Why this vaxed v. unvaxed study is not valid: Update: Study retracted AGAIN.

Update: This study has been retracted for the second time. 

 

For the last few days, people opposed to vaccines have been posting a link to a study called Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S. children. The lead author is Jackson State, MS, University professor, Anthony R. Mawson. This study is not valid and here is why.

15541187_10154826209994099_3586931335203914401_n

First of all, I need to explain what is meant by validity and reliability, with regards to science.  The University of California, Davis, has a very good synopsis. “In order for research data to be of value and of use, they must be both reliable and valid.” Reliability refers to how well the findings of the study can be repeated. If a study was done in a manner that is objective and well-executed, then other scientists should be able to repeat (or replicate) it and get the same findings. Validity refers to the believability of the research.  How well do the findings answer the study hypothesis.  There is internal validity, which refers to how well the procedures in the study measured what they were supposed to measure. And, there is external validity, which refers to how well the findings can be generalized.

So, in an ideal study of children’s health, we would not need to take the researcher’s word for anything. The data would be reliable because all claims would be verified. For example, if the the study claims that 5% of children got colds twice a year or more, it would be reliable data if the researchers used the children’s medical records to determine how many colds they had a year. We would know that the data had been compiled by the children’s healthcare providers and analyzed by the researchers. Nothing would be left to interpretation.

But, if we just ask parents, how many colds a year do you think your child has had, those answers are not necessarily reliable because parents don’t always know the difference between a cold and influenza or allergies. And, they would not be basing their answers on data they collected but rather memories. Memories are notoriously inaccurate.

That brings us to the Mawson study.  First of all, you need to know that there was an attempt to publish this study last year but the methods the study used and the fact that there were only two peer reviewers ( one being a chiropractor) caused alarm in the scientific community. The journal pulled the study before publication.  Many of us found out this was happening from Retraction Watch, a very interesting source to follow if you like reading about how science works and how studies are monitored.  Based solely upon the abstract, the study was criticized by many, including Respectful Insolence blog.

I must take a moment to point out that I homeschool one of my children so I am not biased in any way towards homeschooling. 

At Respectful Insolence blog, ORAC (aka Dr David Gorski, oncologist) rightfully criticized the methodology of the study as well as the fact that a chiropractor was used to peer review an epidemiology study. Chiropractors are not the peers of epidemiologists. ORAC also noted that this study was funded by Generation Rescue, a notoriously antivax group.

These are problems. Real problems. So, the original journal, Frontiers, took note and pulled the study.

Now, months later, the study has been published in a pay-to-publish journal online called Open Access Text. Reputable scientists don’t pay to publish their studies. Journals like Pediatrics or Vaccines or The Lancet don’t require authors to pay and they are considered far more respectable when it comes to considering authors for professorship positions. Scientists know these facts. They know that publishing in a predatory journal is not a good career move.

So, what happened after this study was pulled by Frontiers? It was submitted to Open Access Text, a predatory, pay-to-publish online journal, and published this week. And it is being spammed everywhere as a valid study.

It is not valid and here is why.

One: It was funded by two known antivax groups, Generation Rescue, Inc., and the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI).  Both are well know to be opposed to vaccines. CMSRI is funded by the Dwoskin Foundation, who are big money behind a lot of antivax operations. This does not negate the results, by any means, but it does beg the question – what was the motivation for the study. By the same token, I would look very skeptically at any study published by a pharmaceutical company.

Two: Read the introduction. The authors went into the study assuming vaccines cause grave harm. ” The aims of this study were 1) to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children on a broad range of health outcomes, including acute and chronic conditions, medication and health service utilization, and 2) to determine whether an association found between vaccination and NDDs, if any, remained significant after adjustment for other measured factors.”  That is serious bias.

Three: The study design was flawed. “The study was designed as a cross-sectional survey of homeschooling mothers on their vaccinated and unvaccinated biological children ages 6 to 12. As contact information on homeschool families was unavailable, there was no defined population or sampling frame from which a randomized study could be carried out, and from which response rates could be determined. However, the object of our pilot study was not to obtain a representative sample of homeschool children but a convenience sample of unvaccinated children of sufficient size to test for significant differences in outcomes between the groups.”  Right from the start, Mawson, et al, admit that they aren’t really able to do a good, quality study.  “A number of homeschool mothers volunteered to assist NHERI promote the study to their wide circles of homeschool contacts.”   This is also problematic. They had participants promoting the study to their own friends. How did they account for bias? They did not.

Four: Methods were flawed. The authors categorized the children as unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, or fully vaccinated based only on word of the mothers. They did not consult medical records. Mothers were then asked to indicate which illnesses their child had had but no medical records were consulted. This data was analyzed statistically but how can they analyze data they have not verified as accurate? They purposely did not use medical records because they said that would have led to low participation.

Five: The limitations. Oh my, the limitations. “We did not set out to test a specific hypothesis about the association between vaccination and health.”  So, this was not even science.

So, what does all this mean? It means we cannot validate the information the mothers gave is accurate or real. It means none of the data in this study means anything, because no one would ever be able to completely replicate it. They would never be able to go back in and find all the same anonymous mothers and guarantee the same answers from them. This kind of survey does not add anything of value to the body of literature on children’s health. Honestly, I could have done better as a freshman in college, in my introduction to research methods and statistical analysis class.

If you want a real, valid, reliable study on vaccinated versus unvaccinated, the KIGGS study is the place to go. Because the researchers used not only a parent survey but also a “standardized, computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) of the accompanying parent by a doctor,” this data can be verified as authentic. That is reliability. This study could be repeated. Children’s vaccination status was documented. “The questions about diseases were followed by data collection on the basis of medical records in the vaccination card, about data concerning the administered vaccinations and the timing of the vaccination”  So, everything was verified. KIGGS is everything this new study is not. There is no reason whatsoever to think this new study is anything but bunk.

Remember, always verify claims and always think for yourself,

Kathy

Updated2: Other bloggers have been tackling this study and since their blogs are just as good as mine, I would like to share. Please check them out.

 

KidNurse: THE TRUTH ABOUT VACCINATED VS UNVACCINATED

Respectful Insolence: A boatload of fail: Were two horrendously bad zombie “vaxed/antivaxed” studies retracted—again?

Respectful Insolence: The Mawson “vaxed/unvaxed” study retraction: The antivaccine movement reacts with tears of unfathomable sadness

Respectful Insolence: The check must have finally cleared, or: Mawson’s incompetent “vaxed/unvaxed” study is back online

Snopes: ‘First Ever’ Study Comparing Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children Shows Harm from Vaccines?

Science Based Medicine: Two (now retracted) studies purporting to show that vaccinated children are sicker than unvaccinated children show nothing of the sort

I Speak of Dreams: About Those “Homeschooled, Unvaccinated Children are Healthier” Studies.

532 thoughts on “Why this vaxed v. unvaxed study is not valid: Update: Study retracted AGAIN.

  1. In the KIGGS study you are reffering to it was practicaly impossible to get a significant difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated because the sample size for unvaccinated was so small. And than they divided this group into 3 subgroups. On the graphs you can see, there might be an assotiation, but ofcourse, there is no way with such a small group the difference is significant.

    Like

    • The KIGGS study is still much more scientifically valid that Mawson’s cherry picked self-reporting phone survey. There was no checking medical records.

      Like

      • How can it be valid if the only possible outcome of this study was that the difference is not statisticaly significant. This is a real bias.
        The difference a couple of moms laying cold make to the mawson study is nothing compared to the bias in kiggs study. I mean, just look at the graph. The sd in unvaccinated practicaly covers the whole graph.

        Like

      • I don’t think you understand bias. Mawson study was retracted TWICE because they did not confirm any of the data. KIGGS was able to confirm data with medical records. Huge difference.

        Like

      • Don’t get me wrong, the Mawson study has its setbacks, but KiGGS study is just as bad if not more so. Everybody ever doing any statistics knows, you have to compare at least app. same size groups.

        Like

      • All I am getting from this reply is: ” I’ve just lost this debate, so lets try to move the debate to autism (that wasn’t even part of a debate), maybe nobody will notice.

        Like

      • The problem is that you can only get so many subjects. It does not matter if it is as statistically significant to your standards. As you note it does not make Mawson’s better. But it still showed that the only difference between the two groups is that the kids who were not vaccinated got more vaccine preventable diseases.

        Of course we never just take the results of one study. We check to see if the there is agreement over several, like this meta study:
        http://autismoevaccini.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/vaccines-are-not-associated-with-autism.pdf

        “The difference a couple of moms laying cold make to the mawson study is nothing compared to the bias in kiggs study.”

        Um, yeah, sure… you go with that.

        Like

      • You are as ignorant as the main writer, she suggests that this study is flawed for 2 essential reasons 1. It was backed by anti Vax people ..HELLO.. what the hell do you think all the other studies are backed by ..DER.. pharmaceutical companies ie vaccine manufacturers/profiteers.. and..
        2. when I clicked hrr other link, she talks about how proud she is of being a homeschool mother and that all these home schoolers are so genuine and and the most loving people on Earth and then she criticises them for not being able to give proper details to someone making out the survey ??because this parent survey as it’s called is not valid because it only asked for the Mother’s personsl input ie the Mother’s which she says are the most loving and and genuine people on Earth ..so on one hand they’re amazing but on the other hand there are unreliable …?? Oh okay ..because that’s what suits your argument..?? come on, bugger me.. that’s just so stupid….. talk about unreliable data!!!!!
        You’re not scientific at all you are scientistic go and study psychology and stop producing fallacious arguments.

        Like

      • Being backed by Dwoskin foundation is a conflict of interest. Do you understand COIs?

        I homeschooled two years. I never posted anything related to what you are saying about homeschoolers.

        Like

      • “because this parent survey as it’s called is not valid because it only asked for the Mother’s personsl input..”

        It is a self-selected survey based on one person’s memory, without actually checking the medical records. This is a very specific kind of selection bias that casts doubt on the data. One reason why “click it” Internet surveys are not scientific. It is basic Statistics 101:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

        “..pharmaceutical companies ie vaccine manufacturers/profiteers.. ”

        Wrong, most of the vaccine epidemiological studies are done by public health agencies in several countries. For instance, the KIGGS study was done by “Abteilung Epidemiologie und Gesundheitsberichterstattung”, or according to Google Translate: Department of Epidemiology and Health Reporting. Then there are several done in the USA, UK, Finland, Denmark, Japan, etc… and they all pretty much came to the same conclusion:
        Vaccine. 2014 Jun 17;32(29):3623-9.
        Vaccines are not associated with autism: an evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies.

        Health departments are working to prevent the spending of tax dollars, and disease outbreaks tend to be very expensive. So is taking care of persons who are permanently disabled by encephalitis, meningitis, etc. Though if you feel that it is cheaper to treat measles, pertussis, Hib, etc instead of preventing them, then please provide us the economic analysis that goes counter to this:
        Pediatrics. 2014 Apr;133(4):577-85.
        Economic Evaluation of the Routine Childhood Immunization Program in the United States, 2009.

        Again, if you are dissatisfied with the studies presented, then go do one yourself.

        Design the study, make sure it complies with the Belmont Report, get it approved by an IRB and then write a grant for funding. Submit that grant to various funding sources. Some suggestions would be SafeMinds or the Dwoskin Family Foundation. Though beware: they tend get very dismayed when the results do not fit their agenda.

        Like

    • That is because there are very few 100% unvaccinated children, particularly in the healthcare system. Many antivaxers don’t take their children to and Md when they are sick.

      This is a valid study. Deal with it.

      Like

      • “Deal with it.”

        If you are dissatisfied with the studies presented, then go do one yourself.

        Design the study, make sure it complies with the Belmont Report, get it approved by an IRB and then write a grant for funding. Submit that grant to various funding sources. Some suggestions would be SafeMinds or the Dwoskin Family Foundation. Though beware: they tend get very dismayed when the results do not fit their agenda.

        Liked by 1 person

      • And why would parents be afraid to take their unvaccinated to the good doctor? Maybe because these doctors identify as hysterical vaxxers?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Too often, they are bullied by doctors.

        And doctors who don’t are bullied by the medical board.

        Restore freedom NOW!

        Like

      • “You just proved my point”

        No, I did not. You are simply making up sh*t. You prove my point that pro vaxxers are crazy people. It’s a mental disease. You mind is fogged. You cannot reason.

        Like

      • Forcing treatment on healthy people is not care, it’s fascism.

        You are proving again that vaxxism is a mental disease

        Like

      • No, that’s the fake definition invented by fascistic teachers to hide the fact that the program of the left is fascistic.

        Like

      • So they have the right to consult a medical doctor that dismisses “vaccine science” as a gigantic fraud, of the same size as climate science?

        They have the right to consult a medical doctor that has been excluded by the medical board?

        You are simply making of sh*t.

        Like

      • “In the USA, doctors who have lost their licenses cannot practice medicine.”

        So, fascism it is.

        Thank you for proving my point.

        Now that have proven my point, we can move to another more interesting topic.

        Like

      • “who does not meet standards”

        What standard?

        Hiding the fact that the hep B vaccine caused an abominable health crisis is a standard?

        Like

      • “You are simply making of sh*t.”

        You are still not making any sense.

        Even though the Dr. Geier was stripped of his medical license and his son was fined for practicing medicine without a license they are still pushing their nonsense on the vulnerable kids of desperate parents.

        “Restore freedom NOW!”

        How did that freedom help Natalie? She is dead:
        http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2011/10/so-predictable-so-sad-natalie-dies-of.html

        I guess you don’t care about kids who die because one of your freedom loving fools infects other kids. Perhaps you are just giddy at the thought of kids getting sick because you relish their suffering. Mortality is just a way for you to get more freedom!

        Like

      • “Even though the Dr. Geier was stripped of his medical license”

        Which proves my point.
        Which proves my other point: vaxxers are mentally ill. They literally make other’s people points will trying to debunk them.

        Like

      • simple-touriste: “Forcing treatment on healthy people is not care, it’s fascism.”

        Um, where does this happen? It does not happen in the USA. The only vaccine requirements are for school attendance, and there are many ways to get out of that.

        In most states you can get an exemption, go to private school or homeschool. Even in states with more strict rules one is allowed to homeschool.

        So exactly how did this “freedom” protect Natalie… or do you not care about kids who died from SSPE?

        Like

      • simple-touriste: “So, fascism it is.”

        Geier lost his medical license and his son was fined for pretending to be a doctor because the harms they did to mistreating kids was reported by their parents. They were turned in by those who saw their kids get hurt.

        It seems you are happy those kids were harmed and upset that the Geiers got caught? Why do you hate children?

        Like

      • “Geier lost his medical license and his son was fined for pretending to be a doctor”

        I do not know nor care about the particular case of licence revocation you are mentioning. They may have been dishonest and caused harm, or maybe not.

        The fact that one needs a “licence” (for a private business) is the fascistic part. It doesn’t matter what wrong was done in your example. The fact that the state gives and revokes licences is quintessential fascism. It’s state controlled healthcare, the thing phony conservatives pretend to oppose (while supporting it).

        If someone misrepresents his earned diplomas, it’s fraud (false advertising, whatever).

        When the state revokes a diploma-licence, it’s fraud too. The person still earned the thing. (Whatever its value is.)

        “It seems you are happy those kids were harmed and upset that the Geiers got caught?”

        It seems that you don’t care that the number of MS cases went from 30000 to 80000 in France, many being young people. You don’t care about crippling children or teens.

        Like

      • I am trying to understand how the data leads to the results. Could you please explain?

        From the KiGGS study:

        “The lifetime prevalence of diseases preventable by vaccination was markedly higher in unvaccinated than in vaccinated subjects. Unvaccinated children aged 1–5 years had a median number of 3.3 (2.1–4.6) infectious diseases in the past year, compared to 4.2 (4.1–4.4) in vaccinated children. Among 11- to 17-year-olds, the corresponding figures were 1.9 (1.0–2.8) (unvaccinated) versus 2.2 (2.1–2.3) (vaccinated). The lifetime prevalence of at least one atopic disease among 1- to 5-year-olds was 12.6% (5.0%–28.3%) in unvaccinated children and 15.0% (13.6%–16.4%) in vaccinated children. In older children, atopy was more common, but its prevalence was not found to depend on vaccination status: among 6- to 10-year-olds, the prevalence figures were 30.1% (12.9%–55.8%) for unvaccinated children versus 24.4% (22.8%–26.0%) for vaccinated children, and the corresponding figures for 11- to 17-year-olds were 20.3% (10.1%–36.6%) versus 29.9% (28.4%–31.5%).”

        3.3 is actually smaller than 4.2, right?
        and
        1.9 is smaller than 2.2, right?
        and
        12.6% is smaller than 15%, right?
        and
        20.3% is smaller than 29.9%, right?

        But the lifetime prevalence of diseases preventable by vaccination was markedly higher in unvaccinated than vaccinated? Please tell me what I’m missing?

