____________________Child Health Safety_________________

New Survey Shows Unvaccinated Children Vastly Healthier – Far Lower Rates of Chronic Conditions and Autism

65 Responses

1. Susan Pearce, on August 26, 2011 at 3:15 pm said:

   This is good information to pass on to others who are still on-the-fence about vaccination.
2. New Survey Shows Unvaccinated Children Vastly Healthier – Far Lower Rates of Chronic Conditions and Autism | SaneVax, on August 26, 2011 at 5:20 pm said:

   […] Child Health Safety […]
3. Occam, on August 30, 2011 at 7:40 pm said:

   I’m somewhat suprised you haven’t pointed out that the autism rate in unvaccinated children in this survey was 1.3-2.4% in the 3-12 year old group, perhaps you’d care to comment, because that looks awfully like the reported rate in the general population?

   [ED: As usual comparing chalk and cheese, – you compare the overall rate in a population [albeit you confirm that rate is around 2%]. The survey reports the overall rate as 0.57%. But you ignore that and cherry-pick one set of numbers. You also choose to ignore that the survey also states:-

   …… over 80% stated, that it is only a mild form or a high functioning form of autism. Among all participants there were 4 severe autism cases. .

   Of these 4 children one tested very high for metals(mercury, aluminum, arsenic), in another case the mother was tested very high for mercury.

   And feigned surprise. Data is data. Government health officials, the drug industry and one too many in the medical profession hide or misreport. So thanks for the opportunity to demonstrate this website is different from them.]

   You are being tolerated for the moment. Don’t abuse it.
4. Occam, on August 30, 2011 at 10:52 pm said:

   Presumably your calculation of a 0.57% incidence is by including the data from 0-2yr old children which accounts for just under half of the sample size and these data will skew any average calculation. However, as I’m sure you accept, this very young age group will include an undefined number of children in whom autism has not yet been diagnosed or developed. So to report an overall average of 0.57% is a simplistic analysis and a more representative value is the 1-2.4 % range outside the neonate population.
   A similar picture with ADD is seen from the age distribution profile, but this does not rise steeply until 5 – 6 years, presumably when the children enter the scholl system and ADD becomes apparent.

   I hope you don’t find this abusive

   [ED: “Presumably your calculation” – these are not our calculations. You have not read the article [again].

   If you want to cherry-pick age groups why not cherry-pick the 0.63% of 15-16 year olds. Or cherry pick the 1 in 2000 who had autism [ie 4 in 7724 – the rest appear to have a mild version of Aspergers. Cherry-pick away – but wash your hands first].
5. Phil, on August 31, 2011 at 9:41 am said:

   Occam is making a valid point and is not cherry picking. The percentages are skewed based on including the 0-2 age group, which accounts for almost half of the survey responses. Your reference to cherry picking the 4 in 7724 after he points this out only points to your ignorance of this biased calculation (which Occam incorrectly refers to as yours).

   This “study” as they call it is a joke. It is based completely on inference, relies on anecdotal evidence, is biased in its sampling, falsely implies causation, and lacks any validity or credibility in the methods or results of the survey. The title is extremely misleading and in no way can any conclusion be drawn about unvaccinated kids being “vastly healthier” and having “lower rates of chronic conditions and autism.”

   [ED: Data is data. We see you do not like it so you say it is a “joke”. The real joke is that vaccinated vs unvaccinated studies by objective impartial unbiased investigators are not being done. Obviously because if they were they would show the same thing.

   So how about support from data from one of the papers claimed as evidence that vaccines do not cause autistic conditions. This paper shows that children with autistic conditions were more likely to be vaccinated before 36 months compared to non-autistic children and this was strongest in 3 to 5 year age group:-

   DeStefano F, Bhasin TK, Thompson WW, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Boyle C. Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta.
   Pediatrics. 2004 Feb;113(2):259-66. PMID: 14754936

   RESULTS: ….. “More case (93.4%) than control children (90.6%) were vaccinated before 36 months (OR: 1.49; 95% confidence interval: 1.04-2.14 in the total sample; OR: 1.23; 95% confidence interval: 0.64-2.36 in the birth certificate sample). This association was strongest in the 3- to 5-year age group.”

   CONCLUSIONS: ……. “Vaccination before 36 months was more common among case children than control children, especially among children 3 to 5 years of age, likely reflecting immunization requirements for enrollment in early intervention programs.”

   “Likely reflecting” Ha. So they got the answer they did not want in the results and, just like you with this new study’s data, dismiss them in the conclusions. And you also bypass all of the other results for all the other conditions showing that unvaccinated children are healthier. Now that is easy for people to understand.
6. An anti-vaccine-administered survey backfires spectacularly | Naturopathic, on August 31, 2011 at 12:23 pm said:

   […] Now they’re at it again, although it’s not Generation Rescue who did this new “study.” Even so, not surprisingly, the anti-vaccine propaganda blog Age of Autism is nonetheless promoting it under the title Vax UnVax Study Results, as is the one anti-vaccine website that can challenge NaturalNews.com for the sheer intensity of its burning stupid, Child Health Safety, which is promoting the study/survey breathlessly as New Survey Shows Unvaccinated Children Vastly Healthier – Far Lower Rates of Chronic Condition…. […]

   [ED: Ha. It is not every day we can rip into the science free zone of Orac’s brain [aka pharma’s very own Homer Simpson of the blogosphere, Dr David Gorski – David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties: What He Didn’t Tell You] [But that is only because we don’t usually have the time – no other reason – aside from the difficulty locating it].

   Either Gorski’s has opened a new Blog in South Africa or someone has pasted his latest rant on the one this pingback on CHS is from.

   Gorski is apoplectic as usual. So not a reliable source to start with but it gets worse. Wot a nutter.

   His near 2500 words we can encapsulate in a few quotes.

   First the abusive rhetoric and derision which is the main basis for all his arguments.

   “a study that’s just so mind-numbingly, brain-meltingly awful”

   “the sheer intensity of its burning stupid”

   “a starving cheetah ripping into its prey look downright restrained”

   “anti-vaccine loons” “anti-vaxers”

   “…. they’ve been clamoring for what they like to call a “vaxed-unvaxed study.”

   “Now they’re at it again”

   “anti-vaccine propaganda”

   “now this “study” will no doubt join the Generation Rescue “study” in the annals of crap vaccine/autism science, to circulate around Whale.to (where it belongs) and be dredged up as “evidence” periodically.”

   Then we get the “scientific” criticisms [Ha] buried in Gorskidrivel:-

   “the whole survey was so ridiculously badly designed that you really couldn’t tell anything from it at all”

   “an anonymous Internet survey that anyone can fill out? Let’s … have an actual control group, namely vaccinated children.”

   “Generation Rescue did a crappy and arbitrary job of it”

   “a poorly designed phone survey”

   “entirely unvaccinated children.”

   “Less than 10% said they preferred conventional medicine.”

   “the parents who filled it out were a self-selected, biased sample, the vast majority of whom favor alternative medicine”

   “99.69% of the respondents report being happy that they did not vaccinate their children”

   So wee Davy Gorski, if you don’t like it its about time we had a well funded independent objective and impartial study done. Stop complaining when independents take a crack at it. Its their taxes which are being spent wasted on the vast amount of useless medical research [genetics is a prime candidate along with cancer and psychiatry – the latter being the least successful branch of medicine in history].

   And don’t fob the public off with the usual unscientic junk studies put out in drug industry funded medical journals to claim everything apart from Gorski’s brand of medicine is valid – people are voting with their feet – GorskiCare kills people and injures them in droves in the USA with adverse drug reactions and botched procedures

   Then Gorski spews out in a rant the usual complete tosh to justify the nonsensical claim that:

   “…. such a study is neither feasible nor ethical”

   But this is the real hoot. These children might really have asthma but because they don’t have any symptoms their parents don’t know. Ha ha ha ha ha ha …..:-

   “a lot of these children could have subclinical or mildly clinical disease that goes undiagnosed because they never take their children to a real doctor”

   “One of the most common presentations of asthma is cough alone” …. “milder cases of asthma can be difficult to diagnose in children”.

   “what the parents report probably doesn’t tell us much. Neither does the claim that far fewer of these children had allergies.”

   What the Mighty Officials of GorskiCare did not tell you is that asthma and allergy have increased so dramatically in the 25 or so years since the late 1980s drive for vaccination that his profession in the UK were instructed just a handful of years ago to go out and look for as many cases as possible. The Mighty Officials then wanted to use the increased statistics to claim the science shows it was all greater awareness and better diagnosis. LOL.

   And then Gorski reveals he has had an analytical skills total bypass from birth and his math education was wasted. He says:

   “Apparently, basic math isn’t a homeopath’s strong suit ….. if 20% of autistic children equals four, then there could only be 20 autistic children, but the survey suggests that there were twice that many in unvaccinated children.”

   Really David? Let’s see what he bases this on and show that Gorski’s math is sadly a long way from his strong point [if he has one].

   The numbers cited are entirely in keeping with the text:

   –

   there were 44 children reported as having an autistic condition

   –

   over 80% of parents reported the autistic conditions in children were mild and of the Asperger type.

   –

   only 4 were reported as having severe autism

   What does that tell us?

   –

   Over 80% means 35 of the 44, leaving 9 or less cases.

   –

   4 of the 9 were reported as having severe autism.

   –

   That leaves 5 cases where 1) either the parents did not say what kind of autistic condition their child had or 2)there were less than 5 cases of severe autism in those 5 or both.

   –

   Let’s say it was 5 cases and the parents did not say. At over 80% the probability is of those 5 cases 4 were mild, leaving 1 which might be the more severe autism.

   So Gorski, 4 cases of severe autism or even 4 +1 is not 20% but that is still consistent with “over 80%” of parents reporting mild autistic conditions.

   And here is another hoot:

   a prevalence of 0.57%, even if this survey were accurate, would be within the range of estimated prevalences found in various studies.

   0.57% is 1 in 175. But wait a mo’. In the USA the figure is nearly half that at 1 in 100. In the UK the figure is a third of that at 1 in 64.

