UK’s Independent on Sunday – “Thousands of teenage girls enduring debilitating illnesses after routine school cancer vaccination”

When Caron Ryalls was asked to sign consent forms so that her then 13-year-old daughter, Emily, could be vaccinated against cervical cancer, she assumed it was the best way to protect Emily’s long-term health.

Yet the past four years have turned into a nightmare for the family as Emily soon suffered side effects. Only two weeks after her first HPV injection, the teenager experienced dizziness and nausea.

The symptoms grew increasingly worse after the second and third injections, and I went to A&E several times with severe chest and abdominal pains as well as difficulty breathing,” Emily, now 17, said. “One time I couldn’t move anything on one side of my body. I didn’t know what was happening.

Emily is one of the thousands of teenage girls who have endured debilitating illnesses following the routine immunisation. She is yet to recover and has no idea when her health will return to normal.

Prior to the vaccination Emily had an ‘unremarkable’ medical history with no problems,” said Mrs Ryalls, 49, from in Ossett, West Yorkshire. “She was considered very healthy and represented the school at hockey, netball, athletics and was a keen dancer. She was also a high achiever at school, in the top sets for everything and predicted at least 10 GCSE with high grades. Her future was very bright.

Read rest of story from Independent on Sunday:

Thousands of teenage girls enduring debilitating illnesses after routine school cancer vaccination

Advertisements

More Evidence Hepatitis B Vaccines Cause Multiple Sclerosis [amongst other serious conditions]

In its issue of October 20, 2014, JAMA Neurol published a paper “Vaccines and the risk of multiple sclerosis and other central nervous system demyelinating disease” (doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.2633).

In accordance with my previous criticism regarding the methodological reliability of most studies presented as confirming the safety of vaccines, this investigation [1] raises a number of serious concerns.

Case ascertainment – Whereas the study title makes special emphasis on multiple sclerosis (MS: ICD code 340), case identification includes no less than nine ICD codes, some of which (optic neuritis or acute disseminated encephalomyelitis being sometimes difficult to differentiate from genuine MS, whereas others [transverse myelitis] are generally considered as distinct). The most expected result of such a diagnosis blending is to weaken statistical power and to blur epidemiological evidence.

Vaccination assessment – Only 4.0% of the 3885 controls were exposed to hepatitis B vaccine in the 3 years before the index rate; this may be compared with the study by Hernan et al. [2] (the design of which was fairly similar), where 2,4% of the 1565 controls were exposed to a recombinant hepatitis B vaccine. The trouble is that this immunization was highly selective in the latter population (UK), whereas it was massive in the former (USA). In spite of this major discrepancy in the vaccine policy between the two countries, the surprisingly small difference between these two percentages raises the hypothesis that, for one reason or another, vaccination recording was incomplete in the American sample. Although duly pointed out as remarkable by Langer-Gould et al., low vaccine exposure in their sample was not seriously discussed by the authors.

Control selection – Although a black ethnicity was the most prominent risk factor identified by the authors in their previous study on the incidence of demyelinating syndromes (quoted as reference 17 in their current paper), one may wonder why their control selection did not include race in their matching method. As it happens, imbalance in the distribution of black race between cases and controls was the most striking feature of the baseline samples characteristics.

Index date – Although the timing of symptoms appearance is generally a crucial argument for causality in drug monitoring (there may be exceptions to this rule), this parameter is never properly considered in investigations devoted to post-vaccine MS. Actually, as the disease may remain clinically silent for years, the relevant parameter is neither the date of diagnosis nor that of the late symptoms which lead to the investigations leading to positive diagnosis. In spite of this, what investigators mean by “symptoms onset date” is never clearly defined: which symptoms? For example, in their abovementioned reference 17 (Table 1), Langer-Gould et al. estimated at 0.9 month the median time from symptom onset to diagnosis, after having stipulated that, defining MS required two or more episodes of MS “separated in time”: is unlikely that 0.9 month is a sufficient time interval to separate two distinct MS episodes… At the opposite side of the clinical spectrum, the very first symptoms of a MS are often an unexplained fatigue, mild paresthesia, etc. the onset of which may be quite close to the time of vaccine injection (a few days or weeks), but which may last for years before onset of more significant symptoms: thus, if one focus on the late significant symptoms, this very long time lag is almost always interpreted as speaking against a vaccine role whereas, when considering the whole of symptoms sequence from its very beginning (i.e. from the time of quite discrete symptoms just after injection), it is on the contrary highly suggestive of a vaccine causality. I have never seen this crucial problem properly taken into account in any database, so that most investigations about the time between vaccination and the onset of MS symptoms are essentially misleading.

