BOMBSHELL: Study Proves Unvaccinated Children Are Healthier

[jaa]

I'm not sure mortality rates is the best way to plot those. Disease incidence rates are probably what we should be looking at.

Graphic proof that vaccines work (with sources) – Isabella B. – Medium

• Disease incidence is the correct metric. Since vaccines are designed to prevent the incidence of disease, rates of disease (morbidity) are the correct metric for evaluating vaccine effectiveness. If vaccines were a drug to treat disease, then case-fatality rates would be the correct metric for evaluation. Measuring vaccine effectiveness by looking at mortality rates only is a bit like measuring contraceptive effectiveness by measuring abortion rates only — it only tells a tiny part of the story.
• Mortality rates do not reflect the true burden of the disease. Survivors of vaccine preventable disease can be maimed for life — think polio and paralysis, mumps and deafness, measles and mental disability, rubella and birth defects. Looking at mortality rates only misses the true burden of the disease. For example, before the introduction of the measles vaccine in the US in the 1960s, there were “only” 400–700 measles deaths a year. However, there were 4,000 cases of measles encephalitis a year (many of which led to neurological complications such as blindness, deafness and mental disability), 150,000 cases of respiratory complications, and 48,000 measles-related hospitalizations a year (which placed a huge financial and emotional burden on families) [1]. Together, these figures added to the motivation to eradicate the disease.
• Numerous factors affect mortality rates. Mortality rates are influenced by socioeconomic status, access to health care, quality of treatment and a wide range of other factors. As these factors change, mortality rates inevitably change. By contrast, as you can see from the graphs below, vaccine preventable disease incidence remained largely constant until the introduction of related vaccines. This may be because airborne diseases (like measles, mumps and rubella) can infect anyone, regardless of socioeconomic status.
• Mortality rates are not more accurate than morbidity rates. Those opposed to vaccination often use the “disease diagnoses are inaccurate” argument as a reason to look at mortality data only. However, the mechanism by which a doctor’s diagnosis suddenly becomes accurate when a patient dies, when he or she was not competent at diagnosing the disease in the first place, is not explained. In fact, death certificates will often be based on preceding diagnoses. Furthermore, as other researchers have noted, disease cases are more likely to be accurate as death certificates were only standardized from the 1960s onward [2].

There are a bunch of UK graphs that show the same thing as the USA ones that I didn't include because of redundancy. They all tell a similar tale. How do you explain that?

 

[Travis]

 

[Queequeg]

I'm not sure mortality rates is the best way to plot those. Disease incidence rates are probably what we should be looking at.

Graphic proof that vaccines work (with sources) – Isabella B. – Medium

There are a bunch of UK graphs that show the same thing as the USA ones that I didn't include because of redundancy. They all tell a similar tale. How do you explain that?

I appreciate those graphs and it is interesting to see the fuller picture. However a couple things come to mind. First of all the CDC and the Government have been caught manipulating data and lying to us so many times that we should just keep in mind that Government data regarding disease are not completely reliable. Secondly, morbidity rates are especially unreliable particularly in the early part of the last century where disease reporting was probably less than 50%. That would explain in good part why there was such a dramatic drop off in mortality rates from say 1900 to 1945 yet morbidity rates didn’t seem to go down. I think mortality rates are much more reliably reported and much less prone to misdiagnosis as an autopsy can be performed if there are questions to cause. Finally, its has been claimed that many of the disease that were supposedly conquered by vaccines were just renamed. That would throw all these charts into question.
Polio Wasn't Vanquished, It Was Redefined
The CDC Made These Two Radical Changes and 30,000 Diagnoses of Polio Instantly Disappeared – VacTruth.com


But again my main issue with vaccines is not that they don’t work at all but that they are loaded with known poisons, neuro-toxins and human DNA that seem to have other ulterior reasons for there being used. I can’t believe that mercury is the only preservative that they can use to preserve flu shots.

Getting back to mortality rates, there is actually ample evidence that childhood mortality rates increase with the number of vaccination. Though not proving causation the same can be shown for many other childhood disease especially autism. The US has the highest autism rate and the highest number of mandated vaccinations. The table below shows that the more vaccines a child gets the higher the child mortality rate. I am not anti-vaccine per se but I am anti-toxins.

Vaccines and Mortality Rates – VacTruth.com

 

[Travis]

View attachment 5326
Law Firm of Maglio, Christopher, & Toale

Click on link to view the full list (438 cases).

This is only one law firm.

This is what Guillaine-Barré looks like. Below is a CBS, young Mike Wallace from the '70s report on how the Swine Flu Vaccine paralyzed a nice middle-aged lady:

 

[jaa]

Thanks for the reasonable reply.

First off, we're in agreement that you don't want to be taking in unnecessary toxins. But the dose makes the poison. And addiditives like thiomersal have been extensively studied and have not been credibly shown to be harmful at the doses their used at. There may be a conspiracy covering this up, but it's highly unlikely. And these additives serve a purpose. Many of them serve to prevent microbial growth during manufacturing.

