Study: Unvaccinated Children Healthier Than Vaccinated Kids – Doctors Agree

[x-ray peat]

After reading it and reading a critic of that article i am not very impressed of Dr. Perkins conclusions. It seems like another article not backed up with facts. See for example his use of the graph:
Perkins uses this graph to dismiss the effectiveness of polio (he goes on and on about that old story that modern medicine and sanitation ended polio). First of all, he lies about the “actual release” date of the Salk Vaccine. It had been used in clinical trials for at least a year before the vaccine was launched. In fact, nearly 2 million children were vaccinated against polio in 1954, a year prior to the launch, so the effects of vaccine prevention started earlier than Perkins states. But Perkins tries to use this graph to show that polio was decreasing. Furthermore, that’s not an appropriate way to use the graph. The incidence of polio infection is only down for 2 years after a peak, and it’s clear that every 3-4 years, polio incidence peaks again, and every peak was 10-20% greater than the prior peak. When the Salk vaccine was actually introduced in massive clinical trials in 1954, it was a naturally low point of the cycle of polio incidence, and we can easily predict that in 1955-1956, the incidence of polio would have peaked again without the vaccine.

But even if you’re to believe that the disease had decreased by some other means, what was that? Did we suddenly install sanitation in the USA in the three years between 1952 and 1955? I can’t find any evidence that there was a massive investment in the sewage infrastructure of the USA in that time period. Perkins either lacks knowledge of mathematics (and given his lack of knowledge in other sciences, I’m betting on it) or simply wants to lie, but that graphic provides powerful evidence that the 3-4 year cycles of polio outbreaks was crushed, absolutely crushed, by the polio vaccine. And within seven years, polio had nearly been eradicated in the USA.
Shocking news–antivaccine chiropractor ignores science

he has his own agenda. he has created a method "to uncover and address the underlying causes of your illness"
An initial visit cost about 175 dollar. He does not contract with any insurance carriers, of course.

Well if you think that Skeptical Raptor, who works in business development for big Pharma, is a quality unbiased source for medical information, that is your choice.

 

[Peater Piper]

Instead of worrying about minor things like 48k hospitalizations you should start thinking about what is causing the million of cases of autism as well as thousands of other injuries and deaths from vaccinations.

How much has autism increased? How do we know autism wasn't significantly under diagnosed in the past? That's an honest question, and maybe you do have the answer. My father never graduated from high school. He struggled, and was considered stupid. It turns out he's dyslexic, and was never diagnosed until his 50's. He was always dyslexic, but it wasn't picked up back then, but nowadays it would be.

Well if you think that Skeptical Raptor, who works in business development for big Pharma, is a quality unbiased source for medical information, that is your choice.

I think the point is you posted a biased source as well (it's not worth arguing whether they were more or less biased than another source, because that doesn't make it right), and that's not your fault, because I don't know how you could find an unbiased source nowadays. And just to reiterate, I have some serious questions about vaccines, and I don't doubt that at least in some cases, they've led to some very bad outcomes, and I feel we're giving too many in the USA, but some of the anti-vaccine sources I've read seem just as disingenuous as big pharmacy. The ones that suffer are every one, because we're left digging through the facts and misinformation to try to find the truth, and it shouldn't be that way. If I've learned anything form Peat, it's question everything, even the information that seems to align with our beliefs.

