How to Account for Differences in Health Outcomes of Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children?

[Nous]

Below are some from the World Health Organization, Scientific American, and the Federal Government who all agree that vaccinating children is absolutely necessary.
Questions and answers on immunization and vaccine safety
What's in Vaccines | Vaccines.gov
Safety | Vaccines.gov
Straight Talk about Vaccination

Wow, leib, you should try stating a fact that you can show to be true. You will be shocked at how good it feels to do so.

There are quacks who will perform "studies"

You are the only one who here who is promoting the quackery of quacks who have stated provable lies. You need to get away from such stuff.

 

[Nous]

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program run by the U.S. government, and has paid more than $3.3 billion for vaccine injury. "

https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data/vicpmonthlyreporttemplate5_1_17.pdf

True. And as of 6 years ago, dozens of compensated cases were for encephalopathy and seizure disorder, with symptoms indisquishable from autism: Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury

The only ones benefiting here are the lawyers who made a whopping $164,012,495.29.

Lawyers are representing these parents of vaccine-injured children to the best of their ability under the circumstances (e.g., without the right to discovery), and are certainly not overcompensated for their work in these cases. It's the pharmaceutical companies who benefit beyond calculation in the VICP.

 

[Nietzsche]

Do any of us remember damaged kids to the extent that we have today? I know so many families with autistic kids. I never knew any when I was growing up.

Because when you were growing up people didn't take their children to mental health professionals, nor did we understand mental health remotely as well as we do today.

There were just as many as there are now, what's different is that we have a word for it beyond "he's just a little slow".

 

[Deeje]

You made an unsubstantiated claim, failed to provide substance when asked to do so, and now you're asking me to substantiate your claim.

That's not how this works.

Is that what this is to you? Winning nit picking bits of your argument? We are talking about permanently damaged children who will never have a normal life....and neither will their parents.
The claims I have made are substantiated by many statistics. Look them up for yourself. Just because you don't want to believe them, doesn't make them false.

You did not answer me.....are you part of the orthodox medical system? Do you work in health care? If you do, could you be influenced by the bias so prevalent in that system?

For example, the medical profession have been brainwashed to reject the benefits of medicinal cannabis, so few in the profession actually believe that there is medicinal value in it. It was criminalised by pressure and gross misinformation from the medical establishment decades ago and everyone fell in line because the truth was suppressed and replaced by lying propaganda....now the internet has gone viral over the provable benefits of medicinal cannabis despite big pharma's pressure to keep it illegal and seen as a dangerous gateway drug. It is nothing of the sort. It is not addictive....it has no harmful side effects.....it has been proven to not only treat various ailments, but to actually cure them.....yet this wonder plant is still illegal in many countries. Alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs kill many thousands of people annually but are totally legal. It's a farce of mammoth proportions.

And now you're whining about how hard it is to get figures, when all I wanted you to do was support your #1 in autism claim, which you have walked back on twice already.

The figures are not hard to locate. Do your homework. America is in the top 5 nations for autism. No matter the figures, which are hard to pin down, the figure is still unacceptably high.....you have to admit that. Nit picking over the figure doesn't alter that. 72 shots is ridiculous!

You have successfully proven to me that you can't be taken seriously on this subject.

And you demonstrate that you don't want to listen to an inconvenient truth. I understand how hard it is to admit that you might be wrong about this issue. The truth will be acknowledged eventually....unless the general public continue to believe the propaganda issued by a very wealthy and powerful dictator in our world. Money can buy anything apparently......

 

[Nous]

There were just as many as there are now

Prove it.

("Prove it" means state the proposition, substantiate that the proposition is true, and make the deduction.)

 

[Poisonshady313]

Is that what this is to you? Winning nit picking bits of your argument?

This is a conversation, which you have shown yourself to be incapable of having.

We are talking about permanently damaged children who will never have a normal life....and neither will their parents.
The claims I have made are substantiated by many statistics. Look them up for yourself. Just because you don't want to believe them, doesn't make them false.

some of what you're saying is false because it's false. Some of what you're saying is gibberish because you can't be bothered to support your assertions.

You did not answer me.....are you part of the orthodox medical system?

