More Vaccines Equal More Infant Deaths: Study Documents

[Mirzam]

http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-07-14/more-vaccines-equal-more-infant-deaths-study-documents/

The Journal of Human & Experimental Toxicology⁽¹⁾ published a study in which the authors carefully compared the vaccination rates of the nations with the lowest infant mortality rates to see if there’s a correlation between number of vaccines and death rates of infants. The results could not be clearer:

The more vaccinations a country gives, the more babies die.

Purchasing vaccines is not equivalent to purchasing health.

 

[purslaine]

Here is the study they cite:

http://het.sagepub.com/content/30/9/1420.full.pdf+html

[Mirzam]

Thanks Kathy. I thought different vaccines given in the different countries was interesting, there was little consensus. It is obvious (IMO) from this list that the CDC schedule is purely driven by the pharma companies.

Sweden DTaP (2), Polio (2), Hib (2), Pneumo (2) 12 

Japan DTaP (3), Polio (2), BCG 12 

Iceland DTaP (2), Polio (2), Hib (2), MenC (2) 12 

Norway DTaP (2), Polio (2), Hib (2), Pneumo (2) 12 

Denmark DTaP (2), Polio (2), Hib (2), Pneumo (2) 12 

Finland DTaP (2), Polio (2), Hib (2), Rota (3) 13 

Malta DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3) 15 2 (15–17) 

Slovenia DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3) 15 

South Korea DTaP (3), Polio (3), HepB (3) 15 

Singapore DTaP (3), Polio (3), HepB (3), BCG, Flu 17 

New Zealand DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (2), HepB (3) 17 

Germany DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), Pneumo (3) 18 3 (18–20) 

Switzerland DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), Pneumo (3) 18 

Israel DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), HepB (3) 18 

Liechtensteina DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), Pneumo (3) 18 

Italy DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), HepB (3) 18 

San Marinoa DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), HepB (3) 18 

France DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), Pneumo (2), HepB (2) 19 

Czech Republic DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), HepB (3), BCG 19 

Belgium DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), HepB (3), Pneumo (2) 19 

United Kingdom DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), Pneumo (2), MenC (2) 19 

Spain DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), HepB (3), MenC (2) 20 

Portugal DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), HepB (3), MenC (2), BCG 21 4 (21–23) 

Luxembourg DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), HepB (2), Pneumo (3), Rota (3) 22 

Cuba DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), HepB (4), MenBC (2), BCG 22 

Andorraa DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), HepB (3), Pneumo (3), MenC (2) 23 

Austria DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), HepB (3), Pneumo (3), Rota (2) 23 

Ireland DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), HepB (3), Pneumo (2), MenC (2), BCG 23 

Greece DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), HepB (3), Pneumo (3), MenC (2) 23 

Monacoa DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), HepB (3), Pneumo (3), HepA, BCG 23 

Netherlands DTaP (4), Polio (4), Hib (4), Pneumo (4) 24 5 (24–26) 

Canada DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), HepB (3), Pneumo (3), MenC (2), Flu 24 

Australia DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), HepB (4), Pneumo (3), Rota (2) 24 

United States DTaP (3), Polio (3), Hib (3), HepB (3), Pneumo (3), Rota (3), Flu (2) 26 

My eldest DD was born in Hong Kong and 22 years ago they followed the same schedule as Singapore, minus the flu vax.

[RachaelM]

It's crazy, but after years of looking in to vaccines, it amazes me that studies like this are dismissed by so many as nonsense. When in fact, if you open your eyes of course vaccination increases the risk of illness and death. 

It's some powerful psychology of fear that is driving the industry. 

Thank goodness for communities like this!

[littlec]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

Here is the study they cite:

http://het.sagepub.com/content/30/9/1420.full.pdf+html

I would be interested to see what people on here who are pro-vax feel about this study. It sounds compelling and scary to me, but I know it's easier to pick out flaws when you're on the other side, lol.

[Mosaic]

I like that they considered gestation time, though I don't feel that was really covered adequately. It would be more meaningful, to me, to chart IMR against number of doses received instead of the number of doses on the schedule in the first year. Most infant deaths occur within the first 6 days of life, when they obviously haven't received the full schedule.

Link to infant mortality data for US (of course, a warning as it's sad data) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/Link01wk33.pdf

[sassyfirechick]

Good stuff.  Gives me something to have my husband read and unsertand why I've changed my mind from being select-vax, to no vax for our DH. 

[LisaSedai]

Mizram- I'm wondering why MMR is not on the list of vaccines per country?