Regarding MS and in spite of their denials, the authors ended up to a result very close to that of Hernan et al.’s., namely an overrepresentation of cases (4.2%) as compared to the controls (3.1%) within a time windows of 3 years. Of course, this difference just failed to reach statistical significance but: i) as documented above, the methodological tendency of the authors contributed to decrease the power of their results; ii) amongst the published case/control studies supposed to exclude a post-vaccine risk of MS (by means of like strategies of dilution of the cases or of insufficient observation period), the number of those suggesting (even in a nonsignificant way) an overrepresentation of cases in vaccinated subjects is clearly higher than those suggesting an underrepresentation, and the difference between the two groups of studies is clearly significant from a statistical point of view.

Finally and as with most papers devoted to the safety of hepatitis B vaccines, the authors cannot refrain from concluding that no “change in vaccine policy” is warranted: yet, their investigation is totally devoid of the slightest element likely to validate any vaccine policy, whose potential shortcomings (included issues of cost, of resources allocation, of individual and collective efficacy, of nonneurological risks, etc.) go far beyond the sole issue of MS. In psychoanalysis, such optimism (going far beyond the available evidence from a given investigation) is called “the return of the repressed”…

[1] Langer-Gould A, Qian L, Tartof SY, Brara SM, Jacobsen SJ, Beaber BE, et al. Vaccines and the risk of multiple sclerosis and other central nervous system demyelinating diseases. JAMA Neurol. 2014 Dec;71(12):1506-13.

[2] Neurology 2004; 63: 838-42.

The Money and Criminal Connections Behind The Vaccine Racket – How Vaccines Your Child Does Not Need Get Mandated – How Serious Ill Health and Death Are Not Reported Publicly

The chart below from Natural News.com neatly summarises the way some drug companies like GSK [including some which have criminal convictions such as for fraudulent marketing and selling of dangerous drugs] use money to manipulate politicians, universities, the media, medical professionals and the public to expand the ever increasing burden of vaccines one too many of which do cause serious ill health and/or death.  What the chart does not show is the high levels of under-reporting of adverse vaccine reactions and the manipulation of adverse reaction data to hide the data showing the scale of serious adverse reactions.  See also below the links to just a few of the previous relevant CHS articles.

CLICK ON THE CHART TO VIEW FULL SIZE:

How Drug Company Money is Used to Push Vaccines Which Have Killed and/or Injured Childre

The Vaccine Racket

Here are a few of the relevant previous CHS articles:

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

UK Drug Safety Agency Falsified Vaccine Safety Data For 6 Million

Commercially Corrupted Medicine Leading Cause of Death in USA – Washington Post

More US CDC Research Fraud – Publishing False Figures to Promote A Pointless Vaccine to The US and Third World

US Prosecutors Seek Extradition of Madsen MMR/Autism Denmark Study Author for US$1m MMR & Mercury Autism Research Fraud

Proof Some Docs, Drug Companies, Politicians & Government Officials Work To Make Your Kids Sick – To Get Your MONEY – News From NY USA Charity AHRP

More Fraud From Drug Giant GlaxoSmithKline Companies – Court Documents Show

UK General Medical Council Told Docs “Commit Fraud for MMR Vaccine Bonuses”

More Fraud By Drug Giant Merck – US$650 Million

The Issues Explained For You – Senior Centers for Disease Contol Scientist Admits CDC Knew MMR Vaccine Causes Autism For Over 10 Years And Fabricated Research To Hide This – Interview With Jon Rappoport

Congressman “CDC Should Be Investigated” – US Centers for Disease Control Vaccine Safety Corruption Compared to Bernie Madoff

Paid Ghostwriters Write Wikipedia On Behalf of Paying Clients – Confirmed by Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department