        Like

      • The vaccinated had minor infections while the vaccinated had major. Scroll further down the study to see the actual infections and rates.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/

        “The proportion of children and adolescents who had had pertussis, measles, mumps, and/or rubella was much higher in unvaccinated children than in those who had been vaccinated against the respective disease to a sufficient extent. For pertussis, the lifetime prevalence in unvaccinated subjects was 15.8% (95% CI 8.5 to 27.6, n = 11), in those with sufficient vaccination cover only 2.3% (95% CI 2.0 to 2.8), n = 184). For measles, the lifetime prevalence was 15.0 (95% CI 7.7 to 27.4, n = 10) in unvaccinated subjects and 5.2% (95% CI 4.7 to 5.8, n = 431) in sufficiently vaccinated ones. For mumps, the lifetime prevalence in unvaccinated subjects was 9.6% (95% CI 4.2 to 20.2, n = 7) and in vaccinated ones, 3.1% (95% CI 2.6 to 3.7, n = 305). For rubella, the lifetime prevalence was 17.0% (95% CI 9.4 to 29.0, n = 11) for unvaccinated subjects and 6.8% (95% CI 6.0 to 7.6, n = 642) for vaccinated ones.”

        Like

      • I see the difference between “infectious diseases” and “vaccine preventable” now! But I’m still curious about the sample size difference, but also, is there anyway to determine or was there anything indicative in the study as to why the children were unvaccinated? It’s such a small group — were they unvaccinated due to already compromised immune systems? Family history of allergies to vaccine ingredients? Etc. I don’t know how you could make a comparison without that info?

        I also noted that the history of infections diseases was also by survey only. Only during the portion of atopic diseases did the study mention a doctor as well as verification by medical records. We all know that kids don’t go into the office for every cold, so parents recollection is what would have to be used. And because of this, how is that not comparable to the other study?

        Like

      • I have read the study a few times and not seen anything about why the children were not vaccinated. The relative low number reflects the low number of unvaxed in that data pool.

        Yes, the survey has it’s limits. An important limitation is that many antivaxers don’t take their children to a medical clinic when they are sick. Instead, they see a naturopath or homeopath. So, that sways results.

        Like

    • Maybe they should do the study from the Vaccine Safety Datalink , that would end this righ there. But they refuse , because of peer review all over the world showing the countries with less vaccines have healthier populations. This is very obvious on Pubmed . I’ve been practicing medicine for 30 years, can I send you the data? In fact I can destroy anyone on this topic with 1200 studies I’ve gathered. $100,000 cash debate live on Facebook. You owe nothing when you lose.

      Like

  2. I’m impressed, I have to admit. Rarely do I encounter
    a blog that’s both equally educative and interesting,
    and let me tell you, you’ve hit the nail on the head.
    The problem is something that too few men and women are speaking intelligently about.

    Now i’m very happy I found this during my hunt for something relating to this.

    Like

  3. “But it still showed that the only difference between the two groups is that the kids who were not vaccinated got more vaccine preventable diseases”

    And? As if that’s a bad thing? THose children are now immune for what would appear to be a much longer time frame since INNATE immunity is at the helm when it comes to natural infection.

    I love the term “Vaccine preventable disease”

    Pro vaxxers throw this term around loosely to brainwash people into believing vaccines are the only means of preventing disease or that somehow if a child gets measles they are now at imminent risk of going blind, being brain damaged or worse , had they just taken that jab. Now the parents have to bite their nails for two weeks hoping that in the end their child, through of course medical intervention which may even include an MMR jab, will survive this deadly disease.

    This is the biggest lie perpetrated by the industry.

    Again Chris, who are you and what are your medical credentials.

    Like

    • Why would anyone want to suffer greatly from a preventable disease? The risks are so much greater with diseases than with vaccines. Vaccines have infinitely lesser risks, which is the whole point.

      Like

      • Vaccines offer temporary protection. Nobody knows exactly how much time. This makes childhood disease happen later, sometimes with much greater dangers.

        Vaccine side effects are hidden by the hysterical pro vaccine crowd. I have tried and failed to discuss with these people. They will just come up with ever changing “facts” just to “prove” me wrong. For example, they will deny the well known link between the hep B vaccine and MS. They will pretend it’s a matter only in France (a grotesque lie), that all studies show no such link (which put them in the denier category), and MS is easy to diagnose with medical images, then that MS diagnostic requires multiple evaluation over time (the exact opposite claim, which I got from the same people). They will deny that time is a thing in medicine (or they claim that time is a thing regarding prognostic not diagnostic), then they explain that diagnostic of MS is based on evolution over time.

        They will redefine the diseases (MS, polio) to restrict the criteria of diagnostic to obtain the desire result. They will compare statistics based on completely different criteria.

        Usually, they will deny the Climategate.

        Vaccine “science” is the equivalent of climate “science”. A completely bogus field, full of charlatans and frauds.

        Like

      • “Vaccines offer temporary protection.” No, that is not true. Measles vaccine, for example, lasts a lifetime.

        “Vaccine side effects are hidden by the hysterical pro vaccine crowd. ” No, that is not true. We know what vaccines can cause and do not cause. Reports of adverse events are well-studied.

        For example, MS and Hep B vaccine are not related.

        “Examples of this scientific evidence are:

        A study conducted in France from 1994 to 2003 (Mikaeloff, 2007) compared children with MS to children without. The study did not find a relationship between vaccination for hepatitis B and the development of childhood-onset MS.
        In the United States, a study (Verstraeten et al., 2001) compared 422 adults with demyelinating diseases, including MS, and 921 matched controls (people similar in age, gender, and enrollment in a healthcare system, but who did not have demyelinating disease). The researchers concluded that hepatitis B vaccination was not associated with demyelinating disease in the study population.
        Other studies conducted in the US (Ascherio and colleagues, 2001), in Europe (Confavreaux, 2001) and in British Columbia (Sadovnick and Scheifele, 2000) also evaluated the possible link between hepatitis B vaccination and MS, and also found no association between hepatitis B vaccination and MS.
        In 2002, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) reviewed published and unpublished research to determine if there was a link between hepatitis B vaccine and demyelinating neurological disorders, including MS in adults. The committee found that the epidemiological evidence does not support a causal relationship between hepatitis B vaccine in adults and multiple sclerosis.”

        https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/hepb-faqs.html

        Climate science is well established.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “The study did not find a relationship”

        This is non evidence. It’s literally LACK of evidence.

        You are too brainwashed to even know the difference.

        Which proves my point, again.

        “Climate science is well established”

        There is literally zero evidence that more CO2 produces measurable warming.

        Like

      • “Vaccines offer temporary protection.”

        It is the same with many diseases. Many do not confer permanent immunity. You can get rotavirus, dipththeria and tetanus after recovering. At least with pertussis you get a wee bit of immunity, but you can get it again in five years:
        Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005 May;24(5 Suppl):S58-61.
        Duration of immunity against pertussis after natural infection or vaccination.

        If a kid recovers from measles the immune system has been weakened, so the kid is more likely to suffer from other infections:
        J Infect. 2017 Jun;74 Suppl 1:S10-S17. doi: 10.1016/S0163-4453(17)30185-8.
        Measles, immune suppression and vaccination: direct and indirect nonspecific vaccine benefits.

        “Nobody knows exactly how much time.”

        Actually they do. There are several studies that track vaccine immunity, and even the effects of the actual diseases on immunity. Check out the posted papers.

        Like

      • That’s a lie, obviously.

        Only after vaccinated people become sick, the vaccine charlatans say “oh well, I guess ANOTHER shot will be added to the schedule”.

        Like

      • Well, there were outbreaks of measles in the USA, before 1990s, where some of the patients were vaccinated. That was back when we only got one MMR. The medical experts decided to recommend two and now 99% of those twice vaccinated are immune for life. Now, in USA, measles outbreaks are 80% unvaccinated persons and patient zero is always unvaccinated.

        https://www.cdc.gov/measles/pubs-mmwr.html

        Like

      • simple-touriste: “Which proves my point, again.”

        Actually you have no point. There is nothing to your rantings. You are a wounded bird because science does not say what you want it to say. You poor thing. The world does not operate like you want it! Oh no! Forget those kids who die from SSPE just because they were waiting to see a doctor before they could get a vaccine. Who cares that dozens of kids died from measles in Venezuela, you just want your “freedom”!

        Ah, to suffer from first world problems:

        Like

      • “There is nothing to your rantings.”

        You are a DENIER.

        My arguments are perfect. You are a mental disease, probably “liberalism”.

        “You are a wounded bird because science does not say what you want it to say”

        Science says what? Can I check with her directly? What’s her number?

        What caused the almost tripling of MS cases in France after massive hep B vaccination?

        Why do almost all studies show higher number of MS among vaccinated people?

        What is more strongly established at the statistical level than the link between hep B vaccine and MS?

        (Except the link between radiation and cancer.)

        Like

      • “Why do almost all studies show higher number of MS among vaccinated people?”

        Because most people are vaccinated. It is basic math.

        Like

      • Was it this one:
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27604618

        It says: “The study found no change in risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS) after vaccination against hepatitis B virus, human papillomavirus, seasonal influenza, measles-mumps-rubella, variola, tetanus, Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), polio, or diphtheria. No change in risk of relapse was found for influenza.”

        Like

      • simple-t: “Go away”

        You are telling the blog owner to leave her own blog? That is just silly. You are not being forced to read this blog.

        “I’m a scientist, dude.”

        I sincerely doubt that. You mentioned some studies, but did not post any.

        “So they measured a ZERO?”

        This response pretty much proves you are no scientist, and have absolutely no understanding of statistics or even basic math. If 90% of the population gets vaccines, then a certain percentage (x%) of that will get MS. The 10% who do not get vaccinated will also have an X% that get MS. It is just that X% of 90% is higher in number than X% of 10%.

        That is exactly what was written in that paper. Though I doubt you will understand that simple bit of junior high algebra.

        “It’s a mental disease. You mind is fogged. You cannot reason.”
        “You are simply making of sh*t.”
        “You are a DENIER”
        “You are a mental disease…”
        “You did not, liar.”

        Why do you think insults are a valid substitute for evidence? You claimed there were “studies”, but have not provided any. You just post insult littered rants.

        Like

      • You are hilarious, simple-t ! If this was your blog you could simply moderate my comments out of existence. But you cannot. I am not going anywhere. Your illiteracy and innumeracy is just too amusing.

        Like

    • You don’t. Though it would help if you actually read the article I posted with some reading comprehension and some basic understanding of statistics.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Where is the word “zero” in this quote: “The study found no change in risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS) after vaccination against hepatitis B virus, human papillomavirus, seasonal influenza, measles-mumps-rubella, variola, tetanus, Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), polio, or diphtheria. No change in risk of relapse was found for influenza.”

        “No change” does not mean “zero.”

        What they mean is there is the same risk of MS whether or not one is vaccinated.

        If you do no like the meta-study of over fifty studies, then provide some studies yourself.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Where is the word “zero””

        So now you don’t even understand what zero is?

        You can’t be for real.

        ““No change” does not mean “zero.””

        ????

        I give up. I officially do. You are beyond the reach of rational discourse.

        GO
        AWAY

        Like

      • A mathematical explanation, perhaps.

        Anyway, it is clear for anyone here that you are not capable of even reasoning at the level of 10 years old.

        Like

      • I would like to remind you, Simple, that you are the troll and Chris is my page supporter. Always remember that if you are on a page or site or thread and posting to argue, YOU ARE THE TROLL.

        Like

      • Chris answered your question for you. Consider yourself warned now. If you continue to call me names, you get blocked.

        “Where is the word “zero” in this quote: “The study found no change in risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS) after vaccination against hepatitis B virus, human papillomavirus, seasonal influenza, measles-mumps-rubella, variola, tetanus, Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), polio, or diphtheria. No change in risk of relapse was found for influenza.”

        “No change” does not mean “zero.”

        What they mean is there is the same risk of MS whether or not one is vaccinated.

        If you do not like the meta-study of over fifty studies, then provide some studies yourself.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • So, which studies do not show an HIGHER number of MS cases among the vaccinated people?

        Why are there 50000 more MS cases in France since the beginning of the mass vaccination?

        Like

      • There is no point. You will not understand it, or just pretend it says something else.

        There is “no change” when the rate of MS is around 0.1% before a certain vaccine was introduced and still about 0.1% after people get that vaccine.

        Because 0.1 is not zero. Obviously you don’t care and it is a waste of electrons trying to explain anything to you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • How many tens of thousands of cases of MS do you wish to justify as acceptable risk of a vaccine with no proven benefit?

        Like

      • Why do study after study consistently show more MS for vaccinated people?

        Why is there almost a tripling of MS in France?

        Like

      • “Concern about hepatitis B vaccination arose from France in the mid 1990s. Following a mass hepatitis B vaccination program in France there were reports of MS developing in some patients a few weeks after receiving the vaccine. In 1998, the French government stopped the school-based hepatitis B component of the vaccination program while they investigated a possible relationship between hepatitis B vaccine and demyelinating disease. When studies of the French vaccine recipients were completed they showed that there was not a significant increase in the number of vaccinated people who developed MS as compared with those who had never received hepatitis B vaccine.”

        https://vaxopedia.org/2018/01/31/can-vaccines-cause-multiple-sclerosis/

        Like

  4. Pingback: First Ever Study Comparing Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Kids, Erased from Internet, Pulled from Journal

  5. I really understand the points both sides (pro-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers) are trying to make. One thing people fail or forget to recognize is that the two sides are trying their best in their own way to keep children safe. Science is not about belief but I am now seeing that these two sides have developed a ‘religious’ fervor with their stances. As a medical professional, I learned “first do no harm”. It means to do everything possible to make sure that our medical interventions (drugs, surgeries and vaccines as well) do not harm or do the least harm for the sake of the greater benefit. That is why we have 4-phase safety trials with a post-marketing surveillance to pick up those longer term side-effects or ‘harms’ and a free-market incentive system that penalizes/rewards and leads to improved products. The safety studies for typical drugs are randomized, preferably double-blinded and definitely placebo controlled studies. This last part is CRUCIAL. Placebo control tells you how the drug would affect someone as opposed to someone who did not take. UNFORTUNATLY, there is no such system for vaccines since congress passed a law in 1980s exonerating vaccine manufacturers from any liability from vaccine injuries (this is official with billions of taxpayer $ paid out to injured kids/parents since the law was passed) thereby removing any incentive to make a safe vaccine. There has been NO vaccine safety study that looked at most/fully vaxxed (all shots on the schedule) vs completely unvaxxed or even one vaccine vs none. The CDC does have the capacity to conduct the research but chooses not to do so. Of course they say, we can not do that because it is unethical to ‘deprive’ the other kids of the vaccine. This is a weak argument as there are many parents of unvaccinated children who will participate in this sort of study (at least a retrospective cohort study). With big pharma executives and CDC executives serving interchangeably on each others boards (this is well documented as well), the problem is clear. We should not look towards CDC to do what they should have done decades earlier, nor the HHS that was mandated to look at the safety studies every 2 years to fill in the gap of the free-market to incentivise good vaccines and punish bad ones. Unfortunately, what we have for an unbiased study is either individual scientists or groups of academics out of the reach of big pharma.

    At the end of the day most of the medical establishment at one point condoned tobacco science, use of thalidomide in pregnant women and also crucified Semmelweis for dropping the rates of the often fatal puerperal fever in maternity wards to below <1% by just handwashing. Human nature does not drastically adjust to conform to new medical knowledge. With the CDC reporting 54% of children having chronic diseases and ASD/neurodevelopmental disorders on the rise exponentially, we can not afford to not do these COMPLETE safety studies. There just is NO reason to not do these studies. The burden of proof should really not be on mothers to prove the harm of these vaccines, the mothers are doing their best. The burden of proof should be on the manufacturers of the vaccines, the CDC, FDA, and HHS to follow through and so far they get an D- if not an F.

    Like

    • “Placebo control tells you how the drug would affect someone as opposed to someone who did not take.”

      How would you do that and still comply with the Belmont Report?

      “The CDC does have the capacity to conduct the research but chooses not to do so.”

      Are you saying the Vaccine Safety Database does not exist?

      “With the CDC reporting 54% of children having chronic diseases…”

      Citation needed in the form of PubMed indexed papers from the CDC.

      “… and ASD/neurodevelopmental disorders on the rise exponentially, …”

      You have obviously not kept up with the actual scientific studies on autism spectrum disorders. One good way to catch up is to read about the large studies being sponsored by the Simons Foundation:
      https://sparkforautism.org/discover/

      Those studies have found over half of the actual causes. It is not a mystery, and it is not caused by vaccines.

      Like

    • “This is a weak argument as there are many parents of unvaccinated children who will participate in this sort of study (at least a retrospective cohort study).”

      Actually many of those have been done. Those are included in the several large epidemiological studies that have been done of the past two decades.

