Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics « ________________Child Health Safety________________

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

This is the data the drug industry do not want you to see. Here 2 centuries of UK, USA and Australian official death statistics show conclusively and scientifically modern medicine is not responsible for and played little part in substantially improved life expectancy and survival from disease in western economies.

The Measles mortality graphs are enlightening [more below] and contradict the claims of Government health officials that vaccines have saved millions of lives. It is an unscientific claim which the data show is untrue. Here you will also learn why vaccinations like mumps and rubella for children are medically unethical and can expose medical professionals to liability for criminal proceedings and civil damages for administering them.

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

The success of the City of Leicester, England was remarkable in reducing smallpox mortality substantially compared to the rest of England and other countries by abandoning vaccination between 1882 and 1908 [see more below].

This contrasts how the drug industry has turned each child in the world into a human pin-cushion profit centre.

The financial markets have known for 20 years and more the pharmaceutical industry’s blockbuster patented drugs business model would eventualy fail We now see the Bill Gates’ type business model emerging – almost everyone has Windows software on their PC – almost everyone will be vax’ed. Gates quickly became a multi-billionaire. With vastly more people to vaccinate than computers requiring software the lure of money is many times greater. All this whilst we watch as childhood prevalence of asthma, allergies, autism, diabetes and more have increased exponentially as the vaccines have been introduced.

Scurvy Mortality

Typhoid & Scarlet Fever – Mortality UK, USA & Australia

Measles Mortality UK & USA

Mumps Mortality – England & Wales

Rubella Mortality – England and Wales

Mortality, Life Expectancy, Healthcare Costs UK, USA and Worldwide

Mortality USA and UK

Disease Mortality UK, USA & Australia

Mortality Measles, Scarlet Fever, Whooping Cough, Typhoid, Diphtheria, Influenza, Pneumonia & Tuberculosis

Diphtheria Mortality – England, USA & Australia

Whooping Cough (Pertussis) Mortality Rates – UK, USA & Australia

Tetanus Mortality – England & Wales 1901 to 1999

Smallpox Mortality – UK, USA & Sweden

Leicester & Smallpox

Extracts From “Leicester: Sanitation Versus Vaccination” by J.t. Biggs J.p.

Table 21. – Smallpox Fatality Rates Compared with “Unprotected” Leicester – 1860 to 1908.

Table 29. Small-pox Epidemics – Cost and Fatality Rates Compared

[ED Note 15 Oct 2009: As information like that here has become available health officials are changing from scaremongering parents into vaccinating with claims their child could die. Now they claim vaccinating reduces the numbers of cases of disease [ie. instead of deaths] and produce graphs of dramatic falls in reported cases (instead of deaths) when measles vaccine was introduced.

This is again misleading. A dramatic fall in the numbers of reported measles cases would be expected. Doctors substantially overdiagnose measles cases especially when they believe it is a possible diagnosis. Doctors were told the vaccine prevented children getting measles when introduced in the late 1960’s so after that time a substantial reduction in diagnoses would be expected.

Examples of recent overdiagnoses of measles when there are measles “scares” are up to 74 times (or 7400% overdiagnosed). Figures and sources follow the next paragraph.

What health officials are also doing is relying on very old and unreliable data which ignores that measles has become progressively milder so the risks of long term injury have diminished – (and death is the most extreme form of long term injury – shown here by official data to have diminished rapidly and substantially over the past 100 years without the risks posed to children’s health by vaccines).

Measles Over Diagnosed – Up to 7400%

A. Laboratory confirmed cases of measles, mumps, and rubella, England and Wales: October to December 2004

Notified: 474, Tested: 589†, Confirmed cases: 8

RATE OF OVERDIAGNOSIS:- 589/8 = 7400% or 74 times overdiagnosed

SOURCE: CDR Weekly, Volume 15 Number 12 Published: 24 March 2005

[Note from Source: "†Some oral fluid specimens were submitted early from suspected cases and may not have been subsequently notified, thus the proportion tested is artificially high for this quarter."]

B. Total confirmed cases of measles and oral fluid IgM antibody tests in cases notified to ONS*: weeks 40-52/2005

Notified: 408, Tested: 343, Confirmed cases: 22

RATE OF OVERDIAGNOSIS:- 408/22 = 1850 % or 18.5 times overdiagnosed

SOURCE: CDR Weekly, Volume 16 Number 12 Published on: 23 March 2006

To Contents

Scurvy Mortality Rates

To start you with something simple, Scurvy, Typhoid and Scarlet Fever are good examples to use as comparisons with “vaccinatable” diseases.

The main advances in combating disease over 200 years have been better food and clean drinking water. Improved sanitation, less overcrowded and better living conditions also contribute.

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: UK Scurvy Mortality Rates 1901 to 1967 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

Medicine and especially drugs and vaccines played no part in the fall in Scurvy death rates and the same can be seen for other diseases. Scurvy is a condition caused by a lack of vitamin C. Poor nutrition, particularly a lack of fresh fruit and vegetables, can result in Scurvy. Mortality rates fell dramatically as living conditions improved.

To Contents

Typhoid & Scarlet Fever – Mortality UK, USA & Australia

Typhoid and Scarlet Fever vanished without vaccines but with clean water, better nutrition, sanitation and living conditions.

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: USA Compared to UK Typhoid Mortality 1901 to 1965 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: USA Compared to UK Scarlet Fever Mortality 1901 to 1965 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

: Australia Typhoid Mortality Rates 1880 to 1970

[SOURCE: Data - Official Year Books of the Commonwealth of Australia, as reproduced in Greg Beattie's book "Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma"]

: Australia Scarlet Fever Mortality Rates 1880 to 1970

[SOURCE: Data - Official Year Books of the Commonwealth of Australia, as reproduced in Greg Beattie's book "Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma"]

To Contents

MEASLES MORTALITY UK & USA

By 2007 the chance of anyone in England and Wales dying of measles if no one were vaccinated was less than 1 in 55 million. The chance of being struck by lightning is 30 to 60 times higher: Tornado & Storm Research Organisation

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: Measles Mortality England & Wales 1901 to 1999 – Logarithmic Scale [By Clifford G. Miller - For Evidence in the Dr Jayne Donegan General Medical Council Hearings August 2007, Manchester, England

Note that what seem large fluctuations after MMR vaccination was introduced in 1988 are not so large and are a feature of plotting the graph on a logarithmic scale. This can be seen in the following graph, plotted on an analog scale.

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: Measles Mortality England & Wales 1901 to 1999 – Analog Scale – [By Clifford G. Miller - For Evidence in the Dr Jayne Donegan General Medical Council Hearings August 2007, Manchester, England

The graph below is from a peer refereed medical paper: Englehandt SF, Halsey NA, Eddins DL, Hinman AR. Measles mortality in the United States 1971-1975. Am J Public Health 1980;70:1166–1169. The red dotted trendline has been added. This shows US measles mortality was falling regardless of whether vaccination was used. By 2010 overall measles mortality in the USA was to fall to around 1 in 25 million without vaccines. As the severity of measles declined, long term complications would also. Whilst people still caught measles it was not the dreaded disease we are told it is today.

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: USA Measles Mortality 1912 to 1975 [Source: Measles mortality in the United States 1971-1975. Halsey et al, Am J Public Health 1980;70:1166–1169.

The seeming fall in reported ordinary [ie. non fatal] measles cases in the above Halsey graph after 1968 is misleading. Doctors are poor in accuracy of diagnosis and follow fashions. Official UK records for 2006 show that when doctors are looking for a disease, they overdiagnose suspected measles cases by ten times higher than are confirmed by laboratory testing [CDR Weekly, PHLS 12:26].

Correspondingly, when vaccination was introduced, they will tend to follow the fashion of not diagnosing measles, where they believe it controlled by vaccination. This following of fashions has been seen in other areas, including Coroner diagnoses of causes of death.

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: USA Measles Mortality Compared to UK 1901 to 1965 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

: Australia Measles Mortality Rates 1880 to 1970

[SOURCE: Data - Official Year Books of the Commonwealth of Australia, as reproduced in Greg Beattie's book "Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma"]

To Contents

Mumps Mortality – England & Wales

It is not exaggeration but accurate to state that mumps vaccination takes the medical profession firmly into the territory of the criminal law and unethical medical treatment of children.

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: Mumps Mortality England & Wales 1901 to 1999 [By Clifford G. Miller - For Evidence in the Dr Jayne Donegan General Medical Council Hearings August 2007, Manchester, England

Providing treatment to a patient that is not clinically needed and misleading patients as to the clinical need for a treatment so as to vitiate their consent can mean the administration of the treatment is a criminal offence: Appleton v Garrett (1995) 34 BMLR 23.

According to The British Medical Association ('BMA') and The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) mumps vaccination is clinically inappropriate:-

"Since mumps and its complications are very rarely serious there is little indication for the routine use of mumps vaccine": British National Formulary ('BNF') 1985 and 1986

Freedom of Information documents show the UK's Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and Ministry of Defence agreed as early as 1974 that:-

"there was no need to introduce routine vaccination against mumps" because "complications from the disease were rare" JCVI minutes 11 Dec 1974.

