quesstionaire for vaxed children in red or questionnaire for vaccinated children.
results of one survey
and the link that led to the survey:
I wrote a really long response to this here a couple years ago, but my first attempt to search for it didn't work, so it seems easier to just re-write a few of the highlight.
It's an internet survey. That's about as unreliable as it gets. Anyone with an agenda can fill it out however they want as often as they want. Given the circles it is primarily being passed around in, it is more likely people with an agenda would be filling it with answers intended to demonize vaccine, but... it could go the other way too. Some people may fill it out more than once by accident when they come across it again and don't realize it is the same one they answered a year or two before. There is no reason to expect that the sample is honest, accurate, or in any way represent the general population.
Pretending for a second that the results of an internet survey are actually worth paying attention to, this "study" still has huge problems.
- Even for people trying to fill it out honestly, the questions are too vague. What are sleeping problems? Is an nine-month old waking up three times a night just a normal baby or is it a sign of a sleeping problem? With no definition, for two babies who sleep identically, one set of parents will say they do have a sleeping problem while the other will say they don't. Or herpes - how many parents see that on the list of conditions and think of the STD so cick "no," forgetting that the cold sore the child had a year ago was also herpes? How much crying exactly is excessive crying/crybaby? If a child had one ear infection in their life and that was four years ago, should you answer the ear infection question with "no," or "rarely?" Or if the child only has one or so ear infection a year, is that yes? Or since you keep reading about how those poor vaxed kids are constantly on antibiotics for five or seix ear infections a year, one a year should qualify for "rarely," right?* What, exactly, is sinusitis?
How often do you hear of a parent having their child allergy tested out of concern of an allergy to one thing only to find out that they have been sensitized to several other thing a well that they have never showed signs of a reaction too? How many kids have sensitivities that we know nothing about because they show no signs and were never tested? Kiggs results were based on a blood test. This survey was based on parental observation. This is not comparing like and like.
- dishonest presentation.
The way the data is presented is really strange. It seem from the way they report it on the page directly linked that they are trying to report it in a way that is deliberately misleading and skew things to show what they want to show instead of the truth. But yet, generally if you click to the next level where it breaks thing up by age, they do have the honest information there contradicting what they wrote in the main page summary. Or sometimes all the information is right on the main page, just presented strangely. For instance:
Only 3% of unvaccinated children in our survey have warts.
The last line about only 3% following lines with much higher percentages seems indented to show that unvaxed kids don't have as many warts. . But... what is the point of comparing the total percentage of unvaxed kids with warts to an age breakdown of kid in general when nearly all the kids in the unvaxed survey are under the age of three and thus should be compared against "warts are very rare," whatever that means? If you click through to look at the age breakdown for unvaxed kids, it is still difficult to compare since the age groupings don't match those of the above quote, but the two seem to be in line with each other indicating that unvaxed kids don't have any fewer warts than the general population.
Diabetes and autism are even worse:
Followed by a graph showing that only 0.06% of survey respondent answered "yes" to the question about diabetes, making it appear that the unvaxed kids are only about a quarter as likely to get diabetes as kids in the general population. But again, this is not comparing like vs like as most of the survey responses were for kids under two and both diabetes I and II are very rare in this age group.
Follows a graph showing a rate of 0.44% autism for their unvaxed survey indicating that autism is less than half as common in unvaxed as it is in the general population. But... the CDC numbers are based on eight year olds as the vast majority of autism cases have been identified by then. Most of the survey responses were for kids 0 to 2 years old, in other words, most were for kids younger than the age at which autism is typically diagnosed. What is the point of comparing autism in unvaxed infants and toddlers to autism in the general population of eight-year-olds? If you click through to the age breakdown graph and look just at the 7-8 year old responses (a much better group to compare to than the babies), you can see that they have a rate of 1.83% Newsflash - UNVAXED KIDS HAVE A MUCH HIGHER AUTISM RATE THAN THE GENERAL POPULATION!!!! Well, no they don't actually, since this study is garbage, but that is what it actually shows.
* It really surprises me sometimes just how people's perception of what is a normal amount of sickness is. I can't count the number of times I've read about people whose kids never get sick and I take them at their word (some kids really just don't get sick), until they start listing all the times their kid has been sick just to show how rare it is... except it seems so average. One case in particular I remember a woman saying that and then coming back later to say that her kid is so healthy she's only had this or that and one ear infection, and I remember being a bit dumbfounded because my daughter sounded exactly the same, except my kid had never had an ear infection, and I'd never have written that she never got sick - she always seemed to get sick what I thought was a pretty normal amount.
Pers, I agree with you. The Kiggs study is pretty much crap.
I'm curious about the issue you raised concerning how often children get sick, and how parents' perception of what constitutes "often" can differ.
My kids were all in daycare from infancy on, though not quite full-time (I have an odd work schedule). They hardly ever got sick with the viruses that were going around the daycare. They each got sick for about 24 hours with either fevers or intestinal viruses once or twice a year, each.
Most of the kids in daycare ended up in the ER every time an intestinal bug came around. Mine were sick for 10 hours or less.
But I didn't and still don't attribute this to their being less vaxed than their peers. I attribute it to their having been breastfed for 2 years each. I was the only mom who brought pumped milk in with my infants, and the only one who sat down and nursed them as soon as I picked them up.
I also suspect that the long-term nursing may have made a huge difference in the long-term severity of their vaccine reactions.
|68 members and 15,227 guests|
|1babysmom , AlmostJenny , Alvie , Anne Jividen , aqueene , Bare2015 , camillabien , captain optimism , Crazybean , CricketVS , Dakotacakes , dangerbunny , eazar , emily11megan , emmy526 , happymamasallie , hillymum , homeschoolingmama , ian'smommaya , Ivey Vines , K703 , katelove , kathymuggle , Kdebuire , LiLStar , lilyofjudah , Linda on the move , lizpacmeow , mariamadly , mckittre , MeepyCat , Milk8shake , Missjonesmf , missmason , mkat , moominmamma , Morgaine , Mylie , MylittleTiger , nemodori2084 , Nightwish , oaksie68 , octobermom , rabbitmomma , RollerCoasterMama , samaxtics , SandiMae , sarafl , SchoolmarmDE , sciencemum , Seventhtimeround , shantimama , shoeg8rl , siennaflower , Snydley , Spicyginger , Springshowers , stephalittle , TheBugsMomma , tournesol , Tracy , Wolfcat|
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.|