Survey: Vaccinated children five times more prone to disease than unvaccinated
Interesting report based on a German study. Apparently, none like it have been conducted in the US.
Original article from Natural News.
An ongoing study out of Germany comparing disease rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated children points to a pretty clear disparity between the two groups as far as illness rates are concerned. As reported by the group Health Freedom Alliance, children who have been vaccinated according to official government schedules are up to five times more likely to contract a preventable disease than children who developed their own immune systems naturally without vaccines.
Released as its own preliminary study back in September 2011, the survey includes data on 8,000 unvaccinated children whose overall disease rates were compared to disease rates among the general population, the vast majority of which has been vaccinated. And in every single disease category, unvaccinated children fared far better than vaccinated children in terms of both disease prevalence and severity. In other words, the evidence suggests that vaccines are neither effective nor safe.
"No study of health outcomes of vaccinated people versus unvaccinated has ever been conducted in the U.S. by CDC or any other agency in the 50 years or more of an accelerating schedule of vaccinations (now over 50 doses of 14 vaccines given before kindergarten, 26 doses in the first year)," wrote Louis Rain back in 2011 for Health Freedom Alliance about the survey.
As disclosed at VaccineInjury.info, vaccinated children are nearly twice as likely as unvaccinated children to develop neurodermatitis, for instance, a skin disorder marked by chronic itching and scratching. Similarly, vaccinated children are about two-and-a-half times as likely, based on current data, to develop a pattern of migraine headaches compared to unvaccinated children.
The numbers are even more divergent for asthma and chronic bronchitis, where vaccinated children are about eight times more likely than unvaccinated children to develop such respiratory problems. Vaccinated children are also far more likely to develop hyperactivity, hay fever, and thyroid disease, with their likelihood three times, four times, and a shocking 17 times higher, respectively, compared to unvaccinated children.
You can view the complete data, as it currently exists, here.
Autism extremely rare among unvaccinated children
Where the gloves really come off on the issue, however, is with autism, the long-held point of contention in the vaccine safety debate. According to the data, only four of the 8,000 unvaccinated children that were included in the 2011 release of the study responded as having severe autism, which is a mere half of one percent of the overall population. Meanwhile the autism rate among the general population, as tabulated in the German KiGGS study used for comparison, is about 1.1 percent.
This means that vaccinated children are about 2.5 times more likely to develop severe autism compared to unvaccinated children, a shocking find when considering the medical establishment vehemently denies any link whatsoever between vaccines and autism. And as it turns out, the four unvaccinated children who reported severe autism all tested high for heavy metals, including mercury, which further indicts vaccines and their disease-causing adjuvants.
Though this correlation does not necessarily conclude causation, the overall disparity of disease rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated children at the very least points to a very strong connection that cannot be denied or dismissed. Even after accounting for bias, as the survey's authors have tried to do over the years, the data continues to show much higher disease rates among vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated children.
In a similar but unrelated study conducted back in the 1990s, researchers found that the death rate among vaccinated children for infection with diphtheria, tetanus, and whooping cough (pertussis) is also twice as high, on average, compared to unvaccinated children.
Re: Survey: Vaccinated children five times more prone to disease than unvaccinated
.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:
Interesting report based on a German study. Apparently, none like it have been conducted in the US.
Being open minded on the subject and still agnostic about many vaccinations, I am interested in reading this study that shows, according to the headline in Natural News, that "Vaccinated children are five times more prone to disease than unvaccinated children". However, all the links to the study on the Natural News website, as well as all the links within the links of the Natural News website to the study, are broken.
So I did a Google search on a German study of vaccinated and unvaccinated children released in 2011 and found this study linked here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/
Vaccination Status and Health in Children and Adolescents
Findings of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS)
It indeed appears to be a very robust study. Here is an excerpt:
In total, 17,641 children and adolescents (8656 girls, 8985 boys) and their parents participated in the study (response rate 66.6%), who were randomly selected in 167 German locations (8, 9). The study was approved by the Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin ethics committee.
However, this study came to a very different conclusion than what is given on the Natural News website. Here is an excerpt from that study:
The lifetime prevalence of diseases preventable by vaccination was markedly higher in unvaccinated than in vaccinated subjects.
Conclusion
The prevalence of allergic diseases and non-specific infections in children and adolescents was not found to depend on vaccination status.
Protective vaccinations are among the most important and effective preventive measures in modern medicine (1). They make a substantial contribution to reducing the probability of contracting many infectious diseases as well as their severity.
I then followed a link from the Natural News website to another website here, that explained how the conclusion in the Natural News website article is very different from the conclusion of the KIGGS study linked above: it was not from that study. It was from an online survey, as described here:
Most of the respondents to the survey were from the U.S. The data was collected from parents with vaccine-free children via an internet questionnaire by vaccineinjury.info and Andreas Bachmair, a German classical homeopathic practitioner. The independent study is self-funded and is not sponsored by a large “credible” non-profit or government health organization with political and financial conflicts of interest; hence Bachmair relies on Google ads and donations for revenue.
The online survey, by the way, is still going on, as explained here:
I will not give my own conclusion here but leave it up to the reader of this posting to follow the links and use their own critical thinking skills to arrive at their own conclusion about the comparable scientific rigor of the two studies, as well as about the intellectual honesty of Natural News.
Scott
.