W.H.O. Ensures Third World Child Vaccine Deaths Will Not Be Recorded – New Weakened W.H.O. Criteria For Third World Child Deaths From Vaccines

Patient Committed Suicide After His Doctor Was Hounded By Dr Ben Goldacre’s Badscience Forum Internet Bullies – Perpetrator’s Mild Two Year Cautionary Sentence Only Just Ended December 2013

Whooping Cough Vaccine – Doesn’t Work – GSK Says “We Never Bothered to Check”

 Unsafe Vaccines & Corruption In Medical Journal Publishing

CLICK ON THE CHART TO VIEW FULL SIZE:

The US Centers for Disease Control – #1 Enemy of the US People – Does More Harm To US Citizens Than Terrorists – [Including Al Quaeda and ISIS Combined]

[ED: The following article is republished from AL Witney.  It is a sobering thought that the number of US citizens harmed by its own government and agencies, including the CDC, is vastly more substantial than US citizens harmed by terrorist activity.  The US Government and its agencies are the greater threat to US citizens.

A recent article published in the British Medical Journal includes the following

Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.

Jeanne Lenzer, associate editor, The BMJ, USA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: protecting the private good? BMJ 15 May 2015 Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h2362 ]

_____________________________

The Centers for Disease Control is a rogue institution engaged in the destruction of the health of the American population:-

  1. CDC is a for-profit corporation listed on Dun and Bradstreet
  2. CDC partners with big pharma
  3. CDC deceives health practitioners as well as the public
  4. CDC is rife with corruption
  5. CDC orchestrates propaganda campaigns based on non-existent threats
  6. CDC wastes billions of dollars and cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease
  7. CDC hires researchers to create bogus studies
  8. CDC does not protect the population, but promotes whatever agenda those who control the White House [the international banksters] wish advanced
  9. CDC pays public health institutions and even has employees stationed in their state offices
  10. CDC ignores congressional reports and/or hearings
  11. CDC actively discredits/destroys reputable researchers
  12. CDC bilks insurance companies out of billions of dollars by knowingly creating disease through their massive vaccination programs
  13. CDC hires private think-tank corporations to produce phoney ‘consensus’ science reports
  14. CDC promotes the dumping of toxic wastes from the chemical fertilizer industry into public drinking water in the name of ‘fluoridation’ contributing to ill health
  15. CDC has a long and nasty relationship with the CIA

While most physicians and public health workers may be unaware of the depth of the cover-up regarding vaccines, the harm they are causing is incalculable and the damage being inflicted on us and our children is devastating. Since the illnesses or injuries caused by toxic vaccines frequently don’t show up for weeks or even years, the medical industrial complex maintains plausible deniability.

Many good physicians have come forward (like those affiliated with the International Medical Council on Vaccination) and exposed the dangers of vaccines as have CDC whistle-blowers. The truth is everywhere. [See: CDC Exposed]

Question: Why would legislators trust any recommendation coming from the CDC?

Answer: They wouldn’t . . .  if they were told the truth.

Which organization in this movement is willing to get past the vaccination “choice” argument and help advance the truth i.e. the CDC and their so-called recommendations cannot be trusted AT ALL!

Here is a 40 minute interview with Dr David Lewis, former CDC/EPA employee and author of Science for Sale, blowing the whistle on the CDC, et al:

Dr David Lewis on In Defense of Humanity

Best,

AL

AL Whitney
Retired Registered Respiratory Therapist Former Court Appointed Special Advocate for Children Spouse of a retired Family Practitioner

People for Safe Technologies

Save Children At Risk – Demand Release of Trial Data On Dangerous Vaccine – Help Yourself, Your Children and Others – Tell The Director, Christian Medical College, “Release Rotavirus Vaccine Trial Data”

Vaccines which kill and injure children are unacceptable.  This is why you are asked to sign the petition linked to below. The problem with the rotavirus vaccine is it can kill.  The other problem is the rotavirus is no risk to your child.

Read on for why. 

