- This topic has 1,840 replies, 65 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
“How does the above evidence rule out optionB?”
Children with a genetic predisposition despite having a higher rate of being diagnosed with autism, MMR shot did not play a factor, in fact, this specific group when vaccinated actually had a slightly lower rate of autism.
There are multiple studies that all conclude the same, groups that have not received the MMR shot have the exact same or very similar rate of autism. Receiving the MMR shot had no effect on being diagnosed with autism.
So if those with autism had “variable x” and the MMR vaccine together with “variable x” was the cause for the autism, this would mean that both groups, the vaccinated and unvaccinated would have a similar number of children with variable x, yet just the group that received the MMR vaccines would have children diagnosed with autism.
First off, at times this is a limitation of a retrospective study, you can always claim there were other unknown possible variables, however, in this case, this is not possible, as the autistic children actually had a lower vaccination rate.
The study took 95 thousand children, of those that were diagnosed with autism, they found no correlation between being vaccinated and not being vaccinated, no correlation between at what age the vaccine was given.
If “normal” and “typical” are not exact synonyms, they’re very close to it. Each is included in the other’s dictionary definition. I suppose “typical” is a little narrower than “normal”. For instance, one could say that although left-handedness in humans is atypical, it is within the normal range. But by any definition autism is abnormal.
How Tobacco Industry Hired Scientists and Doctors to Hide that Smoking Causes Cancer
A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics: Study by Allan M Brandt, PhD (excerpts)
Confronted by compelling peer-reviewed scientific evidence of the harms of smoking, the tobacco industry, beginning in the 1950s, used sophisticated public relations approaches to undermine and distort the emerging science.
the tobacco industry would launch a new strategy, largely unprecedented in the history of US industry and business: it would work to erode, confuse, and condemn the very science that now threatened to destroy its prized, highly popular, and exclusive product.
The tobacco industry’s program to engineer the science relating to the harms caused by cigarettes marked a watershed in the history of the industry. It moved aggressively into a new domain, the production of scientific knowledge, not for purposes of research and development but, rather, to undo what was now known: that cigarette smoking caused lethal disease. If science had historically been dedicated to the making of new facts, the industry campaign now sought to develop specific strategies to “unmake” a scientific fact.
produced a compendium of statements by physicians and scientists who questioned the cigarette–lung cancer link.
the best public relations approach was for the industry to become a major sponsor of medical research
1953 Tobacco Ad: We accept an interest in people’s health as a basic responsibility, paramount to every other consideration in our business. We believe the products we make are not injurious to health. We always have and always will cooperate closely with those whose task it is to safeguard the public health
If science now threatened the industry, the industry must “secure” science.
Tobacco Ad:It is an obligation of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee at this time to remind the public of these essential points:
1. There is no conclusive scientific proof of a link between smoking and cancer.
2. Medical research points to many possible causes of cancer… .
5. The millions of people who derive pleasure and satisfaction from smoking can be reassured that every scientific means will be used to get all the facts as soon as possible.Another strategy deployed throughout the 1950s by the firm was to learn about new scientific findings and consensus reports and to be ready to attack when they were released.
It [Congress] was terrain that greatly favored the tobacco industry, with its lobbying largesse and the strong geopolitical interests of tobacco-growing states.
Trust in science, confidence in the media, and the social responsibility of the corporate enterprise were all substantially harmed by Hill & Knowlton’s efforts on behalf of the tobacco industry.
Conflicts of interest—such as those invented by the tobacco industry—have the potential to undermine and corrupt the scientific enterprise
In their work to control the science, the companies had also found that they had secured considerable advantages in the realms of media, law, and public opinion.
doomsday -“How Tobacco Industry Hired Scientists and Doctors to Hide that Smoking Causes Cancer”
Now that we know Smoking causes cancer – did most people stop? Or did it stop a lot of people from Starting to smoke?
“it would work to erode, confuse, and condemn the very science that now threatened to destroy its prized, highly popular, and exclusive product.”
So you’re saying the Anti-vaxxers do the SAME THING!
Milhouse, you clearly don’t understand what loaded language is.
