First Peer-Reviewed Study of Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Children (Censored by an International Scientific Journal) Now Public
By Kevin Barry
Today, a groundbreaking new study of the overall health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children has been released to the public for the first time. The critically important new pilot study has been posted on line.
The paper was leaked to journalist and author James Grundvig, who published an article describing aspects of the study on Medium on February 22, 2017. Grundvig describes how the paper was leaked to him (and others?), and he describes how he authenticated it with the study’s author and with the journal which censored it.
I will list a few of the many reasons why this paper is critically important at this time.
1. The #RFKcommission.
This study provides numerous clues for potential future research. It may help serve as a blueprint for the RFK Commission in the United States and for other countries.
- President Trump
President Trump is the first President to show any interest at all in vaccine safety. This study reaffirms that President Trump’s concerns about vaccine safety are legitimate, and may help him stand firm in forming the #RFKcommission.
3. Existing vaccine rights are under attack in 30 states.
Vaccine exemption attacks and vaccine mandate increases in 30 state capitals in 2017.
Parent advocates nationwide can add the findings of this study to their arsenal when protecting their and their children’s existing rights from the trillion dollar Pharmaceutical industry in state capitals.
4. Informed consent
The international bioethics standard for preventative medical is informed consent. Comparing total health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are an important piece of information to weigh when considering consent.
- Censorship or self-censorship?
Is submitting papers dealing with vaccine safety to the “peer review” process of scientific journals, after years of rejection, a form of self-censorship?
The paper released today was scheduled to be published in November 2016. Had it been published in the journal it would have been “peer reviewed”.
Speaking for the 7,484,325,473 billion people on the planet who were NOT peer reviewers of this paper, it’s absurd that this paper is legitimate if the 3 reviewers bosses don’t get spooked, and not legitimate if they do get spooked. I hope the 3 peer reviewers - Amit, Kelly and Linda - would agree that their bosses shouldn’t block important information from the other 7 billion of us.
I’ve read numerous beautiful tributes to brilliant, wonderful and fearless Dan Olmsted on Age of Autism over the past month. I’m not nearly as talented a writer as those who have honored Dan on these pages. I didn’t know how I could help honor him … until now. Dan tried for more than a decade to get a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study done, and he pioneered the concept with his series on the Amish.
Please help guide us Dan, and thank you for your dedication to all of our children.
First Study of Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Children - Censored by an International Scientific Journal - Now Public Vaccination and Health Outcomes: A Survey of 6- to 12-year-old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children based on Mothers’ Reports, was censored by the journal Frontiers in Public Health.
Key Study Findings
Background: The long-term health outcomes of the routine vaccination program remain unknown. Studies have been recommended by the Institute of Medicine to address this question.
Specific Aims: To compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children on a broad range of health outcomes, and to determine whether an association found between vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD), if any, remained significant after adjustment for other measured factors.
Design and Methods: A cross-sectional survey of mothers of children educated at home. Homeschool organizations in four states (Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oregon) were asked to forward an email to their members, requesting mothers to complete an anonymous online questionnaire on the vaccination status and health outcomes of their biological children ages 6 to 12. A total of 415 mothers provided data on 666 children, of which 261 (39%) were unvaccinated. The collected data included pregnancy experiences and birth histories as well as acute and chronic conditions, medications, and the use of health services.
Results: Vaccinated children were significantly less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with other infections, allergies and NDDs (defined as Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and/or a learning disability).
Chronic Illness Detail:
- Vaccinated children were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with the following chronic illnesses:
- 7-fold higher odds of any neurodevelopmental disorder (i.e., learning disability, ADHD, or ASD)
- 2-fold increase in Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”)
- 2-fold increase in ADHD
- 2-fold increase in learning disabilities
- 1-fold increase in allergic rhinitis
- 9-fold increase in other allergies
- 9-fold increase in eczema/atopic dermatitis
- 4-fold increase in any chronic illness
- No significant differences were observed with regard to cancer, chronic fatigue, conduct disorder, Crohn’s disease, depression, Types 1 or 2 diabetes, encephalopathy, epilepsy, hearing loss, high blood pressure, inflammatory bowel disease, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, obesity, seizures, and Tourette’s syndrome. However, larger samples would be needed to detect group differences in these less common conditions.
Acute Illness Detail:
- Vaccinated children were significantly less likely than unvaccinated children to have had chickenpox or whooping cough (p<0.001).
- Vaccinated children had a 3.8-fold increased odds of middle ear infections and a 5.9-fold increased odds of being diagnosed with pneumonia compared to unvaccinated children.
- No significant differences were seen between the two groups with regard to Hepatitis A or B, high fever in the past 6 months, measles, mumps, meningitis (viral or bacterial), influenza, or rotavirus.
Vaccination, Preterm Birth and Neurodevelopmental Disorders (NDDs):
In regression analyses, vaccination was associated with a significant 3.1-fold increased odds of neurodevelopmental disorders (combining the diagnoses of ASD, ADHD, and learning disability), after controlling for other factors. An important detail emerged regarding a possible synergism between vaccination and preterm birth. In a final adjusted statistical model, vaccination but not preterm birth remained associated with NDD, as defined, while the interaction of preterm birth and vaccination was associated with a 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD (95% Confidence Interval: 2.8, 15.5).
* * * * * * *
Quotes from independent scientists not involved in the study:
"I am delighted to see a properly analyzed study on vaccine safety" said Dr. Lyons-Weiler, CEO and President of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge. “Unlike past studies, which ignored the interaction term, Dr. Mawson and colleagues followed appropriate steps toward interpreting the significance of the interaction between variables. The study reported a significant interaction effect between pre-term birth, and vaccination as a 6.6-fold increase in the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders.”