Actually, I did answer you. You're not paying attention. Which is why this will be my last response to you in this thread.

Do you work in health care? If you do, could you be influenced by the bias so prevalent in that system?

the answer to your first question, again, is no.

If the answer to your first question were "yes", is there any chance you'd take my word for it if the answer to your second question were "no"?

You don't have to answer that. I know the answer.

For example, the medical profession have been brainwashed to reject the benefits of medicinal cannabis, so few in the profession actually believe that there is medicinal value in it. It was criminalised by pressure and gross misinformation from the medical establishment decades ago and everyone fell in line because the truth was suppressed and replaced by lying propaganda....now the internet has gone viral over the provable benefits of medicinal cannabis despite big pharma's pressure to keep it illegal and seen as a dangerous gateway drug. It is nothing of the sort. It is not addictive....it has no harmful side effects.....it has been proven to not only treat various ailments, but to actually cure them.....yet this wonder plant is still illegal in many countries. Alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs kill many thousands of people annually but are totally legal. It's a farce of mammoth proportions.

I agree with all of that. I can only hope that if someone challenges you on the issue of medical cannabis, you'll do a better job supporting your statements than you did with the autism issue.

The figures are not hard to locate. Do your homework. America is in the top 5 nations for autism.

See, that's not what you said initially. You led this whole thing with the claim that America is #1 in Autism. You have yet to support that claim.

And you demonstrate that you don't want to listen to an inconvenient truth. I understand how hard it is to admit that you might be wrong about this issue. The truth will be acknowledged eventually....unless the general public continue to believe the propaganda issued by a very wealthy and powerful dictator in our world. Money can buy anything apparently......

I have yet to hear truth from you. Ive asked you to support your claim enough times, and you either can't, or won't. Either way, I'm done with you.

 

[Deeje]

This is a conversation, which you have shown yourself to be incapable of having.

Is this a conversation? It feels more like an inquisition. Lighten up.....

some of what you're saying is false because it's false. Some of what you're saying is gibberish because you can't be bothered to support your assertions.

I have supported my assertion all through this thread. Its not my fault that you can't acknowledge them. I will let time do the telling, but how many more children will be permanently damaged by their negligence and greed for profit in the meantime?

Actually, I did answer you. You're not paying attention. Which is why this will be my last response to you in this thread.

Then you appear to be brainwashed by them. Your faith is misplaced IMO, but you are entitled to believe whatever you wish. I'll let the figures speak for themselves.

I agree with all of that. I can only hope that if someone challenges you on the issue of medical cannabis, you'll do a better job supporting your statements than you did with the autism issue.

Anyone can look up information....its the source of the information that makes the difference. No orthodox medical website is going to give you an unbiased opinion about anything big pharma doesn't endorse. They have an agenda and truth will be sacrificed for profit.

What is the agenda behind the anti-vaxers? They are the victims of a corrupt system and want to prevent others children from being damaged as their were.

See, that's not what you said initially. You led this whole thing with the claim that America is #1 in Autism. You have yet to support that claim.

Do the exact figures really matter if the CDC is acknowledging that 1 in 68 kids in America is autistic....and that was from 2009. What do autistic kids require for the rest of their lives? Medication??? You think they care? Yes...they care about how much money they can make out of other people's misery.

I have yet to hear truth from you. Ive asked you to support your claim enough times, and you either can't, or won't. Either way, I'm done with you.

Your choice. I have told the truth....you just don't want to hear it. I understand.

 

[leibowde84]

Wow, leib, you should try stating a fact that you can show to be true. You will be shocked at how good it feels to do so.

You are the only one who here who is promoting the quackery of quacks who have stated provable lies. You need to get away from such stuff.

Alright, let's try to be more respectful to each other. I apologize for lashing out, but this is an issue that drives me nuts. Here are the reasons why I find the Mawson study to be completely unreliable and most likely fraudulent. Now, if you would like to point out that this is from a blog, I already know, but the points made are completely valid and alarming. Most alarming is the fact that it was published on a pay-to-publish site, Open Access Text. There is no way to argue that OAT is a valid scientific journal, so it goes further to explain why the study itself is unreliable.

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

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.