Beis Hillel,
You said “Are you aware that the personal physician to Queen Elisabeth is a homeopath.”. Assuming this is true all it does is bolster my opinion that Queen Elizabeth is an idiot. Which isn’t surprising considering that she has spent her whole life playing “monarch” and the amount of inbreeding in royal families. Again the reason these remedies aren’t simply called “medicine” is because they have not been proven to work. Remedies that have been scientifically proven to work are called “Medicine”.
Doomsday,
All of your comparisons to the tobacco industry are missing the point that in spite of all their efforts it was never the consensus of the scientific community in the USA let alone the world that smoking was healthy. You positing that the entire scientific community and every major health agency on earth in every single country are engaged in a giant conspiracy. This requires a lot more proof then you are presenting in order to be credible.
2cents,
Correction noted for JAMA study.
Group A – No Sibling ASD, Yes MMR (5 yrs)
86,063 children
792 Autistic (860 × .92)
1:108 Autism diagnosis ratio
—-
Group B – No Sibling ASD, No MMR (5 yrs)7,735 children
68 Autistic (860 × .08)
1:113 Autism diagnosis ratio
—
Both groups seemingly within equal range – with or without MMR.Here’s where this all goes to pot…
What caused Autism in group B? “Unidentified Factor Z”
At what ratio does “Factor Z” cause Autism? Let’s think a sec…
Who is at risk for “Factor Z”? (Brace for impact…)
Everyone! 93,798 children (MMR shot doesn’t reduce risk for “Factor Z”)
Risk for “Factor Z” = 93,798 children
Who developed “Factor Z” Autism = 68 children
93,798 – 792 (MMR Autistic children) = 93006
93006 ÷ 68 = 1,367
“Factor Z” Autism Diagnosis ratio:
1 out of every 1,367 children
vs.
MMR Autism Diagnosis ratio:
1 out of every 108 MMR vaccinated children
True?
Who developed “Factor Z” Autism = 68 children
From group B
+ 792 from Group A
= 860puts on doomsday voice
Folks, here we see how anti-vaxxers like doomsday LIED about vaccines causing autism. Doomsday said several times that there were over 150 studies linking vaccines to autism. Wow, big evidence, yeah?
NO
That’s a lie and there aren’t anystudies. WHICH DOOMSDAY KNOWS because she read the website I posted which debunked that sheker!!!!!
00646: You said “Are you aware that the personal physician to Queen Elisabeth is a homeopath.”. Assuming this is true all it does is bolster my opinion that Queen Elizabeth is an idiot. Which isn’t surprising considering that she has spent her whole life playing “monarch” and the amount of inbreeding in royal families. Again the reason these remedies aren’t simply called “medicine” is because they have not been proven to work. Remedies that have been scientifically proven to work are called “Medicine”.
As opposed to your opinion about the mental health of Queen Elizabeth, I think this bolsters my opinion that she is highly intelligent especially as regards to the health of herself and her family. Maybe her longevity maybe attributed to the fact that she does not use the “Real Medicine” of Big Phama to poison herself.
Even though homeopathy is not focus of this thread, it’s obvious that those that disagree with the consensus of the “herd” is automatically labeled “idiot” “nut” cultist etc. etc. It’s my way or highway.
There is no real dialog or intelligent discussion here on the subject of vaccines, but who can come up with a better insult towards the opposing view.
Shame on you.Can we raise this discussion from accusing people of lying to a discussion of medical experts and Da’as Torah? The pears are really great; try some.
There is no real dialog or intelligent discussion here on the subject of vaccines, but who can come up with a better insult towards the opposing view.
You mean like calling all in favor of vaccines liars multiple times?
I must have missed where you said “Shame on you” to Doomsday for that.
bais hillel -“There is no real dialog or intelligent discussion here on the subject of vaccines, but who can come up with a better insult towards the opposing view.”
Sorry to inform you, but you obviously haven’t read YWN news or the CR! There are numerous articles that discuss the Halacha & medical aspects of vaxxing.
“It’s my way or highway.”
Yes, that’s obvious how the Anti-vaxxers feel.