Doctors and nurses who fail to tell parents mumps vaccine in MMR is clinically unnecessary, of the exact risks of adverse reactions and then give the vaccine appear to be behaving unethically, potentially in contravention of the criminal law and liable to civil proceedings for damages. They are also unable to explain the exact risks because data on adverse reactions are not being collected properly or at all, and there is evidence showing adverse reaction data are suppressed.

A consequence is that giving MMR vaccine to children cannot be justified on clinical or ethical grounds. And as there is insufficient clinical benefit to children to introduce mass mumps vaccination, it cannot be justified as a general public health measure.

And one consequence of this unnecessary measure is that we are now putting young male adults at risk of orchitis and sterility because they did not catch natural mumps harmlessly when children and because MMR vaccination is not effective in conferring full or lasting immunity across an entire population.

One effect of MMR vaccination has been to push mumps outbreaks into older age groups. Mumps now circulates in colleges and universities: Mumps and the UK epidemic 2005, R K Gupta, J Best, E MacMahon BMJ 2005;330:1132-1135 (14 May).

1 in 4 males who has achieved puberty and has not achieved immunity to mumps runs the risk of orchitis. Orchitis (usually unilateral) has been reported as a complication in 20-30% of clinical mumps cases in postpubertal males. Some testicular atrophy occurs in about 35% of cases of mumps orchitis: Mumps - Emedicine. This means one of the male testicles shrivels up. Affected men can become sterile in one testicle. This affects one in every nine males who catch mumps after puberty compared with none who catch it before puberty. It is only because most men have two testicles and only one is affected that total sterility is rare. Most men would find that little consolation. Having a shrivelled testicle would carry psychological and practical consequences for any intimate physical relationship in adult life. The message seems to be it is better for a child to catch mumps naturally before puberty.

To Contents

Rubella Mortality, England and Wales

As with mumps, rubella vaccination again takes the medical profession into the territory of the criminal law and unethical treatment of children. A graph for rubella mortality is not included because death from rubella over the last century was so rare the figures are insufficient to plot a graph of any note.

Aside from a rash the adverse effects of rubella for children are minimal. Vaccination against rubella is of no clinical benefit to a child particularly when compared to the risks of adverse vaccine reactions. If a pregnant woman catches rubella infection during the first three months of pregnancy and the child survives, this poses a risk to the unborn child of being born with congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), involving multiple congenital abnormalities.

Prior to the introduction of rubella vaccine, the number of annual cases in the UK was small, around 50 per annum. Additionally, 92% of rubella cases deliver normal healthy children: DANISH MEDICAL BULLETIN MARCH 1987 - WAVES Vol. 11 No. 4 p. 21 .This small risk can also be reduced either by making sure all women have caught rubella as children or by vaccinating those who have not prior to puberty. This minimises the exposure of children to the vaccine and hence to unnecessary risks of adverse vaccine reactions.

In comparison birth defects from any other cause are much higher:

"Birth defects affect about one in every 33 babies born in the United States each year. They are the leading cause of infant deaths, accounting for more than 20% of all infant deaths. Babies born with birth defects have a greater chance of illness and long term disability than babies without birth defects.": Birth Defects US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - accessed 11th May 2008

To see how egregious is the exaggeration of risk from rubella in order to scare parents into vaccinating their children, see the following:-

False Government Rubella Scare Stories - Reply to Professor Louis Z Cooper 6 June 2005
Rubella Scares - Demonstrating the Figures are False 11 August 2005
False Government Rubella Scare Stories - Only 20,000 Percent Overstated 1 June 2005

To Contents

MORTALITY, LIFE EXPECTANCY, HEALTHCARE COSTS UK, USA AND WORLDWIDE

Does paying for healthcare bring you better health and a longer life? No. The following graphs show that in 1996, average life expectancy in the US was 18th of all countries, being 5 years less than Canada and behind the UK. But Americans were paying per person US$1000 or over 1/3rd more than Canadians and nearly 2/3rds more than the British. And if you then take a look at the graphs of mortality, what were Americans getting for their money? Mortality rates were falling anyway, regardless and kept on falling. Life expectancy increased as time went by, but again substantially due to overall improved living conditions.

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: World Healthcare Costs ($) 1990 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: USA Life Expectancy by Age 1900 to 1998 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

To Contents

MORTALITY – USA AND UK

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: USA Mortality by Age at Death 1900 to 1970 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: England & Wales Total Infant Mortality 1901 to 1999

To Contents

DISEASE MORTALITY UK, USA & AUSTRALIA

To Contents

MEASLES, SCARLET FEVER, WHOOPING COUGH, TYPHOID, DIPHTHERIA, INFLUENZA, PNEUMONIA & TUBERCULOSIS

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: USA Disease Mortality 1900 to 1965 Measles, Typhoid, Pertussis (Whooping Cough), Diphtheria, Scarlet Fever – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

The following is the same USA graph as just above, but with Influenza and Tuberculosis Deaths included. And you can see that Influenza deaths were not prevented by a vaccine – because for most of the period covered, there was no vaccine available at all and when it became available, it was not freely available until the present day – when guess what – ‘flu mortality had already plummeted – and guess what else – it does not work particularly well either – in fact so badly it may well be best avoided.

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: USA Disease Mortality 1900 to 1965 Measles, Typhoid, Pertussis (Whooping Cough), Diphtheria, Scarlet Fever, Influenza & Pneumonia, Tuberculosis – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

The following is the same graph as above but showing the full curve for influenza and pneumonia mortality.

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: USA Disease Mortality 1900 to 1965 Measles, Typhoid, Pertussis (Whooping Cough), Diphtheria, Scarlet Fever, Influenza & Pneumonia, Tuberculosis – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: UK Disease Mortality 1901 to 1965 Measles, Typhoid, Pertussis (Whooping Cough), Diphtheria, Scarlet Fever – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

To Contents

DIPHTHERIA MORTALITY

England, USA & Australia

Here we see Diphtheria mortality falling all by itself. In the UK, although the vaccine was introduced in 1940, most children particularly under 5 did not get it and there was a large catch-up campaign in 1945-6. The under 5 age group are the most at risk from infectious disease. But can you see any difference in the rate of fall of mortality from Diphtheria after 1946 in the UK? No? Surprised? The “success” of diphtheria vaccine is another unscientific quasi religious faith of the medical professions which is not backed up by scientific data.

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: USA Compared to UK Diphtheria Mortality 1901 to 1965 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: England & Wales Diphtheria Mortality 1901 to 1999 – [By Clifford G. Miller - For Evidence in the Dr Jayne Donegan General Medical Council Hearings August 2007, Manchester, England

: Australia Diphtheria Mortality Rates 1880 to 1970

[SOURCE: Data - Official Year Books of the Commonwealth of Australia, as reproduced in Greg Beattie's book "Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma"]

Diphtheria vaccine was introduced to the UK in 1940. It is certain beyond doubt that diptheria vaccine played no part in the sudden fall in diphtheria mortality from 1941 to 1946 [see graph] . The records show most children went unvaccinated until after the major fall. The graph of total infant mortality as a benchmark also shows the vaccine made no discernible difference to diphtheria mortality at any other time.

By the end of 1941:-

“about 36 percent of school age children had been immunised but only about 19 percent of the younger children“: British Journal of Nursing October 1948 p121.

It was not until 1946-7 – after the substantial fall in diphtheria mortality had taken place that a major effort was made to vaccinate the children who had been missed. 969,000 children under 5 were “immunised”: British Journal of Nursing October 1948 p121. With an annual birth rate in the region of 200,000 that represented most of the children born during 1941 to 1946. So diphtheria vaccination could not have been responsible for the fall.

But we can identify what was most likely responsible. We can see the impact of the social health and welfare reforms of 1944, 1947 and 1948. Free school milk provided, among other nourishment, vitamin A to help children’s immune systems fight disease. It is vitamin A which the World Health Organisation is keen to provide to third world children now for the same reason.

It can be seen that the benchmark decline in general infant mortality (ie. all causes of infant death) closely follows the decline in diphtheria mortality in the general population. This again demonstrates that the decline in diphtheria mortality was part of a general trend and had little or nothing to do with the introduction of vaccination.

To Contents

WHOOPING COUGH (PERTUSSIS) MORTALITY – UK, USA & Australia

Whooping Cough or Pertussis – again, the mortality rates fell substantially well before any vaccines were introduced. The contribution, if any, to overall health has been neglible. The decline in general infant mortality closely follows the decline in Whooping Cough mortality in the general population. This again demonstrates that the decline in Whooping Cough mortality was part of a general trend and had little or nothing to do with the introduction of vaccination:-

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: USA Compared to UK Whooping Couch (Pertussis) Mortality 1901 to 1965 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: UK Whooping Couch (Pertussis) Mortality 1838 to 1978 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: England & Wales Whooping Cough (Pertussis) Mortality 1901 to 1999 [By Clifford G. Miller - For Evidence in the Dr Jayne Donegan General Medical Council Hearings August 2007, Manchester, England

: Australian Whooping Cough (Pertussis) Mortality 1880-1970 - [SOURCE: Data - Official Year Books of the Commonwealth of Australia, as reproduced in Greg Beattie's book "Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma"

[SOURCE: Data - Official Year Books of the Commonwealth of Australia, as reproduced in Greg Beattie's book "Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma"]

To Contents

Tetanus Mortality – England & Wales 1901 to 1999

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

“: Tetanus Mortality England & Wales 1901 to 1999 [By Clifford G. Miller - For Evidence in the Dr Jayne Donegan General Medical Council Hearings August 2007, Manchester, England

Tetanus Mortality England & Wales 1901 to 1999

This graph demonstrates that the administration of tetanus vaccine is likely to be pointless and puts children especially at risk of adverse reactions to the vaccines.