“This study, however, as a survey study, is potentially subject to variation due to responses from well-intended participants. The next logical step would be additional, larger studies that would try to replicate the results using electronic medical health records - by independent investigators not involved in profiting from vaccines”, said Dr. Lyons-Weiler.
"This is a long-overdue study involving a fair comparison of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children where the two subpopulations likely don't reflect other biases, due to their being drawn from a common population of home-schooled children”, said Dr. Stephanie Seneff, Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. “The results are alarming, and it leaves no doubt that we need to seriously question whether the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks. A much larger study to see if the results still hold up is paramount at this point."
Dr. Lyons-Weiler and Dr. Seneff were not involved in the study.
Kevin Barry is the author of Vaccine Whistleblower from Skyhorse Publishing and President of firstfreedoms.org
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | February 11, 2019 at 03:53 PM
Where can I find the actual journal article?? Is it available?
Posted by: Patricia | February 11, 2019 at 01:03 PM
@Aaron, I would add that doctors might diagnose whooping cough more if they were blind to vaccination status, but unfortunately this is the best survey answering the question there is.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | December 12, 2018 at 12:16 PM
There is nothing wrong with self-reporting - that is how anything gets reported in the first place. It certainly isn’t worse than government agencies sifting data for reports they don’t like. The study has acknowledged limitations but our governments run away from conducting vaccinated vs unvaccinated studies and you can draw your own conclusions - don’t delude yourself that you can trust the government and come out alright.
Posted by: John Stone | December 12, 2018 at 11:37 AM
The respondents are self reporting, there is no oversight from doctors or submission of proof of legitimate diagnoses.
In addition: parents of unvaccinated children are far more likely to pursue homeopathic remedies AND underreport illnesses, as well as ADHD and autism.
Which is exactly why SELF REPORTING cannot be taken seriously. It's as effective as polling data, meaning entirely unreliable.
Posted by: Aaron | December 12, 2018 at 10:47 AM
@ Cia Parker, I would like to make one addition to your analysis of Hib meningitis. If Im not mistaken, most babies who became ill with this disease were about 9 months old. (Probably something like 9 months to 2 years of age) This would indicate, to me, at least, that the children's immune systems were damaged by mercury in the vaccines they had been given and this might be considered the true cause of Hib meningitis disease - The microbe would only be secondary.
In fact, I wonder if we do not do ourselves a disservice by not speaking more about the immune system. There are many ways that the human immune system may be damaged or it may underperform from lack of sunlight or other factors. Our public health employees should be ashamed of themselves for not focusing on this. As a simple example- our school children could be made to spend a half hour in the sun daily. (Yes, I know.... there's probably no money to be made from sunlight)
Posted by: cherry Misra | October 25, 2017 at 03:28 PM
Eindecker, when children first become "autistic", following vaccines, parents are told it's a coincidence. But SOMETHING must have caused it and they have no alternative explanation, other than it's genetic. If it is genetic, then why couldn't that also be an explanation why some people are adversely affected by vaccines and others are not? Just like smoking, which causes cancer, but not in everyone!
Posted by: Grace Green | October 25, 2017 at 07:02 AM
John I’m not going to post anymore on this topic, below is the last information on the subject. I don’t think that the data manipulation was sabotage in the commonly accepted sense of deliberately trying to damage something, but clearly someone manipulated the data and at the very least there was very poor supervision and proof reading by Prof Shaw (if there was any…) He does seem happy to blame anyone but himself.
“But in an e-mail to The Globe and Mail, Dr. Shaw said the lead author on the 2017 retracted paper, Dr. Dan Li, "took her notebooks and original images from the lab when she left in 2015. This is totally against UBC, and hence lab, policy."
Dr. Shaw said the information and data used as the foundation of the paper are now believed to be in China.
"UBC was informed of this immediately when we heard that there were alternations in some of the data (this would have been on Sept. 24th)," Dr. Shaw wrote.
"My lab assistants and I spent all of Sept. 25th trying to duplicate the bloggers of PubPeer. We also found that some of [the data] seemed altered.
"Some that the bloggers said were altered were not. Regardless, once we contacted Dr. Li and had her answer, we felt that the data were potentially compromised. On Sept. 25th, I submitted our own investigation to Dr. Gail Murphy, UBC's VP Research, and to John Dawson, editor of the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. I also requested that the paper be retracted at that time.
Dr. Shaw also distanced himself and Dr. Tomljenovic from the paper that was withdrawn last year.
Dr. Shaw said he and Dr. Tomljenovic, who once worked in his lab, were only "peripherally involved."
"All of the work was conducted in the lab of the senior author, Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld in Tel Aviv. Hence, to make the claim that this work is "ours" is not correct," Dr. Shaw said in the e-mail.
Joe Schwarcz, director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society, was puzzled by the notion of missing data, saying researchers are trained to hang on to such information.
"This is beaten into your head from the day you start grad school – you have to keep your notebooks, data, everything – this is bizarre to say that the data can't be found," Dr. Schwarcz said.
Dr. Tomljenovic was not immediately available for comment.
Posted by: Eindecker | October 24, 2017 at 04:22 PM
Eindecker. If we are talking fraudulent research, let's not forget CDC/William Thompson.
Nevertheless, that wasn't my point. I want independent research that will 1) find a cure to redress the harm that has been caused to our children/grandchildren and 2) stop injuries happening to future generations.