   And David, these figures reflect the kinds of differences seen in the Generation Rescue telephone survey you decry don’t they?

   And in the UK 30% of autistic conditions are the more severe autism – in the US we understand the number is higher.

   Yet for the unvaccinated this survey suggests the number [4 cases or less than 10%] is 300% lower or 1 in 2000 cases which is close to the pre vaccine era of 4 in 10,000. And the affected children had higher exposure to mercury or heavy metals.

   And this GorskiDrivel is a hoot too:-

   autism prevalence is so obviously not appreciably different in the unvaccinated in this survey compared to reported prevalence numbers

   When Gorki in the same passage notes that:-

   depending on the age range it ranges from 0.37% to a whopping 2.36%, ….. 3,075 were for children under two years old, … autism might very well have not been diagnosed … the reported prevalence was 0.37%, while in the 11-12 year range the prevalence was highest, at 2.36%.

   But at the same time ignores that in the 15-16 year age group the figure is 0.62%.

   But that does not stop the science free zone between Gorski’s ears from concluding so stupidly it burns:

   The prevalence of autism in unvaccinated children in this survey does closely match reported numbers for overall population prevalence in populations where the vast majority of children are vaccinated.

   This result is an unmitigated disaster for Bachmair and his groupies …

   But hang on Gorski old boy, didn’t you just say a mere few million drivel points earlier hidden in abuse and rhetoric that:

   “the whole survey was so ridiculously badly designed that you really couldn’t tell anything from it at all”

   We told you he is a nutter. That demonstrates it – the stupid it burns.

   And what is Gorski and his band of amateur night pseudo-scientists going to do. Yep you guessed it they are going to sabotage this genuine effort to get data that everyone has been clamouring for for years.

   How do we know? GorskiCare’s postscript to his blog:-

   NOTE: I notice that the total number of children is increasing. It’s now up to 7,799 at this moment, suggesting that 30 people have filled it out since last night. Given that Child Health Safety lists it as 7,724 five days ago that suggests that the surveys still open and is automatically updating totals.
7. childhealthsafety, on August 31, 2011 at 8:50 pm said:

   Here are the results of the Generation Rescue Survey mentioned above:-

   Cal-Oregon Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Survey
   All vaccinated boys, compared to unvaccinated boys:
   – Vaccinated boys were 155% more likely to have a neurological disorder (RR 2.55)
   – Vaccinated boys were 224% more likely to have ADHD (RR 3.24)
   – Vaccinated boys were 61% more likely to have autism (RR 1.61)
   Older vaccinated boys, ages 11-17 (about half the boys surveyed), compared to older unvaccinated boys:
   – Vaccinated boys were 158% more likely to have a neurological disorder (RR 2.58)
   – Vaccinated boys were 317% more likely to have ADHD (RR 4.17)
   – Vaccinated boys were 112% more likely to have autism (RR 2.12)
   (Note: older children may be a more reliable indicator because many children are not diagnosed until they are 6-8 years old, and we captured data beginning at age 4.)
   All vaccinated boys, removing one county with unusual results (Multnomah, OR), compared to unvaccinated boys:
   – Vaccinated boys were 185% more likely to have a neurological disorder (RR 2.85)
   – Vaccinated boys were 279% more likely to have ADHD (RR 3.79)
   – Vaccinated boys were 146% more likely to have autism (RR 2.46)
   All vaccinated boys and girls, compared to unvaccinated boys and girls:
   – Vaccinated boys and girls were 120% more likely to have asthma (RR 2.20)
   – No correlation established for juvenile diabetes
   All vaccinated girls, compared to unvaccinated girls:
   – No meaningful differences in prevalence were noted for NDs (which may be due to the smaller sample size of the study because girls represent about 20% of cases.)
8. Phil, on September 1, 2011 at 12:39 am said:

   |”Data is data. We see you do not like it so you say it is a “joke”.”|

   Just because you have data does not make it meaningful data. Also, I’m not saying it’s a joke because I don’t like it. I’m saying it’s a joke, because it is completely faulty from a research standpoint. The methodological flaws invalidate their results, and they draw conclusions by making comparisons across samples that you simply can’t compare.

   |”…just like you with this new study’s data, dismiss them in the conclusions.”|

   I’m dismissing the conclusions because they are completely wrong. You can’t compare different groups and assume any differences in numbers are meaningful. One major issue is that they are comparing to data of children 0-17 in the KIGGS study. Almost half of the participants here were under 2 years old (60% under 4). Of course the percentage of illness are different, since you are comparing two vastly different age populations. Thus, you can’t make statements about any of the “other conditions” showing “healthier” kids as being the direct result of not vaccinating.

   And, even if they did age correct, there are still enough issues with biased sampling and not ruling out environmental or other factors that could lead to changes in these health variables (a big problem when trying to definitively conclude that vaccines are the direct cause of being less healthy).

   |”And you also bypass all of the other results for all the other conditions showing that unvaccinated children are healthier.”|

   And, I did not bypass all of the other results for the other conditions, because the underlying problem is the method of getting data and their flawed comparisons. All of it is flawed, thus none of it is meaningful. Here’s just two examples where they inadvertently point out exactly why you can’t make comparisons, but then immediately make the comparisons.

   “According to the KIGGS study more than 40% of children between the ages of 3 and 17 years were sensitized against at least one allergen tested… Although we did not perform a blood test, less than 10% stated that their children had an allergy.”

   You cannot say that vaccinations cause higher asthma/allergy rates (or not vaccinating are healthier with less allergies) when you are comparing your 10% allergy rate from a sample population mostly age 0-4 to the 40% rate from kids age 3-17 (with no sampling under age 3!).

   They also mention that “under the age of 3 warts are very rare,” but they cite statistics that percentages are going up to 5-10% and 15-20% (4-6 and 16-18 years, respectively). Then they say that “only 3% of unvaccinated children in the survey have warts.” Again, they are comparing a sample of mostly under age 4 (when warts are rare) to two completely different age groups that make up only about 12% of their total sample. You cannot do this and then claim that unvaccinated kids are healthier (have less warts) and imply that somehow vaccines increase the risk of warts. If you correctly match age-wise (which you call cherry picking), the numbers are approaching the numbers they gave in the larger vaccinated sample.

   You can do this with all the other conditions, because the entire sample collection and comparison methods are flawed.

   Your comment that “the real joke is that vaccinated vs unvaccinated studies by objective impartial unbiased investigators are not being done” explains why you can’t see the flaws here. This “survey” is by no means impartial or unbiased, and perhaps your desire to have a “study” done that fits your view of vaccines has prevented you from recognizing the methodological flaws and invalid nature of these comparisons.

   [ED: Phil, you miss the point. Regardless of any methodological or other criticisms you may have, data like this is all we have because the studies are not being done. So whether you like it or not, this study, the Generation Rescue study and ones like the 1992 New Zealand Immunisation Awareness Society survey are what we have and we have to make the best of what we have got.

   What people of your persuasion will do in response is to have more junk studies published with great media coverage claiming the studies show things they don’t. And the world will be no wiser nor will the harms being caused to C21 children be prevented. Hip Hoorah.]
9. Phil, on September 1, 2011 at 3:39 am said:

   |”…you miss the point… this is all we have… and we have to make the best of what we have got.”|

   I think you miss the point. You can’t do the best with what you’ve got if you haven’t got anything. You can’t make the best of nothing, you’ve got to do better and get good data that actually supports what you say it does. If you know the data is flawed, and any results aren’t real or meaningful, you can’t just “make the best of it” or try to make it mean something. This is one of the reasons anti-vaccine advocates are ridiculed (including by the site you just commented about).

   |”What people of your persuasion will do in response is to have more junk studies published with great media coverage claiming the studies show things they don’t.”|

   Do you really not see the hypocrisy of that statement? You just disregarded any valid criticisms pointing out why these “healthier” claims cannot be made (based on potentially “junk” methodology) and say you have to make the best of what you got (basically saying you will make these claims anyway knowing they might be completely false). Then you say that the vaccine supporting “persuasion” will make more junk studies… claiming the studies show things they don’t.

   I would hope people of the anti vaccine “persuasion” would be just as rigorous about double checking the validity of their fellow people’s “research” to ensure they are supporting their claims with the best possible data. Furthermore, if your persuasion was truly worried about the harms to future children, wouldn’t you be more rigorous in your own claims so that people had less reason to doubt you? Wouldn’t you try to be just as rigorous of this survey, so that the authors would design a better one? Rather than accept the flaws and say you gotta work with what you’ve got, tell them what’s wrong with it and demand that your persuasion does better. Don’t just accept and promote shoddy work that gets picked apart so easily and has the other persuasion quickly dismissing you. The problem, as already pointed out, is that if you were to correctly collect and analyze these results, it appears they are similar to unvaccinated cases for most of the illnesses. Apparently all the more reason not to do better work and just go with what you’ve got. Alas, another reason for the ridicule and lack of trust in your claims.

   [ED: Ha.

   I think you miss the point. …… you’ve got to do better and get good data that actually supports what you say it does.

   No you anti-vaccine safety activists have got to do better and get good data which supports what you say it does before coming here to criticise worthy efforts of independent researchers. US taxpayers fund the NIH to the tune of US$ 30.5 billion per annum. They fund the US Centers for Disease Control to the tune of US$11 billion per annum. They have got to do better. And so must you. You come here empty handed with nothing to counter not one but three surveys and a peer reviewed paper in Pediatrics all pointing to unvaccinated children being healthier.

   When you have a properly conducted independent impartial objective study that is not falsified with junk conclusions in drug industry funded journals like Pediatrics with so many papers which have junk conclusions dismissing without valid reason clear results like

   DeStefano F, Bhasin TK, Thompson WW, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Boyle C. Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta. Pediatrics. 2004 Feb;113(2):259-66. PMID: 14754936

   or like

   Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Rivetti A, Price D. Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic 2005;4:CD0044007.

   …. then and only then might you have something useful to say. But hell will freeze over before that happens.