There is only one respect in which modern medicine could have had an indirect effect. This came with the social reforms of 1947-48 which saw the introduction of the National Health Service. Coupled with this was the start of the reduction in numbers of farm workers with the start of increased mechanisation and industrial scale farming in Britain after the 1939-1945 World War. The numbers of farm labour fell by half post war and the increase in mechanisation also reduced the chances of the injuries which were likely to result in tetanus

Fewer agricultural workers coupled with better access to healthcare would result in better treatment of wounds. Tetanus thrives in deep wounds which are not properly cleansed. So by having fewer agricultural workers and better wound care could reduce the incidence of tetanus cases. So if the reduction in tetanus mortality in the 1950s is anything other than part of the continuing decline with better standards of living, those two reasons are the most likely explanations.

To Contents

SMALLPOX MORTALITY-UK, USA & SWEDEN

In the graphs notice the large numbers of deaths caused by the smallpox vaccine itself. By 1901 in the UK, more people died from the smallpox vaccination than from smallpox itself. The severity of the disease dimished with improved living standards and was not vanquished by vaccination, as the medical "consensus" view tells us. Any vaccine which takes 100 years to "work" is not. On any scientific analysis of the history and data, crediting smallpox vaccine for the decline in smallpox appears misplaced.

When during 1880-1908 the City of Leicester in England stopped vaccination compared to the rest of the UK and elsewhere, its survival rates soared and smallpox death rates plummetted [see table below]. Leicester’s approach also cost far less.

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: UK Deaths Caused by Smallpox Vaccination 1875 to 1922 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: UK Deaths from Smallpox Vaccine Compared To Smallpox Mortality 1906 to 1922 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

To Contents

Extracts from “LEICESTER: Sanitation versus Vaccination” By J.T. Biggs J.P.

For more details see:LEICESTER AND SMALL-POX

To Contents

TABLE 21

SMALLPOX FATALITY RATES, cases in vaccinated and re-vaccinated populations compared with “unprotected” Leicester – 1860 to 1908.

Name.	Period.	Small-Pox. Cases	Small-Pox. Deaths.	Fatality-rate per cent. of Cases
Japan	1886-1908	288,779	77,415	26.8
British Army (United Kingdom)	1860-1908	1,355	96	7.1
British Army (India)	1860-1908	2,753	307	11.1
British Army (Colonies)	1860-1908	934	82	8.8
Royal Navy	1860-1908	2,909	234	8.0
Grand Totals and case fatality rate per cent, over all		296,730	78,134	26.3
Leicester (since giving up vaccination)	1880-1908	1,206	61	5.1

Biggs said “In this comparison, I have given the numbers of revaccinated cases, and deaths, and each fatality-rate separately and together, so that they may be compared either way with Leicester. In pro-vaccinist language, may I ask, if the excessive small-pox fatality of Japan, of the British Army, and of the Royal Navy, are not due to vaccination and revaccination, to what are they due? It would afford an interesting psychical study were we able to know to what heights of eloquent glorification Sir George Buchanan would have soared with a corresponding result—but on the opposite side.“

To Contents

TABLE 29.

Small-Pox Epidemics, Cost, and Fatality Rates Compared

	Vaccinal Condition	Small-Pox Cases	Small-Pox Deaths	Fatality-rate Per Cent	Cost of Epidemic
London 1900-02	Well Vaccinated	9,659	1,594	16.50	£492,000
Glasgow 1900-02	Well Vaccinated	3,417	377	11.03	£ 150,000
Sheffield 1887-88	Well Vaccinated	7,066	688	9.73	£32,257
Leicester 1892-94	Practically Unvaccinated	393	21	5.34	£2,888
Leicester 1902-04	Practically Unvaccinated	731	30	4.10	£1,602

: City of Leicester Smallpox Deaths 1880-1908

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: UK Smallpox Mortality Rates Compared to Scarlet Fever 1838 to 1890 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

: Sweden Smallpox Mortality Rates 1821 to 1852 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

29 Responses

Anne VR, on March 11th, 2009 at 8:24 pm Said:

Truly impressive work in pulling this together– thank you.
Yves Vincent, on March 12th, 2009 at 5:43 am Said:

Thank you so much for this research. My daughter will have a baby in June and we’ve been talking vaccines…actually … non-vaccine for her baby. But she’s a medical student on her way to be a nurse so she’s in the middle of it and is almost brainwashed about the allopathic model of healing/disease.

Hope she gets it.

Thank you.

Yves Vincent
NH Coalition for Philosophical Exemption, on March 12th, 2009 at 4:09 pm Said:

Thank you for finding and publishing this data!
Dr. Debal Deb, on March 16th, 2009 at 3:30 pm Said:

Wonderful research. Most useful and convincing data [ED: Minor edit] I shall spread the message to everyone in my circle.
Cynthia Janak, on April 9th, 2009 at 1:30 pm Said:

This is great having all this in one place. You put a lot of time and work into this. I know because I did something similar but on a smaller scale. Great job. I would like permission to put a link to your site on my website.
Swine flu - all pork shops closed - DeeperBlue Forums, on May 1st, 2009 at 3:27 am Said:

[...] water, keep your head cool. When your better regained your strength, you might want to read this: Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics ________________Child Health Safety___… Love, Courage and Water, Kars __________________ http://www.freeapnea.nl -~- Discover yourself in [...]
Call for debate on compulsory MMR « Blogging On The Ragged Edge, on June 2nd, 2009 at 7:08 pm Said:

[...] Deaths from childhood afflictions were already plummeting before the introduction of vaccines, see http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ [...]
Tara, on June 30th, 2009 at 5:41 pm Said:

Thank you so much for pulling all this valuable information together. It’s time people learn the truth.
Oinky Oinky don't be a ploinky - Page 3 - Politics.ie, on July 10th, 2009 at 1:38 pm Said:

[...] diseases have been eradicated (from Europe, or the world) by vaccination is a myth. See the graphs here. I know many people who have never been vaccinated. They are the healthiest people I know. The [...]
Thelma, on July 12th, 2009 at 5:59 pm Said:

You absolutely have to be kidding me, right? Propoganda bullshit to bring about the end of vaccinations. WTF for? You like seeing kids die? You like seeing kids suffer needlessly because you got a bug up your butt and decided vaccines were to blame for your problems?

What a load of bullshit. Way to sell it as a conspiracy, too. Dumbass.

[ED: Look at how these people are so angry and so rude. No fact. No intelligent comments. Just abuse and more abuse and invective.

No concept of balancing risk to children of adverse reactions with risk of the vaccines or need [or the lack of it]. The issue is child health safety but they choose to ignore it. Asthma, allergies, autism, diabetes and more all massively increased since the expansion of the vaccine programmes in the 1980s. Children being seriously injured for life and children dying. Leading medical experts like Dr Bernadine Healy, former conservative head of the US National Institutes of Health, former head of the US Red Cross and a member of the US Institutes of Medicine recognising that officials were too quick to dismiss the link between vaccines and autism and that the needed clinical studies of affected children have not been done.

1 in 38 British boys with autism and the problem estimated to costs the UK £28 billion pa according to London School of Economics research.

Instead we see the crass approach reflected here in this comment. And why so angry? It is stupefying. And when people have to fall back on accusations of conspiracy theories they have just lost the argument and the plot.]
Thelma, on July 12th, 2009 at 8:47 pm Said:

Actually, not angry at all. Just pointing out you are full of shit. Much quicker than bothering to engage you in reasoned debate. Been there done that doesn’t do any good with conspiracy theorists. Dude, have you read what you’ve written? You’re the one saying the government and big companies don’t want people to know this stuff and you don’t think that reeks of conspiracy theories?

[ED: So funny. I guess Tony Blair's dodgy dossier on Iraq is something we should have trusted our Government on. There are just so many examples of what we cannot trust Government on.

And we can all trust all big business to behave honestly? That is just soooo naive [or intentionally being argumentative or just plain trolling]. We have a recent example of Merck and Elsevier in Australia:-

“Publisher consulted drug firm on journal content” June 19 2009, The Australian:-

‘THE world’s largest medical publisher asked the manufacturers of anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx which articles they wanted to include in a so-called medical journal on bone health.

Documents tendered to a Federal Court class action reveal staff at publishing company Elsevier, which produces The Lancet, emailed pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co about its “preferred content selection” for the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine.

The publisher also admits the journal is a “single sponsored publication” where most of the content is chosen by Merck with some “input from Elsevier”.

The plaintiff in the class action has alleged the journal was fake and it was simply a marketing exercise designed to promote Vioxx. The court has also heard Merck put the names of high-profile arthritis experts on the editorial board of the phoney journal without telling them they had done so.

Since these revelations, Elsevier has expressed embarrassment over its role and admitted it failed to meet its own “high standards for disclosure” ‘.

And who is the CEO of Elsevier the owners of The Lancet? It is Sir Crispin Davis, Board Director of GlaxoSmithKline who is on the Glaxo board with the CEO of the owners of The Sunday Times James Murdoch.