Thiomersal controversy - Wikipedia

I appreciate those graphs and it is interesting to see the fuller picture. However a couple things come to mind. First of all the CDC and the Government have been caught manipulating data and lying to us so many times that we should just keep in mind that Government data regarding disease are not completely reliable.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I think conspiratorial thinking generally makes things much more complicated and therefore unlikely in a world with competing interests and human fallibility.

Secondly, morbidity rates are especially unreliable particularly in the early part of the last century where disease reporting was probably less than 50%. That would explain in good part why there was such a dramatic drop off in mortality rates from say 1900 to 1945 yet morbidity rates didn’t seem to go down. I think mortality rates are much more reliably reported and much less prone to misdiagnosis as an autopsy can be performed if there are questions to cause. Finally, its has been claimed that many of the disease that were supposedly conquered by vaccines were just renamed. That would throw all these charts into question.
Polio Wasn't Vanquished, It Was Redefined
The CDC Made These Two Radical Changes and 30,000 Diagnoses of Polio Instantly Disappeared – VacTruth.com

The stricter definition of polio would certainly cause cases to suddenly drop. But it should only do so on either side of 1954. It's not like the definition kept getting stricter.

And that's just for polio. The only other disease clustering around the 50s was measles. The rest are earlier or later. And there is always a drop off in rates of disease immediately after the vaccine introduction to the masses. You can't just chalk that up to accounting and poor records prior to the 50s.

But again my main issue with vaccines is not that they don’t work at all but that they are loaded with known poisons, neuro-toxins and human DNA that seem to have other ulterior reasons for there being used. I can’t believe that mercury is the only preservative that they can use to preserve flu shots.

See initial comment.

Getting back to mortality rates, there is actually ample evidence that childhood mortality rates increase with the number of vaccination. Though not proving causation the same can be shown for many other childhood disease especially autism. The US has the highest autism rate and the highest number of mandated vaccinations. The table below shows that the more vaccines a child gets the higher the child mortality rate. I am not anti-vaccine per se but I am anti-toxins.
View attachment 5325
Vaccines and Mortality Rates – VacTruth.com

There doesn't seem to be much correlation here once you get rid of the USA. And obviously correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Travis]

And these additives serve a purpose. Many of them serve to prevent microbial growth during manufacturing.

Yes, but there were always other preservatives that were not only safer, but more effective as well.

Thimerosal will dissociate is aqueous solution into thiosalicylate and ethylmercury. The thiosalicylate rings then dimerize and ethylmercury precipitates out; it's dense and hydrophobic.

In vaccines, proteins are normally present which covalently bond with ethylmercury strongly at thiol (sulfhydryl) groups, namely cysteine and homocysteine, although it may actually displace the methyl group from methionine.

This leads to a short shelf life in the presence of proteins since bound ethylmercury is no longer bacteriostatic. The efficacy of this preservative decreases as a function of time and sulfur amino acids present. There is so much protein in blood that it was abandoned for preserving whole blood products since it didn't work, all of the ethylmercury got bound-up.

Phenol, phenoxyethanol, and benzylthonium chloride were always available. The fact that these preservatives supplanted nearly all of the Thimerosal in vaccines proves that it was never necessary to begin with.

Occupational exposure to inorganic mercury

Mechanistic Toxicology

 

[Travis]

Aluminum may even be worse than Thimerosal. Not many people know that calcium phosphate makes for a good adsorbtive adjuvant and has been used commercially in Europe. Iron Oxide has also been used experimentally.

There are dozens of minerals that can be used for this. I find it odd that they they choose to use one of the most toxic ones.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC95982/
Calcium Phosphate Nanoparticle Adjuvant
Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, 2000
Calcium phosphate: a substitute for aluminum adjuvants?
Expert Review of Vaccines, 2017
Evaluation of the Effects of Aluminum Phosphate and Calcium Phosphate Nanoparticles as Adjuvants in Vaccinated Mice
International Journal of Chemical Engineering and Applications, 2014
Iron oxide nanoparticles as a clinically acceptable delivery platform for a recombinant blood-stage human malaria vaccine
The Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 2013

 

[Travis]

And addiditives like thiomersal have been extensively studied and have not been credibly shown to be harmful at the doses their used at.