 

[Poisonshady313]

True. And as of 6 years ago, dozens of compensated cases were for encephalopathy and seizure disorder, with symptoms indisquishable from autism: Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury

Lawyers are representing these parents of vaccine-injured children to the best of their ability under the circumstances (e.g., without the right to discovery), and are certainly not overcompensated for their work in these cases. It's the pharmaceutical companies who benefit beyond calculation in the VICP.

From the VICP website:

Vaccines save lives by preventing disease.

Most people who get vaccines have no serious problems. Vaccines, like any medicines, can cause side effects, but most are very rare and very mild. Some health problems that follow vaccinations are not caused by vaccines.

In very rare cases, a vaccine can cause a serious problem, such as a severe allergic reaction. In these instances, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) may provide financial compensation to individuals who file a petition and are found to have been injured by a VICP-covered vaccine. Even in cases in which such a finding is not made, petitioners may receive compensation through a settlement.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Such evolution would put unvaccinated people at greater risk of severe disease.

If we vaccinated more people, fewer people would be exposed to this greater risk.

 

[Nous]

Alright, let's try to be more respectful to each other. I apologize for lashing out, but this is an issue that drives me nuts.

Well done. My apologies likewise.

Here are the reasons why I find the Mawson study to be completely unreliable and most likely fraudulent. Now, if you would like to point out that this is from a blog, I already know, but the points made are completely valid and alarming. Most alarming is the fact that it was published on a pay-to-publish site, Open Access Text. There is no way to argue that OAT is a valid scientific journal, so it goes further to explain why the study itself is unreliable.

Journal of Translational Science is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal that charges a publication fee in order for the articles to be available to the public free of charge. There is nothing “predatory” about it; lots of scientific journals charge publication fees, and lots of scientists publish in such open-access journals. The reviewers review these articles the same as they do for any other journal.

Journal of Translational Science (JTS) is an open access journal with comprehensive peer review policy and a rapid publication process.​

Translational Science | Translational Science Journal | Translational Science Group

Article Publication Charges (APC)

OA Text journals are open access, we do not charge the end user when accessing a manuscript or any article. This allows the scientific community to view, download, distribution of an article in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited, under the term of"Creative Commons Attribution License". In line with other open access journals we provide a flat fee submission structure (dependent upon the journal) on the acceptance of a peer-reviewed article which covers in part the entirety of the publication pathway (the article processing charge). The process includes our maintenance, submission and peer review systems and international editing, publication and submission to global indexing and tracking organisations and archiving to allow instant access to the whole article and associated supplementary documents. We also have to ensure enough investment to secure a sustainable model which ethically, legally and financially stable.​

Translational Science | Translational Science Journal | Translational Science Group

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.

So you're saying that you don't believe that the reviewer gotten by Frontiers was qualified to reject the paper.

ORAC also noted that this study was funded by Generation Rescue,

Generation Rescue was not involved in the design of the study, with collecting data, or with analyzing the data.

So, what happened after this study was pulled by Frontiers? It was submitted to Open Access Text, a predatory, pay-to-publish online journal

Frontiers is collection of an open-access journals that charge publication fees.

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).

See above. The funding sources (which apparently included lots of individual contributors) were not involved in the design of the study, in the collection of data, or the analysis of data.

I would look very skeptically at any study published by a pharmaceutical company.

Do you mean funded by pharmaceutical companies? That's every drug study submitted to the FDA and the vast majority of drug studies published in journals.

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 statement of the aim of the study does not express an assumption about the outcome. Just the contrary. One of the aims was to determine "if any" association was found between vaccination and NDDs remained significant after adjustment for other measured factors.

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?

What bias? How does that create bias in the results? The homeschooling parents got an email from NHERI saying, "I've sent you a URL where mothers who homeschool their children can take a survey about you and your children's health." The homeschooling mothers had to get word of the survey somehow.

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.

That is precisely how the CDC conducts the National Health Interview Survey. Do you deny the findings of that survey? Do you claim the methods of the NHIS are "flawed"?

As Mawson et al. noted, if mothers had been required to provide medical records, they would have had too few participants, because it's a lot of trouble for mothers to collect and submit such records; it would have made the study much more expensive (e.g., to verify the records), and it would not have been anonymous.