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by LisaSedai 

Mizram- I'm wondering why MMR is not on the list of vaccines per country?

Because MMR is not given during infancy.

There is a ton of research out there about the USA's high infant mortality rate.  Here are a lot of other sources. None of them mention vaccines.  Form your own conclusions.  I did find it very interesting that in the USA, states with higher poverty levels and lower levels of insurance coverage have a much higher IMR, despite having the same vaccination schedule.  This would speak against vaccines causing and elevated IMR, but rather points to socioeconomic factors, poor insurance coverage and poor prenatal care as causes.

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Why_Does_the_US_Have_Such_a_High_Infant_Mortality_Rate_120408

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-05-08/health/mothers.index_1_mortality-rate-death-rate-world-s-mothers/2?_s=PM:HEALTH

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2007/03/baby_gap.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/health/04infant.html

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by LisaSedai 

Mizram- I'm wondering why MMR is not on the list of vaccines per country?

It's vaccines under one - so no MMR. 

As to my initial thoughts, as a skeptic of such studies (and a "Mothering Mama who Thoughfully Vaccinates")

I'm curious as to the selection of countries - why these 34? On a quick reading thats my first concern - that if you included a larger number of countries it would become a scatter plot. 

Oh I see - it's all nations with better IMR as the USA.... And I can see arguments for why that's an interesting group, although I'd still prefer it be a larger sample.

I'm concerned that due to the current and prior links of the authors to anti-vax groups, and the funding received by NVIC to help with publication costs the authors would have been looking for such a correlation (and not published if they didn't find it). 

I'm worried about the source of the vaccination dose data - they claim a literature review, but give no actual references for each country. It would take a lot of my time to chase that all up. 

By the way if you really want the "pro-vax" viewpoint, posting in "We're not Vaccinating" board not the best first start. But it was asked for so I thought I should jump in. 

[prosciencemum]

Oh, and a thorough skeptical (and pro-vax) viewpoint is provided here. Should have looked at that before posting! ;) 

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/16/vaccines-and-infant-mortality-rates/

Some select quotes (he points out the conflicts of interests I started to notice as well in much more depth)

Quote:

COIs do not necessarily mean that a study is in error, poorly done, or out-and-out wrong. They merely demand a bit more skepticism

And my concern over the counting of vaccine doses (as a quote from another review of the article)

Quote:

There are a number of things wrong with this procedure – first of all, the way Miller and Goldman are counting vaccines is completely arbitrary and riddled with mistakes.

For example: 

Quote:

Mistakes: The German childhood vaccination schedule recommends DTaP, hib, IPV AND hepB, as well as PCV at 2, 3 and 4 months, putting them squarely into the 21 – 23 bin

(which if you look would lower the average IMR of that bin and reduce the significance of the trend). 

 Also Japan (with the 3rd lowest IMR) should be counted as having the highest number of doses as it still uses bacterial BCG in the first year (see article for the details of that claim). 

 They also say

Quote:

the choice of data analyzed leaves a strong suspicion of cherry picking

(which was my concern too - voiced as why these 34 nations), and they also ask why only look at data for 2009 when decades of data exist which is a good point.... 

 The conclusion of the article explains the overall view, and also my wishes for the pro-vax community (to stop being rude, and start thinking more) so well that I also wanted to share it with you: 

Quote:

The current study joins a long list of poorly planned, poorly executed, poorly analyzed studies that purport to show that vaccines cause autism, neurological diease, or even death. It is not the first, nor will it be the last. The question is: How do we respond to such studies? First off, we as skeptics have to be very careful not to become so jaded that knee-jerk hostility predominates. As unlikely as it is, there is always the possibility that there might be something worth taking seriously there. Next off, we have to be prepared to analyze these studies and explain to parents, when appropriate (which is the vast majority of the time) exactly why it is that they are bad science or why their conclusions are not supported by the data presented. Finally, we have to be prepared to provide these analyses fast. The Internet is speed. Already, if you Google the terms “infant mortality” and “vaccine,” anti-vaccine blogs gloating over Miller and Goldman’s study and the study itself appear on the very first page of search results.

[pers]

Originally Posted by littlec 

I would be interested to see what people on here who are pro-vax feel about this study. It sounds compelling and scary to me, but I know it's easier to pick out flaws when you're on the other side, lol.

I had been biting my tongue about this thread due to being in the not vaxing forum (though doesn't it belong in research?), but since you are interested... 

Science based medicine blogged criticism of it.  The first section is discussion of the credibility of the study authors.  If you just want to see discussion about the problems with the actual study, scroll down to the "infant mortality as a function of vaccines" subtitle.  