30 Seconds of your time could save a child’s life, so click the link and sign the petition:

To Director, Christian Medical College: Release Rotavirus Vaccine Trial Data

Rotavirus vaccine is given to children to interrupt the circulation of the rotavirus to prevent diahorrea.  In developed western economies this is not a killer disease.  The vaccine is part of a programme directed to eradication of the virus.  Your child gets the vaccine because some anonymous officials have decided they don’t want to develop a proper treatment.  They want to be heroes and claim the credit for eradicating a disease which is no threat to your child or any child in your entire country.  It does not seem to matter who gets in the way.  That your healthy child is put at risk of death on the way somehow does not seem important to some of them.  That larger numbers of third world economy children are put at risk also seems not so important – just as long as no one identifies and names those concerned as pushing a killer vaccine.

Rotavirus vaccine causes some children’s intestine to fold into or collapse into itself.  This is called intussusception.  It is dangerous and a killer.  It seems that many if not all rotavirus vaccines have this problem.  So if you are in a developed western country you have every right to insist 1) your child is not given a rotavirus vaccine and 2) those who push the vaccines develop effective treatments instead for the very few who might have a problem with the virus.

This killer vaccine is no benefit to your healthy baby, but is a threat even to your baby in the USA:  Intussusception Risk after Rotavirus Vaccination in U.S. Infants N Engl J Med 2014; 370:1766May 1, 2014DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1402790.  This “telescoping” often blocks food or fluid from passing through. Intussusception also cuts off the blood supply to the part of the intestine that’s affected. Intussusception can lead to a tear in the bowel (perforation), infection and death of bowel tissue. It requires an x-ray and surgery to diagnose and correct the situation.

See the end of this post for a list of the top countries listed where rotavirus is of zero risk and for those where it is near negligible risk.

So you should be asking, why is my baby being given this vaccine?  And if you are in the USA, with the imminent introduction of the US “Vaccinate All Children Act of 2015” you have to ask why is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices mandating a useless vaccine for my child which only puts my child at risk of death.  Under the Bill currently before Congress your child has to have vaccines ACIP mandates – no if’s, no but’s and no religious or conscientious exemptions and even if the vaccine is pointless and puts your child at risk including of death – like rotavirus vaccine [courtesy of Dr Paul Offit].

This brings us to the science and the main topic of this post.  Rotavirus Vaccine 116E has according to a letter in the journal Vaccine in 2015, been tested in only 4532 infants (4532 received vaccine; 2187 were controls). There was an excess of 11 cases of intussusception per 10,000 vaccinated. This is 5 to 10 times higher than the risk of intussusception with Rotashield vaccine (which was withdrawn from the market) and nearly 70 times higher than the risk of intussusception with the current, internationally licensed vaccine, RotaTeq.  Ultrasound evidence of intussusception was found in 17 who had received the 116E vaccine (3.75/1000 or 37.5/10,000) and in 6 babies receiving placebo (2.636/1000 or 26.36/10,000): Letter to Editor – Intussusception risk with 116E rotavirus vaccine in Vellore, South India. Drs Jalaj Bajaj & Jacob M. Puliyel Vaccine 2015

So please click the link and sign this petition:

To Director, Christian Medical College: Release Rotavirus Vaccine Trial Data

The WHO has said it is unethical not to disclose data from a trial of this nature. Instead of disclosing the data, there is concern it is planned to do an uncontrolled trial in 100,000 more children exposing them to risk of death without disclosing the data from the previous trial. The full data must be provided from the Vellore trial.

Intussusception rates varied in the different regions studied by John and colleagues. In Vellore it was 581/100,000 child-years and in Delhi it was much lower – 27.7/100,000 child-years. John J, et al Active surveillance for intussusception in a phase III efficacy trial of an oral mono-valent rotavirus vaccine in India. Vaccine 2014;32 (August (Suppl. 1)):A104–9.

The regional differences in intussusception rates could mean that it may be more risky to use the vaccine in some areas. The authors called for segregated data from Vellore for vaccinated and control where the intussusceptions cases were highest. This data could also point out if a certain section of the population were more susceptible to adverse effects. However despite several attempts the data is not being shared which is a cause for great concern.

We would request the Director, Christian Medical College to release the trial data as per the recent WHO call for ethics and transparency in research.