 

[Ahanu]

I think the point is you posted a biased source as well (it's not worth arguing whether they were more or less biased than another source, because that doesn't make it right), and that's not your fault, because I don't know how you could find an unbiased source nowadays. And just to reiterate, I have some serious questions about vaccines, and I don't doubt that at least in some cases, they've led to some very bad outcomes, and I feel we're giving too many in the USA, but some of the anti-vaccine sources I've read seem just as disingenuous as big pharmacy. The ones that suffer are every one, because we're left digging through the facts and misinformation to try to find the truth, and it shouldn't be that way. If I've learned anything form Peat, it's question everything, even the information that seems to align with our beliefs.

yes, thank you, nothing to add

 

[x-ray peat]

How much has autism increased? How do we know autism wasn't significantly under diagnosed in the past? That's an honest question, and maybe you do have the answer. My father never graduated from high school. He struggled, and was considered stupid. It turns out he's dyslexic, and was never diagnosed until his 50's. He was always dyslexic, but it wasn't picked up back then, but nowadays it would be.

well that is the first time I have heard that theory.Autism isn't the type of disease that can go undiagnosed. It is pretty obvious and is definitely different from dyslexia. As for rate it has gone from being relatively rare to as high as 1 in 50 kids. The US has the highest number of vaccines given to children and not surprisingly the highest rate of autism in the world.

I think the point is you posted a biased source as well (it's not worth arguing whether they were more or less biased than another source, because that doesn't make it right), and that's not your fault, because I don't know how you could find an unbiased source nowadays. And just to reiterate, I have some serious questions about vaccines, and I don't doubt that at least in some cases, they've led to some very bad outcomes, and I feel we're giving too many in the USA, but some of the anti-vaccine sources I've read seem just as disingenuous as big pharmacy. The ones that suffer are every one, because we're left digging through the facts and misinformation to try to find the truth, and it shouldn't be that way. If I've learned anything form Peat, it's question everything, even the information that seems to align with our beliefs.

That is black and white thinking and doesn't work in a world of gray. I am still unsure what bias can there possibly be with these doctors who speak out against the medical industry that they are a part of. The repercussions are much worse than any benefit that you may think you see.

 

[luke gadget]

After reading it and reading a critic of that article i am not very impressed of Dr. Perkins conclusions. It seems like another article not backed up with facts. See for example his use of the graph:
Perkins uses this graph to dismiss the effectiveness of polio (he goes on and on about that old story that modern medicine and sanitation ended polio). First of all, he lies about the “actual release” date of the Salk Vaccine. It had been used in clinical trials for at least a year before the vaccine was launched. In fact, nearly 2 million children were vaccinated against polio in 1954, a year prior to the launch, so the effects of vaccine prevention started earlier than Perkins states. But Perkins tries to use this graph to show that polio was decreasing. Furthermore, that’s not an appropriate way to use the graph. The incidence of polio infection is only down for 2 years after a peak, and it’s clear that every 3-4 years, polio incidence peaks again, and every peak was 10-20% greater than the prior peak. When the Salk vaccine was actually introduced in massive clinical trials in 1954, it was a naturally low point of the cycle of polio incidence, and we can easily predict that in 1955-1956, the incidence of polio would have peaked again without the vaccine.

But even if you’re to believe that the disease had decreased by some other means, what was that? Did we suddenly install sanitation in the USA in the three years between 1952 and 1955? I can’t find any evidence that there was a massive investment in the sewage infrastructure of the USA in that time period. Perkins either lacks knowledge of mathematics (and given his lack of knowledge in other sciences, I’m betting on it) or simply wants to lie, but that graphic provides powerful evidence that the 3-4 year cycles of polio outbreaks was crushed, absolutely crushed, by the polio vaccine. And within seven years, polio had nearly been eradicated in the USA.
Shocking news–antivaccine chiropractor ignores science

Studying the claim that diseases like measles (other studies than this one) were going away on their own (and that therefore vaccines don't do anything) is very illuminating.

All the claims seem to depend on just a couple graphs of "CDC data" (and it is - mostly) that show the decline in disease from about the 20's or so, dropping steadily (the sanitation claim) to recent years and a mark showing when the vaccine was introduced. Very clearly you can see that the already low disease rate is unchanged.

I've heard many people say they "did research" and this graph was the final proof they needed.

The problem is, everything said about it is fake. It cherry picks a starting date, it showed "death by disease" (not infection rates) and it changes its topic in the middle of discussion (when does "death by disease" mean the same thing as "measles infection rates"?).

