Vaccines Proven To Cause Sudden Death in Children – 67 Deaths Only Explicable As Caused By Vaccines – Drug Safety Regulators Had The Information for Over 2 Years And Let Children Die

This confirmation vaccines cause children to die suddenly was published this month on the US National Library of Medicine’s website.

For decades regulators and public health officials have insisted parents were wrong to blame vaccines when their children died suddenly shortly after vaccination.  It was coincidence they would say – nothing more. 

The deaths were no more than the number usually to be expected they would add.

But all the time drug safety regulators appear to have been holding the evidence.

A confidential 1271 page GSK document ordered recently by an Italian Court to be published shows that multiple vaccines cause sudden child deaths.  [The document is a formal confidential previously unpublished submission by GlaxoSmithKline to the European Medicines Agency from 2011 and 2012.]

The GSK document contains data about deaths occurring as a result of administration of Prevenar 13 vaccine [from Pfizer], Infanrix Hexa from GSK and some other vaccines.  Prevenar 13 is given to all British children.

The analysis has been published on the US National Library of Medicines website using the data GSK provided to the European Medicines Agency.  The data is conclusive.  It is very clear and there is no room for argument.

And the analysis is simple.  Anyone can understand it.  The very plain data the document contains proves the matter without any doubt whatsoever.

Here is the one of the points from the published analysis [but there is more to read online].  It is not rocket science but very simple to understand:

(Source: Table 36 The GlaxoSmithKline Biological Clinical Safety and Pharmacovigilance report to Regulatory Authority)…… if one analyses the data looking at deaths in first 10 days after administration of vaccine and compares it to the deaths in the next 10 days, it is clear that 97% of deaths (65 deaths) in the infants below 1 year, occur in the first 10 days and 3% (2 deaths) occur in the next 10 days. Had the deaths been coincidental SIDS deaths unrelated to vaccination, the numbers of deaths in the two 10 day periods should have been the same. Similarly in children older than 1 year, 87.5% deaths (7 deaths) occurred in the first 10 days and 12.5% (1 death) occurred in the next 10 days.

Here is the data presented in a way that the clustering of deaths can be seen clearly [click on the table to open a larger version in a new window]:
20150210 GSK PSUR 15+16 Infanrix Hexa Deaths

The clustering of deaths around the time of vaccination demonstrates a link between the vaccination and the sudden deaths. It indicates this is not by chance as otherwise the deaths would be spread across the entire 20 days. Rather than showing the total deaths each day, GlaxoSmithKline showed the cumulative figures which had the effect of disguising the clustering of deaths around vaccination. They did this by listing the cumulative number of deaths. So by day 19 after vaccination GSK’s total was 67 deaths. But there had only been two deaths in those last 10 days and not 67. In contrast 65 deaths occurred on the first day of vaccination up to the 10th day following vaccination.

And here you can see GSK’s Table 36.  The way it is prepared disguises the clustering of deaths around the time of vaccination – the total cumulative number of deaths up to 10 days from vaccination is 65.  That number over the next 10 days increases by only 2.  So in 10 days there were 65 deaths and between day 11 to day 20 after vaccination there were only another two deaths.  So only the vaccine can be the cause of this:

TABLE 36  20111216 GSK Infanrix Hexa Summary Bridging Report 16-12-2011

The worst aspect is that the Observed to Expected ratio of deaths reported compared to deaths expected if the vaccine was not the cause was based on numbers of doses.  As each child was meant to receive three doses and not one, the Expected number of deaths was based on a population three times greater than it was, calculated by how many doses of the vaccines were distributed as if each child received only one dose.

Further, the day of vaccination and the prior day is when the Healthy Vaccinee Effect is greatest.  In short on those days the chance of a vaccinated child having some other illness including one which might result in a sudden death is very low – and can be expected to be less than a 0.1 chance relatively.  This arises because parents tend to avoid having their child vaccinated when unwell.  Over the day of vaccination and succeeding six days  the chance of illness rises practically linearly to return to chance of 1 relatively.  The Expected calculation for the seven days starting on the day of vaccination relied on a correction of 0.8 which is several times higher than appropriate for the first few days following vaccination.  And no adjustment was made for under reporting of adverse events.