   The DeStefano paper backs up these surveys and shows that children with autistic conditions are more likely to have been vaccinated earlier than children without. An odds ratio of 1.49 and the association was strongest in the 3 to 5 year age group.

   The Cochrane paper was subject to valid criticism which has never been answered: So much for scientific peer review. If they cannot answer their critics and valid criticism then what they say cannot be relied on in science:-

   “The conclusions of the Cochrane review on the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccine violate the standards of evidence based medicine and are not supported by the body of the review.” “The conclusions of the Cochrane MMR review are not supported by, and contradict, the evidence presented in the review. Having found inadequate evidence of safety in the papers studied, the review’s conclusion that the millions of doses of MMR vaccine administered worldwide are safe is not science based. It is based on the circular assertion without cited evidence that the vaccine is safe because millions of doses are administered.” and “There are material concerns that the conclusions were influenced by efforts of the British government to avoid liability in claims brought on behalf of allegedly vaccine-injured children.”

   Questions on the Independence and Reliability of Cochrane Reviews, with a Focus on Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 11: 4 2006

   The Cochrane review conveniently also completely ignored the debacle of the Pluserix/Immravax/Trivirix and Japanese MMR Urabe mumps strain containing MMR vaccine which resulted in all those MMR vaccines being withdrawn worldwide because they like many other vaccines are not properly tested and kill and injure children as in Japan, UK, Canada, Brazil and elsewhere and adverse reactions are routinely being buried with their victims and not being recorded or investigated.

   Yet anti-vaccine safety activists like you bleat on and on about these things being safe when you don’t have valid honest evidence to back it up.

   And you have the front to come here with comments like this:-

   “This is one of the reasons anti-vaccine advocates are ridiculed (including by the site you just commented about).”

   No the reason is because 1) anti-vaccine safety activists like you and Gorski make it your business to label libel as “anti-vaccine” people who are concerned about the health and safety of children 2) they are obsessive and nasty 3) they go out of their way to be personal and ridiculing 4) many people concerned about the health and safety of children from vaccines have witnessed the problems as parents or medical professionals and who had their children vaccinated and seen them disintegrate before their own eyes – so are not “anti-vaccine” as people like you and Gorski keep bleating on about 5) this is in the face of a corrupt drug industry which routinely deals in drugs and vaccines which cause death and injury 6) the people concerned about children’s health and safety have evidence based concerns that vaccines are now more dangerous than the diseases they are supposed to combat.

   And how dishonest are the anti-vaccine safety internet trolls like Gorski and his “minions” [as he calls them]?

   Gorski wrote today:

   63 ….. this is nothing more than an Internet poll of the sort that PZ Myers over at Pharyngula routinely sends his minions over to crash. ….. I didn’t do that because I didn’t want to give our friendly neighborhood German homeopath an “out.”

   Posted by: Orac | September 1, 2011 12:01 AM

   Really? What a low-life. How more plainly dishonest can it get. Gorski previously added a postcript to this blog noting this new survey is still open for comments, clearly to invite his “minions” to sabotage it. And what did they start doing? Yep sabotaging it:-

   “13 The survey does indeed appear to still be ongoing at https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/new-survey-shows-unvaccinated-children-vastly-healthier-far-lower-rates-of-chronic-conditions-and-autism/

   Kind of tempting to mess with their results…

   Posted by: Ash | August 31, 2011 11:15 AM“

   And:-

   37 Well the “open” survey now has 7,799 participants…I think the 7,799th “child” might be “mine”. I filled out the survey on behalf of my six year old…who is unvaccinated and has 10 siblings. I entered “yes” to every question about disturbed sleep, fussiness, medical issues and developmental diagnoses.

   I haven’t had so much fun messing up a “survey” since I responded to a robocall from the Tea Party Voter Choice Telephone Survey.

   Posted by: lilady | August 31, 2011 4:04 PM

   What a bunch of low-lifes Gorski and pals are.

   But wait, there is more from “Phil”:-

   “Do you really not see the hypocrisy of that statement? You just disregarded any valid criticisms pointing out why these “healthier” claims cannot be made (based on potentially “junk” methodology) and say you have to make the best of what you got (basically saying you will make these claims anyway knowing they might be completely false). Then you say that the vaccine supporting “persuasion” will make more junk studies… claiming the studies show things they don’t.”

   Do you not see the hypocrisy of your statement? Here we have data which we have shown is also backed up by evidence from at least one peer reviewed paper [De Stefano cited above] and you lay claim to the scientific high ground but all you have is argument “its junk” “its not valid” and come here empty handed without any science to respond to this data.

   Data is data whether you like it or not and this some of what is available.

   Ha:-

   “you will make these claims anyway knowing they are false”.

   The De Stefano paper does not suggest that. The Pluserix/Trivix/Japanese Urabe debacle shows that it is true. What have you got – diddly squat.

   “I would hope people of the anti vaccine “persuasion” would be just as rigorous about double checking the validity of their fellow people’s “research” to ensure they are supporting their claims with the best possible data.”

   No you don’t. If you really were concerned you would not engage in “anti-vaccine” label libel and you would join with those concerned about the health and safety of children and decry the continual promotion of unsafe inadequately tested vaccines and failures to document and investigate properly the adverse reactions. What you are interested in is anonymously bullying and ridiculing and attacking others on the internet as a kind of sport you do in your spare time.

   If you were concerned what you would do is say “oh, this survey is interesting, perhaps it would be worth having some more systematic studies carried out to see if the results can be replicated”. But of course you will never say that because people like you are too busy trolling around the internet abusing bullying and ridiculing others to take a responsible approach.

   “Furthermore, if your persuasion was truly worried about the harms to future children, wouldn’t you be more rigorous in your own claims so that people had less reason to doubt you?”

   Ha. The hypocrisy and stupid – it burns. Where exactly is the funding to come from? The NIH and CDC will not provide the funding. Despite the calls over decades for studies to be done they do not do them and they do not fund them. When they get results they don’t like they try to bury them as with the De Stefano paper.

   The hypocrisy and stupidity of the De Stefano paper is absolute. The paper was CDC funded and De Stefano was a CDC employee. The authors published results which clearly show an association but in their discussion without any evidence claim their results are “likely reflecting immunization requirements for enrollment in early intervention programs.”

   So in other words in order to dismiss clear data and results – their own data and results which they have published – these US CDC funded researchers and employees say “Our results are junk. There is no point publishing them.” And promptly go off and publish. That is as stupid as it gets. And did they say “We should have gone back and checked before publishing”. No. Did they say as scientists should “There need to be further studies to attempt to replicate these results”. No.

   Not science. Nowhere near it.

   And this is just a hoot:-

   “The problem, as already pointed out, is that if you were to correctly collect and analyze these results, it appears they are similar to unvaccinated cases for most of the illnesses.”

   But they do not appear to be. Here you go just ignoring everything said in the article and in the comments here. Not cherry-picking – just ignoring.

   All of the surveys and the De Stefano paper point to significant differences. So instead it ends up with you anti-vaccine safety trolling activists lacking credibility. You play the same old tune over and over and over. A constant game of whack-a-mole.
10. Chmo Yaponske, on September 1, 2011 at 5:10 pm said:

    there seems to be an error: atopic dermatitis in unvaccinated children is 7%, as the chart shows, and in the text it says 2%. Which is correct? I guess it is the chart with 7%?
11. Dan Goodale, on September 1, 2011 at 10:46 pm said:

    What I notice MOST about this article is how rude the editorial replies are. This article is supposedly based on FACTS. Discussion of those FACTS shouldn’t cause unprofessional personal attacks. This ends up sounding like someone defending a piece of artwork, or a theory.
    How about taking some advice from a very old American TV show called Dragnet…..”just the facts ma’am, just the facts”.

    [ED: Thanks Dan. Thanks for noting the CHS article is facts and you are unhappy with the tone of the responses. However, if you check out the CHS article here Unvaccinated Kids Healthier Study – Apoplectic Dr David Gorski Excels Again you will see CHS editorial responses are tailored to the type of posters – namely ones who happily deal in abuse, disparagement and label-libel.

    That is why that CHS post states:

    “Apologies to our usual readers for the lower than usual standards. These have been suspended for this post to write it in Gorskieese, Gorski’s style of scribble-drivel.”

    The web can be a bit of a rough and tumble place, where different strokes apply to different folks. If you are of a mild mannered disposition, as your post suggests you might be, we suggest you take the advice of sports results programmes for fans who might want to watch a later broadcast of a live game or of factual programmes with harrowing content – when they say “look away now” or something similar.

    But really, Dragnet?]
12. Phil, on September 2, 2011 at 2:05 am said:

    Just a couple clarifying comments and then I’m done, because you have obviously misinterpreted my breakdown of the methodological flaws of this survey as an attack on your views. I have not said anything about vaccines being proven safe or denied that unvaccinated kids might be healthier (I’ve stayed completely out of that argument). As someone that does research, I thought it important to point out the flaws and “junk” nature of this survey and my comments focused on why the claims of this survey do not and cannot be support by the survey data (and why you lose credibility in the eyes of others if you make claims on this flawed data).

    ||”Yet anti-vaccine safety activists like you bleat on and on about these things being safe when you don’t have valid honest evidence to back it up.”||

    Again, I have made no such claims here or anywhere else. My comments are entirely based on the quality and meaning in the data of this survey. I have said nothing about vaccines being safe. I have merely pointed out the reasons why one cannot make the claim that unvaccinated children are healthier based on this survey. Also, your claim that I “come here empty handed with nothing to counter…” seems unfair, because I am not trying to “counter” your claims and somehow prove vaccines are safe or that vaccinated kids aren’t healthier. I’m just explaining how this data does not in anyway support the claim that unvaccinated kids actually are healthier.

    Furthermore, I never said these claims can’t ultimately turn out to be true, only that you cannot make these claims now with this data. Nowhere in any of my comments have I claimed anything about the safety of vaccines or say your views on vaccines can’t ultimately be true. I’ve focused entirely on the problems with the methodology and claims of this survey, yet you keep redirecting and demand I somehow prove vaccines are safe.