And Sir Crispin’s brother Judge Nigel Davis’ English High Court judgement took the legal aid away from the UK MMR injured children in their fight for compensation against Glaxo. That there might have been a conflict of interest “had not occurred to” Nigel Davis.

It just goes on and on and on.]
Thelma, on July 12th, 2009 at 10:33 pm Said:

Awww, I like that. Strawman arguments. Do you keep them typed up and at the ready to toss out anytime you need them?

I didn’t argue that government and big business didn’t engage in underhanded, nefarious tactics. I just argued that your comments suggesting a near global conspiracy was full of shit. Oh, and that you’re wrong. See?

I engaged in name calling in my previous posts. Just in case you were wondering, those aren’t ad homs, just flat out personal attacks. Although I was arguing you were a dumbass based on your arguments.

Cool slight of hand on your part. Throw enough text at your readers and quotes that they conclude you must be right.

[ED: Thanks for showing everyone your good ol' boy redneck approach to serious issues in response to a demonstration that no one needs to rely on "global conspiracy". Plain old greed and corruption suffices.

Your answer is "strawman arguments", "full of shit", "flat out personal attacks".

Good stuff my man. Keep it up. Stuff like this helps sooo much to show how reasonable the other guy is.

[Oh and you are banned from this site (again), whatever name you choose to use.]]
Tammy Swanson, on July 15th, 2009 at 8:32 pm Said:

Excellent articles and graphs! Sadly, many still believe the same lies that their doctors tell them (gasp, how could my doctor be WRONG? Oh, they’re Godlike, they can’t be incorrect). Remember, the Catholic church persecuted Galieo for believing the earth revolved around the sun. Yet, he was right. The same with vaccines is true here. Pasteur was favored by Napoleon, and Antoine Bechamp was not. Bechamp theories about germs seem to be finally getting some notice, yet medical ’science’ is always last to believe what is known by parents and other people alike. Vaccines are toxic. Injecting formaldehyde into a child is not good medical practice. You see how they are trying to sell fear, by saying how ‘terrible’ chickenpox is, children can die from it, etc etc etc. Yet, since they are getting rid of chickenpox, shingles seems to be rising among the population. There is so much that medicine does not know about viruses and bacteria, and yet they continually tamper with them and try to ‘get rid’ of them. Maybe they are here for a reason? Maybe the reason that polio became a problem was because of all the DDT spraying? After all, it was a ’summer disease’, the height of DDT spraying on cows and crops.
Aaron Schurger, on July 23rd, 2009 at 6:06 pm Said:

I find most of this terribly misleading. Mortality rates don’t tell you about the many who survive the disease, but are permanently crippled by it (for example, smallpox survivors are often left blind). If you look at the # of cases, it seems clear, in the case of measles for example, that the vaccine had a huge impact. The fact that the mortality rates dropped before the vaccine was introduced is not surprising – as health care and sanitation get better people might be more likely to survive the disease. But personally I’d rather not get the disease in the first place – some of these, like polio or smallpox, have horrible lifelong consequences even if you do survive.

Most of the graphs are also very misleading – you never show us the data from before the vaccine was introduced! I think that it something that you would rather that *we* did not see, because it would be much harder for you to argue against vaccines. To give you an idea (for smallpox at least), there were in the neighborhood of 400,000+ smallpox deaths per year in Europe from 1400 – 1800. Compare that to the graphs here, which only begin long after the vaccine was introduced, and show deaths number in the tens.

[ED: You are wrong. You make several other errors. You say "You never show us the data from before the vaccine was introduced". Go back and look again. Other than for smallpox, the data goes back decades before the vaccines and shows the far more dramatic falls in mortality rates without vaccines. Do you think the natural falls in mortality simply stopped just because a vaccine was introduced? Of course not.

And if we can prevent such serious effects of disease by studying why that has happened all by itself - particularly with improved nutrition, don't you think we could study this effect scientifically to identify exactly what it is that is responsible and develop effective disease treatments? Why are vitamins and minerals so widely ignored by the drug industry in disease treatment? Could that be because there is no money in it - no patents.

The main issue is child health safety and the balance of the risk of disease against risk of the vaccines.

It has always been the drug companies, health authorities and medical professions argument that "children will die" to scare parents into vaccinating. When that is shown to be fallacious with hard fact they change their position as you have to argue something else.

And if you want to compare total health outcomes - adverse effects of disease against adverse effects of vaccines, health authorities refuse to carry out long term studies by independent, unbiased objective researchers of total health outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. These would provide hard data to compare differences on the extent of mortality and adverse effects of vaccines compared to diseases. This would reveal the extent of asthma, allergy, diabetes, SIDS, arthritis and many more conditions which kill and/or debilitate for life and permit a risk/risk comparison of vaccines vs no vaccines.

Can you cite a single such study? Do you expect the world to take your word for it? But these kinds of studies would end all argument and demonstrate the risks of the vaccines more clearly. Don't you think this is important? Why are these studies not done?

Not one paediatric vaccine has been tested in double blinded controlled randomised trials. The controlled trials which are carried out use another vaccine as "placebo" of similarly untested safety [and this invalidates the trials]. The vaccines are also tested only on healthy individuals but then given to all regardless of risk.

Vaccines do not prevent people getting the disease “in the first place”. People can and do contract the diseases after vaccination. This is another example of changing the argument. It has moved to “herd immunity” and “eliminating” the disease. Measles will never be eliminated by vaccination. Official data under FOI confirms there are cases of infectious clinical measles where the disease strain is the vaccine strain.

Incidence rates are also misleading. Medical professionals are notoriously poor at diagnosis. At the moment in the UK cases of measles are over-diagnosed a minimum of 10 times to 16 times. Official UK data comparing reported cases to laboratory confirmed cases shows this. Diagnosis goes through fads in the medical professions and where there is a great deal of publicity over-diagnosis shoots up.

We are also seeing the same effect now with “swine ‘flu” where testing has stopped and the numbers of reported cases has leapt astronomically.

Isn’t mortality the most severe form of adverse effect from disease? If that has been dropping dramatically, don’t you think that other adverse effects of the disease will do so similarly – whether this is because the disease naturally attenuates [becomes milder] or people with better nutrition and living conditions have healthier immune systems to withstand the diseases.

Show us the studies of total health outcomes. Can you cite a single one? No because they are not being done and they would answer this once and for all.

And with all this effort being put into vaccinating the world against more and more milder and milder diseases, don’t you think it might be wiser spend more effort developing effective treatments for the diseases which means entire populations are not put at risk from vaccines?]
Aaron Schurger, on July 23rd, 2009 at 6:10 pm Said:

If you want to make a solid argument, you have to show us incidence rates (i.e. number of cases per year, or number of cases per 100,000). Showing us mortality rates is misleading. Vaccines don’t help you get over the disease – they prevent you from getting it in the first place! So if you want to see if a vaccine was effective you have to look at number of cases.

[ED: You make several errors. The main issue is child health safety and the balance of the risk of disease against risk of the vaccines.

It has always been the drug companies, health authorities and medical professions argument that "children will die" to scare parents into vaccinating. When that is shown to be fallacious with hard fact they change their position as you have to argue something else.

Health authorities refuse to carry out long term studies by independent, unbiased objective researchers of total health outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. These would provide hard data to compare differences on the extent of mortality and adverse effects of vaccines compared to diseases. This would reveal the extent of asthma, allergy, diabetes, SIDS, arthritis and many more conditions which kill and/or debilitate for life and permit a risk/risk comparison of vaccines vs no vaccines.

Can you cite a single such study? Do you expect the world to take your word for it? But these kinds of studies would end all argument and demonstrate the risks of the vaccines more clearly. Don't you think this is important? Why are these studies not done?

Not one paediatric vaccine has been tested in double blinded controlled randomised trials. The controlled trials which are carried out use another vaccine as "placebo" of similarly untested safety [and this invalidates the trials]. The vaccines are also tested only on healthy individuals but then given to all regardless of risk.

Vaccines do not prevent people getting the disease “in the first place”. People can and do contract the diseases after vaccination. This is another example of changing the argument. It has moved to “herd immunity” and “eliminating” the disease. Measles will never be eliminated by vaccination. Official data under FOI confirms there are cases of infectious clinical measles where the disease strain is the vaccine strain.

Incidence rates are also misleading. Medical professionals are notoriously poor at diagnosis. At the moment in the UK cases of measles are over-diagnosed a minimum of 10 times to 16 times. Official UK data comparing reported cases to laboratory confirmed cases shows this. Diagnosis goes through fads in the medical professions and where there is a great deal of publicity over-diagnosis shoots up.

We are also seeing the same effect now with “swine ‘flu” where testing has stopped and the numbers of reported cases has leapt astronomically.

Isn’t mortality the most severe form of adverse effect from disease? If that has been dropping dramatically, don’t you think that other adverse effects of the disease will do so similarly – whether this is because the disease naturally attenuates [becomes milder] or people with better nutrition and living conditions have healthier immune systems to withstand the diseases.

Show us the studies of total health outcomes. Can you cite a single one? No because they are not being done and they would answer this once and for all.

