Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics | ________________Child Health Safety________________

228 Responses

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

Truly impressive work in pulling this together– thank you.
Yves Vincent, on March 12, 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 12, 2009 at 4:09 pm said:

Thank you for finding and publishing this data!
Dr. Debal Deb, on March 16, 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 9, 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 1, 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 2, 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 30, 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 10, 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 [...]
Tammy Swanson, on July 15, 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 23, 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 23, 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 23, 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 4, 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 2, 2009 at 4:56 am said:

Great information!
Drug firms not liable for flu vaccine claims!! - Politics.ie, on September 11, 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 17, 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 22, 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 23, 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 24, 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 29, 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 20, 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 20, 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 27, 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 29, 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 3, 2009 at 7:15 pm said:

[...] http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ [...]
Maine Liberty Journal » Vaccine graphs, on November 10, 2009 at 3:02 am said:

[...] vaccines really save the populations who received them? Doesn’t look like it. This is the data the drug industry do not want you to see. Here 2 centuries of UK, USA and [...]
Linda, on November 13, 2009 at 11:09 am said:

Many thanks for all your work. I had mumps on my first day of school….no ill effects. Then in rapid succession I got rubella (hardly noticed but I got lifelong immunity confirmed by a blood test when I was 19), then measles and scarlet fever….I’m still here. Don’t know why I didn’t get chicken pox til I was 17 (the worst of the so-called childhood diseases at that age…..wish I’d got it earlier as I missed mock A levels….my husband got chicken pox at age 24…he was so ill) My eldest daughter had mumps and rubella and I did let her have the single measles vaccination at 18 months.. Why did my GP push for her to have the MMR at ages 15? (I refused) I asked him. No answer. I asked how many children had blood tests to see if they had in fact got antibodies from the vaccination (not necessarily protection from catching the disease as you know) He looked at me in surprise. I asked him ‘What if a girl has the rubella vaccine but happens to be under the weather and the vaccine doesn’t take….and then she thinks she’s protected and doesn’t avoid rubella when she’s pregnant?’…again he looked at me in surprise. I asked him why he trusted that the vaccines always worked and that there were no side effects. I don’t go to him any more. It’s very, very difficult for conventionally trained medical folks to step outside the box. My husband taught classical guitar to a charming, gentle psychologist who teaches medical students. She sees many of them them turn from eager, keen, bright youngsters into ‘clones’ who daren’t rock the boat in case they get disciplined by the old boys. She herself encountered arrogance from some medics when her rmother was ill. She returned to her students and begged them not to become arrogant when they qualify. Several sneered and said they were entitled to! Sigh! I’m a nurse and I’ve worked with wonderful, wonderful medics whom I would trust with my life so I’m not a ‘doctor basher’ but things have to come out in the open. If they didn’t we’d still be bleeding and purging! Look up how George Washington died….thanks in part to the ‘best medics of the day’. They weren’t malevolent, they just believed they were doing their best. What’s that quote about truth going through three stages? First it’s ridiculed, then it’s vehemently fought against and then it’s accepted as self-evident. Something like that. I just can’t believe that injecting noxious stuff directly into the body, bypassing the normal protective measurs of the mucous membranes etc is beneficial, especially into tiny babies (even newborns!) when their immune system is not fully functional. How can it be right to give them a cocktail of umpteen vaccines (where would they get Hep B anyway? And where’s the vaccine for Hep C….far more contagious) Surely good nutrition, clean water, decent housing etc is far more beneficial to produce a sound immune system. How on earth did the human race survive for eons without vaccination? How come we didn’t all die out? Animals too….they’re being affected by their multiple vaccinations….how did animals survive? Somehow all this vaccination hype just doesn’t add up. And how can one type of flu vaccination ‘protect’ against a rapidly mutating virus? And have there been double’blind trials to test it? Sorry to go on…you get the picture. I’m sorry that some commenters have to get so cross. I am a Quaker and in our advices and queries (not a creed or dogma) one stands out ‘Consider it possible that you may be wrong’ Once upon a time they said that the USA would fold without the slave trade….a few wise good souls didn’t go along with that. The slave trade was abolished….what happened? Well the USA went on to become the world’s biggest economy. I know it’s not healthy now but you see what I mean.
Best wishes.
Η γρίπη, οι χοίροι και οι χειρότεροι… « Το Φιστίκι, on December 10, 2009 at 9:03 pm said:

[...] εμφανιστούν τα αντίστοιχα εμβόλια! Δείτε τα γραφήματα εδώ και εδώ. Στον Τρίτο κόσμο που όλα τα παραπάνω θετικά [...]
Blake, on January 8, 2010 at 2:10 pm said:

Hi Dr Ed,
Thanks for the awesome work!!
Stuart Allison, on January 18, 2010 at 12:39 pm said:

Reading through the many responses, some wild, some insulting and some thoughtful and reasoned, I have to conclude that the case is unproven either way. It appears that the statistics, as is ALWAYS the case with such data, can be interpreted to support whatever case the proponant wishes to make. ‘There are lies, damn lies and statistics’.
Whatever anyone says, no matter how reasonable, passionate or even regardless of whether they are right or wrong, people will believe what they want, as they always have.
Until we develop ways to enshrine honesty and a lack of bias into science (by divorcing ALL research from commercial sponsorship) we will never find the truth in any argument of this type.
By all means continue to ague the toss with each other, but please don’t infect the world with views that can at best be described as incomplete and at worst as positively damaging.
In short, if you don’t actually know (which, on the basis of the arguments put her, you don’t) please don’t pretend you do.

[ED: Noted that your comments are directed to some of the comments posted by others and not to the main information published on this page.]
Här är statistiken läkemedelsföretagen inte vill att du ska se « EkoLiv, on January 21, 2010 at 12:06 pm said:

[...] http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ Categories: Allergier, Svininfluensan, Vaccination Etiketter:Diagram, Difteri, Influensa, [...]
Judy Dutfield, on January 26, 2010 at 11:16 pm said:

I have found a report in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, in April 2005, which looked at the health outcomes of children who are fully vaccinated, who are partially vaccinated, and who are not vaccinated at all. This was a blind study where parents were asked to report atopic illnesses, ie asthma and eczema. The outcome was that the largest number of atopic illnesses occurred in the children who were fully vaccinated, the second highest were in those partially vaccinated and the lowest number was in the children who were unvaccinated.

This was a small study involving just under 3,000 children but we desperately need Governments to open their minds and conduct larger scale studies of the overall health differences between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.

For instance, it should not be difficult to discover from statistics whether autism is less prevalent in unvaccinated children – or whether it exists at all in the unvaccinated.

Out of interest, does anyone know of a case of autism in an unvaccinated child?

[ED: Have you got a reference for the report?]
Judy Dutfield, on January 29, 2010 at 1:04 am said:

I can’t remember where I originally found the reference so I used Google to check it was correct. I looked up the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the article is there on their website, in the 2005 April issue.

After the outcome of the Dr Wakefield hearing today, which I think is one of the greatest travesties of justice I have ever seen in this country in my lifetime (I am 64), I would like to bring to everyone’s attention the video accessible from the homepage of the cryshame website, called Selective Hearing, Brian Deer and the GMC.

Judy
trevor, on February 3, 2010 at 2:54 am said:

If anyone wishes to have themselves or their children vaccinated ( and bear in mind that it is a parent’s obligation to do the very best for their children ) , they should endeavour to ascertain the precise contents of each and every injection / pill AND the SOURCE of those ingredients ( some may have extracts from aborted human babies, all sorts of tissue from dogs/cats/pigs/monkeys….. ) and most will have metals like aluminium ( people are now shunning toiletries with aluminium in, and you only put them on your skin), and then find out how the vaccination was tested for safety, if it was tested on animals it is, logically, only suitable for use on that type of animal — ( check out thalidomide for morning sickness , & the wrong breed of rabbit) and if you still think you want this turgid cocktail injected into your blood, ask to see data about recommended daily intake levels of the various ingredients – you may be disturbed to find that some vaccinations have five or more times safe acceptable quantities – and that figure applies to adults ! ! ! there is NO DATA AVAILABLE on safe levels for children – probably because the medical profession and the pharmco’s won’t permit research, fearing litigation.

I did not see a graph above showing that modern medicinal practices and drugs are the biggest killer on the planet, probably for a similar reason (litigation) but hazard a guess that m.m. wins by a long mile!
Ernest Garrison, on February 11, 2010 at 10:22 am said:

Judy said: “This was a blind study where parents were asked to report atopic illnesses, ie asthma and eczema. The outcome was that the largest number of atopic illnesses occurred in the children who were fully vaccinated, the second highest were in those partially vaccinated and the lowest number was in the children who were unvaccinated.”

From the Study:
“Methods

Surveys were mailed to 2964 member households of the National Vaccine Information Center, which represents people concerned about vaccine safety, to ascertain vaccination and atopic disease status.”

A blind or blinded experiment is a scientific experiment where some of the persons involved are prevented from knowing certain information that might lead to conscious of unconscious bias on their part, invalidating the results. – Wikipedia

This wasn’t blind. The parents themselves are as subject to bias as the researchers. This was a survey, and proves nothing except the parents reports.

[ED: "Proves nothing"? The authors of this formally published paper state "A sensitivity analysis indicated that substantial biases would be required to overturn the observed associations."

The relationship between vaccine refusal and self-report of atopic disease in children

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Volume 115, Issue 4, Pages 737-744 (April 2005)

And Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source, edited by nine-year-olds and some people who sadly spend their lives on it. But according to the definition you have cited from it this was a blinded trial.

The paper states "..... the investigators never knew participant identities nor had access to information that could be used to identify households. The Institutional Review Board of the University of Illinois at Chicago reviewed and approved the study protocol."]
Vaccines are safe, effective and necessary… or are they? «, on April 29, 2010 at 6:34 pm said:

[...] Lastly – want to see some graphs of how childhood illness have declined over the last century – before introduction of vaccines and after introduction of vaccines? This is a site worth visiting: http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ [...]
Homeschool HUB co.za | Blog | Vaccines are safe, effective and necessary… or are they?, on May 6, 2010 at 3:05 pm said:

[...] Lastly – want to see some graphs of how childhood illness have declined over the last century – before introduction of vaccines and after introduction of vaccines? This is a site worth visiting: http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ [...]
Vaccines are safe, effective and necessary… or are they?, on May 8, 2010 at 12:15 pm said:

[...] Lastly – want to see some graphs of how childhood illness have declined over the last century – before introduction of vaccines and after introduction of vaccines? This is a site worth visiting: http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ [...]
george butler, on May 22, 2010 at 1:29 am said:

I thank you for this information, you are another soldier in the battle for truth! May god bless you!
Will you be vaccinating? - Pregnancy - First Trimester Forum (Page 21), on June 8, 2010 at 1:07 am said:

[...] with a bunch of stats and graphs showing how the diseases were already declining before vaccines. http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ Just some food for [...]
JulG7 – Le blog » Blog Archive » Vaccination : une erreur monumentale?, on June 8, 2010 at 6:37 pm said:

[...] http://www.visiondepoque.wordpress.com/ http://www.onnouscachetout.com http://www.medecines-douces.com childhealthsafety.wordpress.com [...]
Cliff York, on June 17, 2010 at 4:12 am said:

Keep up the good work.

Cliff

_____
Dr. Arun Mukherjee, on June 19, 2010 at 7:21 pm said:

This is mind-blowing.
Where can I pick up a PDF version to print and put up in our Notice Board as well as to circulate it among parents coming to our Neuro-Rehab cenmter for children with Autism at delhi, India?

_____
childhealthsafety, on June 28, 2010 at 7:54 am said:

James Cole’s activities on the web, including Wikipedia [under the pseudonyms jdc 325 and 325 jdc] attacking people over the vaccines-to-autism issue are prolific. Here he cites 4 deaths in 2006, 2007 and 2008 as evidence to claim the graph found here
Measles Mortality England and Wales 1901-1999 is misleading when regrettably James Cole is trolling. His comments are more than misleading. He omitted crucial information which demonstrates that.

The data James Cole cites is worse than trivial. It is irrelevant to the overall trend in rapidly falling measles mortality for over 100 years and his omissions make it grossly misleading. It makes no difference to the overall trend shown by the data on the graph derived from millions of individuals.

Regrettably, it is people like James Cole who put propaganda on the internet which is misleading and cherry picking, supporting a culture in medicine resulting in children being exposed to vaccine adverse reactions from vaccines which are were long recognised officially to be inappropriate – examples of mumps and rubella are cases in point.

The HPA data he cites relate to deaths not from measles infections acquired since 1999 but from measles infections acquired during the 1980s or earlier and one from a “13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs”. This is confirmed by the HPA in the official statistics which James Cole [aka jdc 325 and 325 jdc] himself cites.

“In 2006 there was one measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Another death in 2008 was also due to acute measles in unvaccinated child with congenital immunodeficiency whose condition did not require treatment with immunoglobulin. Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.

All other measles deaths, since 1992, shown above are in older individuals and were caused by the late effects of measles. These infections were acquired during the 1980s or earlier, when epidemics of measles occurred.“

This shows that there have been no relevant deaths from measles infections acquired since 1992 – exactly what the trend line of the graph Cole complains about shows should be expected.

The graph line Cole complains about is also a trend line. It shows the strong trend of measles mortality data for 100 years which remains unaffected by the 4 deaths he cites. Annual measles mortality rapidly fell without vaccines from highs of 25,634 in years like 1915 to lows of 37 in years like 1960 and that fall continued regardless to the present day.

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.

We are grateful to James Cole for raising this point because analysis demonstrates the validity of the points we make on this page. It also demonstrates that Cole trolls the internet defaming others when it is Cole who is responsible for disseminating gross misinformation.

_____
Microbe, on June 28, 2010 at 9:53 pm said:

What tosh CHS, look at the actual data http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814 Single measles vaccine introduced 1967/8 then MMR in 1988. Deaths had been declining, I totally agree, until the early 50′s but then the death rate stabilised at c 100/yr until the single measles vaccine was introduced: pre vaccibne rates from 1954 varied from 31 to174/yr (when you cherry pick data to give the low point CHS at least get the value right .. 37 in 1960 actually it was 31) try 152 deaths the next year in 1961, or 127 2 years later or 99 the year before the single vaccine was introduced, there was no deceasing trend CHS for 15 years before vaccination, just about 100 kids a year, give or take, dying in the UK of a perfectly preventable disease, do you really want to go back there???

_____
Culex, on June 29, 2010 at 2:47 am said:

Yet the “graph” (it is a frequency polygon rather than a graph, as values cannot be interpolated) to which you repeatedly refer seems to be misleading in itself.

Whence did the “deaths per 55,000,000″ data originate?

_____
jdc 325, on June 29, 2010 at 5:55 pm said:

People are still dying from measles infections acquired prior to the introduction of MMR. Whoever is behind CHS wants us to go back to the days before MMR, when measles epidemics occurred that led to deaths from both acute measles infection and late effects of measles.

That take-up of measles-containing vaccine (specifically MMR) was high enough from 1992 onwards to prevent outbreaks and any deaths from acute measles infection shows that the vaccine was doing precisely what was expected of it – reducing incidence of measles and lowering the risk of death from acute measles infection.

That deaths due to acute measles have occurred since vaccination levels dropped shows just how dangerously wrong Child Health Safety, Clifford Miller, John Stone, and Jabs really are
childhealthsafety, on June 29, 2010 at 6:27 pm said:

Your problem is that
the official statistics show that measles deaths were diminishing rapidly regardless;
the drug industry recognised that if they did not get their vaccines into the market by the late 1960s it could be their last chance;
they then claimed the credit for their vaccines for what was already happening – a rapid fall in measles deaths;
we now have epidemic levels of all manner of chronic conditions in children: autism, asthma, diabetes and many more;
serious adverse reactions to vaccines go unreported and uninvestigated in an atmosphere of hysteria if anyone criticises anything to do with vaccines, the world having been sold a dummy on the issue;

So from your perspective is it better to have millions of children with chronic illnesses all their lives which cost in social and economic terms.

And two deaths from measles infections in seriously ill and immunocompromised individuals from infection acquired in 2006 and 2008 is no reason for every child in the country to be put at risk of serious adverse vaccine reactions.

_____

jdc 325, on June 29, 2010 at 8:29 pm said:

An open letter to Clifford Miller:

Clifford, your graph is misleading, out-of-date, and inaccurate. Acute measles infection has claimed lives in years when your graph predicted no deaths would occur (and this prediction was said to hold even if no-one were vaccinated according to CHS). No amount of goalpost-shifting (or exclusion of deaths that are proving to be so inconvenient to you and your daft graph) can possibly save your out-of-date and misleading graph.

The text on Child Health Safety is even worse. I can only hope (for the sake of your reputation) that you are not the author of the following:

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.

This is a truly moronic statement. The graph is not only inaccurate, misleading and out-of-date, but also contains figures for deaths from measles in a country with measles-containing vaccine coverage that has been at or above 80% since the introduction of MMR in 1988. How on earth can you (or anyone else) possibly justify using the figures for measles mortality in a country with 80%+ levels of vaccination to suggest that the chances of death if no one were vaccinated would be less than 1 in 55 million? Quite simply, you can’t.

Do you genuinely believe that, in the event of a zero rate of vaccination, measles mortality will decrease as incidence of measles increases? If so, then you’re even dafter than your graph.

In the first half of the 1980s, when measles coverage was around 52-62% [WHO figures], there were roughly 450,000 cases of measles (about 90,000 per year), there were 80 deaths (16 per year) and the mortality rate was 5-6,000 (cases of measles per death from measles infection). [Figures from the HPA.] In 1988, the year single measles vaccine was phased out in favour of MMR, there were 86,000 cases of measles and 16 deaths from measles. In 2006, there were nearly four thousand cases of measles and one death from acute measles infection. In 2008, there was at least one death from acute measles infection and there were 5,000 cases. [HPA, provisional data for 2008.] Mortality from measles was around 1 in 5000 in the 1980s – the same as it is now. A return to the levels of vaccine coverage seen in the early 1980s would see a return to the level of deaths from acute measles infection that we had during the 1980s. [And it isn't 'just' people with immunodeficiency who are at risk of dying from acute measles infection. Take, for example, the case of the Duisburg outbreak in Germany. [Note: link goes to a PDF.] The two children who developed encephalitis and died were aged 2 months, and 2 years. The infant was too young for vaccination and would have relied upon herd immunity for protection. It’s also perhaps worth noting the following: “Measles-related complications were more common in younger children.” … “Overall, 77 (15%) interviewed patients were hospitalized for a median duration of 6 hospitalization days (range 2–97) and a total of 693 days.” That 15% of cases required hospitalisation for an average of six days does not suggest that measles in 2006 is ‘nothing to worry about’ as so many anti-vaccine campaigners are keen to imply. For all of us, but especially for those with younger children, measles is certainly something to fear.]