Picking a start date right around WWI means starting with a huge death from disease rate, which necessitates cramming the interesting point of time into a tiny, nearly meaningless scale. Using "death by disease" establishes numbers that swamp out any meaningful information about measles infections.

However, using the same CDC data one can zoom in to the introduction of the vaccine - and at a meaningful scale it's very clear there's a huge drop-off in infection rates immediately after.

There night be and likely are issues with vaccines. But as long as one is basing certain belief entirely on phony information like this (a classic case of "how to lie with statistics"), it makes it nearly impossible to know what the problems really are, much less how to fix them.

 

[luke gadget]

It's not a false equivalency. Dr. Kurtz dismissed all complications outside of polio and basically said if it doesn't kill you then it's not a concern. There is no evidence that measles vaccinations reduced the 48k hospitalizations per year? Measles deaths by the time of the vaccination were already close to zero. Sanitation had already played its part. That was Kurt's point. Yet there were still 48k hospitalizations annually during the years he claimed measles had become moot. Now, on average, there's less than 100 reported measles cases per year, and the majority of them are the result of importations, people that had not been vaccinated. I didn't even get into the other diseases, and I'm not going to, but if you're avoiding all vaccinations, then you need to consider the complications of all diseases.

None of this is a defense of what the CDC and medical community do by skewing information, but the other side does it as well. ALL sources should be questioned. ALL information should be supplied, so everyone can make the decision they feel is best.

I'm 34, my vaccinations are done. When I have children I'll need to make a decision. Polio is generally harmless. If I have a child that's part of the <2% that has a complication that causes permanent disability, will I be able to live with it? If I choose to get them vaccinated, and they have a serious complication, will I be able to live with it? I don't feel like it's as nearly cut and dried as either side wants to make it seem. We're over-vaccinated for sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean all vaccinations need to be avoided. It's a decision we're all going to have to make as individuals, and hopefully more information will continue to come forth so that we'll know the true risks (and rewards) of vaccinations.

Fyi the autism rebuttal made after your comment is crass bullcrap.

And note that I'm replying to you not to them, since engaging directly against misinformation is an utter waste of time. I would prefer to keep it that way btw: if someone doesn't like what I say, just google it and think about it. Attacking me doesn't accomplish anything.

Anyway there were two significant events that made autism numbers spike: a researcher went back to the original work discussed by Asperger, and ultimately changed the criterea for diagnosing autism, while simultaneously making it a household word. Until then most people had never even heard of "autism".

The other of course was Andrew Wakefield, who "diagnosed" just a dozen children (I understand he never even met them personally) and colluding with a litigation firm falsified data to bring lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies. It was a scam to make money. There is a LOT of documentation on this (which is utterly dismissed, of course, as a conspiracy), and Wakefield should have gone to jail. Instead he enjoys a handsome living on the lecture circuit.

But actual data linking vaccines to autism? It simply doesn't exist. There are opinion pieces, blog posts, "experts" - but there is no data. There have been a LOT of studies showing no link - but those were all done by evil scientists apparently and dismissed as more conspiracy.

There was even a "perfect" study paid for by an autism group to prove a link using an independent researcher. They took monkeys with a genetic predisposition toward autism and gave them vaccines at the riskiest time. The preliminary data implied a link and the autism group crowed with congratulatory press releases. But the final data confirmed NO link - and the results were dismissed, the researcher's reputation attacked and the study buried. So much for caring about The Truth.

I can provide some links if there's serious interest. I usually don't bother anymore since it's like Charlie Brown kicking Lucy's football - whatever I post it's dismissed as conspiracy and nobody bothers to actually read aanything. And, it's so freaking easy to google and find honest information, and if someone isn't willing to try that then what could any studies I post do?