Don’t be pushed around by some of the thugs and bullies who accuse people concerned for children’s safety that they are “anti-vaccine” instead of pro children’s safety.  They are encouraged by Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum or some thugs and bullies amongst those individuals who congregate at Dr David Gorski’s rants on the non-science or near science-free “scienceblogs” blog or by the likes of Dr Paul Offit, who attacks anyone whilst making money from his own rotavirus patents: Paul Offit – Liar “Doctor of Vaccine Profit” Voted His Patented Rotavirus Vaccine For US Children When On Vaccine Safety Committee.

TABLE – RISK OF DEATH FROM ROTAVIRUS DIAHORREA

A word of warning about the statistics.  These are World Health Organisation estimates.  In CHS’s opinion WHO is not a reliable source of data and their estimates can be what we believe is exaggerated.  Do not forget that it was the WHO’s SAGE Committee headed by the UK’s Professor David Salisbury which brought us the swine flu debacle and at least 800 children who developed the serious condition of narcolepsy from GSK’s in our view near pointless for children swine flu vaccine.  Some of the people who push vaccines appear in our opinion to be fanatics who do not listen to science, ethics or reason.

ISO3 Country 2008 rotavirus deaths, aged < 5 95%
confidence interval
 < 5 rota mortality rate (per 100 000 population < 5)
AND Andorra <10 0 -10 0 0.1
ARE United Arab Emirates <10 0 -10 0 0.3
AUS Australia <10 0 -10 0 0.2
AUT Austria <10 0 -10 0 0.2
BEL Belgium <10 0 -10 0 0.5
BHS Bahamas <10 0 -10 0 0.1
BLR Belarus <10 0 -10 0 0.1
BRB Barbados <10 0 -10 0 0.0
BRN Brunei Darussalam <10 0 -10 0 0.2
CAN Canada <10 0 -10 0 0.0
CHE Switzerland <10 0 -10 0 0.0
CHL Chile <10 0 -10 0 0.1
COK Cook Islands <10 0 -10 0 0.0
CYP Cyprus <10 0 -10 0 0.1
CZE Czech Republic <10 0 -10 0 0.3
DEU Germany <10 0 -10 0 0.1
DMA Dominica <10 0 -10 0 0.0
DNK Denmark <10 0 -10 0 0.4
ESP Spain <10 0 -10 0 0.1
EST Estonia <10 0 -10 0 0.0
FIN Finland <10 0 -10 0 0.2
FRA France 18 12 – 23 0 0.5
GBR United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland <10 0 -10 0 0.0
GRC Greece <10 0 -10 0 0.0
GRD Grenada <10 0 -10 0 0.0
HUN Hungary <10 0 -10 0 0.1
IRL Ireland <10 0 -10 0 0.0
ISL Iceland <10 0 -10 0 0.0
ISR Israel <10 0 -10 0 0.0
ITA Italy <10 0 -10 0 0.0
JPN Japan 20 14 – 26 0 0.5
KNA Saint Kitts and Nevis <10 0 -10 0 0.0
KOR Republic of Korea <10 0 -10 0 0.1
KWT Kuwait <10 0 -10 0 0.2
LUX Luxembourg <10 0 -10 0 0.0
LVA Latvia <10 0 -10 0 0.0
MCO Monaco <10 0 -10 0 0.1
MLT Malta <10 0 -10 0 0.0
MNE Montenegro <10 0 -10 0 0.0
NLD Netherlands <10 0 -10 0 0.2
NOR Norway <10 0 -10 0 0.5
NZL New Zealand <10 0 -10 0 0.2
POL Poland <10 0 -10 0 0.0
PRT Portugal <10 0 -10 0 0.0