All it would take to kill hundreds in the next decade would be for vaccination coverage to drop sufficiently. It wouldn’t even have to drop to zero – somewhere between 55-75% ought to do it. And this is, apparently, what the anti-vaccine lobbyists (which includes those such as you, John Stone, and Child Health Safety) are striving for, using your daft graph with its odd trend line as ‘evidence’ to support its wacky ideas.

To end on a happier note… since vaccine coverage dropped to a decade low of 80% in 2003, rates are beginning to rise again and from 2007-2009 were back up to 86%. Hopefully, we will soon see vaccine coverage reach the level that provides herd immunity and deaths and serious complications from measles infection will be considerably less likely to occur. This rise in vaccine coverage might suggest that some of those initially concerned by the false claims of Wakefield, Jabs, Child Health Safety and others that MMR was associated with regressive autism have realised that they were misled. Increased awareness of the risks of measles may also be a factor in this rise.

You are losing the battle, Clifford…
_____

[ED: Jimmy, did you ever get a reply to your open letter? Did you ever send it to the person concerned? How come you just ignored the evidence on CHS and went off making false and wild claims?

The following goes to show James D Cole [aka jdc325 and 325jdc] is mathematically challenged, ignorant or a liar or possibly all three. He can say which he wants to be known as.

Here is the measles graph he claims is “misleading, out-of-date, and inaccurate”
[CLICK ON GRAPH TO ENLARGE IN NEW TAB/WINDOW]

Here is the Health Protection Agency data he relies on for his claim showing exactly the same thing plotted identically:

[CLICK ON GRAPH TO ENLARGE IN NEW TAB/WINDOW].

Both graphs have an exponential trendline using the trendline function in professional commercially available software.

For years which the HPA data had zero deaths it was necessary to substitute a value to plot logarithmically – set at 0.1 – which is of course very generously above zero.

So James, your data must also be “misleading, out-of-date, and inaccurate”.

The reason he gave to justify this claim was “Acute measles infection has claimed lives in years when” the graph “predicted no deaths would occur”.

So James is so ignorant that he does not understand what a trendline is or he is wilfully dishonest and so lying. The trendline shows the trend. And the HPA data shows the same trend of the chance of measles mortality falling below 1 in 55 million per annum.

And with only 2 deaths from acute measles [according to the HPA] since 1992, that works out at a chance of 0.1 deaths per annum over the entire population of England and Wales – which is roughly 55 million – give or take for annual fluctuations etc.

So not only is the trendline on both graphs presenting a reliable picture showing mortality falling below 1 in 55 million per annum, but actual mortality is in line with the trend shown by both graphs.

Nothing misleading about that – contrary to claims of [ignorant/liar/mathematically challenged*] James D Cole [aka jdc325 325jdc].

[* delete as appropriate]

And as this is a logarithmic graph, it does not predict no deaths as Cole claims – so again either he is a liar or ignorant or mathematically challenged or all of these. Do let us know James.

So not a “daft graph” at all but one showing much the same trend as the HPA data shows. So also not “misleading”.

That is the trouble with Ben Goldacre. He encourages people like James D Cole [aka jdc325 and 325jdc] to congregate over at his Badscience.net forum and meddle with subjects which are way beyond their intellectual competence – with Cole a former unemployed barman and administrator and all.

Cole also claims it is a “truly moronic statement” to claim:-

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.

Whereas it is moronic to contradict that statement – with a chance of 0.1 deaths per annum over the entire population of England and Wales, we and most normal people would be inclined to think that 0.1 per annum per 55 million population is sufficiently below 1 in 55 million to be reliably within the trend.

But of course for mathematically challenged people over at Ben Goldacre’s Badscience.net forum 0.1 is a way larger number than 1.

So Cole then moves on from abuse arising from his own ignorance, mathematical incompetence or dishonesty to complain that as “measles-containing vaccine coverage” … “has been at or above 80% since the introduction of MMR in 1988″ …. “How on earth can you (or anyone else) possibly justify using the figures for measles mortality in a country with 80%+ levels of vaccination to suggest that the chances of death if no one were vaccinated would be less than 1 in 55 million?”

Cole claims it cannot be done – or as he puts it “Quite simply, you can’t.”

Well James – you can.

What a straight line exponential trendline on a logarithmic graph demonstrates is that the fall in measles mortality over the past 110 years has been exponential. In baby terms for you James that means the rate of fall in mortality has been like throwing something off a cliff and watching it go faster and faster and get smaller and smaller as time passes until you can hardly see it at all.

And particularly, the fact that a exponential trendline results in a straightline is an immensely strong indication that measles mortality would continue to fall exponentially. If the introduction of the vaccines had any effect that effect would be to accelerate the fall.

And the trouble for you James is that the HPA data – which runs up to 2008 [and not 1999 like the graph you claim is misleading] enables a comparison.

The trendline for the HPA data drops below a chance of 1 in 55 million by 2000 and not 2007 like the 1999 data in the other graph.

So on a very simple approach [which is appropriate for your apparent level of intellectual ability] that might be some small comfort to you.

You might want to interpret that as indicating the vaccine might have had some effect in accelerating a reduction in the already very low rate of mortality by 7 years. There are reasons why that might not be the case but for present purposes we will allow you the privilege of claiming it is.

So James, you see, it can be done.

And to make the point more firmly, here is the ONS data plotted up to 1967 – before the introduction of the measles vaccine – and with the trendline plotted forward to where the chance of mortality falls below 1 in 55 million:

[CLICK ON GRAPH TO ENLARGE IN NEW TAB/WINDOW].

So this trendline eliminates any possible effect of the introduction of any measles vaccine.

And guess what – it cuts the graph in 2007 – just as the graph for the data from 1901-1999 does – which seems to suggest quite strongly that measles mortality fell exponentially before the introduction of the single measles vaccine and continued to fall exponentially and at the same rate after.

But you just will not ever accept you are wrong. We saw that with your attack on Sue Reid’s journalism where you were forced to admit you attacked her professionalism solely because you disagreed with her reporting in a national newspaper the Italian Health Ministry not contesting the evidence before the Italian Court showing that the MMR vaccine did cause Valentino Bocca’s autism.

Your argument was with the experts at the Italian Health Ministry but instead as the bully you are you chose to bully the journalist who did a professional job of reporting the facts.

And here we see the same thing. Despite 110 years of data and clear mathematically presented graphical evidence, James D Cole [aka jdc325 and 325jdc] just cannot accept it because it goes against the position he has taken and he can never admit he is wrong. He cannot admit that “in the event of a zero rate of vaccination” the annual rate of measles mortality will still continue to decrease.

He also cannot come to terms with the fact – clearly stated with evidence in the article above – that reported cases are totally unreliable as an indication of true levels of incidence of a disease.

He takes that position despite official UK data of laboratory testing showing that doctors over diagnose and have over diagnosed measles by 74 times – for every real case there were 73 non measles cases reported.

James D Cole also cannot accept the clear conclusion of the peer reviewed medical paper cited in the article above: Englehandt SF, Halsey NA, Eddins DL, Hinman AR. Measles mortality in the United States 1971-1975. Am J Public Health 1980;70:1166–1169 which also confirms that “Measles mortality rates were inversely related to median family income” which means in baby language that as people become better off year on year, measles mortality will keep on falling.

In the teeth of the evidence from 110 years James D Cole firmly believes or is being dishonest in stating that “All it would take to kill hundreds in the next decade would be for vaccination coverage to drop sufficiently. It wouldn’t even have to drop to zero – somewhere between 55-75% ought to do it.”

But UK measles vaccine coverage was well below 55% in the 1970′s and early 1980s. The average UK mortality between 1968 when the single measles vaccine was introduced and 1987 was 20 and not hundreds and was falling over that entire period at the same rate exponentially as it had been before 1968.

And James you clearly are being dishonest in claiming a graph is “misleading, out-of-date, and inaccurate” when 1) it states clearly on its face the periods it covered – 1900-1999 2) the two deaths you talk about were in 2006 and 2008 3) there had been no deaths from acute measles since 1992 3) the HPA data shows the much the same trend as that graph and 4) the trendline was used to illustrate the position by 2007 of mortality falling below 1 in 55 million by then – which it most certainly had done – based on the trend of 100 years data to 1999.

As further evidence of your mathematically challenged ability you must know either yourself or if you are so ignorant then from your Badscience forum chronies that it is impossible to prepare a logarithmic graph with zero values.

So how did you expect anyone to plot a graph with the HPA data on it with zero values.

Notably you did not attempt to plot the graph of the HPA data. People might infer that was because you and/or your Ben Goldacre/Badscience buddies already knew what it would show and that it would back up the graph covering 1901 to 1999.

So which will you admit to – being a liar or ignorant or mathematically challenged or all three?

Shame on you. ]

childhealthsafety, on June 29, 2010 at 10:51 pm said:

Thanks for your comments.

There is a graph and there is a trend line. A trend line is not a “prediction” but shows a trend. The trend shows measles mortality falling away to a probability less than 1 in 55 million by 2007 in England and Wales. These are official statistics. It is difficult to escape what the evidence shows.

The claimed vaccination rate to prevent measles epidemics [and they used to be 600,000 cases a year] is 95% coverage. In south-east London, England the official statistics show that only 50% of under 5′s have had both doses of MMR. 20% have had one dose and 30% have had neither. No epidemics. No deaths.

As we noted in our previous post this is fully backed up by the data from the Health Protection Agency.

There were only two deaths from acquired measles infection since 1992. So that is well below an average of 1 in 55 million. Both individuals were very sick children whose immune systems were compromised, one by serious illness and the other was on immuno-suppressant drugs – he could have died from anything – a common cold. These were not healthy ordinary kids. Why risk the adverse reactions on millions of ordinary kids and the chronic conditions which result in millions of people?

Even you can see that. Maybe you are genuinely concerned to come here to post. What you have to appreciate is that other people are genuinely concerned. This is not about “anti-vaccine” but about risk vs risk – benefit has dropped away. It is about risk of the vaccines vs risk of the natural disease.

Is that what these disagreements are truly about?

The fact is the risk equation is very different in 2010 to that in 1910.

_____

childhealthsafety, on July 1, 2010 at 1:12 pm said:

jdc 325 says about himself on his blog [jdc 325.wordpress.com/about/] that he is James Cole and he is formerly unemployed and now employed as a barman and as an admin worker.

“Res ipsa loquitur” as we say in Barnsley.

_____

jdc 325, on July 1, 2010 at 8:24 pm said:

Res ipsa loquitur? I’m not quite sure how that particular phrase relates to the information in your comment. The legal term doesn’t seem relevant, so I guess you’re arguing that my employment status “speaks for itself”. Not sure how that’s relevant to my or your comments on measles though…

I’m also somewhat amused by the fact that someone who remains anonymous seems to think that the job I do is somehow relevant to the points I make here. If your arguments rest on appeals to authority or, rather, my lack of authority – then how about you show me yours (I have, after all, shown you mine).

I’m touched by your interest in my employment status, but I fail to see its relevance.

_____

sbnaturally, on August 7, 2010 at 12:46 am said:

You mentioned:

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.

Can you tell me where the source of this information is so I may read more about this?

Thanks!

[ED: It is well-known. For an example take a look here:-
"Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics"

"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 proportionately up to 74 times (or 7400% overdiagnosed). Figures and sources follow the next paragraph."]

_____

www.thetruthhurts.co.uk » Blog Archive » Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics, on August 11, 2010 at 11:37 am said:

[...] Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics [...]

_____

Homeopati fungerar » Blog Archive » Vaccin är inte mänsklighetens räddning, on August 13, 2010 at 7:52 pm said:

[...] http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ by homeopaten posted under Diverse | No Comments » [...]

_____

How Pro Vaccine People Attack - Page 2 - Stormfront, on September 28, 2010 at 3:03 pm said:

[...] [...]

_____

Sandra, on October 1, 2010 at 4:24 pm said:

This is a FABULOUS compilation of data! Thank you so much!!

_____

Jane Citizen, on October 13, 2010 at 11:57 am said:

I dunno…..
The pro vaccinators are convincing in their concern over deaths. I just wish they’d turn their efforts to other things that cause deaths. Like cars and guns. But somehow I doubt they would support banning cars or guns. So their logical concern about non vaccination and resulting deaths is lost on me.

_____

Vaccines Did Not Save Us! Two Centuries of Official Statistics « Truth on Medecine, on October 25, 2010 at 2:00 pm said:

[...] Source: childhealthsafety.wordpress.com [...]

_____

G Tyler, on October 26, 2010 at 2:08 am said:

Great articles and links keep it up!

_____

drjalgajer, on October 30, 2010 at 5:48 pm said:

This is awesome work. Thank you for pouring yourself into this. I will passing this information on to everyone I know.

_____

Ursula, on October 30, 2010 at 8:22 pm said:

Somebody asked if anybody had seen an unvaccinated autistic child. One of my granddaughters is severely autistic, with zero speech development and no attachment to anybody (she doesn’t distinguish between her parents, siblings and total strangers at all). She has had a severe seizure disorder from the age of three months, and this has caused brain damage.

She is an exception, as I believe that most cases of autism are caused by vaccines. Which is evidenced by the fact that the Amish don’t have autistic children (they also generally don’t vaccinate). The only two autistic Amish children I’ve heard of were adopted, and were vaccinated before adoption.
http://www.endowmentmed.org/index.php?Itemid=38&id=284&option=com_content&task=view

[ED: are you sure about the vaccines? On the US schedule the Hep B vaccine is given at birth and another shot in the second and third months. It does happen that the shot is given at birth and parents may not even be aware it was done.]

_____

debra, on October 31, 2010 at 5:23 pm said:

I see bias and defensiveness in both parties here…those for the vaccines, and those againse. It would seem to me that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. While, granted, some of the diseases are not as serious as others, (mumps or rubella for children) and maybe not require vaccinations, and some maybe should not be given so early (hep B) the unaltered facts (from both parties) should be laid out before the parents and let the parents make a clearly unclouded choice as to what is best for their child. It seems that the writer(s) of the article are crediting vaccinations for the rise in such things as diabetes, asthma, etc., in children. There is a plethora of other causes for an increase in these diseases…and, the greatest among them may be childhood obesity. Be cautious about throwing around ideas which are unsubstantiated. A reason that more research has not been done is not a simple matter of the medical profession and drug companies not wanting to do it; rather, consider the possibility that it may be unethical to have clinical trials where some children are refused a vaccine, or vice versa. You may decide what is ethical in your own minds. Good luck in all of your research—both sides!

_____

jbird, on November 1, 2010 at 2:32 pm said:

Dear Ed, thank you, again and again. I knew it in my heart not to vaccinate my child, since then i have found much back up for my thoughts. Sustainability, environment friendly, health and good food, to the government, is not a profitable organisation. War, death, NHS, is what the government spends money on, it is a profit which will increase, until the money runs out. Fear, sickness and depression is what the officials thrive off.

I love to talk to doctors to inform them what else happens, and help with their contradicting conformism.

Ed what you are saying, is gold dust and more and more we are finding cures to these from nature. Just today i read info on hemp, and psilocybin, curing the health and wellbeings of the human kind, and of the earth wellbeing. There are ways of improving our lives and what you displayed here is at the point where we understand and more forward. People on this comment box who have negatively answered against you, have their right full say, but are also a massive victim of the fear tactics. They have so been believed against what you are saying that the anger comes into play resulting from the fear. Its not their fault, they just got conditioned when they were younger.

Blessings to you, lets move forward….one love

_____

Vaccines Did Not Save Us! – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics | Sovereign Independent, on November 2, 2010 at 8:43 am said:

[...] Read the full article here: http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ [...]

_____

Gillian, on November 2, 2010 at 12:43 pm said:

Great compilation of statistics. Good job.

_____

wendy, on November 2, 2010 at 1:42 pm said:

I’m very grateful to all the professionals who do the right thing and provide these stats and education. My kids are 20 and 17 now, never vaccinated and extremely healthy. I’m so glad I took the time to properly research all of this when they were born.

_____

Nick, on November 2, 2010 at 4:47 pm said:

Harmful vaccines given to kids, yet another violation of our rights. Add it to the list of gov’t violations of our right:
They violate the 1st Amendment by placing protesters in cages, banning books like “America Deceived II” and censoring the internet.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns.
They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by molesting airline passengers.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars for foreign countries.
Impeach Obama and sweep out the Congress, except Ron Paul.
(Last link of Banned Book):
http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000190526

America Deceived II (book)

_____

Is there evidence that Vaccines and Modern Medicine are not responsible for lower mortality?, on November 2, 2010 at 4:51 pm said:

[...] [...]

_____

NeueserAuto, on November 2, 2010 at 5:38 pm said:

First, test the vaccines to see if they work. A humoral response to an immunogenic challenge does not equate to immunity. Most current testing is inadequate.

Determine safety of the vaccines.

Avoid all fraudulent research, which is rampant.

If safe and effective, provide people to opt in or opt out of the vaccines. No mandates, no nazis.

Allow people to sue for vaccine damage.

Solves the current crisis.

_____

Simon, on November 2, 2010 at 6:21 pm said:

An excellent post – thanks

_____

Lisa, on November 2, 2010 at 6:50 pm said:

Thank you for this. I’ve read a lot about vaccinations and have heard about these statistics, and have studied a few. But so glad someone really took the time to put all this together. My children and I are vaccinated. I used to be content with what our doctors would tell us. But, the Swineflu made me wonder, and I started to do some studies on my own. I would not have vaccineted my children when I know what I know today. Glad to say we are healthy though.
Could not find info about the sender of this site. Who is? Background?