It was never FDA approved; it was 'grandfathered in'. Here is a 69 page summary of the historical science behind Thimerosal by Dr. Paul King (PhD Analytical Chemistry) for anyone interested:

Scientific Information Regarding the Use of Thimerosal As a Preservative in Vaccines

A few excerpts:

Moreover, as this reviewer has shown, the results of the one FDA-recognized chronic toxicity study of injected-Thimerosal solutions in rats clearly indicates that the 0.003% to 0.01% level of Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines does not meet the “sufficiently nontoxic …” safety requirement set forth in 21 CFR § 610.15(a). Further, as this reviewer has reported, published studies have shown that Thimerosal is not a completely effective bacterial preservative in certain vaccines.¹⁶

Finally, in comparative studies using developing cultured human cells (astrocytes, neurons and fetal “skin cells”), the results obtained indicated that Thimerosal is on the order of 2 to 10 times more toxic than methylmercury hydroxide to human cells at mercury exposure levels below 1 parts-per-million (ppm) [< 0.0001 %]²⁸.

c), for some recent vaccines (e.g., Pfizer’s Prevnar 13®/Prevenar 13®, pneumococcal pneumonia vaccine), 2-phenoxyethanol [2-PE] has been shown to be a less toxic and more effective preservative than Thimerosal in that vaccine’s formulation³⁸,

If anything, it's a good place to references for your own research. There are 98 references in this paper. I know there is one of his papers that talks about the real early studies at Eli Lilly but I can't seem to recall which one it was. He has over 100 articles, some of them in Toxicology journals:
The Know Zone

 

[Queequeg]

Thanks for the reasonable reply.
First off, we're in agreement that you don't want to be taking in unnecessary toxins. But the dose makes the poison. And addiditives like thiomersal have been extensively studied and have not been credibly shown to be harmful at the doses their used at. There may be a conspiracy covering this up, but it's highly unlikely. And these additives serve a purpose. Many of them serve to prevent microbial growth during manufacturing. Thiomersal controversy - Wikipedia.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I think conspiratorial thinking generally makes things much more complicated and therefore unlikely in a world with competing interests and human fallibility.

Thank you for the reasonable debate. Concerning the toxic additives @Travis answered this beautifully. There are much safer alternatives that they could use but they don’t.

Regarding conspiratorial thinking, human history is built on conspiracy. We used to be taught that as a fundamental part of history class. Cui bono was always the first question asked but now we have been purposely dumbed down to think that everything happens by accident. It’s gotten so bad that now just saying the words conspiracy theory is taken as an argument against the possibility of conspiracy. FDR famously said "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." In other words unintended consequences are rarely unintended. Detectives often say that they are not allowed to believe in coincidences; Neither should we.

The stricter definition of polio would certainly cause cases to suddenly drop. But it should only do so on either side of 1954. It's not like the definition kept getting stricter.

And that's just for polio. The only other disease clustering around the 50s was measles. The rest are earlier or later. And there is always a drop off in rates of disease immediately after the vaccine introduction to the masses. You can't just chalk that up to accounting and poor records prior to the 50s.

Polio was just given as an example. I would assume that if they did it to one disease they would have done it with others.

There doesn't seem to be much correlation here once you get rid of the USA. And obviously correlation does not equal causation.

It may be tough to see from the raw data but there is a highly significant correlation between number of vaccines and mortality rates. It has a correlation coefficient of r = 0.7. Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Looking at just children in the US the correlation of adverse events and number of vaccines is even more meaningful r2=0.91. Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990–2010

Yes we agree that correlation doesn’t mean causation though it still is a valuable piece of evidence of a relationship. Correlation is the basis for much of scientific observation as you can't run double blind studies on everything. Dismissing correlations is just as unwise as assuming it proves causation. You do realize that all the graphs you posted as well as the vast majority of pro-vaccine evidence are correlations as well.

 

[jaa]

Thank you for the reasonable debate. Concerning the toxic additives @Travis answered this beautifully. There are much safer alternatives that they could use but they don’t.

I concur. Thanks @Travis for that information!

Still, I don't know the reasoning behind using Thimersol vs other safer alternatives. It could be because Thimersol has a particular effect that the other preservatives don't, or it could be inertia since it's always been used and is viewed as non-toxic.

BTW thimersol is not used in child vaccines any more.

Regarding conspiratorial thinking, human history is built on conspiracy. We used to be taught that as a fundamental part of history class. Cui bono was always the first question asked but now we have been purposely dumbed down to think that everything happens by accident. It’s gotten so bad that now just saying the words conspiracy theory is taken as an argument against the possibility of conspiracy. FDR famously said "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." In other words unintended consequences are rarely unintended. Detectives often say that they are not allowed to believe in coincidences; Neither should we.

Ok, I don't not believe in all conspiracies. Some are much more plausible than others. For example, I believe there is a very good chance that members of Trump's team colluded with Russia. I also believe that detective adage is correct much more than at the governmental level. When more people get involved with varying incentives and fuzzy risks and rewards, the more the conspiracy thing starts to fall apart.

So who is benefiting from adding less harmless preservatives? How are they benefiting?

There could well be theories that make sense out there, but the ones I've seen revolve around dumbing down the population. This doesn't make sense unless you create a shadowy group of elites who control the world who vary over time periods who manage to keep scientists and the people with the knowledge they don't have quiet. This is all very unlikely.