We have missions to Mars, we can watch people speaking from the other side of the world, but no scientist has come up with the cause of autism and, therefore, cannot stop it happening to children every day. This was not happening in my generation or my children's.
Even you have to admit there is something very amiss!
Posted by: susan welch | October 24, 2017 at 03:03 PM
Regarding Shaw - my best guess is sabotage. By and large on our side we have so much evidence that we don't have to cheat, but I suppose it is possible. As far as I can recall we didn't report the results of this study which is why you are posting under a different heading.
The Australian meta-analysis. Obviously, if you get a meta-analysis of junk data the likelihood will be junk data. Garbage in, garbage out.
Posted by: John Stone | October 24, 2017 at 01:22 PM
Dear Susan don’t you see the supreme irony in your posting We don't give a hoot for your fraudulent science.…..it’s not my fraudulent science, it’s the admittedly fraudulent science from Shaw’s groups who are one of the main proponents of the hypothesis that aluminium adjuvants cause autism, that I commented on.
John I’m sorry but the “curate’s egg gambit” doesn’t apply to scientific papers (only some of the data is rotten, the rest is OK) don't know what happened with the data reporting, and I don't know how much difference it would have made the work Shaw has admitted some of the data is falsified, how much of the rest is to be trusted? The study results are worthless.
Re Cochrane John I’m sure you are aware of the later Australian meta-analysis http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X14006367 looking at outcomes following vaccination in studies involving over 1 million children. The author’s conclusions were very clear:
”Findings of this meta-analysis suggest that vaccinations are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder. Furthermore, the components of the vaccines (thimerosal or mercury) or multiple vaccines (MMR) are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder.”, no weasel words there.
One final comment John, in view of all the controversy over Shaw’s study no-one at the AoA choose to report on this?
However John I do commend your honesty in your most recent posting that UK ‘flu vaccines do not contain thiomersal, with modern aseptic filling technology there is no need for this preservative in single dose vials, it is only included in multi dose formulations to prevent microbial growth on storage arising from contamination introduced by repeat sampling of a single vial.
For the avoidance of doubt I have also corrected the spelling of my "nom de plume" in honour of Mr Fokker
Posted by: Eindecker | October 24, 2017 at 12:32 PM
When I think about the billions of dollars in play here, I realize that corporate stakeholders will never allow research adverse to their interests to proceed very far.
There are lots of ways to sabotage research and not all of them are as obvious as unplugging a refrigerator full of brains. Researchers are as subject to blackmail, bribery and threat as our elected representatives.
Posted by: Carol | October 24, 2017 at 07:55 AM
One reason why I have refrained from commenting much on the Shaw paper is that I don't know what happened with the data reporting, and I don't know how much difference it would have made. I have a pretty good idea what was going on in the papers reviewed by Cochrane. It is worth pointing out - and interesting that you do not appear to know - that the "no credible evidence" quote came not from the paper itself but from the "plain language summary" put out for journalists and the public. The problem was that this was not what the paper said, to quote the abstract:
"Design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post marketing, are largely inadequate"
The position was at best weasel (deliberately misleading) because the absence of evidence was not based on quality research: given individually what they said about the six autism related studies the position was lamentable, and it is even hard to know how they met the selection criteria. You could either conclude that we did not know whether products were safe, or that the way these studies themselves had been conducted - such as those by DeStefano and the Madsen - that something was being hidden. Five of the papers were rated to be of moderate risk of bias and the sixth (by Fombonne) at high risk. If you looked at their data selection as opposed to their conclusions it was fairly clear what was going on, and that straight reporting was off the agenda. Cochrane addressed some of it - the cracks were there if anyone wanted to see them - but it was a fudge.
Melanie Phillips - the one journalist who went beyond the plain language summary - was berated by cyber-media bully, Ben Goldacre, as not understanding science, but at least she understood that 'plain language' was very far from plain language.
Posted by: John Stone | October 24, 2017 at 05:10 AM
Eindeker. Still ignoring the evidence of the brain injured children, I see .Before you say 'Give me the evidence in a peer reviewed ....' I can assure you that families are living, bravely but sadly, every day with their evidence.
We don't give a hoot for your fraudulent science. We want research that can produce something to relieve the suffering of our children/young adults - and to stop it happening to others.
Posted by: susan welch | October 24, 2017 at 05:04 AM
Shaw said readers need to remember "this paper was done on mice"
Eindecker I think Johns right you have had a personality change or a personnel change ....
Cant make it up ..keep talking intrigued.. so you agree that testing on animals is wrong and bares nothing to do with humans whatsoever?
Im sure all the animal rights campaigners will be interested in your change
Unlike THE ONCE great Oxford Uni, Shaw doesn't have the funds supplied by the Gates foundation (Bill )to bribe humans over the door to test typhoid and HPV on their babies and kids.. a bit like Bundy telling his victims no harm would come to them if they would just please just put the handcuffs on.. and come down to the basement then he would torture them for as long as he ould keep them alive...a bit like vaccines?get the drift?
Who would have thought that Trump would get in.Who would have thought the UK would leave Europe.Who would have thought that several European countries would become anti Europe and anti Globalist.Who would have thought that the JFK files would be released last but not least who would have thought that Endecker would side with the animal campaigners.Soon be Christmas bring Thorsen home to face the music.
Pharma for Prison
Posted by: Angus Files | October 23, 2017 at 07:42 PM
John it might pay to be a little less hasty in replies, at least for some of the time: http://justthevax.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/mmr-autism-claim-and-bad-science-part.html Included in this is a quote from 2005 Cochrane review “No credible evidence of an involvement of MMR with either autism or Crohn’s disease was found.”