 

[x-ray peat]

The problem is, everything said about it is fake. It cherry picks a starting date, it showed "death by disease" (not infection rates) and it changes its topic in the middle of discussion (when does "death by disease" mean the same thing as "measles infection rates"?).

Picking a start date right around WWI means starting with a huge death from disease rate, which necessitates cramming the interesting point of time into a tiny, nearly meaningless scale. Using "death by disease" establishes numbers that swamp out any meaningful information about measles infections.

However, using the same CDC data one can zoom in to the introduction of the vaccine - and at a meaningful scale it's very clear there's a huge drop-off in infection rates immediately after.

I am not saying that vaccines don't work at all, but am saying that the risks they cause due to the use of mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde etc as adjuvants are much worse than any benefit derived from them.

Here is a chart that starts at 1900, not WW1 and the same trend still holds. Also only focusing on the tiny period after vaccinations were introduced is much more dishonest as it hides the bigger context of what was really going in the history of the disease. Its the same as Global warming alarmists how like to focus on temperature rise after 1900 but completely omit the equally large temperature rise in the 1800s well before the industrial age or temperatures on a geologic scale which show that both temperatures and CO2 levels are closer to their lowest historical points. Presenting data on an extremely limited scale is the easiest method of "how to lie with statistics"

 

[x-ray peat]

Fyi the autism rebuttal made after your comment is crass bullcrap.

And note that I'm replying to you not to them, since engaging directly against misinformation is an utter waste of time. I would prefer to keep it that way btw: if someone doesn't like what I say, just google it and think about it. Attacking me doesn't accomplish anything.

Anyway there were two significant events that made autism numbers spike: a researcher went back to the original work discussed by Asperger, and ultimately changed the criterea for diagnosing autism, while simultaneously making it a household word. Until then most people had never even heard of "autism".

The other of course was Andrew Wakefield, who "diagnosed" just a dozen children (I understand he never even met them personally) and colluding with a litigation firm falsified data to bring lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies. It was a scam to make money. There is a LOT of documentation on this (which is utterly dismissed, of course, as a conspiracy), and Wakefield should have gone to jail. Instead he enjoys a handsome living on the lecture circuit.

But actual data linking vaccines to autism? It simply doesn't exist. There are opinion pieces, blog posts, "experts" - but there is no data. There have been a LOT of studies showing no link - but those were all done by evil scientists apparently and dismissed as more conspiracy.

There was even a "perfect" study paid for by an autism group to prove a link using an independent researcher. They took monkeys with a genetic predisposition toward autism and gave them vaccines at the riskiest time. The preliminary data implied a link and the autism group crowed with congratulatory press releases. But the final data confirmed NO link - and the results were dismissed, the researcher's reputation attacked and the study buried. So much for caring about The Truth.

I can provide some links if there's serious interest. I usually don't bother anymore since it's like Charlie Brown kicking Lucy's football - whatever I post it's dismissed as conspiracy and nobody bothers to actually read aanything. And, it's so freaking easy to google and find honest information, and if someone isn't willing to try that then what could any studies I post do?

“It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know for sure that ain't so" Mark Twain

By all means Charlie Brown, keep taking your annual flu shots thinking that mercury and aluminum injected directly into the bloodstream is a good idea and comes without consequences. If you want to hear what a real scientist thinks about vaccines then listen to the below. Or is it that you only listen to things you already know for sure.

 

[luke gadget]

only focusing on the tiny period after vaccinations were introduced is much more dishonest as it hides the bigger context of what was really going in the history of the disease

They give you different information. If you want to know what happened at the point of introduction you don't need to also show 80 years of "context". That's like studying the effect any substance - say LSD - where you need to show a useful amount of 'before' and then after - but you don't need to include the history of mental illness since the middle ages.

 

[luke gadget]

“It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know for sure that ain't so" Mark Twain”

By all means Charlie Brown, keep taking your annual flu shots thinking that mercury and aluminum injected directly into the bloodstream is a good idea and comes without consequences. If you want to hear what a real scientist thinks about vaccines then listen to the below. Or is it that you only listen to things you already know for sure.