Because almost all those articles say why Halachally & medically e/o should VAXX!@Health, I was waiting for an answer as to why you attacked what I said but maybe you never saw what I posted because it’s no longer here. So I’m reposting now:
@ Health: Another Anti-vaxxer Lie!
That’s Not why they switched DTP to TDaP.
From NVIC:
“DPT vaccine is a combination of three inactivated bacterial vaccines: diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus. There are many different forms and combinations of these vaccines licensed for use in the United States.”Not sure why you are attacking what I wrote, the DPT was live virus and changed to acellular. The NVIC is explaining that these vaccines can come in different combinations and forms (Dtap, Tdap, a combo with polio and Hib, etc depending on the manufacturer.) I did not elaborate on why they did it, but here is the reason:
link removed
Due to the possible reactogenicity of the whole-cell pertussis component of the DTP vaccine, acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine was developed as a replacement in 1991 (DTP became DTaP). This new vaccine was administered to children in 1992 [7,8] and then phased into the infant immunization schedule beginning in 1997 [9,10], following approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and recommendations by the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).There was a lot of noise about whether the DTP was causing reactions -there were some documentaries, news reports and a number of lawsuits which led to vaccine manufacturers threatening to stop supplying vaccines. So the government removed liability and created the vaccine court, etc. So the companies worked on developing an acellular vaccine, (I think Japan succeeded in producing one first, but I would have to look it up again) and once they had it, they phased it into the schedule. If you want to look up the whole megilla about it, here is a nice paper from the IOM:
link removed
Without going into this whole history lesson, my point was the acellular polio, and the acellular Dtap, have the chisaron of not preventing transmission, which can complicate things because we think we are doing our bit for society getting a vaccine before coming in contact with newborns, but if we are exposed to pertussis, instead of coughing, feeling lousy and knowing we should stay away, we think we’re fine and can potentially bring the virus to the most vulnerable. ( link removed Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model.)
FRAUDULENT STUDY, Cited by 2cents, that claims to prove that MMR does NOT cause Autism:
This Study titled: “Autism Occurrence by MMR Vaccine Status Among US Children With Older Siblings With and Without Autism” was FRAUDULENT and I will SHOW you WHY this Study is Fraudulent:
1. The Study found some Children who did not get MMR who have Autism. This is used to PROCLAIM:
“PROOF” that MMR does not cause Autism! THAT IS CRAZY. It is like saying:
“NON SMOKERS also get Cancer! PROOF THAT SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER!Ummm….NO!
All it proves is that Smoking is NOT the ONLY Cause of Cancer. And all this study proves is that MMR is not the ONLY Cause of Autism.
The Autistic Children got OTHER Vaccines and the OTHER Vaccines are the probable cause of their Autism!2. The study did NOT say what OTHER Vaccines the Autistic Children got and OTHER Vaccines may have caused their Autism. Hiding what OTHER Vaccines (besides MMR) the Children got is Fraud!
3. Study is INVALID because of “Healthy User Bias”: In a REAL SCIENTIFIC study the “No MMR” group would be RANDOM because parents of Healthy “Normal” children are more likely to give children all vaccines including MMR while Parents who see SIGNS OF AUTISM in their child are more likely to STOP VACCINATING and NOT give their child the MMR Shot. Therefore, more Autistic children may be concentrated in the “No MMR Group” even if their Autism was caused by OTHER vaccines. This will HIDE the MMR-Vaccine Connection.
4. The Researchers in the Fraudulent Study ACKNOWLEDGE “Healthy User Bias” and then DELIBERATELY proclaim a Fraudulent “Conclusion” anyway! Quote from Researchers in the Fraudulent Study:
“this pattern is driven by selective parental decision making around MMR immunization, i.e., parents who notice social or communication delays in their children decide to forestall immunization. Because, as a group, children with recognized delays are likely to be at higher risk of ASD, such selectivity could result in a tendency for some higher-risk children to be “unexposed” (to the MMR). “ Gee, Do you think?!?!
