Vaccinated children have 2-5 times more diseases and disorders - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 19 Old 06-13-2012, 08:48 PM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/new-study-vaccinated-children-have-2-to-5-times-more-diseases-and-disorders-than-unvaccinated-children/


A German study released in September 2011 of about 8000 UNVACCINATED children, newborn to 19 years, show vaccinated children have at least 2 to 5 times more diseases and disorders than unvaccinated children.
Taximom5 is offline  
#2 of 19 Old 06-14-2012, 04:09 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

I'm surprised that no survey (that i know of) exists to where teachers who have been teaching for at least 20yrs, have been asked to state their opinions on the learning abilities of students, and the differences in general and learning behaviors then and now.  I would very interested to hear what they think, and how they think our youth has improved or declined in that area.   Of course, i'm just now thinking of what an impact such a survey could have on public/private education, and it might not be too pretty.  

emmy526 is online now  
#3 of 19 Old 06-14-2012, 07:52 AM
 
bmorehon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

This "study" is screaming with issues of data quality and conflict of interest - it's an internet poll by a person making money off web ads, relying on participation from visitors to a biased site.

bmorehon is offline  
#4 of 19 Old 06-14-2012, 08:12 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmorehon View Post

This "study" is screaming with conflicts of interest - it's an internet poll by a person making money off web ads.  

 

The above argument is so stale, already.


Do you think that making a few dollars from google ads was the motivating reason this was done? Make a few bucks off non-vaxing schmucks? And the studies funded by pharmaceutical companies have no conflicts of interest? Do they not benefit financially from selling vaccines? After all, they have a multi-billion dollar business to run. It costs a lot of money to develop a vaccine, as public corporations they need to make a profit they have shareholders to satisfy.

purslaine likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#5 of 19 Old 06-14-2012, 08:15 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
That survey has been around for awhile. It's not very scientific. The more rigorous study with kiggs had contradictory results.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#6 of 19 Old 06-14-2012, 08:16 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

I would add the likely motivation is people genuinely want to know the difference in health outcomes between vaxed and unvaxed children. Unfortunately, we are going to have to make do with "studies" like these until a fully funded unbiased study is done. #notinmylifetime


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#7 of 19 Old 06-14-2012, 08:16 AM
Banned
 
stik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Healthimpactnews.com is working hard to make that study look valid.  However, even they have to acknowledge that their data is iffy.  They do it with a ton of caveats, but they do it:

 

 

Quote:
The data was collected from parents with vaccine-free children via an internet questionnaire by vaccineinjury.info and Andreas Bachmair, a German classical homeopathic practitioner. The website is not a pretty one (including Google ads for vaccines) but the actual data is what counts. The independent study is self-funded and is not sponsored by a large “credible” non-profit or government health organization with political and financial conflicts of interest. Each one of the 8000 cases are actual cases with medical documentation. Three other studies had similar results according to Bachmair and are reported below.

 

The acknowledged fact that the questionnaires were collected from readers of a web site for parents of vaccine injured children undermines the survey's ability to draw conclusions about comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.  Parents of children who have not been vaccine injured are generally not spending any time on vaccine injury sites.  There are a ton of caveats there, but as much as the writers wish they would, they caveats don't mean that this data supports conclusions about the comparative health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.  Although the last sentence in the paragraph I quoted claims that the results of three other studies are reported later in the article, they are not. 

 

The IAS 1992 study linked at the bottom of the article involved 245 families with a total of less than 300 children in each of the categories under study.  Ages of the children whose health was reported in the survey ranged from 2 weeks to 46 years.  The author of the article notes that many families had one or more older child who was vaccinated and a younger child or younger children who were not vaccinated.  Because the people in the vaccinated group tended to be the older siblings, they would have more health issues simply by virtue of having lived longer.  The data in the .pdf do not reflect any effort to control for age. 

