Significant Correlations Between Vaccines, Infant Hospitalizations and Deaths

[BadBoy]

Can anyone see any problem with this paper? I had a Flu Jab recently and now my armpit is sore. After googling around I found the paper: Relative trends in hospitalizationsand mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age

The study basically concludes by saying that

The hospitalization rate and death rate for babies who receive 6, 7, or 8 vaccine doses is significantly higher than for babies who receive 2, 3, or 4 vaccine doses

It is linked to via the site I happened to click through to http://thinktwice.com/goldman-miller-study.htm

It looks genuine enough to me though the site looks a bit biased. I was a bit surprised to find it. I'm no scientist, anyone got any opinions or comments on this?

 

[EHocking]

Can anyone see any problem with this paper? I had a Flu Jab recently and now my armpit is sore. After googling around I found the paper: Relative trends in hospitalizationsand mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age

The study basically concludes by saying that

It is linked to via the site I happened to click through to http://thinktwice.com/goldman-miller-study.htm

It looks genuine enough to me though the site looks a bit biased. I was a bit surprised to find it. I'm no scientist, anyone got any opinions or comments on this?

Weeelllll, you might question the author's independence as well, since (from the paper itself);

This work is funded by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) who donated $2,500 towards the SAGE Choice Open Access fee for this article.
​

This is the Wiki entry for the NVIC:

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a private non-profit 501(c)(3) advocacy group which questions the safety and efficacy of commonly used vaccines. The group was founded in 1982 by parents who blamed routine vaccination for the illness or death of a child.
​

ETA : Miller is the director of the Thinktwice site and has a degree in psychology.
Goldman is a computer PhD and founder of Veritas International who's goals are (in part):

7. Create a movement to address the adverse vaccine reactions and vaccine-related injuries afflicting children and adults.
8. Investigate risk factors for those individuals with late onset autism, neurological complications and other vaccine adverse events.
9. Investigate the role of vaccine-derived and other biological components in either causing or contributing to disease.
​

 

[The Norseman]

This sentence caught my eye, though I don't have enough scientific background knowledge to know if this omission could skew the results:

Of these, the cumulative 281 (0.7 % ) VAERS cases reporting 9 or more vaccine doses concurrently were insufficient to yield statistically significant results, especially when further stratified by age, and were therefore excluded from analysis.​

If the study finds that up to eight "separate" vaccinations were more dangerous, why exclude nine or more "separate" vaccinations?

 

[BadBoy]

Weeelllll, you might question the author's independence as well, since (from the paper itself);

This work is funded by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) who donated $2,500 towards the SAGE Choice Open Access fee for this article.
​

This is the Wiki entry for the NVIC:

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a private non-profit 501(c)(3) advocacy group which questions the safety and efficacy of commonly used vaccines. The group was founded in 1982 by parents who blamed routine vaccination for the illness or death of a child.
​

ETA : Miller is the director of the Thinktwice site and has a degree in psychology.
Goldman is a computer PhD and founder of Veritas International who's goals are (in part):

7. Create a movement to address the adverse vaccine reactions and vaccine-related injuries afflicting children and adults.
8. Investigate risk factors for those individuals with late onset autism, neurological complications and other vaccine adverse events.
9. Investigate the role of vaccine-derived and other biological components in either causing or contributing to disease.
​

ah right.
I don’t get these organization’s who pretend to do science and all the time have some agenda they are trying to fulfill. Thanks.

I need to learn how to do this, but it seems you didn’t have to look too far.

I wonder what’s wrong with the actual research. There must be some issue with it some place, otherwise it would be common knowledge

 

[BadBoy]

This sentence caught my eye, though I don't have enough scientific background knowledge to know if this omission could skew the results:

Of these, the cumulative 281 (0.7 % ) VAERS cases reporting 9 or more vaccine doses concurrently were insufficient to yield statistically significant results, especially when further stratified by age, and were therefore excluded from analysis.​

If the study finds that up to eight "separate" vaccinations were more dangerous, why exclude nine or more "separate" vaccinations?

yes, that does sound suspect.

 

[EHocking]

yes, that does sound suspect.

Additionally, here is the VAERS data site that the paper is based on.

The following is its (my highlight, although every sentence basically destroys that paper's premise);
Guide to Interpreting VAERS Case Report Information

When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

 

[bjornart]

Wouldn't comparing hospitalization and mortality rates for all children make more sense, rather than just looking at the cases where adverse effects are reported? Or am I misreading the report and that's what they did?

