First Vaccinated Versus Nonvaccinated Peer Review Study Published

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

By Catherine J. Frompovich | Activist Post

Finally, it’s happened; the first vaccinated versus nonvaccinated children’s health peer review study has been published in the Journal of Translational Science [1]. The study titled “Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S. children” is published as an open access text, thankfully, which everyone—bar none—should read, especially if you are a parent or grandparent.

With 71 References and nine charts, it clearly represents documented proof of what the authors were able to ascertain, when in the Conclusions they state:


Assessment of the long-term effects of the vaccination schedule on morbidity and mortality has been limited [71]. In this pilot study of vaccinated and unvaccinated homeschool children, reduced odds of chickenpox and whooping cough were found among the vaccinated, as expected, but unexpectedly increased odds were found for many other physician-diagnosed conditions. Although the cross-sectional design of the study limits causal interpretation, the strength and consistency of the findings, the apparent “dose-response” relationship between vaccination status and several forms of chronic illness, and the significant association between vaccination and NDDs [Neurodevelopmental disorders] all support the possibility that some aspect of the current vaccination program could be contributing to risks of childhood morbidity. Vaccination also remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors, whereas preterm birth, long considered a major risk factor for NDD, was not associated with NDD after controlling for the interaction between preterm birth and vaccination. In addition, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD above that of vaccination alone. Nevertheless, the study findings should be interpreted with caution. First, additional research is needed to replicate the findings in studies with larger samples and stronger research designs. Second, subject to replication, potentially detrimental factors associated with the vaccination schedule should be identified and addressed and underlying mechanisms better understood. Such studies are essential in order to optimize the impact of vaccination of children’s health. [1]

One of the paper’s statements ‘jumped out’ at me:

Although short-term immunologic and safety testing is performed on vaccines prior to their approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the long-term effects of individual vaccines and of the vaccination program itself remain unknown [8]. Vaccines are acknowledged to carry risks of severe acute and chronic adverse effects, such as neurological complications and even death [9], but such risks are considered so rare that the vaccination program is believed to be safe and effective for virtually all children [10]. [CJF emphasis]

[Please refer to online article for embedded reference numbers.]

I’ve been tracking vaccine/vaccinee issues since the latter part of the 1980s when we first started hearing parents complain their children were negatively impacted by vaccines they received. What’s happened, in essence, is the push to vaccinate for every possible issue (not a hangnail, yet, but maybe soon) has changed the disease paradigm for young children from communicable infectious diseases, which once contracted usually provided lifelong immunity, to chronic diseases that last a lifetime and provide long-term revenue streams for many segments in healthcare. Chronic illnesses earlier in life create perpetual customers for pharmaceutical drugs, medical services and interventions, and even healthcare insurance plans. Here’s some proof of that shift, as taken from the paper in question:

Chronic illness

Vaccinated children were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with the following: allergic rhinitis (10.4% vs. 0.4%, p <0.001; OR 30.1, 95% CI: 4.1, 219.3), other allergies (22.2% vs. 6.9%, p <0.001; OR 3.9, 95% CI: 2.3, 6.6), eczema/atopic dermatitis (9.5% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.035; OR 2.9, 95% CI: 1.4, 6.1), a learning disability (5.7% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.003; OR 5.2, 95% CI: 1.6, 17.4), ADHD (4.7% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.013; OR 4.2, 95% CI: 1.2, 14.5), ASD [Autism Spectrum Disorder] (4.7% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.013; OR 4.2, 95% CI: 1.2, 14.5), any neurodevelopmental disorder (i.e., learning disability, ADHD or ASD) (10.5% vs. 3.1%, p <0.001; OR 3.7, 95% CI: 1.7, 7.9) and any chronic illness (44.0% vs. 25.0%, p <0.001; OR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.7, 3.3). No significant differences were observed with regard to cancer, chronic fatigue, conduct disorder, Crohn’s disease, depression, Types 1 or 2 diabetes, encephalopathy, epilepsy, hearing loss, high blood pressure, inflammatory bowel disease, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, obesity, seizures, Tourette’s syndrome, or services received under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Table 3). [CJF emphasis]

Personally, I tend to think the following statement by the authors is indicative of where the CDC/FDA are to blame for not mandating longer research time and accurate data, or complete disclosure not just favorable studies, prior to licensure of vaccines which, by the way, the CDC owns numerous ‘money-maker’ vaccines:

The nonspecific effects of some vaccines appear to be beneficial, while in others they appear to increase morbidity and mortality [22,23]. For instance, both the measles and Bacillus Calmette–Guérin vaccine reportedly reduce overall morbidity and mortality [24], whereas the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis [25] and hepatitis B vaccines [26] have the opposite effect. The mechanisms responsible for these nonspecific effects are unknown but may involve inter alia: interactions between vaccines and their ingredients, e.g., whether the vaccines are live or inactivated; the most recently administered vaccine; micronutrient supplements such as vitamin A; the sequence in which vaccines are given; and their possible combined and cumulative effects [21]. [CJF emphasis]

However, maybe CDC/FDA aren’t to blame that much, but the U.S. Congress, who gifted vaccine makers with carte blanche legal and financial product liabilities and a “get out of jail free card,” the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34), is to blame. That law is the real problem and Congress needs to rescind it, as it’s been hijacked, especially by the Vaccine Court Masters’ lack of due diligence in considering documented vaccine research fraud and neurotoxins in vaccines as implicating and causing vaccinee damages, in my opinion. That law, however, applies only to children’s vaccines, per some legal experts and an article by reporter Jon Rappoport, who says numerous lawsuits have been filed against Merck about its shingles vaccine, Zostavax®.

Will Congress become motivated at the behest of Big Pharma lobbyists to exempt similar product liability for adult vaccines, since the CDC/FDA are pushing mandatory adult vaccine schedules?

[Read more here]

Tags: , , , ,

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS FeedConnect on YouTube

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the stories on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.
Top

Send this to friend