All of these factors resulted in the ratio of Observed deaths to those Expected calculated by GSK was much more than three times lower than it should have been. So for the day of vaccination with 16 observed deaths, substantially fewer than that would be expected.

This is how GSK presented their formula:

GSK OE Formula cropped

Here is a serious issue.  This kind of information is routinely provided to regulators like the MHRA but never made public.  On the one occasion such a document is published as a result of the actions of a judge in an Italian Court it is possible to show beyond any doubt that multiple vaccines cause sudden deaths in children.

This appears a serious failing of European regulators.

All the EU regulators including the MHRA have had this information for at least three years and failed to act on it.

Further, the MHRA has an agreement with the drug industry not to publish information like this despite the provisions of the UK Freedom of Information Act.

And here is an example of how slanted news reporting is.  The following report is not an independent objective balanced report of the facts:

Dawn Papple, Independent Outsourced Freelance Writer, Social Media Marketer, Independent Contractor

It is by someone called Dawn Papple apparently from the Greater Detroit Area USA who lists her working activities as Independent Outsourced Freelance Writer, Freelance Writer, Social Media Marketer, Graphic Designer, Independent Contractor.

This appears to be a somewhat racist press report, referring to the information being just from India and “the doctor from Delhi” [as if we can all ignore it] and claims the issue is being raised by “anti-vaccine” proponents.  It does not address properly the safety of children nor does it contain any proper overview of the real risks of disease for  children against the risks of vaccines nor why there are real causes for concern.

There is clearly an intentional bias.  Criticising the original edition of this CHS article, prior to this revision to review Papple’s report, Papple states:

The doctor who analyzed the data did not state that there was no room for argument, though. He did not brazenly state that the hexavalent Infanrix vaccine causes sudden death in babies.

It may not have been “brazen” as Papple writes emotionally, but it does look like he did and Papple knows that.  She wrote earlier in the article that the doctor stated:

this demonstrates a link between the vaccination event and the sudden deaths.”

Dawn Papple does not question whether the information GSK provided is reliable and downplays the way GSK disguised the clustering of deaths around the time of vaccination stating, as if it were the wrong approach [emphasis added]:

Rather than compounding the total deaths each day, as in the documents found online, the pediatrics doctor suggests we examine how many more deaths happened right after the vaccine was given compared to as the days went by. He said this demonstrates a link between the vaccination event and the sudden deaths.

A substantial omission from Dawn Papple’s article is she does not discuss that GSK has been caught, found guilty of and fined substantial sums of money for serious misconduct including paying up with the largest health fraud settlement in US history.  But Dawn Papple takes as true what GSK says compared to a doctor who with courage has reported publicly this problem with vaccine caused sudden deaths which GSK kept secret and reported in a disguised manner to the safety regulators. 

CHS has reported on GSK’s problems with fraud and the like before.  Here is an example:

GSK Fined US$3 BILLION – largest health fraud settlement in U.S. history

Remarkably, Papple claims this CHS article is by “an anti-vaccine advocate from Child Health Safety“.  She has no information to support such a spurious claim and when CHS is pro-safety, democracy and informed and free choice.  Papple it would seem is against.

Absent from the report is the issue that parents are told vaccines are entirely safe when they are not. Also absent from the report is the fact that vaccines are given to children the majority of whom especially in the western world are highly unlikely to suffer serious adverse effects of disease.

In other words normal healthy children are being given vaccines which can kill some of them who may never have a problem from the childhood diseases concerned, even if they caught them. 

The report also fails to address the fact that no effective treatments for basic well-known longstanding childhood diseases have been developed.  That is a scandal in the scientific 21st Century.  If there were effective treatments vaccines would not be needed.

So not only will the public will not get balanced information, here you can see attacks against the dissemination of information via social media.

With mainstream media reporting about vaccination issues being successfully made a near blackout except for reports promoting vaccines, this article shows how the next targets are likely to be shutting down social media and the internet for people to get information about vaccine issues.