Happy to, thanks. I do every year.

 

[x-ray peat]

They give you different information. If you want to know what happened at the point of introduction you don't need to also show 80 years of "context". That's like studying the effect any substance - say LSD - where you need to show a useful amount of 'before' and then after - but you don't need to include the history of mental illness since the middle ages.

That's a nice straw man.

 

[Nova]

Meanwhile autism has gone from being a relatively rare disease to now affecting 1 in 50 kids. I'd take my and my future kids chances with measles, mumps and rubella any day.

How much has autism increased? How do we know autism wasn't significantly under diagnosed in the past?

The diagnostic standards for autism and related conditions have changed. Also, modern western countries now have some forms of universal health care available to children at the bottom rungs of society that wasn't available in past days. Which means that more children are being diagnosed with said conditions.

We can't say that the rates of occurrence have increased, because we don't have an accurate way to measure such things. I find it likely that the rates were the same. Perhaps even higher in eras before enriched food, prenatal vitamins, widespread prenatal care, etc. It just so happened that many (most) children with these conditions were not visible in society prior to affirmative action and special education programs in public schools. Children and adults with intellectual disabilities were often institutionalized for life. (The film "A Child Is Waiting", starring Judy Garland, is an example of what I'm talking about.)

Now, all but the most severe cases live in normal homes, are cared for family, go to public schools and are much more visible. We see them more and say "Well, why are so many kids nowadays "special" or "on the spectrum"?

Vaccines are but one possible player in this dilemma, IMHO. I think some of it is social in nature. Some children never have a strong chance of becoming healthy, productive citizens due to their social environment. Here in the US, our culture/society is beyond effed up. Especially among the growing underclass masses of which I am a product. I've seen what happens when Mommy is a teenager who abused drugs during her pregnancy and places a higher priority on getting her next fix than she does on making sure Junior has good food to eat or a safe place to sleep. Or what happens when Mommy is working two jobs to keep things afloat and is leaving Junior with whoever can take him for the day or night.

That sort of thing has a more profound effect on a growing child than most are willing to admit, I think. Increasing levels of mental/social disorder like autism are a signal of cultural decay on some level. Are we willing to acknowledge that sort of thing? Not really. It's just class warfare. Write off the losses and move on.

I also find it a bit off that the comparisons of vaccinated kids to unvaccinated kids are mostly limited to just the factor of vaccination. As if that is the only thing that impacts immunity, health, growth, development. There are vast differences between the lifestyles of those who choose not to vaccinate vs. those who do.

Once again, it's a class thing. Non-vaccination is a first world privilege obtained by a certain class of folks who are able to shield themselves from the possible consequences of their decisions thanks to herd immunity. Basically, using the vaccinated herds as a human shields against the risk of disease to an extent. Not a judgement, btw. Just an observation.

Of course, hygiene and sanitation play roles here too. But the biggest factor often overlooked IMO is that we moved away from rural lifestyles where we lived and worked alongside livestock. Many of the diseases we vaccinate against originated in livestock. They only took root when agricultural society took over and they really only thrive in areas where there are high levels of cross-contamination between livestock and humans, combined with lowered levels of personal hygiene and/or public sanitation.

Upthread there were discussions about how the rates of some diseases were on the decline around the turn of the century and certainly by the 1950s. What else happened during this time? The birth and spread of modern transportation. Prior to the 1920s-30s, horses were used as transport in many places and this meant lots of horse crap in the streets, breeding disease.

 

[yerrag]

Fact-checkers, help!

Herd immunity. True or false.

Rates of autism- decreased. True or false.

Ray Peat Forum being invaded by shills. True or False.

 

[x-ray peat]

Fact-checkers, help!

Herd immunity. True or false.

Rates of autism- decreased. True or false.

