Author Topic: Vaccinated children have 500% more diseases than unvaccinated children.  (Read 3061 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Obsequious

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
Somebody just linked to this on Facebook. I don't even know how to begin responding to it.

Vaccinated children have up to 500% more disease than unvaccinated children

Quote
(NaturalNews) Suspicions have been confirmed for those wary of vaccinating their children. A recent large study corroborates other independent study surveys comparing unvaccinated children to vaccinated children.

They all show that vaccinated children have two to five times more childhood diseases, illnesses, and allergies than unvaccinated children.

Originally, the recent still ongoing study compared unvaccinated children against a German national health survey conducted by KiGGS involving over 17,000 children up to age 19. This currently ongoing survey study was initiated by classical homoeopathist Andreas Bachmair.

However, the American connection for Bachmair's study can be found at VaccineInjury.info website that has added a link for parents of vaccinated children to participate in the study. So far this ongoing survey has well over 11,000 respondents, mostly from the U.S.A. Other studies have surveyed smaller groups of families.

Nevertheless, the results were similar. Of course, none of these studies were picked up by the MSM (mainstream media). None were funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the World Health Organization (WHO) or any national or international health agency or medical profession group (http://healthimpactnews.com).

They don't dare compare the health of unvaccinated children to vaccinated children objectively and risk disrupting their vaxmania (vaccination mania). The focus for all the studies was mostly on childhood illnesses occurring as the children matured.

Dramatic, debilitating, or lethal vaccine injuries were not the focus since so few, five percent or less, actually get reported to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Injury Reporting System) in the U.S.A. for various reasons including:

* It's a complicated system that takes time from a doctor's practice.
* Most parents don't know about it.
* Only adverse reactions that occur immediately after vaccinations are considered.
* Since VAERS is voluntary, most doctors don't want to incriminate themselves with vaccination injuries and maintain their denial of vaccine dangers.

Consequently, even the most terrible adverse reactions are minimally acknowledged, while long term negative health issues resulting from vaccines are not even considered relevant.

Different surveys summarized
The childhood diseases usually posed to respondents by the independent surveys involved asthma, reoccurring tonsillitis, chronic bronchitis, sinusitis, allergies, eczema, ear infections, diabetes, sleep disorders, bedwetting, dyslexia, migraines, hyperactivity, ADD, epilepsy, depression, and slower development of speech or motor skills.

In 1992, a New Zealand group called the Immunization Awareness Society (IAS) surveyed 245 families with a total of 495 children. The children were divided with 226 vaccinated and 269 unvaccinated. Eighty-one families had both vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

The differences were dramatic, with unvaccinated children showing far less incidence of common childhood ailments than vaccinated children (http://www.vaccineinjury.info/images/stories/ias1992study.pdf).

From a different survey in the South Island New Zealand city of Christchurch, among children born during or after 1977, none of the unvaccinated children had asthma events where nearly 25% of the vaccinated children were treated for asthma by age 10 (http://www.vaccineinjury.info/images/stories/ias1992study.pdf).

Many of the comments from non-vaccinating parents to VaccineInjury.info for the ongoing Bachmair survey mentioned vaccination danger and developing true immunity naturally were concerns (http://www.vaccineinjury.info).

A PhD immunologist who wrote the book Vaccine Illusion, Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych, has gone against the dogma of her medical training and background. She asserts that true immunity to any disease is not conferred by vaccines. Exposure to the disease, whether contracted or not, does (http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org).

Perhaps the most informal grass-roots survey going on now is by Tim O'Shea, DC, author of Vaccination is Not Immunization. He simply has non-vaccinating parents email him with comparisons of their children's health to friends and families they know with vaccinated children. That and more is available on his site (http://www.thedoctorwithin.com).

Sources for this article include:

http://healthimpactnews.com

http://www.vaccineinjury.info/images/stories/ias1992study.pdf

Link to participate in Bachmair survey here: http://www.vaccineinjury.info

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com

May be of interest for the undecided: http://churnyourown.com/2011/11/28/vaccine-controversy/

Offline Obsequious

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
So here's what I posted on Facebook. It's not a comprehensive debunking, as I am tired and I don't know much about science or medicine. But here's what I said:

Quote
"This currently ongoing survey study was initiated by classical homoeopathist Andreas Bachmair."

Ah yes, I was right. It is bullshit. First of all, homeopaths are not doctors and they are not scientists. As such, they are not qualified to conduct medical or scientific studies.

More to the point, I see that the "study" in question is nothing more than Bachmair asking anonymous people on the Web to fill out a Web survey.

Anonymous Web surveys are not a reliable source of scientific data.

Maybe some of y'all will have more in-depth thoughts on the matter.

Offline vociferous

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 218
    • Pacific Skeptics
The only good way to conduct a study like this would be to actually examine the medical records, and even then you might have biases created from the fact that unvaccinated children are less likely to go to their family doctor (if they even have one) and therefore less likely to be diagnosed.