But they do acknowledge in the report that the reporting does not ensure a cause and effect relationship:

Anyone can file a VAERS report regardless of a true cause-and-effect relationship between the administration of a vaccine and an adverse event that succeeds it.

 

[rjh01]

I can see a number of issues with this study
1. Babies that receive only 1 vaccine receive a huge number of hospitalisations, nearly equal to the total of 2,3 and 4 vaccines combined.
2. The older a baby is the less likely it is to be hospitalised. I would expect the older the baby the more vaccines it has had.

Will have to look at what ages babies receive vaccines. Or can someone do that for me please? That would be interesting. I do not think that babies under .1 year would have had many vaccines.

 

[rjh01]

Here is the schedule http://kidshealth.org/parent/growth/medical/immunization_chart.html

Birth
HBV: Hepatitis B vaccine; recommended to give the first dose at birth, but may be given at any age for those not previously immunized.
1-2 months
HBV: Second dose should be administered 1 to 2 months after the first dose.
2 months
DTaP: Diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis vaccine
Hib: Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine
IPV: Inactivated poliovirus vaccine
PCV: Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine
Rota: Rotavirus vaccine
4 months
DTaP
Hib
IPV
PCV
Rota
6 months
DTaP
Hib
PCV
Rota

I am not impressed by their conclusions.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Can anyone see any problem with this paper? I had a Flu Jab recently and now my armpit is sore. After googling around I found the paper: Relative trends in hospitalizationsand mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age

The study basically concludes by saying that

It is linked to via the site I happened to click through to http://thinktwice.com/goldman-miller-study.htm

It looks genuine enough to me though the site looks a bit biased. I was a bit surprised to find it. I'm no scientist, anyone got any opinions or comments on this?

Sorry, I didn't read the thread. I only read the first two lines of the report because I googled immediately "Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System".
I read a few lines more in the abstract. If "vaccine adverse" events are completely random and there's a calendar of vaccination, I expect that "older" babies are to be implied in the cases of a total of 8 vaccines and "younger" babies in the cases of 2 vaccines. I have a hard time believing that all vaccines have the same rate of "vaccine adverse events", so suppose that the vaccine that is scheduled fifth in the calendar causes more adverse events than others, and as vaccines are usually given in groups and parents not necessarily bring their babies to the vaccination centres as scheduled -I don't know if in the States the vaccination calendar is uniform nationwide or it varies state by state- a "riskier" vaccine can create an apparent trend.

A factor to consider is the ratio male/female in case of death, because I don't remember figures but it seems to be the normal ration for such events, so it would be indicator that nothing is there but the normal risks of any medical intervention. I bet more people die after a root canal than after vaccination. And many many many more people would die without their vaccines and root canals. Not the same people, sure, so we have the old "if he had taken the bus he wouldn't have died in that air disaster" that can make an advocacy about a general rule created by anecdotal information.

 

[rjh01]

aleCcowaN - I think you have said what I was thinking too. Just got there a different way.

 

[Dancing David]

I looked the VAERs is reports of 'suspected adverse reactions'. I wonder what confirmation and followup there was.

 

[Hellbound]

When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

I think this needs to be emphasized, as it pretty much destroys the cause-effect relationship they're trying to imply, if not outright claim.

VAERS is an all-access reporting method. Anyone who thinks they've had a reaction to a vaccine can enter their report on VAERS. That being said, that immediately gives a self-selecting group that in all cases will skew the numbers towards a higher number of reports from many vaccinations. Allow me to explain.

This means that, for example, the child recieving 5, 6, or 7 vaccinations is more likely to have had a vaccination at or near the time of illness and/or death, meaning the parent is more likely to associate the vaccination with the death.

Just a logical guess, I could be wrong on the details, but in any case the main point stands. VAERS, being a self-reporting tool, is prone to self-selection. Unless all these affects are accounted for, it's useless for studies like this. And, since you really can't account for all possibilities, it would be easier and more accurate to use hospital records and such (as bjornart mentioned).

I can see a number of issues with this study
1. Babies that receive only 1 vaccine receive a huge number of hospitalisations, nearly equal to the total of 2,3 and 4 vaccines combined.

A similar thing as I mentioned above would, I think , affect children recieving only a single vaccination. I would suspect these were people who already had doubts about vaccinations, or were otherwise not getting them until this first one. A child's first vaccination is a memorable thing for a parent, thus more likely to be remembered and more likely to gain signifigance in the mind, whether or not that exists in reality.

