The German vaxed vs unvaxed "study" - Unvaccinated Children Suffer Fewer Infectious Diseases

[Mirzam]

I beleive this is the study that our vocal pro-vaxers like to show off as proof that vaccinate children are just as healthy as unvaccinated.

http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013-03-13/unvaccinated-children-suffer-fewer-infectious-diseases-study/

Quote:

The study found:

• Vaccinated children aged 1-5 had 27% more infectious disease than unvaccinated children.
• Vaccinated children aged  11-17 had 16% more infectious disease than unvaccinated children.

The conclusion, though, doesn’t even mention this!

[serenbat]

not trying to change the subject (I did try and bring this up in the "other" section) - I don't know how many have seen this - and depending on where you see it - you see a different take! go figure  this seems to show NO! there is a difference!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A Population-Based Cohort Study of Undervaccination in 8 Managed Care Organizations Across the United States  

Under and Unvaced are healthier (to some!)

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/jama-study-kids-with-fewer-vaccines-have-fewer-doctor-and-emergency-room-visits/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130121161921.htm

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/01/study-finds-infants-toddlers-on-slower-vaccine-schedule-have-fewer-outpatient-and-er-visits.html?cid=6a00d8357f3f2969e2017d4070ba3d970c

it's on other blogs too

I would have like to seen a longer study and I do know (personally) we have insurance via my DH and his company (they are a fortune 500 & international) and within the past 15 years we have had (no say here) to change insurance so many times - just within the past 5 years (since our DS was born) it has changed 3 times - so for most people (knowing this is happening with others as well) just getting your group to study is hard - YET let's remember what the other sides is saying - "managed care" so much info there! I don't seem them talking about this outcome! 

I do have a real problem with how it was "studied" - as I had posted -  For inclusion, each child had to be continuously enrolled in their MCO from at least ages 2 to 12 months. Children were followed up for a maximum of 36 months, and follow-up stopped if a child’s enrollment in his or her MCO was discontinued…To help ensure that children were receiving primary care services within their MCO, they also had to have at least 1 outpatient visit by age 12 months.

[serenbat]

prosciencmum are you now not in the other camp~did you see the light?  

Did you switch side or just choose to ignore the Support only: If you're not vaccinating or seriously considering not vaccinating, this is your forum. This forum will host topics that are about dealing with issues when choosing to not vaccinate.

[Marnica]

I'm sure PSM is aware of the posting guidelines for this forum. Aren't you PSM?

I think she just wanted to make sure that we no vaxers are getting the "right" information/interpretation of a particular study. 

With that said, while I admit I read the posts in the mindful vax forum - I refrain from posting any replies.

[Escaping]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

I'm sure PSM is aware of the posting guidelines for this forum. Aren't you PSM?

I think she just wanted to make sure that we no vaxers are getting the "right" information/interpretation of a particular study. 

With that said, while I admit I read the posts in the mindful vax forum - I refrain from posting any replies.

I appreciate that... nothing bugs me more than receiving slanted information no matter what the topic and whether I agree or not. (I don't mean the OP, just in general)

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Escaping 

Originally Posted by Marnica 

I'm sure PSM is aware of the posting guidelines for this forum. Aren't you PSM?

I think she just wanted to make sure that we no vaxers are getting the "right" information/interpretation of a particular study. 

With that said, while I admit I read the posts in the mindful vax forum - I refrain from posting any replies.

I appreciate that... nothing bugs me more than receiving slanted information no matter what the topic and whether I agree or not. (I don't mean the OP, just in general)

I am sorry, but this is the I'm not vaccinating forum. Non vaxers aren't allowed challenge pro vax opinions on the Mindful Vaccination forum, they get deleted PDQ, so I hope this forum will be treated in the same way.

[Escaping]

But if I'm thinking of not vaccinating my child, I'd appreciate accurate information. 

[serenbat]

Quote:

But if I'm thinking of not vaccinating my child, I'd appreciate accurate information. 

you have the debate section if you want it - post it there if you want 

I'm thinking of vaccinating, should I post in the other section? I saw a "correction" that should be made-would you like that  (it is in the mindful section)?

[pek64]

I haven't caught up with all the posts, here, but would like to mention that the *only* time my son was ill for more than a couple of days was when he was being vaxed. When I quit authorizing them, his health improved dramatically!

[Escaping]

I wasn't looking for a debate, I like to read this section for my own information. I'd like some reassurance that the information posted here is true and accurate. 

[Marnica]

Ok here's the thing.

I can appreciate the desire for accurate information Escaping. However I think it is important for whoever posts here to keep in mind where they are. I also think you missed the sarcasm in my response because we are all aware of PSM's point of view and she is not considering vaccinating her child so this really is not a forum that she should be participating in. As a no vaxer that participates on the debate thread, I think many of us here, when we KNOW the poster is staunchly provax, will question the motives of the post. Is it really that PSM wants us to have accurate information? or is she more interested in pointing out that we are wrong? 

