Mothering › Forums › Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › NEW STUDY: Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NEW STUDY: Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given.

post #1 of 19
6/10/11 at 2:37pm
Thread Starter 

 

The following article was published on May 4, 2011 in the Human and Experimental Toxicology and it confirms exactly the suspicion I have had for years.  The more vaccines, the higher the risk of death.

 

http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/05/04/0960327111407644.full.pdf+html

 

This article is really important!  These authors not only found a statistically significant correlation between vaccine dose requirments and poor infant mortality rates, but they also found mislabeling of infant deaths that should have been SIDS, instead being labeled as suffocation.  Once they looked at the data and adjusted for mislabeled deaths they found that there had been NO change in SIDS deaths because of the "back laying" supported by the AAP and instead the rates remain incredibly high.  This is really unnerving, because if the datas are being recorded wrong it is impossible for scientists to make good judgement calls in terms of weighing risk vs. benefits of medical treatments.  This raises the question of WHY did SIDS come into existence at the same time mass vacation in childhood was introduced and why has it only gotten worse not better?

 

They also touched on the fact that since the advent of the Rotavirus vaccine, more children have died from pneumonnia suggesting that rotavirus may be an important illness for a childs immune system to fight, in order to prevent a much worse and more lethal pneumonnia infection.

 

Just wanted to share :))

Reply
Reply
post #2 of 19
6/12/11 at 4:39am

Good post!

 

I totally agree with you and it! I always suspected this about vaccines, and do not believe that it is a coincidence.

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/1316152/infant-mortality-rates-regressed-against-number-of-vaccine-doses-routinely-given

 

Another thing that may cause SIDS, I believe, are labor analgesics that have a half life in babys' bodies of four-five times as long as in an adult woman.  These drugs may be absorbed into the fatty tissues and liver and then broken down at two, four, and six months of age during a growth spurt and cause a sudden death. This was observed and suggested by my midwife in the 1970s.  Obviou$ly, no one care$ to do that re$earch.

Reply
Reply
post #3 of 19
6/13/11 at 10:51am

Miriam, thanks for the info about labor analgesics. This is an area that deserves more research as well.

Reply
Reply
post #4 of 19
6/14/11 at 2:28pm

Thank you BeckyBird.  

 

Both labor analgesics and vaccines are possible iatrogenic causes of SIDS and deserve to be studied, but will they?   My midwife observed that connection 40 years ago.  How many people have suffered and died in that time?  This is why people are suspicious of the medical profession.

Reply
Reply
post #5 of 19
6/14/11 at 7:15pm

Thank you, excellent article.

Reply
Reply
post #6 of 19
6/21/11 at 6:53pm

Interesting article! Thank you for sharing. Makes me even more resolute in my decision.

Reply
Reply
post #7 of 19
6/24/11 at 10:29am
Thread Starter 

oh my!  i wish they would study the long term effects of labor analgesics on infants!!  that is soo interesting! 

Reply
Reply
post #8 of 19
6/29/11 at 10:53am

I remember reading a book almost 9 years ago before my daughter was born and they showed that when Japan stopped vaccinating children before age 2 (country wide) that SIDS plummetted to NONE!

Reply
Reply
post #9 of 19
6/29/11 at 11:09am

Not one bit surprising!!

Reply
Reply
post #10 of 19
6/29/11 at 2:11pm

Was this study ever actually published in the journal? I can't see it listed in the contents for May, June or July.

 

I think that anyone can actually submit an article, but that not all meet the criteria for publication? I wonder why this one wasn't accepted? Perhaps because the authors are both strongly anti-vax and their data doesn't hold up to peer review? I'd be interested to learn more from someone more knowledgeable. :)

 

 

Reply
Reply
post #11 of 19
7/1/11 at 3:06pm

You do not think the authors of this study are knowledgeable? Why? 

Reply
Reply
post #12 of 19
7/1/11 at 4:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by miriam View Post

You do not think the authors of this study are knowledgeable? Why? 


 

Actually, I asked if someone more knowledgeable than me could shed any light on why, after peer review, this article wasn't selected for publication in the journal. By 'someone', I meant someone reading this forum. HTH smile.gif

 

I'm quite sure that the authors are knowledgeable, but they do have a clear anti-vax bias. Hence my query.

 

 

Reply
Reply
post #13 of 19
7/1/11 at 9:00pm

I posted the same study on the Vaccinations forum on June 4, 2011 as posted in my previous post on this thread.

 

This is the I am not Vaccinating forum, so the discussion would flow differently.

Reply
Reply
post #14 of 19
7/2/11 at 2:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by miriam View Post

I posted the same study on the Vaccinations forum on June 4, 2011 as posted in my previous post on this thread.

 

This is the I am not Vaccinating forum, so the discussion would flow differently.


 

Are we not allowed to ask the question, 'Is this good research?' in this forum? Why wouldn't a reasonably intelligent non-vaxer ask that question?

 

But thank you for pointing me to the other thread. I'll go take a look there.

Reply
Reply
post #15 of 19
7/2/11 at 2:56pm

I ask that question of every study I read, pro or con.  My own personal litmus test is determining who paid for the study and the research.

 

One of the many things I have been accused of over the years as a nonvaxer is that there are no scientific, peer reviewed, double-blind, long terms studies to demonstrate my point of view.

 

Here is one study, and there are many more as I posted one that I am most familiar with on the other thread by Dr. Larry Baraff of UCLA.  

 

Now I am not finding scientific, peer reviewed, double-blind, long term, published studies to demonstrate my point of view.  

 

You may find this link interesting about an insider's view by NEJM editor entitled "No Longer Possible To Believe Most Clinical Research Published"  and a book by Harvard Medical School's Dr. Marcia Angell, The Truth About The Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us And What To Do About It.

 

http://ethicalnag.org/2009/11/09/nejm-editor/

 


Edited by miriam - 7/2/11 at 3:09pm
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 19
7/6/11 at 12:05pm
Thread Starter 

It shows up on their website as being published in May 4, 2011

http://het.sagepub.com/search/results?fulltext=vaccines+infant+mortality&x=0&y=0&submit=yes&journal_set=sphet&src=selected&andorexactfulltext=and

Reply
Reply
post #17 of 19
7/6/11 at 2:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenimBebek View Post

It shows up on their website as being published in May 4, 2011

http://het.sagepub.com/search/results?fulltext=vaccines+infant+mortality&x=0&y=0&submit=yes&journal_set=sphet&src=selected&andorexactfulltext=and



But it's not listed in the contents of the May issue? It seems to have been submitted but not selected for publication. I'm wondering why?
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 19
7/8/11 at 7:40am

This is published. 

 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0008382

Reply
Reply
post #19 of 19
7/8/11 at 11:54am

The website says "Published online before print May 4, 2011, doi: 10.1177/0960327111407644 "

 

That suggests that it is pending print publication (but has been accepted for publication).  They wouldn't have it on their website if they didn't accept it for publication.   

Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: I'm Not Vaccinating
Mothering › Forums › Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › NEW STUDY: Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given.