Polio was just given as an example. I would assume that if they did it to one disease they would have done it with others.
It may be tough to see from the raw data but there is a highly significant correlation between number of vaccines and mortality rates. It has a correlation coefficient of r = 0.7. Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Looking at just children in the US the correlation of adverse events and number of vaccines is even more meaningful r2=0.91. Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990–2010

Yes we agree that correlation doesn’t mean causation though it still is a valuable piece of evidence of a relationship. Correlation is the basis for much of scientific observation as you can't run double blind studies on everything. Dismissing correlations is just as unwise as assuming it proves causation. You do realize that all the graphs you posted and all the vast majority of evidence that is pro-vaccines are correlations as well.

That chart should set off alarm bells given how selective it is. I did some digging and someone posted a decent article debunking this study. None of the reasons why this is bunk should be surprising. We often use the same sort of analysis when picking apart poor nutrition studies around here. Here's a few reasons:

- limited the analysis to 2009 data (probably gave them the best "proof")
- artificially pumped up the number of vaccines by counting multivalent vaccines as more than one and other counting inconsistencies
- selective in choosing countries to include in graph
- usa counts IMR differently than other nations which would cause a higher rate (other countries count these as still births)

 

[burtlancast]

Australian Dr Archie Kalokerinos proved back in the sixties and seventies that vaccinations depleted the internal Vit C stores of fragilized infants and triggered the dreaded sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

He started to systematically administer Vit C by IV (by mouth wasn't enough) to these fragilized infants, and his county went from the highest SIDS statistics in the world (every second child !) to the lowest in the world, for as long as he was in practice.

He and Dr Glen Dettman published all these results and statistics, together with the relevant scientific data, in scientific journals and books, accessible to anyone.

Yet to this day, the vaccine industry denies their vaccines can induce SIDS in fragilized infants; SIDS keeps decimating vaccinated communities throughout the globe while it could be easily avoided for the cost of a few intravenous Vit C injections.

Archie Kalokerinos | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - eBooks | Read eBooks online

Infant Twins Die Simultaneously After Vaccines, Medical Board Rules ‘Just a Coincidence’

 

[Queequeg]

I concur. Thanks @Travis for that information!

Still, I don't know the reasoning behind using Thimersol vs other safer alternatives. It could be because Thimersol has a particular effect that the other preservatives don't, or it could be inertia since it's always been used and is viewed as non-toxic.

BTW thimersol is not used in child vaccines any more.



Ok, I don't not believe in all conspiracies. Some are much more plausible than others. For example, I believe there is a very good chance that members of Trump's team colluded with Russia. I also believe that detective adage is correct much more than at the governmental level. When more people get involved with varying incentives and fuzzy risks and rewards, the more the conspiracy thing starts to fall apart.

So who is benefiting from adding less harmless preservatives? How are they benefiting?

There could well be theories that make sense out there, but the ones I've seen revolve around dumbing down the population. This doesn't make sense unless you create a shadowy group of elites who control the world who vary over time periods who manage to keep scientists and the people with the knowledge they don't have quiet. This is all very unlikely.




That chart should set off alarm bells given how selective it is. I did some digging and someone posted a decent article debunking this study. None of the reasons why this is bunk should be surprising. We often use the same sort of analysis when picking apart poor nutrition studies around here. Here's a few reasons:

- limited the analysis to 2009 data (probably gave them the best "proof")
- artificially pumped up the number of vaccines by counting multivalent vaccines as more than one and other counting inconsistencies
- selective in choosing countries to include in graph
- usa counts IMR differently than other nations which would cause a higher rate (other countries count these as still births)

I agree with you that cross country IMR comparisons are difficult for all the reasons you mentioned so let’s put that one study aside. However the second study I posted was done only on children in the United States. This shows a very strong correlation between number of vaccines and adverse events. The relationship is a very high r2=0.95. That is much higher than the relationship of smoking to cancer yet for some reason we never hear about this.

Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990–2010

In this study, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, 1990–2010, was investigated; cases that specified either hospitalization or death were identified among 38,801 reports of infants. Based on the types of vaccines reported, the actual number of vaccine doses administered, from 1 to 8, was summed for each case. Linear regression analysis of hospitalization rates as a function of (a) the number of reported vaccine doses and (b) patient age yielded a linear relationship with r 2 = 0.91 and r 2 = 0.95, respectively. Our findings show a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths. Since vaccines are given to millions of infants annually, it is imperative that health authorities have scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines that infants might receive. Finding ways to increase vaccine safety should be the highest priority.