    It is also interesting that you would demand me to counter your claims with a study “that is not falsified with junk conclusions… or dismissing without valid reason clear results,” when (1) I am not trying to prove that unvaccinated kids are not actually healthier and (2) the claims of this survey could easily be classified as “junk conclusions,” based on flawed data collection and flawed comparisons. You demand others to do with studies exactly what you are not doing with this “study.” You seem to dismiss these problems (without valid reason) and draw faulty conclusions anyway, because as you said, “data is data” and “we have to make the best of what we’ve got.”

    Hopefully now you understand a little better where I was coming from. Just want to clarify a couple other things.

    ||”What you are interested in is anonymously bullying and ridiculing and attacking others on the internet as a kind of sport you do in your spare time.”|| ||”People like you are too busy trolling around the internet abusing bullying and ridiculing others…”||

    I find it funny that you tell other commentors to be tolerant, and then attack me as “anonymously bullying and attacking others…” and “trolling around the internet.” You must really have some pent-up anger at other people, but I don’t like that you are taking it out on me. I have never before argued about, commented, discussed, or debated about the safe or unsafe nature of vaccines anywhere in person or on the internet until this blog post. This is the first time I’ve heard the name Gorski and his “anti-vaccine safety internet trolls.” Yet it seems as if you are calling me out as one. Furthermore, I entered my real email address and posted my real name. Lastly, I have not attacked your position on vaccine use and have not claimed anything of the safety of vaccines. I have only attacked the false claims that this data shows what the survey authors claim it does.

    ||”If you really were concerned you would not engage in “anti-vaccine” label libel…”||

    I find it interesting that you dislike “label libel,” yet you frequently use it against me saying things like “you anti-vaccine safety activists.” First, I did not mean to offend with this term. I also used the word “advocates” which imparts a positive tone to the cause you are supporting, rather than the negatively charged word of activist you bestowed upon myself. Secondly, since both sides obviously believe in their own way that they have safety in mind (and it’s not at all helpful to accuse anyone of being anti-safety as you do), the easiest way to distinguish between them was those advocating for administering vaccines and those advocating for not administering vaccines. Thus, I chose the term anti- in the simplest definition of the word (as a prefix meaning “against” vaccine use). Again, in no way did my comments suggest any negativity toward your views or beliefs, but were focused toward the justification of false claims from faulty data.

    ||”If you were concerned what you would do is say “oh, this survey is interesting, perhaps it would be worth having some more systematic studies carried out to see if the results can be replicated.”||

    First, I cannot say “these results are interesting” because I immediately see the flaws and therefore realize the results are meaningless. As a researcher, I cannot then allow myself to make any claims based on such faulty data (as such I felt it necessary and helpful to point out that you shouldn’t make these claims either). I was hoping (and said so) that you would also be critical of any claims (even ones that you might be biased to support) and double check the validity of conclusions. I did point out that by doing so, you would be telling these survey authors to make a better survey. One that could actually support these claims if the same results were to appear.

    ||”All of the surveys and the De Stefano paper point to significant differences. So instead it ends up with you anti-vaccine safety trolling activists lacking credibility.”|| ||”Here you go just ignoring everything said in the article and in the comments here.”||

    I don’t think comparisons to other data has any role in whether this data is useable or not. If this survey is flawed and the data is meaningless, then comparing to anything else doesn’t matter. Again, my comments have focused on this one survey (I’ve not said anything about the quality of any other surveys or papers). I focused only on this survey and whether it really shows what they claim it shows. I have not argued for or against either side of this argument. You seem to somehow not understanding my explanations as to why this survey’s data cannot support its own claims (regardless of what other studies may show). Perhaps I am not clear enough in my explanations, but for whatever reason, you aren’t able to understand why these results would be invalid and why I am trying to help you understand that you can’t claim that the survey shows anything meaningful.

    ||”Data is data whether you like it or not and this some of what is available.”||

    I’ve already explained that not all data is meaningful and that “data is not data.” The fact that after these explanations, you are still defiant enough to use “whatever data is available” (even if it were completely false data) to support your claims, shows why others could see you as lacking credibility in your cause.

    ||”…then and only then might you have something useful to say.”||

    If you can’t recognize the issues with this survey, then you obviously can’t realize I had something very useful to say. I felt my insights into the survey and the misguided support of its claims would have been very useful to you. As they are obviously not useful, this will be my last post. I don’t feel the need to extend this “discussion” beyond an analysis of this specific survey and don’t want to go in circles.

    I know you are likely tired of being personally attacked for your views, but I’m disappointed you turned that into an attack on me. Since I’m done here and won’t be responding, feel free to attack me again, claim I’m trolling the internet, and demand I prove things about vaccines I never even brought up.
13. childhealthsafety, on September 2, 2011 at 10:58 am said:

    [ED: Phil,

    Re: Your comment 2011/09/02 at 2:05 am

    Firstly, let’s look at how you started out in your comments:-

    “This “study” as they call it is a joke.”

    Disparagement and denigration. The usual trolling behaviour which we will come back to later. Not civilised debate. Not the approach of someone genuinely wishing to engage in debate.

    Secondly, we will expect to see differences between unvaccinated children and the vaccinated. You completely fail to address the fact that government health officials refuse resolutely to carry out these kinds of studies. The reason is very simple. They know that particular ingredients of vaccines cause conditions like allergy, asthma, diabetes and suchlike. In fact you do not have to go far to find this out. It is on the information sheets for patients and for medical professionals and sets out long lists of conditions which are caused by the various vaccines – and that does not include the conditions caused by multiple vaccines in single individuals – a topic never studied.

    We also know that vaccine adverse reactions are heavily under reported, so any survey like this could show that.

    Thirdly, you fail to acknowledge that on the assumption all of the participants make genuine responses, ie. are parents of unvaccinated children, the data can and does tell us something about them and their children. [And we will come back to the genuine responses part later in the context of the particularly nasty kinds of internet trolls who infest these areas on the web with misinformation.]

    You also fail to acknowledge that it may be possible to make comparisons to vaccinated children. For example, if the differences are so huge it is difficult to ignore them. If none of the unvaccinated children had the problems the vaccinated have that would be particularly interesting.

    Instead you trot out all the usual criticisms without putting them into any context. Some of the points you make are of issues directed to excluding potentially confounding factors. You do not for example put into context the extent to which such confounding factors might alter the value of the data. If there is a minimal effect but the differences shown by the data are so large that the potentially confounding effect is small then whilst the criticism may have validity it does not prevent conclusions being drawn from the data.

    So your claim this study “lacks any validity or credibility” immediately is in difficulty and your other arguments with it.

    So the point that “data is data” is valid, as is the point this is the data available along with some other similar studies and some peer reviewed literature supporting the matter – the one example we gave of the latter you studiously ignore – the De Stefano paper. There are others in addition to the known conditions vaccines cause which are heavily under reported.

    In other words, whilst we can see you have worked hard to look reasonable in your latest post, you came here not to make a balanced assessment but simply to attack with no objectivity and certainly with partiality and prejudice – your own and those of the others like you who troll the internet and engage in that kind of behaviour – and more comments on that will appear below.

    You also fail to address that the survey is intended to be an ongoing one. It could build up a large body of data and of contacts with parents for further study, albeit currently anonymous there is potential to contact participants via email. So again, you also fail to recognise there is value in this kind of study.

    Your criticism that “It is based completely on inference” demonstrates a comprehensive lack of understanding of proof of cause and effect. Cause and effect is determined by inference. We infer X is a cause of Y from the evidence presented to support that proposition.

    So again, you demonstrate you come here to attack from a basis of fundamental misconceptions of the subject matter you attempt to address. Your claim to be “someone that does research” therefore has to be treated with skepticism – similar to that of a teacher who responded to such a claim of a pupil with “where, in the toilets?”.

    You criticise that the survey is “biased in its sampling”. Of course it is. It is surveying parents of unvaccinated children. But that is not a valid criticism. That is the purpose of the survey. It is a known and intended bias. Hidden biases that would be a different matter. The survey tells us about the participants. It is not hidden. It does not prevent comparisons. So again, you fail to understand what is meant by bias and when bias is and is not an issue.

    You complain it is “anecdotal evidence”. Really? If a parent reports on the conditions a child has or does not have, how exactly is that “anecdote”? If a scientist writes up a paper recording the results he or she claims to have recorded, would you call that anecdote too?

    You complain the survey “falsely implies causation”. But we have already demonstrated above that it is to be expected that unvaccinated children will have fewer of the conditions seen in vaccinated ones. You have also not commented on the De Stefano paper [and there are more we can cite].

    So there is biological plausibility underlying this survey. Another point you fail to address because you came here not to engage in balanced reasoned debate but to make unbalanced out of context attacks – and at the end of the day, because you have done that what you say lacks credibility. And that is despite the strenuous efforts you appear to have gone to to appear reasonable in your latest post [no doubt through gritted teeth].

    You complain the survey “lacks any validity or credibility in the methods or results of the survey”. How can that be if at the very least the data is telling us something about the participants? The survey does tell us something. It tells us a great deal. Valid criticism tells us how it might be improved. And it is ongoing, which brings us to the final point.

    The survey is certainly currently being sabotaged by the direct involvement of people like Dr David Gorski and what he describes as his “minions”. No doubt others are involved too.

    One participant in this deception claims other “skeptics” are involved in this kind of foul and base behaviour. These are not “skeptics” at all but internet frauds, trolls and bullies who cannot allow any point of view to be known other than their own.

    We have already demonstrated that Dr Gorski is a “brick short of a load” when it comes to analytical skills and that he appears to be mathematically challenged. This is aside from his unreasonable approach, abuse, bullying and emotional and often apoplectic tirades and rants. The fact he has “minions” and other followers does suggest something about the kinds of people who lap up his internet scribble-drivel as if it had some kind of validity. We have shown it does not.

    And then we come to the sabotage. Firstly Gorski on his own blog draws his self-admitted “minions'” attention to the fact the survey is ongoing and open to continuous addition. Then one of his minions admits on his blog she posted false data on the survey and later confirms “other skeptics” are doing the same. After yet again being caught out for what he is Gorski then disingenously claims his “postscript” was not intended to have that effect.