Here from the report is a dubious claim which contradicts and downplays under-reporting of adverse vaccine reactions:

According to the statistics within the document, even if the doctor from Delhi’s fears are spot on, the risk of sudden death, while existent, would also be exceptionally rare after vaccination with the hexavalent Infanrix vaccine.”

Earlier in the report it refers to adverse vaccine reactions being under-reported but fails to explain how substantially under-reported they are.  So the information in the GSK document represents a small fraction of the problems of adverse vaccine reactions.

And interestingly, this article, seemingly reviewing the GSK document and many other publications also has been written in a very short space of time when the material concerned is extensive and would require a very long time to consider it.  It also contains no quotes from sources approached by the author, Dawn Papple, to support what she has written including the statements she makes as if of fact and the opinions she expresses [with no medical or scientific qualifications]. That is very poor journalism in our view.

The GSK document is 1271 pages alone.  Journalists normally do not have that kind of time.  This article is written by someone who describes her work as Independent Outsourced Freelance Writer, Freelance Writer, Social Media Marketer, Graphic Designer, Independent Contractor.

If you were to form the opinion that her publication http://www.inquisitr.com is trash journalism, you might be right and we would agree.

39 Responses

  1. Reblogged this on Far from Grey Street… and commented:
    “This confirmation vaccines cause children to die suddenly is only hours old and is conclusive. There is no room for argument. It was published today on the US National Library of Medicine’s website.”

  2. It’s information like this that makes me feel like I’m living in some kind of horror sci-fi movie…
    We’re talking about children dying FFS.
    I have no doubt that vaccines will one day be seen for what they are : a crime against humanity.
    And I speak as a nurse once responsible for vaccination & testing in a community drug team.
    I am sorry what I did in ignorance & hope God will forgive me…

  3. Reblogged this on The Blogging Path and commented:

    “The data is conclusive.”

    That can’t be good for children.

  4. A childhood practitioner for 22 years my work has seen thousands of damaged children, most of whose parents were there when their child began to show ASD’s of various kinds. if one analyses the data looking at deaths in first 10 days after administration of vaccine and compares it to the deaths in the next 10 days, it is clear that 97% of deaths (65 deaths) in the infants below 1 year, occur in the first 10 days and 3% (2 deaths) occur in the next 10 days. Had the deaths been coincidental SIDS deaths unrelated to vaccination, the numbers of deaths in the two 10 day periods should have been the same. Similarly in children older than 1 year, 87.5% deaths (7 deaths) occurred in the first 10 days and 12.5% (1 death) occurred in the next 10 days.The leaders of medicine & esp pharmaceutical – are it seems responsible for thousands of deaths over time.

  5. “Historical concerns about a potential temporal association between the occurrence of sudden unexpected death (SUD) and vaccination with hexavalent vaccines have been extensively investigated. In Germany, a population-based evaluation demonstrated a possible safety signal for DTPa-HBV-IPV-Hib-SP but failed to show an imbalance between observed and expected SUD cases for DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib. A large case series conducted in Italy was unable to confirm the presence of a safety signal, but noted that the power of the study was low due to small number of SUD cases that occurred. In 2003 the European Medicines Agency concluded the absence of a cause-effect relationship and no change to the benefit-risk profile of the hexavalent vaccines then available.”

    Combined hexavalent diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis-hepatitis B-inactivated poliovirus- Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine— Infanrix™ hexa

    Twelve years of experience in Italy

    Did you guys read that study? It seems to address your concerns…

    [ED: We see you cannot answer the evidence. 65 died within 10 days of vaccination, most within 3 days, and only 2 died in the next 10 days.

    If it were chance and not the vaccine the deaths would be spread evenly over the entire 20 days.

    So scientifically and statistically the explanation is this is not chance but an effect of the vaccine.

    So Vincent Iannelli you have no answer to the evidence. Thanks for that. It is an helpful confirmation that a doctor who tries to pretend evidence like this is “myth or misinformation” as you write on your blog is caught spreading myth and misinformation himself.

    Instead of answering the point, because you cannot, you cite a useless paper which admits the evidence it discusses is inadequate.

    When confronted with strong evidence like this you revert back to the usual form – “Did you guys read that study? It seems to address your concerns…”.