_____

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics | Dprogram.net, on November 2, 2010 at 10:39 pm said:

[...] (ChildHealthSafety) – 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. Read More Here [...]

_____

FriendsNews, a family and friends newsletter, on November 3, 2010 at 3:02 am said:

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

_____

Marilynn, on November 3, 2010 at 8:47 am said:

Thank you for all the work you put into compiling this information. I hope it will dissuade many from having their children injected with industrial toxins.

I don’t need graphs to tell me how bad immunizations are. My firstborn was given the DPT combination and his reaction was extreme: raw, excoriated flesh in the diaper area and non-stop blood-curdling screaming. A friend gave me an herbal tea to calm him and it helped the poor exhausted infant sleep. (That was my introduction to alternative medicine, which I used while raising four children.)

My son & his wife decided in favor of vaccinations, but waited until their firstborn was a toddler to have him injected. He exhibited many symptoms of autism (withdrawal, moodiness, rejecting affection) immediately following the shot. Fortunately the symptoms gradually subsided over several weeks and he returned to being a cheerful, loving child. We’ll never know if the temporary effect was due to being older and how severe the reaction might have been had he been injected as a newborn. God save the children!

_____

Robin, on November 4, 2010 at 5:02 am said:

Well done, I am deeply thankful you have compiled such a comprehensive and in my opinion conclusive article on the dangers of vaccinations. One day I’m sure you will be properly thanked for your contribution to the well being of mankind.

_____

Vaccines Did Not Save Us! – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics | The Paradise Post, on November 4, 2010 at 6:39 am said:

[...] Read the full article here: http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ [...]

_____

Jeff, on November 4, 2010 at 9:54 pm said:

Thanks for the time you’ve put into this.

My son was vaccine damaged. It’s taken us years to heal him, and will take years to pay the debt. We tracked it back to the MMR.

If anyone is interested, look up how many girls have died from the Gardasil vaccine. Don’t believe the casual references saying that there’s no link between the deaths and receiving the vaccine. Check it out for yourself.

I have worked in healthcare for the past 9 years. One organization that I previously worked for has a world renowned research center. Three years ago they released the results from a long term study showing that it could not be proven that the annual flu shot proved affective for seniors. Later that same year the clinical side of the organization still encouraged seniors to “Get their flu shot”. This year’s shot for seniors has a triple concentrated dose. It has not been tested.

Do your own research before getting any vaccine. Your health may depend on it.

_____

mario, on November 7, 2010 at 3:22 am said:

please generate a pdf version of this article to download.
thanks

_____

keith, on November 13, 2010 at 12:46 am said:

I see a lot of people saying “these graphs show mortality rates, not incidence rates so therefore it means nothing”. Mortality rates are the most reliable indicators of disease. One of the most commonly used lies in medical science is to quote incidence rates as those are not reported correctly and easily manipulated. This is covered in a classic statistics book called How To Lie With Statistics.

Mortality rates are the most reliable disease statistic to use. If you see someone using incidence rates then you must question the source and the motive behind it. You must also check so many variables that you will not have access to.

There are also graphs for incidence rates of diseases that show the same as these for mortality, however they are not honest.

I recommend anyone confused by this to read How To Lie With Statistics. It is a very useful book if you’re going to be reviewing any medical studies or statistics of any kind, especially those performed and skewed by the pharmaceutical industry. They constantly rely on lying with statistics and understanding how they lie can help you understand the truth.

I’m glad this site presented the truth honestly and transparently. I hope more people will learn to understand statistics and the important of using mortality rates.

_____

marc, on November 23, 2010 at 3:34 pm said:

well done !

_____

Jason, on December 9, 2010 at 3:42 am said:

I myself am a vaccine victim. Anthrax vaccine in 2000 caused my immune system to turn on itself. Of course, the military doctors were plugged in and programmed to play stupid and deny it, even though I had symptoms THE SAME DAY. Following years of alternative therapy to regain my health (somewhat) I vowed to make sure that I never put my children through the hell I went through with vaccines. We just had a beautiful baby boy four days ago, and we refused the Hep B shot. That, in combination with good nutrition while his mother was pregnant has resulted in a very healthy (jaundice level 2) baby.
I can’t believe how incompetent our doctors are. They lie and tell everyone that they will never get their children in to day care or school if they don’t submit to foolish vaccinations such as hep B. I will NEVER let anyone vaccinate my child EVER!!!!! It’s so sad the people in this country are like sheep.

_____

grace, on December 11, 2010 at 4:52 am said:

Interesting. A note to start with: I don’t care what authorities in your country say. They might be in some conspiracy, they might be acting, because they care and are convinced. “Saved millions of lifes” is probably an exaggerated claim. Whatever.

Couple of questions though:

1) Why is you first graph “deaths per 55 mln”? This is a rather unusual way of repporting mortality, although I don’t know if it matters. A lot happened to the population of England and Wales since 1900….

2) “Correlation does not imply causation”
Your graphs do not PROVE anything, although they provide us with interesting correlations. The fact that you CAN provide alternative explanations doesn’t mean they do explain the whole situation. How much do you think nutrition and health care actually improved since 1968? I don’t know that, but you haven’t even tried to convinced me that they did.

3) There is scientific evidence that vaccination prevents infections and/or disease (ever heard of secondary immune response?). Are you suggesting we should stop vaccinating because MOST people would not die of eg. measles in developed countries? What about those that would die, because they didn’t get the vaccine (and were unfortunate enough to be susceptible, malnourished, immunocompromised etc)?

4) Now, incidence (and there are some limits to how overreported it WAS) is also important for health care, at least in financial terms. Maybe it’s simply cheaper to provide nation-wide vaccination than rescue those infants in ICU?

5) Leicester is a (probably) good example that you can prevent an epidemic of a deadly, immediately and always symptomatic disease by sanitation. Now, measles for example, as you mentioned, is not always symptomatic, moreover it spreads like wildfire. It it ANYTHING but smallpox. Another explanation could be that Sheffield was for example less densly populated during the outbreak in other cities.

5a) Smallpox is actually a very good example of an eradication that succeded thanks to vaccination (unless you want to claim there’s been a considerable improvement in living conditions in the 3rd World).

6) Mumps is the least necessary of routine vaccines. Funny that the article (BMJ, Gupta et al) you claim proves people should be exposed to mumps naturally, actually claims the opposite. The outbreak in question is correlated with drop in vaccination rates. So it’s probably not the low efficacy of the vaccine. Moreover, have you heard that viruses tend to mutate in the wild? Like flu does it each year. So what’s better, vaccinate or give the virus thousands of hosts so that it gets better at what it does? Not to mention hospitalization costs again.

7) No link between autism and MMR has been proven.

For the future – less graphs, more analysis (with all due respect, it’s all a little difficult to follow). Take a statistics, virology and immunology courses or read some coursebooks. Talk to some open-minded doctors/scientists, who aren’t just claiming things. Know your enemy, before you start fighting them.

[ED: Ha, ha, ha. Obviously a comedian.]

_____

grace, on December 11, 2010 at 9:56 pm said:

I am sort of flattered that while you’re taking on much less serious comments, you decided to dismiss mine.

Maybe I just lost the ability to see my own irony, but I don’t see much of a joke in my comments (maybe besides the first and last paragraph).

I challenge you to respond to my arguments. Otherwise you’re no better than the people you’re rightfully criticizing for claiming “mlns saved by measles vaccine in UK”.

[ED: It is pretty funny for you to lecture on statistics.

Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:
Jeremiah Chapter 5 - Verse 21

The only sensible and the simplest way to normalize a graph covering 100 years of statistics across an entire population where mortality steadily fell before vaccines were introduced from 15,210 per 55 million in 1901 to 112 per 55 million in 1967 [a fall of 99.26%] is to present the data in the way it has been done.

So are you saying the vaccine miraculously jumped in a time machine and was responsible for the 99.26% fall in mortality all by itself and no one noticed? Perhaps you think it was aliens vaccinating people in their sleep and erasing their memories.

And despite the evidence showing the steady year on year fall in mortality you want to suggest the steady fall in mortality over the prior 67 years just halted when the vaccine was introduced?

That is ridiculous or comedic or both. Either way it would be a bit of a miracle.

Lets have sense and science please – not this mumbo jumbo rhetoric.

_____

grace, on December 13, 2010 at 7:36 pm said:

Glad we’re talking. Glad we agree on sense and science. Sad you didn’t read my post, answer most of the questions and used reductio ad absurdum on claims I didn’t make.
I actually agreed with you on measles vaccine not being the primary cause of mortality drop and you haven’t even noticed. Let’s make it clearer:

1) Do you, or do you not agree that there is scientific evidence that vaccines can prevent contracting the disease (NOT necessarily mortality)?

2) Do you, or do you not agree that contracting the disease is necessary condition for dying from it (if you exclude disease-related homicide)?

3) Do you, or do you not agree that if measles vaccine prevents contracting the disease, using it might be commendable, taking into account the fact that measles might require hospitalization and/or may cause pneumonia, encephalitis and corneal ulceration leading to corneal scarring?

4) Do you claim constant improvement in sanitation and health care in England and Wales since 1901 till 1999 is the ONLY conceivable explanation for measles mortality reduction? What is the scientific basis for your claim?

6) Do you claim that the same kind of improvement lead to eradication of smallpox WORLDWIDE?

7) Do you, or do you not agree that smallpox and measles are two different viruses in terms of genome, genome size, symptoms and transmission (among others)?

8) If I show you a graph in which a straight line marks the relation between amount of sold ice cream and violent crime, would you think eating ice cream causes violence or vice versa?

9) There’s no scientific evidence that MMR causes autism. In fact there’s good evidence that it doesn’t (eg. a review by Wilson et al. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2003).

[ED: Still hilarious.

You make a list of statements without setting out any case or evidence to back them up and then expect someone else to say if they agree or disagree.

We can do that too. Do you agree that serious adverse reactions to vaccines are substantially under reported? Do you agree that vaccines have been causing asthma and allergy on a wide scale? Do you agree that the risks of vaccines outweigh the alleged benefits?

You also confuse evidence with proof and substitute "scientific" evidence for any form of evidence regardless of how good or even superior to scientific evidence it might be.

If evidence is collected in a "scientific" manner or according to a "scientific" method that might be called scientific. So if your graph correlating ice cream sales to violent crime was collected in a scientific manner it might be classed as "scientific" evidence - but as proof it might be junk or it might not - one would have examine the "evidence" to form any view.

I love the smallpox example. It is scientifically impossible for smallpox to have been eradicated by vaccination. Take a look here:-

Small Pox – Big Lie – Bioterrorism Implications of Flawed Theories of Eradication

Of course medical professionals could not admit to any of that because they would have to admit to allowing themselves to being duped their entire careers. But an impartial and objective scientific analysis will have some difficulty accepting the medical profession's "consensus" opinion on the matter.

Let us hope the western military wake up to this before there is a military and security catastrophe [albeit Gulf War Syndrome already has been something of a catastrophe - particularly for the many victims and their families in our armed forces].

And of course there is scientific evidence that MMR causes autism.

Why else do you think we can quote statements made by very senior health officials and government agencies on the matter:

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

That is aside from the fact that the original Wakefield Lancet study is “scientific evidence”. Dr Ben Goldacre has admitted to its validity in a recent interview:-

“Also, this was a 12 subject case series report – it was a description of only 12 children’s clinical anecdotes, and while this is not good evidence to say MMR causes autism, it is a perfectly legitimate thing to publish.”
Health info – sorting the wheat from the chaff [Posted: Mon 22/11/2010 by Niall Hunter, Editor – http://www.irishhealth.com

_____

grace, on December 15, 2010 at 5:10 am said:

Dear George,

Still no answer (I kind of start liking our little, internal jokes).

I didn’t make any statements there, barring one about no evidence for linkage. Otherwise than that – you are the one who challenges the consensus, burden of the proof lies with you.

Ice cream. A graph with accompanying statistical tests can never be a proof of anything else than a correlation. Then you may interpret it.

Your interpretation of measles graph, based on two rather nice articles, is that sanitation/health care is the ONLY explaining factor. I agree this is something worth considering. I have a reasonable doubt, however, that sanitation and healthcare have improved so substantially since about 1950s as to be the WHOLE explanation henceforth.

Moreover, something I haven’t noticed before – if you make a regression on years 1955-65 your curve will have a slope that is not significantly different from zero. 10 years of no improvement and suddenly off we go. Here you have it – evidence (as in “not proof”) that it would not at all be hilarious that sanitation improvement stopped being the decisive factor and vaccination took over.

Now let me answer my own questions since you’re not bold enough to confront them:

1 – vaccines work) There are years of scientific studies into the nature of human immune system. Our understanding of it is not perfect, but proofs of immune memory and secondary immune response are copious. Even you’d agree that contracting many diseases provides you with immunity to them. Ever since Lady Montagu started using variolation we know that using attenuated (non-virulent) or killed pathogens may provide us with similar kind of immunity without the same danger as exposing ourselves to the virulent agens. It is true, unless you purport that millions of intelligent and diligent people that SOME scientists are made it all up and live in denial ever since.
Admittedly, there are cases of vaccines going astray (Urabe, oral polio that we still give to 3rd World Countries, Thimerosal), but this doesn’t mean vaccines don’t work.

2 – infection precedes death) No doubt about that (unless your rabbid neighbor kills you in a fit of rage).

3 – being healthy better than sick) Excellent questions. Here btw comes an answer to one of your questions (about allergy and benefit ratio).
Yes, I believe using measles vaccine is commendable even if it just prevents the disease. Two reasons: personal suffering/complications and hospitalization/epidemics control costs.
Complications – pneumonia, encephalitis and corneal scarring – are associated with wildtype infection. Maybe it’s somewhat more attenuated now than used to be, but why take chances of it mutating? Why take the chances of children getting encephalitis, which in some cases leads to — why, autism.
Now there is some substantial piece of untruth on you website – there IS a difference between a wildtype virus that you think we should be contracting and a live-attenuated virus that is in MMR. MMR viruses are not virulent (there’s been Urabe strain, but they don’t give it to Brits anymore).
Give evidence/proof that this is not the case. Give me links to alleged allergy connection, I will consider it.

4 – other theories) I made my case at the beginning.

6 – “sanitation eradicated smallpox”) Obviously not. We still have favelas, slums and dilapidated Indian villages. We don’t have smallpox though. Nobody denies isolation works best (Leicestre), but how feasible is it in a crowded city with no real health facilities? Ever read “La Peste” by A. Camus? Leicestre doesn’t prove or isn’t even evidence that the same tactic was used all over the world.
Your website is fighting some claims that “ring vaccination” didn’t save the day and I’m inclined to agree (who cares now if it was “ring” or not?) as long as you agree with the article you’re quoting [Kaplan et al.] which provides a very nice correlation between vaccination and incidence of smallpox.
As for attenuation – you provide some very weak circumstantial evidence in form of “there was an attenuated strain”. It takes more to prove it contributed. Can you provide any evidence/proof?
And I don’t know where you’re going with monkey pox. It’s a different virus. It’s like saying “polio is on the brink of extinction, but maybe not because we have hepatitis A” (FYI they’re in the same family).

7 – smallpox v measles) Smallpox is an extremely complex DNA virus that changes so little we could vaccinate ourselves with its distant cow pox cousin. Small pox is symptomatic before it’s infective – and hell, you don’t want to be near a person that’s symptomatic. Measles on the other hand is relatively small RNA virus that starts being infective before it’s symptomatic. It spreads by aerosol, which is somewhat easier to catch (ever tried dodging common cold or flu?) than in case of smallpox (blood and mucosal transmission). Bottom line – smallpox and measles are different, isolation is even more unlikely to work for measles than smallpox.

8 – ice cream) Oh, it was of course about “confounding variable” – heat. Warm days make children buy ice cream and adults entertain themselves in violent ways. But you know all about it (somewhere on the website you mentioned it).

9) Who is Dr Ben Goldacre? Also I love your out-of-context quotation (paragraph preceding the one you quoted): “But you have to remember this paper didn’t actually say MMR causes autism, it didn’t even speculate on that. It was accompanied by an editorial that said by the way people should be very clear that it doesn’t mean that MMR causes autism.” The study has been RETRACTED (because of ethical considerations) by Lancet, a thing they didn’t do “in the heat of the moment” (it was at the beginning of 2010) and they don’t do very often. More importantly, the study could not be replicated by other researchers and a lot of cohort studies showed no correlation between MMR and measles.
Take the most recent one: http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100210/Measles-vaccine-does-not-increase-risk-of-autism-in-children-reveals-Polish-study.aspx
So what’s that scientific evidence, again? Hannah Pollings case, who received 5 shots agains 9 different diseases and probably had an underlying condition? Baylie Banks possibly suffering from “non-autistic developmental delay”. Even if – one boy against millions.
10) “Do you agree that serious adverse reactions to vaccines are substantially under reported?” (your question) No, is it a consensus I’ve missed? But bring it on, I want to see evidence. And funny that measles incidence is overreported, but serious consequences of the vaccine are underreported. Funny that CDR is constantly reporting that most (if not all) confirmed cases of measles are in unvaccinated people (but you’re not against efficacy of vaccines, are you?)
Sample: http://www.hpa.org.uk/cdr/archives/2005/cdr2505.pdf (also the one you’re quoting to prove 74 times overdiagnosis).
FINAL STATEMENT: I wish you were a reasonable guy willing to be a watchdog over something that should be watched. I have no doubt that wrong decisions were and are going to be taken for bad and good reasons alike, that journals publish unreliable science sometimes, that some scientists have ulterior motifs etc. But you have to be better than them. Are you willing to meet me on middle ground or are you just going to ignore everything as some internet troll would? (I hope this sound pompous enough).

[ED: zzzz zzzz zzzz. Oh hi, sorry dropped off reading all that. And without references to back it up too.]

_____

grace, on December 15, 2010 at 6:14 pm said:

That’s the spirit! To lose by default…

I congratulate you on identifying yourself as a troll. May grace be with you.