    That is really low and base conduct but what is to be expected of those who claim to be “skeptics” and scientific but are in fact internet trolls and bullies, who don’t have two cents worth of science to rub together and even if they did clearly do not give the appearance of having the ability to do anything with it if they had.

    “13 The survey does indeed appear to still be ongoing at https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/new-survey-shows-unvaccinated-children-vastly-healthier-far-lower-rates-of-chronic-conditions-and-autism/

    Kind of tempting to mess with their results…

    Posted by: Ash | August 31, 2011 11:15 AM“

    37 Well the “open” survey now has 7,799 participants…I think the 7,799th “child” might be “mine”. I filled out the survey on behalf of my six year old…who is unvaccinated and has 10 siblings. I entered “yes” to every question about disturbed sleep, fussiness, medical issues and developmental diagnoses.

    I haven’t had so much fun messing up a “survey” since I responded to a robocall from the Tea Party Voter Choice Telephone Survey.

    Posted by: lilady | August 31, 2011 4:04 PM

    42 I just entered data on “another child” of mine on the open survey. This child is 10 years old, has four siblings and is vaccinated. My “10 year old child” has none of the problems listed on the survey and I ticked off “NO” on all the questions about behaviors, physical diagnoses and developmental diagnoses on the “survey”.

    Posted by: lilady | August 31, 2011 5:12 PM

    43 Should we inlcude a couple of children who died from complications to measles or whooping cough?

    Posted by: KeithB | August 31, 2011 5:33 PM

    88 I think the survey “researchers” have a lot more than me to worry about. The internet survey has been visited by other skeptics who have also entered false data. That’s what happens when you “attempt” a “scientific” survey on the internet and notorious anti-vax bloggers provide links to the “open internet survey”.A vaccinated versus non-vaccinated survey is unethical and this internet survey is unethical as well.

    Posted by: lilady | September 1, 2011 1:14 PM

    76 Yes, I entered data on the open survey from my one computer site and it is probably just a valid as the data from the other “participants”… and might even be “more valid”.

    When you have an open internet survey with ambiguous wording anyone can “wander” over and enter data to skew the results. Now I am not accusing anyone at ChildHealthSafety for deliberately putting a bogus survey up on the internet to encourage multiple false entries and I’m not stating that the design deliberately did not meet any of the criteria for a survey…but it is less valid than the Tea Party Telephone Survey that I participated in several weeks ago…which really was a robo call randomized survey.

    The folks at ChildHealthSafety have no way of knowing what percentage of the participants really have a child…no less a vaccinated or unvaccinated child and no way of knowing if any, some…or most of the participants are childless paranoid cranks who are against big government and/ or Big Pharma. Indeed, perhaps some of the participants are manipulating the publicly held stock of vaccine manufacturers.

    Now I’m no computer techie, but I know enough about entering data on a public site requires you to provide a valid email address…which I did not…and surprise, surprise!!!…the data was accepted.

    Yes indeed, the data I entered was probably just as valid as the data entered by the other “participants”.

    So here’s the deal, unlike other participants I publicly stated that I entered data which was false and easily “verifiable” as false by the “researchers” by simply contacting the invalid email addresses.

     

     

    Posted by: lilady | September 1, 2011 9:42 AM

    And of course not forgetting firstly Gorski drawing attention to the survey being open:

    The enjoyment I get watching that assuages my guilt for picking on homeopaths so.

    NOTE: I notice that the total number of children is increasing. It’s now up to 7,799 at this moment, suggesting that 30 people have filled it out since last night. Given that Child Health Safety lists it as 7,724 five days ago that suggests that the surveys still open and is automatically updating totals.

    Hmmmmm.

    And then his disingenous denial he had any intention this might provoke his “minions” to sabotage the survey – and please note the abuse and disparagement Gorski cannot help himself including – priceless:-

    63 …… this is nothing more than an Internet poll of the sort that PZ Myers over at Pharyngula routinely sends his minions over to crash.I didn’t do that because I didn’t want to give our friendly neighborhood German homeopath an “out.” His survey was badly designed enough, and his results, for autism at least, are completely within the range of error of estimates for autism prevalence. In brief, I was too amused by the fact that this “study” actually comes far closer to refuting the vaccine/autism hypothesis than providing evidence to support it. Of course, as I said before, the survey is so bad that it really doesn’t tell us much of anything, but CHS is too scientifically ignorant to realize that.

    Posted by: Orac | September 1, 2011 12:01 AM
14. Unvaccinated Kids Healthier Study – Gorski & His Internet Bullies Admit Sabotage « ________________Child Health Safety_________________, on September 2, 2011 at 12:54 pm said:

    […] New Survey Shows Unvaccinated Children Vastly Healthier – Far Lower Rates of Chronic Condition… […]
15. Ann, on September 8, 2011 at 5:43 pm said:

    I have read the results of the survey in some detail, and also what I could gather regarding the methodology of the data collection, and can see that it has many issues.

    Anonymously submitted, subjective, parental opinions on child health can make for interesting reading, but should not be presented as scientific research. The conclusions drawn from the data are also deeply flawed, as other commenters have pointed out.

    A link is simply not proven here, and the title of the article is misleading.
16. Celeste, on September 26, 2011 at 6:20 pm said:

    I have 4 children ages under 2 to 12 years old. None are vaccinated and not one has ever had an infection of any kind…not an ear infection…a respiratory infection….not even a sinus infection. Yes they get the common cold that lasts 2 or 3 days but their friends that are vaccinated have chronic illnesses such as ear infections so bad they have tubes in their ears, upper and lower respiratory infections every time they get sick…this is no coincidence !!!!!
17. Not making a stink, on September 28, 2011 at 2:19 pm said:

    Wether you do or you don’t the “facts” of this survey are grossly inaccurate! The numbers, % does not match…math is math, you can’t swing something just cause you want to… This is a survey of new zeland, where asthma is at 14% vs 6% here in the states, so we are talking two different climates/environments etc. A good site to check out is http://vaccines.procon.org/ it’s not a pro or anti website, it’s a good education…3 weeks ago a one month old baby died from coming in contact with a non vaccinated child with whooping cough, and now a tuberculoses out-break all with in a county and that’s only in a county and what the news reported on. The facts I have found on “Switzerland sites” is the death rate in non vaccinated is higher than vaccinated children, the most disturbing part is the non-vaccinated children are passing diseases onto new borns, and other young children that have not been old enough to get the vaccine… With that said I would rather take my chances on having my child have a “disability” then rather put her in higher risk for death, I will always choose a life for my child even at a small percentage! Especially with so many children not being vaccinated that we come in contact with. I’m not anti-government even though they are messing up big time, but I believe that the CDC and other entities (drug companies) are creating cures/vaccines to save our lives. Some drugs/vaccines kill or seriously hurt people, but where would the other people that the drugs/vaccines helped….dead? Life is like a battle there will be casualties but our people will do everything we can to save of many of us as possible! The choice is yours but just be careful it’s becoming increasing dangerous, deadly diseases are coming back with a vengeance….

    [ED: Aside from the fact serious adverse reactions to vaccines are pretty much ignored, being not reported or grossly under reported, leaving the world with no proper measure of the “safety” profiles of vaccines, we are left with the position that in the 21st century with all the medical “science” there is no effective treatment for measles and that is official. This is a scandal and it is directly because of vaccines. Why should all children be put at unknown true risks of adverse vaccine reactions when if we had effective treatments only those who might become seriously ill would need any treatment? This is stupid and it is thanks to vaccines and the drug industry and its political and economic power an influence bought with our money from overpriced drugs. You however seriously think that the choice you make for your children is reasonable, of risking serious disability from vaccines when for first world children the risks from childhood diseases are the lowest they have ever been in the history of the human race. That is well-known.]
18. Not making a stink, on September 29, 2011 at 6:26 pm said:

    ” the risks from childhood diseases are the lowest they have ever been in the history of the human race. That is well known ” it’s well known that they rates are increasing greatly! Especially over the pond! I’m going to protect my child the best way I see fit with out harming others with MY chocies….What about a mother that lost her 1 month old child to whooping cough,(vaccine given at 2months of age) that was passed onto to her by a non-vaccinated child. That mother lives 2 blocks from me…

    The treatment/cure for measles is the vaccine!

    And why would I put my child at risk for catching a deadly disease….I tell ya I wouldn’t.

    Our government and health systems are always going to be around…no matter what, it is king! The medical field is what helps run our country! The more they make the more we make…it’s a trickle down hill effect, the companies make big they spend big, and if they spend big that means more hours to be worked at the wallgreens photo lab, so now you have some extra cash and you spend it wisely on graphic tees from old navy, which now old navy is making money, maybe they will hire more employees as well…win win! Our medical advances are incredible! I embraced them!

    [ED: “Medical advances” are not responsible for health in western economies. You should take a look at the facts. You can start right here on CHS with this “Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics”

    Anecdotes are not impressive. “What about a mother that lost her 1 month old child to whooping cough,(vaccine given at 2months of age) that was passed onto to her by a non-vaccinated child.” 2,600,000 people die in the US every year.

    So how about all the children who die from asthma, allergy and other chronic conditions caused by vaccines. The annual death rate from asthma alone outstrips measles, whooping cough and other childhood infectious diseases by a huge factor.

    How about all the children we have now with autistic conditions, ADHD and the rest. Should their parents have had their children put at risk because people like you insist they vaccinated their children when the risks of childhood diseases are lower.