To expand on some of their points.. 

 - The way they count vaccines doesn't make sense.  SBM quotes from another blog "they count number of vaccines in US bins (DTaP is one, hib is separate) and non-specific designations (some “polio” is still given as OPV in Singapore), rather than antigens. If they did that, Japan, still giving the live bacterial vaccine BCG, would immediately go to the top of the list.",  (Does your body somehow magically know that the antigens for DTaP are for three separate diseases, but the antigens in the BCG are all for tuberculosis, so react to them that way?).  

But beyond that, it doesn't even work quite right counting for diseases the way they do it.  DTaP is called a trivalent vaccine because it is for three diseases, okay.  But they list Pneumo given twice each for each of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.  What they ignore is that this Pneumo vaccine is Prevnar7 where the seven stands for the number of strains it protects against.  It is a 7-valent vaccine.  So these countries actually should be listed as 24 vaccines, while Japan and Iceland remain at 12 and FInland at 13.  If these pneumo vaccines were given separately, seven shot with each protecting against  a single strain, would they still be counted as one?

Yes, counting this way would also raise the US numbers considerably.  It was using Prevnar7 at the same time (now has moved to prevnar 13, as other countries are doing, which protects against five additional strains).   But look up and down the list at the countries that give it and do not.  Counting it as seven instead of one would drastically change the graph.  Just moving the three countries mentioned above from the lowest vaccine section to the middle of the vaccine spread would completely change the line of best fit.  

Also, the study doesn't look at the timing of vaccines.  Most infant deaths happen before six months (actually, in the first day/week).  SIDS, in particular, happens most often between 2 and 4 months, and by 6 months has dropped significantly.  Four of the five countries in the 12-14 vaccines group are so because, while overall they give the same number of vaccines as many other countries, they vaccinate on a 3, 5, 12 month schedule instead of a 2, 4, 6 month.  So just prior to six months, infants in these countries will have had the same number of vaccines as infants in many countries with higher IMR.    Would moving the 6 (by their way of counting) 12 months shots to 6 months, when most countries give them and by which time we are already entering the time of least infant mortality, really suddenly cause the IMR of these countries to rise so significantly?  

-  Take a look at the low vaccine (by their way of counting) countries.   The study divided them into groups of 12-14 vacccines, 15-17, 18-20, 21-23,  and 24-26.  Their are only 5 countries in each of the lowest two groups.  Now, I don't know enough about the demographics of these countries to posit why Denmark (first group with 12 vaxs, vax rates in the high-80s) has nearly twice the infant mortality rate of Singapore (2nd group with 17 vaxs.. including hep b and tuberculosis at birth, vax rates in the high-90s).  

But take a look at the countries in the 12-14 group.  They are Sweden, Japan, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and Finland.  So basically, Scandinavia + Japan.  The countries of Scandinavia have a whole lot in common besides a fairly similar basic vaccine schedule!  

For starters, they have lower rates of premature birth - about half that of the US for many of them (something they share with Japan).  In the US, conditions from premature birth are the direct cause of about a third of all infant deaths (so an entire third of our infant mortality rate) and a contributing factor to 75% of all infant deaths.  That's a lot.  The study has a brief mention of prematurity, but then discounts it completely on the basis that Ireland and Greece both also have low rates of preterm birth but high vaccines (their way of counting) and high infant mortality rates, so thus "reducing preterm births is only part of the solution to reduce IMRs."  Well, yes, obviously preterm births are not the only factor that matters.  Infant mortality is an incredibly complex topic, which is why trying to boil it down to one factor is ridiculous.  Just because preterm birth rates doesn't by itself explain the differences in infant mortality rates doesn't mean you can just ignore the huge impact it does make.  Two papers looking at the impact of preterm birth in the US: one and two.  Infant mortality rates are still higher than several European countries when adjusting for it, but not so staggeringly so.  

Another thing, the countries of Scandinavia are pretty much all of one ethnicity with relatively few minorities (Japan is too, for that matter, just a different ethnicity).  Racial makeup does matter both for social reasons (racism leading to poverty and less access to health care + lower quality care) and genetic reasons (genetic predisposition to greater risk of preterm birth, multiple births, and SIDS rates vary from race to race).  The study mentions the factor of minorities, but discounts any impact it may have on the basis that the IMR for white infants was still 5.6 which they say wouldn't have moved it forward significantly.  Perhaps, but it is still a factor that should have been adjusted for rather than dismissed out of hand.  