      Please try to keep up.

      Like

    • “There has been NO vaccine safety study that looked at most/fully vaxxed (all shots on the schedule) vs completely unvaxxed or even one vaccine vs none.” And that is because no such study would ever pass ethical standards in any country on earth. I mean, come on, not even in Communist countries do they run test like this!

      “This is a weak argument as there are many parents of unvaccinated children who will participate in this sort of study (at least a retrospective cohort study).”

      Did you really go to medical school? Then why don’t you know what double-blind means? No antivaxer or provaxer would put their child in a study knowing that the child could be vaccinated and the parent won’t know for 18 years. Come on! Get real.

      Your big pharma argument only hold water in USA. All other countries run vaccine safety studies, make vaccines, pay for them with universal healthcare, don’t allow drug reps to sell to docs, don’t allow drug ads, and many vax the same as USA.

      The medical establishment never condoned smoking. Those were fake doctors in those ads. Since WW2, science has known, including FDA and CDC and no they did not hide it, that smoking causes cancer.

      Thalidomide was never used or approved in USA.

      Good grief.

      Like

      • When a state own lab makes vaccine, the state itself is Big Pharma. Duh.

        Your so called arguments make no sense. You must be another anti-Trump liberal.

        Like

      • And which country has a state-owned lab that makes vaccines? Not USA, that is for sure. All the vaccines we use are made by private companies in a variety of Western countries.

        Instead, vaccines that are used in the United States are made by:

        Emergent Biosolutions – USA – Anthrax vaccine
        ID Biomedical Corp – Canada – Fluvaval
        GSK Vaccines – based in Belgium, but vaccines are made in Belgium (Boostrix, Cervarix, Energix-B, Havrix, Hiberix, Infanrix, MenHibrix, Kinrix, Pediarix, Rotarix), Germany (Boostrix, Fluarix, Infanrix, Kinrix, Pediarix, Rabavert), and Italy (Bexsero, Menveo)
        MedImmune – USA – FluMist
        Merck – USA – BCG, Gardasil9, MMRII, PedvaxHIB, PneumoVax23, ProQuad, RecombivaxHB, RotaTeq, Vaqta, Varivax, Zostavax are made at Merck’s vaccine manufacturing plants in West Point, Pennsylvania, Elkton, Virginia, and Durham, North Carolina
        PaxVax – USA – their Vivotif typhoid vaccine is made in Thörishaus, Switzerland
        Pfizer – USA – (Prevnar, Trumenba)
        Protein Sciences Corporation – USA – Flublok
        Sanofi Pasteur – Canada (Adacel, Daptacel, Pentacel), France (IPOL, Pentacel), USA (Menactra, YF-Vax, ),
        Seqirus – USA – Afluria, Flucelvax, Fluvirin
        Valneva (Intercell USA) -their Japanese encephalitis vaccine (IXIARO) is made in Livingston, Scotland, UK
        Valneva Sweden AB – their Dukoral cholera vaccine is made in Solna, Sweden

        https://vaxopedia.org/2017/11/12/vaccines-are-made-in-china/

        Like

      • “And which country has a state-owned lab that makes vaccines?”

        Denmark, and perhaps a few others. The troll is apparently from France, so it may happen there, but I doubt it since it is the headquarters of at least one major vaccine manufacturer: https://www.sanofipasteur.com/en/

        Oooh look! Didn’t some dude named Pasteur make it safe to drink milk with pasteurization?

        Liked by 1 person

  6. What a heated debate indeed, Yikes!

    Adding in my points about the study.
    We now have a study based in USA of Vaxxed versus Unvaxxed.
    FINALLY.
    So the first suspicion is that it was funded by Anti-vaxxer groups?
    That’s a silly reason. I know all tests of safety on vaccines is done by the companies. Who pass it on to the CDC which is run by people who are financially paid by the creators of the MMR vaccine, Merck. All there testing is done by Merck, and Merck is infamously known to alter information for their needs.
    For example.
    https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-fda-gardasil-records-detailing-26-new-reported-deaths/

    https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2015/05/revelations-cdcs-industry-funding-raise-questions-about-some-its-decisions

    https://www.modernghana.com/news/872602/vaccine-betrayal-of-public-trust-and-institutional-corruptio.html

    Now with this, there is no doubt on corruption with the American CDC and the FDA.
    So with this summary, we are completely fine with drug pharma tested studies and not ones against.
    You are supposed to be skeptic in science. You have to have doubts that your product will work.If not you’ll just giddy with the positives and may or may not neglect the negatives.

    Regarding vaccine safety, Congress reports that less than 10% report on Vaccine Adverse Event Reaction system. According to Health and Human services, VAERS is the only reliable program to report on Vaccine Adverse Event Reactions.

    Lets look at the numbers.
    432 deaths.
    1,091 permanent disabilities.
    4,132 Hospitalizations
    10, 284 Emergency room visits.
    Going by Health and Human Service own words plus the congress report. Lets assume what it would statistically be if everyone followed the law and reported their situation.
    432 deaths becomes 43,200 deaths.
    1091 permanent disabilities becomes 109,100 permanent disabilities.
    4,132 Hospitalizations become 413,200 Hospitalizations.
    10,284 Emergency room visits become 1,028,400 Emergency room visits.
    https://www.nvic.org/reportreaction.aspx.

    Also, Vaccine injuries and deaths are real.
    It says it right here: https://www.nvic.org/injury-compensation/origihanlaw.aspx
    In this study it proves getting measles, Mumps, and Rubella when you are supposed to get them are far better for your health than getting vaccinated.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030698779890055X

    Like

    • There are many safety studies not funded by vaccine makers. They come from all over the world but here is a list from USA.
      https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/index.html

      Funding affects bias, which is a valid concern.

      “Congress reports that less than 10% report on Vaccine Adverse Event Reaction system.”

      That is completely false, which is why you could not link to the source.

      According to HHS, reports of minor events are underreported and reports of severe events are overreported, due to how many are not actually related to vaccines.
      https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

      VAERS data is raw and not proven accurate. Therefore, it is not valid to use it to make an argument. The VSD members get access to medical records, so their data is valid.

      Yes, we all know vaccines can cause harm. The risk of severe harm from a vaccine is literally 0.0000011%

      Like

    • You really have to compare the vaccines with the actual diseases. Also that 1998 study by mathematicians in Switzerland is very much out of date. Also it is in Medical Hypothesis, a non peer reviewed journal (look up the definition of “hypothesis”.

      Somehow I sincerely doubt that health is achieved for the one or two out of a thousand who get measles that actually die (the statisticians only studied survivors). Plus there is a different MMR in Europe than the USA. These two are more relevant studies:
      Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002.

      and this more recent study:
      J Infect. 2017 Jun;74 Suppl 1:S10-S17.
      Measles, immune suppression and vaccination: direct and indirect nonspecific vaccine benefits.

      Unfortunately the full text of the latter is behind a paywall, but it is important in that it notes that after surviving measles the child’s immune system is depressed, which makes them more likely to die from another different infection (something that is more common than cancer!). The relevant verbiage: “Additionally, by preventing measles infections, vaccination prevents measles-associated short- and long-term immunomodulating effects. Before vaccination, these invisible hallmarks of measles infections increased vulnerability to non-measles infections in nearly all children for weeks, months, or years following acute infections. By depleting measles incidence, vaccination has had important indirect benefits to reduce non-measles mortality.”

      In the future, please try to not cherry pick. Plus stick with PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers. Barbara Loe Fisher’s “NVIC” is not a reliable source of scientific information. Ms. Fisher’s background is in public relations.

      Here is an interesting thing about the 1990 measles epidemic in the USA: how insurance companies reacted. In 1992 I took my four year old in for his well child check up and to get the vaccines he would need for kindergarten. I got a big surprise in that the very good company provided health insurance would not cover well child check-ups nor vaccines for kids after the age of three. Well, then the numbers came in on the effect of that “uptick” of measles in the USA, and the health insurance companies had to pay for lots of hospitalizations.

      Funny thing happened when his younger brother went for his four year old well child check up in 1994: all of the vaccines were covered. Apparently it is cheaper to prevent diseases instead of treating them! Go figure. Remember this was l..o..n..g before the Affordable Care Act.

      There are actually studies on that. and do tell us which vaccine maker paid for them:
      West J Med. 1996 Jul-Aug;165(1-2):20-5.
      Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic

      West J Med. 1993 Oct;159(4):455-64.
      Measles epidemic from failure to immunize.

      J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45.
      An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.

      Pediatrics. 2014 Apr;133(4):577-85.
      Economic Evaluation of the Routine Childhood Immunization Program in the United States, 2009.

      Those are studies that you will never see posted on NVIC.

      Like

  7. Vaccines work blog.
    https://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/NVICGardasilvsMenactraVAERSReportFeb2009.pdf
    https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/adverse-reactions-varicella-vaccination-are-grossly-under-reported
    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5201a1.htm (Third paragraph)
    Three links which notes that vaccines are under reported.

    And, to your one comment regarding how unethical it is to compare unvaccinated kids, to partially unvaccinated, and to not vaccinated. How exactly is it unethical? it’s one of the most basic science studies to do. Controlled verses uncontrolled.
    If these fair studies show that everyone who is unvaxxed is shown to be deadly, wouldn’t that wake up the population and entice the unvaxxed population to vaccinate?

    Like

    • VAERS data is raw and not verified. Arguments made with VAERS data are not valid.

      Gary Goldman has major conflicts. He wants people to pay attention to his studies of raw VAERS data, which are not valid, so he has to make these arguments to make himself look better. There is no proof VAERS data is underreported.

      Read this paragraph from the MMWR link

      “VAERS is subject to the limitations inherent in any passive surveillance system (54). Among those, underreporting (only a fraction of the total number of potentially reportable events occurring after vaccination are reported) and differential reporting (more serious events and events with shorter onset time after vaccinations are more likely to be reported than minor events) are most noticeable (44). Overreporting also occurs because certain reported adverse events might not be caused by vaccines, and some reported conditions do not meet standard diagnostic criteria. Many reported events, including serious ones, might occur coincidentally after vaccination and are not causally related to vaccination. Other potential reporting biases include increased reporting in the first few years after licensure, increased reporting of events occurring soon after vaccination, and increased reporting after publicity about a particular known or alleged type of adverse event. Individual reports might contain inaccurate or incomplete information. Because of all of these reasons as well as the absence of control groups, differentiating causal from coincidental conditions by using VAERS data alone usually is not possible. Other methodologic limitations of VAERS include the fact that it does not provide information regarding background incidence of adverse events in the general population nor does it provide information concerning the total number of doses of vaccine or vaccine combinations actually administered to patients.”

      It would be unethical to take a group of children and purposely not vaccinate them for 18 years and not tell their families if they were vaccinated or not until after the study is over. That would be denying them protection from diseases for the purposes of science. That study has never been done and never will be. Meantime, many clinical trials, which are short term, do involve vaxed v unvaxed.

      The reason this Mawson study is not valid is the authors did not verify any of the claims the parents made. It is heresay.

      Like

      • Than how all drugs are tests, especially dangerous drugs for dangerous diseases. If it would be so we would never learn anything in science.

        That argument is a complete absurd. You stick to it just because you can’t find any which could refute need for a real tests. You simply claim it shouldn’t be ever tested what is the most unscientific argument you could possibly make and confinrms your radical bias and no real will to find the truth.

        And they call vaccine alarmists dogmatic. What a joke.

        Unethical is proposing to children any treatment which wasn’t comprehensively and finally tested in a proper scientific decisive tests. Not aknowledging this obvious medical truth is like bringing back dark ages in science.

        Like

  8. And Chris, I wasn’t aware that Europe uses a different version of the MMR.
    If I was forced to chose a version I’d go for European. Usually they have more common sense than their North American counter parts.

    Like

    • Well, funny you should say that: the American version was changed in 1978 by replacing the rubella portion that was being used in Europe. It reflects that the science and technology is an international venture. For more about that read The Vaccine Race: Science, Politics, and the Human Costs of Defeating Disease by Meredith Wadman.

      Like

      • There was also a version used in the Soviet Union, but that may not exist anymore.

        One thing I failed to mention to Kendrick was the rubella vaccine component that was used in Europe and after a few years replaced the rubella bit in the original American MMR vaccine was actually developed in the USA at Wistar. Something he would learn if he read the book I suggested, which also explained science is international.

        I don’t know if he would understand that if he thinks a comment to an article is actually a scientific cite (spoiler: it is not).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hello i read almost all the comments and the article and the Kiggs study. I am a doctor and i have some problems with some of the arguments. I agree that a double blinded cohort study can not be done for ethical reasons, but in all the links provided i have not yet seen a retrospective study with a statistical usefull number of unvaccinated children, so if you have some of those i would gladly take a look at them. The problem i have with the german study is just that. When you compare 99.3 to 0.7 percents the statistical relevance of the study is diminished to zero. Yes you can make augmentations for the 0.7 but still you are prone to many unscienthific concludions. What i have not yet seen here is another option for a prospectivd study. A prospective study probably 4 5 years at least, with parents willingfully joining one of the pro vaxx or anti vaxx option. This could be done and if you ask me should be done (with large numbers if possible, and i think it is possible). This would shed a very insightfull light for both sides.

        Like

      • The problem is that parents opposed to vaccines don’t seek medical care. They go to alternative healthcare providers. I agree that a larger group of unvaccinated children would be more scientifically valid but you cannot pull them out of the woodwork when they aren’t getting care at the group who is doing the study.

        Like

      • “The problem is that parents opposed to vaccines don’t seek medical care”

        Well, duh.

        They CANNOT.

        They are targeted by medical fascists (people like Macron with striking similarities with Stalininist/Reich III methods of encouraging children to denounce their parents) who want to punish them.

        Stop the harassment and they will come back; duh.

        Like

      • Actually, from what I have read, antivaxers tend to take their children to homeopaths, chiropractors, naturopaths, and herbalists until the symptoms become severe. Then, they go to urgent care or the ER.

        Why should medical doctors stop trying to prevent illness in children? What you call harassment is genuine concern for children’s well-being based on sound science.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Pingback: Provax autism mom reads JB Handley’s “Autism Epidemic” book | vaccinesworkblog

  10. There are some thing to adress here…i read the article on the Mawson study and it seem pretty decent made, in abiding to scientific method. Now you can say that it is biased in the sense that it wanted to see if there is something wrong with the vaccinated group but from what i read it did not force it’s conclusions. Being a cross sectional study has it’s limitations but also some strenghts. The biggest weakness is the funding as you allready stated and the fact that it can’t link vaccines to autism in a cause efect way. But in what it wanted to achieve i think it was a succesfull study, and it raised a question. Not adressing the question would be pure ignorance my opinion only. The fact that the polio vaccine was such a big success cut some of the processes involved in implementing vaccines. Is it good or bad? I think in keeping with science is not the best thing to implement something without some prospective studies ahead. The problem with vaccines is that they adress a specific disease and all the studies prior to introducing them focus on protection and short term effects. So maybe the paradigm should be updsted a bit. Just sn opinion really.

    Like

    • “There are some thing to adress here…i read the article on the Mawson study and it seem pretty decent made, in abiding to scientific method.”

      It was self-selected and self-reported data, only from a small specific population. The actual opposite of “scientific method.” Plus, this sentence indicates that you really did not read the above article because that bit is explained.

      “The problem with vaccines is that they adress a specific disease and all the studies prior to introducing them focus on protection and short term effects.”

      This is also wrong. Using the databases of several large medical systems, like Denmark, there have been several large epidemiological studies. Here in the USA with its varied sets of health coverage there is one large Health Maintenance Organizations. Kaiser-Permanente is part of the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink system, and they have done several studies. Here is a list:
      https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/research/publications/index.html

      Now this is where I take lessons learned by volunteering in my kids’ schools: many parents would make suggestions for what those who were actually doing the volunteering. Where upon those volunteers would thank them for their suggestion and which them luck the new committee that parent who made the suggestion would now be running.

      If you do not like the studies that have been done, then go do it yourself. Design the study, in the USA you would have to make comply with the Belmont Report, get it approved by an Independent Review Board, and then write a grant to get it funded. From your comment it seems you would be cool asking for funding from the same guys that funded Mawson. Though you might also try SafeMinds. Then get it done!

