Marc
Lv 7
Marc asked in HealthAlternative Medicine · 9 years ago

How can we keep ignoring that vaccines are dangerous with studies like these?

A shocking research study published on May 4, 2011, shows a link between the number of vaccinations given to infants and an increase in infant mortality rate, (IMR). The study, published in the peer reviewed international journal, Human & Experimental Toxicology, looked at the infant mortality rate (IMR) for 34 nations including the United States, and compared that to the number of vaccinations given in the first year of life.

In the study's introduction, the authors note that infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important measures of children's health and overall development in countries. In developing nations, IMRs are higher because the basic necessities, such as clean water, good nutrition, good sanitation, and easy access to health care, are lacking or unevenly distributed. In developed nations, such as the US, these factors do not come into play and are not primarily responsible for IMR statistics.

n this study, a literature review was conducted to compare the immunization schedules for infants under the age of one in the United States with the other 33 nations with better IMRs. The study was conducted by separating the nations into one of five groups based on the number of vaccine doses they routinely give their infants in the first year of life. The groups were: 1214, 1517, 1820, 2123, and 2426 vaccine doses. The US gives the highest number at 26 doses in the first year of life.

These groups were then compared for IMR in relationship to the number of vaccines given. The results of the study showed a direct linear correlation between the number of vaccines given to infants and the IMR. As the number of vaccines given to infants increases, so does the death rate among infants.

The Barbara Loe Fisher, NVIC article and video can be seen at: http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/May-2011/In-...

Update:

***Please understand that I am not an anti-vaxxer...I believe in informed consent. People have the right to know everything about their healthcare decisions before they make them. Not just one side of the issue.

Red Angel - Excellent point. thank you

Patrick M - I dont see anything that you are contributing with any data. This MEDICAL journal reports the information. I don't agree nor disagree. Its data. You as a skeptic should be evaluating this data. It is reliable and reproducible scientific data. Dont you think that if you read this article that vaccines are dangerous?

Update 2:

Link to study....

http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/05/04/09...

it opened right up....don't know why others are having issues

this is the header....

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there abiochemical or synergistic toxicity?

Neil Z Miller and Gary S Goldman

Hum Exp Toxicol published online 4 May 2011

DOI: 10.1177/0960327111407644

http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/05/04/09...

Update 3:

***Heard immunity was something proposed in 1933! It has been shown in numerous studies to not work!

“[Pertussis] infections are common in an immunized population…more prevalent than previously documented.” 98% were vaccinated in this population.

He Q, Vijanen MK, Arvilommi H et al. Whooping cough caused by Bordetella pertussi and Bordetella parapertussis in an immunized population. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;280:635-637.

Outbreaks have occurred in 100% vaccinated populations.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. US Govt. 12/29/89/38(S-9):1-18.

80% cases of measles are contracted in vaccinated people.”

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. US Govt. 6/6/86/35(22):366-70.

“The increase in pertussis incidence was higher among vaccinated than among non-vaccinated persons of all ages.”

De Melker HE, Schellekens JFP, Neppelenbrock SE et al. Reemergence of pertussis in the highly vaccinated population of The Netherlands: Observations on surveillance data. Emerg

Update 4:

Rhianna- I did nothing. This was taken right out of the article posted. They are not "my" numbers. They are the researchers data. And based upon what you are saying...you know more than the peer review board at Human & Experimental Toxicology. Um....yea ok.

17 Answers

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I try to understand this mess of vaccinations just from the numbers that I find through different searches, I studied statistics and I actually enjoy reading the actual studies that lead to these decisions. Nevertheless it is very frustrating to find these studies because there is a lot of people that just present scary stories one way or the other and these are overtaking the internet with their nonsense. These people make it so much harder to make an informed decicion. Everyone seems to have an agenda, noone really cares what the real truth is.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    there is been a dramatic upward thrust in autism, bronchial asthma, and eczema. All 3 are seen motor vehicle immune ailments. people have discovered to stay with bronchial asthma, autism isn't really straight forward to get a grip on and hardly anybody seems at eczema. i have spoke of that the little bodies of toddlers get bombarded with vaccines and that i'm no longer of the conception that autism(or the different 2 motor vehicle immune ailments)aren't any more appropriate to those vaccines. when you consider that no longer each baby is the same is it hence commonly used that toddlers react in a distinct thanks to the overpowering volume of "intruders" even as they get their vaccines. it does no longer marvel me if the occurrence of autisme might want to bypass back down if the medical community might want to spread out those vaccinations over an prolonged stretch of time. merely look on the MMR vaccine. 3 doses in a unmarried. Why is that necessary? i do not quite see why a number of those vaccines are necessary because i imagine tha human body deals with ailments so a lot extra useful on that's own(with some exceptions). I had the mumps, measles, rubella, whopping cough, chicken pox, and a slew of alternative youth ailments--it really is how the body builds up defenses. If I had understand 20 years in the past what i understand now about vaccines i does no longer enable my son to get a number of those pictures--seems that he were given bronchial asthma and severe hypersensitive reactions and to correctly away do i have self assurance that it replaced into from a number of those vaccines. So no, i do no longer have self assurance those learn.....