And with all this effort being put into vaccinating the world against more and more milder and milder diseases, don’t you think it might be wiser spend more effort developing effective treatments for the diseases which means entire populations are not put at risk from vaccines?]
Is Maureen O'Sullivan an anti-vaccination looney? - Page 6 - Politics.ie, on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:50 pm Said:

[...] Hence the virtual elimination of childhood mortality (from those diseases), as shown by these carefully compiled statistics and graphs. So, why is so much public money being wasted on vaccination? [Ditto fluoridation...] What [...]
re9luv9u9tion, on August 4th, 2009 at 6:30 am Said:

I find Thelma’s abusive personal attacks are attempts at flaming this thread & offer nothing to this analysis. There is no doubt people are employed to flame, trash, spoil, dumb down, distract, influence, ridicule, blogs & forums who are aware that people are turning off corporate media & instead getting information from places like this.
They are employed by government & powerful corporate interests through media management agencies.
At the same time, the corporations are desperate to come after a free & open internet by only offering fixed package access which limits the sites we can visit unless we pay.
We must protect the internet even if it means keeping people like ‘thelma’ in a job!
Thanks to everyone who has posted here.
thelma, go away unless you can behave in a civil manner. You have absolutely no right to talk to anyone in that way. Please ignore any future posts from this cyber thug until they offer information rather than insults. I will.
Crystal, on September 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 am Said:

Great information!
Drug firms not liable for flu vaccine claims!! - Politics.ie, on September 11th, 2009 at 12:40 am Said:

[...] people want it; some people don't. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill? After all, vaccination doesn't really work. __________________ "If I'm in government fluoridation will go in the first month in [...]
Aaron Schurger, on September 17th, 2009 at 1:38 pm Said:

Dear Ed,
You replies (above) did not really address either of my two questions:

(1) Vaccines are claimed to reduce the *incidence* (not mortality) of a disease. The major vaccines that I know of (polio, measles, etc…) seem to have done this. Can you argue that this is not true?

(2) Citing mortality rates does not say anything about those who survived but were left terribly crippled by the disease. Again, if you get at the incidence in the first place, you reduce the total number of people killed or crippled by the disease. Can you address this point with any hard facts?

Mortality is [# of people dead] / [# of people sick]. This is mostly a function of better treatment and health care, which probably gets better over decades (that is no surprise). Vaccines are only claimed to reduce [# of people sick]. I don’t see that you have shown us any evidence to contradict this claim.

If you think that vaccines do more harm than good overall – well that is a different matter. Given how bad these diseases are, vaccines would have to be enormously harmful in order for this to be true. There isn’t much evidence for this – possibly because vaccines don’t do more harm than good.

[ED: Wow, you commented last 23rd July and come back 17th September!

You are wrong on many levels. Vaccines have been promoted for decades as "saving millions of lives". When that is shown to be false you come here to make a different claim. And that is wrong also.

How many cases of measles in unvaccinated individuals are now so mild that they go undiagnosed [because the symptoms are so mild or the cases are subclinical [no symptoms] or close to it]? That affects incidence of a disease.

You argue that whilst mortality has fallen, morbidity [ie. adverse effects of a disease] will remain at the same level. That is a non sequitur and the evidence does not appear to support it. What is your evidence?

You are making the propositions and you conflate 3 things – 1) incidence 2) morbidity and 3) mortality. And you produce no evidence to support your propositions.

How “bad” do you say childhood diseases like mumps are? Mumps is so mild the consensus in the UK was not to vaccinate prior to the introduction of MMR.]
John Broughall, on September 22nd, 2009 at 8:24 pm Said:

Dear Ed
What a load of deceitful nonsense the measles mortality graph is.
It force fits a line of best fit through data that is confounded by major changes. Anyone with any knowledge of medical statistics would realise you have to do “before & after” Lines when major changes have occured that could impact the data.
The UK measles mortality had essentially bottomed out at c 100 deaths in the UK/year for 15-20 years before the introduction of the single measles vaccine in the late 60s, its introduction led to a sharp change of gradient in your graph, reducing the death rate and then in the late 80’s the introduction of MMR led to a precipitous drop in the death rate which essentially eliminated measles deaths from the UK.
How can you ignore what is a clear association between reductions in the mortality rate & the introduction of mass vaccination?
The incidence graph shows the impact of vaccination even more clearly.
Are you really serious in saying you can extrapolate the line of best fit to say that measles mortality would have disappeared in 2005 or whenever without the introduction of vaccination.

The graph & its superimposed line of best fit is one of the best cases of the abuse of statistics I’ve seen in a long time!

[ED: Let us see who is guilty of "deceitful nonsense" shall we? And as usual with such comments, they start and end with abuse. Thanks - it makes the other person seem so much more reasonable.

You assert without a shred of evidence that measles mortality "bottomed out" in the 1960s and in direct contradiction of the data.

Anyone can see the downward trend continued in exactly the same way despite the introduction of single measles vaccine in 1968 and its use for over 20 years.

This fall was also exactly as measles mortality had been doing during the previous 80 years.]
John Broughall, on September 23rd, 2009 at 5:37 pm Said:

Dear Ed
Try looking at the data, start with the period 52/53 to 66/67, the mortality is clearly flat with downward trend. Please show me the contradictory data in your/Clifford Miller’s graph. The evidence stares out at you, and on in introduction of the single vaccine it starts falling again. What happens in 1986/87…MMR’s introduced & look at the change in the slope, a greater than10 fold drop in 2 years, that has been sustained, hadn’t seen that in the previous 100 odd years.
I’m sorry Ed but fitting a single line of best fit over major confounding changes that could influence the data fully deserves the last comment! It is such a basic error, any undergraduate will tell you to fit lines before & after major events to statistically test for significance in changing the parameter you are measuring, mortality rates in this case.
The effect is also shown with the larger numbers of measles notifications http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733756107 I guess you have seen that graph before.

[ED: The flaws in your hypothesis regarding notifications include 1) substituting notifications for mortality and simultaneously 2) assuming that notifications are reliable.

The flaw in your hypothesis regarding the 1987/8 period is that you are looking at a logarithmic graph where each graduation represents a 10 fold reduction. So when the numbers get very small as they were then, annual fluctuations in data are substantially exaggerated. We are looking at fluctuating and very low numbers of 11 and far fewer cases per annum during that period.

In recent years HPA data regarding notifications of diagnoses of measles by doctors are in one year 10 times higher than actual cases confirmed by laboratory testing and in another 16 times higher. This coincides with all the scare-mongering about the supposed "return of measles" to frighten parents.

There was also no laboratory testing to confirm diagnoses in the periods to which you refer regarding notifications so we have no idea how much reports/diagnoses fell or increased with the fashions of the time.

Diagnoses follow trends, as we have seen with the so-called "swine-flu" where reported cases leapt after any form of testing was abandoned.

Similarly, reports/diagnoses fall with trends such as where doctors believe cases are unlikely to occur such as where a vaccination programme has been introduced.

As an aside, measles will never be eradicated by vaccination because clinical cases of measles do occur from the vaccine virus strain which can also revert to wild type upon passage through the human body].
John Broughall, on September 24th, 2009 at 11:17 pm Said:

Dear Ed
I’m not substituting notifications for mortality, look at the tabulated numbers of deaths if you don’t believe the graphs: http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814
Individual small numbers may be woobly Dear Ed but that arguement isn’t valid when you see how consistent those small numbers are.
“The flaw in your hypothesis regarding the 1987/8 period is that you are looking at a logarithmic graph where each graduation represents a 10 fold reduction.”

The axis may be marked in 10 fold intervals but of course the data are still discrete linear values, the table of DEATHS , if you care to look at it, is remarkably consistent post MMR. For the last 18 years post MMR the annual number of measles deaths ranged from 0 to 4 (one year only)

[ED: You seem to be all over the place.

You argued "The UK measles mortality had essentially bottomed out at c 100 deaths ..." before single measles vaccine was introduced in 1968.

You then claimed "its introduction led to a sharp change of gradient in your graph".

Neither of these claims are correct.

Looking at both the normally plotted measles graph and the logarithmic one [and particularly the analog graph]. The introduction of the single measles vaccine made no discernible difference to measles mortality rates. These continued their steady fall before and after the introduction in 1968 of the single measles vaccine.

You seem to choose to argue measles mortality would not have continued falling after introduction of measles vaccine in 1968. There is no logic to that. It contradicts the clear trend shown by the data.

Diseases do die out naturally. It is a phenomenon known to medicine. Whether measles dies out of its own accord completely we will have to see. [And if ever there are serious falls in the population's overall standards of living one, particularly nutrition and/or in water supplies one can expect an increase in diseases.]

You say “For the last 18 years post MMR the annual number of measles deaths ranged from 0 to 4″.

But in the last 6 years it has ranged from 0 to 1. Does not this suggest it has fallen further?

However, MMR has been around for 21 years not six. MMR vaccination rates are claimed consistently to be at least 80% annually nationally overall during that period. So measles mortality should have “bottomed” shortly after 1988? Yet these figures suggest it is slowing further.

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

In any event with such low levels of measles mortality currently compared to 1901 [roughly 10,000 annually and fallen without vaccines to 100 by 1968] how low do you expect measles mortality to fall? To zero forever?