Ray Peat Forum being invaded by shills. True or False.

I think it only shows the power of state sponsored propaganda where we no longer can think for ourselves but have to look to experts to tell us what to think.

 

[Waynish]

Just look at how the immune system is harnessed non-specifically in these vaccines. Then look at the gut-related issues in most modern autism. Then look at most autistic folk's gut physiology and how it responds to dietary change. Then look at how change in gut physiology relates to behavioral change... Is this fallacious to anyone here?
How is injecting adjuvants and food-ingredients into the bloodstream at the same time still legal? If I wanted to design - from an immunology standpoint - an effective method to make someone allergic to a food, then I would get adjuvants (which ramp up the immune system non-specifically) and food projects (like peanut oil, chicken egg yolks, etc) and inject them into the blood at the same time.

 

[michael94]

Just look at how the immune system is harnessed non-specifically in these vaccines. Then look at the gut-related issues in most modern autism. Then look at most autistic folk's gut physiology and how it responds to dietary change. Then look at how change in gut physiology relates to behavioral change... Is this fallacious to anyone here?
How is injecting adjuvants and food-ingredients into the bloodstream at the same time still legal? If I wanted to design - from an immunology standpoint - an effective method to make someone allergic to a food, then I would get adjuvants (which ramp up the immune system non-specifically) and food projects (like peanut oil, chicken egg yolks, etc) and inject them into the blood at the same time.

Why inject into the blood? Sounds like a great way to cause injury ( and it is ). Better option would be to take orally. The whole basis of urine therapy ( besides recycling some b vitamins, taurine, etc. ) is that it introduces problems to the gut bacteria which can then make antibodies. Most of are immune system is in there after all. Gut bacteria are also the major reason why enterohepatic circulation of toxins/nutrients is possible.

 

[Waynish]

Why inject into the blood? Sounds like a great way to cause injury ( and it is ). Better option would be to take orally. The whole basis of urine therapy ( besides recycling some b vitamins, taurine, etc. ) is that it introduces problems to the gut bacteria which can then make antibodies. Most of are immune system is in there after all. Gut bacteria are also the major reason why enterohepatic circulation of toxins/nutrients is possible.

I recommend reading about Pasteur's experimentation and vaccine development techniques. I don't think orally would work. They don't want to improve the immune system; they want to justify their lock-key specificity ideology by hacking together a "one vaccine per pathogen" work-around for the laborious chore of keeping an organism healthy.

 

[PakPik]

Interesting data on the Philippines... @yerrag

Hygiene plays a huge role...

And (probably) the greatest health booster of the 20th century was ...

You guys may be interested in reading pages 18,19 and 20 of the quoted book The Survival Factor In Neoplastic And Viral Diseases William Koch : William Frederick Koch : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[michael94]

I recommend reading about Pasteur's experimentation and vaccine development techniques. I don't think orally would work. They don't want to improve the immune system; they want to justify their lock-key specificity ideology by hacking together a "one vaccine per pathogen" work-around for the laborious chore of keeping an organism healthy.

O yes very spot on. The body doesn't know ahead of time about these poisons so the antibodies are only in response to the damage they do. Real immunity has very little to do with antibody creation from a poisonous injection!

 

[amethyst]

Why inject into the blood? Sounds like a great way to cause injury ( and it is ). Better option would be to take orally. The whole basis of urine therapy ( besides recycling some b vitamins, taurine, etc. ) is that it introduces problems to the gut bacteria which can then make antibodies. Most of are immune system is in there after all. Gut bacteria are also the major reason why enterohepatic circulation of toxins/nutrients is possible.

Good question. Why inject the blood? It's not necessary for prospering health. Let's ask Bill Gates, one of the biggest proponents of vaccinations, especially in third world countries who have access to few health resources (all by design of course) let's ask him if he is vaccinating his own children. I highly doubt he does. Funny tho, karma's a real b**** for those who knowingly promote evil practices.