 

The second link in the article doesn't work. 

stik is offline  
#8 of 19 Old 06-14-2012, 08:20 AM
Banned
 
stik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

I would add the likely motivation is people genuinely want to know the difference in health outcomes between vaxed and unvaxed children. Unfortunately, we are going to have to make do with "studies" like these until a fully funded unbiased study is done. #notinmylifetime

 

We have had a discussion on another recent thread about the nigh-impossibility of making this happen.

stik is offline  
#9 of 19 Old 06-14-2012, 08:41 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There is a much more rigorous German study that was done that for some reason everyone is ignoring. I can't imagine why,
prosciencemum likes this.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#10 of 19 Old 06-14-2012, 10:22 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

I would add the likely motivation is people genuinely want to know the difference in health outcomes between vaxed and unvaxed children. Unfortunately, we are going to have to make do with "studies" like these until a fully funded unbiased study is done. #notinmylifetime

 

We have had a discussion on another recent thread about the nigh-impossibility of making this happen.

I am well aware of that. Which is why we have to put up with studies like this. 

purslaine likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#11 of 19 Old 06-14-2012, 10:28 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm not sure this even rises to the level of "study."
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#12 of 19 Old 06-14-2012, 11:38 AM
Banned
 
stik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

This is neither an observational nor an experimental study.  It's a poll.  Polls are useful in politics.  But basically, what this did was to ask a bunch of parents who have shown up on a website with a million ads and a title that's a BIG HINT about what kind of google search got them there if they do indeed believe what you would expect a person to believe if they clicked on a link with the words "vaccine injury" in the name.  And yes, I think the ad bucks were the motivation for the poll.  If people go click around on the page and stay for longer because they are reading and answering poll questions, the advertisers pay the site more money. 

 

You will never find a study that is both unbiased AND fully funded.  People have goals when they do research, and when they fund it.  That's a good thing - it keeps them focused on finding an answer to the questions under consideration.  When there's no money backing a research project you get stuff like this that isn't really research. 
 

stik is offline  
#13 of 19 Old 06-14-2012, 03:21 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Sure, vaccinated children have 2-5 times more illnesses, and Stephen Colbert is the 69th most beautiful woman in the world.  These are the sort of things that happen when you gather information through an internet survey filled out by random people and heavily passed around anti-vax sites or Maxim readers, respectively.

 

They are still collecting data, so if you want to be a part, you can fill it out however you want and as many time  as you want by going here:  http://www.vaccineinjury.info/vaccinations-in-general/health-unvaccinated-children.html

 

Also, since the link in the above article isn't working (at least not for me), the actual "study," such as it is, is here: http://www.vaccineinjury.info/vaccinations-in-general/health-unvaccinated-children/survey-results-illnesses.html

 

Does your child suffer from any of the following illnesses or symptoms?  Let's see, ear infections... yes, no, or rarely?  Let's say he/she has had a couple, but the last one was over a year ago, and by rarely they probably mean those vaxed kids who only get one every few months rather than those vaxed kids who have them constantly, so we'll go with a no for the final answer!  

 

But even if you were to pretend that the data collection method was in any way valid, the "study" is rife with problems.  

 

For instance:  

 

Quote:
According to the KIGGS study more than 40% of children between the ages of 3 and 17 years were sensitized against at least one allergen tested (20 common allergens were tested) and 22.9% had an allergic disease. Although we did not perform a bloodtest, around 10% stated that their children had an allergy.

 

KIGGS did do blood tests.  How many parents do we know who went in to have a child tested for a specific allergy to one thing only to have the test results show several other sensitivities that they were completely unaware of?  How many more kids don't have any allergies obvious to be tested for, so we never know about sensitivities they do have?  Trying to compare blood test results to the number of people who checked "yes" for "allergies" and expecting to get anything meaningful from it is absolutely ridiculous.  