      Like

      • Wooo aren’t you quick to judge people :). It is explained in the study why that was done and though it is cleared you are fully biased i should say that every study chooses what to study. They wanted a good vaccinated to unvaccinated ratio so they choose homeschooled children because they knew they will find more there. Now for a cross sectional study i don’t see that as an unscientific method, but you seem to know more of how they broke the scientific rules. Now the tricky part is how you “prooved me wrong” in my second saying: “The problem with vaccines is that they adress a specific disease and all the studies prior to introducing them focus on protection and short term effects.” well excuse me to point out but you are wrong saying that i am wrong :). Indeed no vaccine i know of has tried to see if there are long term effects of vaccines outside imunity to a specific disease. It is very hard to do that, for starters and i don’t think pharma would be even interested in such a study. Those studies in Denmark were long after vaccination and for thimerosal only from what i’ve seen. No prospective study, but yes they prove that thimerosal is not an issue in the autism debate. But they don’t in any case make my statement false as you so blatantly argue. Now to the Mawson study. The fact they choose a population of children who took homeschooling doesn’t mske them biologically different than other kids so i don’t see a problem here. The only real problem is the funding which is indeed a problem if the study reached it’s conclusion through forging statistical data (manipulating answers, messing with data or forging it to suit the conclusion). Now if that is not proven the study raises question if not it is bogus and that’s all. Not taking real sides cause that is allways tricky as you allways will end up having faith in something anx pushing your agenda farther with logical fallacies and sruff like that.

        Like

      • Only to point some things out. I have a different formation than imunology studies but maybe sometimes i would try to do some studies of my own and thank you in that part for encouraging me to do so. What my posts are about is this: if a study has a point and doesn’t mess with science it must be taken into account. It is in fact a part of the phase 4 of every vaccine development. If so many voices manipulated or not claim a bigger conspiracy to hide autism effect of vaccines and you have studies like this one which raise a question you at least evaluate the raw data. If the data is poorly handled you dismiss it. If not you need one of the following. A retrospective study, cohort style, with good ratio vax to unvax to show incidence (past and actual) prevalence and other epidemiological values for as many parametres as you can given the funding, the human and logistical resources. Either a prospective study same as the other one regarding ratio and numbers and you observe incidence and prevalence of different outcomes over a predecided period of time. That is how you put a stop to this raging feud between vaxer and anti vaxers. That is all i am saying.

        Like

      • I will agree that we could use more vaxed v unvaxed studies BUT it is hard to find unvaccinated children who seek healthcare in large groups, like Kaiser, which would be the perfect place to do such a study. They have access to a large pool of data and funds to do the research. However, we know unvaxed children often do not get taken to the doctor when they are sick. Their parents try natural remedies or take them to the chiropractor instead. And, how would we account for all the confounding variables?

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Indeed no vaccine i know of has tried to see if there are long term effects of vaccines outside imunity to a specific disease.”

        Which was shortly followed with:
        “Those studies in Denmark were long after vaccination and for thimerosal only from what i’ve seen.”

        If you want to know the long term effects they would obviously be “long after vaccination.” Plus you did not look too hard, the Danish studies were not just on thimerosal. This was for over of half a million children:
        N Engl J Med 2002; 347(19):1477-82
        A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism.
        Madsen KM et al.

        And then this one was done in Finland, also over a half a million children:
        Pediatrics 2002; 110:957-63
        Neurologic Disorders after Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination.
        Makela A et al.

        And here is another long term type study, only it is not on autism. It shows that measles is more dangerous than previously thought because it rewrites the immune system, and the vaccine protects for other non-vaccine preventable diseases:
        J Infect. 2017 Jun;74 Suppl 1:S10-S17. doi: 10.1016/S0163-4453(17)30185-8.
        Measles, immune suppression and vaccination: direct and indirect nonspecific vaccine benefits.
        Mina MJ1.

        So, Bidu, when do you plan to do your own study? What are your statistics and epidemiology credentials? What about the concept of “paragraphs”?

        By the way, this is a better avenue: https://sparkforautism.org/discover/

        Liked by 1 person

  11. I happened to see this report today, 11-4-18, and was very interested. I do volunteer work in Kenya for 2-3 months each year. I do not know if everything done in the study was up and up, but I can tell you of children who were progressing until they were given the MMR vaccine. One beautiful little girl, Hanna, now 3 years old can follow you with her eyes, but she can not lift her head, walk, talk, or communicate in any way. My heart breaks for this precious little girl and her parents. Vaccinations can cause devastating disabilities. Leona Westbrook-Chilcott

    Like

  12. It’s interesting How you want to talk about validity yet I don’t see you mention anywhere the conflicts of interests within vaccines. Such as the people approving them have there own vaccine in the pipeline..hmmm

    Like

    • Where has that happened? Deflinitely not for RotaTeq, there are actual records to disprove that lie. Read the ACIP minutes, Dr. Offit was a visitor not a member:
      https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-jun08-508.pdf

      If you read it, you will see he is answering questions posted by the actual members. So please stop repeating that blatant lie. It is a silly thing to do if there is actual contrary documentation. You might learn how much work went into creating that vaccine by reading Dr. Offit’s book Bad Advice. It is not easy making a vaccine for a virus that there is no guarantee of “natural immunity” by surviving it. Then you might just hesitate before casting baseless aspersions.

      My complaint is that the research was still being done on rotavirus when my oldest got it as a toddler. He ended up with seizures and an ambulance ride to the emergency department.

      The real conflicts of interests are those who make claims about vaccines, and then sell product to profit off of both quilting and scaring parents. These are products like chelation, supplements, RNA drops, bleach drops (MMS), DVDs, books and a whole bunch of stuff that has bubbled up in the last two decades. Though my “fave” was the guy who infested a disability listserv to sell his magic soap that would miraculously make the kids talk.

      Like

  13. You should watch dr Stanley plotkin s 2018 deposition… I recommend all 9 hours of it. They talk about all his pharm backings while doing independent reviews on vaccines, they even cover those acip meetings. Basically everything. Also are you familar with the DTP study in Africa which separated groups by birth age?

    Like

  14. Interesting how THREE of the 5 FDA advisory Committee members who voted on the Rotavirus vaccine have financial ties to the pharm industry. And you talk about conflict of interest with the Mawson study right out of the gate to discredit it. Again that study on the DTP in Africa?? Why did we stop using it? Why is DTaP showing it doesn’t prevent colonization or transmission of pertussis. Yet you know how the commercials go.
    I see what you’re doing there. Can you first tell me how many cases of people were bit by a rabid bat in the US last year and their outcomes?

    Like

    • Blatant assertions presented without any evidence can be safely ignored.

      https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/exposure/animals/bats.html

      From that, in 2015 there were over a thousand cases of rabies in bats, and that was only about the 30% total of wildlife rabies. Bats are usually tested because they have been in contact with people. You obviously missed the news about the man in Utah who died from rabies, and the little boy who died from rabies in Florida last January.

      I assume if you came into contact with a bat (like the ones that fly over my patio on summer evenings) that you would just let nature take its course. Obviously your hate for Dr. Plotkin takes precedence over your own health. Not exactly how I make life choices, but feel free be you. I will just stick to actual science instead of poisoning the well nonsense.

      Liked by 1 person

    • And who are those three? Certainly not Paul Offit as he was not on the committee at the time .

      The DTP study from the 80s? Cherry pick much?

      The baboon pertussis studies clearly show that the acellular vaccine led to far less incidence of pertussis. The vaccinated baboons got nothing more than germs in their throat while the unvaxed got sick for months! Maybe you should read those studies? You can find them at the FDA website.

      Liked by 1 person

      • The Africa DTP study was published in 2017. It used solid peer reviewed statistical analysis on data collected in 1980. The data collected included age at DTP and oral polio vaccine, and then mortality rates post vaccination, versus those that received the vaccine at a older age. The study was sponsored by the Danish government. You can read the abstract here:
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28188123
        Children receiving DTP had 10x increased mortality hazard ratio (death rate) compared to unvaccinated.
        I repeat, this is a newly published peer reviewed vaccinated vs unvaccinated study. Do you have a counter study that you’d like to share? Funny how the results agree with the presumption of the Mason study (any many others).

        Like

      • Why don’t you read a whole bunch of DTP studies and then post consensus. One cherry picked study does not an argument make.

        The Mawson study did not verify data so how can you say anything about it?

        Like

      • Do you understand the concept of mortality rate? If a child receives a vaccine, is then protected from the diseases that the vaccine reports to protect the child from… but instead dies of something else, which is exacerbated by the vaccine… that’s not good. And when that child is 10x more likely to die after receiving the vaccine, that’s not good either! That’s what you call a failed vaccine (I think I finally understand the logic of your argument).
        Your immune system does not function in isolation. This is why there is low value in vaccine safety studies that only look at the health outcomes of the disease they aim to prevent.
        Take Vioxx for example. It was a very effective pain killer, but conservative estimates state that it caused 50,000 deaths from heart attacks in the US alone.
        You want to disregard the DTP study as not valid. Please provide your vaxed vs unvaxxed study that counters this evidence. Thanks.

        Like

      • “There were 18 deaths between 3 and 5 months of age: 3 had cough and respiratory infections as the main symptom, 3 had fever (presumed malaria), 2 were due to diarrhea, 5 had diarrhea and vomiting, 1 was a sudden death, and 4 had no information on cause.”

        None of that has anything to do with DTP vaccine.

        Like

      • Do you understand the concept of mortality rate? If a child receives a vaccine, is then protected from the diseases that the vaccine reports to protect the child from… but instead dies of something else, which is exacerbated by the vaccine… that’s not good. And when that child is 10x more likely to die after receiving the vaccine, that’s not good either! That’s what you call a failed vaccine (I think I finally understand the logic of your argument).
        Your immune system does not function in isolation. This is why there is low value in vaccine safety studies that only look at the health outcomes of the disease they aim to prevent.
        Take Vioxx for example. It was a very effective pain killer, but conservative estimates state that it caused 50,000 deaths from heart attacks in the US alone.
        You want to disregard the DTP study as not valid. Please provide your vaxed vs unvaxxed study that counters this evidence. Thanks.

        Like

      • From that study: “We examined the introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) and oral polio vaccine (OPV) in an urban community in Guinea-Bissau in the early 1980s”

        Read this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13443186

        First it was the 1980s. The USA does not use the DTP nor the OPV anymore. And it is in Guinea-Bissau, it is not a tropical paradise… far from it. Why would you think that thirty/forty year old studies in one of the poorest countries in the world is relevant to the USA, Canada, Australia, and most of Europe?

        If you think it is relevant, then I invite you to live there on the economy. Essentially not using any more money than the average person, and getting your water from the same places (guess where lots of cases of diarrhea are caused by). Apparently you might find there are other hazards that you never even knew about.

        Newsflash: Vioxx was not a vaccine. Plus it really helped some folks. It would have been perfectly fine if the heart issue contraindications were not suppressed.

        Like

      • Chris, please less of the straw man argument and let’s stick to the topic at hand. I know nothing about the risk from rabid bats. I’ve not seen or evaluated the efficacy of rabid bat vaccines, nor have I evaluated the possibly risk from a bite/droppings from a rabid bat infecting a health a person. Yet, since you’re the expert on this topic, maybe you can provide some statistics. Tell me, how many vaccinated vs unvaccinated people have died as a result of Rabid bats (and a reference would be swell).

        NEWSFLASH: I clearly stated “pain killer”. And btw, there was far more safety testing done on Vioxx than has ever been done with any vaccine.

        You don’t seem to understand the purpose of vaccinated vs unvaccinated testing. You see, both groups are exposed to the same environmental challenges. When receiving the vaccine is the only difference between the two groups, statistically significance proves >95% of re testing will produce the same result. Receiving the vaccine leads to more deaths than not.

        1) If vaccines saved the 1st world from disease, then how come DTP leads to 10x more deaths in the 3rd world? Surely the largest benefit group should be those that are most at risk. Or do vaccines only work in the 1st world where there is lower risk??

        2) This study was peer reviewed and published in 2017. What problem do you see with the data that the peer reviewers missed? (The symptoms for death are the same today as they were in 1980, are they not?).

        Like

      • Hey, ClickProfits, since you are “obviously” not a sock puppet of Matt, could you please answer a question? He kind of ran away when he realized there was a real hazard being discussed. Mostly that bats are real, they live near us (perhaps in your attic!), and they do infect humans with rabies. This includes by walking in a bat cave and inhaling falling guano.

        Please tell us what you would do if bitten by a rabid bat:

        1) Get treated by the modern rabies vaccine developed at Wistar in the 1960s

        2) Use homeopathy as recommend by Not a Doctor Andre Saine: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/my-day-with-the-homeopaths-part-ii/

        3) Or just let nature take its course

        Like

    • Clicky: “What problem do you see with the data that the peer reviewers missed?”

      The passage of time. What you missed was the other hazards of living there.

      Like

      • Oh you poor dear…
        Do you not think the unvaccinated group were exposed to the same “hazards” as the vaccinated?
        Or better yet, do you think the (deceased) vaccinated babies were better off vaccinated than not, in this case?

        Like

      • Any group that publishes with almost forty year old data from an extremely poor country is not playing with a full deck. You actually do not even understand the hazards of living in a country with poor infrastructure, a broken political system and rampant crime. Along with the mosquitoes that spread malaria and dengue fever, they do not care about old vaccines of other diseases..

        Who are you, and why should we care about your opinions?

        Like

      • Your ad hominem and straw man arguments are hilarious, keep them coming.

        I’m still trying to understand your position. You do realise that both groups (vaxxed & unvaxxed) were exposed to the same horrible poor conditions, don’t you? Which eliminates it as a causal factor in explaining why the vaccinated group had 10x increased death rate. Here’s the link again to the 2017 study:

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28188123

        What I find particularly interesting is how the deaths were from diseases other than that which the vaccine protected from. In other words, it compromised their immune system. Which is very much congruent with the finding from Mawson et al. with increased overall morbidity in, who would guess is, western populations.

        Why is the DTP study valid. Because it’s still the highest globally administered vaccine. You might not care about other human beings in other parts of the world, but I do.

        Also, the DTP vaccine went through the same bogus safety testing as did all the others. It has now been withdrawn from the US due to safety. HOWEVER, where are the studies that show it wasn’t safe? They’re not there because “they didn’t do them”. And that same lack of safety testing is the same bubble propping up all vaccines.

        The people were/are let down by DTP vaccine science, and it’s the same for all vaccines.

        Like

      • “Who are you, and why should we care about your opinions?”

        Edit to add: your very cherry picked opinions. What does this tiny improvised politically unstable country have to do with heath policies either the United States of America or Canada?

        Do you actually live in an area where there is no such thing as sewage treatment and the water is untreated?

        Like

      • Yes, I think clean water and sanitation are very effective at disease prevention but vaccines also really made a huge difference. One only has to look at disease rates in the last 50 years to see proof.

        Like

  15. Do you think human biology has changed in 40 years? I know you’re doing the usual thing of disregarding any information that doesn’t agree with your position. But, what’s wrong with the data?

    Like

    • No, but the vaccines do, the DTP and OPV have not been used in the USA for years. Plus there are different risks in certain countries… do you worry about the bacterial content of your drinking water? Do you worry about the risk of malaria or dengue where you live? Also, the economy of Guinea-Bissau has definitely not improved: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-09/political-feud-threatens-to-return-guinea-bissau-to-cocaine-hub

      Why do you think that very troubled bit of this planet is a good comparison for the USA, UK, Canada, Europe, etc?

      “But, what’s wrong with the data?”

      I’ve lived in the tropics. You obviously do not have a clue. Here is an idea, go and volunteer to help people in Guinea-Bissau while just living on the economy without any extra salary. Come back to us after your experience.

      Like

      • No. I concede that diarrhea from untreated water in a very poor country had more to do with it. You are very credulous, and do not understand what it is like to live in a very very very poor country.

        Like

      • So vaccines work in wealthy countries where we have clean water and sanitation, but not in poor countries where they are more at risk?????

        Or is it that clean water and sanitation give us a boost so that we have a better chance of surviving the vaccine onslaught!

        Me thinks the latter!

        Like

  16. Hey Chris how many people were struck by lightning last year and let’s compare that to people bitten by a rabid bat.
    Or hey how many people died from alcohol, but that’s a person choice…
    Maybe you guys should go read all the study’s coming out recently on metal adjuvants and auto immune disease. Which seems to be skyrocketing but nobody seems to want to know where it’s coming from. Maybe should look into Merks manipulation of the HVP trial and half dosing the aahs in there vaccine.
    I really just have one question? Can you provide any prelicensure randomized placebo control trial for a vaccineamd how long they flowed safety for????? We do for all other drugs? Also can you tell me why they approve a hep B vaccine that’s showing heart attacks 14:1, then ask all the questions after approving it. Post marketing data aka we have to see how many people it harms…
    And speaking to that BS of not knowing how these conditions were in the past. Maybe we should all go watch the episode of the simpsons with chicken pox and compare to the hysteria the media tries to portray about it now. Or maybe even look at those numbers say starting in the 1830s and see how far they came before any vaccine. Turns out when you invent a device which allows you flush your feces, you don’t have as much disease!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Chris is trying to make a point about rabies that you missed.

      The aluminum adjuvant studies are mostly really badly done, heavily biased, and often retracted from publication.

      Merck did not manipulate the HPV clinical trials. You are believing one story you read without analyzing the huge body of HPV vaccine science. I suggest you go here: kegel.com/hpv

      “Can you provide any prelicensure randomized placebo control trial for a vaccineamd how long they flowed safety for?????”