There is no good a priori reason to believe that there is any health differences between unvaccinated and vaccinated children except:

1) Unvaccinated children are more likely to have contracted diseases the control group was vaccinated against.

2) Vaccinated children are more likely to suffer illnesses or injuries due to complications with the vaccines. 

This is not a study.  It is a web survey. 

Offline stretcher

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 456
  • Learned it from watching you, dad
Anyone can make shit up and put it on the Internet. That's my thought. What's sad is that most people will believe this.

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Deleted
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *
  • Posts: 15689
  • Aspiring Super Villain
You can't fight that with facts, you need a catchy retort.

Vaccinated children get more diseases because unvaccinated children die from a horrific one and don't live long enough to get the others.
I'm just the victim of my cognitive privilege

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11071
Or:

Having a homeopath study disease is like asking a psychic for tomorrow's lottery numbers.
#non-belief denialist

Offline MisterMarc

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7345
  • The universe seems ...merely indifferent.
    • Schlock Treatment
You can't fight that with facts, you need a catchy retort.

I agree. I vote for:

This is not a study.  It is a web survey.

Offline benschwab

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • At-least Marginally Better than a Head Injury
Or:

Having a homeopath study disease is like asking a psychic for tomorrow's lottery numbers.

I wouldn't use this as diseases can actually be studied whereas I doubt there is a way to predict lottery numbers.  It would be like asking a psychic to do a predictive regression analysis.

I think the article you quoted goes through a good refutation.
Oh Yeah!

Offline Johnny Slick

  • "Goddammit, Slick."
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11990
  • Fake Ass Skeptic
"Hi, you people who are against vaccination, do you have a general feeling that you are sicker with vaccines or not? Please do not cite actual illnesses because those are probably caused by your crappy dietary habits."
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Offline Trinoc

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3975
  • Dumb, in a pocket, and proud of it.
I read as far as the first word .. "Naturalnews" .. then I didn't bother to read any more. Natural News is the site that recently told us that pressure for vaccination was so that parents who refused to have their kids vaccinated would have them taken away and sold into sex slavery. That guy gives "barking" a new level of meaning that is an insult to dogs.
I'm a skeptic. Not a "skepdude". Not a "man skeptic". Just a skeptic.

Offline vociferous

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 218
    • Pacific Skeptics
I think the fact that the author is a homeopath should be a warning sign, but you cannot dismiss the study simply because it was done by a homeopath.  Ultimately, it is the quality of the study, not the credentials of the author, that determine its validity. 

Online Sawyer

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 830
I think the fact that the author is a homeopath should be a warning sign, but you cannot dismiss the study simply because it was done by a homeopath.  Ultimately, it is the quality of the study, not the credentials of the author, that determine its validity.

I'm sure people can spot a dozen different red flags with this so-called study, but regarding the quality of research I thought I'd point this one out:

"Eighty-one families had both vaccinated and unvaccinated children.  The vast majority of these were two child families in which the elder child was vaccinated and the younger unvaccinated.  There were also a large number of three and four child families in which the youngest child was unvaccinated and the older siblings were vaccinated."

Great!  That data will be somewhat useful at reducing parental bias in reporting ailments.  I scrolled down to the results section to find .... nothing.  No graph, table, or even a mention of single-family results.  The best evidence that could have been given, and would have taken very little effort to analyze, was not reported.  It wouldn't even surprise me if there was still a noticeable difference with those families (they could have changed other parenting habits with their youngest child), but why on earth wouldn't you publish that data?

Offline snakeman

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
The rebuttal is pretty easy:

Somebody just linked to this on Facebook. I don't even know how to begin responding to it.

Vaccinated children have up to 500% more disease than unvaccinated children

Quote
(NaturalNews Weekly World News) Suspicions have been confirmed.....

There, fixed it for your Facebook folks.  ::)   Seriously, that byline is about as credible as "the homeless drunk living in the dumpster behind the Seven-Eleven told me about the aliens".  It's only compounded when you read further in to find that it's a homeopath running a web survey (not a scientific study) seeking a large number of statements upon which to build a confirmation bias.

If that doesn't work, ask them if they think the voting on American Idol is a scientifically valid way to objectively measure the singing skills of a person.  That should put it in context.

Offline daemonowner

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 211
Natural News. Done.

Offline Guillermo

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3068
  • (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Some stuff:
  • They didn't use a pair wise t test for comparing the samples.
  • The term "vaccinated children" is not defined. (how many vaccines, etc.)
  • It's a survey on families that are biased against vaccination. This is akin to getting a survey likelihood of votes in the 2012 election by taking the survey in a Republican Rally.
  • Breast feeding as a metric, really?
  • The ages ranged between 2 weeks and 36 years, probably twice as old or more, and if the older children are the vaccinated ones, of course they will have a higher incidence.

Personally, I'd like to see the data, and do some correlations.
"There will one day be a member named "No Lynch" and he won't be able to play mafia.  :P"