And to what will you attribute that if you claim mortality “bottomed out” in the 1960s and you will not accept that measles mortality was falling all by itself before vaccination?]
GET FLU JAB - OR BE JAILED: Irish Newspaper Report - Page 16 - Politics.ie, on September 29th, 2009 at 10:08 pm Said:

[...] work. Some people have taken the trouble to compile those statistics and format them into graphs here. What a tale they tell! [...]
dugmaze, on October 20th, 2009 at 1:52 am Said:

What a great site. Thank you for your tireless researching. You guys are definetly saving children’s lives. God bless.
Swine Flu Vaccine Safety Debate [RTE] Poll Request - Page 4 - Politics.ie, on October 20th, 2009 at 7:19 pm Said:

[...] advocate vaccination until they can come up with a full scientific refutation of the arguments in this paper, which shows that vaccination is not the answer to disease. That's a blog. Anyone could have [...]
Phil, on October 27th, 2009 at 5:13 pm Said:

Wonderful compilation of valuable information, especially welcome during the times of this Swine flu hyped up BS. Thank you!….
mike, on October 29th, 2009 at 4:12 pm Said:

thanks for making shit up. I’m sure you’ll help kill thosands of kids with this junk.

[ED: That's not what the official stats show us. And "making it up" - official statistics? And who is killing whom? 99% of adverse vaccine reactions are not reported. And how about the exponential rises in childhood asthma [which kills], allergies [which kill], diabetes [which kills] and others since the expansion of the vaccination programmes?

How many kids and adults are killed every year as a result of vaccination? No one knows. The cases are not officially reported. But we do hear of cases of death like the toddler baby George who died right after the MMR vaccine. No one knows why he died except it was not the MMR vaccine – the expert advising the coroner was a member of the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation who recommend the vaccines and who were responsible for the introduction of the MMR vaccine: Conflicted Government Expert Airbrushes Embarrassing Autism Science

A few other examples. Immune system disorders are a side-effect of vaccination.

21 UK children every year die from food allergies

Asthma stats from Asthma UK:

1 death every seven hours

1400 deaths pa

500 are adults under 65

5.2 million UK people affected

4.1 million adults

1.1 million children]
Vaccines, Cure or Cause? « A Phil-for-an-ill Blog, on November 3rd, 2009 at 7:15 pm Said:

[...] http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ [...]

Anne VR, on March 11th, 2009 at 8:24 pm Said:

Truly impressive work in pulling this together– thank you.

Yves Vincent, on March 12th, 2009 at 5:43 am Said:

Thank you so much for this research. My daughter will have a baby in June and we’ve been talking vaccines…actually … non-vaccine for her baby. But she’s a medical student on her way to be a nurse so she’s in the middle of it and is almost brainwashed about the allopathic model of healing/disease.

Hope she gets it.

Thank you.

Yves Vincent

NH Coalition for Philosophical Exemption, on March 12th, 2009 at 4:09 pm Said:

Thank you for finding and publishing this data!

Dr. Debal Deb, on March 16th, 2009 at 3:30 pm Said:

Wonderful research. Most useful and convincing data [ED: Minor edit] I shall spread the message to everyone in my circle.

Cynthia Janak, on April 9th, 2009 at 1:30 pm Said:

This is great having all this in one place. You put a lot of time and work into this. I know because I did something similar but on a smaller scale. Great job. I would like permission to put a link to your site on my website.

Swine flu - all pork shops closed - DeeperBlue Forums, on May 1st, 2009 at 3:27 am Said:

[...] water, keep your head cool. When your better regained your strength, you might want to read this: Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics ________________Child Health Safety___… Love, Courage and Water, Kars __________________ http://www.freeapnea.nl -~- Discover yourself in [...]

Call for debate on compulsory MMR « Blogging On The Ragged Edge, on June 2nd, 2009 at 7:08 pm Said:

[...] Deaths from childhood afflictions were already plummeting before the introduction of vaccines, see http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ [...]

Tara, on June 30th, 2009 at 5:41 pm Said:

Thank you so much for pulling all this valuable information together. It’s time people learn the truth.

Oinky Oinky don't be a ploinky - Page 3 - Politics.ie, on July 10th, 2009 at 1:38 pm Said:

[...] diseases have been eradicated (from Europe, or the world) by vaccination is a myth. See the graphs here. I know many people who have never been vaccinated. They are the healthiest people I know. The [...]

Thelma, on July 12th, 2009 at 5:59 pm Said:

You absolutely have to be kidding me, right? Propoganda bullshit to bring about the end of vaccinations. WTF for? You like seeing kids die? You like seeing kids suffer needlessly because you got a bug up your butt and decided vaccines were to blame for your problems?

What a load of bullshit. Way to sell it as a conspiracy, too. Dumbass.

[ED: Look at how these people are so angry and so rude. No fact. No intelligent comments. Just abuse and more abuse and invective.

No concept of balancing risk to children of adverse reactions with risk of the vaccines or need [or the lack of it]. The issue is child health safety but they choose to ignore it. Asthma, allergies, autism, diabetes and more all massively increased since the expansion of the vaccine programmes in the 1980s. Children being seriously injured for life and children dying. Leading medical experts like Dr Bernadine Healy, former conservative head of the US National Institutes of Health, former head of the US Red Cross and a member of the US Institutes of Medicine recognising that officials were too quick to dismiss the link between vaccines and autism and that the needed clinical studies of affected children have not been done.

1 in 38 British boys with autism and the problem estimated to costs the UK £28 billion pa according to London School of Economics research.

Instead we see the crass approach reflected here in this comment. And why so angry? It is stupefying. And when people have to fall back on accusations of conspiracy theories they have just lost the argument and the plot.]

Thelma, on July 12th, 2009 at 8:47 pm Said:

Actually, not angry at all. Just pointing out you are full of shit. Much quicker than bothering to engage you in reasoned debate. Been there done that doesn’t do any good with conspiracy theorists. Dude, have you read what you’ve written? You’re the one saying the government and big companies don’t want people to know this stuff and you don’t think that reeks of conspiracy theories?

[ED: So funny. I guess Tony Blair's dodgy dossier on Iraq is something we should have trusted our Government on. There are just so many examples of what we cannot trust Government on.

And we can all trust all big business to behave honestly? That is just soooo naive [or intentionally being argumentative or just plain trolling]. We have a recent example of Merck and Elsevier in Australia:-

“Publisher consulted drug firm on journal content” June 19 2009, The Australian:-

‘THE world’s largest medical publisher asked the manufacturers of anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx which articles they wanted to include in a so-called medical journal on bone health.

Documents tendered to a Federal Court class action reveal staff at publishing company Elsevier, which produces The Lancet, emailed pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co about its “preferred content selection” for the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine.

The publisher also admits the journal is a “single sponsored publication” where most of the content is chosen by Merck with some “input from Elsevier”.

The plaintiff in the class action has alleged the journal was fake and it was simply a marketing exercise designed to promote Vioxx. The court has also heard Merck put the names of high-profile arthritis experts on the editorial board of the phoney journal without telling them they had done so.

Since these revelations, Elsevier has expressed embarrassment over its role and admitted it failed to meet its own “high standards for disclosure” ‘.

And who is the CEO of Elsevier the owners of The Lancet? It is Sir Crispin Davis, Board Director of GlaxoSmithKline who is on the Glaxo board with the CEO of the owners of The Sunday Times James Murdoch.

And Sir Crispin’s brother Judge Nigel Davis’ English High Court judgement took the legal aid away from the UK MMR injured children in their fight for compensation against Glaxo. That there might have been a conflict of interest “had not occurred to” Nigel Davis.

It just goes on and on and on.]

Thelma, on July 12th, 2009 at 10:33 pm Said:

Awww, I like that. Strawman arguments. Do you keep them typed up and at the ready to toss out anytime you need them?

I didn’t argue that government and big business didn’t engage in underhanded, nefarious tactics. I just argued that your comments suggesting a near global conspiracy was full of shit. Oh, and that you’re wrong. See?

I engaged in name calling in my previous posts. Just in case you were wondering, those aren’t ad homs, just flat out personal attacks. Although I was arguing you were a dumbass based on your arguments.

Cool slight of hand on your part. Throw enough text at your readers and quotes that they conclude you must be right.

[ED: Thanks for showing everyone your good ol' boy redneck approach to serious issues in response to a demonstration that no one needs to rely on "global conspiracy". Plain old greed and corruption suffices.

Your answer is "strawman arguments", "full of shit", "flat out personal attacks".

Good stuff my man. Keep it up. Stuff like this helps sooo much to show how reasonable the other guy is.

[Oh and you are banned from this site (again), whatever name you choose to use.]]

Tammy Swanson, on July 15th, 2009 at 8:32 pm Said:

Excellent articles and graphs! Sadly, many still believe the same lies that their doctors tell them (gasp, how could my doctor be WRONG? Oh, they’re Godlike, they can’t be incorrect). Remember, the Catholic church persecuted Galieo for believing the earth revolved around the sun. Yet, he was right. The same with vaccines is true here. Pasteur was favored by Napoleon, and Antoine Bechamp was not. Bechamp theories about germs seem to be finally getting some notice, yet medical ’science’ is always last to believe what is known by parents and other people alike. Vaccines are toxic. Injecting formaldehyde into a child is not good medical practice. You see how they are trying to sell fear, by saying how ‘terrible’ chickenpox is, children can die from it, etc etc etc. Yet, since they are getting rid of chickenpox, shingles seems to be rising among the population. There is so much that medicine does not know about viruses and bacteria, and yet they continually tamper with them and try to ‘get rid’ of them. Maybe they are here for a reason? Maybe the reason that polio became a problem was because of all the DDT spraying? After all, it was a ’summer disease’, the height of DDT spraying on cows and crops.