As for the conspiracy angle lets just agree to disagree. No need to get sidetracked on that. But just to clarify Thimerosol is used in the annual flu vaccine which is now recommended for pregnant women and new borns. Also they didn't really remove all mercury from vaccines but claim that they reduced them to "trace a mounts." Tragically, they also increased the number of recommended vaccines over this time so that the trace amounts in each all add up to more mercury exposure then before. They are very sneaky. mercury. TRACE AMOUNTS – the documentary on mercury and its role in the autism epidemic – “Ten Lies” Told About Mercury in Vaccines
Also when they removed the mercury they added in aluminum which many believe is even worse.

 

[Queequeg]

Australian Dr Archie Kalokerinos proved back in the sixties and seventies that vaccinations depleted the internal Vit C stores of fragilized infants and triggered the dreaded sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

He started to systematically administer Vit C by IV (by mouth wasn't enough) to these fragilized infants, and his county went from the highest SIDS statistics in the world (every second child !) to the lowest in the world, for as long as he was in practice.

He and Dr Glen Dettman published all these results and statistics, together with the relevant scientific data, in scientific journals and books, accessible to anyone.

Yet to this day, the vaccine industry denies their vaccines can induce SIDS in fragilized infants; SIDS keeps decimating vaccinated communities throughout the globe while it could be easily avoided for the cost of a few intravenous Vit C injections.

Archie Kalokerinos | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - eBooks | Read eBooks online

Infant Twins Die Simultaneously After Vaccines, Medical Board Rules ‘Just a Coincidence’

Interesting. You left out the best part though. according to wikipedia
"He also believed that vaccination schemes have been used for deliberate genocide (among indigenous Australians, and in spreading HIV in Africa); and that the US government systematically planned to get rid of undesirables such as criminals by encouraging people with known heart problems to be vaccinated."
of course this was added to convince people he is a quack but I don't see it that way.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

No, two (now retracted) studies purporting to show that vaccinated children are sicker than unvaccinated children show nothing of the sort

 

[Queequeg]

retractions of controversial findings by journals is nothing new. I think it has more to do with pressure from big pharma than anything that is so irredeemably wrong with the study that the editors didn't know when they had accepted it for publication.

Claiming that a survey is not scientifically valid is ridiculous. Surveys are used in medical research all the time. Consumer product firms make billion dollar decision based on surveys and from very small focus groups. If the surveys were not valid these companies would not be using them. There are however many non survey style studies that show the dangers of vaccines and further validate the findings of this survey.

As I mentioned previously, the insistence on double blind randomized studies is just a trick to keep the science under the control of the drug companies. These supposed gold standard studies funded by the drug companies however are typically so flawed that the majority of them cant be duplicated. This is where the real fraud takes place. Mothers of home schooled children and anti-vax researchers don't have anywhere close to the same financial motive to lie like the pro vaccine scientists and companies. Dr. Paul Offit the poster boy for pro vaxxing has made 100s of millions of dollars from his vaccine patent yet people still listen to him like he is an unbiased voice of reason. The double standards and hypocrisy are astonishing.

Btw I just read that the lead author of the study lost his job in 2011 at the University of Mississippi Medical Center because of his work in exposing the dangers of vaccination. That is the real incentive that anti-vax researchers have to deal with.

 

[burtlancast]

Interesting. You left out the best part though. according to wikipedia
"He also believed that vaccination schemes have been used for deliberate genocide (among indigenous Australians, and in spreading HIV in Africa); and that the US government systematically planned to get rid of undesirables such as criminals by encouraging people with known heart problems to be vaccinated."
of course this was added to convince people he is a quack but I don't see it that way.

The best part of Kalokerinos' work lies in his scientific explanations for efficiently preventing vaccines-induced SIDS deaths with the help of intravenous Vit C injections.

It's readily and freely available to any open-minded person interested in preventing vaccine-induced deaths in infants, which are still very much prevalent to this day, as my other article details.

The population-control bit isn't Kalokerinos' initiative; he simply detailed the contents of official 1974 US government documents declassified in 1989 ( National Security Study Memorandum 200 - Wikipedia) calling verbatim for population control in 13 third world countries in the name of US interests.
(particularly problematic with respect to US security interests: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil)
These 13 countries would be guilty of endangering 'US' mineral imports through their increased population growth.
Local governaments have been shown to illegally target women in age of procreation in these countries with the help of sterility and abortion-inducing rogue vaccines, in total disregard for the rule of law and with absolute impunity.
This has been widely documented on the net for years and cannot be challenged.

Similarly, Baxter's 2009 seasonal flu vaccine was discovered to contain the deadly avian flu virus and would have caused a world pandemy of catastrophic proportions, something Baxter has casually denied up to this day, while steadfastly refusing to hold anyone accountable.