 

 

 

And

Quote:
KIGGS showed that 12.8% of the children in Germany had herpes and 11% suffer from otitis media (an inflammation of the middle ear). If you compare this to unvaccinated childen you can see that herpes among unvaccinated children is very rare (less than 0.5%).

 

The unvaxed survey lists just lists "herpes" with the typical "yes," "no,' and "rarely" options in the "does your child suffer from any of the following illnesses or symptoms" section.  How many parents so that and thought "WTF, sexually transmitted disease, of course the answer is 'no'" forgetting or not knowing that the cold sore the child had a while ago is also herpes? 

 

 

 

 

The biggest problem with the study (apart from the obvious: data collected by internet poll is worthless) stems from this:  

 

Quote:
Due to the fact that the majority of children in the survey are between 0 and 2 years of age and some diseases generally do not appear in this age group, the results are subdivided into different age groups (you can see that by clicking on the chart). 

 

 

 

They admit up front that this is a problem, and you can see the data broken down by age for unvaxed if you bother to click the chart.  But despite this, again and again they compare numbers from their skewed-to-the-under-twos data to data representing kids up to age 17 (or older)  as if these numbers were somehow worth comparing.  

 

For instance:

 

Quote:

In young kids under the age of 3 warts are very rare. Above the age of three years however the prevalence is rising. In the ages between 4 and 6 years, 5-10% of the kids have warts, in the age group 16-18, 15-20% have warts.(http://www.netdoktor.at/health_center/dermatologie/warzen.htm)
Only 3% of unvaccinated children in our survey have warts.

 

 

So, the majority of the kids in the survey are from the age group for which warts are very rare.  Yet here they are putting the 3% average for the total unvaxed responses, mostly under two, up against the numbers broken down for the older general population kids as if they were somehow comparable anyway, and it looks bad for the general population.  But... the chart is right there.  And their age groupings don't line up quite right, but if you click it, you can see that 6.76% of unvaxed 5-6 year olds had warts, which is in line with the general 5-10% for 4-6 year olds above.  For the 15-16 year old unvaxed kids, 14% had warts, very close to the 15-20% for 16-18 above.  The number then drops suddenly to just under 5% for unvaxed 17-18 year olds despite having risen steadily for all prior age groups.... hello obvious data collection problems. 

 

 

 

 

Or a big one for vax, issues, autism.   The "study" authors say: "The CDC  estimates that about 1 in 88 (1,1%) children has been identified with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD)(Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network).,"  The survey results showed that only 0.44% of unvaxed kids had autism, less than half the 1.1% for the general population.  This would look pretty bad for vaccines, except that to get the 1 in 88 number, the CDC looked at eight year olds, presumably because most cases of autism have been diagnosed by this age.  While autism symptoms may show up at a younger age, and can be diagnosed as early as age 2, most cases of autism aren't diagnosed until after the child's fourth birthday, or even later for milder autism spectrum cases.  The majority of the unvaxed in this survey, on the other hand, were under the age of 2.  So you are comparing a group composed mostly of those too young to have been diagnosed, many too young for the parents even to have really realized that something is wrong, with kids from the age by which pretty much all cases should have been caught.

 

But to be fair, the authors do include that handy chart breaking down the results by age.  From this chart we can see that the unvaxed 9-10 year olds (all 605 of them), who presumably would have been diagnosed already by age 8, the rate of autism was 1.98%.  That's nearly double the 1.1%  1 in 88 for the general population!  I repeat, leaving out kids young enough that many cases may not have been diagnosed, unvaxed had nearly twice the rate of autism as the general population!  Vaccination prevents autism!!!1111eleventy!  11-12 year old unvaxed kids also had a slightly worse rate of autism than the general population, though not as bad as the slightly younger kids.  Things were better for unvaxed 15-16 year olds who had a much lower rate of 0.41%, but then results went up to back above the general poplation for 17-18 year olds with 1.22 percent.  Up and down, up and down... well hello data collection problems again! Of course teh rate of autism isn't really twice as high for the unvaxed, it only looks that way because the data presented is worthless. 