    Unfortunately Vincent Iannelli you would rather children die pointlessly and needlessly from vaccinations against diseases they are unlikely to die from than fess up and admit the truth that the scientific evidence presents to you.

    Your website degenerates into the usual bullying, abuse and disparagement of those who point out hard evidence. Vincent Iannelli to any right thinking people in our view you are a disgrace to the medical profession.

    And entirely typical – spreading myth and misinformation whilst accusing those you choose to attack of doing that when they are not.]

  6. The apparent spike in deaths immediately following vaccination is not on its own indicative of a problem with the vaccine. Just as an example, if an unvaccinated group (or the same size as the vaccinated group) averaged 50 deaths per day (the first year figure in the table), while the vaccinated group showed say 20 deaths per day falling to a handful per day, you would conclude that the vaccine was pretty good at preventing deaths.

    BUT: the problem is the 50 deaths per day figure. This is derived in section 9.3.1.1 of the report at:

    http://autismoevaccini.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/vaccin-dc3a9cc3a8s.pdf

    They use a first-year death rate from Germany of 0.454 per 1000 and assume it applies generally. In this case a rate of 54 deaths per day corresponds to an annual birth rate of (54 * 365) / (0.454 / 1000) which is a bit over 43 million. This, by the way, would be *all* births, not just those who received Infanrix Hexa.

    In the document they state that Infanrix Hexa was approved in October 2000. However, they also state the number of doses given to year 1 infants since launch is about 55 million.

    Unless the uptake of Infanrix Hexa was negligible until about 15 months prior to publication (ie., until about 2010) then, then only a fraction of the 54 deaths per day would be amongst infants given the vaccine. For instance, if the vaccine usage was constant per year from 2001 onwards, then only around 10% of those 54 deaths per day should be counted.

    This would make the spike in deaths following vaccination very much more significant.

    [ED: Thanks for raising this issue. That is a pertinent comment.

    You should also note this aspect. There is more to this but we just point out a basic issue.

    Adverse drug reactions are heavily under-reported. The starting point is 98 in 100 go un-reported: Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Volume 84 June 1991 341.

    So reports are 50 times lower [ie. than actual adverse events – reported plus unreported].

    If that rate were to be applied to the figures in Table 36 the total number of sudden deaths on the day of vaccination would be 16 reported deaths x 50 times = 800 reported plus unreported deaths on the day of vaccination alone.

    It is believed vaccine adverse events are even more highly under-reported because of the reluctance of doctors to exposure to legal action and because of the culture of abuse, bullying, disparagement and the believed abusive use of misconduct proceedings by organisations like the UK’s General Medical Council.]

    And you also have to explain the clustering of deaths soon after vaccination.

    We think however that you need to rethink the hypothetical analysis which led you to write “if an unvaccinated group …. averaged 50 deaths per day …. while the vaccinated group showed say 20 deaths per day falling to a handful per day, you would conclude that the vaccine was pretty good at preventing deaths”

  7. Re. my hypothetical analysis:

    I’ve looked at a fair number of vaccine research papers, and in a large number of them, I see failings in the underlying science, that is, science as a method: making observations, making hypotheses that could explain the observations, and then testing (and maybe falsifying) those hypotheses,

    A particularly common failing is to assert that a particular hypothesis is consistent with the data, and then infer that that hypothesis *is* the explanation, while there are in fact other hypotheses that would also explain the data. In the case of vaccine research, this manifests itself as “this hypothesis explains the adverse reactions without implicating the vaccine”, inferring “vaccines are fine”, while in fact there is another consistent hypothesis “vaccines are causing the adverse reaction”.

    So, I’ve become quite picky about this stuff. My scenario shows that there is a hypothesis that is consistent with the raw data as presented in the table (50 deaths per day, and 20 deaths per day subsequently falling), which effectively says “vaccines are not a problem”. Hence, I stand by my what I said there.

    However, working through the figures shows that using 54 as the base line figure is in fact not valid, because 54 is not consistent with other information in the document. Therefore, the authors of the paper have made a mistake in the figures, and the “vaccines are not a problem” hypothesis is falsified.