2009 Avian flu contamination
In early 2009, samples of viral material supplied by Baxter International to a series of European laboratories were found to be contaminated with live Avian flu virus (Influenza A virus subtype H5N1).[47] Samples of the less harmful seasonal flu virus (subtype H3N2) were found to be mixed with the deadly H5N1 strain after a vaccine made from the material killed test animals in a lab in the Czech Republic. Though the serious consequences were avoided by the lab in the Czech Republic,[48] Baxter then claimed the failed controls over the distribution of the virus were 'stringent' and there was 'little chance' of the lethal virus harming humans.[49]

 

[jaa]

I agree with you that cross country IMR comparisons are difficult for all the reasons you mentioned so let’s put that one study aside. However the second study I posted was done only on children in the United States. This shows a very strong correlation between number of vaccines and adverse events. The relationship is a very high r2=0.95. That is much higher than the relationship of smoking to cancer yet for some reason we never hear about this.

Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990–2010

As for the conspiracy angle lets just agree to disagree. No need to get sidetracked on that. But just to clarify Thimerosol is used in the annual flu vaccine which is now recommended for pregnant women and new borns. Also they didn't really remove all mercury from vaccines but claim that they reduced them to "trace a mounts." Tragically, they also increased the number of recommended vaccines over this time so that the trace amounts in each all add up to more mercury exposure then before. They are very sneaky. mercury. TRACE AMOUNTS – the documentary on mercury and its role in the autism epidemic – “Ten Lies” Told About Mercury in Vaccines
Also when they removed the mercury they added in aluminum which many believe is even worse.

That data sounds scary on the face of it, but the following post does a good job explaining why it's not. It's those same guys from the other study you posted, Goldman and Miller. They have proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/26/some-post-holiday-antivaccine-science/

Again, with the conspiracy - who benefits? How? How have they kept it quiet? A global, fluctuating, elite group that is poisoning the population (people they care about included) in a way that diminishes overall wealth and managing to keep it all quiet (particularly getting the scientific community on board) is wildly unbelievable.

Edit: After reading that scienceblogs post, and seeing how shoddy the evidence you're using is, has your opinion shifted a little? I don't expect you to change your mind outright, but from my perspective you should be a little more doubtful of your position. I don't mean that in a condescending way, I'm genuinely curious, as this seems like a case where someone has been exposed to poor (but convincing) information, and then exposed to information that clearly demonstrates how the once-useful looking information is total bunk.

 

[Queequeg]

That data sounds scary on the face of it, but the following post does a good job explaining why it's not. It's those same guys from the other study you posted, Goldman and Miller. They have proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/26/some-post-holiday-antivaccine-science/

Again, with the conspiracy - who benefits? How? How have they kept it quiet? A global, fluctuating, elite group that is poisoning the population (people they care about included) in a way that diminishes overall wealth and managing to keep it all quiet (particularly getting the scientific community on board) is wildly unbelievable.

Edit: After reading that scienceblogs post, and seeing how shoddy the evidence you're using is, has your opinion shifted a little? I don't expect you to change your mind outright, but from my perspective you should be a little more doubtful of your position. I don't mean that in a condescending way, I'm genuinely curious, as this seems like a case where someone has been exposed to poor (but convincing) information, and then exposed to information that clearly demonstrates how the once-useful looking information is total bunk.

Before you take a bow allow me to point out that all you have done is cherry picked one or two studies out of the many I posted and linked to a blog that very unconvincingly tries to tear them down. Perhaps if you were to show me how all the other studies that I posted are wrong and present unassailable proof that vaccines are safe then I may be more willing to change my mind. So no, even if I take at face value what your blogger has to say on those two studies, I would not change my mind that vaccines as they are currently formulated are extremely dangerous.

But lets have a look at the arguments made to attack those studies. The blogger David Gorski, a Surgical Oncologist is a well known pro-vaxxer who has less than stellar reputation. Both of those blog posts are clear hit pieces with very few real arguments made. Most of it is just one logical fallacy and ad hominem attack after another.

As just a few examples, in the first post his claim that the sample size of 666 children is too small is just a blatant lie. 666 is actually a fairly large sample size for a study. He just makes the claim without any proof knowing that most people don’t know anything about sample size calculations.

In the second attack post, he ridicules the paper for using a particular statistical software package (Prism) saying that it is not robust enough and that he should use a more powerful one that could handle non-linear relationships. This is another lie. If you look at the data it is clearly linear (R2=.91) and even excel would have been strong enough. Also Prism does handle non-linear regression and confounding variables so I don't know what he's talking about. Again most people reading it would assume that he has made a good argument.

His most ridiculous argument though is that the quality of the CDC Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System is suspect, again with zero proof. His reason is that a pro-vax researcher tried to report that a vaccine turned a child into the Incredible Hulk. He later admits that the submission was rejected but hopes the reader won't catch that but will think that the data source is corrupt. Talk about dishonest. Most of his other arguments are about as convincing.

But since Gorski is so keen to attack the motives of another scientist he disagrees with I think it is only fair to add a few links that don’t portray Gorski in such a kind light.