I won’t bother to cut and paste the detailed arguments demolishing Goldman & Yazbak’s criticism of the Madsen paper, if you have the time just read the link I’ve provided believe it is not complimentary, and no I haven’t had a personel change or personality transplant.
See that you’ve chosen not to comment on the Shaw Tomljenovic fiasco, all I can hear is the pitter patter of tiny feet running away yelling “Nowt to do with me guv, it was all that Chinese scientist’s fault!!” (Who conveniently happens to be back in China with all the original data) Latest from the good Prof:
Asked if he was concerned about the spread of allegedly falsified data, co-author Shaw said readers need to remember "this paper was done on mice" and take it with a grain of salt. A lot of people that have questions about vaccine safety were making more of this paper than was warranted," he told CBC News. "We try to caution people … don't make more of it than it is, because this is a model system where this data may or may not apply to humans." http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-paper-retracted-autism-vaccines-1.4365455
Posted by: Eindeker | October 23, 2017 at 06:01 PM
Irrespective of Brian Hooker's methodology Cochrane already smelt a rat in 2005:
"The conclusion, however, implied bias in the enrollment of cases which may not be representative of the rest of the autistic population of the city of Atlanta, USA where the study was set."
Obviously, William Thompson was not happy either.
And Cochrane were on the mark again with the Madsen paper:
"The follow up of diagnostic records ends one year (31 Dec 1999) after the last day of admission to the cohort. Because of the length of time from birth to diagnosis, it becomes increasingly unlikely that those born later in the cohort could have a diagnosis."
These comments may have been a little oblique but they tell you exactly what was going on. As we know these studies were passed on to the IOM by the CDC to undergo "independent" review while being under strict instructions not to find anything (the sort of thing you approve of):
"Dr. McCormick: ...[CDC] wants us to declare, well, these things are pretty safe on a population basis (p. 33).
"Dr. Stratton: ...The point of no return, the line we will not cross in public policy is pull the vaccine, change the schedule. We could say it is time to revisit this, but we would never recommend that level. Even recommending research is recommendations for policy. We wouldn't say compensate, we wouldn't say pull the vaccine, we wouldn't say stop the program. (p. 74)
"Dr. McCormick: ...we are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect...(p. 97)"
You may have missed my article about thimerosal the other week:
And as we know the schedule just kept expanding.
Regarding the Mawson paper there is nothing unusual in paying to publish with a scientific paper. There is nothing in the story of retraction: one journal chose not to publish following web-bullying by your colleagues.
I would not have thought you admired something like that Sciencemom blog - have you recently undergone a change of personality, or perhaps personel?
Posted by: John Stone | October 23, 2017 at 04:00 PM
John rather than responding immediately here is more information that’s come to light on the Shaw & Tomljenovic fiasco, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-autsism-vaccine-paper-retraction-chris-shaw-1.4351855
Some notable quotes: ”figures in the study appeared to have been altered, and in one case lifted directly from a 2014 study also authored by Shaw and Tomljenovic.”
“co-author Tomljenovic said she agreed to the retraction but said she "had nothing to do either with collecting or analyzing any of the actual data." She declined further comment.”
And to cap it all from the Prof "I'm honestly not sure at this point that I want to dabble in [vaccines] anymore," he said. "We have some projects that are ongoing that have been funded that we feel duty-bound to complete that are on this topic. Frankly, I doubt if I will do it again after that."
So what’s this dabbling led to ??? Well two retracted papers and a load of misinformation. His department has received $900,000 from the Dwoskin Foundation plus an undefined amount from the the Katlyn Fox foundation, which describes its focus as "independent scientific research into the safety and efficacy of children's vaccines." https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/ubc-vaccine-study-fuels-debate-over-funding/article36660109/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&">http://www.theglobeandmail.com&">https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/ubc-vaccine-study-fuels-debate-over-funding/article36660109/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com& He, and his sidekick Tomljenovic, have been frequent speakers on the vaccine skeptic circuit, he’s clearly more than a dabbler unless, of course that refers to the quality of the science, I hope that the Dwoskin Foundation feels their money has been well spent.
With regard to your other comments John
thoroughly rotten data of DeStefano presumably you mean the ridiculous post facto flawed analysis by Hooker it’s been rubbished so many times, perhaps you can provide a statistician that supports the method used by Hooker?
I guess you refer to the Goldman and Yazbak criticism of the Madsen Danish MMR study, only trouble is that this has, in itself, been demolished quite elegantly http://justthevax.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/mmr-autism-claim-and-bad-science-part.html and of course the study of autism risk and MMR in younger siblings of older children with autism really puts the nail in the coffin of that theory.
Do you mean Verstraeten’s publication on thiomersal?? Well as you and I both know thiomersal’s long gone from the vast majority of vaccines with zero effect on autism, despite your recent anecdotal speculation about changes in autism symptoms.
The Mawson study, (funded by the CMSRI aka Dwoskin Foundation, of which Chris Shaw is the chair of the scientific committee), was retracted, then regurgitated as two separate papers which eventually found a publisher of a “pay to publish” willing to publish them the details are in a May 2017 on Retraction Watch
Posted by: Eindeker | October 23, 2017 at 01:19 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6C_zRJqJlc Not sure if I've managed to copy/paste right! If so, this is especially for you, Eindeker.
Well said, John Stone!