    In this situation, I doubt the deaths are under-reported! However, it might be that the number of cases where the vaccine was given shortly beforehand is under-reported, that is, how many deaths occurred where the vaccine was given 1 day (2 days, 3 days, …) beforehand but which have not been counted? This might be very difficult to determine, but the presented figures must represent a lower bound on the actual number.

    Lastly, I completely with you about under reporting of adverse effects in general, and the reasons you give for that.

    [ED: Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. Deaths are definitely under-reported and there is some very clear evidence of high under-reporting of vaccine related deaths. That can be addressed anther time.]

  8. You contradict yourself. You say “Prevenar 13 is given to all British children” yet you say vaccines are deadly.

    If vaccines are deadly and all British children are given Prevenar 13, then all British children would be dead.

    [ED: That wins this month’s star prize for the most ridiculous comment. If your science is as good as your command of the English language and logic then your blog about “bad” science is likely to be a hoot. Too bad we do not have time to read it.]

  9. […] data is conclusive. It is very clear and there is no room for argument,” an anti-vaccine advocate from Child Health Safety wrote just hours after Puliyel made his analysis public. “And the […]

  10. How many SIDS babies annually are not vaccinated?

  11. Reblogged this on Bob Martin and commented:
    more of the hidden truth or the horrible things THESE KIND of BEINGS will do and have NO GUILT premeditated MURDER and they get away with it year after year .

  12. What a load of pseudo-scientific claptrap. It’s patently obvious that the author of this article has no scientific or statistical qualifications.

    “Had the deaths been coincidental SIDS deaths unrelated to vaccination, the numbers of deaths in the two 10 day periods should have been the same. ”

    Why would they be? What science are you using to make this presumption? A classic case of falsely assuming that correlation equals causation. Did you know that 90% of people who crash their cars in the morning drink coffee before they drive? By your rationale, coffee causes morning car accidents.

    Let’s look at real facts. The incidence of SIDS in Western nations, where education has provided parents with REAL preventative measures, has dropped DRAMATICALLY since 1990. In Australia, for example, SIDS deaths have been reduced by 80% in that time.

    http://www.ispid.org/statistics.html

    At the same time, vaccination rates in Australia have fallen around 1-2% (because of people who do their own “research” on the internet, and read articles like this).

    If vaccinations cause SIDS, why has the rate of SIDS deaths plummeted without an equivalent drop in vaccination rates? Why didn’t the rate of SIDS deaths go up exponentially when vaccinations began?

    The problem with this kind of article is not just that it encourages people to avoid immunising their children. It also hypothesises reasons for SIDS that might discourage parents from taking REAL advice about SIDS prevention. It is shameful and dangerous.

    [ED: “Let’s look at the real facts“. Here we can see that not only is it “… patently obvious that the author of this” comment “has no scientific or statistical qualifications” but he also has commented without reading the article. It is obvious the author is one of the large number of self-appointed Google University trained “scientific” (ha!) “experts” who spout “… a load of pseudo-scientific claptrap” without understanding what he wrote.

    And a giveaway illustrating the lack of intellectual prowess is the use of the phrase “Let’s look at the real facts“. Wot d’yer mean mate? Yer mean a fact can be not real? You don’t understand what a “fact” is do you. If it is not real it is not a fact, innit, yo. Get real. So the addition of “real” is surplusage, tautologous and a sign of a poor education and/or intellectual ability.

    Had he actually read the article then he would have realised 1) this CHS article is not stating a conclusion of the author of this article and 2) that this cannot be anything remotely similar to “A classic case of falsely assuming that correlation equals causation.” He clearly does not understand what constitutes evidence of correlation and what constitutes evidence of causation. If he did he would not confuse reports of lower SIDS rates as being correlated with the deaths caused by the vaccines. He does not even realise he is doing the equivalent of comparing apples to hamsters.

    The clustering of 67 deaths close to the date of vaccination is strong evidence of causation. If unrelated to vaccination they should be evenly spread throughout the 20 day period. This is highly likely to be the case bearing in mind 1) the size of the population – namely all the vaccinated children in which the reported deaths occurred and not a sample population drawn from that population 2) the very large size of that population and its geographical spread over a number of countries 3) the timescales over which the reports are drawn – it is not just data from a sample or from one event of many but all events over a period of years well geographically spread.