Pro-vaccine shill Dr. David Gorski, linked to cancer fraudster, in cahoots with pharma to develop lucrative autism drug

Unmasking Orac

Clear Proof sciencebasedmedicine.org’s Doctor David Gorski [aka ORAC] Is Dishonest And A Liar – And If You Find A Bigger Gorski Lie To Better This Example Let Us Know

If you want to get into conspiracy I suggest you start with the post by @burtlancast even though it just scratches at the surface of what’s going on. Your main argument against a conspiracy seems to be that you don't understand how it could be kept secret. That is actually just another logical fallacy called argument from ignorance I'm afraid to say. Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean that its not happening. As an example, as a reader of RPF you know full well that real medical knowledge is suppressed and that unhealthy and dangerous recommendations are promoted. This is not kept secret. Secrets are not required when you control the media and can easily ruin the career of anyone who gets out of line. The dangers of vaccines are out in the open but are covered up with massive pro vaccines propaganda, social pressure and hit pieces like the one you linked to. Retribution, intimidation and ostracism does the rest.

So let me turn your question back on you, how is it that you can still maintain that vaccines are safe once Ive shown you the weakness of that pro-vax hit piece and have posted links to many many more anti-vax studies. Again, common sense alone should tell you that injecting mercury, aluminum, other neurotoxins, carcinogens, and human DNA into newborns is not a good idea. On what planet could that possibly be healthy and without consequence. You have yet to explain why thimerosol (50% mercury) is still used even though most researchers admit that it is dangerous. And I am not even getting into the fact that newborns don't have a fully developed immune system and that these early vaccines are probably not doing a whole lot of good anyway. Have a look at what Ray has to say on Vaccines. He is far from thinking that they are worthwhile.

 

[jaa]

Before you take a bow allow me to point out that all you have done is cherry picked one or two studies out of the many I posted and linked to a blog that very unconvincingly tries to tear them down. Perhaps if you were to show me how all the other studies that I posted are wrong and present unassailable proof that vaccines are safe then I may be more willing to change my mind. So no, even if I take at face value what your blogger has to say on those two studies, I would not change my mind that vaccines as they are currently formulated are extremely dangerous.

Sorry, I didn't see the other studies you posted earlier and have been responding to the ones you posted since I joined the thread. They were two studies by the same two authors whose studies you post as evidence. The first critique clearly showed that these two authors were being deliberately deceitful or are completely clueless that sifting through data and selecting a narrow set of data that "proves" the conclusion your aiming for is not evidence of anything. That's not an ad hominen. It's a critique that demonstrates those two authors can not be trusted. It's not a hunch. Or a personal attack. Or alternative facts. It's a description of reality. The "blogger" throws a few ad hominens in there as this isn't the first time he's seen these authors do this. And there either extremely malevolent, or extremely idiotic, and in both cases they're promoting conclusions for which there is no evidence for (at least as they state it) which is very dangerous. The ad hominens in this case seem well deserved and do not negate the argument. Just because someone is not nice, does not mean the logic of their argument falls apart. I understand if you read anti-vax blogs, Gorski is going to have a less than stellar reputation. That's to be expected and means absolutely nothing. You have to deal with his arguments.

What's wrong with this critique in the second post? If you can't point it out, you should be pretty damn suspicious of the data.

Come to think of it, much of what Goldman seems to do involves dumpster-diving the VAERS database, and Goldman and Miller’s latest antics are no exception, as you will see in a moment. The reasons should be obvious: VAERS data are publicly accessible and downloadable, and it’s a passive reporting database to which anyone can report a case as an “adverse event” related to vaccination, whether it actually is related to vaccination or not. For instance, there are famous examples of skeptics opposed to the antivaccine movement that claims that vaccines cause autism entering reports in which it was suggested that vaccines turned someone into the Incredible Hulk or Wonder Woman and had those reports accepted. True, someone from VAERS did contact the author who reported the Hulk reaction, but if he had insisted on leaving the report in the database it would still be there today. Meanwhile the VAERS database has been hopelessly distorted by vaccine litigation in which unscrupulous lawyers have encouraged parents to report autism as an adverse reaction to vaccines. Truly, it cannot be repeated often enough that VAERS is a perfect example of the computer programming maxim: Garbage in, garbage out (GIGO). VAERS was only ever intended to be an early warning system; it was never intended to give accurate estimates of prevalence or incidence that could be followed over time. After all, one can never be sure of the denominator to apply to its reports, and even honest, scrupulous scientists can be tripped up by this. That’s why VAERS, for all its usefulness as an early warning system, is the data source antivaccine activists pretenting to be researchers most love to dumpster dive.

There's a lot more in there than the criticism of VAERS you laid out. Imagine if fructose studies were conducted using data like that. Let alone self reporting data where people have an incentive to report things that aren't there, whether they believe it or not.

I can't comment on your analysis of the statistical stuff. 666 seems like a small number based on what their measuring, but I'll give you that he's wrong about that and the usefulness of linear regression. I don't know, but I just can't argue for or against it.