SGP Singapore <10 0 -10 0 0.0
SMR San Marino <10 0 -10 0 0.0
SRB Serbia <10 0 -10 0 0.0
SVK Slovakia <10 0 -10 0 0.1
SVN Slovenia <10 0 -10 0 0.0
SWE Sweden <10 0 -10 0 0.3
SYC Seychelles <10 0 -10 0 0.0
USA United States of America 14 10 – 19 0 0.0
VCT Saint Vincent and the Grenadines <10 0 -10 0 0.0
ARG Argentina 45 41 – 49 1 0.4
BGR Bulgaria <10 0 -10 1 0.3
BHR Bahrain <10 0 -10 1 0.3
BIH Bosnia and Herzegovina <10 0 -10 1 0.5
CRI Costa Rica <10 0 -10 1 0.3
CUB Cuba <10 0 -10 1 0.7
HRV Croatia <10 0 -10 1 0.6
LCA Saint Lucia <10 0 -10 1 0.2
LTU Lithuania <10 0 -10 1 0.3
MUS Mauritius <10 0 -10 1 0.4
MYS Malaysia 15 14 – 16 1 0.4
NIU Niue <10 0 -10 1 0.3
QAT Qatar <10 0 -10 1 0.6
ROU Romania 14 13 – 16 1 0.4
RUS Russian Federation 90 82 – 99 1 0.4
UKR Ukraine 16 14 – 17 1 0.2
ATG Antigua and Barbuda <10 0 -10 2 0.9
TTO Trinidad and Tobago <10 0 -10 2 0.4
URY Uruguay <10 0 -10 2 0.9
ALB Albania <10 0 -10 3 0.7
ARM Armenia <10 0 -10 3 0.7
LBN Lebanon <10 0 -10 3 0.5
MDA Republic of Moldova <10 0 -10 3 0.6
MKD The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia <10 0 -10 3 1.1
OMN Oman <10 0 -10 3 1.1
THA Thailand 153 139 – 168 3 1.2
TUR Turkey 188 171 – 206 3 0.7
TUV Tuvalu <10 0 -10 3 0.4
LKA Sri Lanka 72 65 – 78 4 1.0
MEX Mexico 464 422 – 507 4 1.1
BRA Brazil 857 780 – 937 5 1.3
CHN China 4161 3,783 – 4,548 5 1.2
LBY Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 38 35 – 42 5 1.4
PLW Palau <10 0 -10 5 1.1
COL Colombia 282 256 – 308 6 1.5
KAZ Kazakhstan 92 84 – 101 6 0.7
SLV El Salvador 34 31 – 38 6 1.4
FJI Fiji <10 0 -10 7 1.9
SYR Syrian Arab Republic 173 158 – 190 7 2.1
VNM Viet Nam 524 476 – 572 7 1.3
VUT Vanuatu <10 0 -10 7 2.1
BLZ Belize <10 0 -10 8 2.2
SAU Saudi Arabia 241 219 – 263 8 2.1
SUR Suriname <10 0 -10 8 1.3
TUN Tunisia 68 62 – 75 8 2.1
EGY Egypt 819 697 – 945 9 1.8
MDV Maldives <10 0 -10 9 2.4
PER Peru 277 244 – 311 9 2.1
SLB Solomon Islands <10 0 -10 9 1.6
TON Tonga <10 0 -10 9 2.8
VEN Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 251 228 – 275 9 2.2
JOR Jordan 75 68 – 82 10 2.0
MNG Mongolia 26 24 – 29 10 1.2
ECU Ecuador 162 143 – 182 11 2.4
PAN Panama 38 34 – 41 11 2.5
WSM Samoa <10 0 -10 12 3.0
FSM Micronesia (Federated States of) <10 0 -10 13 1.5
GEO Georgia 35 32 – 38 14 2.6
PHL Philippines 1564 1,422 – 1,710 14 2.2
NRU Nauru <10 0 -10 15 1.8
PRY Paraguay 121 110 – 132 16 3.1
GUY Guyana 17 15 – 18 22 3.9
NIC Nicaragua 147 130 – 165 22 3.5
NAM Namibia 66 56 – 76 23 2.4
CPV Cape Verde 13 11 – 15 24 3.1
DOM Dominican Republic 274 249 – 300 26 4.4
HND Honduras 257 234 – 281 27 5.0
MHL Marshall Islands <10 0 -10 28 5.0
BWA Botswana 67 57 – 78 30 2.8
PNG Papua New Guinea 277 252 – 303 30 2.2
PRK Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 517 440 – 595 30 4.4