    Basically the commenter is spouting nonsense dressed up as fact.]

  13. […] on Child Health and Safety on January 13, 2015 was an announcement that vaccines had been proven to cause sudden death in […]

  14. Could someone explain the “expected” column of the table? It seems there’s a lot of data lurking in that variable including the actual age of the child (in days) at the time of vaccination and the assumption that it’s not biased by the number of vaccine-related deaths in the general population who were vaccinated outside of the protocols of the experiment. I just wanted to get it clear in my head what the distribution looks like.

  15. Holy smokes.

    Well, first, I’m glad you liked my chart. (I’d appreciate it very much if you credited where you found it, just because I made it and that’s generally the respectable thing to do). But I’m glad you are using it.

    Next, you attack me for my writing which was merely citing information, but then you go on to erroneously speculate my purpose, my stance, and my feelings.

    I basically curse vaccines every day of my life, but the story I was writing wasn’t about my bad luck with vaccines. It was about the letter the doctor wrote about the confidential papers.

    As for that doctor whom you say I’m racist against… I’d already read a bunch of his past work because he’s phenomenal. He’s an incredible man. I’ve watched videos too. He’s that perfect mix of courage, common sense, and intellect. Racist? No, I’m not racist.

    The way you paraphrased his statements made it look as though he was announcing causation prematurely, and he wasn’t… When a doctor announces causation prematurely, their *everything* gets threatened.

    Look, I present only things that can be cited, sourced, or quoted on that site, because it is a multisource news aggregate.

    I’m not looking for people to believe me when I am writing something. My opinion is irrelevant when I am writing. I want them to come to their own conclusions, and I do my best to cite sources, provide links, look up background information, and present data in a new way that is understandable, and leave my feelings out of it. That’s not putting down what you are doing. There is a place for all types of writing.

    You are free to write that it is undeniable, but the doctor has to adhere to certain standards before declaring something so brazenly. Boldly? Assertively? What word would you have liked me to use? Whatever the word, he didn’t present it like that. He presented it in a medically accepted format.

    For whatever it’s worth, I actually did go over that document for hours and hours. And it did take me that long, even though I’m pretty much a speed reader and even though the pages were not full pages. There was indexes, summaries and most of it was tables of adverse events actually… I think my article took me about what, 12 hours or so from when I first saved the subject on the site that I write for until I published and most of it was spent reading the document, because I had already had info on the doctor bookmarked for some time. I actually have another graph of adverse reactions from there that I made too. I went group by group down the line. From the one year’s table, I counted each serious event separately from the image, wishing it was in an excel file.

    Do you think the normal mainstream, provax media would put those numbers out there like I did? Actually, not only did I put them out there, but I went way out of my way to put them out there in a visual way so that it was easier to understand for visual learners.

    And no, there were no quotes sourced from me, because Inquisitr is a multi-source news aggregation site.

    I’m sorry I called you an antivaccine activist. I can edit it if you sincerely support safe vaccines. I can change it to “child safety advocate” or something if you feel that’s more accurate.

    [ED: Ms Papple, your writing is irresponsible. You make claims without substantiation. Its too late for you to come here and dissemble. And its too late to undo what you did.

    A journalist sticks to the story. The story was about the evidence from documents filed by the vaccine maker with the EMA showing that vaccines cause sudden death.

    This doctor has openly challenged the authors of a paper about this vaccine, one of whom is from GSK. No one would do that if the evidence was not extremely strong.

    This site would not exist if vaccines did not cause serious harm where the harms are more serious than the effects of the diseases. The site is pro-safety. It also carries an article titled “There is no anti-vaccine movement” which you might want to read someday.

    Use of “anti-vaccine” is label-libel. Your writing is more of the claptrap which people who are not professional journalists pass off on the internet as if it were. And if you were a professional, you would already have corrected it and not imply a blackmail that you will keep it there if we do not ask you to correct it. Professionals make corrections – you haven’t.