      I think I understand your request. Here you go, one randomized, double-blind vaccine clinical trial with saline placebo.
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26411885

      Hepsilav? I see acute myocardial infarction rate of 0.25%. That is hardly 14:1. It was 14 out of 5587. 0.25%

      https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM584762.pdf

      I have looked quite a bit at the morbidity and mortality data in the 20th century. We have come a long long way, thanks in great deal to vaccines. Did you know that rotavirus used to hospitalize hundreds of thousands of babies a year, in USA, even after the toilet and hand washing were invented? And toilets don’t prevent airborne infections.

      Like

      • So many unsubstantiated assertions, it’s hard to know where to start!
        First, you mentioned bad Al studies. Bad for what reason? Can you post links to the better Al studies that convinced you that Al is safe?
        Second, the study you shared as “proof” of safety (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26411885)… it states that participants were “previously vaccinated with qHPV vaccine”. This was 3-doses, which was a prerequisite to participate in the study. Answer me this… don’t you think anybody that previously had any kind of adverse reaction to a vaccine would ever participate in a vaccine clinical trial?
        By design this “safety study” filters out anybody that has, or is every likely to have an adverse reaction. Are you seriously holding this up as an example of a safety study?
        And lastly;

        vaccinesworkblog: “I have looked quite a bit at the morbidity and mortality data in the 20th century. We have come a long long way, thanks in great deal to vaccines.”

        Can you share the data that proves cause and effect that vaccines are responsible for improved mortality in the 20th Century?

        Like

      • All my assertions are backed by data and studies.

        Read the section on Chapter 5 here for aluminum study info

        https://vaccinesworkblog.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/provax-autism-mom-reads-jb-handleys-autism-epidemic-book/

        As for the randomized, double-blind, saline placebo study, pubmed has many.

        https://vaccinesworkblog.wordpress.com/2018/08/06/there-are-no-vaccine-studies-with-saline-placebo/

        Finally, in each section of The Pink Book, there are graphs on mortality and morbidity and they compare to vaccination campaign data. Vaccines are definitely the major reason for decline in VPD morbidity.

        Like

      • Your comment didn’t add any weight to your assertions. You just linked to other pages…

        Explain how the study you referenced is proof of safety when the study was designed to filter out anybody that is likely to be vaccine sensitive?

        Like

      • “Can you share the data that proves cause and effect that vaccines are responsible for improved mortality in the 20th Century?”

        Yes, I can. Here is US Census report on the 20th century, you will see there is a table of several diseases and their reported incidence:
        From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf

        Now think very hard of this: if people do not get a disease, they do not die of the disease. Here are some examples of the what happened to the numbers of cases of several diseases pulled from that document:

        Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles
        1912 . . . 310.0
        1920 . . . 480.5
        1925 . . . 194.3
        1930 . . . 340.8
        1935 . . . 584.6
        1940 . . . 220.7
        1945 . . . 110.2
        1950 . . . 210.1
        1955 . . . 337.9
        1960 . . . 245.4
        1965 . . . 135.1
        1970 . . . . 23.2
        1975 . . . . 11.3
        1980 . . . . . 5.9
        1985 . . . . . 1.2
        1990 . . . . .11.2
        1991 . . . . . .3.8
        1992 . . . . . .0.9
        1993 . . . . . .0.1
        1994 . . . . . .0.4
        1995 . . . . . .0.1
        1996 . . . . . .0.2
        1997 . . . . . . 0.1

        Year…. Rate per 100000 of polio
        1912 . . . . 5.5
        1920 . . . . 2.2
        1925 . . . . 5.3
        1930 . . . . 7.5
        1935 . . . . 8.5
        1940 . . . . 7.4
        1945 . . . 10.3
        1950 . . . 22.1
        1955 . . . 17.6
        1960 . . . . 1.8
        1965 . . Less than .05
        1970 . . Less than .05
        1975 . . Less than .05
        1980 . . Less than .05

        Year Rate per 100000 of Diphtheria in the USA
        1912. . . 139
        1920. . . 139
        1925. . . 82.1
        1930. . . 54.1
        1935. . . 30.8
        1940. . . 11.8
        1945. . . 14.1
        1950. . . 3.8
        1955. . . 1.2
        1960. . . 0.5
        1965. . . 0.1
        1970 0.2
        1975 0.1
        1980 (Z)
        1985 (Z)
        1990 –
        1991 –
        1992 –
        1993 (NA)
        1994 –
        1995 (NA)
        1996 (Z)
        1997 (Z)

        Year Rate per 100000 of Pertussis
        1912 (NA)
        1920 (NA)
        1925 131.2
        1930 135.6
        1935 141.9
        1940 139.6
        1945 101
        1950 80.1
        1955 38.2
        1960 8.3
        1965 3.5
        1970 2.1
        1975 0.8
        1980 0.8
        1985 1.5
        1990 1.8
        1991 1.1
        1992 1.6
        1993 2.6
        1994 1.8
        1995 2
        1996 2.9
        1997 2.5

        Can you figure out why those numbers dropped?

        Like

  17. And if vaccines are so good for you why do we give the most of them and have the biggest problem with keeping baby’s alive from day 1. But seems like the one thing we always know for certain is it’s not the vaccine. But more and more people are catching on the that bullshit. Unfortunately it took an H1N1 stain of flu vaccine to give me narcolepsy and cataplexy to wake up from all that BS they cram down your throat in school.

    “It appears that at a certain stage in nations’ movement up the socio-economic scale—after the basic necessities for infant survival (proper nutrition, sanitation, clean water, and access to health care) have been met—a counter-intuitive relationship occurs between the number of vaccines given to infants and infant mortality rates: nations with higher (worse) infant mortality rates give their infants, on average, more vaccine doses. This positive correlation, derived from the data and demonstrated in Figures 1 and ​and2,2, elicits an important inquiry: are some infant deaths associated with over-vaccination?“

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/#!po=24.1071

    Like

    • Sorry, I don’t believe anything from Barbara Loe Fisher and her National Vaccine misInformation Conglomerate. Try again with actual documentation from the ACIP, which is not part of the FDA. The FDA only approves the licensure, it does not recommend how they will be used. That big error is why you should stay away from that website. As per usual, the facts are a wee bit more complicated, so Fisher ignores them: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3460207/

      Stop flailing about , just tell us what you would do if bitten by a rabid bat:

      1) Get treated by the modern rabies vaccine developed at Wistar in the 1960s

      2) Use homeopathy as recommend by Not a Doctor Andre Saine

      3) Or just let nature take its course

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lol you don’t accept anything as proof that doesn’t align with your dogmatic beliefs. And then you claim to be scientific.
        Problems with vaccines outside the US have absolutely no relevance to the US vaccine schedule, hey? That has more to do with politics and corruption that science. You only have to look at US infant death rate to see how sick US infants are. And this is supported by the vaccine dose and age of first vaccine relationship with hospitalisation and death: http://www.jpands.org/vol21no2/miller.pdf
        Chris, why do you think we get this relationship with vaccine doses and death rates?

        Like

      • That is most definitely not true. I was once very much on the fence about chicken pox vaccine and flu vaccine. Many of our vaccines are made in Europe and Canada so the immunization science is most definitely international.

        US Infant mortality rate and SIDS rate are both at all time lows. When we have universal healthcare and pay more in taxes to be able to offer more social welfare, as every single country with better rates does, then we will have a similar IMR and SIDS rate.

        JPANDS is a hate group. They literally hate anyone not christian and heterosexual and are sexist. You need better sources. Also, Miller is easily debunked. Look at the actual data yourself.

        Like

      • Oooh, JPANDS… from a political not medical group. So where did Neil Miller get his science or medical degree? Talk about “more to do with politics and corruption that science.” These guys post actual lies in their journal, including articles defending people who kill babies by shaking them to death. So what is Alan Yurko up to these days?

        “You only have to look at US infant death rate …”

        Uh, huh. So does every family in the USA have health insurance, and therefor have access to medical care? Funny, the uber conservatives who publish JPANDS are not fond of socials services like expanded Medicaid nor access to birth control. Jane Orient is very amusing, as is Andy Schlafly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons

        Liked by 1 person

      • Reading these comments anyone can see the straw man argument you adopt as the go-to response to ALL questions you can’t answer. It’s hilarious!

        Do you think it takes a medic to analyse reports from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS – which was set up by government), tallying “age”, “number of vaccines”, “hospitalisation”, “death” (info contained in the report), and then perform statistical analysis to find relationships?

        Like

      • I have made no straw man arguments.

        VAERS reports are unsubstantiated by evidence. On the other hand, the vaccine safety datalink studies do have access to the medical records to validate or invalidate the claims made in VAERS. VAERS reports are basically heresay.

        Like

      • Chris: “That only happened with a vaccine available in Scandinavian countries. So you are not in the USA, good to know. We have even more reason to ignore you when you whine about American vaccine policies.”

        The word ignorance originates from “ignore”. Good to know how you devise your opinions.

        Like

  18. Haha yeah the reason I work in a medical/ surgical ICU with a medical exemption my neurologist signed. Which is now mandatory for us. Lol I’d love them to try and force that with a known issue. Law suit!!!
    Oh and again how long did they follow side effects for the flu shot to say for certain that’s not the cause??? But again the one for certain thing doctors, who don’t know anything about vaccines, seem to know is it is wasn’t the vaccine.

    But I see how you guys operate. Science showing vaccines are causing side effects you discredit it. If fact you defend Paul Offit with Paul offits opinion, signs of real delusions.
    If you could stop talking with your opinion that would be great. Why did dr. Stanley Plotkin withdrawal as the expert on vaccines? The funniest thing about you people is there is no transparency. You have to make laws, force injections, and try and take away peoples rights to even speak on vaccines. Because they’re so good for you?
    You guys dont make sense, first world kids are dying yet when it comes to the third world kids then you start talking about sanitary conditions as if it matters now.
    Even worse, you speak in generalizations. Tell you what I’ll answer your stupid bat question right after you tell me how long they followed safety for in the HPV trial?

    Like

    • Why would a neurologist sign a medical exemption? And, if you have a medical exemption, you have to mask up and/or be quarantined at every time you come into contact with a VPD. That would be extremely problematic for any ICU so I do not for one second believe your story.

      We don’t discredit the idea that vaccines cause side effects. We look at the rates and the science. Vaccines cause extreme reactions in less than 0.0000011% of vaccinated Americans. That is an extremely low risk.

      Paul Offit offers evidence, not opinion. You should learn the difference.

      Like

  19. Oh and Chris this is ultimately how you know youre full of it. Of all the Scenarios with vaccines you ask about the one time you get the shot AFTER the disease.

    Can you tell me why the first thing we do with new borns is give them a hep B shot which is a sexually transmitted disease we test the mother for while being pregnant. Hmm I didn’t know baby’s shoot up drugs and are having sex in the womb. Keep beIng illogical. Maybe that’s why we have 50% more day one deaths compared to the next modern society, because of people like you…

    Like

    • The rabies vaccine for a virus that is almost always fatal, and it was created by someone you seem to really really hate. Therefor, I see no reason why you should not just tell us what you would do if bitten by a rabid bat (or other rabid animal):

      1) Get treated by the modern rabies vaccine developed at Wistar in the 1960s

      2) Use homeopathy as recommend by Not a Doctor Andre Saine

      3) Or just let nature take its course

      Ah, so much flailing… so little evidence.

      Hint: the second and third options usually have the same outcome.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Before the vaccine was recommended for all children in 1994, 30% of infected adults had no risk factors. Vaccinating only those infants from at-risk groups was not halting the spread of the infection to children. This was because of incomplete maternal screening and a “substantial proportion of infections occurred in children of Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAG)-negative mothers.” Let that sink in a bit. A substantial number of infections in children came from mothers who had tested negative. You got it. Testing all mothers doesn’t help. The study estimates that 16,000 children under the age of ten were infected with Hep B a year and that does not include the additional 15,000 children a year who acquired Hep B from their mothers, perinatally. Most of these 16,000 children had clinically silent infections that will lead to chronic liver infections later in life, with 25% leading to death. The study concludes that routine vaccination of infants will save 2700 deaths a year.

      https://vaccinesworkblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/10/hepatitis-b-vaccine-is-safe-necessary/

      Like

  20. Lol did you really just reference your own blog😂 there’s a new study that came out last year call “Critical Analysis of Reference Studies on the Toxicokinetics of Aluminum based adjuvants.” Again suggesting the aluminum which now study after study is showing autoimmunity and neurodevelopemental disorders, also disproves the ignorant idea that ingested aluminum is equatable to injected aluminum. I may disagree with one person who manipulates people but you idiots are just plain ignoring facts. It’s almost comical at this point.

    And with the Hep B, are you referring to GSKs version which followed safety for 4 days, or Merks (who ghost wrote vioxx again?) who followed safety for 5 days. And then you throw out that .0000011%. Must be nice to excluded all those side effects that happen after that. Which is the burden of the patient to then prove against the HHS, who’s supposed to be doing the safety testing in the first place.
    Lipitor for example followed safety for 4 years. And then there’s that alarming autism number.

    Like

    • This blog is junk. I stumbled across it and only bothered to comment for the benefit of visitors that are truely looking for answers, yet unknowingly getting the ghost written replies from the vaccine manufacturers.

      Like

      • “…ghost written replies from the vaccine manufacturers.”

        Hilarious, you cannot use your standard much used and refuted “arguments” outside of the echo chamber you are used to, so you resort to the old boring stale Pharma Shill Gambit.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Chris, I don’t mean you. You’re too ignorant on this topic to be a pharma shill. That is obvious by the information you’re posting.
        I actually don’t know where to start with you. Take your earlier post reply about correlation and causality. Do you even know the difference? Your earlier post listed disease incidence rates and then equated that to a causal relationship with vaccines and improved mortality. And you even demonstrated your flawed dot connections “decreased incidence means decreased mortality”. We know that isn’t true and is proven false from the 2017 study I shared previously: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28188123
        In predictable fashion you disregard that study as “not valid to today’s society”. That’s BS, it’s totally relevant for reasons I’ve made previously… yet, you can’t use that weak excuse when you relate it to the population back in the early 1900’s.
        The immune system doesn’t function in isolation. Vaccines can reduce the incidence a particular disease, yet in the process it weakens the immune system against other diseases. And, exposes the body to dangerous substances that cause sever morbidity, neurological disorders and death.
        And even when you look at disease specific mortality… death rates from diseases were well on the decline long before the introduction of the vaccine. Why do you suppose that was?

        Like

      • “You’re too ignorant on this topic to be a pharma shill.”

        How can someone die from disease they do not get?

        “And you even demonstrated your flawed dot connections “decreased incidence means decreased mortality”. We know that isn’t true and is proven false from the 2017 study I shared previously…”

        How does one of the poorest countries in the world compare to the USA, UK, Europe or even the former Soviet Union? Are those places where malaria is endemic? Please move to Guinea-Bissau.

        Mortality data only measures the quality of medical care. Much of what that shows is that people stay alive longer in cleaner hospitals, antibiotics and respiratory support. Yet, between 1950 and now people are still getting those diseases. Trust me they were getting them in Guinea-Bissau…. except there would be no access to medical care.

        This is data culled from the CDC Pink Book Appendix E, which I linked to earlier. It is arranged to help you understand the stark difference in fifty years with incidence/mortality (remember this is data just from the United States of America, and not Guinea-Bissau):

        Pertussis:
        Year___Cases__Deaths__Year___Cases__Deaths
        2000____7867____ 12___1950__120718__1118
        2001____7580____ 17___1951___68687___951
        2002____9771____ 18___1952___45030___402
        2003___11647____ 11___1953___37129___270
        2004___25827____ 27___1954___60886___373
        2005___25616____ 39___1955___62786___467
        2006___15632____ 16___1956___31732___266
        Total_103940_____140_________426968__3847

        Tetanus:
        Year__Cases__Deaths__Year___Cases___Deaths
        2000_____35____ 5____1950____486____336
        2001_____37____ 5____1951____506____394
        2002_____25____ 5____1952____484____360
        2003_____20____ 4____1953____506____337
        2004_____34____ NA___1954____524____332
        2005_____27____ NA___1955____462____265
        2006_____41____ NA___1956____468____246
        Total___219____19 or more_____3436____2270

        Measles:
        Year_Cases_Deaths__Year___Cases____Deaths
        2000____86___ 1____1950__319124____468
        2001___116___ 1____1951__530118____683
        2002____44___ 0____1952__683077____618
        2003____56___ 1____1953__449146____462
        2004____37___ 0____1954__682720____518
        2005____66___ 1____1955__555156____345
        2006____55___ 0____1956__611936____530
        Total___460____4____…___3831277___3624

        Now here is a story of what happened in the 1990s when those who dislike vaccines get their way. Please do tell us what happened to 157,000 people and then what else to 5000 of them:
        https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/181/Supplement_1/S10/837378

        How much has hospital care changed in the last thirty years? Why do you think the nickname of that disease is called the “choking angel”? Is that available to every child in Guinea-Bissau, or even the USA?