But that stuff isn't really interesting. The shady data is enough to muddy the results on it's own. Then you see who the authors are and you know they have either untrustworthy motivations, or are incompetent to the point you can't trust their methodology.

I mentioned historical trends, and that is perhaps the worst failing of this paper. Basically, Goldman and Miller grouped together 20 years worth of data. For example, the child mortality rate in the U.S. has been steadily declining since 1960 and has declined significantly since 1990, as has the infant mortality rate. No attempt to control for this appears to have been made, nor has there been an attempt to control for the overall rates of hospitalization over time. Indeed, the authors themselves seem to admit (inadvertently, of course) that they haven’t controlled adequately for confounding variables:

Don't you think this is condemning?

There are more examples, but I'll end with this

Studies have not been conducted? Pretty much every epidemiological study done looks at adverse reactions examines vaccines administered according to the CDC-recommended schedule. This is just another antivaccine trope in which antivaccinationists try to claim that all vaccines must be specifically tested in every combination used in the manner that antivaccinationists think that they should be. As for the finding that younger infants are more likely to be hospitalized or die, well, that’s very likely because SIDS incidence peaks around 3 months, which means that by random chance alone infants in that age range are more likely to be hospitalized after vaccination.

And as alluded to earlier, I don't give much weight to those critics by natural news and other such anti-vax outlets. The language in that first one (e.g. fraudster, shill) is not the type of language I expect from a trustworthy source. It's the language of a site promoting tower 7 conspiracy and peddling other such internet donkery.

Thanks for responding. I'm baffled by your position, but I'm sure mine is equally baffling to you. Funny how people can look at the same evidence and see two completely different things.[/QUOTE]

 

[Queequeg]

Sorry, I didn't see the other studies you posted earlier and have been responding to the ones you posted since I joined the thread. They were two studies by the same two authors whose studies you post as evidence. The first critique clearly showed that these two authors were being deliberately deceitful or are completely clueless that sifting through data and selecting a narrow set of data that "proves" the conclusion your aiming for is not evidence of anything. That's not an ad hominen. It's a critique that demonstrates those two authors can not be trusted. It's not a hunch. Or a personal attack. Or alternative facts. It's a description of reality. The "blogger" throws a few ad hominens in there as this isn't the first time he's seen these authors do this. And there either extremely malevolent, or extremely idiotic, and in both cases they're promoting conclusions for which there is no evidence for (at least as they state it) which is very dangerous. The ad hominens in this case seem well deserved and do not negate the argument. Just because someone is not nice, does not mean the logic of their argument falls apart. I understand if you read anti-vax blogs, Gorski is going to have a less than stellar reputation. That's to be expected and means absolutely nothing. You have to deal with his arguments.

What's wrong with this critique in the second post? If you can't point it out, you should be pretty damn suspicious of the data.



There's a lot more in there than the criticism of VAERS you laid out. Imagine if fructose studies were conducted using data like that. Let alone self reporting data where people have an incentive to report things that aren't there, whether they believe it or not.

I can't comment on your analysis of the statistical stuff. 666 seems like a small number based on what their measuring, but I'll give you that he's wrong about that and the usefulness of linear regression. I don't know, but I just can't argue for or against it.

But that stuff isn't really interesting. The shady data is enough to muddy the results on it's own. Then you see who the authors are and you know they have either untrustworthy motivations, or are incompetent to the point you can't trust their methodology.



Don't you think this is condemning?

There are more examples, but I'll end with this



And as alluded to earlier, I don't give much weight to those critics by natural news and other such anti-vax outlets. The language in that first one (e.g. fraudster, shill) is not the type of language I expect from a trustworthy source. It's the language of a site promoting tower 7 conspiracy and peddling other such internet donkery.

Thanks for responding. I'm baffled by your position, but I'm sure mine is equally baffling to you. Funny how people can look at the same evidence and see two completely different things.

We may have to agree to disagree on these guys. I think the only thing wrong with the Miller Goldman studies are that they are working with very limited funds and obviously can’t afford to do a gold plated randomized double blind placebo controlled study like their critics seem to demand. The IMR study was admittedly a little too simplistic but the VAERS study showed a very strong relationship between number of vaccines and adverse events. Gorski has no credibility with me not because I read anti-vax blogs, but because so many of his charges are demonstrably false.

Have a look at the several other studies in the links below The vaccine industry would have us believe that there are no peer reviewed studies showing any dangers with their product but that is completely false. Here are a few, actually over 50, as a start.
30 solid scientific studies that prove vaccines are linked with autism
Anti-Vaccine Scientific Support Arsenal

Also @Travis posted a lot of good info on safer alternatives to the current slew of toxic adjuvants. Again, tell me why they are using so many known neurotoxins and carcinogens when there are so many safer substance that they could use.