Re: Survey: Vaccinated children five times more prone to disease than unvaccinated
Yes, whom can we trust? An "unofficial" source or an official one that may have close ties to big pharma? I've seen too many instances of corporate-government collusion to assume that what shows up on NIH pages is not once again a repetition of the "safe and effective" mantra that's the drumbeat of vaccination proponents. There are a number of other links to articles on this page that offer an alternative view of vaccines. It also has youtube links to about 30 videos of parents speaking about their children's injuries.
Makes me glad I'm not a parent and can simply say 'no' when a medical person asks if I would like a flu vaccination.
CSummer
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:
.Being open minded on the subject and still agnostic about many vaccinations, I am interested in reading this study that shows, according to the headline in Natural News, that "Vaccinated children are five times more prone to disease than unvaccinated children". However, all the links to the study on the Natural News website, as well as all the links within the links of the Natural News website to the study, are broken...
Re: Survey: Vaccinated children five times more prone to disease than unvaccinated
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:
Yes, whom can we trust? An "unofficial" source or an official one that may have close ties to big pharma?
ok, when we've reached the point that any official source is less believable just because they may have direct experience with others in the field they are charged with understanding and regulating, we're about to the place where the slope starts heading down back to where we came from. Next step is burning experts as witches.
Re: Survey: Vaccinated children five times more prone to disease than unvaccinated
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
ok, when we've reached the point that any official source is less believable...
This phenomenon has a term, noted in a previous thread:
Inepticism (noun)
A belief system often found on Waccobb.net where all authoritative sources of information are dismissed by definition merely because of the fact they are authoritative. In this belief system all expertise, particularly if supported by respected institutions whether they be NGO's, professional organizations, non-profit institutions, professional journals, universities, medical institutions, and particularly governmental agencies regardless of the country, is not to be trusted, leaving remaining only amateur bloggers and those with little or no training in the field to be cited as sources of truth.
The anti-authority excesses of inepticism readily dismisses hundreds of thousands of trained professionals who have dedicated their lives to a given field in the belief that they have all either been paid off or are beholden in one way or another to corporate interests or shadow government conspiracies and have all sacrificed their integrity to harm the public good. As in, "I cited the CDC report on Wacco and it was immediately poo-pooed by some inepticists as obviously misinformation simply because it came from the CDC." .
Re: Survey: Vaccinated children five times more prone to disease than unvaccinated
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:
This phenomenon has a term, noted in a previous thread:
Inepticism (noun)
ok, sorry - a bit of a thread hijack. I was wondering if Scott had heard of the "Hipcrime Vocabulary", which was a creation of John Brunner; sort of an anticipation of what the "Urban Dictionary" is to the web, but imagined fifty years ago. While looking for any excerpts of it that I could link to, I found this - a current blogger, obviously inspired by the same source. It seems in the spirit of a lot of the discussion on this and various other recent threads:
from the hipcrime blog:
Quote:
What If A Collapse Happened And Nobody Noticed?
Every once and awhile I'll be listening to a podcast with one or the other writers specializing on the subject of Peak Oil or collapse and the subject of timetables will come up. When will the collapse finally be here, the callers ask insistently, almost pleadingly, so that they can finally justify their investments in freeze-dried foods, water purification tablets and solid gold coins. Inevitably the guest will demur, and speak more in general terms. But I'm going to be the first pundit to go out on the limb and assign a timeline for the collapse. Spread it far and wide, and let's see just how good my predictive powers are. Are you ready? Here it is:
Right now.
What do they think a collapse is supposed to look like? It seems people just cannot just cannot get past the "Zombie Apocalypse" theory of collapse. They imagine hordes of disease-ridden folks dressed in rags stumbling around and fighting over cans of petrol and stripping cans of food from shelves. That's not what collapse looks like. It never has been. In fact, there's very little evidence that a Zombie Apocalypse style collapse ever occurred in the historical record. Instead we see subtle patterns of abandonment and decay that unfold over long periods of time. Big projects stop. Population thins. Trade routes shrink and people revert to barter. Things get simpler and more local. Culture coarsens. High art stagnates. People disperse. Expectations are adjusted downward. Investments are no longer made in the future and previous investments are cannibalized just to maintain the status quo. Extend and pretend is hardly a recent invention.
No, what happens in a collapse is very much more subtle than a Zombie Apocalypse. Things tend to look pretty normal for the following reasons:
1.) People and Institutions are resistant to change.
2.) The system has a formidable array of resources to preserve the status quo.
3.) Sheer momentum.
4.) Creeping Normalcy
5.) Denial
This is how history says collapses go down, not with a bang, but with a whimper. Based on recent archaeology, it seems this is how the Roman collapse unfolded was well.
I never did find any links to the content from "Stand on Zanzibar", but I highly recommend finding and reading it. Written in the sixties, it anticipates a lot of the cultural trends that shape the world today. Not all that similar to, but in the same family of, Brave New World or Blade Runner.
Re: Survey: Vaccinated children five times more prone to disease than unvaccinated
Brunner was great! "The Long Result", "The Jagged Orbit", and "The Shockwave Rider" are also good stories.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
ok, sorry - a bit of a thread hijack. I was wondering if Scott had heard of the "Hipcrime Vocabulary", which was a creation of John Brunner; sort of an anticipation of what the "Urban Dictionary" is to the web, but imagined fifty years ago...
Re: Survey: Vaccinated children five times more prone to disease than unvaccinated
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
I was wondering if Scott had heard of the "Hipcrime Vocabulary", which was a creation of John Brunner; sort of an anticipation of what the "Urban Dictionary" is to the web, but imagined fifty years ago.
No, but sounds interesting.