Posted by: susan welch | October 10, 2017 at 04:46 AM
"So a little less evidence regarding so-called aluminium adjuvant toxicity and a lot less credibility for any of this groups findings"
You wish, Eindecker. If this group were trying to falsify data, they wouldn't be withdrawing it on their own. This shows that they are honest professionals dedicated to a high standard.
How interesting that you come here to toot your horn about it. You or your friends know how that data was compromised, Eindecker?
Posted by: Linda1 | October 09, 2017 at 08:53 PM
What one might note among other things is the bias of the announcement on retraction-watch, the hate talk of Gorski: people who are not remotely concerned about the thoroughly rotten data of DeStefano, or Verstraeten or Fombonne or Madsen. And nor apparently are you. All you concern yourself with are which papers have bureaucratic seals of approval. You've placed your comment under a report of the Mawson paper. Retraction Watch if I remember correctly put out a story that it had been retracted, which to my knowledge never happened. But it wouldn't surprise me if the institutional pressures continue even now. If someone talks of "anti-vaccine pseudoscience" they begin by being the purveyors of pseudoscience themselves. This is bias of a particularly crude, blatant and unpleasant kind. And you come here and talk about "this guy Prof Shaw and his side-kick Tomljenovic"!!!
Posted by: John Stone | October 09, 2017 at 06:15 PM
This guy Prof Shaw and his sidekick Tomljenovic have just had a second paper withdrawn by mutual consent because some of the images have been tampered with (to support their conclusions), from Prof Shaw:
Our own analysis showed some figures had been altered. We requested a retraction because we could not understand how that had happened. We felt the data had been compromised. http://retractionwatch.com/2017/10/09/journal-retract-paper-called-anti-vaccine-pseudoscience/
So a little less evidence regarding so-called aluminium adjuvant toxicity and a lot less credibility for any of this groups findings
Posted by: Eindeker | October 09, 2017 at 05:43 PM
Info Wars 2.58 in covering it..
Pharma for Prison
Posted by: Angus Files | June 27, 2017 at 06:17 PM
Not the "First" study of this kind... Here's a similar German study of 13,453 subjects:
Posted by: Arne | May 16, 2017 at 03:44 PM
Identity of censoring journal was indeed mentioned: " First Study of Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Children - Censored by an International Scientific Journal - Now Public Vaccination and Health Outcomes: A Survey of 6- to 12-year-old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children based on Mothers’ Reports, was censored by the journal Frontiers in Public Health".
Posted by: Michael | April 27, 2017 at 05:18 AM
Why is the identity of: "the journal which censored it", not mentioned?
Posted by: Michael | April 27, 2017 at 05:14 AM
Back in 2002 when my child was born, some people thought I was crazy for not vaccinating. Well not any longer. I have been waiting 14 years for this vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study. My fears have been validated. Remember that chart which showed the increase in autism highly correlated with the increased vaccination schedule? People said correlation is not causation. Well now we know, it was CAUSATION. Always remember that doctors are fallible, just look at folks who were destroyed by thalidomide, Vioxx, etc. Doctors are not toxicologists and depend on research performed by the Pharma industry hand in hand with the CDC whose entire public health strategy is based on vaccines. Share this study widely and maybe we can get a revised schedule with fewer, greener vaccines.
Posted by: T. Nash | February 24, 2017 at 07:00 PM
Posted by: Jesus baby | February 24, 2017 at 04:05 PM
M.D.D: I also thank you for posting the JB Handley article about aluminum adjuvants. This is a must read. The Al nano particles produce an inflammatory cytokine storm which continues throughout life; they persist, as intended, and can take a year or more to reach the brain, disrupting brain development both in utero and post-natally. Powerful evidence that the primary driver of the epidemic of autism and auto-immune conditions is aluminum.
Posted by: Gary Ogden | February 24, 2017 at 11:29 AM
Mankind learned to deal with and avoid danger, survived as a species, and evolved, by sharing anecdotes and passing down wisdom from generation to generation. Thanks for telling your story. So glad you were able to protect your children and that they're doing well.
Posted by: Linda1 | February 24, 2017 at 10:14 AM
Problem now:. CDC and AMA are now having pregnant women get the Flu vaccine. This along with a child's vaccines is complicating matters. A study of nonvaccinated should take into consideration the mother's innoculations as well. Now that we are starting to see mothers giving birth who were also over vaccinated, it is hard to just isolate vaccinated vs. non vaccinated. We've poisoned our bodies with too many vaccines, preservatives, artificial colorings and additives, air pollution, pesticides, etc...We've created the perfect storm.
Posted by: Warrior Mom | February 24, 2017 at 09:13 AM
THANKS for posting JB Handley's article with its very comprehensive group of studies. I would hope JFK Jr. et al. supply President Trump's staff with JB's article.
Posted by: david m burd | February 24, 2017 at 08:32 AM
As far as the vaccinated children being vaccinated on schedule, precisely at the right time with the set, AMA-approved vaccines for that well-baby/well-child visit, I had an acquaintance who oversaw vaccines at a medical facility privately confess that doctors regularly "caught up" children with vaccines when the doctors had a chance to see them. She told me that they wanted to vaccinate the children when they had the chance to have them in the office, so some children would get MORE than the AMA-approved, allotted vaccines at any given visit. So some children in this study were likely OVER-vaccinated, too (although as a non-vaccinating parent I think the normal vaccine schedule is horrifically to heavy!)
Posted by: Bonnie R | February 24, 2017 at 08:05 AM
Neither of my children are vaccinated.
