < .002) between the mean IMRs among nations that did not give their neonates any vaccine doses (mean IMR = 2.87) and those that required them to receive two vaccine doses (mean IMR = 4.15) (Table 5). Similarly, there was a statistically significant difference of 1.57 (95% CI: 0.58-2.57) deaths per 1000 live births (p < .001) between the mean U5MRs among nations that did not give their neonates any vaccine doses (mean U5MR = 3.43) and those that required them to receive two vaccine doses (mean U5MR = 5.00). Thus, developed nations that require their neonates to receive two vaccine doses would likely achieve a measurable improvement in childhood mortality rates simply by eliminating this requirement.

...Vaccine policymakers have an obligation to determine the full impact of their current vaccination schedules on deaths from any cause. More safety research is needed on the number of childhood vaccines that are administered concurrently, cumulatively, and the sequence in which they are given, to confirm they are providing the intended effects on child survival...

Our datasets include the US, a nation that required the most vaccines for their infants, and all nations with better IMRs than the US. We did not analyze all nations since mixing highly developed and Third World nations would introduce confounding and bias arising from heterogeneity of socioeconomic factors and inconsistent vaccination rates (discussed in our previous paper)...

Conclusions

There are statistically significant positive correlations between neonatal, infant, and under age five mortality rates of developed nations and the number of early childhood vaccine doses that are routinely given. When developed nations require two versus zero neonatal vaccine doses, or many versus fewer infant vaccine doses, our study suggests there may be unintended consequences that increase all-cause mortality. Further investigations of the hypotheses generated by this study are recommended to confirm that current vaccination schedules are achieving their intended objectives.