Additionally, I would make a guess that children recieving only a single vaccine, rather than the full schedule, would also include a higher number of children that are contra-indicated for a vaccination due to other health issues, for example an immune system deficiency or something similar. A higher death rate would be expected among such a group.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I've read a little bit more of the paper, and the number of vaccines taken is in one visit, so, it could be a 2-month old getting 8 vaccines at the same visit, or an 11-month old getting just one. I stand corrected, then, in some of my appreciations. Anyway, I found out that the distribution of deaths by age follows approximately the pattern of death by every cause in those group of ages, starting in the third month of life, so, as the most number of vaccines are concentrated in the first months of life, when mortality is higher, it is not strange to get a pattern of more deaths in case of more vaccines simply by random, whether the deaths are related to vaccination or are just suffering parents trying to find guilt in some place whitin the system.

In any case, I suppose that eight vaccines are more demanding on the immune system and might lead to opportunistic infections or reveal a pre-existent problem. I have developed myself strong reactions against the BCG three times -I have the keloids to prove it- but I prefer the protection given by the vaccine, which includes a marginal protection against leukaemia. The matter is, would it be less risky if vaccines are gotten in two groups of four, or fours pairs? Maybe, but the question is, would the mother attend those four times or will she forget? or will she be discouraged because of something she heard in Wendy Whatever's show or any of the pathetic talk shows available in the States or most of the other countries.

 

[dlorde]

In any case, I suppose that eight vaccines are more demanding on the immune system and might lead to opportunistic infections or reveal a pre-existent problem.

I'm not sure that's necessarily true (I'd like to see research suggesting the immune system is weakened by multiple vaccinations). The immune system is continually dealing with multiple threats in the early years of life.

I was wondering whether children given 6 or more vaccinations at once were getting them because they would be likely to be exposed to risks from more pathogens; for example, going on holiday to (e.g. tropical) areas where they would need those vaccinations. If so, one might expect some of them to suffer some adverse health outcome from such adventures. Just a thought.

 

[bjornart]

Without knowing the details of the reporting practices I'd guess that the more vaccines given at once, the more likely unrelated problems are reported as possibly related.

 

[casebro]

You folks do realize that the word "significant" has it's own meaning in statistics, don't you?

It does NOT mean "important". It means "repeatable". The data is likely minor, but will show up in almost all studies. That makes it "significant". Conversely, the "9 vaccines" data were not significant.

So, what is important is how big is the difference? Probably petty when looking at the numbers of problems prevented by the vaccines. .

 

[EHocking]

You folks do realize that the word "significant" has it's own meaning in statistics, don't you?

It does NOT mean "important". It means "repeatable". The data is likely minor, but will show up in almost all studies. That makes it "significant". Conversely, the "9 vaccines" data were not significant.

So, what is important is how big is the difference? Probably petty when looking at the numbers of problems prevented by the vaccines. .

Also, since there was another data set there - non-domestic data (over 26,000 records), why did they not include this set of French data, or at least compare it to the domestic (US) data in the paper. I have no idea if it would work as any sort of control, but there is the possibility that the two countries have a different public vaccination program for children which might have proved useful or interesting as a comparision between results. Possibly influencing the conclusion.

 

[EHocking]

I'm not sure that's necessarily true (I'd like to see research suggesting the immune system is weakened by multiple vaccinations). The immune system is continually dealing with multiple threats in the early years of life.

I was wondering whether children given 6 or more vaccinations at once were getting them because they would be likely to be exposed to risks from more pathogens; for example, going on holiday to (e.g. tropical) areas where they would need those vaccinations. If so, one might expect some of them to suffer some adverse health outcome from such adventures. Just a thought.

It should be noted that at least in the case of MMR, a single jab is treated as 3 vaccines in the paper.

So one visit for three vaccines may only describe a single combined vaccine.

ETA: As per the paper - "A Web-based (online) program (available at www.medicalveritas.com/vaers.php) was written (in HTML, Javascript, and PHP) to convert all specified vaccines for any given case to the equivalent number of doses (i.e., DTaP is administered with one injection but contains three separate vaccine doses for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis; Table 1)."

Valid or useful for skewing the results?

 

[Capsid]

It should be noted that at least in the case of MMR, a single jab is treated as 3 vaccines in the paper.

So one visit for three vaccines may only describe a single combined vaccine.

What's the basis for doing that? It makes no sense. If the purpose of the paper is to show that the immune response is being overloaded then the number of proteins that the immune response can recognise per injection should be considered. Even then this is difficult given the number of epitopes per protein is variable too.