5. This Study was done by “The Lewin Group” which receives Much $$$$ from Vaccine Industry for “Consultations”. This CONFLICT OF INTEREST was NOT mentioned in the Study which = FRAUD!
6. The Study FRAUDULENTLY calls children who did not get MMR “UNVACCINATED” even though the children may have gotten 23 OTHER Vaccines! Newspapers & Organizations repeated this LIE with headlines stating:
“No MMR-Autism Link in Large Study of Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Kids” Autism Speaks.org
LIE! The study compared Vaccinated Children (including MMR) with Vaccinated Children (excluding MMR)
It was NOT a vaxxed vs unvaxxed Study as the News Media and Organizations Proclaim – deliberately Mislead by the Fraudulent Study using the term “UNVACCINATED” to describe children who WERE Vaccinated!!!7. FRAUDULENTLY saying the conclusion was based on 95,000 Children! The researchers looked through Insurance Records of 95,000 Children and found TWENTY-THREE Children who 1. were autistic 2. Had an older sibling who was autistic 3. Did not get MMR Vaccine (but got other vaccines). And then claimed that their PROOF was based on a Study of 95,000 Children when their “Proof” was really based on only 23 Children!
And the Fake News Media & Organizations repeated this LIE that the Proof was based on 95,000 Children.
MORE FRAUD!And Again, The fact that a few VACCINATED Children who did NOT get the MMR have Autism does NOT prove that MMR does not cause Autism. It only Proves that MMR VACCINE is not the ONLY cause of Autism.
Just like Non-Smokers getting Cancer does NOT PROVE SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER!Pro Vaxxers, what do you say about the FRAUD committed by this Famous “MMR does not cause Autism” Study?
2Cents: The study took 95 thousand children, of those that were diagnosed with autism, they found no correlation between being vaccinated and not being vaccinated, no correlation between at what age the vaccine was given.
Why do you continue to LIE that the “95 thousand children study” was between “vaccinated and not being vaccinated” when I already pointed out that the study compared VACCINATED Children + MMR with VACCINATED Children excluding MMR?
Yserbius: Post 1644045 Pg. 16:
To remind you of where to do your research:
• “Vaccines and autism: A thorough review of the evidence” from the blog “The Logic of Science”
• “About Those Research Papers Supporting the Vaccine/Autism Link” from the blog “Vaxopedia”
Unless you’ve read those links, you cannot in all honesty continue to peddle the claim that there exists studies showing a link.Yserbius, I READ your Links. YOUR links PROVE that there ARE studies linking Vaccines to Autism.
1. Vaccines and autism: A thorough review of the evidence it states “Indeed, you can find numerous websites presenting lists of papers that they claim provide evidence that autism is caused by vaccines (such as “124 research papers supporting the vaccine/autism link“
so YOUR link, Yserbius says that there ARE 124 Research Papers supporting the Vaccine/autism link!
Your link does not AGREE with those papers, but your link ADMITS that there ARE research papers showing a link between Vaccines and Autism!2. “About Those Research Papers Supporting the Vaccine/Autism Link”
Yserbius, do you understand ENGLISH??? Your Link says “RESEARCH PAPERS SUPPORTING THE VACCINE/AUTISM LINK” – that means there ARE Research Papers supporting the Vaccine/Autism Link!!!And if you say there Aren’t Research Papers supporting the Vaccine/Autism Link you are a LIAR – and your
OWN links that you told me to read PROVE you are a liar or don’t understand English!Folks, What do you think of Yserbius’ crazy claim that there Aren’t any research papers showing a link between vaccines and autism??? Yserbius’ OWN LINKS prove he is wrong!!!
These ProVaxxers don’t even understand basic English! How can you believe anything they say???Poilkj: Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model.
ProVaxxers, you see Poilkj provided MORE EVIDENCE that VACCINATED can SPREAD DISEASE!
So why ban Unvaccinated Children from school, when VACCINATED children can ALSO spread Diseases???
poilkj -“Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model.”
You’re obviously Not a follower of the CR. I’ve previously posted that I’m not a Chossid of the DTaP.