JAM Jamaica 78 71 – 85 32 6.1
IRN Iran (Islamic Republic of) 1974 1,795 – 2,158 33 5.3
DZA Algeria 1173 998 – 1,354 34 4.2
LAO Lao People’s Democratic Republic 281 256 – 307 40 3.2
UZB Uzbekistan 1091 992 – 1,193 41 3.4
AZE Azerbaijan 329 299 – 360 44 3.6
MAR Morocco 1316 1,121 – 1,520 44 5.4
IDN Indonesia 9970 9,066 – 10,899 45 5.8
IRQ Iraq 2257 1,921 – 2,598 46 5.4
KGZ Kyrgyzstan 259 236 – 283 48 5.1
GAB Gabon 95 81 – 109 52 3.2
LSO Lesotho 143 122 – 165 52 2.5
ZWE Zimbabwe 903 769 – 1,043 54 2.9
TKM Turkmenistan 284 259 – 311 55 4.4
ZAF South Africa 2882 2,454 – 3,328 56 4.1
KIR Kiribati <10 0 -10 60 5.8
GHA Ghana 2090 1,780 – 2,413 61 3.6
KHM Cambodia 921 837 – 1,007 61 4.8
TLS Timor-Leste 114 97 – 131 63 4.5
BGD Bangladesh 9857 8,392 – 11,347 65 6.0
GTM Guatemala 1502 1,323 – 1,684 71 9.8
NPL Nepal 2601 2,214 – 2,994 72 6.6
SWZ Swaziland 112 95 – 129 72 3.9
BOL Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 946 833 – 1,061 76 6.2
IND India 98621 83,958 – 113,521 77 5.5
STP Sao Tome and Principe 18 16 – 21 78 4.6
MDG Madagascar 2787 2,374 – 3,218 88 6.0
ERI Eritrea 730 621 – 842 89 6.1
SEN Senegal 1951 1,661 – 2,252 98 5.4
BTN Bhutan 72 61 – 83 99 7.7
TJK Tajikistan 865 787 – 946 101 7.0
MWI Malawi 2558 2,178 – 2,954 102 4.3
GMB Gambia 290 247 – 335 104 4.6
COM Comoros 126 107 – 145 107 5.4
TZA United Republic of Tanzania 8171 6,958 – 9,434 108 5.8
CIV Côte d’Ivoire 3393 2,889 – 3,917 116 4.1
MOZ Mozambique 4481 3,815 – 5,173 116 3.6
MMR Myanmar 4717 4,016 – 5,430 119 8.1
COG Congo 723 616 – 835 121 5.8
BEN Benin 1757 1,496 – 2,029 122 4.5
LBR Liberia 771 656 – 890 122 4.8
TGO Togo 1050 894 – 1,212 123 5.3
KEN Kenya 8005 6,817 – 9,243 125 6.4
DJI Djibouti 142 121 – 165 128 6.2
GNQ Equatorial Guinea 131 112 – 152 129 4.5
YEM Yemen 5094 4,337 – 5,864 132 7.4
SDN Sudan 8450 7,195 – 9,756 135 5.9
GIN Guinea 2328 1,982 – 2,687 145 4.6
MRT Mauritania 780 664 – 900 156 6.3
ZMB Zambia 3617 3,080 – 4,176 160 5.9
NGA Nigeria 41057 34,960 – 47,402 161 4.7
UGA Uganda 10637 9,058 – 12,281 173 7.3
CAF Central African Republic 1162 989 – 1,341 181 4.9
HTI Haiti 2234 1,968 – 2,505 182 10.3
PAK Pakistan 39144 33,324 – 45,058 191 9.5
CMR Cameroon 5825 4,960 – 6,725 196 6.2
RWA Rwanda 3472 2,957 – 4,009 206 8.8
SLE Sierra Leone 2058 1,752 – 2,376 218 5.0
BFA Burkina Faso 6228 5,303 – 7,191 222 5.3
ETH Ethiopia 28218 24,028 – 32,579 235 9.8
NER Niger 7473 6,363 – 8,627 258 7.3
MLI Mali 7253 6,176 – 8,374 262 6.1
AGO Angola 8788 7,483 – 10,147 263 6.9
GNB Guinea-Bissau 641 545 – 740 273 7.7
COD Democratic Republic of the Congo 32653 27,804 – 37,699 283 7.0
BDI Burundi 3561 3,032 – 4,111 314 9.5
SOM Somalia 5110 4,351 – 5,899 317 7.6
TCD Chad 6347 5,405 – 7,328 327 8.0
AFG Afghanistan 25423 21,643 – 29,263 474 13.8

.