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.

That's correct. What you quoted here is just a statement of the lack of assumption and pre-existing prejudice about any association between vaccination and health. As the authors state in the next sentence: "The aim of the study was to determine whether the health outcomes of vaccinated children differed from those of unvaccinated homeschool children . . ." This is why it's called a "pilot study".

You haven't given any reason that the findings of the study should be considered false.

The findings of this study are consistent with other studies, which have found an association between vaccinations and health outcomes. E.g.: https://vaccination-information-por...tism_correlation_us_2011_j_tox_env_health.pdf

 

[Nous]

From the VICP website:

Vaccines save lives by preventing disease.

Most people who get vaccines have no serious problems. Vaccines, like any medicines, can cause side effects, but most are very rare and very mild. Some health problems that follow vaccinations are not caused by vaccines.

In very rare cases, a vaccine can cause a serious problem, such as a severe allergic reaction.

Define "rare".

You definitely should not be getting medical information from a court program that is intended to protect vaccine manufacturers and that disallows petitioners to engage in discovery.

Ethylmercury and aluminum are neurotoxins, and it is definitely biologically plausible that administering such toxins to fetuses and children can result in neurological and immunological injuries. Such effects have been demonstrated in a variety of mammals. See the OP for examples.

 

[Nous]

If we vaccinated more people, fewer people would be exposed to this greater risk.

Nonsense. Just the contrary. The process and effect of mutation among pathogens due to the selection pressure of vaccines is no different than the process and effect of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The solution to antibiotic-resistant bacteria is not to give more people antibiotics--that just increases the selection pressure, making the resistant bacteria more available in a population. The same goes for bacteria and viruses that have evolved greater virulence or infectivity due to the selection pressure exerted by vaccines. It is the vaccinated who are the carriers of the mutated bacteria and viruses. For example:

Case-patients having received at least 1 pertussis vaccine dose had a higher odds of having PRN^- B. pertussis compared with unvaccinated case-patients (adjusted OR = 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3–4.0). When restricted to case-patients at least 1 year of age and those age-appropriately vaccinated, the adjusted OR increased to 2.7 (95% CI, 1.2–6.1).

Conclusions. The significant association between vaccination and isolate pertactin production suggests that the likelihood of having reported disease caused by PRN^- compared with PRN^+ strains is greater in vaccinated persons.​

https://academic.oup.com/cid/articl...rtactin-Negative-Bordetella-pertussis-Strains

 

[Nous]

And happy birthday, @Poisonshady313

 

[Poisonshady313]

Define "rare".
You definitely should not be getting medical information from a court program that is intended to protect vaccine manufacturers and that disallows petitioners to engage in discovery.

My only answer to that is this:

The following paragraph is from the link YOU posted.

"The United States has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in history. In the majority of cases, vaccines cause no side effects, however they can occur, as with any medication—but most are mild. Very rarely, people experience more serious side effects, like allergic reactions."

 

[Poisonshady313]

And happy birthday, @Poisonshady313

Thank you.

 

[Nous]

My only answer to that is this:

The following paragraph is from the link YOU posted.

"The United States has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in history. In the majority of cases, vaccines cause no side effects, however they can occur, as with any medication—but most are mild. Very rarely, people experience more serious side effects, like allergic reactions."

Which paper was this from?

I don't disagree that "in the majority of cases," vaccines produce no serious adverse long-term effects. However, the chronic immunological conditions (such as allergies, hay fever) and neurodevelopmental disorders are serious, not "mild". And if these conditions are somehow the direct effect of vaccines (as opposed to the effects of heavy mentals or other unnecessary components of vaccines), then I'd say the vaccines should be reonsidered--at least for persons who are unable to consent. The fact that vaccines exert selection pression on the targeted pathogens, leading to greater virulence or infectivity, also argues against vaccines.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Which paper was this from?

I must apologize. It was Deeje's post, not yours, that contained this link:

https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data/vicpmonthlyreporttemplate5_1_17.pdf

 

[Nous]

BTW, @Poisonshady313, how do you account for the findings of the Mawson et al. study?