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    To start with, the study is basically crap.

    They over-inflate the number of vaccines in the US. They also don't account for a very simple fact: the US counts premature births while other countries do not. That makes our infant mortality rate artificially high.

    From a statistics standpoint, there's no relationship either. The r^2 is low. 0.7 isn't really linear. Their data are not at all convincing.

    It's not surprising that this was published in a bottom of the barrel journal by people who aren't even scientists in a relevant field.

    Claiming herd immunity doesn't exist means you admit to being a fear mongering antivaxxer. That also means you cannot be reasoned with, since the existence of herd immunity is trivial to show.

    Just look at the UK. When the MMR vaccination rate fell to the predicted value, measles became endemic again. Importantly, only measles became endemic because it has a higher Ro value, which means it is more infectious and requires a higher vaccination rate to maintain herd immunity.

    Herd immunity works. This has been shown time and time again. Claiming otherwise requires a level of ignorance that appears to be necessary to be antivaxxer.

    People like you are going the keep being ignored because you are a clear threat to public health.

    Edit: And here's a graph showing what happened to infant mortality in the US during the rapid expansion of the vaccination schedule. Hint: it did what any rational person would expect it to:

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19...

    And SIDS rates over the same time span:

    [It apparently won't accept another link, just google SIDS rate, don't take my word for it, the facts speak for themselves]

    When you have to transparently lie to support your position, you clearly have nothing.

    Edit: Antivaxxers don't want informed consent, they want misinformed consent. They lie about the risks and benefits of vaccines. You can't make an informed choice when you've been lied to.

    Which as I've already pointed out, they do in spades.

    Source(s): Microbiologist
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • JLI
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    The link given by Nate really explains why the study is useless for answering the question if the number of vaccine doses influences the rate of infant mortality (IMR). In addition it is also worth considering the validity of the listed mortality rates. The article's source is the world fact book by CIA. But the rates reported by WHO do show some striking differences. For instance IMR for Luxembourg (dose number = 22) is listed as 4,56 in the article, but according to WHO it is only 2. And for Malta (dose number = 15) IMR is given as 3,75 in the article but 6 by WHO. If you are truly interested in finding out what the graphs would look like if you use the WHO rates instead, you can find them here: http://www.childinfo.org/files/32775_UNICEF.pdf

    EDIT:

    @ Nate: There is always the possibility, that he has come to an understanding, that the data in the article are not valid. But it would have been appropriate of him to declare himself as standing corrected.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    Most anti vaccine articles and info online is junk. It is paranoid people spreading paranoia. It is always better to vaccinate your child than risk death by serious illnesses.

    Anyone who doesnt vaccinate their children shouldn't be allowed to have kids. It is a form of neglect in my book!

    And you need vaccinations in order to put your kids in school.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    There is no link between the number of vaccines given to infants and an increase in infant mortality rate. Vaccines actually reduce infant mortality.

    NVIC is a propaganda agency.

    "The US gives the highest number at 26 doses in the first year of life."

    The number of vaccines given has been dishonestly inflated to make it seem worse than what it is. In reality only 6 vaccines are given in the first 12 months. HepB, RV, DTaP, Hib, PCV and IPV. The doses are spread out.

    "***Heard immunity was something proposed in 1933! It has been shown in numerous studies to not work!

    “[Pertussis] infections are common in an immunized population…more prevalent than previously documented.” 98% were vaccinated in this population."

    Er, no. When vaccination rates drop, the diseases they prevent return. Ex. measles is endemic in England and Wales.

    Most of the children who got Pertussis were too young to be vaccinated, however herd immunity had to drop pretty low for it to become endemic.

    "80% cases of measles are contracted in vaccinated people.”

    In reality, more like ~90% are unvaccinated in the majority of outbreaks: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16885548

    However, even if that number is true, which it isn't, you just demonstrated the efficacy of the vaccine, given that >95% of the population are vaccinated.

    Edit, OK, the study you linked dishonestly inflated the number of vaccines given- it's the same vaccine. You're using that link to support your argument..

    It's a crappy journal, the study is piss poor.

    Edit: "Red Angel - Excellent point. thank you"

    Except she's lying. In reality they looked at claims made through the vaccine compensation system at a time when no vaccines were given. You can't make a claim if you haven't had a vaccine.