My son (now 14) was born at 26-weeks and weighed just 2 pounds. Due to complications at birth, he has hemiplegia. In the same hospital on the same day, we were given two diametrically opposed medical opinions on whether or not to vaccinate such a premature child from two high-level specialists. This was confusing, to put it mildly.
My wife and I proceeded to investigate the matter. She at the library, I on the Internet. After much research and soul-searching we came to the conclusion that to allow vaccination would be criminally negligent on our part as the people into whose care this little life had been given. Strong words. But well-founded. After all, we had to present a united front as we had the whole world against us, or so it seemed.
For the first 7 or 8 years he was often ill for two weeks or so at a time. It was tough. But over the last 6 years or so he's rarely been ill and never more than a couple of days at a time. He's now a very healthy young man, albeit moderately physically handicapped.
My daughter (now 10) has likewise not received a single vaccination. She's never ill and is as strong, robust and healthy as a parent could wish for. I realise it's anecdotal and there are many other factors that play a major role - nutrition, hygiene, genetics, love, prayer, etc. - but my wife and I are utterly convinced that that very difficult decision to take a path contrary to all the social and establishment pressure was one of the best decisions we ever made. And our vibrant, healthy and intelligent children are proof positive of that.
So to all parents out there struggling with this matter, please take the time and effort to study this issue with great care. There is so much good information and support available now - much more than when we had to make this lonely decision - that you have no excuse for remaining uninformed.
Posted by: Morgan Kors | February 24, 2017 at 06:15 AM
I know one individual who reacted as a baby, her mother stopped vaccinating her and she doesn't vaccinate her children as far as I know. One of her children still had (dietary changes significantly helped) severe eczema. One example of how one might be vaccinating generations when vaccinating one.
JB Handley's post is very interesting. Thanks so much!
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | February 23, 2017 at 06:49 PM
Dr. Paul Thomas, As you are major player and a pediatrician for informed consent, thank you for continuing to comment here (by the way, my sister has visited you for years, representing Mead-Johnson pediatric nutrition products, and because of you, has grudgingly told me I may be right in my vaccine-toxicity assessments - hey!, I'm only a lifelong science-professional/layperson, but have no "medical degree").
Lisa, you made a brilliant point about no knowledge of babies being vaccinated with HepB at birth. Also, with the HepB vaccine comes the HBIG shot (Hepatitis B Immunoglobulin, also having seriously toxic excipients and contaminants).
One more point if I may. For 7 years now I've contributed many Posts about the toxicity of flu vaccines, loaded with 12.5 micrograms for each .25 ml shot at 6 months, again at 7 months, again a year later, then upped to 25 micrograms when reaching 36 months of age. I am in doubt as to the memory of parents of the "vaccine-participants" whether their babies got the extremely toxic flu shots starting at 6 months. These are all very powerful factors on infants' outcomes. This Study is only a starting point as you many here have said.
Posted by: david m burd | February 23, 2017 at 01:15 PM
You appear not to have understood anything I have said. I have said consistently that vaccines are dangerous, that I have MS and my daughter has autism, aphasia, and bowel disease from vaccine reactions. It is beyond doubt that standard practice is giving too many vaccines too soon. I do not doubt that every vaccine does at least a little damage, and usually the connection between the vaccine and the problems caused by it is never made. I had a crippling reaction to a tetanus booster when I was 19, my father was paralyzed by a flu vaccine: there is no age beyond which one becomes immune to severe vaccine damage.
I will have to read this study carefully and look at the number of unvaccinated autistic children. I, like most here, believe that vaccines are THE cause of autism, although it may be that vaccinated parents can bequeath their toxic heavy metals and DNA damage to their children which may result in autism even if the children are not vaccinated. A two-fold increase in autism in vaccinated children is not as much as I would have thought.
But you seem to forget the large numbers of people who used to die of what are now vaccine-preventable diseases. And I'd point out that if large numbers of people believe you, that the diseases are NEVER dangerous in well-nourished people, and the vaccines are ALWAYS very dangerous and never beneficial at all, and if they stop vaccinating based on this mistaken belief, then a lot of children would die, there would be a backlash and a return to conventional vaccination practice, at least to some degree.
I have a Mothering book by Peggy O'Mara, Vaccination: The Issue of our Times, published twenty years ago (1997), so it is out of date in many ways, not least of which is that there is not a single mention of autism in it. It has interesting information, though, several very interesting essays by Richard Moskowitz and Dr. Harold Buttram. It has charts with the figures for disease incidence in the worst year in the US since 1920, and figures for incidence now, with additional notes on the death rate.
The worst year for diphtheria was 1921. with reported incidence being 206.939 cases. One out of ten died of it, so about 20,694 people died of it that year, most of them babies and children. On p. 183, it is reported that tribal leader Marie Hughes, chief of an Indian tribe in southern New Mexico, described a diphtheria epidemic in which every last one of the tribe's male children under two years old died of diphtheria because the parents were afraid to give them the vaccine, which was introduced in the US in the 1920s.
Diphtheria can usually be treated with antibiotics at the hospital. It is usually associated with poverty and malnutrition, but not always. It is believed even by vaccine critics to be one of the safer vaccines. (The tetanus, polio, and Hib vaccines are also believed to be among the safer vaccines.) It is not 100% effective, no vaccine is, but it is usually effective.
So what you are going to have to say is that you are uninterested in thousands of babies (increased population now, a lot of impoverished areas, antibiotics continue to lose effectiveness) choking to death from diphtheric membranes closing their throats, making it impossible for them to breathe.