    The next thing you will say is vaccines do not cause allergies or autistic conditions. So we will wait for that one to come.]
19. Not making a stink, on September 30, 2011 at 1:37 am said:

    Anecdotes are not impressive. “What about a mother that lost her 1 month old child to whooping cough,(vaccine given at 2months of age) that was passed onto to her by a non-vaccinated child.” 2,600,000 people die in the us every year
    *WOW
    So how about all the children who die from asthma, allergy and other chronic conditions caused by vacpcines. The annual death rate from asthma alone outstrips measles, whooping cough and other childhood infectious diseases by a huge factor.
    *Take your own advice there buddy, “2,600,000 people die in the us every year” and the numbers show they have saved more than killed or damaged.
    How about all the children we have now with autistic conditions, ADHD and the rest. Should their parents have had their children put at risk because people like you insist they vaccinated their children when the risks of childhood diseases are lower.
    *Oh I don’t insist you should do anything to your child, I do different for mine, and protect her and others…
    * the threat of the 8 disease are not lower, they are on the rise…I’ll repeat the truth “they are com in back with a vengeance”

    The next thing you will say is vaccines do not cause allergies or autistic conditions. So we will wait for that one to come.]

    * and if you must http://vaccines.procon.org/sourcefiles/AAP_Mercury_Recommendation.pdf

    On Aug. 27, 2010 the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled (3-0) that there is no link between vaccination and autism in the case of Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (160 KB) . [51] The decision upheld two earlier rulings – a 2007 ruling by the United States Court of Federal Claims Office of Special Masters and an affirmation of that ruling by the Court of Federal Claims.

    Click to access cedillo-v-healthandhumanservices-Aug-2010.pdf

    As of Feb. 1, 2009, over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the United States Court of Federal Claims. [21] They are all under consideration by the Office of Special Masters.

    Between 1988 and 2009, the United States Court of Federal Claims Office of Special Masters has awarded compensation to 1,322 families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines [22].

    There are risks involved, and it was a trial and error just like any cure/vaccination no one is saying it wasn’t messed up what happened, but we don’t live in a perfect world if we did we wouldn’t need any medicines, but we do wether it’s blood pressure medicine, insulin, or vaccines to keep us breathing and living because that’s all we want to do as humans is live!

    [ED: Yep. The Court that is paid for by the US Government and which has also decided cases in favour of children that their autistic conditions were caused by vaccines. You should read this CHS article setting out with references where numerous senior US officials and agencies have confirmed vaccines can cause autistic conditions and have paid out settlements out of Court:-

    Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines

    And this among other cases:-

    US Government In US$20 million Legal Settlement For Vaccine Caused Autism Case

    And if you think vaccines cannot cause allergy etc then read this:-
    Vaccines, Autism and Your Child’s Allergies

    You do what you want for your kids and don’t lecture others, especially not parents of kids who went from normal to severely autistic right after getting their vaccines.]
20. Not making a stink, on September 30, 2011 at 1:45 am said:

    Who the heck is CHS? Is that you Wakefield?

    On Feb. 2, 2010, the British medical journal Lancet retracted an influential peer-reviewed 1998 study (943 KB) [50] that first linked vaccines with autism claiming the study had failed to have its child subjects properly approved by the local ethics committee. The study’s lead author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, had his medical license revoked (48 KB) on May 24, 2010 for “serious professional misconduct” stemming from the retracted study. Wakefield contends that the investigation of his work is part of a conspiracy to “discredit and silence his research” in order to “shield the government from exposure on the vaccine scandal.” [30]

    [ED: Don’t worry. In the next 12 months we predict Wakefield will be exonerated and there will be a new editor of the British Medical Journal. Fiona will probably get a nice job in the drug industry.]
21. Not making a stink, on September 30, 2011 at 12:56 pm said:

    This is your anti-vaccine blog, not and education for people to make an informed decision…
    And furthermore I’m affraid your ‘studies’ reports and graphic are all grossly inaccurate. I don’t have to explain why they are many other have told you where all the flaws in your “data” lie…
    And once again they didn’t know before 1999 what the mercury based product did, but the government stepped up and paid the people to use the money to help raise a brain damaged child, ( your government at work, helping the people and children…not trying to poison them”
    I’ve done my part, I’ve post very truthful information on your page.
    I hope people stop and take the time to read the links and information and be able to make a better informed decision vs reading your ‘studies…I feel great and thank you for letting me post my feelings and views on your page and post links to a great site!
    Wakefield, there is overwhelming evidence real proof that he took money so parents could sue the CDC/drug companies and be put on disability! Kinda why he was disbarred. He will never legally be abel to prove otherwise. With so much evidence against him they had no choice to protect others from him…
    “The investigation has found that when [Wakefield] warned parents to avoid MMR, and published research claiming a link with autism, he did not  disclose he was being funded through solicitors seeking evidence to use against vaccine manufacturers. “
22. Vaccins: le vrai scandale des faux placebos, on January 14, 2012 at 5:09 pm said:

    […] propos du Dr Choffat apparaissent tout à fait confirmés quand, par bonheur, de rares études  et enquêtes indépendantes arrivent à étudier de façon réellement comparative et donc scientifique des […]
23. Vaccins: le vrai scandale des faux placebos « Blida Eveil, on January 14, 2012 at 6:38 pm said:

    […] du Dr Choffat apparaissent tout à fait confirmés quand, par bonheur, de rares études  et enquêtes indépendantes arrivent à étudier de façon réellement comparative et donc scientifique des […]
24. Vaccins: le vrai scandale des faux placebos | LA FIN DES SECRETS ET DES MENSONGES, on January 14, 2012 at 7:15 pm said:

    […] du Dr Choffat apparaissent tout à fait confirmés quand, par bonheur, de rares études  et enquêtesindépendantes arrivent à étudier de façon réellement comparative et donc scientifique des […]
25. Vaccins: le vrai scandale des faux placebos… | Les moutons enragés, on January 15, 2012 at 5:28 am said:

    […] propos du Dr Choffat apparaissent tout à fait confirmés quand, par bonheur, de rares études et enquêtes indépendantes arrivent à étudier de façon réellement comparative et donc scientifique des […]
26. Vaccins: le vrai scandale des faux placebos | CentPapiers, on January 16, 2012 at 5:03 am said:

    […] propos du Dr Choffat apparaissent tout à fait confirmés quand, par bonheur, de rares études et enquêtes indépendantes arrivent à étudier de façon réellement comparative et donc scientifique des […]
27. Rhiannon Hubbs, on February 26, 2012 at 7:14 pm said:

    Oh man. I am cracking up at the “adults” commenting here. First of all, everyone has an opinion. Now if they do, which everyone does, you are probably not going to change it. Going on and on about semantics, or looking for flaws in every test and study, having a long winded argument with someone over the internet is ridiculous! I have learned that lesson the hard way. These are statistics. They are meant to be read, viewed and thought about objectivley. I think the point of this study is that un-vaccinated children ( in specific age groups ) have very low rates of sickness, infection, disease, or varying types of disorders. It just goes to show how much we really don’t “need” vaccines. Now the FDA says the ingredients ( adjuvants: metals/preservatives/ animal tissues) are safe and at non-toxic levels..and that vaccines are not responsible for autism or other neurological disorders. Thats fine. That is what THEIR research suggests. That does not mean that injecting those things into our selves is healthy or necessary. Historical evidence and statistics point to the conclusion that vaccines are not as wonderful as the pharmecudical companies and our government claim. Just another reason why it should be my right to choose what is put in my body and my children’s. Another reason for me to doubt the validity of the FDA and CDC’s claims.
28. Cheryl Goin, on April 5, 2012 at 3:36 pm said:

    You cannot compare unvaccinated children to the general public because they ARE NOT comparable. Statistically, unvaccinated children are more likely to be white, middle or upper middle class children from traditional 2 parent families. (Or Amish, crunchy-vegan-naturalists, etc.) These factors DO make a difference. One of the mothers who commented on this article admits that her children have never been to McDonald’s. Wouldn’t you think that would make her kiddos healthier than the general public??? You presented meaningless numbers here. Then rudely and unprofessionally attacked everyone who challenged you. That’s not science.

    [ED: “Statistically, unvaccinated children are more likely to be white, middle or upper middle class children from traditional 2 parent families.”

    Really? So sez you. Got any reference to a reliable study to bacck that up? As the studies are not being done, it is a little difficult to see how you can make such a claim. But if you do have a reliable and valid source then you should cite it.]
29. nicolasconnault, on July 16, 2012 at 4:01 pm said:

    I’m a researcher, and I like the idea of this online survey. I also think it’s fair of people to examine the methodology behind the interpretation of this data. I’d be very worried if everyone started implicitly trusting every bar chart and percentage they come across on the internet or on tv.

    The fact that the compared populations differ on critical variables doesn’t completely invalidate the conclusions, it just makes them harder to trust, because of the higher risk of statistical error. It is possible to conduct a more rigorous study at very little cost, in my opinion.
30. Kim S., on August 12, 2012 at 7:28 am said:

    Forgive me for going off track of the validity of all of the data.
    I would like to address if the prevention, vaccines, are worth the possibility of a terrible lifelong condition (disease)? Please note that I said “possibility”. Autism can be a completely dehabilitating disease in the severe cases.
    Children are actually dying from autism. 1/3 of people with autism also suffer from seizures. Some do not survive as a result. So, being on the side of life, autism can kill as well. If it doesn’t kill, let us talk about quality of life. For the severely autistic, they face a future of being medicated and possibly institutionalized.
    I am a mother of 2 autistic boys. My almost 4 year old does not speak, sign, or use pecs. He has little to no eye contact. He has only very basic communication of grunting, taking you to what he wants and trying to get you to understand ( doesnt even point). He is not potty trained. He suffers with 4-8 episodes of diarrhea a day. He frequently has unexplained low grade temperatures. He has balance issues, walks on his tip toes, drools, arm flapping (Stimming), head banging, screams, hits, and doesn’t show a normal pain response in many cases. He is currently assessed as having an iq of 30 or below by the diagnostician, mentally retarded, as well as a severe level of autism.
    There is no area of life that the autism doesn’t effect. My son at this point doesn’t have a very good quality of life. He acts like he is in chronic pain. I believe he has severe headaches and hurts from the uncontrolled diarrhea. He is a danger to his siblings. Even when I am a few feet away, he pushes down his two year old brother. He tried to pick up his 8 month old sister by the head when she touched his balloon. I was literally 5 feet away, and could not stop him. He needs constant one on one. You must be within reach of him, not a few feet away. When I am unable to do this, I have to lock him in the toy room. He has had early intervention and has gotten worse despite it. He was enrolled in ECI at 21 months. At 12 months, he had 15 words, he clapped, he was affectionate, he had perfect eye contact, he pointed, he called for mama and dada, played normally with toys, tried to sing, was developing normally physically, and seemed at a similar level to his non autistic peers. At 2 years old he had no speech. He quit clapping, pointing or waving. He was stimming, he had diarrhea, he started drooling (we thought it was from teethin-2yr molars), he had poor eye contact, he didnt socialize with other children anymore or hardly even look at them. He has gotten progressively worse.
    He has been in the school system for almost a year, including summer sessions. He has had a developmental therapist, a speech therapist, and an ot therapist working with him since 21 months. Yet, he just gets worse.
    We are trying gfcf diet without great success. We have tried soy with terrible results. The head banging started then. He has now developed an allergy to eggs. We are now moving on to the carbohydrate specific diet. He takes supplements, but since his diarrhea is so uncontrolled, I can’t imagine that they have much time to do any good.
    I could go on and on.
    There aren’t daycares where I live that are equipped to deal with children like mine. So, I no longer work outside the home. My own mother has requested that she not be left alone with the children. It is just too hard.
    I know one thing absolutely. If there is even a .0001 percent chance that the vaccines contributed to making my boys autistic, it is too great of a risk. I would prefer to take my chances with every single one of the diseases that they vaccinate against. We have great modern medicine that for the most part can get you through the diseases that they vaccinate for. Modern medicine doesn’t have much that they can do for autism. There is no cure for autism.
    If I could go back, I wouldn’t vaccinate. At least then, I would know I hadn’t possibly deliberately contributed to their disease.
    My boys were breastfeeding for the first year of their life. I made all of my oldest son’s baby food from scratch. I didn’t allow him to eat gluten or sugar until past 18 months.
    As far environmental exposures in etero and after, I never smoked drank, or used drugs while pregnant or nursing. I had to take an antibiotic once while nursing my oldest. I didn’t fertilize or use pesticides. I filtered my water. I ate a well balanced diet, perhaps better than most. I bought as much organic as possible and rarely ate fast food or convenience foods. I didn’t have nausea or ever throw up. I didn’t paint or use deodorants with aluminum. I have never been on an ssri medication. I took my folic acid prior to even getting pregnant. I didn’t have an epidural or pain meds during my delivery. I nursed right away. I was 30 when I had my son, but I haven’t seen studies that link age of the parent to autism in children. I also know several people in our community with autistic children and the parents are younger, teens and twenties. I didn’t work during my pregnancies. I got plenty of rest, ate well, and moderately exercised.
    It is hard for me to comprehend what environmentally I or the children were exposed to that would so completely devastate and arrest their development.
    Autism is a terrible and uncurable disease. I think that with the huge increase of autism, the answer shouldn’t be to prove that vaccines cause autism. We should demand that they prove that they don’t. It is accepted that vaccines can cause seizures and other injuries.
    There is very little informed consent on the side effects of vaccines. There is also practically no testing done on the safety of vaccines before public release.
    My bottom line, I would rather take my chances with death from one of these illnesses than the possibility of never truly living. Doesnt quality of life also matter, not just life itself? Again, autism also kills children, but they not only may die, but have never really gotten the chance to live.
31. Kim S., on August 12, 2012 at 7:56 am said:

    To add a little more, my son developed rashes on his cheeks one day after the vaccines. They lasted a month. My younger son developed severe eczema all over his body, especially on his face and head, after being vaccinated. It started 24 hours after the vaccine. It lasted for over a year. We used tons of aquaphor and hydrocortisone!
    My boys ran frequent unexplained low grade temperatures, the dr said was from teething. Hmmm, temperatures are usually a sign of infection, there were no signs of infection in the mouth.
    My unvaccinated daughter has perfect stools, has no unexplained fevers, has never had rashes or eczema, and currently displays no signs of autism. But she is just too young to tell for sure (9 months).

    I am absolutely not stating that vaccines cause autism. Only that it and combined other factors, like genes, MAY play a role in causing autism. Until there is proof that they don’t, to me vaccines are an unacceptable risk.
    Autism barely existed 20 years ago. It was 5 in 10,000. To what degree these children were autistic is unknown. Autism is now reported to be 1 in 88, 1 in 55 boys. These are from studies of 8 year olds that we have these current numbers. So, who knows what the actual current number of new cases are today. Since autism is uncurable, if it were just better diagnosis, then why are they not diagnosing older people and children with it to the stats of 1 in 88? As far as the evolutionary argument that I have heard from so many, I simply want to shake my head and scream that evolution usually takes thousands of years, not one generation. Almost all autistic people have No family history.
    It is time to find the cause. At this drastic rate of increase, more must be done to track down the cause and to find effective treatments.
32. Kim S., on August 12, 2012 at 8:06 am said:

    To the point of this article that unvaccinated children are healthier in many respects, it is currently true of my children. My most vaccinated child is severely autistic with a host of physical problems. My younger son is autistic, but at this point, it isn’t as severe. He has eye contact, points, waves, and has some speech and signing. He hasn’t been vaccinated since 12 months. However, he had most of his vaccines by that point ( when we went in for the 18 month check up, they stated that he didn’t need vaccinating, he already had everything!). My daughter did have one hep b shot the day she was born. My oldest son had just barely been diagnosed with autism and I did not know that there is a possible link or of vaccine risks in general. Since then, she hasn’t had any vaccines. She is the picture of health. In her 9 months of life, she has never been ill. She doesnt have rashes, eczema, fevers, ear infections, infections, etc. she has normal stools, good eye contact, nd is currently developing physically and mentally on par with non autistic peers. So, in my experience personally, the more heavily vaccinated my children have been, the sicker. However, that is just my own personal experience.
33. On Our Decision to Delay Vaccination « Nesting in New Orleans, on August 24, 2012 at 9:51 pm said:

    […] chemicals in them, that live virus vaccines are so controversial, that some studies/surveys show unvaccinated children to have stronger immune systems than vaccinated children, that vaccines could raise the risk of SIDS, that vaccines don’t truly provide immunity, and […]
34. Vaccinated Children Over 5 Times More Prone to Disease « ________________Child Health Safety_________________, on January 14, 2013 at 2:43 am said:

    […] New Survey Shows Unvaccinated Children Vastly Healthier – Far Lower Rates of Chronic Conditions an… […]
35. Lisa, on January 19, 2013 at 3:50 pm said:

    Thank you for posting this study. I enjoyed reading it and found it interesting and refreshing. I appreciate that it has no connection or special interest with pharma companies or the FDA.

    No matter what kind of methodology is used in a study on unvaccinated children, most people will never accept it. There will never be a study “good enough”, because the entities who would conduct these “good enough” studies would be damaged by negative results about vaccines and it is against their best interest. People will refute this information until they are blue in the face, even if it clear as day. We see what we choose to see.

    My children are unvaccinated and among the healthiest children I have ever known. I do not want sound arrogant; this is a simple observation and the simple truth. They are almost never sick, and when they are, they recover quickly and easily. They have no severe allergies or other health problems and have never needed medication (except for one occasion when my girl had an acute UTI from improper wiping habits.)

    I have made strong efforts to keep my children healthy, and it has had nothing to do with a doctor’s advice, and it goes far beyond simply not vaccinating. It has had to do with finding my own information and trusting myself. It goes completely against the grain of society and invites judgment and criticism from every direction. It complicates life and causes self-doubt at times, but it also keeps life simple. Having healthy children makes life so much easier and more enjoyable.

    Very few people want to listen to what I do or have done with my children; I think that many people would rather have sick children than try something different. Few people believe that what I do has any effect on my children’s health. Most people just think we are “lucky” to have healthy children. The “luck” part of it is that I learned about the harmful effects of vaccination before my children were born.
36. Christy fornash, on February 20, 2013 at 3:05 pm said:

    I just wanna say thanks for this study and information. Now if only the CDC would show or do studies to show the results for vaccinated children… Since they only do tests against the antigen itself and not the compound ingredients nor the binders and toxoids or preservatives. My kids and I will stay vaccine free till they can prove its safe to inject all of these serious neurotoxins. (which they won’t because then people would decide not to vaccinate and they would lose massive amounts of money) it makes me wonder if they didn’t create many of these diseases for germ warfare then release them on us so they can sell us their toxic vaccines and we’d be scared into doing it.
37. Dennis Ruffino, on August 29, 2013 at 4:50 am said:

    Since 1989, pharmaceutical companies have paid 2.3 billion dollars for vaccine injuries.
38. Katherine, on December 20, 2013 at 6:00 am said:

    My 2 and 3 year old are basically unvaccinated. Took them for a couple shots and never went back. Neither of them get sick. No antibiotics. Very smart . It’s almost “normal” for kids to get sick often. Strep, flu, colds, bronchitis, ect. Not my boys. Just wanted to add this to the conversation. A real testimonial.
39. Tony Tones, on January 21, 2014 at 10:26 pm said:

    This “research” is so biased and unprofessional that it is stunning how misleading and useless it is. – Read this for a detailed analysis of this awful research – http:://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/08/31/an-anti-vaccine-administered-survey-back/

    [ED: That is a link to the crank blog of Dr David Gorski who also blogs as “ORAC”. It does not take long reading his rants to realise what a crank he is.]
40. lolo, on February 3, 2014 at 7:52 pm said:

    Comme d’habitude, on ne regarde pas le mode de vie des enfants, quels médicaments ils utilisent, ce qu’ils mangent, ce qu’ils font et les lieux où ils vont régulièrement. TOUT a un effet, et il est faussé de ne s’intéresser qu’aux vaccins. En général, ceux qui ne vaccinent pas on un mode de vie différent, contrôlent les matériaux en contact avec leur enfant, ce qu’ils mangent et où ils vont…
41. Stephanie, on February 24, 2014 at 7:23 am said:

    This article needs a comparison to vaccinated children. That would help it make more sense. No one I know who vaccinated would take the time to compare themselves.