    The antivaxxers are dishonest to the core.

    Edit: mrs A, you can't make an informed decision when people like you are constantly lying and over stating the dangers of vaccination. In the UK and the rest of Europe, our schedule is practically the same, barr HepB, Varicella and RV. It's the same vaccine, just the dose is spread out.

    Weise Ente has already explained the artifically high infant mortality rate in the US. Stop being dishonest.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    first of all, you are going to give the best answer to whoever agrees with you the most. that is how we work as humans. we look for like minded people to interact with.

    but my answer is for the other people who stroll by this question and might not really understand the issue. that is who im talking to.

    here is what i tell people who rail against vaccines.

    dont have your kid vaccinated.

    do you want to take that chance?

    do you want to take the chance of having your kid die from ruebella or measels?

    then dont do it. your kid is going to get hurt and the herd immunity of the community is going to go down. you are going to be responsible for all of this all because you read into the hysteria and idiocy of anti vaccers

    people love to rail against vaccines when they dont know what they are talking about and then they put their kids in danger and everyone else in danger of being infected by a new strain of disease that your kid was the host for.

    edit: @justin tyme. i love how people like you who dont know anything about the business practices of pharmaceutical companies come on here and say they make a killing off of vaccines.

    if this was true, which it is not, then why would they ship millions of FREE vaccines to third world countries? if they were just in it for the money then they would have charged those countries millions of dollars for the vaccines.

    also, pharmaceutical companies make so little from vaccines because 1) they are cheap and 2) you only need one every couple of years until you are about 10 years old. so how can they be making billions of dollars from vaccines? didnt think did ya?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • ~qx~
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Keep doing your own research.

    It is called informed consent.

    Regarding the effectiveness of the pertussis vaccine:

    http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no5/srugo.htm

    The CDC says: "Vaccinated children may be asymptomatic reservoirs for infection."

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21034823

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20677421

    Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, a paediatrician and a dues paying member of the AMA for 40 years, had a CV that most doctors would envy, declared based on his experience, that doctors cannot count.

    The AAP recommends 35 vaccine doses in the first year of life. Compare the US schedule with the nations of the EU that I have posted below; they all have a lower infant mortality than the US. Depending on whose list is read, the US ranks 34-46th in infant mortality.

    Babies receive 8 vaccines in the first two months of life on the US schedule listed on the website below: these vaccines are:

    1. Hepatitis B at birth

    2. Rotavirus

    3. Haemophilus influenzae type b Hib

    4. Pneumococcal PCV

    5. IPV - injected polio virus

    6. Diphtheria > part of DaPT

    7. Tetanus > part of DaPT

    8. Pertussis > part of DaPT

    AT four months, 7 vaccines are scheduled

    1. Rotavirus

    2. Haemophilus Influenza type b

    3. Pneumococcal PCV

    4. IPV injected polio virus

    5. Diphtheria > part of the DTaP

    6. Tetanus > part of the DTaP

    7. Pertussis > part of the DTaP

    At six months 7 vaccines are scheduled -

    1. Rotavirus

    2. Haemophilus influenza type b

    3. Pneumococcal PCV

    4. Hepatitis B

    5. Pertussis

    6. Diphtheria

    7. Tetanus

    At 12 months, 13 vaccines are scheduled

    1. Rotarvirus

    2. Haemophilus influenza type b

    3. Pneumococcal PCV

    4. IPV injectable polio vaccine

    5. Varicella - chicken pox

    6. Hepatitis A (2 doses?)

    7. first annual influenza vaccination

    8. measles > part of the MMR

    9. mumps > part of the MMR

    10. rubella > Part of the MMR

    11. diphtheria > part of the DTaP

    12. pertussis > part of the DTaP

    13. tetanus > part of the DTaP

    The study used the word "doses", not vaccines.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Joe
    Lv 5
    9 years ago

    "The results of the study showed a direct linear correlation between the number of vaccines given to infants and the IMR..."

    If this is true......and of course, it is NOT.....then, since there is a DIRECT correlation.....zero vaccines would equate to the LOWEST IMR.....

    Therefore, giving NO vaccines is the best choice....

    NOT!!!!!

    Source(s): I am a physician and oppose Measles, Mumps, Chickenpox, smallpox, polio, neisseria meningitis, etc
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    Page not found, please relink.

    Also NVIC is highly criticized, which Michael Specter described NVIC as:

    "... an organization that, based on its name, certainly sounds like a federal agency. Actually, it's just the opposite: the NVIC is the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children."

    But you're right, we should stop vaccines because polio measles, mumps, rubella, and other horrific diseases that have been eradicated (or nearly) are totally safe for thousands of children to contract and spread to others. /sarcasm

    I welcome the 600 Thumbs Down now.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.