        Also, please explain why you think insults are a valid substitute for data and evidence?

        Like

      • Chris: “How can someone die from disease they do not get?”

        The same way Vioxx helped people with pain relief, yet killed them with a heart attack. Some 50,000 (conservative) to 100,000+ (realistic) people died in the US after receiving pain relief from Vioxx.

        Oh that’s not relevant because it’s a pharmaceutical drug.

        Licensed drugs go through far more stringent testing than vaccines. And the same company that produced Vioxx and knew that it was deadly is the same company that manufactures vaccines for our children.

        Chris, as I posted earlier, the decline in death rate was unchanged from the introduction of vaccine. Of course if you clip the chart so that you exclude the trend prior to vaccination you’re deceived to think that the vaccine is responsible.

        Mortality for several common illnesses had already declined significantly long before the vaccines were created. The downward trend of the curves is completely unaffected by vaccine introduction.

        I’m not going to waste my time responding to you because you clearly don’t understand (or don’t want to) fundamental principles of science.

        Like

      • Correct, Scarlet Fever disappeared without vaccination. It was as deadly as measles in the early 1900’s. All diseases followed the same downward trend without vaccination.

        Can you explain the concepts of correlation and causation?

        Like

      • Sorry, the pertussis table was mucked up by the available width of the comment. I will try to post a revised version, but I must first comment on that garbage graph from Dr. Humphries… scarlet fever?

        There is no vaccine for scarlet fever. It is one of the complications of a bacterial strep infection. Strep has this lovely property that you cannot get immunity from it after recovering. So if your kid gets it once… they will get it again, and again. Which is what we learned when two of our kids had several bouts in a row over three months. It turned the third sibling had no symptoms, but was still infected with strep bacteria that he passed on. How was it stopped? Wait, no spoilers.

        Do you know what works for a strep infection? Antibiotics. Seriously, did you not think the graph for that disease was not affected by actual medicine!

        Yep, the cycle was broken when all three were put on antibiotics. Funny, how you cherry pick what science you choose to understand.

        Now I will attempt to correct the pertussis table, though you are free to check out the numbers in Appendix E of the CDC Pink Book:

        Pertussis:
        Year__Cases_Deaths_Year_Cases__Deaths
        2000___7867_ 12___1950_120718_1118
        2001___7580_ 17___1951__68687__951
        2002___9771_ 18___1952__45030__402
        2003__11647_ 11___1953__37129__270
        2004__25827_ 27___1954__60886__373
        2005__25616_ 39__ 1955__ 62786__467
        2006__15632_ 16__ 1956_ 31732__266
        Total_103940_140_______ 426968_3847

        Look at those numbers, and then think about this mind blowing statistic: those are actually recorded cases. The population of the USA is double now than what is was in 1950.

        Like

      • “The same way Vioxx helped people with pain ..”

        Again, Vioxx is not a vaccine. Also, you really are not making much of an argument when you do not under one simple concept: you cannot die from a disease that you cannot get because you are immune… due to a vaccine.

        Plus mortality is not the only bad complication from a disease. Obviously you discount the blindness, deafness, paralysis, pneumonia, limb amputations, cancer, seizures and other issues caused by diseases that we vaccinate against.

        Your next comment should contain the following if you wish the laughter at your feeble attempts to be stifled: PubMed studies by reputable qualified researchers not on the Dwoskin payroll that any vaccine on the present American pediatric schedule causes more harm than the disease.

        Like

      • Oh I see, so it is just like Polio and Acute Flaccid Paralysis. Polio was classified and thus seemed to be eradicated when in reality it just got renamed acute flaccid paralysis.

        Since when is antibiotics a vaccine?

        Still waiting for you to explain the difference between correlation and causality. And what that means with regards to the role vaccines had in improved disease mortality. When ever you are ready…

        Like

      • Polio was not eradicated when the viral cause for other health issues were differentiated from polio. In fact, quite the opposite. The history of polio is complicated. I would recommend this as a good site to learn

        polioeradication.org

        Like

      • No one. You brought it up with that silly graph, and for some reason think that scarlet fever “disappeared” when you said: “Correct, Scarlet Fever disappeared without vaccination.”

        I just corrected that wrong notion. Strep infections have not disappeared, and the scarlet fever complication in strep infections has been increasing.

        Liked by 1 person

      • So that’s a no? You can’t explain the difference between correlation and causation. I didn’t think so since your comment assumed a causal link from a correlation.

        Just in conclusion; you think correlation is causation. You think the graph using data from Vital Statistics of the United States is a “silly graph” because it shows how death rates declined and irrespective of vaccine. The Mason et al study is rubbish for whatever reason fits the narrative. The 2017 published study that showed a 10x increased mortality rate in infants is not valid because the data was collected in 1980. In which instead of increase mortality you claim the opposite will happen in the west. The system set up to monitor vaccine adverse events by govt if also rubbish.

        I understand your position on this. If it doesn’t agree with your dogmatic beliefs then it’s rubbish. Got it.

        Like

      • “When ever you are ready…”

        Already done. It is not my job to teach you how to read a table, or read an article that I linked to with comprehension. It is obvious that you simply do not understand something as basic that one cannot die from a disease that they cannot get because they are immune due to a vaccine.

        Now you are just trolling.

        Like

      • If you want to live in a deeply paranoid world, that is your choice. I live in a world based on facts and evidence and data and science. Why comment on this blog if what I have to say doesn’t fit your conspiracy mind?

        Like

      • vaccinesworkblog: “I live in a world based on facts and evidence and data and science.”

        That’s joke. Your default position is ignor-ance of facts and evidence and data and science.

        This post is entirely about ignoring science.

        And what about the 10x increase in mortality hazard ratio. What contained in the DTP vaccine could possibly cause this 10x increase in deaths? Is that also found in other vaccines?

        How much aluminium is safe to inject into a infant? Where’s the evidence for this?

        I’m still waiting for a reply regarding the “safety” study you referenced. How valuable is a safety study whose participants had to have received 3 doses of another vaccine to qualify to participate in the study? Isn’t it right that anyone previously suffering an adverse reaction to a vaccine would not volunteer to participate in a vaccine trial? Thus, the facts you provided prove nothing as the study was designed to exclude those most vulnerable.

        Like

      • “… CDC is the ultimate arbiter of truth…”

        Very much unlike the person who goes by “ClickProfits.” Especially with the use of mortality graphs that are purposely deceptive.

        Like

      • Here’s comes the ad hominem attacks, lol.

        Let’s see, why should one be skeptical of the CDC? Firstly, their own scientists are turning against them calling out the corruption. Second, they own about 20 vaccine patents, creating a huge financial conflict of interest. And third, they have a revolving door between top CDC executives and big pharma. What about this is ok with you?

        Liked by 1 person

      • CDC scientists are not turning against them. I know of not one CDC scientist who has quit working for them and turned against them.

        Vaccines are not covered by one patent. CDC may own patents for technologies related to vaccines but not whole vaccines. And CDC is a non profit, governemental agency, so all monies earned from leasing those technologies benefits future research and the American people. No COI.

        I don’t buy into big pharma conspiracies. You are deeply paranoid.

        Hey, we went full circle.

        Liked by 1 person

      • All without addressing the questions related to the science. Convenient.

        You don’t know of any whistleblowers? None whatsoever?

        Please address the other questions instead of resort to ad hominem and straw man arguments…

        1) What’s a safe dose of injected aluminium in infants?
        2) What mechanism do you suppose triggered the 10x increase in mortality ratio and why?
        3) What use is a safety study that excludes (by design) those that are most likely to experience an adverse reaction?
        4) Why do you think death rates were declining before the introduction of vaccine, and why didn’t vaccine appear to alter the rate of decline beyond that it was already experiencing pre vaccine?

        Like

      • What questions have not been addressed?

        The only “cdc whistleblower” is William Thompson and that was debunked 4.5 years ago.

        http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/2014/09/mmr-cdc-and-brian-hooker-media-guide.html

        1. There is no predetermined limit for aluminum salts in vaccines but we know infants get far more from other sources. https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum

        2. There is no 10X increase in mortality. IMR and SIDS rates are both at historic lows in USA.

        https://vaccinesworkblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/29/vaccines-save-lives/

        3. ???

        4. Death rates were decreasing before vaccines due to modern meds. Morbidity rates did not decrease until vaccination campaigns.

        Like

      • Lol did you just reference a blog as proof that a whistleblower’s allegations are false? William Thompson has given his affidavit to Congressman Posey. Thompson still has whistleblower status and is waiting to be subpoenaed before congress.

        Dietary aluminium is very different to aluminium in vaccines. For a start, less than 0.3% of ingested Al makes in in to the blood. Those that do are ionised particles that can not cross the blood brain barrier. Unlike those in vaccine that are nano particles which bind to other vaccine ingredients and can cross the blood brain barrier.

        Since aluminium has not been studied for safety, don’t you think studies like those of Shaw’s need to be taken seriously? https://youtu.be/yCzdliixnmI

        What caused the 10x increase in mortality rate https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28188123

        What modern meds decreased the mortality rate prior to vaccination? What led you to that assumption?

        Like

      • The blog I referenced, Harpocrates Speaks, is a great blog and has been writing about the “cdcwhistleblower” nonsense since August 2014 and referenceding a small tons of links. Give it at try.

        Like

      • Good blog or bad, it’s far from peer reviewed science, dude.

        How do you know aluminium does not cross the blood brain barrier? Where’s the proof? Or is that another assumption?

        What do encephalitis, encephalopathy and seizures all have in common? (Other than commonly listed as adverse reaction for vaccine insert).

        Like

      • All federal employees have whistleblower status. Meanwhile, Thomas never blew any whistleles.

        Dietary aluminum does not relate vaccines.

        Aluminum salts are too large to cross the blood brain barrier.

        Nothing in vaccines crosses the BBB.

        Shaw’s studies are bunk. Many have been retracted and they all have serious validity and CIO issues.

        Look at morbidity rates, dude.

        Like

      • “Good blog or bad, it’s far from peer reviewed science, dude.”

        And neither is your reliance on silly mortality graphs, which totally ignores incidence. How can you die from a disease you cannot get if you get immunity from a vaccine?

        “What do encephalitis, encephalopathy and seizures all have in common?”

        They can all be caused by measles, mumps, influenza, Hib and several other diseases. Plus lots of other ways like being hit in the head. One is less likely to get them if they are protected by getting vaccinated or wear a helmet while skiing. If you have evidence that vaccines cause seizures, encephalitis etc more often than the diseases then please present the PubMed indexed studies by qualified reputable researchers.

        Like

      • “silly mortality graphs”

        You don’t trust data from “The vital statistics of the United States”? You are a deeply paranoid conspiracy theorist.

        Like

      • Did you even go to high school? Again, mortality only measures the advancement of medical care, very expensive medical care like artificial respiration, starting with the iron lung.

        Incidence is the real measure of vaccine effectiveness. Because how can someone get seizures, encephalitis, deafness, blindness, paralysis, or death from a disease they never get because they are immune from an actual disease due to vaccination?

        Explain how vaccines are worse than the diseases by providing the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers not on the Dwoskin payroll that any vaccine on the present American pediatric schedule is worse than the disease. In short: does the MMR vaccine cause encephalitis at the same rate of measles, which is one out of a thousand?

        By the way, there is no way to get immune from a bacterial strep infection. If your kid gets it, and recovers with antibiotics… they can get again. News flash: scarlet fever is a complication of getting a strep infection. It still exists.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Your brilliance is underwhelming, especially since you do not understand the difference between the importance of the difference between “death” and “incidence.” No one changed the meaning of words. It is your ignorance that makes you not understand basic vocabulary.

        So exactly how does someone die from a disease that they do not get because they are protected form it because of being vaccinated?

        I am amused that the answer from you is the one that I get is now as the standard result when one searches Google for “idiot.” You do not have an answer, but now have just admitted you are clueless. So where is that PubMed indexed study by reputable qualified researchers not on the Dwoskin payroll that there are more seizures from a vaccine on the present American pediatric schedule than the diseases?

        Liked by 1 person

  21. Is this a real article??? It kinda sounds like a joke?? I’m just a “mom” & not trying to defend this study or be mean, but all five of your points sound exactly like the way ALL vaccines studies are conducted!! I tried researching the flu shot for pregnant women & my ob directed me to the studies on the cdc web site. 1. All except one were funded by the manufacturer or scientists received money from the manufacturer. 2. I can only assume anyone profiting from something is going to be bias. 3. The studies were flawed. Used data from the vsd then omitted woman with certain heart & medical issues. (I received the shot despite my heart issue) from one study. Used data from vars, (which only captures 1% of injuries). Not all of them used true double blind placebos. NONE ACTUALLY TESTED FOR SAFETY. Let’s not even get into the studies that have a black cloud of fraud over them…
    So while you rip apart a study that may or may not be vailed, why are we not demanding MORE studies be done that involve CHILDREN!!!!! Why is the cdc not using the vsd to do the study?!! With chronic health conditions in children & autism rates continuing to climb, parents are left in the dark. I’m completely appalled at this author & the politics involved in this topic. My son is fully vaccinated but Its articles like this that actually make me more mad & question vaccine safety!! Lastly, what bias does a mom have who has a vaccine injured child have? I know……more RESEARCH!!! To heal their child & protect others. Instead this sounds like a 5 year old having a tantrum.

    Like

  22. I dont understand how can you mentioned CDC. In the film Vaxxed you can see the whisleblower from the CDC explain how they take away data to fit the non autistic relation with vaccines.
    You have William Thompson from the CDC giving Brian Hooker the data to support the analysis and found vaccines DO CAUSE AUTISM
    Brian Hooker did the data analysis and found the correlations, more Autism in boys, more autism in Afro American, etc.

    1st You have the audio from the Whisleblower. The guy is still in the CDC working and cursing his boss by email on the last interviwe with the media
    2nd The head of the CDC at that time ends up working as a CEO for MERK the maker of the vaccine.
    3rd There are numerous videos of parents showing their kids in perfect health, eye contact, normal movement, words expressed and after the vaccine you have the videos of their regress autism.
    4th Pharma has a lot more money to support or indirect support these kind of research.
    5th You can see dozens of news telling how 37 people died of Measles last year in Europe. Thats less than 1 person per country. But about 1/21 1/40 1/100 prevalence in childs with autism you barely see them
    6th Dell Bigtree a journalist was amazed how media ignored this whisleblower he has a channel related to this. Just Google Dell Bigtree “The Highwire”
    7th Kenedy ask for the files on vaccine safety to the state as a FOIA request and they admit they dont have them
    8th There are test on mice on AlOH on how they have motor issues and brain damage. Just Google it.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819810/
    9th There are graphis of 6 diseases 3 of which got a vaccine and 3 that didnt got a vaccine. All 6 diseases banish in mortality rates. With or without vaccines. Your inmune system has many years of evolution. Vaccines will not make much better. Hunger, war, cold and higiene conditions are the things that get better and reduce the disieases. If you dont agree take your 54 vaccines and go drink from a lake or river were people defecated. You will not last 10 days healthy.
    10th There are no studies on how vaccines interact with each other. NONE. Its like having multiple medicines at the same time without knowing if they cancel or potentiate.
    11th We can keep going but flu vaccines on pregnant women I saw the last episode of Dell and they show like 11 vaccines that dont have the studies made.

    Here is the data do your own analisys if you dont Trust Brian Hooker a cientist.
    http://vaxxedthemovie.com/download-the-cdc-autism-mmr-files-released-by-dr-william-thompson/

    Like

    • I watched Vaxxed, several times, and found it hard to believe.

      https://vaccinesworkblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/a-provaxer-watched-vaxxed/

      For one thing, there was no “whistleblower.” Dr Thompson did not blow any whistles. He had a conversation with Brian Hooker, which Hooker recorded and then Hooker did a very bad analysis of the not actually shredded data and Wakefield and Hooker decided to blow some whistles. Thompson issued a statement, via his attorney, back in August 2014, which stated that he is provax and the issue was merely a disagreement over how to analyze the data. The data analysis Hooker did was retracted in summer 2014 as shoddy. The data has been re-analyzed by others and the original 2004 findings found valid. To further that point, there are multiple studies of autism rates by race and no validity to the idea (via Hooker) that there are more African American boys with autism.

      Like

      • I dont care if you believe or not the Documentary.
        He said “we commited fraud”, they take away data. They took half of the kids not born on the state and turn them away. If they put these kids on the analysis it would be different.

        Like

      • Vaxxed is not a documentary. There is nothing factual in it. All the parents featured in it have lost their claims of vaccine injury in court. The screaming baby is Del’s daughter. The whole thing is a pack of lies.