At the time the pertussis vaccine was introduced (before the combination DPT), the worst year was 1934, when there were 265,269 diagnosed cases, with a mortality rate of one in a hundred at that time. so 2,653 deaths a year from pertussis. Fortunately, the disease soon became much milder than it had been, from natural mutations, and mortality had fallen 75% by the 1940s. It has always been a very dangerous vaccine, even in the new acellular form which erased my daughter's words when she got the booster at 18 months, and she was diagnosed with autism two months later. It's only dangerous now to the youngest newborns, less than three or four months old, in whom the vaccine is not effective at all.
The worst year for tetanus (after the thousands killed by it in the Civil War) was 1923, when 1,560 cases were reported, with a 40% mortality, so 624 deaths a year from tetanus. Vitamin C will treat it, but it is not standard protocol. There are effective treatments now, but there is still a fairly high death rate even with hospital care, about 10%.
Rubella is harmless in babies, children, and adults. It is only dangerous to fetuses in the first months of development. The worst year for CRS (congenital birth defects caused by rubella) was in the epidemic of 1964-5, when there were 20,000 babies born with severe defects caused by rubella during pregnancy. The vaccine is dangerous, and often causes arthritis. The disease is mild and beneficial for the development of the immune system (like measles, mumps, and chickenpox). It would be ideal to ensure that all girls got the natural disease in elementary school, even by deliberately giving it to them (same for the other beneficial diseases I mentioned).
I'll have to look up statistics on how dangerous polio was at its height in 1952, when it caused many thousands of cases of permanent paralysis every year.
Hib meningitis was at its worst in the early '80s, when vaccines were becoming less effective at treating it when it occurred. At that time, it caused meningitis in 12,000 babies and toddlers a year, and other kinds of invasive Hib disease in another 8,000. It had a one in twenty death rate even with hospital treatment. The vaccine series was introduced for infants in 1990, and it wiped out invasive HIb disease in the US within a couple of years. It also introduced the peanut allergy epidemic, and caused diabetes in many children. Breastfeeding and avoidance of daycare will prevent it, but it IS a threat to babies still, and the germs are ubiquitous in the environment. Most children have developed subclinical immunity to it by the age of five, if they escape the clinical disease. One in 200 babies got invasive Hib disease in the '80s before the vaccine.
These diseases were not harmless and were not rare. The vaccines have virtually eliminated them. That is true, but of course the vaccines have also disabled a huge percentage of children now. Parents should be judicious and careful, weighing the risks and benefits carefully, but they should never think that because the diseases have almost disappeared, that they could never come back. I have said several times that I think the DT series would be a sensible choice (always a choice, never mandated) after two years old. Breastfeeding prevents most kinds of meningitis (what the mother has been exposed to and developed antibodies to), and is the ideal choice whenever possible for many reasons. For babies not vaxxed and in daycare, the Hib vaccine and Prevnar will be mandated so it won't be a choice, but I think it's a justified regulation. It would be better to wait until four months old, not needed after one year old, and it would be best if parents found an alternative to daycare.
If polio and/or diphtheria were to come back, parents should read as much as they can about the outbreaks, the locations, and the circumstances of those affected, and consider the vaccines for their children. Girls should try to get natural rubella, but if they cannot, they should consider either homeopathic prophylaxis or the vaccine before getting pregnant.
I cannot say anything else. Hans Litten, what you are saying is that it's better to accept potentially tens of thousands of babies and children dying a year from vaccine-preventable diseases than for any of them to get a single vaccine. I cannot go along with that and cannot say it. My mother had a neighbor boy who died of diphtheria in the '30s. The parents were distraught at his illness and called in every doctor in town to try to treat him, but they were not able to, and he choked to death. Have you forgotten how many tens of thousands of babies used to die every year of diphtheria? My father saw a man die of tetanus, brought to the office of his father in Louisiana. Terrible convulsions and paralysis, agonizing pain, and he died of it.
Giving only the DT series would do little harm, there would be few adverse reactions. Adding the Hib series is more problematic, and parents would have to consider it carefully. Objectively, I think that Hib disease disabled or killed more children before the vaccine than peanut allergy, diabetes, or other adverse reactions to the vaccine do now, but it is certainly a decision that must be left up to the parents. And if polio or diphtheria came back, most parents would accept the vaccines for them, and who could blame them? I know I would.
Hans Litten, you should not spend so much time acting as though I were wrong to consider the potential benefits of vaccines as well as the risks. I care about those disabled by vaccine injuries, especially autism, but I also care about babies killed by the diseases.
Posted by: ciaparker | February 23, 2017 at 01:11 PM
Here is the write up of the explanation of the studies gathered by China. https://medium.com/@jbhandley/did-chinese-scientists-find-autisms-missing-puzzle-piece-2d50be5b9122#.dej1mzppb
Posted by: M.D.D. | February 23, 2017 at 12:55 PM
I only know one such parent that gave birth at home, did not vaccinate, and is home schooling.
This Mother was adopted, and has her own health issues.
Two of her children do have autism - mild and she is certain if she had vaccinated they would be worse. Her other two kids also have some health problems that looks to me like it is some kind of mitochondrial disorder or well there are eye problems.
JB Handley wrote an article on my facebook, I have just skimmed over. HE said there was a new study out of China that ties three other known studies all together, of what causes autism. And one of those three things is the Mother's own immune system before or during pregnancy matters. So, to have a vaccinated or unvaccinated study has become a lot more complicated.