_____

Larry Cook, on December 26, 2010 at 9:44 pm said:

Hey, great page! I’ll be posting a link to it in my next video interview with a mom who was able to completely reverse Autism in her son with biomedical treatment. I’m putting this web address link on her commentary about vaccines and why she won’t ever vaccinate again, and what happened to her son after she had vaccinated. You can look for the video on autismisreversible.info in a few days; I hope to have it on youtube within the next 24 hours (my channel is larrycook333) – feel free to post the video into this page because it’s a great interview.
Larry
larry@thenaturalguide.com

_____

Raymond Obomsawin, on December 27, 2010 at 4:47 pm said:

In the British Medical Journal (1928) Dr. L Parry made the following observations:

Smallpox is five times as likely to be fatal in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated

In highly vaccinated areas e.g. Bombay & Calcutta – smallpox is rife, while in minimally vaccinated areas, such as Leicester, it is almost unknown.

80 percent of the smallpox cases admitted into the hospitals have been vaccinated, with 20 percent unvaccinated

Germany – the best-vaccinated country in the world – has more smallpox deaths proportional to the population than England. HOwever – in 1919, there were 28 smallpox deaths in England, compared to 707 In Germany

L. A. Parry; Fatality Rates of Small-Pox in the Vaccinated & Unvaccinated; British Medical Journal; Jan. 21, 1928; p. 116 (http://www.bmj.com/content/1/3498/116.1.full.pdf+html)

[ED: Thanks for that most interesting reference.]

_____

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics « ________________Child Health Safety_ « Searching for Truth, on January 10, 2011 at 12:02 am said:

[...] Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics « ________________Child Health Safe…. LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

Cristen, on February 3, 2011 at 10:33 am said:

Hi, I thought you’d like to know that I came to your page absolutely against vaccination in most cases, but your arguments in the comments section have really made me change my mind. I’m really concerned that you seem to ignore or obfuscate anything which goes against your point of view.

For example, ‘Grace’ makes gracious and logical arguments, in fact very convincing points, which you seem unable to answer, and instead resort to insults and demand references, when most of Grace’s arguments are not based on research but straightforward logic. This helps no-one.

Please, if you genuinely believe in what you are saying, answer questions put to you with the respect they deserve. Despite what Grace suggests, I hope that you are not a troll, and I’m writing this in the trust that you are not.

I genuinely suspect that there is something wrong with vaccination programmes, but there doesn’t seem to be a wise, clear and reasonable voice saying this. The most gracious arguments always come from those in favour of vaccination. This is so frustrating, and leads me to think that maybe I’m mistaken about this whole thing.

I really don’t think you’re helping your case.

Best Regards
Cristen

_____

Cristen, on February 3, 2011 at 10:34 am said:

when I say ‘really made me change my mind’, I mean *nearly

_____

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics : Wordpress, on February 7, 2011 at 3:37 pm said:

[...] Scurvy Mortality [...]

_____

Rob, on February 7, 2011 at 5:28 pm said:

Some fascinating and well-documented research offered here. God bless.

_____

Coralee Fishbeck, on February 13, 2011 at 6:10 pm said:

I like this weblog so much, saved to fav.

_____

Mike Watson, on March 16, 2011 at 6:21 pm said:

Thank you so much Ed for your due diligence in doing the research and organizing this vital information.

Vaccines are absolutely useless and are entirely based on profit. Prevention of disease is all about a healthy lifestyle. Humans were not born with dysfunctional immune systems. Logic would dictate that if people needed vaccines to stay healthy and alive, that we would of been extinct thousands of years ago.

I think its crazy how the data is so obvious and people still argue against it! Why do people defend vaccinations so much? I’m scared for the future of the human race. Now with over 69 vaccines given to new born babies, this can be the biggest travesty of modern medicine. The irony of it all is that most medical doctors claim to be evidenced based, but there are zero unbiased double blinded studies which prove vaccines work. Yet the MD’s still peddle the vaccines!

If anyone would like further insight into the lunacy of vaccines you should read this book which comes with references:

“The Sanctity of Human Blood : Vaccination is Not Immunization” by Tim O’Shea

Thank again Ed! Your work is greatly appreciated. You are SAVING LIVES for every parent that opens there eyes and refuses vaccinations for their babies!

_____

Vaccine Dangers, on March 26, 2011 at 1:44 pm said:

[...] [...]

_____

More embarrassing anti-vaccine reporting from CBS News’s Sharyl Attkisson, on March 31, 2011 at 9:01 pm said:

[...] Safety is one of the most virulently anti-vaccine websites out there. Don’t believe me? One whole section of the site is devoted to the argument that the drop in infectious diseases like measles and smallpox is not [...]

Aishath, on April 20, 2011 at 8:39 am said:

Hi, I’m a medical doctor working as senior medical officer in a department of paediatrics in the tertiary hospital in Male, Maldives. I’m studying epidemiology and came across your site while searching on vaccines, which I’m studying in detail these days.

It is interesting to note from the graphs you have put up (Figure 1: Reported measles cases and death per 100,000 population, United States, 1912-1975) that while measles mortality dropped before vaccination, due to improved sanitation and better nutrition, the incidence remained the same at 200-400 cases per 100,000 population until the 1960’s, since when, incidence has dropped markedly to a minimum, with a later peak which still didn’t go above 40 per 100,000 population! The beginning of the decline coincides with the introduction of Measles vaccination in the early 1960’s.

You seem to be having problems interpreting graphs and available information. See, it is a known bias in scientific research that when we look for information with a particular objective in mind, we are generally biased to find more on what we seek, and neglect available information on what we don’t want to see.

Same with Diphtheria. You seem to be misinterpreting graphs by showing overlapping graphs in the same picture on 2 different scales. The all age deaths show an obvious decline from the 1940 nationwide campaign for diphtheria immunization. This is obvious in the deaths in all ages graphs from above 50-70 per 1 million to almost baseline. The deaths in infants graphs are drawn in deaths per 1500 infants. A drop from 100 to 50 per 1500 after 10 years of vaccination campaign corresponds to a 50% decrease in disease over 10 years. If shown in the same scale as all deaths, it would correspond to 0.075 per 1 million, in this graph with the correct scale, it both values would be touching the baseline! Not very useful to show a visual difference, but shows that the difference of scale make huge differences in interpretation. Such graphs drawn in different scales should be interpreted with caution.

I’m sorry you are misleading many people with such misinterpretation of some actually good data that you have by highlighting the aspects you personally believe in and ignoring the rest of it that may give different information.

As you rightly say, the decision to vaccinate is based on risk vs. benefit. I’m neither a promoter of vaccines nor anti-vaccines, but simply would like to promote good health. No single intervention against disease works on its own. Hygiene, sanitation, clean water supplies and good nutrition at the turn of the 19th century have been the most effective measure in reducing illness from communicable diseases. Vaccines are shown to be the 2nd most effective measure, next to clean water in reducing disease burden. (WHO). This is why governments spend large amounts in providing vaccines at affordable costs or free to their populations. You could see the effects of both these from most of the graphs through the early 20th century, where disease or deaths start dropping early, before introducing vaccination, timed with improved sanitation and nutrition, then continue to drop even more after introduction of vaccination. What we need to understand, though, is that several measures carried out together make a health intervention more effective. Vaccination goes hand-in-hand with good nutrition and sanitation and other preventive measures. No single measure can prevent disease by 100%, as interaction of various factors lead to disease. Any medicine or any herbal product, for that matter can have side-effects. The choice to vaccinate should be an informed decision based on risks vs. benefits. Risks are possible adverse effects plus how common they are, and for those with religious concerns, what goes into vaccines and how it is prepared. Benefits include what diseases do the vaccines prevent, what are the problems and long-term complications of the disease, and how common are these complications (vs. those of the vaccine to prevent the disease? Often unanswered questions also include the prevalence of the disease where one lives, if it is not common, why vaccinate? (Answer: because if a disease is introduced into a non-immune population, it could spread very fast and cause huge losses in lives and disability) Doctors and health workers unfortunately often don’t know the answers and details of risks and benefits, or don’t have this information at hand when their patients ask them, and this is a common reason for vaccine failure (not vaccinating children).(Deters et al, 1997). Most people then resort to the internet for info, which may often be biased, or focus on risks only (adverse effects of vaccines) overlooking the effects of the disease that is targeted to prevent. I found the New Zealand Immunization Advisor Centre website: http://www.immune.org.nz/?t=622 very useful for health professionals and anyone who could understand the medical information to check out the actual complications of vaccine preventable diseases along with frequency of occurrence and the reasoning behind vaccination. It’s a good resource for anyone who wishes to compare benefits of vaccination (under individual disease giving details of the disease) vs. risks (adverse effects given under ‘vaccinology’.

Vaccines are not the best means of prevention for all diseases. Scarlet fever and typhoid are diseases that are treatable by antibiotics and preventable by good hygiene. Although vaccine is available for typhoid, the efficacy is lower, and public health officials do not promote universally vaccinating all children against typhoid! Influenza another disease that may not benefit everyone from vaccination. Note that in most countries, it is available commercially (for sale) and not subsidized by governments. The disease is not severe, except in extremes of age, and the virus continuously mutates, so the vaccine strain may only be effective for a short epidemic of the particular vaccine strain (generally for about 1 year or a season). It may benefit elderly, who carry higher risk of death from influenza.

Vaccines that have been used extensively in humans over long periods of time with proven reduction of death and disease burden include vaccines included in childhood vaccination programmes (EPI programmes) in most countries. These vaccines are given to reduce diseases with high burdens of death and/or disability (eg. polio, measles), where effective curative treatment (eg. antivirals) is not available or limited in efficacy (eg. Hepatitis B). These are fully funded (available free) or subsidized by governments after considering (with technical advice form agencies like the WHO) whether these diseases are prevalent in their countries, or may cause huge losses if introduced into a non-immune community, and the benefits of the vaccines, vs. risks.
Do you suppose any government would want to spend more money compensating or treating children disabled by vaccines than what they spend on vaccination or treating the vaccine preventable diseases?
The adverse effects of most EPI vaccines and their frequency of occurrence are monitored, reported and well known as these have been used extensively. They are available on medical websites, including the one I’ve mentioned above, so that people may compare these with effects of the disease. They are continuously under surveillance, and changes continue to be updated. Eg. SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Sydrome) which actually has a peak occurrence at the same age that infants are vaccinated, was thought to be associated with vaccination, some early studies seemed to support it, but more extensive controlled studies showed that the incidence is purely coincidental. Some parents later thought that measles vaccine caused autism in their children. Autism is another disorder that is generally noticed and diagnosed at approximately the same age as that when measles vaccination is administered. This is the age when children begin to communicate with meaning and interact socially. However, many controlled studies have not shown a link, and the measles vaccine does not even contain the incriminated agent (thiomersal) many blame for autism.

Hope this enlightens you and the readers of this site to look at information in a more balanced way, so you could make better informed decisions.

_____

childhealthsafety, on April 20, 2011 at 10:42 am said:

Thanks for the lecture. There are a number of significant errors in your thinking. You choose to take particular inferences from data as if true without challenge. As you say:-

“it is a known bias in scientific research that when we look for information with a particular objective in mind, we are generally biased to find more on what we seek, and neglect available information on what we don’t want to see.”

But that is not limited to scientific research.

You choose diphtheria vaccine as an example when it is abundantly clear that the vaccine could not have been responsible for the dramatic fall in diphtheria mortality between 1940 and 1946. The majority of children went unvaccinated during that perid, until a catch-up campaign in 1946.

You choose to believe that the fall in reported measles cases in the US was due to vaccination. The simplest explanation – Occam’s razor – is that measles cases ceased to be over-reported and began being under-reported. The US CDC told US doctors that measles would be eradicated in 12 months by vaccination. Doctors diagnose what they believe and not what they see. That is well-known.

There is much more but until you can take off the blinkers, you will not see. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

_____

» May 2011, on May 9, 2011 at 5:06 pm said:

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

Chris Hemmings, on May 9, 2011 at 5:05 pm said:

Yes, I too must add thanks for a clearly deep trawl into the existing data. As I keep writing three billion years of evolution have honed our immune response to be a very sensitive system that we should not have the audacity to attempt to improve upon. Far better to respect its deep subtleties and seek to assist them gently through nutritional, lifestyle and clean healthy living. The medico-industrial complex live in a bizarre world where the simple is complex but conversely they see complexity as simple. So “a jab gives lifelong protection” looks at profound interference as a neat done deed without considering all the knock on ramifications and distortions that ensue.
Clear examination of all the facts time and again demonstrates this. Do we have a momentum for change building or must we just let a few realise in each generation and hope that’s enough? I want the former!

_____

Chris Hemmings, on May 9, 2011 at 5:28 pm said:

Sorry, I must just add a bit more as I spent the last five minutes reading the good doctor’s letter, above. Really I try so hard to see their World, to try to understand how the can remain so terribly blinkered. I go with your reply, site, but must just add how the last two paragraphs epitomised how far the medics have to go. Given that vaccine damaged kids and adults must be helped and supported as much as is possible perhaps there should be a form of amnesty offered. You know so we can all agree how terrible it has been and that we’ll all work together to develop a new and non damaging approach to maintaining health. But we’ll not resort to the courts and let them retrain and re-educate themselves. We know that they thought it was the right thing to do.

_____

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics « ________________Child Health Safety_________________ « The Vaccine Xchange, on May 17, 2011 at 9:11 pm said:

[...] Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics « ________________Child Health Safe…. [...]

_____

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics – Child Health Safety « The Vaccine Xchange, on May 19, 2011 at 2:52 pm said:

[...] Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics « ________________Child Health Safe…. [...]

_____

ewebb16, on May 29, 2011 at 1:36 pm said:

hey have you guys ever had smallpox? yeah me neither, weird…

_____

test | Politiva, on June 8, 2011 at 7:22 pm said:

[...] Read story… Share and Enjoy: [...]

_____

EHEC Coli: cuchnąca sprawa. + niebezpieczne szczepionki « kefir2010, on June 11, 2011 at 2:10 pm said:

[...] http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ 2 wieki oficjalnych statystyk [...]

_____

Vaccines as ‘Cluster Bombs’ | COTO Report, on June 29, 2011 at 1:33 am said:

[...] essential for fighting off diseases, and that vaccines were not responsible for the decrease in infectious diseases but can actually increase [...]

_____

The Art Of Vacines Vs. Your Immune System….. « ''ZEN DEVIL DIARIES'', on July 4, 2011 at 4:41 am said:

[...] is essential for fighting off diseases, and that vaccines were not responsible for the decrease in infectious diseases but can actually increase [...]

_____

Vaccines Made From Aborted Foetal/Fetal Tissue « Non Chosen News Blog, on July 10, 2011 at 3:32 pm said:

[...] satanists, supposedly. So quite fitting that one of the primary weapons of biowarfare/depopulation, the beloved vaccine, is now grown on an aborted corpse. But hey, you don’t want your child to get sick, do you, [...]

_____

Misconceptions about Vaccination | The Myrtle Turtle, on July 27, 2011 at 11:50 pm said:

[...] The many anti-vaccination websites out there, often pull this one out. They often also use a graph to try to prove their point. An example of this can be found on this site: http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ [...]

_____

Johnson L, on July 30, 2011 at 12:16 am said:

Nice article. But I must say lot of BIG PHARMA shills commenting here. These fu*** should be put in jail together with other people involved who know these things are bad but still don’t admit to it because of self interests. Hopefully one day we start caring about actual health instead of big profits.

_____

Pharma now pushing for 20 new vaccines in next decade « 2012 Indy Info, on August 12, 2011 at 9:35 am said:

[...] (5) Stats showing disease mortalities dropping even before the vaccines were introducedhttp://childhealthsafety.wordpress…. [...]

_____

Paula, on August 23, 2011 at 2:10 pm said:

Ed,
So sad that you could not reply to Cristen’s comment.
Paula

[ED: It is. It is sad we cannot publish comments which have never been posted. Who the hell is Cristen? The only recent comment on this article we did not post is the one blaming everything on people of the Jewish faith - so if that is Cristen you have nice friends.]

_____

Colin Bishop, on August 27, 2011 at 3:12 am said:

I love reading your material. I love reading the “replies” from the “plants” – they are obviously “medical people” that are desperate for the truth to be kept hidden from us “low forms of intellegience”.

I am a silicofluoride fighter – you know the stuff that they put in your “pure” drinking water? We have the same people writing their insane comments in our forums – the good thing is that we can do exactly the same as you do – tell them the truth and point them to the evidence – this educates our own people at the same time – this is how we share!

And what is remarkable is that no one has a clue what happens, or what interactions occur, when we put all of this shit inside of a person – especially children!

Clearly we are dealing with “terrorists”

_____

Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action « ________________Child Health Safety_________________, on August 30, 2011 at 6:59 pm said:

[...] Data for Parents Measles – Official UK Statistics US Statistics Measles – Rapid Decline Regardless of [...]

_____

US Research Fraud, Tax Dollars And Italian Vaccine Mercury Study « ________________Child Health Safety_________________, on August 30, 2011 at 7:00 pm said:

[...] Data for Parents Measles – Official UK Statistics US Statistics Measles – Rapid Decline Regardless of [...]

_____

CDC’s New Dodgy Thimo Study – Shows Vax’ed/Un-Vax’ed Research Now Urgent « ________________Child Health Safety_________________, on August 30, 2011 at 7:00 pm said:

[...] Data for Parents Measles – Official UK Statistics US Statistics Measles – Rapid Decline Regardless of [...]

_____

Sunday Times Journalist Instigated GMC Case Against Dr Andrew Wakefield « ________________Child Health Safety_________________, on August 30, 2011 at 7:01 pm said:

[...] Data for Parents Measles – Official UK Statistics US Statistics Measles – Rapid Decline Regardless of [...]

_____

Proof That Vaccines Did Not Save Us — 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics | VaxTruth.org, on September 15, 2011 at 7:44 pm said:

[...] Proof That Vaccines Did Not Save Us Tell The World:EmailStumbleUponPrintFacebook Donate today, prevent a vaccine injury tomorrow! [...]

_____

Vaccines Did Not Save Us | VaxTruth.org, on September 24, 2011 at 6:25 am said:

[...] article was written and published by Child Heath Safety, used by [...]

_____

We must continue to fight to keep the opt-out clause in Mandatory Vaccinations. - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 21 - City-Data Forum, on September 25, 2011 at 10:11 am said:

[...] [...]