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Escaping 

I wasn't looking for a debate, I like to read this section for my own information. I'd like some reassurance that the information posted here is true and accurate. 

Information and studies can be interpreted through multiple lenses and different conclusions can be drawn. That is also important to keep in mind. I think what may have been more helpful is to just post the original study and then we can all go read it for ourselves :)

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I believe I can make a factual correction on this board. The actual study is here for reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/

I quote the relevent section with number below (PS. I corrected what must be a typo in one of the CI - you can see it off the graph): 

My correction is that the figures should actually be quoted with errors. Using the language from the Gaia blog article Mirzam links they would be: 

• Vaccinated children aged 1-5 had 27% more (CI twice as much to 6% less) infectious disease than unvaccinated children.
• Vaccinated children aged  11-17 had 16% more (CI twice as much to 25% less) infectious disease than unvaccinated children.

The authors explain why it's not in the conclusions - it's not statistically significant: 

Isn't it interesting that it's not "statistically significant" when vaccines have a negative outcome of 27%, but when a vaccine or even a medication has even less of a "statistically significant" outcome (like the flu shot in elderly people having only 9% efficacy), the vaccine is still trumpeted as being effective, and is aggressively marketed and even mandated?

[serenbat]

Quote:

Ok here's the thing.

I can appreciate the desire for accurate information Escaping. However I think it is important for whoever posts here to keep in mind where they are. I also think you missed the sarcasm in my response because we are all aware of PSM's point of view and she is not considering vaccinating her child so this really is not a forum that she should be participating in. As a no vaxer that participates on the debate thread, I think many of us here, when we KNOW the poster is staunchly provax, will question the motives of the post. Is it really that PSM wants us to have accurate information? or is she more interested in pointing out that we are wrong? 

I got it!

Quote:

I wasn't looking for a debate, I like to read this section for my own information. I'd like some reassurance that the information posted here is true and accurate. 

again, would like us (those who also are not looking for debate) to post in the other section? You have the debate section if you want a CROSS section of posts.

If you are concerned about true and accurate why wouldn't you want from all not just those who are not/delayed, etc? 

Edited by serenbat - 3/14/13 at 5:12pm

[Escaping]

I read from both groups. Sorry, won't post here again.

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Here are the forum guidelines: http://www.mothering.com/community/a/vaccination-forum-guidelines

To paraphrase, the support forums (MV & INV) are specifically for members making or seriously considering those options so they can share information with like-minded members. Of course, those members are welcome to discuss stats and sources. Members considering either support sub-forum are welcome to post to ask for information and question what is being discussed. However, once a member has settled into one ideology they should refrain from posting in the other support forum. Escaping, if you are seriously considering not vaccinating, you are welcome to post here. 

Members repeatedly and knowingly posting in the wrong forum will have posting privileges removed. 

I have removed one post from this thread. Thanks for the heads up, ICM 

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

Isn't it interesting that it's not "statistically significant" when vaccines have a negative outcome of 27%, but when a vaccine or even a medication has even less of a "statistically significant" outcome (like the flu shot in elderly people having only 9% efficacy), the vaccine is still trumpeted as being effective, and is aggressively marketed and even mandated?

The number of unvaxxed kids in the German study was very small.

I think it is interesting that the unvaxxed having a higher incidence of VAD in the study is trumpeted, however when the data seems to favour not vaxxing, it is suddenly "statistically insignificant."

The original study:

http://data.aerzteblatt.org/pdf/DI/108/7/m99.pdf

Edited by kathymuggle - 3/14/13 at 8:08pm

[kathymuggle]

Another thing I found odd was how they determined VAD.

Here is a quote from the study:

"Lifetime prevalence calculations for pertussis, measles, mumps, and rubella were based on the question: “Has your child ever had ... ?” 

2 points:

1:  They are calculating lifetime risk as opposed to actual cases.  I find that kind of assumptive.  

2.   Parental reports are not always great indicators for disease - particualrly pertussis (which, depending on the age of the child, can come across as a nasty and long-lived cough) and rubella - which is so mild is often goes unnoticed!  Parents of unvaccinated children might know a bit more about what these diseases look like (and thus recognise rubella where a vaxxing parent might not) moreover, those who vaccinate may believe their child could not possibly get a VAD, thus skewing the vaxxing statistics downwards.  

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

prosciencmum are you now not in the other camp~did you see the light?  

We have cookies over here…..

[aggie pop]

Yeah, but their kids might get free ipods!  I would rather have an ipod than a cookie, i think.
 

(if you are unaware, this is what i was referencing: http://www.naturalnews.com/032330_vaccines_iPod.html) and i believe it happened in california as well.

Edited by aggie pop - 3/17/13 at 8:41am