Other factors that could make some different: teenage pregnancy rates (infants born to mothers under 20 have a higher IMR) are much higher in the US/Canada than in many European countries.  Poverty - the US has a much greater income divide and more poverty than many of the mostly-middle class nations.  Urban/rural - I don't know the number for the US, but in Canada, 30% of the population lives in rural or remote communities.  How many people in Japan or Singapore have to drive for hours and hours and hours to get an MRI or see a specialist?  How many have to be air lifted hundreds of miles to get to a NICU or trauma center capable of caring for them?  Health care and access it.  Everyone knows about the problem of uninsured people in the US.  Here in Canada we do have universal health care.  But while people in most urban areas have free access to great health care, there are areas with doctor shortages.  Particularly, keeping doctors in rural areas is a problem. Anecdote, but when I lived in a much smaller city than I do now (but still not that small), an ob went on vacation at the same time another had a prolonged illness, and suddenly the newspaper was running articles advising women close to their due date to get out of town if they could.  What about paid maternity/parental leave?  Social programs that benefit mothers and infants and/or prevent abuse and neglect?  

Just take a look at the huge range of IMR for different US States + DC.  Why do babies born to white mothers in Oklahoma (IMR 7.9) die more than twice as often than they do in New Jersey (IMR 3.5).  Why are DC and Hawaii two parts of a 3way tie for third place in regards to IMR of babies born to white mothers (4.2), but  have the two worst IMRs for babies born to black mothers (an appalling 18.6 for DC and 21.1 for Hawaii)? Obviously there is a lot more going into US IRM than an alleged overvaxination of its babies.  

Also check out rates for Canadian provinces. The study lists Canada as 24 vaccines based on the Health Canada recommendation, but the reality is that each province sets its own schedule, and many don't give this many.  One province that actually gives one more is BC, which gives 25 based on the way of counting used in the study.  It also has one of the best IMRs in the country - 3.4 for 2009, which is actually better than three of the countries in the 12-14 vaccine category (Finland 3.47, Norway 3.58, and Denmark 4.34). British Columbia has a population ten times greater than Iceland, similar in size to Norway, and not that much behind the rest of the Scandinavian countries - it really could be a country on it's own, and lumping the Canadian provinces together under 24 when they have differing vaccination schedules is not very accurate.   Do any other countries have different schedules & separate IMR tracking for different regions?  

- Another criticism from SBM is that while the report seems focused on the US's high IMR and high number of vaccines, it only compares the US to countries with a better IMR than it has, not worse.  Looking at a few countries with worse rates, you just get a lot of worseining IMRs among the countries with 18-21 vaxs or so, because that is the vax range most fall into - there just aren't a lot of countries with lower vax numbers, which is one of the big problems with this study.  Then you get to Poland.  Five spots below the US with an IMR of 6.8 from the 2009 CIA factbook (source of this study's IMR data), Poland only has 15 vaccines on it's schedule.  It's just one country, but with only five countries in the 15-17 section it would sit in, including a 6.8 IMR would shift that data point up a noticeable amount.  I think I can see why they stopped at the US!  

So basically, to sum up, this study tried to boil down an incredibly complex subject down to one variable, completely ignoring (except to give a brief and flimsy reason why a few factors could be ignored) all other factors which could cause the rates to be as they are.  It uses a way of counting vaccines that doesn't make much sense scientifically, data from only one year, in which most of the countries with the lowest number of vaxes have lot of factors in common beyond vaccine schedule, and excludes all countries with a worse IMR than the US on order to find a correlation between vaccines and IMR.  Yeah, I think they are a loooooooooooooong way from even hinting at causation.  

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by pers 

I had been biting my tongue about this thread due to being in the not vaxing forum (though doesn't it belong in research?), but since you are interested... 

Science based medicine blogged criticism of it.  The first section is discussion of the credibility of the study authors.  If you just want to see discussion about the problems with the actual study, scroll down to the "infant mortality as a function of vaccines" subtitle.  

Ah, science based medicine. 

In the first paragraph of the blogged you linked to they referred to non-vaxxing as quakery and pseudoscience... 'nuf said.

Regardless, I am not convinced vaccines contribute to the USA's dismal infant mortality or child mortality rate (  take a look at this site for child mortality http://www.childinfo.org/files/Child_Mortality_Report_2011.pdf   - the USA has a child mortality rate 16 times that of Canada, and 8 times that of the UK!).  I think there are many factors that contribute to a poor rate - primarily poverty and lack of universal health care. 

I don't think vaccines help though (other than perhaps preventing diseases from coming back).  The USA has a high infant and mortality rate despite the number of vaccines it gives out.