_____

Chris Parsley Kodawe, on September 30, 2011 at 1:36 am said:

I am a parent of an autistic diagnosed child. My son is now five years old, he was diagnosed at the age of three. I know this is a controversial issue, and as with most controversial issues there or truths on both sides of this dispute. One thing I do know is that I know my child. As with most parents I know what every facial expression means. I know by the look on his face if he is sad, I know if he is happy, I know if he is mad, I know if he does not feel good. I also know that I watched my child change they day he had his vaccination, never to be the same again. This once happy, giggling carefree child within hours of his vaccinations changed. He became distant, irritated, irrational and inconsolable. He would not longer look us in the eyes as he done just days earlier. The hardest part of this journey has been the blatant disregard as we told people what we witnessed our child change in the blink of an eye. They claim that the vaccinations are safe and that it is just coincidence, and that we have made this up so that we have someone or something to blame for our child’s diagnosis. I have had people tell me that I hate my child for his issues and that is why I am looking to blame someone. I had no idea that people could be so cold and heartless when a parent is crying out for help, by talking about what we saw in our child just hours after his vaccinations. We are not the only parents who have seen this happen. I speak with more and more of them every day. For my full story and many other parent stories pertaining to vaccination damage please visit http://www.kodawe.com/?page_id=655
I applaud the media for reporting in an unbiased manner when I see articles such as this one. Thank you!

_____

If you chose to vaccinate,something you should know - Page 43 - Stormfront, on October 18, 2011 at 2:15 pm said:

[...] [...]

Linda Allison, on October 21, 2011 at 2:55 am said:

Vaccines do not protect. Do not get any vaccines made by xxxxxxxxx. xxxxxxxxxxx’s Chicken Pox vaccine is worthless. My son got 2 doses (3 years apart) and he got the Pox. I am never going to trust another vaccine. Spread the word and don’t make the Drug companies richer.

[ED: Minor edits].

_____

Jay W. Chaplin, on October 27, 2011 at 7:20 am said:

You can construct essentially the same graph showing a decline in USA mortality from all cancers, down from 54.5% in 1977 to 35.2% in 2001. Obviously better sanitation and nutrition are making cancer go away too! Yay! As a matter of fact, according to your logic cancer will completely disappear due to our vast improvements in hygeine (all occurring after 1977) by 2040. Well within my lifetime! I think I’ll celebrate with a cigarette.

Your logic has now been falsified. You really should have paid more attention to Aaron Schurger, he was trying to save you from your own stupidity. Incidence data is required and cannot be substituted with mortality data. Please get a clue.

[ED: Yawn. Don't just have the one cigarette. LOL.

Read and weep:-

"New Cases of Cancer Decline in the U.S. By RONI CARYN RABIN, New York Times November 25, 2008

..... according to an annual report by the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and other scientific organizations.

The incidence of new cancer cases has been falling in recent years in the United States, the first time such an extended decline has been documented, researchers reported Tuesday.
......

The report attributes the reductions to adoption of healthier lifestyles ......"

Healthier lifestyles? Hmmmm. Maybe people are eating healthier foods like fresh fruit and vegetables - helps the body manufacture glutathione - essential to cellular health]

_____

Vaccines save lives, on November 10, 2011 at 9:29 am said:

You are criminally irresponsible evil people.

[ED: Unlike the drug industry.]

_____

Jay W. Chaplin, on November 20, 2011 at 6:22 am said:

Dear Ed,
Read the second line in the link you posted, and weep at your own stupidity. Diagnosis rates began to drop in 1999. Mortality clearly began to drop in 1977. Your logic remains falsified.

As long as you persist in using mortality as the measure for disease incidence you are provably false, and the moment you switch to using incidence as the disease measurement you are clearly wrong.

And… You either can’t read the articles you link to or you can’t do the basic math to realize that 1977 is 22 years before 1999.

Sad.

[ED: LOL. Jay, the reason you first posted here was to claim "You can construct essentially the same graph showing a decline in USA mortality from all cancers" and alleging healthier living conditions had nothing to do with that. And that is just wrong.

We sent you off with your little tail between your legs having showed you that improvements in cancer mortality was being attributed by experts at the US National Cancer Institute to healthier lifestyles but still you would not accept the position. You also failed to take any notice of the graph in the NY Times article clearly showing that lung cancer mortality was rising sharply through the 1970s to the 1990s and not declining as you were claiming that "You can construct essentially the same graph showing a decline in USA mortality from all cancers".

You now come back here after 3 1/2 weeks to peddle more pseudo science and be just plain rude and insulting - with abuse "stupidity", claiming others cannot read or do basic math. Jay, you are clearly someone incapable of rational dialogue and presumably spend your free time editing Wikipedia.

So Jay, go back to your immunology workbench at UW, pick up a first grade book on science and start reading. Work your way through all the books in all the grades and guess what, you will still come back here to peddle more woo and junk science.

Graphs depicting overall cancer incidence and mortality are uncommon, and there appear to be reasons for this.

Here are a few suggestions. This quote indicates reasons:-

“Of special note, childhood cancer incidence rates (rates of new diagnoses) continued to increase while death rates in this age group decreased. Childhood cancer is classified as cancers occurring in those 19 years of age or younger.

Overall cancer incidence rates in men were essentially unchanged. There was a very small uptick in prostate cancer rates, and if these rates were excluded from the analysis, there would be a continued decline in overall male incidence rates.“

US National Cancer Institute Annual Report 2011

Here is the graph from the National Cancer Institute which accompanies the New York Times story.

That shows the incidence of lung cancer was rising, not falling from the 1970′s to the 1990′s so your initial premise in your previous post that “You can construct essentially the same graph showing a decline in USA mortality from all cancers” is confounded. Clearly different factors were in play causing cancer mortality rates to increase and not decrease from the 1970s to the 1990s.

_____

Better Natural Healing » Blog Archive » Vaccines: Protect or Harm?, on December 1, 2011 at 12:56 am said:

[...] This site shows statistics from US and UK from before vaccines came out until recently to show how it had not been the reason diseases were ‘eradicated’- like polio. Check out the number of deaths from polio vaccine and polio itself. Maybe vaccines don’t even do what they claim…forget the safety issue. Notice the same trend for those diseases that have no vaccines available. Browse that link- it’s pretty informative. [...]

_____

The Folly Of Bill Gates’ Polio Eradication Campaign – Journal of General Virology | The Refusers, on December 1, 2011 at 4:20 pm said:

[...] This article does not mention the issue of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP), which is the new psuedo-scientific definition for polio symptoms with a negative polio virus lab test. Guess what? The paralysis symptoms of polio are the same thing as those of vaccine adverse reactions. The multiple doses of vaccines they are cramming down third world bodies are creating an epidemic of neurological damage that they are shunting into a new medical definition, polio without polio virus (AFP). The sooner Emperor Bill Gates with his beautiful suit of clothes declares victory and goes home, the better for impoverished third world human beings. If he really wanted to do something for public health, he would devote his billions to improving sanitation. The elimination of contaminated drinking water had more to do with disease eradication in the develo… [...]

_____

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics | Sovereign Independent, on December 6, 2011 at 12:32 pm said:

[...] Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics [...]

Hannah, on December 11, 2011 at 6:51 am said:

I have a bachelors in microbiology, and while i know it isnt much i am working on my doctorate now, however i do know enough to know this is complete and total crap.

I did my undergraduate thesis on vaccinations and herd immunity, which is something you obviously haven’t heard of. you think that the implementation of vaccines to maybe 10 % of the population of Africa is going to have a substantial effect on the reduction vaccine preventable diseases? no that’s ridiculous, the virus/bacteria still has 90% of the population to infect and propagate through.

Also you might want to look up the danish study that debunks the relation between autism and vaccination. Of the over 500000 participants in the study the rates of autism were the same for those who both received and did not receive their vaccinations, furthermore there was no relation between age of vaccination and incidence of autism.

And if you think for one minute it would be better to not vaccinate your child and expose them to measles(which is still the leading cause of child deaths in countries that cant vaccinate due to finances) or polio, tetanus, diphtheria, and the countless other diseases out there, maybe you should listen to the sound of a child dieing from coughing to death from pertussis, or see them writhing in pain form their lesions caused by measles, or locked joints caused by tetanus. Ive seen it. and it is something that will stay with me till the day i die. I only pray that your children never become exposed to these horrendous diseases.

[ED: "Hannah", you are so typical. Despite your claims to a higher education you have not been equipped to analyse critically studies like the "Danish" study to which you refer. You mean the Madsen study. That study is deeply flawed and typical of the "tobacco science" people like you cite to defend an indefensible position. Madsen has never emerged to answer any of the criticisms of the paper including the criticism that when properly analysed the paper shows the opposite of what Madsen and people like you claim.

The Editor of the journal which published the Madsen paper refused to publish a letter from Suissa, an epidemiologist from Magill, who also pointed out basic flaws.

If a medical journal cannot publish valid and damning scientific criticism then medicine should jump off the "science" stage and stop pretending it has any credentials to use the "science" word. That of course applies to you just in case you did not realise it.

People like you are responsible for the carnage amongst children and teenagers killed and injured by vaccines all because you people will neither recognise nor report the most obvious of adverse reactions, serious and less so.

And if you really really believe vaccines do not cause autistic conditions and that people like you are not in denial then have a read of this:

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

Simpson Wood, on December 13, 2011 at 11:54 am said:

Hannah , I believe the study you mention in your argument was sponsored by SSL , a vaccine manufacturer . And the lead author Dr Poul Thorsen of that study went on the run with $2m of stolen research funds , and the last I heard he is wanted by Interpol .
Look all of this up if you dont believe me . So your bachelors degree didnt teach you any of these dirty little secrets . But it wouldnt would it ? Why dont you try and find out what happened at SimpsonWood 2002 (another secret little event shrouded in mystery)?
Come and have a look at my vaccine damaged daughter … its a crime against humanity I live with everyday . And the pertusis vaccine has such major doubts about its effectiveness its been withdrawn in several major countries .
Your facts are straight out of a Merck sponsored text book (aka Muck to their friends)….. plain for all to see.

_____

Dr Jerzy Jaśkowski: Ukryte podatki, czy naciaganie społeczeństwa – na marginesie pewnej rozmowy telewizyjnej., on December 15, 2011 at 5:23 am said:

[...] Nie opublikowano także nigdy zasad na jakich wprowadza się daną szczepionkę do przymusowego stosowania. http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ [...]

_____

Polish Gazette - Dr Jerzy Jaśkowski: Ukryte podatki, czy naciaganie społeczeństwa – na marginesie pewnej rozmowy telewizyjnej., on December 16, 2011 at 2:17 am said:

[...] Nie opublikowano także nigdy zasad na jakich wprowadza się daną szczepionkę do przymusowego stosowania. http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ [...]

La heretique, on December 26, 2011 at 8:30 pm said:

You’ve made a basic mistake in assuming there would have been a continued downward trend in deaths. Since the Victorian era there has been a consistent improvement in the standard of living thats led to an increase in height, IQ scores and overall health, which has led to the lower mortality from infectious diseases like rubella and flu. However, this improvement seems to have peaked in the seventies and eighties. There’s been no improved resistance to disease, or increase in height/IQ etc since. I also object to your ridiculous claim that ‘By 2010 overall measles mortality in the USA was to fall to around 1 in 25 million without vaccines’. Which I’d like to state now is utter BS. Particularly since the measles mortality with vaccination based herd immunity (low chance of exposure) now is higher than that. Non-vaccination in the US and UK has killed several children.

Here is a chart showing the deaths from measles in the UK per year:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814

You’ll notice in 1988, when the MMR was intrduced there was a drop from 16 to 3 deaths. Since then we’ve had about 1 or 2 a year, mainly older adults.

You also seem to miss the point that it’s the live virus part of vaccines (like the socially accquired diseases herpes, chickenpox, measles) that cause the encepahalitis that causes the vaccination injuries. Not the thimerasol. I’m not making some statement that thimerasol is safe, just stating that you don’t seem to grasp what actually caused the damage in the vaccine. You should google ‘herpes encephalitits’ for information. Encephalitis can occur with expose to some fairly mild diseases, and the incidence with vaccines is about one per two million doses. Herpes encepahalitis can cause late onset autism, so there’s no good reason for any other virus (in a vaccine or ‘wild’) not to. The point is that it’s really, really rare. Vaccines are not risk free, but you get fewer deaths and disabilites with them than without them. Way more rare than the brain damage,encepahlitis, blindness and deaths from rubella etc in an unvaccinated population. In Ierland, a healthy, well cared for population, rubella infected 1,220 with three deaths. Japan had about 17 deaths a year. Also, an outbreak in an unvaccinated European community had three deaths from rubella; many of the infected had serious complications. Quote:

“The three measles-related deaths and 68 hospitalizations that occurred among 2961 cases in the Netherlands indicate that measles can be severe and may result in death even in industrialized countries.”

So, rubella; not nice and still a danger even today. Even with one of the world best healthcare systems. You’ve made a the provably wrong claim that if we were all unvaccinated we’d have nearly no deaths. Well going by a combination of Ireland and the Netherlands mortality rates (1/700 ish) , and assuming a low 30% rate of infection, an unprotected population of sixty million people would have over 85,000 deaths. Compared to about a dozen vaccination deaths and injuries. Which is why we vaccinate.

NOT ONE IN 25 MILLION.

[ED: Attentuation is a well-known phenomenon. Good luck with your opinions. Immunity can be afforded by asymptomatic infection - you know, where the "disease" circulates amongst those who suffer no symptoms but thereby have their immunity constantly topped up - a well-known phenomenon with chickenpox.]

La heretique, on December 30, 2011 at 2:47 pm said:

[ED: Readers are invited to visit the website of this commenter to see examples of the kinds of misleading information people like this commenter publish on the web. Death is around every corner if you subscribe to these people's opinions and only vaccines can save us and our kids. Utter BS, but there you are, there is no accounting for taste.]

Well lets see..

:”Attentuation is a well-known phenomenon. Good luck with your opinions. Immunity can be afforded by asymptomatic infection – you know, where the “disease” circulates amongst those who suffer no symptoms”

Utter BS.

The death rates for these diseases for the unvaccinated but otherwise healthy in developed world in the last couple of decades world are well known. Your focus on smallpox, an extinct disease is baffling.The death rates make a nonsense of your claims:

Mortality rates from measles in America and the developed world in the unvaccinated are 1/5000, not 1 in 25 million.

Mortality rates from rubella are about 1/300 in the US, and about 1/900 with one of the worlds best healthcare system (Netherlands outbreak in unvaccinated children in religious groups).

Whooping cough mortality is about 1/250 in infected unvaccinated babies(New Zealand outbreak and US outbreaks). Not including other lung and brain damage.

Diptheria mortality is 1/5 for young children, about 1/10 for adults.

The vaccinated don’t get these diseases. If you flipped the UK magically to being unvacinated for all things, a couple of million people at least would die. Compared to perhaps a hundred or so dead or brain damaged from vaccines. And no, they aren’t 100% safe, no medicine is.

I’ve noticed you’ve avoided posting modern mortality rates here. Also, no direct comparisones of before vaccination to after vaccinated death rates. You don’t show the change in different death rates, you just show the improvement in survival rates due to the improvement of living standards and health care over the 20th century.

“their immunity constantly topped up – a well-known phenomenon with chickenpox.”

Well, chickenpox has a mortality rate too. About 90 people die in the US, mainly adults with complications, but also healthy children The death rate is about 1/100,000,000 for healthy children, but 1/300,000 for adults. I’m in the UK, where we don’t vaccinate. Introduction of the chickenpox vaccine in the US saves about 70-80 lives a year.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa042271
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11829699

I’d also to like point out Encephalopathy is caused by viral infections. These are a known but rare kind of vaccination injury. Not caused by thimerasol by by the virus vaccine. A non vaccinated person is at higher risk of encepahalitis when they catch ‘wild’ variants of rubella /measles etc. Herpes (cold sore) encephalitis is a known cause of ASD type brain injury. This kind of brain damage from encephalopaty is really rare.

And the overwhelming results from scientific studies into autism find that there has been no real increase in the rates of autism over the past few decades, just increased diagnosis. I’ve dug through the studies, only one Californian study supports in increase, about a dozen others support no change/better diagnosis.

Studies against a meaningful increase in autism incidence.

Autism and diagnostic substitution: evidence from a study of adults with a history of developmental language disorder.

“Some children who would nowadays be diagnosed unambiguously with autistic disorder had been diagnosed with developmental language disorder in the past. This finding has implications for our understanding of the epidemiology of autism.”

Pervasive developmental disorders in preschool children: confirmation of high prevalence.

“The rate of pervasive developmental disorders is higher than reported 15 years ago. The rate in this study is comparable to that in previous birth cohorts from the same area and surveyed with the same methods, suggesting a stable incidence”

Epidemiology of autistic disorder and other pervasive developmental disorders.

Epidemiology of Pervasive Developmental Disorders pdf

There is evidence that the broadening of the concept, the expansion of diagnostic criteria, the development of services, and improved awareness of the condition have played a major role in explaining this increase, although it cannot be ruled out that other factors might have also contributed to that trend. …. Although it is clear that prevalence estimates have gone up over time, this increase most likely represents changes in the concepts, definitions, service availability, and awareness of autistic-spectrum disorders in both the lay and professional public.

Epidemiology and possible causes of autism

“A major cause of the recent large increase in the number of boys diagnosed with autism probably is due to changing diagnostic practices.”

Incidence of autism spectrum disorders: changes over time and their meaning.

“The true incidence of autism spectrum disorders is likely to be within the range of 30-60 cases per 10 000, a huge increase over the original estimate 40 years ago of 4 per 10000. The increase is largely a consequence of improved ascertainment and a considerable broadening of the diagnostic concept. However, a true risk due to some, as yet to be identified, environmental risk factor cannot be ruled out. There is no support for the hypothesis for a role of either MMR or thimerosal in causation, but the evidence on the latter is more limited”

The Contribution of Diagnostic Substitution to the Growing Administrative Prevalence of Autism in US Special Education

Prevalence findings from special education data do not support the claim of an autism epidemic because the administrative prevalence figures for most states are well below epidemiological estimates. The growing administrative prevalence of autism from 1994 to 2003 was associated with corresponding declines in the usage of other diagnostic categories.