I wrote that I felt the only reason that they changed it from DTP, was because of the Anti-vaxxers!DaasYochid,
Who developed “Factor Z” Autism = 68 children
“From group B
+ 792 from Group A
= 860”You’re basically saying that this study proves nothing on either way…
That itself should sober you… as you all bashing dooms with this one way up above
I’m OK if you want to put this study in the junk pile instead of letting me have it.
You’re basically saying that this study proves nothing on either way…
No I’m not.
I’m saying you twisted the results by leaving out numbers.
The results indicate no significant difference in rate of autism between those who received the MMR vaccine and those who didn’t (subject to the limitations inherent in a retrospective study).
DaasYochid,
“I’m saying you twisted the results by leaving out numbers.”
Here are all the numbers:
Group A – No Sibling ASD, Yes MMR (5 yrs)
86,063 children
792 Autistic (860 × .92)
1:108 Autism diagnosis ratio
—-
Group B – No Sibling ASD, No MMR (5 yrs)7,735 children
68 Autistic (860 × .08)
1:113 Autism diagnosis ratio
—Group B’s ratio was calculated unfairly.
Formula: Total kids at risk / total diagnosed cases.
Total kids at risk is the entire group, not just the No-MMR kids.
If things are calculated unfairly, what does it show?
How was it calculated unfairly?
doomsday -“The Autistic Children got OTHER Vaccines and the OTHER Vaccines are the probable cause of their Autism”
Your mistake is you don’t know how to read the research. Maybe finish high school and then come to post?
In that study they did compare vaxxed – vaxxed, but you keep writing they didn’t compare vaxxed – Nonvaxxed. Read it again & look at the notes, vaxxed to unvaxxed at all, is part of the study/article.Keej, if was calculated fairly what would the ratio show? Please show how you made calculations. Thank you.
Formula for calculating the ratio is:
Total kids at risk ÷ total diagnosed.
Who exactly in this group is at risk to develop autism from the unidentified cause?
Just the no-MMR group, or everyone?
Last I checked, MMR protect for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella, not random Autism.
So the whole 95,000 kids are the total risk number for random Autism.
yet, the study acts as if only no-MMR kids are the total risk number for Random Autism.
Making sense?
Dooms, see #1645113 above
Keej,
Making sense?
It’s really not, and the fact that you don’t see the flaw in your logic is truly mind boggling.
KeeJ: “Factor Z” Autism Diagnosis ratio:
1 out of every 1,367 children vs. MMR Autism Diagnosis ratio:
1 out of every 108 MMR vaccinated children.
True?So are you saying that the ratio of children with autism who DID NOT get MMR is really 1:1,367 and
the ratio of children with autism who DID get MMR is 1:108?
And that shows that MMR Vaccination DOES INCREASE THE RATE OF AUTISM, Correct, Keej123?Health: “Your mistake is you don’t know how to read the research. Maybe finish high school and then come to post?…..In that study they did compare vaxxed – vaxxed, “
No, YOU do not know how to read research. In your defense, the research paper tries to DELIBERATELY mislead you that it is a vaxxed vs unvaxxed study. The Study clearly states that they are comparing children who GOT the MMR with Children who did NOT get the MMR! Nowhere does the paper say it is comparing children who are VACCINATED with children who are 100% UNVACCINATED. If that WAS what the paper is talking about, then why single out MMR Vaccine? Why not just say we did a Vaxxed vs Unvaxxed Study?
The paper says it compared children who got MMR with children who did NOT get MMR. The paper does NOT say what OTHER vaccines the children got – even though the researchers KNOW that information, it was deliberately HIDDEN. The FRAUDULENT Paper refers to children who did not get MMR Vaccine as “UNVACCINATED” – even if those children got 23 OTHER Vaccines! This is a COMMON FRAUD that Government Officials and FRAUDULENT Researchers do! Here is another example of this FRAUD
“One hundred and eighty kids — this really hit me hard as the father of three kids — died last year from the flu. And the majority of them were unvaccinated,” said US Surgeon General Dr. Jerome M. Adams. speaking at a news conference hosted by the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases on Thursday. “Flu vaccinations save lives.”