    [ED: This looks like a “drive-by” comment. Someone posting who did not visit the site and read the information and results. It states very clearly on the site concerned “….. we compared our results with the results of the German study KIGGS. And although the data are not 100% comparable they show huge differences in common illnesses.”]
42. jason Kahn, on March 7, 2014 at 4:24 am said:

    Any info on the incidences of diseases and correlation to ingestion of fluoridated water?- Any links of fluoride to autism???
43. La vaccination, un juteux business pour les médecins… | Les New's de Mustapha Menier, on March 12, 2014 at 11:17 pm said:

    […] des enfants non vaccinés est meilleure que celle des enfants vaccinés, voir notamment ICI, ICI, ICI et ICI.         Source: […]
44. New Harvard Study Says Chemicals Cause Neurobehavioral Effects | A Political Statement, on March 13, 2014 at 1:00 am said:

    […] [1] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract%5B2%5D http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/%5B3%5D http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm%5B4%5D http://www.circleofmoms.com/welcome-to-circle-of-moms/fluoride-drops-634837%5B5%5D http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf%5B6%5D http://www.acco.org/information/aboutchildhoodcancer/childhoodcancerstatistics.aspx%5B7%5D https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/new-survey-shows-unvaccinated-children-vastly-heal… […]
45. New Harvard Study Says Chemicals Cause Neurobehavioral Effects : Natural Wellness Review, on March 13, 2014 at 1:42 am said:

    […] [1] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract%5B2%5D http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/%5B3%5D http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm%5B4%5D http://www.circleofmoms.com/welcome-to-circle-of-moms/fluoride-drops-634837%5B5%5D http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf%5B6%5D http://www.acco.org/information/aboutchildhoodcancer/childhoodcancerstatistics.aspx%5B7%5D https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/new-survey-shows-unvaccinated-children-vastly-heal… […]
46. Polish Gazette - New Harvard Study Says Chemicals Cause Neurobehavioral Effects, on March 13, 2014 at 6:01 am said:

    […] [1] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract%5B2%5D http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/%5B3%5D http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm%5B4%5D http://www.circleofmoms.com/welcome-to-circle-of-moms/fluoride-drops-634837%5B5%5D http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf%5B6%5D http://www.acco.org/information/aboutchildhoodcancer/childhoodcancerstatistics.aspx%5B7%5D https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/new-survey-shows-unvaccinated-children-vastly-heal… […]
47. Money, Money, Money - La vaccination, un juteux business pour les médecins aussi... | News360xNews360x, on March 13, 2014 at 8:18 am said:

    […] – Cf. Plusieurs enquêtes et études montrant que la santé des enfants non vaccinés est meilleure que celle des enfants vaccinés, voir notamment ICI, ICI, ICI et ICI. […]
48. La vaccination, un juteux business, aussi pour les médecins… | Santé Nutrition, on March 13, 2014 at 2:50 pm said:

    […] – Cf. Plusieurs enquêtes et études montrant que la santé des enfants non vaccinés est meilleure que celle des enfants vaccinés, voir notamment ICI, ICI, ICI et ICI. […]
49. New Harvard Study Says Fluoride Causes Neurobehavioral Effects | The Refusers, on March 13, 2014 at 3:35 pm said:

    […] [1] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract [2] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/ [3] http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm [4] http://www.circleofmoms.com/welcome-to-circle-of-moms/fluoride-drops-634837 [5] http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf [6] http://www.acco.org/information/aboutchildhoodcancer/childhoodcancerstatistics.aspx [7] https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/new-survey-shows-unvaccinated-children-vastly-heal… […]
50. New Harvard Study Says Chemicals Cause Neurobehavioral Effects - Banoosh, on March 13, 2014 at 11:33 pm said:

    […] [3] www.water.epa.gov [4] www.circleofmoms.com [5] www.cdc.gov.pdf [6] www.acco.org [7] www.childhealthsafety.wordpress.com […]
51. Lancet Journal study says fluoride causes brain damage | The Refusers, on March 14, 2014 at 8:49 pm said:

    […] [1] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract [2] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/ [3] http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm [4] http://www.circleofmoms.com/welcome-to-circle-of-moms/fluoride-drops-634837 [5] http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf [6] http://www.acco.org/information/aboutchildhoodcancer/childhoodcancerstatistics.aspx [7] https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/new-survey-shows-unvaccinated-children-vastly-heal… […]
52. JR, on March 21, 2014 at 7:27 pm said:

    From an article by researcher Ed Stetzer on how to tell if statistics are meaningful (that has nothing to do with this debate, but obviously does speak to the debate in the comment section):

    “What are some ways to tell if the stat you’ve heard is trustworthy? You can tell the quality of the research if it is:
    a) done on a good sample (a random set with a large enough sample, not a group at a conference, a website where people click to vote, etc)
    b) a good question (is it fair and not leading), and
    c) a good methodology (is it transparent, honest, and credible).

    “You can guard against believing and spreading bad statistics by determining if its source is a promotional piece, if it cannot possibly be verified scientifically, and if it does not line up with reality. Then, if it is quality research, quote away.”
53. Review Says Vaccines For Children Are Safe | Daily Health Alerts, on July 8, 2014 at 3:42 pm said:

    […]  http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/07/amish-autism.htmlhttps://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/new-survey-shows-unvaccinated-children-vastly-heal… […]
54. Failure of ConMed. Just how dangerous are Big Pharma vaccines? | ptcrn, on January 13, 2015 at 6:09 am said:

    […] In contrast, children who are not vaccinated are much healthier. […]
55. 93% des parents demandent aux pédiatres de reporter les vaccins – Reveille toi, on March 8, 2015 at 11:13 am said:

    […] de consommation d’antibiotiques, de troubles du sommeil etc etc. Voir par exemple ici , ici , ici , ici et ici […]
56. Prof. Majewska: Odszczepienne epidemie odry + Szczepienna medialna histeria + Polacy będą musieli spotykać się w katakumbach po prawdę o scypieniach | Piotr Bein's blog = blog Piotra Beina, on March 10, 2015 at 12:42 pm said:

    […] W wielomiliardowym biznesie szczepiennym chodzi głównie o wielkie pieniądze i o to, by jak najwięcej dzieci zachorowało na autyzm oraz inne postaci encefalopatii, bo potem są one stałymi klientami karteli farmacji.   Chodzi też o to, by nie było dzieci nieszczepionych, bo wtedy nie można porównać stanu ich zdrowia do  szczepionych, a różnice między tymi grupami są kolosalne.  Niemieckie badanie wykazało, że praktycznie wszystkie choroby chroniczne i formy upośledzenia umysłowego występują znacznie częściej u szczepieńców niż nieszczepieńców.  https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/new-survey-shows-unvaccinated-children-vastly-hea… […]
57. Szczepienia MMR są dziś głównym źródłem epidemii odry czy różyczki – wskazują nowe badania | Prawda.xlx.pl, on March 11, 2015 at 8:36 am said:

    […] https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/new-survey-shows-unvaccinated-children-vastly-hea… […]
58. Ofensywa medialna przeciwko antyszczepionkowcom | zdrowie.3obieg.pl - Serwis informacyjny dziennikarstwa obywatelskiego., on March 12, 2015 at 5:29 am said:

    […] admin ZnZ (1-9), prof. Maria Dorota Majewska (10-13) Na podstawie: naturalnews.com, childhealthsafety.wordpress.com, vaccineliberationarmy.com [1] [2] i inne Źródła: Zmiany na Ziemi, Wolna […]
59. Duane McBride, on March 27, 2015 at 4:11 am said:

    My childhood was at a time when there were no vaccines for polio, measles, mumps or whooping cough. I remember playing with a school mate on Monday who would be in an iron lung by Sabbath, a friend who became sterile from the mumps, friends who got viral meningitis from measles, friends who had subsequent serious respiratory problems form frequent bouts of whooping cough. I thank God, that my children and their friends were immunized and my children never got these horrible diseases or had to see their friends suffer. I do not understand the extraordinary opposition to the basic tenants of the great Adventist Health message which is very consistent with immunization. I fear that the today’s sophist logic will mean that my grandchildren (who are vaccinated) are and will see their friends suffer so unnecessarily from diseases preventative medicine can stop. As Adventists we need to not fall for the false testimony of those who oppose our health message and its leadership’s sound scientifically based support of immunization. To see opposition to our core message of prevention come from within the Church is sad.
60. Svul, on April 27, 2015 at 5:33 am said:

    your link to the study results (top of the page) lead nowhere, or better, in a page without any sense. This doens’t get me interested in reading the rest…

    [ED: Thanks for the heads up. Sorted.]
61. Mail d'un pédiatre en colère à Initiative Citoyenne… et notre réponse! – Le Monde…, on October 29, 2016 at 11:37 am said:

    […] https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/new-survey-shows-unvaccinated-children-vastly-hea… […]
62. Terri, on May 14, 2018 at 12:22 am said:

    The stark differences in health between the vaccinated and unvaccinated are so obvious and widespread at this point that no study is needed to confirm that. Just go to any playground or kid friendly restaurant and open your eyes. Take any given public school and look at the attendance records, reasons for absences from school, scholastic scores, and reasons for parent-teacher conferences. They will paint a stark contrast between the two groups. Data manipulation including cherry picking, exclusion of unfavorable test subject sectors, placebos used, etc. is the hallmark of so-called official vaccine safety studies, so any discussion of data manipulation here is rather like the pot calling the kettle black. Maybe the kettle just learned how the game is played from the pot.
63. William Kyle Jennings, on March 9, 2020 at 11:46 pm said:

    I HAVE BEEN WARNING PEOPLE FOR 6 YEARS OF BIG PHARMA CRIMES!!!
64. #993 – Dr. Andrew Wakefield – Black Op Radio – Podcast, on May 29, 2020 at 12:01 am said:

    […] children are healthier, the MMR vaccine contains three live […]
65. [collection updated] Vax and autism | Piotr Bein's blog = blog Piotra Beina, on January 5, 2021 at 1:11 am said:

    […] https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/new-survey-shows-unvaccinated-children-vastly-hea… […]