Posted by: Benedetta | February 23, 2017 at 12:29 PM
Usually the standard we look for when approving new drugs is two randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trials. While a wonderful start, this is a retrospective epidemiology study, indicating that the normal gold standard studies should be performed. I would submit that the mmr vaccine be given a black box warning until such studies are conducted by professionals with no ties to Merck.
Posted by: kws | February 23, 2017 at 11:52 AM
This is by-and-large the study (in homeschoolers) that allopathic medicine would have to do according to themselves if I understand them correctly. They claimed they wouldn't be able to adequately match the unvaccinated to the rest of us "regular" people because there were other potentially confounding lifestyle differences.
I just wonder why they don't want to compare overall lifestyle differences for health outcomes to see if we can all learn a few things. I suspect they couldn't find a healthier group of vaccinated children than homeschooled vaccinated children, though there may not be a difference. Something else to study maybe, once the blinders are off, or I probably should say, on.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | February 23, 2017 at 11:51 AM
Thank you, thank you, thank you for publishing this.
Posted by: Rita Carol Cordero | February 23, 2017 at 11:11 AM
I agree with the others -- great start! This leaves plenty to debate, discuss and (hopefully) continue to study.
One factor struck me -- why just homeschooled children? I would bet homeschoolers have a much higher population of unvaccinated or semi-vaccinated (not sure that's a word!) kids but I could hear the vaccination Nazis concluding that their better health was affected by simply not coming into contact with nearly as many other kids. Future studies will hopefully include a wider cross-section of children.
Posted by: Meredith | February 23, 2017 at 10:54 AM
This study, while limited in its scope of inquiry, is nonetheless devastating. It clearly shows that something is very, very wrong with the CDC's vaccine program. Its major point of weakness, on first glance, is that the sample is almost exclusively white. We already know that blacks are at even greater risk -- much greater risk, in fact -- of adverse reactions, including autism, in response to vaccination. So, a similar study that includes blacks is critical. Also, we need a much bigger sample (thousands, not hundreds). As well, we need to sample the entire population, not just homeschoolers, who may already be very different from the general population in other important respects. Finally, we really need to see the medical records. We already know that many children whose parents THINK they did not vaccinate their children at all actually did receive the Hep B at birth, without their parents knowledge or consent. So, some of the unvaxxed in this study likely did get that first Hep B shot. If we remove that shot from the equation, the differences between vaxxed and unvaxxed are likely to be even greater.
I am hoping and praying that Kennedy is going to get a study of vaxxed/unvaxxed ordered via Price at HHS this year.
Posted by: Lisa | February 23, 2017 at 10:41 AM
This was a start. But it's not nearly enough. There are people who have more money than they could spend in many lifetimes. I wish some of the extremely wealthy would donate several million to honest researchers to conduct a list of studies that need to be done.
Posted by: Linda1 | February 23, 2017 at 10:29 AM
This Study is a starting point, but (to me) a critically weak aspect is the very likely understatement of "damaged" (my word) children. Because? Because it is very likely these vaccinated children were NOT done at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, etc., per the rigid Schedule, but done later and spread out, and more individually. But, this was not reported. Anyway, this Study is a start.
"Dates of vaccinations were not requested, in order not to overburden respondents and to reduce the likelihood of inaccurate reporting; nor was information requested on adverse events related to vaccines, as this was not our purpose. We also did not ask about dates of diagnoses because chronic illnesses are often gradual in onset and made long after the appearance of symptoms."
Posted by: david m burd | February 23, 2017 at 09:45 AM
So great to see this, FINALLY!!
I'd be curious to learn whether some of the vaccinated children were fully vaccinated or only partially. it would also be interesting to learn if any of the children who were vaccinated had a sibling who wasn't vaccinated due to their older sibling developing a neurodevelopmental disorder.
Posted by: Jan | February 23, 2017 at 09:00 AM
I've been waiting for this study to find a home. Like my own data from my practice that showed no autism in the unvaccinated or vaccine-friendly plan schedule patients, this study should have every doctor giving vaccines STOP, Re-think, and at the very least provide informed consent meaning you share this data:
Vaccinated children were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with the following chronic illnesses:
7-fold higher odds of any neurodevelopmental disorder (i.e., learning disability, ADHD, or ASD)
2-fold increase in Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”)
2-fold increase in ADHD
2-fold increase in learning disabilities
1-fold increase in allergic rhinitis
9-fold increase in other allergies
9-fold increase in eczema/atopic dermatitis
4-fold increase in any chronic illness
Posted by: Paul Thomas | February 23, 2017 at 08:46 AM
Like our president has said, it's all rigged.
Posted by: Ted Fogarty, MD | February 23, 2017 at 08:18 AM
The jig is up, the game is over, the scammers are scum. I am forever sorry for the part I played in injuring my children. May they be wiser than I.
Posted by: Brett Wilcox | February 23, 2017 at 08:10 AM
Eindeker , CIA , Joel - what say you ? now
Let the criminal proceedings begin .
The charge - industrial scale global mass murder (like never ever seen before in history)
The Charged :
(May God have mercy on your souls - for we never will) !
Posted by: Hans Litten | February 23, 2017 at 08:00 AM
Citizens must now organize to coerce the Congress to fund large full scale studies. Only the Federal government has the resources to back such an effort. It is their duty, hence ours, to be sure that justice is served and that the American people are not sacrificed to the whims of some "greater good" notion, nor the profits of Big Pharma.
Posted by: Mark Wax | February 23, 2017 at 07:41 AM
Thanks very much for that Mr Barry very much appreciated and not before time either.Prison for Pharma.
Posted by: Angus Files | February 23, 2017 at 07:30 AM