Health, the US SURGEON GENERAL LIED that Majority of 180 kids who died of Flu were “UNVACCINATED” when ALL the children who died of the Flu WERE VACCINATED. Just Majority did not get ONE Vaccine – Flu – so they were falsely labeled UNVACCINATED Children. And that is what that FRAUDULENT Research study did as well!
So HEALTH, YOU SHOULD LEARN TO READ RESEARCH!!! There were many EXPERTS who wrote articles online debunking that study and they pointed out that the study FRAUDULENTLY called children who didn’t get MMR “Unvaccinated” even though they may have gotten 23 OTHER Vaccines!!!Dooms,
<i>So are you saying that the ratio of children with autism who DID NOT get MMR is really 1:1,367</i>
No,
I’m saying that the ratio of children who are legitimately at risk for regular autism is 1:1,367 vs. the ratio for the risk of MMR autism is 1:108
We’re trying to calculate risk vs. risk, and therefore must include the full MMR group in order to accurately calculate the risk for regular autism.
You need to look past getting MMR vs. not getting MMR because the risk extends past that point. or else, you’d be excluding 86,000 children who were really part of that risk.
better, meno?
dooms,
yes, this study seems to indicate that MMR increases the risk of autism from 1:1,367 to 1:108
Keej,
According to your logic, you should include every person on Earth in the group of people at risk for regular autism.
You’re looking at two separate groups and comparing the ratios of each group. You can’t take numbers from one group and use them in the calculations for the other group.
This just seems blatantly obvious to me. Am I crazy? Am I missing something?
Meno,
That is the exact deception within this study.
We need to honest compare the risk ratio of MMR autism vs. risk of regular Autism.
In other words, how many doors does the Regular Autism need to knock on , before it gets allowed inside?
Now count all the doors that were knocked on by Regular Autism.
Regular Autism knocked on all the doors of the entire group, so that’s the risk ratio. You can’t exclude doors just because they got a vaccine.
Keej,
If group B consisted of only 1000 children, and 10 were autistic, what would you conclude from that study?
I can’t make a conclusion without knowing who was actually at risk to begin with.
How many are in group A?
How many in group A are Autistic?I can also group them by who was wearing green socks and who was wearing blue socks.
Neither socks, or MMR status is an indicator of the actual risk.
We don’t know who’s at risk more than others.
So they compared those with an alleged risk factor with those who don’t have that alleged risk factor and the results indicated that the alleged risk factor didn’t make a significant difference.
Make sense?
Neither socks, or MMR status is an indicator of the actual risk.
Because the risk has nothing to do with either one, right?
If group B consisted of only 1000 children, and 10 were autistic, what would you conclude from that study?
That sock color causes autism
Am I crazy?
Sorry, not enough data.
Good day everyone, My name is Reggie Manfred. i’m from USA, I want to share my testimony on how my wife got cured of her Asthma through the help of solution health herbal clinic in South Africa, My wife started treatment with their clinic and bought the herbal remedies which they sent through couriers to our home address, Solution health herbal clinic is god sent. Contact their website at: http://solutionhealthherbalclinic.com/contact/index.html or contact on their email at: [email protected] they cure different disease.
Ms. Doomsday -“The Study clearly states that they are comparing children who GOT the MMR with Children who did NOT get the MMR! Nowhere does the paper say it is comparing children who are VACCINATED with children who are 100% UNVACCINATED. ”
That’s what happens when you don’t even have a High School education!
That’s why I wrote this -“look at the notes, vaxxed to unvaxxed at all, is part of the study/article.”
It’s more than just – comparing children who GOT the MMR with Children who did NOT get the MMR!I’d like to present a study that may interest the pro vaxxers.
The study published in the Lancet by Dr. Peter Aaby and other associates is titled:
The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment
The following is an abstract of this study:
•When DTP and OPV were introduced in Guinea-Bissau in 1981, allocation by birthday resulted in a natural experiment of being vaccinated early or late.
•Between 3 and 5 months of age, children who received DTP and OPV early had 5-fold higher mortality than still unvaccinated children.