Vaccines and the changing epidemiology of autism.

“The recorded prevalence of autism has increased considerably in recent years. This reflects greater recognition, with changes in diagnostic practice associated with more trained diagnosticians; broadening of diagnostic criteria to include a spectrum of disorder; a greater willingness by parents and educationalists to accept the label (in part because of entitlement to services); and better recording systems, among other factors. The cause(s) of autism remains unclear. There is a strong genetic component which, along with prenatally determined neuro-anatomical/biochemical changes, makes any post-natal ’cause’ unlikely.”

The validity of the autism spectrum disorders-diagnosis for intellectually disabled adults

Prevalence of autism and related conditions in adults in a mental handicap hospital.

Epidemiology of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Adults in the Community in England

“To our knowledge, there is no published information on the epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) in adults. If the prevalence of autism is increasing, rates in older
Conclusions Conducting epidemiologic research on ASD in adults is feasible. The prevalence of ASD in this population is similar to that found in children. The lack of an association with age is consistent with there having been no increase in prevalence and with its causes being temporally constant.”

Three Reasons Not to believe in an Autism Epidemic

ABSTRACT—According to some lay groups, the nation is experiencing an autism epidemic—a rapid escalation in the prevalence of autism for unknown reasons. However, no sound scientific evidence indicates that the increasing number of diagnosed cases of autism arises from anything other than purposely broadened diagnostic criteria, coupled with deliberately greater public awareness and intentionally improved case finding. Why is the public perception so disconnected from the scientific evidence? In this article we review three primary sources of misunderstanding: lack of awareness about the changing diagnostic criteria, uncritical acceptance of a conclusion illogically drawn in a California-based study, and inattention to a crucial feature of the ‘‘child count’’ data reported annually by the U.S. Department of Education.

Increase in autism due to change in definition, not MMR vaccine

Social Influence Plays Role in Surging Autism Diagnoses, Study Finds (can’t locate paper)

the study, by researchers from the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy at Columbia University, found that children living near a child who has been previously diagnosed with autism have a much higher chance of being diagnosed themselves in the following year. The increased likelihood of being diagnosed is not due to environmental factors or contagious agents, the study found. Rather, it is due mainly to parents learning about autism from other parents who have a child diagnosed with the disorder.

The Changing Prevalence of Autism in California

These data suggest that improvements in detection and changes in diagnosis account for the observed increase in autism; whether there has also been a true increase in incidence is not known.

Analysis of prevalence trends of autism spectrum disorder in Minnesota

We could not assess changes in actual disease incidence with these data, but federal and state administrative changes in policy and law favoring better identification and reporting of autism are likely contributing factors to the prevalence increases and may imply that autism spectrum disorder has been underdiagnosed in the past.

Is autism more common now than ten years ago?

Even though the prevalence rates refer to slightly different age cohorts, it was concluded that the apparent increase is in part due to better detection, but also to new cases born to immigrant parents. Typical cases of autistic disorder accounted for 75% of cases, and 20% had normal or near-normal IQs.

Reevaluating the incidence of pervasive developmental disorders: impact of elevated rates of detection through implementation of an integrated system of screening in Toyota, Japan.

An approximately 11-fold increase was noted in prevalence of PDD compared to a previous survey two decades ago, and two main factors were believed to account for this apparent sharp increase. First, inclusion of high-functioning subjects detected during infancy, and second, higher rates of diagnosis resulting from an integrated process of screening.

I’m in my forties, I’ve known five autistic boys, one is a relative. Back in the eighties and seventies, only one would have been diagnosed with autism, the others all have fairly mild Aspergers. Even the obviously autistic one would probably be have been labelled as retarded not autistic.I’ve asked older teachers and doctors if there’s a higher incidence now. The answer has been a mix of ‘better diagnosis and awareness’ from the GP and ‘we just used to call them naughty’ from older teachers.

I wonder how many deaths you’ve caused with this site.

Kristen, on January 3, 2012 at 9:02 am said:

I am not a scientist and I try not to take a side, I want to look at all the facts and make a logical decision as best I can. But please realise this. This site is biased, the information provided is obviously one sided. You are doing everything that science is not meant to do. Research emotional attachments to ideas, learn how to control your mind a little better and start researching again.

Critical thinking for the win.

[ED: Hmm. Biased?

Must be just like Merck's Director of Vaccine Division, Julie Gerberding, or the US Health Resources Services Administration, or the US Federal Court all of whom have confirmed vaccines can cause autistic conditions:-

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

Or maybe it is like the US Department of Justice and the US Department of Health and Human Services on whose behalf the DoJ acted and the medical and scientific experts who agreed that Hepatitis B vaccine causes lupus and the death of a little girl:-

US Government Concedes Hep B Vaccine Causes Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Or maybe it is not biased like Professor Sir Michael Rutter and the Japanese Hideo Honda and his colleague who published a paper claiming the MMR vaccine could not be the cause of autistic conditions when they clearly overlooked evidence to the contrary published only a couple of years earlier in Japan and were unscientific to a high degree:-

Japanese & British Data Show Vaccines Cause Autism

Or maybe this site is biased like the 200 years of official statistics from the USA, Australia and United Kingdom which show that:-

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics

Yawn. Or maybe it is you are so biased you will not accept any evidence which does not accord with your beliefs. Or maybe it is something else about you like other people who come on this site to make comments that white is black and vice versa.]

_____

We are (still) allowed to think outside the box. « freeasthysweetmountainair, on January 21, 2012 at 9:34 pm said:

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

pryorka82, on January 29, 2012 at 5:06 pm said:

A lot of commenters kept saying death rate isn’t an accurate show of the damage done by disease, but the book How to Lie With Statistics says just the opposite, that death rates are the most accurate way to monitor a disease. This is because the media, the government, and different medical organizations, all influenced by pharma change diagnostic codes at a whim. Death rates and causes of death are reported because a death certificate is always filled out. The best way to manipulate people [xxxxxxx ED edited] is to quote incidence rate because it is under the control of pharmaceutical controlled organizations. If you want to show a drug or vaccine is effective, just release the drug and simultaneously persuade government, the media, and health authorities to change diagnostic criteria. Like this site points out, 90% of claimed cases of swine flu, measles and other such diseases are actually not what they were reported to be. The testing is never done. So I appreciate this site for being accurate and NOT being biased. Those that think this site is biased, yet choose to believe pharma propoganda i ask you to read How to Lie With Statistics and you’ll see this site is the honest one.

_____

Angie, on January 31, 2012 at 10:54 pm said:

Thank you for all the hard work and research you have shared here. It is much appreciated. I am trying to educate my mind-controlled doctor who trusts (and I can’t fully blame him since who wants to believe we’re being lied to by an “authority”?) the seminars he’s been to. The charts don’t lie. People who don’t want to believe them or who call them “lies” just don’t get it. I’d like to see them prove historical statistics to be “lies.” You have presented facts, the naysayers have nothing to back their naysayings. Yu have done the WORK, indeed, and the fact that most of these communicable diseases were already in decline before vaccines were introduced (due to a better understanding of germs and increased sanitation, etc.) is the truth, and it speaks volumes. The charts are invaluable and I am printing them along with your article and will share them with my doctor. There is hope yet.

_____

Angie, on January 31, 2012 at 10:59 pm said:

Cristen, if you genuinely had your mind changed by the facts presented here, then *nothing*–not even the host’s attitude–would have changed your mind. The charts and data more than speak for themselves. Don’t cheat yourself out of wonderful knowledge because of how you feel someone else behaves. The facts are the facts regardless of the presenter.

_____

Kris, on January 31, 2012 at 11:27 pm said:

Oh give me a break, they can’t truly link autism and vaccines. Just because you pick studies that appear to have made a link does not make it true. As much as you may like to believe in ‘conspiracies’ and that the whole world is out to get you and wear your tin foil hats doesn’t make it a reality. Humans aren’t very good at keeping secrets, especially when these actions are extremely unethical. Things come out eventually and research clearly begins to show the truth. You act as if there aren’t scientists, and intelligent people in the medical industry out there who have searched for the truth and come to the opposite conclusion as you. There are, plenty of them. But no, they must be corrupt and blinded by the truth. I am still researching this topic and learning more my mind isn’t made up but there is no real reason to believe what you do yet. Eh, I’ll send someone with more experience who deals with people who work in the medical / vaccine industry as well to talk to you. Hopefully you can learn a thing or two, grow up a wee bit and shut down this site. Might save a few lives.

[ED: Ha. Read the following. It might help save not just a few but lots of children getting autistic conditions as a result of vaccines. And gimme a break - stop pretending plain old greed and corruption is a "conspiracy theory". It is not. It is just plain old greed and corruption:

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

_____

Kristen, on February 1, 2012 at 11:38 am said:

How hard is it to understand you are presenting HALF the argument! Even on the sites you posted, in the comments below, some people present VERY valid fantastic arguments. Yet we just seem to ignore them. How are you making rational decisions if you do this?! How are you being fair if you don’t present these other sides…

Why do I need to go into this…

[ED: Kristen, like many others of the genre, trolls around the internet posting comments like this designed to sow doubt where there need be none. No half arguments are presented here only 200 years of official statistics showing a clear picture that the people Kristen adores have been telling us far less than half the story.]

_____

Angie, on February 2, 2012 at 3:58 pm said:

Kristen, the pro-vaccine paradigm presents only half of the argument. This site presents the other (ignored) half.

_____

Angie, on February 2, 2012 at 4:02 pm said:

And, Kristen, the pro-vaccine paradigm doesn’t present “the other sides”, so why don’t you take up a beef with them? Or does your scale of “fairness” tip only to the side you choose to be on? This site presents facts, data, numbers, historic records, etc. The pro-vaccine paradigm has fear and emotionalism as its strongest weapon. Facts are objective, yet emotions and fear are untrustworthy.

_____

Kristen, on February 2, 2012 at 10:30 pm said:

Good point, however the anti-vaccine campaign definitely uses fear as one of it’s major weapons. This definitely is a complicated issue, however I truly feel there isn’t enough strong evidence to say that vaccines are bad / dangerous. To be sure of it anyway, which this site is.

By the way, in regards to the above. Someone said, “don’t act like plain old greed and corruption is a conspiracy theory.” Greed and corruption are not, however the fact they keep these dark secrets about vaccines which they are making money off and actually HURTING people with is. The fact no moral or ethical person has the balls to stand up and say the truth, or spill the beans does make it a conspiracy theory. Let me guess, they don’t because they are being ‘mind controlled,’ or they will be killed? That has never been enough to stop people in the past.

[ED: Good grief.

The "anti-vaccine campaign" what tosh. What campaign? Who funds it? Where is it? What a conspiracy theorist you are, dear.

There are concerned people who are pro-safety for children. Its you anti-vaccine-safety zealots who are the problem.

History is littered with examples of government officials and experts coming forward to claim this or that is perfectly safe and "there is no scientific evidence" to the contrary. Is that conspiracy or just was government always does? Yep it is just what government always does. And they do it about vaccines just as much as anything else.

Then we find later it was total bunk. Example of experts and officials telling the public total bunk: Gulf War Syndrome being non-existent. Meat and meat products being perfectly safe despite BSE/"mad cow disease". Camelford, England - aluminium sulphate tipped into the local water supply. The serious health effects on the population were dismissed as either non-existent or nothing to do with the incident. Don't ask for more or better examples which can likely be found because it is such an obvious point we have other things to do than to look them up right now.]

Kristen, on February 2, 2012 at 10:33 pm said:

Also in regards to emotionalism…Lots of people who are anti-vaccine have had things happen to them or their children…I don’t really need to explain the obvious struggles parents have with this. Having someone to blame focus’s there anger and becomes a strength (in a sense) and helps them feel a lot less out of control. A lot of the stories I have ready are ‘instant transformations’ of their children within 10mins of getting a vaccine, emotionally rife memories to be sure (again I am sure we all know that emotions DO tamper with out memories).

[ED: Good grief again. "Lots of people who are anti-vaccine".

Really. Where are they? How many are "lots"? Where is your reference for the research to back this up?

"have had things happen to them or their children" - Yep. Its called vaccine damage and it is acknowledged vaccine adverse reactions are substantially under-reported.

What bunk - so you say they just want something to blame. What a bizarre claim. You anti-vaccine safety people cannot be taken seriously.

What you claim is just not applicable such as to parents who witness their child have a serious reaction just after getting the vaccine when there is nor can be any other explanation.

Vaccines are not safe for everyone - just read the product inserts. So how many serious adverse reactions are unreported and unacknowledged? We just don't know because they are not reported.

People should know the risks and they just don't and neither do the "experts" of the family doctors.]

Angie, on February 3, 2012 at 2:54 pm said:

It’s not fear, Kristen, it is solid information given to people about side effects from the gook (that shouldn’t be there) placed into vaccines that most kids, as over 100 years of statistics clearly details, DO NOT NEED. Vaccine injuries are numerous and serous. Research VAERS. Most children who end up with serious vaccine injuries and/or death were healthy children who would have been able to recover normally from most “childhood disease” if they had ever been infected with them in the first place. I know plenty of non-vaccinating families and none of their children developed any of these diseases, and they know many other people who are non-vaccine with the same outcome. However, you can’t go anywhere any more without meeting someone who has a child with autism or someone who knows someone with a child with autism, or some other strange neurological issue. Thimerosal was not the only problem; people forget about the formaldehyde, fluoride, aluminum (neuro-toxic), aborted fetal cell lines, Simian Virus 40, Polysorbate 80 (known as a cause of infertility), etc. that is in vaccines.

I’m tired of the argument that we are exposed to a lot of these toxins in our environment (mostly in our food). When you eat food it goes through your gut where your body purges and cleanses out what it doesn’t need and what is not good, and it spares your blood stream from receiving the largest amount of it, which also protects your brain from a full onslaught of poison. However, when it is injected into your muscle it goes straight into your blood and to your brain and the rest of your body without a shield of defense. Now, apply this to a small infant or child whose immune system is not fully mature and a blood-brain barrier that hasn’t yet closed, and these toxins are courting potential disaster–especially in those who are more sensitive to having a reaction from the toxins. Toxins in the environment should never be an excuse for intentionally injecting it into the bodies of children.

_____

Angie, on February 3, 2012 at 3:01 pm said:

“A lot of the stories I have ready are ‘instant transformations’ of their children within 10mins of getting a vaccine…”

And, Kristen, a LOT of vaccine injuries also do not happen within 10 minutes of receiving the vaccine. Some children, after spiking high fevers, with or without convulsions, several hours after vaccine(s) actually have died up to several days following. These children were perfectly normal before vaccine administration. They had no illness, no fevers, were alert, bright, no history of seizures. Their bodies, following vaccine, experienced systemic injury and neurological damage. Many who don’t die end up with autistic symptoms that did not exist before certain vaccines were administered. Parents KNOW their children better than anyone else. If you have children I don’t doubt you know this.

There is also research showing the DTaP being linked with an increase in SIDS deaths, and there are even doctors who know this and warn their patients about it, so they can make a more informed choice.

Angie, on February 3, 2012 at 3:05 pm said:

Kristen, read these testimonials:

http://www.thinktwice.com/stories.htm

There are MANY more.

When it’s your child, it makes all the difference in the world.

_____

Angie, on February 3, 2012 at 3:06 pm said:

Here are more:

http://thinktwice.com/stories2.htm

_____

La heretique, on March 2, 2012 at 1:29 pm said:

Hmm… well my website is currently posting mainly on how the media ignores Muslim hate crimes in the UK, and has zero relevance to the subject of vaccinations. I don’t think I mention vaccinations once on it, in the eight or so posts I made.

Apparently this makes the information which I gathered from widely available publications wrong? No.

The ‘attenutation’ you claim is bullshit. The death rates from rubella I quote are from unvaccinated religious groups with ‘undamaged’ immune systems and are very real and easily verifiable.

Unlike you I have bothered to access ALL the data for the autism/vaccines, I only posted the antidote to your POV as you seem desperate to have people think this argument is one sided. The issue is that there are about half a dozen papers that suggest vaccines/thimerasol as a source of autism and about fifty plus that don’t, not counting the masses of research that has led to the observation that autism has a major genetic component and seems to be present from birth on, something you neglect completely on this site. I’ve looked at ALL the evidence with an open mind, and the evidence for any vaccine/autism link other than the the occassional case of post-vaccine encepahlitis (caused by exposure to live virus, not thimerasol) is very weak, but the evidence for it being congenital is very strong. This is why most legitimate scientists researching autism have ditched the ‘vaccine as suspect’ line. It’s a dead end.

They stopped using thimerasol in childhood vaccines in California and the rate of autism diagnoses there continued to climb. Does this not at least give you reason for thought? Apparently not.

You completely ignore all the work done that shows there has just been an increase in diagnosis of autism, not in the actual incidence. You show only the evidence that suits you here. I posted the stuff you decided people didn’t ‘need’ to see.

Obviously the fact that someone who independently (and I’m not the only one judging by the other comments here) went through all the research and came to a very different conclusion to you offends you greatly. I know damn well the bulk of current researchers share my opinion, not yours.

[ED: You don't even know how to spell "thiomersal" so you obviously do not know what you are talking about and get your information from blogs. You wrote "thimerasol". There are two spellings of this brand name - the other is "thimerosal".

And a mystery as to why you have popped up here to post. No idea who you are. And you write as if replying to something posted on your website.

As for hate crimes you seem full of hate. Eg. "The 'attenutation' you claim is bullshit." Thanks for the abuse and disparagement in your post. It makes those who take a contrary view to yours seem very much more reasonable in contrast. [And attenuation is a medically known fact].

You seem to know little about vaccine injuries to children and protecting them from them. But you suddenly think you are an expert on the basis of “information which I gathered from widely available publications“.

Stick to hate. It is what you know. As you say “my” [ie. your] “website is currently posting mainly on how the media ignores Muslim hate crimes in the UK, and has zero relevance to the subject of vaccinations. I don’t think I mention vaccinations once on it, in the eight or so posts I made.”

As for your “I’ve looked at ALL the evidence with an open mind” anyone reading your comment above can see your mind is closed. So thanks for making that clear to anyone reading this.

So shall we pick some things which you clearly do not understand?