 

And then there is diabetes.  While babies are occasionally diagnosed with it, I am pretty sure it normally appears in older children, and google seems to be backing me up on that from several sites including this one http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/117739-overview#a0156 which says "Type 1 DM usually starts in children aged 4 years or older, appearing fairly abruptly, with the peak incidence of onset at age 11-13 years (ie, in early adolescence and puberty)."   

 

The authors of the unvaxed "study" tell us that "Diabetes affects 0.2% of the children under 20 years of age  in the USA (National Diabetes Fact Sheet)", and then have a chart showing that the rate of diabetes in unvaxed kids is 0.07%, which is obviously way lower.  But... diabetes usually starts in kids 4 and older, and most of the unvaxed kids from the unvaxed study were under age 2.  If you click the chart to get to the age breakdown, it even tells you that "In the case of a missing bar chart, this means that there are no affected persons in this age group. Note also, that the groups 9-10 years, 11-12 years, 13-14 years, 15-16 years, 17-18 years are very small and the results in these subgroups are not significant."  There are several bars of older kids missing from the diabetes chart.  So how in the world is comparing a group primarily compose of those too young to expect diabetes to the entire under-twenty population supposed to reveal anything at all about a relationship between vaccines and diabetes?  

 

This is beyond ridiculous.  Really, the only conclusions which may be drawn from this "study" are rather unfavorable ones about the authors who would not only present data from a completely uncontrolled internet poll as being worth paying attention to, but then also twist it by comparing a group of unvaxed very much skewed toward infants and toddlers to the general poplation and then trying to claim that when diseases that generally show up in older kids are less common in the younger unvaxed group this says anything at all about the effects of vaccines.  

pers is offline  
#14 of 19 Old 06-18-2012, 11:56 AM
 
MichelleZB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 989
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)

So, like, it's an internet quiz you can fill out?

 

Guys, seriously. I also did an internet quiz just a few hours ago to determine how much of a hipster I was. The quiz told me that only 2.5% of the population were true hipsters--information gathered, I suppose, from their "study". I ended up not being one of those 2.5%; alas, I am a poseur. I posted my results on Facebook. But I really doubt the quiz has much scientific validity. It's a meme.

 

This quiz is a questionnaire for members on a vaccine injury site. I could fill it out a thousand times and say anything I wanted. Disregard.

Imakcerka likes this.
MichelleZB is online now  
#15 of 19 Old 06-18-2012, 04:05 PM
 
holly6737's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'd hardly consider an internet poll a study. Was it peer reviewed? Was it published in a reputable journal? If not, it's not on my radar.


CNM mama.

holly6737 is offline  
#16 of 19 Old 06-18-2012, 04:42 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by holly6737 View Post

I'd hardly consider an internet poll a study. Was it peer reviewed? Was it published in a reputable journal? If not, it's not on my radar.

How do you define reputable?

purslaine is offline  
#17 of 19 Old 06-18-2012, 05:45 PM
 
holly6737's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

JAMA, NEJM, etc.


CNM mama.

holly6737 is offline  
#18 of 19 Old 06-18-2012, 05:54 PM
 
Serenity Now's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Free and easy wandering.
Posts: 357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

How do you define reputable?


It's usually defined by impact factor.

Serenity Now is online now  
#19 of 19 Old 06-19-2012, 01:29 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serenity Now View Post


It's usually defined by impact factor.

 

No impact factor is about how much reach a journal has - how often things are cited. Some of the metrics we as scientists have to submit to government bodies who fund us depend on will scale the number of citations our papers have by the impact factor of a journal - so publishing in a high impact factor journal will be the goal for your research if you can do it. 

 

But lots of low impact factor journals are reputable - that descision would depend on the level of scrutiny and peer review articles which are submitted to the journal have to go through. In the physical sciences that process is unpaid (ie. I referee other people's papers for free, and they do mine). 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off