        Like

    • 2. I don’t care if Julie Geberding is the executive vice president for strategic communications, global public policy and population health and chief patient officer, of Merck & Co because I know “big pharma ” conspiracies are untrue.

      Like

      • If you care or not its not my problem. Thats a clear “interest” issue . The boss handles the data of the vaccines and they end up working for MERK.
        THATS called “conflict of interest” if you dont see it you are not going to be able to discuss the subject.

        Like

    • 3. If there are videos of children, such as you say, then why do home videos repeatedly prove these claims wrong ? Brian Hooker lost his vaccine injury claim primarily because his son’s medical records proved he had developmental issues long before vaccines. Michelle Cedillo’s family lost their vaccine injury claim because home videos proved she had developmental issues long before vaccines. So, you are not truthful. There is no video proof that vaccines cause autism.

      4. Most research about vaccines is NOT done by pharma companies. Branch out your research skills.

      5. I am sorry that tens of thousands of measles cases in Europe don’t matter to you but to those of us who value public health we are concerned. We value human life and want to prevent suffering and complications. Autism rates have not increased. We just changed diagnosis categories. Consult my index for the post entitled “there is no autism epidemic.”

      6. Del is not a journalist. He is a hack with no formal education. And he lies, a lot. For example, he currently is raving about the Italian study which supposedly found no antigen in vaccines. That’s because the “scientists” did not separate the antigen from the adjuvant. Dumb mistake. And you antivaxers glom all over it. Ridiculous.

      7. Kennedy and Bigtree found HHS had not submitted biennial reports of vaccine safety to Congress. Does that mean there are not reports to Congress from another agency? Does that mean there are no safety studies? No to both.

      8. Humans are not mice. Mice have completely different physiology and do not get autism. Plus, the mice got vastly more aluminum, per body weight, than humans. The dose makes the poison.

      9. Mortality rates were decreasing before vaccines due to good medical care. Morbidity, or incidence, rate did not decrease until vaccines. People were suffering before vaccines. Just because they were not dying as much is no reason to say vaccines did not help decrease disease rate. Vaccines are the reason for decreases in morbidity for all VPDs.

      10. There are many studies of more than one vaccine at a time. Pubmed is your friend.

      11. Del is a lying liar and a shyster. I am sorry you take him at his word. I would encourage to independently try to verify his claims. You will come to realize he lies. A lot.

      The data has been online for free since January 2017. It was first posted here.
      https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2016/01/04/the-william-thompson-documents-theres-no-whistle-to-blow/

      Liked by 1 person

      • 3. If you are going to go into trials you will lose the argument becuase Vaccine Court has payed in the past billons of dolars in compensations for vaccine injuries.
        So dont go into trials.

        Like

      • There are no trials in vaccine court. It’s all done with a special master. And these court opinions matter. Brian Hooker’s is asatounding. I have read it several times. You can learn about it here and find a link.

        https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2016/07/07/double-checking-brian-hookers-story-in-vaxxed/

        The compensation system has compensated 6000 claims of vaccine injury in 30 years, during which time 5 billion doses of vaccines have been given out in USA. That makes risk of vaccine injury literally 0.0000011%. That is five zeros. Risk of measles injury is 30%.

        Like

  23. And about the study:
    “Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6 – 12 Year Old U.S. Children” and “Preterm birth, vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: A cross-sectional study of 6 – 12 year old vaccinated and unvaccinated children”

    You tell me the parents dont know the difference between allergy and a flue or something similar.
    Lets say you have a point there… I am a parent and I know but lets say I dont.

    Do you believe like parents could not tell if his child is autistic or not? How are the chances a parent does not know his child is autistic? 10% 5% 1%? Lets say 25% parents dont know HIS CHILD, ONE OF THE MORE IMPORTANT THING IN HIS LIFE IS AUTISTIC.
    How this affect a 4x Rate of more autism on unvaccinated children? It could go to 3x or to 5x because the error goes both ways. Do you still vaccinate your child with a prevalence rate of 1/50? or do you let him have measles with a mortality rate in Europe last year of less than 1 person per country.

    Like

    • “How are the chances a parent does not know his child is autistic?”

      It is very high, especially since there is a large number of varying characteristics that cover the autism spectrum syndrome. Not everyone considered autistic gets diagnosed before the age of three. I know someone whose nonverbal child got a diagnosis when he was thirteen. I was told for almost twenty years my son was okay, but he got diagnosed when he was twenty six years old.

      “Do you still vaccinate your child with a prevalence rate of 1/50?…”

      Most of the “1/50” are those with are level 1 as defined by DSM V, and you would not know that they were on the spectrum even if you had a conversation with them.

      “…or do you let him have measles with a mortality rate in Europe last year of less than 1 person per country.”

      The reason your country may see so few deaths is because almost everyone vaccinates. The most recent measles outbreaks have seen deaths in the dozens, so your statement is untrue: The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review

      Like

    • We cannot parent comments at their word. Any analysis of health status must be verified by medical records. That was not done with Mawson study. Mawson didn’t even verify comments with actual participants. The reason this study has been retracted twice is data is not valid.

      Before vaccines, every single child got measles and 30% of them suffered complications, 1-2 per 1000 died, and God knows how many got SSPE and died. Measles was once the number one reason children suffered brain damage after birth. Compare that to 1 in 50 chance of being autistic, with most Autistics being intelligent, capable people who need us to understand neurodiversity and offer support but are not severely disabled. And autism has nothing to do with vaccines.

      That’s a no brainer. Prevent disease. Autism rate won’t change, regardless.

      Like

    • “…. do you let him have measles with a mortality rate in Europe last year of less than 1 person per country.”

      Until recently measles was eradicated in South America, now it is endemic in Venezuela, and it is spreading with several deaths:
      https://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_docman&view=download&category_slug=measles-2204&alias=46335-21-september-2018-measles-epidemiological-update&Itemid=270&lang=en

      This is one of many reasons that political and legal testimonies are not science.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Including 72 deaths, have been reported in 11 countries of the Region of the Americas

        Do you have any idea the population of those 11 countries?
        Only USA, ARGENTINE, BRASIL AND MEXICO YOU HAVE MORE THAN 700 MILLON PEOPLE.
        You are worried for 72 deaths. And 62 of them were in a country that is having famine and no access to health. Thats because of the blockade enforced by USA.
        Take USA numbers 0 death in your report.
        Take Argentine 0 death in your report. And believe there is famine in Argentine but no like Venezuela. I live here.
        Brasil with only 10 death in your report thats 209 Millon people and you are worried by 10 death of measles. Thats 4.78 E-8 Chance or 4.78E-6% Chance of Dying.
        Sorry but if you are afraid of measles dont go driving. The chances of you dying that way are in Argentine. 0 death to 3500. Infinite % Higher.
        In Brasil 10 death to 46,935 in car accidents. So you have 4693 more chances to die in a Car accident.

        If you call this Epidemic check the number of Autistic childs
        1.7% in the USA Childs with ASD
        https://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20180426/more-us-kids-being-diagnosed-with-autism#1

        About 1.7 percent of children — one in 59 — are now believed to have autism spectrum disorder, up from an estimated rate of 1.5 percent in 2016, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

        So 4.78E-6% Measles death chance vs 1.7% Chance of Autism.
        mmmmmm Which one looks like an Epidemic. Well you have like 6 zeroes of difference what we called in science A LOT.

        Like

      • The death rate from measles in Americas is due to high measles vaccination rate. As we vax less, we will see morbidity and mortality rise, just like they are seeing in Europe.

        Autism has nothing to do with vaccines. It is not new. It has always been here.

        You are chatting with two people who have autistic children and are highly educated on autism and immunization science, Chris and myself, Kathy.

        Like

  24. In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury.

    Like

  25. How are the chances a parent does not know his child is autistic?”

    It is very high, especially since there is a large number of varying characteristics that cover the autism spectrum syndrome.

    SORRY IS NOT VERY HIGH. And even if it is 50% the rate will go lower and higher. Like 2x to 8x

    Like

    • Why do you have a problem with a study verifying data? Do you understand what validity means?

      The Mawson made a lot of claims, none of which were verified. That is why the study was retracted twice and is not considered valid.

      Like

      • Why do you have a problem with a study verifying data? Do you understand what validity means?

        I am a chemist thats a fact I did publications as a scientist.
        Dont get angry at facts.
        What are your credentials?

        Like

      • We are parents who have learned from reading actual science as we find help for our kids. We learned to recognize the bogus stuff people try to get us buy thinking we are naive.

        Plus we have learned there is difference between experiments on humans and those on chemicals. Because testing laundry detergents does not need to comply with human subject ethics required by the Belmont report. Especially when it comes to sample bias (self-selected phone surveys is not valid statistical data)

        Do chemists take legal and political testimonies as data instead test results? Because if you do, I would like to stay far far away from where you work.

        Like

  26. I don’t buy into big pharma conspiracies. You are deeply paranoid.

    And the other Statment.

    Merck & Co because I know “big pharma ” conspiracies are untrue.

    This are funny coments.

    In this Case was proven that Merks knows their drug had increased the risks of heart attacks and strokes and they hide the information. Thats a trial of Pharma Conspiracy when Merck Lost and they had to pay more than 4 billon. But for you Pharma conspiracy is a lie.

    “At one point, Mr. Lanier presented the jury an e-mail message written in March 2000 by Dr. Edward M. Scolnick, who was then Merck’s head of research, saying that a large clinical trial of Vioxx had shown that the drug increased heart risks, or cardiovascular events.

    “The CV events were clearly there,” Dr. Scolnick wrote.

    Dr. Santanello said that Dr. Scolnick and Merck had decided later that Vioxx did not increase heart risks. Instead, naproxen, an older painkiller sold under the brand name Aleve and taken by other patients in the clinical trial, had decreased its users’ heart risks, Dr. Santanello said.

    As Dr. Santanello offered a long explanation of Merck’s rationale, Mr. Lanier whispered to a member of his staff about a possible exhibit. When Dr. Santanello finished, he said: “I wasn’t listening to what you were saying, but I don’t think you were answering my question. That’s the one time I don’t mind you going on and on.”

    Later, Dr. Santanello appeared to grow irritated as Mr. Lanier asked her whether Mr. Ernst had risk factors for heart attacks beyond his use of Vioxx. “You’re playing this game,” she said.

    “This is not a game,” he responded. “My client’s dead.””

    I Will answer a couple of more replys and leave this website. This is probably funded by pharma

    Like

    • First of all, it is MERCK. With a C.

      I pay attention to the international body of immunization science, not the cherry picking you are doing.

      No, I don’t get any funding at all. I am a teacher, still on winter break. Watching tv right now while I chat.

      Like

  27. 5. I am sorry that tens of thousands of measles cases in Europe don’t matter to you but to those of us who value public health we are concerned. We value human life and want to prevent suffering and complications. Autism rates have not increased. We just changed diagnosis categories. Consult my index for the post entitled “there is no autism epidemic.”

    3 cases of measles death in the USA in the last 5 years.

    120 deaths of measles death reported in VAERS with only a 10% coverage.

    Sorry but your public health concerns seems lacking mathematical logic!

    Like

    • If you consult CDC Wonder database, there have been 42 deaths related to measles in last ten year in USA, most from SSEP. Searches don’t C&P so you will have to search there yourself.

      VAERS is not valid. Medical records have to be verified. When they are, there are zero deaths caused by MMR.

      Like

    • “120 deaths of measles death reported in VAERS with only a 10% coverage.”

      You really do not understand sampling bias. Those are unverified postings, and may be no association to a vaccine. Do tell us why the following words are at https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html :

      A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.

      Again, self-selected testimonies are not science. VAERS reports are self-selected testimonies. They do not become science until they are investigated by qualified medical personnel.

      So as a chemist did you actually believe that Fleischmann and Pons had discovered cold fusion. Or did you wait for actual scientific science?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Again, self-selected testimonies are not science. VAERS reports are self-selected testimonies.

        VAERS are medics that put this information in the database after asking their patients.
        Medical Records are medics taht put information in papers or databases.

        Thinking one is valid and the other is not… double standards

        Like

      • “So as a chemist did you actually believe that Fleischmann and Pons had discovered cold fusion. Or did you wait for actual scientific science?”

        Fleischmann and Pons experiment was non-scientific science?

        Like

      • “Fleischmann and Pons experiment was non-scientific science?”

        Yep. It is right up there with perpetual motion machines. In reality they put out a press release without fully vetting their results.

        Liked by 1 person

  28. Consult my index for the post entitled “there is no autism epidemic.”

    YES THERE IS!
    IF you believe there is a measles epidemic and not a Autistim epidemic you didnt do the math.
    The prevalence rate is increasing exponetialy.

    Like

    • As my research project found, we have shifted from diagnosing children as mentally retarded to autism spectrum disorder. Add to that the children on the spectrum, like my child, who would have just been called odd a generation ago, and you have a autism spectrum that is wide but is not epidemic at all.

      Like

  29. As my research project found, we have shifted from diagnosing children as mentally retarded to autism spectrum disorder. Add to that the children on the spectrum, like my child, who would have just been called odd a generation ago, and you have a autism spectrum that is wide but is not epidemic at all.

    This has been discussed plenty. From 2010 the diagnistic is the same. So Explaining the increase of autism prevalence from 2010 to 2018 from the DIAGNISTIC point of view is not a valid argument

    Like

  30. 8. Humans are not mice. Mice have completely different physiology and do not get autism. Plus, the mice got vastly more aluminum, per body weight, than humans. The dose makes the poison.

    My wife works at the university creating new anti epileptic drugs. And they use mices because is the most similar thing to humans to start with. Some mices cost 30.000 U$D when they are dna enginieerd to have the same disease as a human. SO Saying that we should not use mices or that that step has no value or similar claims are really far away from reallity.

    https://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html

    Another reason rodents are used as models in medical testing is that their genetic, biological and behavior characteristics closely resemble those of humans, and many symptoms of human conditions can be replicated in mice and rats. “Rats and mice are mammals that share many processes with humans and are appropriate for use to answer many research questions,” said Jenny Haliski, a representative for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare.

    Like

    • I am leaving your blog I believe its biased and I believe both cant see the other side.

      My idea is that vaccines should exist but they need to make components more secure.
      I believe this was not study properly.
      People should decide if they want to vaccinate or not. It could not be mandated.

      If trials had payed over 4 billon dolars in compensations I believe my general idea is funded with the last resort we have. Science is great but things are settled in a trial and trials have spoken.

      So I can gave you articles and you can give me articles and we can debate endlessly about the subject.

      Trials had payed and they have to blame themselves and the pharma industry for the damage they had caused.

      Like

      • “I am leaving your blog I believe its biased and I believe both cant see the other side.”

        Reality and science only have one side. Do you believe there are two sides to the “Flat Earth Theory” or the notion that this planet is stationary?

        “If trials had payed over 4 billon dolars in compensations I believe my general idea is funded with the last resort we have.”

        Again, those were legal decisions… not science.

        Just bringing it up you get to do my little math word problem. This is the statistics:
        https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/monthly-stats-december-2018.pdf

        Now go to the first table and find the last row labeled “Grand Total”. Now take the number of the total number of vaccines given over that time period (3,153,876,236 vaccine doses), then run your finger over to the “Compensated Claims” number (3785 paid claims). Divide the first number by the second number.

        1. What number you get as a result?

        2: What does it mean?

        3: Define the term “settlement”, look at the next page.

        4: How many were settlements? What does it mean?

        Liked by 1 person

      • You are entitled to your beliefs. I won’t argue that point. I defend good science.

        Again, there are no trials in vaccine court. And there is no compensation fund at all for VPD deaths or injuries.

        Why should pharma industry be responsible for rare side effects? I had an anaphylactic reaction to an antibiotic and there was no fund to compensate me! I didn’t sue anyone.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Animal studies are one of the best ways that we can predict human harms. Of course mice don’t get autism but they also behave in very predictable ways. When they start acting weird (not staying along the walls of an enclosure, for example), you know that something is wrong. Same for the sheep studies–there’s no autism in sheep of course, but sheep injected with aluminum have been found to exhibit unnatural behaviors such as “wool-biting.” Read Silent Spring–animals can give us a lot of information about toxicity.

        Like

      • What is better are the genetic tests done with lots of families to note genetic sequences that pop up and cause various similar characteristics. Isn’t cool to note that there is active recruiting for tens of thousands of families by the Simon Foundation, and even though they have not finished they are finding lot of new issues and even treatments.

        You should sign up your family and see what you can learn:
        https://sparkforautism.org/discover/

        Liked by 1 person

  31. “The fee has initially been set at $3000 per article for all Elsevier journals except those published by Cell Press, which have a $5000 per article fee, and The Lancet, which will have a fee of £400 per page. The difference in fees for The Lancet and Cell Press reflects higher associated costs.”