You say “You completely ignore all the work done that shows there has just been an increase in diagnosis of autism, not in the actual incidence.”

Well, as the Israeli evidence shows, from highly reliable data sources and contemporary diagnostic criteria and methods [which you have ignored completely despite claiming looking at "ALL" the evidence] there has been a real and substantial increase and it is not just diagnosis. And we try to give references to original sources for our claims, unlike you: “Time trends in autism” IMAJ • VOL 12 • p711 November 2010.

You say “They stopped using thimerasol in childhood vaccines in California and the rate of autism diagnoses there continued to climb. Does this not at least give you reason for thought? Apparently not.”

But you fail to understand that it is not just mercury in vaccines which can cause autistic conditions – Merck’s Director of Vaccine Division Julie Gerberding conceded vaccines in general can cause autistic conditions when head of the US CDC and she did it on US national broadcast TV news. The US Health Resources Services Administration [HRSA] also conceded vaccines in general can cause autistic conditions. You can read about it here [with links to sources of course unlike you]: “Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines“.

You also seem to wholly fail to understand that the numbers of children diagnosed with autistic conditions will continue to increase even if we stopped all vaccines today worldwide. The average age of diagnosis for Asperger’s Syndrome is 9, so children will continue to be diagnosed to age 18 and some albeit fewer even to ages like 25 and in very rare cases, older.

So go away and read up another topic on the internet and then write about it on your blog as if you are an expert – Oh, sorry, hate – you already appear to be an expert in that.]

_____

Israeli, on March 3, 2012 at 4:50 pm said:

Speaking of Israeli data, Please take note of the fact that as far as autism being “congenital”, There’s a much stronger piece of evidence then the one you cited, and you’ll find it here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15052396

[ED: We agree the paper you cite is significant.

The importance of the IMAJ information to which we linked [“Time trends in autism” IMAJ • VOL 12 • p711 November 2010.] is that it destroys the claim the increase in autistic conditions is not real but is better diagnosis and greater awareness.

17 year olds born in the 1980s in Israel were diagnosed according to modern diagnostic standards and procedures. The outcome was that for those born in the 1980s in Israel 8.4 in 10,000 had autism. There were very few cases of any with Asperger syndrome. “autism” in this figure is that defined under DSM IV/ICD10 or what is sometimes referred to as “classic,” “typical,” “infantile,” “Kanner,” “childhood” autism).

The figure is more reliable than others.

Other papers published show there has been an increase in diagnoses but this seems to be the first time a reliable comparison between children born now and children born in the 1980s.

We hope that assists.]

_____

Brian Warner, on March 12, 2012 at 1:21 am said:

Gee you do get some ratbags making comments on things they know nothing about ….
They do not take the overall view of health.
Most diseases were dying out as the hygiene improved BUT the food additives were increasing and the Fluoridation began after milk began to be pasteurised which killed the good bacteria and began to bring about allergies.One needs to put everything together to see what is occurring.Take for instance milk ..the cow gives one milk But how many can you buy in a supermart??? A study showed that the additive 202 caused
hyperactivity in children in 2002 but it is still in the bread.Bread is made with Fluoridated water but the Fluotride remains after baking.
Drinks on the shelf have been shown that different colour additives cause hyperactivity in children BUT it is still being used so over the last 70 years with GMOs and the different chemicals in use and additives ARE THE MAIN CAUSE OF A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF HEAILTH PROBLEMS TODAY .

The Proof that Vaccines Have not Saved Us, on March 30, 2012 at 3:33 pm said:

[...] via http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ Print Friendly [...]

Roger Bird, on April 26, 2012 at 9:25 pm said:

The government lies. Big government tells big lies. Small government tells small lies.

What is Neomycin Doing Inside MMR Vaccine Solutions, Professor Chong Chia Yin? « MyQute Health & Personal Views, on April 29, 2012 at 8:09 am said:

[...] Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics [...]

Mercury in Vaccine Solutions and Amalgams « MyQute Health & Personal Views, on April 30, 2012 at 5:30 pm said:

[...] Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics [...]

Justifying mandatory vaccination « australiansceptics, on May 9, 2012 at 8:25 am said:

[...] as far as I can tell, this cannot be backed up with any evidence. The site, Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics, seems to debunk this notion as well as any other. If vaccines saved lives, it is hard to find [...]

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – IV: But So Has The USA – Some Autism History « ________________Child Health Safety_________________, on May 28, 2012 at 8:34 pm said:

[...] Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics [...]

Experts say all school children should be vaccinated against flu - Page 3, on June 7, 2012 at 10:23 am said:

[...] [...]

Think nonvaxers are crazy? Think again and here’s why… | Honestly Outspoken, on June 8, 2012 at 1:15 am said:

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

Did vaccines end disease? - Omega News, on June 19, 2012 at 9:12 pm said:

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

matheus, on June 21, 2012 at 9:02 pm said:

What a bunch of baloney, gimme some bread and butter, please!
How people fall for this is beyond me… to bad Americans are like sheep…

Chris, on June 28, 2012 at 4:57 pm said:

Well I am pleased to see intelligent people having a reasonable discussion, a little sad about the name calling and anger demonstrated by both sides of the debate. I am a research scientist working in the field of sepsis, after having my first child I became very interested in vaccines for obvious reasons.
To the author of this blog, first of all great job in putting this information together, the pro vaccine agenda clearly has more money, influence, and the advantage in promoting the pro vaccine view when compared to the anti-vaccine group. That being said as a scientist who knows a little bit about basic immunology, would you deny the basic immunological principles of T-cell and B-cell memory cells? Sorry if I bore people but very basic simplified immunology describes that upon an initial infection cells such as neutrophils, macrophages and dendritic cells migrate to the site of infection this process is termed the innate immune response, as the infection persists macrophages, B-cells and dendritic cells phagocytose antigen/bacteria and present them to T-cells this later process is termed the adaptive immune response, in addition B-cells begin to undergo isotype switching and will produce antibodies. After the infection has been cleared there will be antibodies left to that foreign pathogen and memory T-cells to that pathogen. These memory cells remain and if that same pathogen is encountered again these memory cells are capable of removing the pathogen much faster than the initial infection, this process is called immunological memory. Taken together vaccines are nothing more than a replication of these basic immunology principles. A live virus, partial virus (cell wall, specific proteins) or a whole inactive virus at low doses are used to generate an immune response to create immunological memory. If this process occurs naturally in nature, why is their so much fear about the practical application of vaccines that replicate this natural process? Vaccines are based on sound scientific principles. I was born in 1980 so I took the entire cascade of vaccines and more when I started working due to patient contact.
However to the pro vaccine people, even though I do believe in the basic principles of vaccines I have some major concerns! When I was a kid I had 6 vaccines before entering school, my son was offered 12, I took 6 of them, basically the ones that I took as a kid and nothing more.http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=867&tbm=isch&tbnid=Wwm24XWXlWEMHM%3A&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwrc559.com%2F2012%2F04%2F06%2F6477%2F&docid=8ZxMH13ywj4jTM&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwrc559.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F04%2F529320_10150664399451446_190824176445_9653252_763068781_n1.jpg%3Fw%3D588%26h%3D368&w=588&h=368&ei=OF3rT765DtL9rAG5t-HCBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=181&vpy=168&dur=4622&hovh=177&hovw=284&tx=194&ty=48&sig=104218682195758790020&page=1&tbnh=128&tbnw=205&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t%3A429%2Cr%3A0%2Cs%3A0%2Ci%3A76
How can 46 does of 14 vaccines by the age of 6 be normal? What are the long term effects of priming a child’s immune system that many times. In addition to autism look at the all the auto immune disorders that have been popping up, psoriasis for example, look at the increased amount of allergic response that occur in the West due to hyper-active immune systems. I am also concerned about thimerosal, they tell pregnant women to watch their fish consumption for mercury but it is ok for infants to get this many doses. I am also concerned about squalene and others agents found in vaccines that cause infertility. Most importantly I am concerned about the marriage of big pharma with our health and doctors, allopathic medicine more often than not tends to want to cure everything with pharmaceuticals and than cure the side effects with more pharmaceuticals and none the while never looking at natural alternative remedies.
In summary I believe in the practical application of vaccines and the science of vaccines. I am against immunizing against every disease big pharma can think to increase their profit motive and I am certainly against mandatory vaccinations. Moreover, viral vaccinations against the flu and swine flu which are viruses that constantly mutate are semi-protective at best and may cause more harm than good. In fact the only time I was sick from the flu was the one year I took the vaccine never again will I take another Flu shot. My goal in this discussion is mixed I believe in vaccines but I believe big pharma lobbying crocked politician are to blame for the diminishing effect of vaccines. I believe we should to get rid of all these questionable preservatives and adjuvants and come up with the safest form of vaccines possible that can stimulate immunological memory. More research needs to be done on the cumulative effect of taking this many vaccines at once before it can be deemed safe for the public especially for vaccines against mutating viruses.

Merck Vaccine Fraud – 2nd US Court Case Over MMR Vaccine « ________________Child Health Safety_________________, on July 2, 2012 at 11:44 pm said:

[...] Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics [...]

Elizabeth, on August 7, 2012 at 8:22 pm said:

I believe the above comment is very well stated, however, I have read that the immune response from vaccines is different than the natural immunity acquired through “normal” exposure. I can’t quote off the top of my head where I read this, but Dr Russell Blaylock has a lot of great info on this topic. The constant and persistent activation of the immune system (sp. the brain’s microglia) by multiple vaccines (including adjuvants and contaminants) over a short period of time in a developing brain and nervous system seems a major culprit. In vulnerable bodies (malnourished, poor kidney function, or other environmenal stressors) this sets the stage for complications and adverse effects– most of which seem to be permanent or long term.

Replika publiczna prof. dr hab. Marii Doroty Majewskiej « Wszystko jest na wspak, on September 16, 2012 at 3:01 pm said:

[...] Istotną sprawą całkowicie pominiętą w ww. artykule jest fakt, że ten kalendarz szczepień jest całkowicie arbitralny. Nie ma żadnych dowodów, że został on opracowany w oparciu o rzetelne badania, które by wykazały, że podawanie niemowlętom szczepień według takiego schematu i w takich kombinacjach jest bezpieczne i skutecznie chroni przed chorobami zakaźnymi. Natomiast coraz więcej danych wskazuje, że nie są one ani bezpieczne, ani skuteczne. Dalekie od prawdy jest też twierdzenie, że szczepienia wyeliminowały większość zakaźnych chorób. Dane demograficzne z kilku krajów ujawniły, że to nie szczepienia, ale poprawa higieny i warunków życia ludności oraz wprowadzenie antybiotyków w radykalny sposób zmniejszyły zachorowalność i umieralność na choroby zakaźne już na wiele lat przed wprowadzeniem szczepień. (http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/; http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/pubhealth/rosner/g896…). [...]

peacefulchange, on September 22, 2012 at 9:25 pm said:

Fear of death IS often used as a motivator to encourage the use of vaccinations and the evidence of the reality pointed out in this post makes the death argument mute.

As I come across a lot of pro vaccers arguments, the cry about preventing death is popularly consistent. It was also my experience with my sons doctor, when I turned down the swine flu vac for my son. The doctor said, “there will be more deaths”… my main concern at the time, was the safety of this new, barely tested vaccine & the reports by parents about how their children are affected by other vaccines began to concern me and those who were supposed to know, were & are literally denying it occurs… I would turn into an angry mother bear if my child suffered from an adverse reaction & the health organizations & the doctors ignored the obvious cause… I determined it was much better to err on the side of caution and see how it all played out while maintaining good old fashioned nutrition & cleanliness practices.

I’ve done much research since the Swine Flu days which has lead me to many conclusions & more questions.

The first thing I think it’s important for people to know is that you don’t have to vaccinate your children in order for them to attend public grammar school. In MOST states you just go in and sign a waiver. They make it seem like you have to vaccinate, but you don’t. There are a few states that you may have to do a little more work to get out of it, but I’m not sure which states those are. In AZ all you have to do is sign a paper, it’s very simple. If there is an outbreak in the school of one of the diseases your child is not vaccinated for, then you may be requested to keep your child home for a while.

Some of my findings & observations:
I now believe that my sons hearing loss now stems from the over use of vaccines… The denial by the “system” in general on transparency about vaccine safety & side effects is disconcerting, however, as someone pointed out above, first comes ridicule, then denial, followed by acceptance… It seems like there is more transparency over drug side effects advertized on TV than there is about vaccinations… The FDA does not readily provide the statistics about adverse reaction reports, you have to send a request, then they charge you money & you don’t even know if you’ll get the answers you seek… Once you begin to understand more about the system & learn that the vaccine manufacturers are immune from responsibility, you are likely to become even more concerned…

If you want to make an informed decision about whether or not to vaccinate, the following are a LOT of key questions that one might want to consider seeking the answers to:

How can you weigh the options correctly without knowing what the chances of an adverse reaction are vs knowing what the chance of getting the disease is? This post does a good job of letting you know what the chances of dying from any of the vacc diseases are, so that question is answered. Although, one probably should consider that the numbers fluctuate, but that’s why God invented averages LOL and of course, as pointed out above… If one contracts a disease, how might that negatively affect ones health or ability to function for life?

What are the possible adverse reactions? What are the immediate steps I need to take before emergency services are made available for whatever the adverse reaction is? Can an adverse reaction occur months or years after a vaccine is given? What resources can I turn to if I am faced with having to care for my child who suffers from a debilitating adverse reaction?

What about the testing for safety? What did that entail?
How do I know the vaccine works? What is the efficacy rate?
What are the ingredients? Who is the manufacturer?

What kinds of negative side effects do vaccines lead to? Some say vaccines contribute to the incidence of asthma, allergies, ear infections, skin conditions & possibly other side effects … If these begin to show up in my child, is this something I should report to VAERS? Will the system cover the costs for treatments for these, or am I responsible? If I begin seeing these conditions in my child, can the vaccination schedule be slowed down? Are single shots available? If I want to vaccinate less than the recommended schedule, which vaccines might be the best to consider to forego? If I were to choose 5 vaccinations, which would be the most prudent to protect my child from a likely threat of existing, debilitating, deadly disease?

I hope more people begin to insist that accurate answers to these & other questions be readily available so that people can make informed decisions.

In the meantime, it is evident that our children in the Western Civilization are highly UNLIKELY to die of any of the diseases they are vaccinated for. What a relief!

Dr Jerzy Jaśkowski: Celebryci w akcji – sekta szczepionkarska Gazety W. (Czesc II), on September 25, 2012 at 1:25 pm said:

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

heather Copeland, on October 14, 2012 at 6:27 pm said:

I have two boys, 18, 14. Never had one vaccine. Though they were exposed countless times in their life, never had an illness vaccines were made for. I’m very happy and I don’t regret, that I never had them vaccinated.

Small Pox – Big Lie – Bioterrorism Implications of Flawed Theories of Eradication « ________________Child Health Safety_________________, on October 26, 2012 at 7:47 am said:

[...] Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics [...]

Zastrzyki kalectwa, racjonalny strach | Wolne Centrum Informacji, on October 28, 2012 at 6:45 pm said:

[...] i umieralność na choroby zakaźne już na wiele lat przed wprowadzeniem szczepień. (http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/; [...]

OČKOVANIE | sDetmi.eu, on October 29, 2012 at 2:06 pm said:

[...] mnohých ochorení začal dramaticky klesať už pred zavedením očkovania vďaka výraznému zlepšeniu životných podmienok najmä v civilizovaných krajinách. Prakticky od druhej svetovej [...]

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics « ________________Child Health Safety_________________ « Homeopathyginatyler's Blog, on November 1, 2012 at 6:54 pm said:

[...] via Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics « ________________Child Health Safe…. [...]

Shane, on December 10, 2012 at 6:02 am said:

Can someone please explain how those graphs constitute proof, or even evidence, that vaccines don’t work. Start with answering the question: “How can 20 cases of smallpox constitute a statistically relevant sample?”

exo|human ○ Governments Are Killing Our Children, on December 16, 2012 at 7:31 pm said:

[...] ChildHealthSafety | See also: Deadly Inoculations | Water Fluoridation: Eugenics on Tap Vaccines Did Not Save Us–2 Centuries Of Official Statistics | vactruth.com | Eugenics [...]

Forced Vaccinations: A descent into Medical Tyranny - Page 34, on January 8, 2013 at 3:59 pm said:

[...] [...]

Global Cape Breton-Nova Scotia-World Alternative News Headlines « Global Cape Breton-Nova Scotia, on January 9, 2013 at 10:10 am said:

[...] Vaccines Didn’t Save Us – 200 Years Of Official Stats [...]

Global Cape Breton-Nova Scotia Daily Alternative News « Global Cape Breton-Nova Scotia, on January 10, 2013 at 9:41 am said:

[...] Vaccines Didn’t Save Us – 200 Years Of Official Stats [...]

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics, on January 10, 2013 at 1:54 pm said:

[...] Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics (Child Health [...]

Jak przez dekady nakręcono psychozę strachu przed zwykłą grypą – dr Jerzy Jaśkowski « Portal Polityczny Jarka Kefira, on January 17, 2013 at 11:19 pm said:

[...] Dlaczego więc ludzie spoza medycyny, specjaliści Zdrowia Publicznego, San -epidu nagle , w ślad za WHO odkryli nowego wirusa A H1N1 dopiero w 2009 roku ? Czyżby w tej grupie urzędników miała miejsce aż tak mała znajomość piśmiennictwa naukowego była? Czy też główną rolę odgrywają względy pozamerytoryczne? Musisz się Szanowny Czytelniku sam domyśleć! http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/government-media-manipulation-with-leveson-inquiry-reports-on-murdoch-and-uk-media-standards-due-next-week/ http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/most-uk-medics-refusing-flu-vaccines-uks-new-chief-medical-officer-resorts-to-bullying/ http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/new-study-flu-vaccine-doesnt-work/ http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/uk-fakes-flu-death-numbers/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/sep/22/health-workers-urged-winter-flu-jab http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17443504 http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/andrew-wakefield-demolishes-ignorant-us-vaccine-lobby/ http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/EmergencyPreparedness/BioterrorismandDrugPreparedness/UCM133684.pdf http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ [...]