Aaron Schurger, on July 23rd, 2009 at 6:06 pm Said:

I find most of this terribly misleading. Mortality rates don’t tell you about the many who survive the disease, but are permanently crippled by it (for example, smallpox survivors are often left blind). If you look at the # of cases, it seems clear, in the case of measles for example, that the vaccine had a huge impact. The fact that the mortality rates dropped before the vaccine was introduced is not surprising – as health care and sanitation get better people might be more likely to survive the disease. But personally I’d rather not get the disease in the first place – some of these, like polio or smallpox, have horrible lifelong consequences even if you do survive.

Most of the graphs are also very misleading – you never show us the data from before the vaccine was introduced! I think that it something that you would rather that *we* did not see, because it would be much harder for you to argue against vaccines. To give you an idea (for smallpox at least), there were in the neighborhood of 400,000+ smallpox deaths per year in Europe from 1400 – 1800. Compare that to the graphs here, which only begin long after the vaccine was introduced, and show deaths number in the tens.

[ED: You are wrong. You make several other errors. You say "You never show us the data from before the vaccine was introduced". Go back and look again. Other than for smallpox, the data goes back decades before the vaccines and shows the far more dramatic falls in mortality rates without vaccines. Do you think the natural falls in mortality simply stopped just because a vaccine was introduced? Of course not.

And if we can prevent such serious effects of disease by studying why that has happened all by itself - particularly with improved nutrition, don't you think we could study this effect scientifically to identify exactly what it is that is responsible and develop effective disease treatments? Why are vitamins and minerals so widely ignored by the drug industry in disease treatment? Could that be because there is no money in it - no patents.

The main issue is child health safety and the balance of the risk of disease against risk of the vaccines.

It has always been the drug companies, health authorities and medical professions argument that "children will die" to scare parents into vaccinating. When that is shown to be fallacious with hard fact they change their position as you have to argue something else.

And if you want to compare total health outcomes - adverse effects of disease against adverse effects of vaccines, health authorities refuse to carry out long term studies by independent, unbiased objective researchers of total health outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. These would provide hard data to compare differences on the extent of mortality and adverse effects of vaccines compared to diseases. This would reveal the extent of asthma, allergy, diabetes, SIDS, arthritis and many more conditions which kill and/or debilitate for life and permit a risk/risk comparison of vaccines vs no vaccines.

Can you cite a single such study? Do you expect the world to take your word for it? But these kinds of studies would end all argument and demonstrate the risks of the vaccines more clearly. Don't you think this is important? Why are these studies not done?

Not one paediatric vaccine has been tested in double blinded controlled randomised trials. The controlled trials which are carried out use another vaccine as "placebo" of similarly untested safety [and this invalidates the trials]. The vaccines are also tested only on healthy individuals but then given to all regardless of risk.

Vaccines do not prevent people getting the disease “in the first place”. People can and do contract the diseases after vaccination. This is another example of changing the argument. It has moved to “herd immunity” and “eliminating” the disease. Measles will never be eliminated by vaccination. Official data under FOI confirms there are cases of infectious clinical measles where the disease strain is the vaccine strain.

Incidence rates are also misleading. Medical professionals are notoriously poor at diagnosis. At the moment in the UK cases of measles are over-diagnosed a minimum of 10 times to 16 times. Official UK data comparing reported cases to laboratory confirmed cases shows this. Diagnosis goes through fads in the medical professions and where there is a great deal of publicity over-diagnosis shoots up.

We are also seeing the same effect now with “swine ‘flu” where testing has stopped and the numbers of reported cases has leapt astronomically.

Isn’t mortality the most severe form of adverse effect from disease? If that has been dropping dramatically, don’t you think that other adverse effects of the disease will do so similarly – whether this is because the disease naturally attenuates [becomes milder] or people with better nutrition and living conditions have healthier immune systems to withstand the diseases.

Show us the studies of total health outcomes. Can you cite a single one? No because they are not being done and they would answer this once and for all.

And with all this effort being put into vaccinating the world against more and more milder and milder diseases, don’t you think it might be wiser spend more effort developing effective treatments for the diseases which means entire populations are not put at risk from vaccines?]

Aaron Schurger, on July 23rd, 2009 at 6:10 pm Said:

If you want to make a solid argument, you have to show us incidence rates (i.e. number of cases per year, or number of cases per 100,000). Showing us mortality rates is misleading. Vaccines don’t help you get over the disease – they prevent you from getting it in the first place! So if you want to see if a vaccine was effective you have to look at number of cases.

[ED: You make several errors. The main issue is child health safety and the balance of the risk of disease against risk of the vaccines.

It has always been the drug companies, health authorities and medical professions argument that "children will die" to scare parents into vaccinating. When that is shown to be fallacious with hard fact they change their position as you have to argue something else.

Health authorities refuse to carry out long term studies by independent, unbiased objective researchers of total health outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. These would provide hard data to compare differences on the extent of mortality and adverse effects of vaccines compared to diseases. This would reveal the extent of asthma, allergy, diabetes, SIDS, arthritis and many more conditions which kill and/or debilitate for life and permit a risk/risk comparison of vaccines vs no vaccines.

Can you cite a single such study? Do you expect the world to take your word for it? But these kinds of studies would end all argument and demonstrate the risks of the vaccines more clearly. Don't you think this is important? Why are these studies not done?

Not one paediatric vaccine has been tested in double blinded controlled randomised trials. The controlled trials which are carried out use another vaccine as "placebo" of similarly untested safety [and this invalidates the trials]. The vaccines are also tested only on healthy individuals but then given to all regardless of risk.

Vaccines do not prevent people getting the disease “in the first place”. People can and do contract the diseases after vaccination. This is another example of changing the argument. It has moved to “herd immunity” and “eliminating” the disease. Measles will never be eliminated by vaccination. Official data under FOI confirms there are cases of infectious clinical measles where the disease strain is the vaccine strain.

Incidence rates are also misleading. Medical professionals are notoriously poor at diagnosis. At the moment in the UK cases of measles are over-diagnosed a minimum of 10 times to 16 times. Official UK data comparing reported cases to laboratory confirmed cases shows this. Diagnosis goes through fads in the medical professions and where there is a great deal of publicity over-diagnosis shoots up.

We are also seeing the same effect now with “swine ‘flu” where testing has stopped and the numbers of reported cases has leapt astronomically.

Isn’t mortality the most severe form of adverse effect from disease? If that has been dropping dramatically, don’t you think that other adverse effects of the disease will do so similarly – whether this is because the disease naturally attenuates [becomes milder] or people with better nutrition and living conditions have healthier immune systems to withstand the diseases.

Show us the studies of total health outcomes. Can you cite a single one? No because they are not being done and they would answer this once and for all.

And with all this effort being put into vaccinating the world against more and more milder and milder diseases, don’t you think it might be wiser spend more effort developing effective treatments for the diseases which means entire populations are not put at risk from vaccines?]

Is Maureen O'Sullivan an anti-vaccination looney? - Page 6 - Politics.ie, on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:50 pm Said:

[...] Hence the virtual elimination of childhood mortality (from those diseases), as shown by these carefully compiled statistics and graphs. So, why is so much public money being wasted on vaccination? [Ditto fluoridation...] What [...]

re9luv9u9tion, on August 4th, 2009 at 6:30 am Said:

I find Thelma’s abusive personal attacks are attempts at flaming this thread & offer nothing to this analysis. There is no doubt people are employed to flame, trash, spoil, dumb down, distract, influence, ridicule, blogs & forums who are aware that people are turning off corporate media & instead getting information from places like this.
They are employed by government & powerful corporate interests through media management agencies.
At the same time, the corporations are desperate to come after a free & open internet by only offering fixed package access which limits the sites we can visit unless we pay.
We must protect the internet even if it means keeping people like ‘thelma’ in a job!
Thanks to everyone who has posted here.
thelma, go away unless you can behave in a civil manner. You have absolutely no right to talk to anyone in that way. Please ignore any future posts from this cyber thug until they offer information rather than insults. I will.

Crystal, on September 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 am Said:

Great information!

Drug firms not liable for flu vaccine claims!! - Politics.ie, on September 11th, 2009 at 12:40 am Said:

[...] people want it; some people don't. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill? After all, vaccination doesn't really work. __________________ "If I'm in government fluoridation will go in the first month in [...]

Aaron Schurger, on September 17th, 2009 at 1:38 pm Said:

Dear Ed,
You replies (above) did not really address either of my two questions:

(1) Vaccines are claimed to reduce the *incidence* (not mortality) of a disease. The major vaccines that I know of (polio, measles, etc…) seem to have done this. Can you argue that this is not true?

(2) Citing mortality rates does not say anything about those who survived but were left terribly crippled by the disease. Again, if you get at the incidence in the first place, you reduce the total number of people killed or crippled by the disease. Can you address this point with any hard facts?

Mortality is [# of people dead] / [# of people sick]. This is mostly a function of better treatment and health care, which probably gets better over decades (that is no surprise). Vaccines are only claimed to reduce [# of people sick]. I don’t see that you have shown us any evidence to contradict this claim.

If you think that vaccines do more harm than good overall – well that is a different matter. Given how bad these diseases are, vaccines would have to be enormously harmful in order for this to be true. There isn’t much evidence for this – possibly because vaccines don’t do more harm than good.

[ED: Wow, you commented last 23rd July and come back 17th September!

You are wrong on many levels. Vaccines have been promoted for decades as "saving millions of lives". When that is shown to be false you come here to make a different claim. And that is wrong also.

How many cases of measles in unvaccinated individuals are now so mild that they go undiagnosed [because the symptoms are so mild or the cases are subclinical [no symptoms] or close to it]? That affects incidence of a disease.

You argue that whilst mortality has fallen, morbidity [ie. adverse effects of a disease] will remain at the same level. That is a non sequitur and the evidence does not appear to support it. What is your evidence?

You are making the propositions and you conflate 3 things – 1) incidence 2) morbidity and 3) mortality. And you produce no evidence to support your propositions.

How “bad” do you say childhood diseases like mumps are? Mumps is so mild the consensus in the UK was not to vaccinate prior to the introduction of MMR.]

John Broughall, on September 22nd, 2009 at 8:24 pm Said:

Dear Ed
What a load of deceitful nonsense the measles mortality graph is.
It force fits a line of best fit through data that is confounded by major changes. Anyone with any knowledge of medical statistics would realise you have to do “before & after” Lines when major changes have occured that could impact the data.
The UK measles mortality had essentially bottomed out at c 100 deaths in the UK/year for 15-20 years before the introduction of the single measles vaccine in the late 60s, its introduction led to a sharp change of gradient in your graph, reducing the death rate and then in the late 80’s the introduction of MMR led to a precipitous drop in the death rate which essentially eliminated measles deaths from the UK.
How can you ignore what is a clear association between reductions in the mortality rate & the introduction of mass vaccination?
The incidence graph shows the impact of vaccination even more clearly.
Are you really serious in saying you can extrapolate the line of best fit to say that measles mortality would have disappeared in 2005 or whenever without the introduction of vaccination.

The graph & its superimposed line of best fit is one of the best cases of the abuse of statistics I’ve seen in a long time!

[ED: Let us see who is guilty of "deceitful nonsense" shall we? And as usual with such comments, they start and end with abuse. Thanks - it makes the other person seem so much more reasonable.

You assert without a shred of evidence that measles mortality "bottomed out" in the 1960s and in direct contradiction of the data.

Anyone can see the downward trend continued in exactly the same way despite the introduction of single measles vaccine in 1968 and its use for over 20 years.

This fall was also exactly as measles mortality had been doing during the previous 80 years.]

John Broughall, on September 23rd, 2009 at 5:37 pm Said:

Dear Ed
Try looking at the data, start with the period 52/53 to 66/67, the mortality is clearly flat with downward trend. Please show me the contradictory data in your/Clifford Miller’s graph. The evidence stares out at you, and on in introduction of the single vaccine it starts falling again. What happens in 1986/87…MMR’s introduced & look at the change in the slope, a greater than10 fold drop in 2 years, that has been sustained, hadn’t seen that in the previous 100 odd years.
I’m sorry Ed but fitting a single line of best fit over major confounding changes that could influence the data fully deserves the last comment! It is such a basic error, any undergraduate will tell you to fit lines before & after major events to statistically test for significance in changing the parameter you are measuring, mortality rates in this case.
The effect is also shown with the larger numbers of measles notifications http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733756107 I guess you have seen that graph before.

[ED: The flaws in your hypothesis regarding notifications include 1) substituting notifications for mortality and simultaneously 2) assuming that notifications are reliable.

The flaw in your hypothesis regarding the 1987/8 period is that you are looking at a logarithmic graph where each graduation represents a 10 fold reduction. So when the numbers get very small as they were then, annual fluctuations in data are substantially exaggerated. We are looking at fluctuating and very low numbers of 11 and far fewer cases per annum during that period.

In recent years HPA data regarding notifications of diagnoses of measles by doctors are in one year 10 times higher than actual cases confirmed by laboratory testing and in another 16 times higher. This coincides with all the scare-mongering about the supposed "return of measles" to frighten parents.

There was also no laboratory testing to confirm diagnoses in the periods to which you refer regarding notifications so we have no idea how much reports/diagnoses fell or increased with the fashions of the time.

Diagnoses follow trends, as we have seen with the so-called "swine-flu" where reported cases leapt after any form of testing was abandoned.

Similarly, reports/diagnoses fall with trends such as where doctors believe cases are unlikely to occur such as where a vaccination programme has been introduced.

As an aside, measles will never be eradicated by vaccination because clinical cases of measles do occur from the vaccine virus strain which can also revert to wild type upon passage through the human body].

John Broughall, on September 24th, 2009 at 11:17 pm Said:

Dear Ed
I’m not substituting notifications for mortality, look at the tabulated numbers of deaths if you don’t believe the graphs: http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814
Individual small numbers may be woobly Dear Ed but that arguement isn’t valid when you see how consistent those small numbers are.
“The flaw in your hypothesis regarding the 1987/8 period is that you are looking at a logarithmic graph where each graduation represents a 10 fold reduction.”

The axis may be marked in 10 fold intervals but of course the data are still discrete linear values, the table of DEATHS , if you care to look at it, is remarkably consistent post MMR. For the last 18 years post MMR the annual number of measles deaths ranged from 0 to 4 (one year only)

[ED: You seem to be all over the place.

You argued "The UK measles mortality had essentially bottomed out at c 100 deaths ..." before single measles vaccine was introduced in 1968.

You then claimed "its introduction led to a sharp change of gradient in your graph".

Neither of these claims are correct.

Looking at both the normally plotted measles graph and the logarithmic one [and particularly the analog graph]. The introduction of the single measles vaccine made no discernible difference to measles mortality rates. These continued their steady fall before and after the introduction in 1968 of the single measles vaccine.

You seem to choose to argue measles mortality would not have continued falling after introduction of measles vaccine in 1968. There is no logic to that. It contradicts the clear trend shown by the data.

Diseases do die out naturally. It is a phenomenon known to medicine. Whether measles dies out of its own accord completely we will have to see. [And if ever there are serious falls in the population's overall standards of living one, particularly nutrition and/or in water supplies one can expect an increase in diseases.]

You say “For the last 18 years post MMR the annual number of measles deaths ranged from 0 to 4″.

But in the last 6 years it has ranged from 0 to 1. Does not this suggest it has fallen further?

However, MMR has been around for 21 years not six. MMR vaccination rates are claimed consistently to be at least 80% annually nationally overall during that period. So measles mortality should have “bottomed” shortly after 1988? Yet these figures suggest it is slowing further.

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

In any event with such low levels of measles mortality currently compared to 1901 [roughly 10,000 annually and fallen without vaccines to 100 by 1968] how low do you expect measles mortality to fall? To zero forever?

And to what will you attribute that if you claim mortality “bottomed out” in the 1960s and you will not accept that measles mortality was falling all by itself before vaccination?]

GET FLU JAB - OR BE JAILED: Irish Newspaper Report - Page 16 - Politics.ie, on September 29th, 2009 at 10:08 pm Said:

[...] work. Some people have taken the trouble to compile those statistics and format them into graphs here. What a tale they tell! [...]

dugmaze, on October 20th, 2009 at 1:52 am Said:

What a great site. Thank you for your tireless researching. You guys are definetly saving children’s lives. God bless.

Swine Flu Vaccine Safety Debate [RTE] Poll Request - Page 4 - Politics.ie, on October 20th, 2009 at 7:19 pm Said:

[...] advocate vaccination until they can come up with a full scientific refutation of the arguments in this paper, which shows that vaccination is not the answer to disease. That's a blog. Anyone could have [...]

Phil, on October 27th, 2009 at 5:13 pm Said:

Wonderful compilation of valuable information, especially welcome during the times of this Swine flu hyped up BS. Thank you!….

mike, on October 29th, 2009 at 4:12 pm Said:

thanks for making shit up. I’m sure you’ll help kill thosands of kids with this junk.

[ED: That's not what the official stats show us. And "making it up" - official statistics? And who is killing whom? 99% of adverse vaccine reactions are not reported. And how about the exponential rises in childhood asthma [which kills], allergies [which kill], diabetes [which kills] and others since the expansion of the vaccination programmes?

How many kids and adults are killed every year as a result of vaccination? No one knows. The cases are not officially reported. But we do hear of cases of death like the toddler baby George who died right after the MMR vaccine. No one knows why he died except it was not the MMR vaccine – the expert advising the coroner was a member of the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation who recommend the vaccines and who were responsible for the introduction of the MMR vaccine: Conflicted Government Expert Airbrushes Embarrassing Autism Science

A few other examples. Immune system disorders are a side-effect of vaccination.

21 UK children every year die from food allergies

Asthma stats from Asthma UK:

1 death every seven hours

1400 deaths pa

500 are adults under 65

5.2 million UK people affected

4.1 million adults

1.1 million children]

Vaccines, Cure or Cause? « A Phil-for-an-ill Blog, on November 3rd, 2009 at 7:15 pm Said:

[...] http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ [...]

Child Health Safety_

Key Data for Parents

Recent Posts

Pages