    As for the suggestion a credit should go with the chart, you published it without a credit. So you expect us to be clairvoyant or mind readers to put on the credit you failed to put on the chart. That is just ridiculous. Credit cannot be given to anonymously published work. In addition to not putting a credit on the chart you did not put on the chart that it was your own work – you should have done so that readers were not misled as to its source.

    Stick to the day job.]

  16. There is one report that is not balanced and i5 is not Mrs. Papple’s. I truly hope everyone reading THIS bias piece of trash article will take the time to read her well researched and very balanced article.

    You are a prime example of a writer who jumps on another without either thoroughly reading and understanding what it is you are reading or who feels that any article that is not completely one-sided to the anti-vaccine information is “bias”. Only presenting one side to a story is bias. All Mrs. Papple did was provide all the information, both sides.

    I know this woman personally and SHE is responsible for providing a whole host of information that helped me decide that vaccinaton was not for our family. You just tore apart probaby one of the most kind, well-informed, anti-vaccine advocates that there is on this earth.

    [ED: Not only is the road to hell paved with good intentions, yours is one of the sneakiest spam emails we have ever seen. The URL you posted with your comment is the http: link to the website creditworldautosales.wordpress.com.

    That is advertising Credit World Auto Sales as providing car finance. Good try but it did not work. Link removed from comment.]

  17. And Dawn has been on the forefront of vaccine choice for a long time. In fact it is a lot of her research that is being used to encourage sense and reason with the latest “measles outbreak”. It seems that even though she had to come here and explain things she shouldn’t have, you should have done some basic research and realized that she was simply presenting both sides (as all good journalists do).

    For example, she wrote this amazing piece that is still quoted today in regards to the Disney Measles scare. http://vaxtruth.org/2012/01/measles-perspective/

    [ED: And again we have had to delete the spam website address for Credit World Auto Sales which you again added to your comments.

    Ms Papple should not go around accusing people without substantiation. She has not been careful and she did not write a balanced piece addressing the story. She wrote a piece attacking this site with the label-libel “anti-vaccine“.

    Your testimonials for car finance or Ms Papple’s amateur journalism have no value here.]

  18. Wow this entire blog is so ridiculously dangerous. The author/authors believe so strongly in their beliefs and convictions in regards to vaccines yet they are unwilling to let anyone know their true identity. He/she/they hide behind a privacy service like a coward. Unlike a true journalist or qualified medical professional subject themselves to peer review and having an open discussion. I’m guessing that the bloggers of the “Child Health Safety” blog are neither sane nor qualified to be writing articles in regards to the Health and Safety of children. I hope anyone that stumbles across this garbage can recognize that anyone who is unwilling to put their name as an author does not have the necessary qualifications to be writing articles to give others advice. I hope the servers that this blog are on catch fire and erase this garbage from the internet.

    [ED: We think anyone reading your comment Barry can work out which is the garbage. Thanks for the “drive-by” – it will help assure people CHS is worth reading.]

  19. Do you or do you not realize that you found the graph on the Inquisitr site? At the bottom of the Inquisitr page, it states “All content © 2008 – 2015 The Inquisitr News.” Now you know, please give credit where it is due.

    [ED: Have you corrected your article?

  20. You do also realize that because of the way your little blog is setup I am required to login with my only wordpress account correct when on my phone? So no, not sneaky spam. Simply the only account it will allow me to login with. You really need to evaluate your responses here and re-read the very article YOU bashed. You used the graph that Dawn created because it fit your agenda; however, you dismissed the rest of the article based on a very slim number of sentences that disagree with your agenda. Dawn simply provided a piece that offered all the research (good and bad). She absolutely thinks that vaccines can lead to SID; however, that does not make it okay for her to disregard other facts simply because she doesn’t like them, that is called being an unbias journalist which she absolutely is. Again, you never address the fact that Dawn has been with the pro-choice movement for years and is a heavy advocate of parents making informed vaccine choices. It is sad, sad, sad that a person like yourself is so convicted with one set agenda that they would throw someone else with the same agenda (just a different approach) under the bus. Hopefully you learn one day and will stop harming those of us who would like to keep our freedom of not vaccinating our children protected. However, is is those like you that make us all look bad and will be the end of that choice.