PETER FRANKS, on January 20, 2013 at 12:34 am said:

please go to google for Every Second Child
a book by Dr Archie Kalokerinos and follow the leads – it details information re use of vitamin C and vaccination.
Also the use of vitamin A before and during a measles infection greatly diminishes the effects of measles as per WHO studies. Yet virtually no mother I have spoken to about this has been aware of this.

How UNICEF Harms Third World Children And Misleads About Their Deaths « ________________Child Health Safety_________________, on January 21, 2013 at 10:12 am said:

[...] Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics [...]

Daxsly – How Global Agencies Harm Third World Children. « Ndsram's Blog, on January 22, 2013 at 1:30 pm said:

[...] known to be the key factors in improving child health and preventing deaths from infectious disease:Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics. UNICEF however airbrushes out the effect of economic growth. UNICEF instead claims the credit: [...]

Cómo UNICEF perjudica a los niños del Tercer Mundo e induce a error sobre sus muertes. « Disiciencia, on January 23, 2013 at 1:36 pm said:

[...] Esto también se puede observar en los siguientes gráfico: Las vacunas no nos salvaron – 2 siglos de estadísticas oficiales. [...]

At least 50 African children paralyzed after receiving meningitis vaccine « Sheeple: People unable to think for themselves, on January 23, 2013 at 3:03 pm said:

[...] Full article with graphs and statistic is here [...]

Cómo UNICEF perjudica a los niños del Tercer Mundo e induce a error sobre sus muertes. | R-evolución 2012, on January 23, 2013 at 4:18 pm said:

[...] Esto también se puede observar en los siguientes gráficos: Las vacunas no nos salvaron – 2 siglos de estadísticas oficiales. [...]

Vaccination studies and statistics – 200 years of data – Vaccines are questionable at best « Sheeple: People unable to think for themselves, on January 23, 2013 at 5:32 pm said:

[...] Read the full story with graphs, references and diagrams here [...]

Dr Jerzy Jaśkowski: Grypa. Lekarze ostrzegają – Weterynarze kontra pediatrzy. Cz. VI, on January 23, 2013 at 8:11 pm said:

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

Obecna grypa i dezinformacje handlarzy szczepionek. cz.5 | Wolne Centrum Informacji, on January 24, 2013 at 1:16 pm said:

[...] Mass media jako odkrywcę szczepień wylansowały angielskiego medyka Edwarda Jennera. Nie jest to prawda. Jenner zastosował tylko “przemysłowy” sposób zarabiania. Wprowadził ropę z krowianki pod skórę pacjentów. Jego syn przypłacił to życiem. Jenner podpatrzył “swój” sposób szczepień u francuskich lekarzy , którzy z kolei nauczyli się tego 100 lat wcześniej od Turków. Ale ani Francuzi ani Turcy nie wstrzykiwali ropy pod skórę ale dmuchali wysuszony proszek do nosa. Reklama jaką robił Jenner spowodowała, że zaszczepił sporo osób bez żadnego dowodu skuteczności takich szczepień. Ta fałszywa reklama Jennera zaskarbiła uznanie króla Jerzego II, co przełożyło się na nagrodę porównywalną z dzisiejszymi 500 000 dolarów. O tym, że szczepionka była nieskuteczna przekonano się już w roku 1872 roku, kiedy wybuchła olbrzymia epidemia. Pomimo tego, dzięki zręcznej reklamie nadal szczepiono obowiązkowo ludzi i w 1895 zaszczepiono już 95% społeczeństwa. DZIĘKI SZCZEPIENIOM ŚMIERTELNOŚĆ Z POWODU OSPY WZROSłA PIĘCIOKROTNIE. W okręgu Laincast… [...]

Bill Gates – Buying Immortality In History – By Beating An Already Beaten Disease & Killing Kids « ________________Child Health Safety_________________, on January 28, 2013 at 12:47 pm said:

[...] Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics [...]

Bill Gates Polio Eradication Plans – To Cause The Polio Equivalent of 235 Years of Cases Of A Twice As Deadly Disease « ________________Child Health Safety_________________, on January 30, 2013 at 4:00 pm said:

[...] Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics [...]

Vaccines Did Not Save Us - 2 Centuries of Official Statistics - otherhealth.com, on February 12, 2013 at 1:47 pm said:

[...] Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics 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 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. This is also borne out in published peer reviewed research: Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics ________________Child Health Saf… [...]

Vaccines: News and Information Page « Transition Now, on February 13, 2013 at 7:39 pm said:

[...] Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics [...]

Wie die UNICEF den Kindern der 3. Welt schadet und die Hintergründe ihres Todes falsch darstellt | S I R I U S N E T W O R K, on February 27, 2013 at 8:01 pm said:

[...] kann man auch aus den Grafiken hier ersehen: Vaccines Did Not Save Us… 2 Centuries of Official Statistics (Impfungen retteten uns nicht – 2 Jahrhunderte offizieller [...]

Guard Your Children Against Gardasil’s Death and Destruction | HealthAndHealing.ws, on March 1, 2013 at 5:29 am said:

[...] two centuries of statistical data proves that vaccinations did not save us, each to their own, but it is our human and civil right to [...]

Psychoza strachu…przed…zwykłą grypą. | Medycyna naturalna, nasze zdrowie, fizyczność i duchowość, on March 2, 2013 at 8:46 am said:

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

Zastrzyki kalectwa, racjonalny strach, czyli artykuł Marcina Rotkiewicza, skorumpowanego dziennikarza “Polityki” « Portal Polityczny Jarka Kefira, on March 16, 2013 at 3:55 am said:

rob, on April 12, 2013 at 4:55 am said:

How did you quantify and then further qualify the data to support your hypohesis? I do not see how your data reflects your findings as there is not a control group to verify any findings. I see a bunch of random reports put together to support an overall idea. I do see a point in history where vacinations were discovered and the infant mortality rate went down as the life expectancy rate inreased. There is no data presented that shows a definitive detriment to a populous, however big pharma making money off people living is fact driven. That problem however is separate from the all the vacinations are bad argument. Please realize that what you are dealing with is public health and that overall results are what are desired, a company will have to produce a vaccinations for a given govenrment/ populous to achieve those results. Arguing biological fact while the true problem is the companies profitting off those affected communities is a misnomer.

Hans andersen, on April 13, 2013 at 7:56 am said:

To say whether vaccinations work or not, I think we must look at incidence rather than mortality. So I have done that. I just got some data from the health authorities here in Denmark to see how it looks in my own country.

It’s a mixed picture! I will just sum it up. You can check the graphs I will be referring to here: http://www.sst.dk/publ/publ2000/vaccine/kap02.html
It’s of course in Danish but since graphs speak all languages, I hope you’ll check it out. The order of the graphs is the same as the one I follow below.

So here’s the trend in the incidences of various diseases in Denmark:

Diphteria (1st graph) clearly declined way before the vaccination was introduced and simply continued the same downward trend after vaccination was introduced. In this case, vaccination does not seem to have mattered.

Tetanus (2nd graph) is a similar case. The decline began way before the vaccine was introduced.

Whooping cough (3rd graph), on the other hand, is a case that supports the vaccine proponents. The incidence increased – with seasonal fluctuations – until vaccination was introduced. Then it dropped to a very low level. Curiously, there were two smaller outbreaks, but otherwise it stayed low.

Polio (4th graph) again seems to support the vaccine proponents. Polio all but vanished after the vaccine was introduced. However, since the definition of Polio changed, the effect is tricky to assess based on the graph alone.

Measles and mumps (5th and 6t graph) clearly dropped in incidence after vaccination was introduced – in Denmark in 1987. There had already been a decline prior to that. But nothing compared to what followed. Both diseases were all but wiped out, ostensibly by the vaccine. Or what else could explain it?

Hib-meningitis (7th graph) is again a case that supports the vaccine proponents. The incidence of this disease dropped sharply to a stable low after vaccination was introduced. Again, what else could account for it?

I myself am confused. Some diseases were already going down. Scarlet fever and typhoid vanished also from Denmark without any vaccinations against these diseases. Moreover, there are now and then cases of measles here in which half or more of the cases are vaccinated children!

To me, vaccine sceptics, however, have to consider this question: how could the introduction of the measles and mumps vaccinations be followed by such an immediate drop to a steady, low level if they did not work? I am here referring again to graphs 5 and 6 in the file: what else could explain it?

I have a three-months old son, by the way, and I am trying to figure out what to do. The potential side-effects of vaccinations is a serious issue alone. But I would really like to know from vaccine sceptics how they’ll explain the cases summed up above that suggest vaccines can reduce the incidence: could there be other explanations than the vaccines and if so, which ones?

Hans

ChildHealthSafety, on April 13, 2013 at 5:37 pm said:

Thanks Hans but the problem with using incidence as a measure is that it is unreliable.

Prior to verification of diagnoses by laboratory testing, doctors’ misdiagnoses and overdiagnoses meant you could get 74 times more diagnoses than there were cases of measles. You should see the references to this in the notes at the beginning of the article.

Here is what we wrote – with citations to the sources:

[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 proportionately 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 = proportionately 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:- 343/22 = proportionately 1560 % or 15.6 times overdiagnosed

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

Hans andersen, on April 14, 2013 at 9:19 am said:

That is interesting and quite incredible. But then, do you mean to say that diagnosis by laboratory tests only became practice after the introduction of vaccines? So that only after vaccines were introduced do we have a reliable picture of incidence?
Hans

Goede doelen: niet zo best | Joy Time Factor, on April 14, 2013 at 9:43 am said:

[...] Belangrijk punt is dat de werkzaamheid van inentingen nooit is aangetoond, in tegenstelling tot de ‘bijwerkingen’. De Gates lijken sympathiek te staan tegenover [...]

ChildHealthSafety, on April 14, 2013 at 10:32 am said:

Hans,

According to the UK’s Health Protection Agency National Measles Guidance Version 1.2: 28th October 2010 routine serological testing for measles appears to have become commonplace only in 1994:

3. Surveillance of measles

Measles remains a notifiable disease under the Health Protection Legislation (England) Guidance 2010. Awareness of measles should be raised among health professionals to facilitate early recognition and diagnosis (appendix 1). Notification of the local Health Protection Unit would fulfil their responsibility to notify the Local Authority Proper Officer. This should be by phone as soon as is reasonably practicable, and in writing within three days.

In line with WHO recommendations, countries with an elimination target are required to have intensive case-based surveillance to detect, investigate and confirm every suspected case. Since November 1994, enhanced surveillance including oral fluid testing of all notified and suspected cases has been provided through the Centre for Infections. CfI supplies each health protection unit with a set of oral fluid testing kits. When a case of suspected measles is reported and/or notified to the local health protection unit, an oral fluid kit is sent to the case, or the parent or general practitioner of the case. Samples should be taken as soon as possible after measles is suspected, and posted or couriered back to the Virus Reference Department, where it is tested for anti-measles IgM and/or measles RNA. Results are reported back to the patient’s GP and the local HPU.

Staff at CfI follow up cases confirmed at the Virus Reference Laboratory and all confirmed cases reported from local diagnostic laboratories to obtain further epidemiological and clinical information and to confirm the precise vaccination details. Confirmatory testing, genotyping and further characterization is undertaken at the WHO Global Specialised Reference Laboratory based at Colindale. Measles virus sequences are entered on the WHO global Measles Nucleotide Sequence (MeaNS) database hosted at CfI.

CfI is responsible for reporting on a monthly basis case-based information on confirmed cases to the European surveillance network (EU-VACnet) and this information is forwarded to WHO European region.(see appendix 2 – surveillance definitions). VRD also report monthly data on the numbers of samples tested for measles to the WHO laboratory network.

Manipulating parents to vaccinate without due informed consent | My Mother's Heart, on April 14, 2013 at 9:42 pm said:

[...] Professor Wakefield already had the right idea – seek and find out why. Is vaccinating against MMR safe? Is it what has worked? [...]

Hans andersen, on April 15, 2013 at 8:34 am said:

That’s very interesting. I can see why incidence rates are not very reliable prior to laboratory testing – that is, prior to 1994.

Do you have a graph for England showing incidence from the 1960s when measles vaccine was introduced until the present? It could be interesting to see the number of incidences registered before and after 1994.

I suppose that – due to the over-diagnosis by doctors prior to that and the subsequent much more accurate laboratory testing – we would see a significant drop in the number of incidences on the other side of 1994?

I will try and check if something like that can be seen in Denmark: when diagnosis by laboratory test was introduced and if an effect can be seen.

ChildHealthSafety, on April 15, 2013 at 10:48 am said:

That is an interesting idea to obtain statistics on reported cases registered before and after 1994. The figures should be available under Freedom of Information from the Health Protection Agency which is now part of Health England. If you would like to ask, make sure what you ask for is clear. If you do ask please let us know.

Hans andersen, on April 15, 2013 at 10:58 am said:

I might try to do that. I am not British, though, so I wonder if I am entitled to request the information. Do you know?

ChildHealthSafety, on April 15, 2013 at 11:45 am said:

Yes. You can. Anyone in the world can ask under UK FOIA.

Hans andersen, on April 15, 2013 at 1:34 pm said:

Alright, that’s great. I’ll give it a try and return with the results.

ChildHealthSafety, on April 17, 2013 at 7:39 am said:

Hans, you may find the information here:

Back issues List CDR Weekly: 1991 – 2006

Art, on April 19, 2013 at 7:31 am said:

Miriam, nice point.

Poca Diabetes, Alzheimer y Ataques Cardíacos en 1910 | Taoismo: TAO TV, on April 29, 2013 at 1:32 am said:

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

thingmaker, on April 29, 2013 at 1:45 am said:

In other news: The earth is flat and sits motionless at the center of the solar system. Everyone should know this but “they” want to keep you in the dark! Wake up sheeple! It’s time we stopped science from learning us stuff!

ChildHealthSafety, on April 29, 2013 at 9:09 am said:

[ED: @thingmaker

What a moron you are.]

Gerald, on April 30, 2013 at 12:00 am said:

Good website. Anyone doubts what you say should watch/read Dr Russell Blaylock

The World Through a Needle | Homeopathyginatyler's Blog, on April 30, 2013 at 8:22 pm said:

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

Hans andersen, on May 4, 2013 at 6:55 pm said:

Vaccine proponents ask for data on incidence, not mortality rate. I would agree: to assess the effectiveness of vaccines, we have to look at incidence. I said in an earlier comment that I would try to get some data, looking at measles first. Well, I did for England, and clearly the incidence has dropped since the introduction of the vaccine. Is that due to the vaccine? Or are there signs of mis-diagnoses in the data, tilting the data in favour of vaccine proponents? I am undecided, but check it out here:

Raw data in a table with comments:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/139430728/Measles-1940-to-2008-England-data

Plot of the data for easy overview:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/139429637/Measles-1940-to-2008-England-graphs

ChildHealthSafety, on May 4, 2013 at 7:13 pm said:

[ED: @Hans andersen 2013/05/04 at 6:55 pm

Thanks for the info Hans.

You ask if the fall in incidence is due to the vaccine - it seems not. See the comparison from differential data in this CHS article:
Official Data Confirms – 20th Century Measles Deaths Would Fall Exponentially – And Regardless of Measles Or MMR Vaccine

And your statement is partly right that "Vaccine proponents ask for data on incidence, not mortality rate."

However, previously it was the vaccine proponents who cited deaths from disease as a main argument.

However, as the data has become more widely available and people can see the annual numbers of deaths rapidly decreasing [attenuating - a well known phenomenon] and showing that deaths dropped over 99% before vaccines like measles vaccine was introduced they are only in very recent years shifting their focus.

Their problem is that the incidence figures are not reliable whereas dead bodies are dead bodies and easier to count.

Regardless of whether some deaths are wrongly classified, mortality still dropped exponentially for measles – and if there was any misclassification it would only affect a proportion annually. So now the “your child will die if not vaccinated” argument is threadbare.

Now they are starting to claim it is not so nice to get the disease – which is an argument which is much thinner but it is what is left so they are turning to it.

These people should really concentrate on what is really needed and that is effective treatments for basic childhood diseases for the now rare serious cases.

Then parents would not have to worry about whether it is right to vaccinate their children or not.]

Hans andersen, on May 5, 2013 at 9:18 am said:

Interesting points Ed. I am still wondering what exactly caused measles and other childhood diseases to decline in recent decades, if not the vaccine.

I had my childhood diseases in the late 1970s and early 1980s, just before the MMR was introduced here in Denmark in 1984. Back then, when one kid in school got it, almost everybody did, and it was no big deal, actually.

Nowadays, it’s extremely rare to get any of the childhood diseases. So, what could have changed in our environment between the 1970s and now to effect such a drop in measles and the rest of the childhood diseases?

It seems that to understand the overall trend in the statistics – no matter what, there has been a decline – we would need to understand exactly what causes the diseases to spread and disappear. What do we know about it?

Ann, on May 13, 2013 at 8:51 pm said:

Hello Ed.
I like Hans andersen had both of my childrens’ measles episodes before the MMR which they also got from being at school. I also had this many decades before and all of us had the same ‘treatment’. Which was to stay in bed to rest, which gives the body a fighting chance as it is not using the energy in other ways, which can go to healing instead,and most importantly have the curtains closed because light can affect the eyesight. All three of us recovered hale and hearty by taking fluids, soups, and bed rest. The current ‘fear factor’ must be watched carefully as this is the way people are being placed into a panic situation, not only about measles but about everything to do with health.
Ask yourself one question. For whose benefit is all this?

BBC News Removes False News Claims About Measles Epidemic “after being busted” – Steve B. |, on May 19, 2013 at 1:03 pm said:

[…] and Wales: October to December 2004 – CDR Weekly, Volume 15 Number 12 Published: 24 March 2005: Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics]. […]

soapbox: vaccinations | braden & carli, on May 20, 2013 at 8:44 pm said:

[…] or help you understand why i feel this way: 1) history of vaccinations 2) vaccines: a total hoax 3) vaccines did not save us 4) hep b vaccination 5) adverse effects of […]

security systems, on May 21, 2013 at 9:09 pm said:

Wow, you have a ton of information here. Great job on pulling this all together.

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

	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

Child Health Safety_

Email Subscription

CHS on Twitter

Key Data for Parents

Recent Posts

Pages