    Like

  32. Pingback: What Do Anti-Vaccine Folks Actually Know About Vaccines? – VAXOPEDIA

  33. Pingback: Vaccines and autism: A thorough review of the evidence (2019 update) | The Logic of Science

  34. This study essentially worthless because a child who received one vaccine is called vaccinated. It is eminently ridiculous to group a child who has received 30 vaccines with a child who has received one or two vaccines. The Mawson study wins.

    Like

      • It wasn’t retracted. It was not accepted for publication at first (common for scientific papers), revised, and then published. If it would have been retracted, it would not be available online. Just google it.

        Like

      • Telling us to “google it” is a two edged sword. I do know it was republished, but not exactly in any kind of journal with adequate peer review. It is as good as being a self-published book on Amazon Kindle. Also, the selection bias still makes it a useless “study.”

        But here is what I found: https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/05/17/vaccine-study-autism/

        Here is what it said about the journal:

        The journals that published the study are just as a problematic as the donors, though for different reasons: both journals have been accused of predatory practices. These types of journals profit from academia’s relentless focus on publication by charging large publishing fees in lieu of editorial oversight. Translational Science charged Mawson et al $2,000 to publish their study.

        Additionally, both journals’ commitment to the peer-review process is questionable at best. For the study’s 2016 incarnation, Frontiers in Public Health asked Linda Mullin Elkins, a chiropractor with no published research to her name on the subject of autism, or any background in vaccine research or epidemiology, to review the study. This same journal, just four months prior, retracted a paper about “chemtrails”, a popular topic in conspiracy circles alleging government-hidden harm from chemical trails made by planes in the sky.

        Liked by 1 person

      • And one more thing–saying the study was published in a journal of lesser prestige is quite different than saying it was retracted (twice!!). There’s deceit going on here that’s not acceptable.

        Like

      • It was retracted, and then published in a “pay to publish” journal. I see your reading comprehension is about as good as your grasp of statistics.

        It is still bad study with bad statistics.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You really need to understand why selective sampling is not good science. Especially self-selected phone surveys.

        You will only earn respect once you learn to respect the disabled, including those with autism. Remember: “Don’t treat autistic people like their existence is worse than a pandemic.”

        Like

      • The study was a pilot study. It certainly brings up some thought-provoking data, which should be explored further in a better-designed study.
        As for your comment about autistism–I don’t believe I said anything about autistic people, so I’m not sure where you’re coming from.

        Like

      • “Pro vaxx ppl are the most degenerate humans; they are pure scum.”

        Why do you think insults are a valid substitute for evidence and data?

        Again, you need to earn respect by actually attempting to learn. You still have not bothered to understand why the statistics were bad, and even how the way the study was done would never make them good.

        Also, you really need to learn autism is not caused by vaccines, and no phone survey is going to prove otherwise. Please stop denigrating those with development disabilities. That is ableist, and makes you blind to the actual science.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Google the study, it is available, which means it was not retracted.”

        How did that work the last time? I provided a even more thorough debunking of it. Yes, the study was retracted twice. And yes it is now published on a “pay to publish” journal. Did you notice the blockquote from what I found on teh googles explaining that?

        Mawson’s study was wrong then, and it is still wrong now.

        And there is no way anyone will prove vaccines cause autism with a phone survey. Especially when the genetic sequences of well over half of those on the autism spectrum. If you want to support real science sign up your family to

        Like

      • The study was NOT retracted twice. It was never retracted, period. If you have proof beyond “retraction watch”, please provide it.
        As for the study, it would be helpful if you would read the study. ASD was only a small part of the study. The study looked at the following disorders/illnesses: chickenpox, otitis media, pneumonia, whooping cough, rubella, allergic rhinitis, allergies, ADHD, ASD, eczema, learning disabilities, neurodevelopmental disorders, and any chronic condition.

        Like

      • Liar. Or you are clueless.

        It was retracted TWICE.

        What makes you think I have not read the study? I wrote a blog post on it!!

        And all those claims are lies! Not a one was validated! You cannot make up claims and post them in a study and expect people to believe you. Good grief!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sign up your family to the SPARK for Autism study. Remember: “Don’t treat autistic people like their existence is worse than a pandemic.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • “The study was NOT retracted twice. It was never retracted, period.”

        So what? It does not matter. It was a bad study using bad methods. Self-selected phone surveys are not scientifically valid sampling techniques. That is something that is taught in the first week of a college freshman statistics course. Go take the class at your local community college if you don’t believe me.

        Stop treating autistic people like their existence is worse than a pandemic. Now please go sign up your family for the Spark for Autism Study which is recruiting 50,000 families. They have already discovered real causes, and some real treatments: https://sparkforautism.org/portal/page/autism-research/

        Like

    • Only because you do not understand basic statistics and sampling bias.

      You said this: “The study looked at the following disorders/illnesses: chickenpox, otitis media, pneumonia, whooping cough, rubella, allergic rhinitis, allergies, ADHD, ASD, eczema, learning disabilities, neurodevelopmental disorders, and any chronic condition.”

      There a term that is appropriate here on more of why that study was very bad: p-hacking.

      Instead of using a hypothesis of one thing, they just throw a bunch of stuff at like a net trying to get one or two fish, but also get tires, plastic bags, etc. This is especially bad when they are using a self-selected phone survey.

      Now many of those conditions have been studied using large medical databases as part of the Vaccine Safety Datalink. You can peruse those at your leisure by checking the publications here:
      https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/publications.html

      Please stop treating any child with developmental disabilities, allergies or chronic conditions like type 1 diabetes and cystic fibrosis like their existence is worse than a pandemic.

      Liked by 1 person

      • This was a pilot study. I am a mathematician and have a decent grasp of statistics, and I see no problem with questioning parents about a variety of conditions.
        And trying to understand and help children with disabilities, and hopefully prevent more of them from occurring is in my book called having compassion and understanding what these kids go through being different from other kids, and dealing with chronic illness their whole life. It is not “treating their existence like a pandemic” which honestly, makes no sense.
        I leave the conversation here as I have a paid job that needs tending to.

        Like

      • What makes you think the answers are valid and true? No data was validated. No medical records were analyzed. It could be all lies. It probably is all lies.

        I have a paid job, too. And I know not to end a sentence in the word “to.” I have a job to which I attend.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “This was a pilot study.”

        So what. It was a phone survey.

        “I am a mathematician and have a decent grasp of statistics, and I see no problem with questioning parents about a variety of conditions.”

        I sincerely doubt that. If you took statistics, then it was the pure math one. Not the general version that included human studies sampling and ethics.

        Also, you would not be whining about Mawson doing a pilot study, when there are so many other studies that are complete and statistically relevant. All published in better journals: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/publications.html

        Liked by 1 person

      • I tend not to get very impressed with large epidemiological studies that are easily manipulated. But I will certainly look them up and read them through. It was a pleasure having this conversation with you as it confirmed the smear tactics that are being employed against those of us who dare question vaccine dogma.

        Like

      • I am sorry, but that is hilarious. You have issues with the studies done with large medical databases with competent biostatisticians, but you are okay dokay with a small self-selected phone survey.

        I bet the next thing you are going to tell me is that Kaiser-Permanente is in the hand of Big Pharma. Which would also be hilarious to many of us who have had to deal with health insurance companies not paying for meds or treatments. My fave was when the toddler was struggling to breathe due to croup while we were driving, so we pulled into the emergency entrance of the hospital before calling our doctor for approval. This was before cell-phones. We had a deductible that was several times what we usually had to pay for that hospital stay (it had happened before). So warning: don’t tell us that studies by health insurers favor pharma companies.

        It is also amusing that you being told over over and over again that this was a study with very bad biased sampling is referred to as “smearing.”

        There is another anti-vaccine person who does have a verified Phd in statistics. The problem is that her job is to analyze processes and tests done on carbon fiber structures. Nothing to do with humans. She keeps demanding that the vax/unvax study be done mostly because she never learned about human study ethics. Apparently studies on the integrity of industrial structures do not need to comply with the Belmont Report.

        Like

      • “I have a paid job, too. And I know not to end a sentence in the word “to.” I have a job to which I attend.”

        And both spousal unit and I are retired. This keeps my brain alive on this windy rainy cold day (when I should be doing some weed therapy in the garden).

        Though we are still parenting a thirty year old adult. He is not broken, and he is not a nothing. He grows every week, just more slowly than others. He is a great house sitter. Stop dismissing him as something worse than a pandemic.

        Love and accept your child, Mr/Ms Epstein. Accept no substitutes.

        Like

      • “Cognitive dissonance at it’s finest. Believes only what confirms her own beliefs.”

        With a dash of motivated reasoning.

        Like

  35. AGREE, THE MAWSON STUDY MAY HAVE some holes but, look at the results from FDA documents, that show the results of the MMR trials (and my comments)…FDA vaccine trials for licensing vaccines: 1978. these trials are on the vaccines that were
    FIRST TO INCLUDE RUBELLA GROWN ON ABORTED FETAL CELL LINES

    Seems that YOU CAN’T SAY these studies are un- based on the fact that the studies were done by the very people who benefit from having their product forced on millions of children, (now with absolutely no liability), no inert placebos were used in the trials. They used other vaccines also never shown to be safe.
    Here are the trial results and two symptoms that were common side effects, Upper respiratory illness (URI) AND GASTROINTESTINAL SYMPTOMS (GI)

    1 MMR vs MR or R– Study of 199 children for 42 days! — SERIOUSLY? only 199 children observed for 42 days?
    22/ 199 children had gastrointestinal ILLNESS (GI )
    23/ 199 had upper respiratory illness. (URI)

    2. MMR vs R STUDY 102 children
    URI – 64/102 (more than half became ill and they APPROVED this?)
    GI SX. 43/102

    3. MMR vs R or MEASLES or Mumps.
    URI- 28 / 41
    GI – 24/ 41

    4. MMR VS MMR. 117 TOTAL IN STUDY
    URI 53/117
    GI 31/117

    5. MMR VS MMR VS MMR. 20 IN STUDY
    URI 8 /20
    GI. 4/20

    MEASLES ?
    6 / 53 HAD MEASLES LIKE RASH. (um, like MEASLES?)
    15 / 53 non-specific RASH (you mean like eczema? Psoriasis?)

    ZERO SAFETY STUDIES DONE WITH AN INERT (THAT MEANS HARMLESS) PLACEBO.
    Why would they approve vaccines with such poor results? Small sample sizes, no controls, short length of study? seriously? deplorable. But they are making millions, so they are happy. Anyone else think this is deplorable?

    Like

    • You forgot to list the PMIDs of those studies for us to cross check to make sure you are not making stuff up.

      So you don’t like how the rubella vaccine was made. That is fine. Now show us the strength of your moral convictions: While you are okay dokay with a pregnant woman getting rubella which has a high chance of damaging or even killing the fetus, does the same hold true of rabies? If you or one of your loved ones come into contact with a bat what would you do. Contacts with a bat is the most common way humans are infected with rabies (it happens in the USA several times a year).

      So would you get the rabies vaccine if you had contact with a bat? Or would you just let nature takes it course just because you do not like how the vaccine?

      To understand why I asked you that question please read The Vaccine Race by Meredith Wadman. Then perhaps you can explain why you are more concerned with a fetus legally aborted over fifty years ago than children who are alive today who can get measles/mumps and future babies who may get Congenital Rubella Syndrome. I am also dismayed that you dismiss or just do not understand all of the hard work done by Hayflick.

      Liked by 1 person

  36. Hi there, researcher here who is new to this all debate, and future father. I have questions about this particular blog post, and I want to cut through all the nonsense and make concrete decisions on this matter.

    Currently I have to have two of these windows open just so I can see the post and my comment box because of the length of the comment section, which really decreases my hopes on getting any answer, but I am hoping anyway to reach the OP and perhaps other people on this thread, because, and I want to get this out of the way: I *want* to believe this. I’m not sure what to think of vaccines except that they’re likely necessary: I don’t think they’re the best things since sliced bread, but living in a big city and in a global world I realized we’ve set this up for ourselves and vaccines are the best method we have to keep our way of life going clean from certain plagues of the past. So I’d really like to believe it’s not going to screw up my kid in other ways that we do not know.

    So I am reading this post, but I am filled with questions about what’s written here. Please help me by addressing my questions and comments, and as I am trying to keep it as constructive and level-headed as possible, please help me by trying the same:

    1. “These are problems. Real problems. So, the original journal, Frontiers, took note and pulled the study” This is in referral to the problems raised i.e. chiropractor reviewer and antivax funding. I do not see a logical connection between those problems and the paragraphs before about validity and reliability. Of course these signs are red flags, but funding is often red flag especially if you are trying to say something in science which is of the minority. Speaking against Monsanto in the earlier years it was hard to get funding, and for Farley Mowat it was hard to speak about the wolves because the government didn’t accept his findings or find them interesting, more interested were they to maintain the status quo of what’s agreed in ecological circles. I am suspicious that everyone has their own agendas, so I like, again, to just judge the paper on the data. But I don’t see how this is about the paper itself and about validity and reliability which you were mentioning just before.

    2. “Reputable scientists don’t pay to publish their studies… scientists know these facts.” Again, says nothing about the paper, and if anything these kind of statements raise red flags with me because it sounds a lot like some ad populum. For all I know these scientist are not interested in what the mainstream science and media thinks of them; that would especially be the case if they had a true conviction in their data.

    3. “The authors went into the study assuming vaccines cause grave harm… That is serious bias.” When a study is interested to study a previously reported link, and focuses on it trying to eliminate additional confounding factors, it can be rather a clarifying study and not a biased study. Especially if the previously reported link (autism and vaccines) is full of controversy and accounting for other potentially interfering factors. So I don’t see the point here when presented on its own.

    4. The quote in point three (“The study was designed as a cross-sectional survey…”) is flawed but you never described exactly how. I am supposed to just shrug, gawk or raise my eyebrows but I don’t know which. How severe is this infraction, exactly? I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt and say I do not think the mothers are all conspiracists who blamed vaccines whenever they had the chance, or that the authors lied about the results, i.e. I am willing to look at the data as they generated it. From what I read it looks like they did the best they could with what they were given to get a random sample, and they made sure to call it a convenience sample instead of a random sample without trying to make it pretty, They still contacted over 600 cases.

    5. ” This is also problematic. They had participants promoting the study to their own friends. How did they account for bias? They did not.” When there are university leaflets in public places asking people to register for studies and get money, listing the requirement for participants, it can bring about similar bias (geographical bias, bias of people who love to take their free time to do studies and get free money), but I never see the accounting for this bias either. How would you account for it?

    6. “The authors categorized the children as unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, or fully vaccinated based only on word of the mothers.” Again, I don’t like to think either parties were outright liars, and in addition, referencing your previous statement about flu, vaccines are easier to remember than occurences of flu especially with the controversy nowadays, everyone having an opinion about it, so I think those two situations are quite different.

    7. “none of the data in this study means anything, because no one would ever be able to completely replicate it. They would never be able to go back in and find all the same anonymous mothers..” When participants are anonymous you can’t find them anyway, so who does that kind of replication? Unless you had access to private information. Besides, if the conclusions are meant to reflect on the general population, i.e. generalizable, replication would mean to conduct a study of a similar scale using a sampling method that’s as randomized or more randomized, but I really don’t see how it means contacting the same people. If you want to know if answers apply more generally, you need to contact other people using a random sampling method because you want to see if the same relationship applies across the board.

    8.”Honestly, I could have done better as a freshman in college, in my introduction to research methods and statistical analysis class.”

    Final point is about the tone of this article. I always like when people acknowledge the complexity in the debate, that it’s a real concern and, if you are convinced by the data that it’s good you will say ‘it’s most likely safe’. I don’t like to see total incrimination and conspiracy on the one hand, but I also don’t like to see touting complete confidence on the other. I get that many scientists are tired of the debate and kind of adopt an extreme side in response to the extremity of the antivaxxers, but it really takes away from the discussion, and makes both sides look biased and questionable.

    Thanks and hope for a good discussion.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Did you really like your own comment? Lol.
      If you’re serious about investigating this issue then you need to explore both sides of the argument.
      NB: you won’t find any live debates between prominent vaccine hesitant scientists (of which there are many) and vaccine advocates. This is a highly censored issue, which is one reason to do deep personal research.
      Here’s a presentation that reviews studies for and against vaccine safety:

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hi there, other person who liked their own comment. Also I see the OP replied to this thread. I appreciate if anyone could reply to at least some of the points raised because they’re still open questions to me. Thanks

        Like

      • That is a big “ask.” Please be specific, and choose one point at time so you do not confuse the answers. Also, I hope you clicked on all of the links embedded in the article, as they explain more.

        Short version: self selected surveys are not scientific (translation: phone in or internet surveys are not scientifically valid). This is in the first chapter of most freshman statistic courses. If this still confuses you, then attend a beginning statistics class at your local community college.

        Like

  37. Pingback: Von der Kunst, Mythen und Falschmeldungen zu widerlegen | MEDIENWOCHE

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s