•In the only two studies of the introduction of DTP and OPV, co-administration of OPV with DTP may have reduced the negative effects of DTP.Few studies have examined what happened to child survival when DTP and OPV were introduced in low-income countries. These vaccines were introduced in 1981 in an urban community in Guinea-Bissau from 3 months of age in connection with 3-monthly weighing sessions. Children were therefore allocated by birthday to receive vaccines early or late between 3 and 5 months of age. In this natural experiment vaccinated children had 5-fold higher mortality than not-yet-DTP-vaccinated children. DTP-only vaccinations were associated with higher mortality than DTP + OPV vaccinations. Hence, DTP may be associated with a negative effect on child survival.
Abstract
BackgroundWe examined the introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) and oral polio vaccine (OPV) in an urban community in Guinea-Bissau in the early 1980s.
MethodsThe child population had been followed with 3-monthly nutritional weighing sessions since 1978. From June 1981 DTP and OPV were offered from 3 months of age at these sessions. Due to the 3-monthly intervals between sessions, the children were allocated by birthday in a ‘natural experiment’ to receive vaccinations early or late between 3 and 5 months of age. We included children who were <6 months of age when vaccinations started and children born until the end of December 1983. We compared mortality between 3 and 5 months of age of DTP-vaccinated and not-yet-DTP-vaccinated children in Cox proportional hazard models.
ResultsAmong 3–5-month-old children, having received DTP (±OPV) was associated with a mortality hazard ratio (HR) of 5.00 (95% CI 1.53–16.3) compared with not-yet-DTP-vaccinated children. Differences in background factors did not explain the effect. The negative effect was particularly strong for children who had received DTP-only and no OPV (HR = 10.0 (2.61–38.6)). All-cause infant mortality after 3 months of age increased after the introduction of these vaccines (HR = 2.12 (1.07–4.19)).
ConclusionDTP was associated with increased mortality; OPV may modify the effect of DTP.
In plain English, Dr. Aaby conclusion was that vaccinated children had at least five times higher mortality rate than unvaccinated children.
As a service to the pro vaxxer posters, I’d like to anticipate some of your responses to this study, in order to save them from bittul zman.1) Just because some nut decided to make a study unfavorable to vaccines, I don’t have to change my blind belief in the guidelines of the infallible CDC.
2) Dr. Aaby is an idiot and moron, whose ancestors are probably in bred Appalachian Mountain people.
3) His mother who is a anti vaxxer influenced his findings.
4) He probably took a geology course in college, which automatically disqualifies him from doing any medical research.
If I missed anything, you are more than welcome to add to the collection.bais hillel.
What was the sample size in Dr. Aaby’s study?
Health: That’s why I wrote this -“look at the notes, vaxxed to unvaxxed at all, is part of the study/article.”
Can you please tell me where I can see these notes? They were not included in the study on the
Jama Network. Thank you.doomsday -“They were not included in the study on the Jama Network”
If you got the article online, look at it, there is little numbers next to some lines. Click on those numbers & the references will pop up!
bais hillel,
5) Public health and herd immunity take precedence over the health ans well-being of your own children
6) My Doctor is a Tzaddik and sees thousands of patients per week. If there was any substance to being Anti-vaxx, then he would be. If he isn’t that’s unbreakable proof that it’s all one big bluff. i don’t care what you show me.7) Measles and chicken pox are more deadly than that. So it’s still worth it.
bais hillel-
Thanks for posting a study in favor of the measles vaccine.
In the study you cite one of the authors Peter Aaby clearly states THAT MEASLES VACCINE HAS RESULTED IN A LARGER THE EXPECTED REDUCTION IN CHILD MORTALITY according to two studies he has done.
“One trial of measles-vaccinated and measles-unvaccinated communities in Congo showed a larger than expected reduction in child mortality (Aaby et al., 1981); this observation was subsequently corroborated by community “trials” and before-after studies in several countries (Aaby et al., 1984, Aaby et al., 1993, Aaby et al., 2003a, Holt et al., 1990, Kapoor and Reddaiah, 1991).”
- The topic ‘Studies on vaccines you might have missed.👨🔬💉🚫’ is closed to new replies.