    (I logged in via desktop this time so I could use my facebook so you can stop your silly cries of spam and move on to the important issues which I know you won’t address and will instead keep with your silly [ED: Notes] )

    [ED: Serious shortcoming in Dawn Papple’s piece have been identified in this CHS article. The source of her chart is acknowledged as being from her article. It is noted in the comments she claims she made it and the CHS article also notes her article is from Inquisitr News. We notice no one has confirmed any of the shortcomings in her article have been corrected.

    As for the inclusion of a spam weblink to a commercial site in your comments, it was open at all times for you to ensure it did not appear. You chose not to delete it.

    As for Dawn Papple being “with the pro-choice movement for years and is a heavy advocate of parents making informed vaccine choices” it is her own doing that she wrote what she did including using label-libel to attack this site. We have also never heard of her – before now that is with all these tedious comments.]

  21. There is nothing for Dawn to correct on the article! YOU stole her graph without citation.

    [ED: Regarding corrections – see previous comments. Regarding Dawn Papple’s chart we have not even copied it. The chart that appears is the chart published directly by Inquisitr News from the Inquisitr News link it is at.

    So we have not only not copied it we are not even publishing it.

    We also note that Dawn Papple published the chart without putting any acknowledgement on it. So the absence of an acknowledgement on the chart is her doing not ours. If she had put an acknowledgement on it her readers would not be misled about its source and that acknowlegement would appear on the chart whereever it appears on the internet.

    So your complaints are without any basis and in fact the true position is the opposite of your claims. Perhaps you might like to confirm when you have checked what we say here is true and then withdraw your remarks.]

  22. Wait, you are not an anti-vaccine advocate? Your views seem to be pretty one sided, and against vaccines. How is that slanderous to call you what you are? I am comfortable being called anti-vaccine. I bet Dawn would be comfortable with that characterization as well. You truly are not helping the cause of informing people with this blog post. It is one thing to post about things you felt should have been in her article. It is another to slam her as an author, and claim she is doing things she is not. There are no lies in her story, only things you feel are omissions. Stop acting like she is pro-vaccine. I challenge you to find a piece written by her that is clearly pro-vaccine. She’s got quite a few vaccine related stories out there floating around…

    [ED: The Inquisitr News article was written as if it were a professional piece of journalism and people will read it as such. It engages in label-libel and has many short-comings which have been already noted. If Ms Papple was truly concerned then she should have concentrated on the main point of the story and also addressed some of the issues we have pointed out. You people should stop bleating about this and accept the facts as they are instead of trying to rewrite history and make out that Ms Papple is the victim when she is the perpetrator.

    If you also bothered to look you will find this site addresses the issue of safety against risk of vaccines. This site would not exist if vaccines were safe. It would not exist if the adverse effects of vaccines were not either seriously downplayed to pretend vaccines are entirely safe or worse the figures are manipulated.

    That is not being anti-vaccine any more than it is being anti-car to address automotive safety or anti-gun to address gun safety.

    Get a life and stop throwing the toys out of the perambulator.]

  23. I clicked the link and went to a study that suggested no connection between vaccination and SIDS. Has the link changed?

  24. Wow the author will soon be relying on name calling and hair pulling and gives the impression he/she is not independent but completely biased. So what started out as a good and convincing report of a court case, ends up as a rabbid attack on Vaccines, without acknowledging the fact that vaccines have changed the life’s of billions of people. When I was a child in the 60-70s I saw a lot of polio suffered, I now don’t see any. This is exclusively because of vaccines.

    It is also very worrying that clear evidence of falling SID numbers while vaccination numbers having stayed the same has not been tackled by the author, or is this an inconvenient truth?

    [ED: Heh. Another idle drive-by comment. If you are going to spend all that time posting a comment, you might try to make it look like you read the article first. Internet trollism is alive and well. Thanks for helping show that to everyone reading the article.]

  25. […] Related link: Vaccines Proven To Cause Sudden Death in Children – 67 Deaths Only Explicable As Caused By Vaccine… […]

  26. […] about the SIDS connection now revealed and SIDS decrease in Japan since pushing off their vaccine schedule? More on SIDS. Shaken Baby […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: