Skewed Statistics

If the Vaccinated Child Gets a Disease They Class It as Unvaccinated

In a study of measles infection rates in Senegal they determined that 40% of those vaccinated still came down with measles. However, this figure was really higher because they were counting some vaccinated children with measles as unvaccinated.

Patterns of measles transmission at school and at home were studied in 1995 in a rural area of Senegal with a high level of vaccination coverage. Among 209 case children with a median age of 8 years, there were no deaths, although the case fatality ratio has previously been 6-7% in this area. Forty percent of the case children had been vaccinated against measles.

Vaccine efficacy was found to be 57% (95% Cl -23 to 85) in the schools and 74% (95% Cl 62-82) in the residential compounds.

Starting in mid-1987, vaccinations were
offered and systematically recorded by the project at vaccination sessions organized once per month at each of the area's three health centers as part of trials of measles and pertussis vaccines (12). Children who had onset of disease within 2 weeks of measles vaccination have been classified as unvaccinated.

Source: American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 149, number 4, 15th February 1999 - http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/149/4/295.full.pdf

And again.....

Documentation provided during the previous campaign may have been incomplete or lost subsequently. Hence some individuals were probably immunized without this being recorded by the project.

Children who had measles within 2 weeks of
vaccination were classified as unvaccinated.

Source: Serologic status and measles attack rates
among vaccinated and unvaccinated children
in ruFa1 Senegal, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 1995;14:203-9 - http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/pleins_textes_7/b_fdi_53-54/010016512.pdf

And again.....

If there was no vaccination linked to a child in the demographic database in Tari, it was assumed that the child had not been vaccinated. Hence, ‘unvaccinated’ is a default status. This would not be a problem in a system with perfect information on all vaccinations or assessment of vaccination cards of all children who die. But this was not the case in Tari where there were delays in the collection of information, so that vaccinations might have been preferentially registered among children followed-up intensively (children who survived), whereas vaccinations for children who travelled or died might be missing. As a consequence, vaccinated children who died may have been wrongly classified as unvaccinated, and the analysis might suffer from survival bias.

Source: Commentary: Contrary findings from
Guinea-Bissau and Papua New Guinea, International Journal of Epidemiology 2005;34:149–151 - http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Contrary_Findings_from_Guinea-Bissau_and_Papua_New_Guinea.pdf

And again....

Patients were excluded if they did not recall influenza testing or experiencing symptoms of illness or if they were vaccinated 1-13 days before influenza illness onset. Children with no influenza vaccination since September 2003 were classified as unvaccinated. (This study was in 2004).

Source: Assessment of the Effectiveness of the 2003-04 Influenza Vaccine Among Children and Adults—Colorado, 2003, MMWR. 2004;53:707-710 - http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/292/14/1674.full

And again! We'll Just Pretend they Didn't Have Shots

We investigated an outbreak of varicella in a population of children with a high proportionof vaccinees who were attending a day-care center in a small community in New Hampshire.

Children were considered to have been vaccinated if more than 42 days had elapsed since vaccination. Two children who were vaccinated on December 26, 2000, were classified as unvaccinated.

Source: New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 347, number 24, December 12th 2002 - http://www.cpnlac.org/pdfs/brote%20de%20varicela%20en%20pac%20vacunados.pdf

Partially Vaccinated or Children Vaccinated at Earlier Times Than Usual, Classed as Unvaccinated

Children who were inappropriately vaccinated were classified as unvaccinated. Children without vaccine cards..or incomparability of exposure since both vaccinated and unvaccinated children were assumed to have been equally likely to have been exposed.

Source: International Journal of Epidemiology, volume 19, number 4, 1990 - http://cidbimena.desastres.hn/docum/crid/Noviembre2005/pdf/eng/doc7188/doc7188-contenido.pdf

And if They Kill Your Child in a Vaccine Trial They'll Just Put Him in the Unvaccinated Group!

Survival bias arises if ‘missingness’ of the vaccination records (as defined in (b) in the
previous paragraph) is associated with the outcome (namely, death). This can arise,
for example, if dead children’s cards are destroyed soon after death, as is the case in
some of the studies undertaken in West African countries: (Vaugelade et al., 2004,
Kristensen et al., 2000), and the second study of (Elguero et al., 2005).
This bias has been described in detail (Jensen et al., 2007). Briefly, in such
circumstances, treating ‘missing’ as unvaccinated will differentially place dead
children in the unvaccinated group, and hence will bias the mortality ratio towards
zero. The magnitude of the survival bias increases as the intervals between surveys
(to ascertain vaccination status) increase, as the proportion of dead children whose
vaccination cards are destroyed (and who are therefore classified as unvaccinated)
increases, and as vaccination rates increase.

In some circumstances, intervals between surveys are short (for example, in the
study described by (Moulton et al., 2005), the surveys took place every two weeks),
and hence survival bias is unlikely to play a major role. In other situations, for
example those described by (Vaugelade et al., 2004, Kristensen et al., 2000), there
were substantial intervals between surveys, and in such circumstances there may be substantial survival bias.

Note also that, whatever the frequency of surveys, survival bias will only be present
if dead children’s records are more likely to be missing than live children’s records.

In some circumstances, however, there are large numbers of ‘missing’ records due,for example, to the destruction of dead children’s records (or other informative mechanism). In such circumstances, survival bias is likely to be substantial, and sensitivity analyses are unlikely to be useful, because they yield too wide a range of values of the mortality ratio. In this situation, which has commonly arisen in studies undertaken in West Africa, a landmark analysis is recommended (Jensen et al., 2007).

Source: Epidemiological studies of the non-specific effects of vaccines: II -
methodological issues in the design and analysis of cohort studies, C. Paddy Farrington1, Martin J Firth 2, Lawrence H. Moulton3, Henrik Ravn4, Per
Kragh Andersen5 and Stephen Evans6 on behalf of the Working Group on Nonspecific Effects of Vaccines, http://stats-www.open.ac.uk/TechnicalReports/Child%20survival.pdf

If a vaccinated child gets the disease, they'll just call it something else

In a paper proporting to have eliminated measles in Finland by a two dose MMR programme, they say that vaccinated children getting measles actually have 'measles-mimicking disease' instead  and that this makes the vaccine more effective:

'When measles was still rampant, cases of measles-like diseases (whose incidence may not have changed much since the vaccination program) represented a tiny fraction of the true measles cases. Now the ratio of measles-mimicking diseases to true measles is dramatically higher.'

(N Engl J Med 1994; 331:1397-1402November 24, 1994 - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199411243312101#t=articleDiscussion).

Guesswork

In the same study mentioned above, they talk about a decline of antibodies to non-detectable levels after the first dose of MMR and are simply guessing that it may still mean the child is immune and that the booster dose would transfer 'long-term' immunity:

'A small, slow decline in antibody levels occurred after the first dose of the vaccine. Although a loss of antibodies to levels below the detection limit of available assays does not necessarily imply the loss of clinical protection,it is plausible that boosted levels predict long-lasting protection.'

Note the word 'plausible', it's a theory, not something proven.

In fact, a study published the following year found that the vaccine only 'lasted' 5 to 6 years and:

'These data indicate that a large proportion of children vaccinated under routine conditions do not have detectable measles and mumps antibody.'

(Vaccine, Volume 13, Issue 16, 1995, Pages 1611–1616 - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0264-410X(95)00098-L

Actually, it was found having two vaccines made you more likely to get measles more than once, compared with a naturally immune person

The journal of Medical Virology found:

'Serological evidence indicates that measles virus (MV) could circulate in seropositive, fully protected populations. Among individuals fully protected against disease, those prone to asymptomatic secondary immune response are the most likely to support subclinical MV transmission. The serological characteristics of protected subjects who developed secondary immune response after reexposure to measles have been described recently [Huiss et al. (1997): Clinical and Experimental Immunology 109:416-420]. On the basis of these data, a threshold of susceptibility was defined to estimate frequencies of secondary immune response competence in different populations. Among measles, late convalescent adults (n = 277) and vaccinated high school children (n = 368), 3.2-3.9% and 22.2-33.2%, respectively, were considered susceptible to secondary immune response. A second vaccination did not seem to lower this incidence. Even when estimates of symptomatic secondary immune response (e.g., secondary vaccine failure) were taken into account, susceptibility to subclinical secondary immune response was still 5-8 times higher after vaccination than after natural infection. Although viral transmission between protected individuals has never been directly demonstrated, the data describe a population in which protected but infectious persons could potentially be of epidemiological importance.'

So you can still pass on measles if you're vaccinated, even with no symptoms, and your chance of having measles twice is 5 to 8 times higher than a person who caught measles and was never vaccinated.

(J Med Virol. 1998 Sep;56(1):85-90 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9700638).

Making Conclusions that Don't Match the Evidence

The same study, 'The Elimination of Indigenous Measles, Mumps, and Rubella from Finland by a 12-Year, Two-Dose Vaccination Program', said:

'The vaccine proved to be safe. For common adverse reactions (occurring within 21 days after vaccination), the data could hardly be more reliable than those from the double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study performed in more than 1000 twins.'

So, let's look at their definition of 'safe'.  They also say:

'There were more reports of rare complications early in the study than later, despite the use of the same surveillance system. Febrile convulsions attributable to vaccination had an incidence of approximately 7 per 100,000 vaccinated children, and 5 children had urticaria (0.6 per 100,000). Several children received epinephrine because of a suspected general allergic reaction; only two had probable vaccination anaphylaxis, and both recovered uneventfully. Diabetes was diagnosed in one child two weeks after vaccination, which is less than the expected incidence21. A girl who had earlier received a measles vaccine (Schwarz strain) was immunized with the MMR vaccine at seven years of age, and acute lymphatic leukemia was diagnosed 23 days later. Severe encephalopathy developed, and measles virus was isolated from the cerebrospinal fluid on two occasions. She recovered uneventfully22.

The most common complication clearly attributable to the MMR vaccine was acute thrombocytopenic purpura, detected in 23 children23. The estimated incidence was 3.3 cases per 100,000 vaccinated children. Characteristically, petechiae or ecchymosis developed within 3 weeks after vaccination (median, 17 days). Circulating antiplatelet autoantibodies suggesting an autoimmune mechanism were found in 33 percent of the patients. Full recovery within six months with or without intravenous immune globulin therapy was the rule.

The vaccine was well tolerated even by those with a history of severe allergy; only 7 of 135 severely allergic children were not vaccinated because of a positive reaction to the MMR vaccine on a skin-prick test12.'

They have a child that develops LEUKAEMIA proven to be due to the vaccine due to measles virus isolated from cerebrospinal fluid, febrile convulsions, shock, diabetes (a life-long, debilatating condition that can result in early death), auto-immune disease and auto-antibodies in 33% of those children (antibodies against SELF) and they consider this SAFE???

If that had been another drug, and not a vaccine, it may have been banned.  The gastric drug Cisapride was banned after causing 60 heart complications and 5 deaths (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118265/), yet the Vaccine Damage Payment Unit has more than 5 deaths on its books.

As a parent reading that study, it shows to me how dangerous MMR is.

(N Engl J Med 1994; 331:1397-1402November 24, 1994).

The Bottom Line

Most doctors today are not doctors, they are bought by pharmaceutical companies during their training and their job is not to get to know the individual child and help them through sicknesses, advise on healthy diet and keeping the child healthy so they don't need to visit.

Their job is now to dispense pharmaceutical drugs and vaccinate as many children as possible, regardless of health status or parental wishes.

The same study quoted above wrote:

'Every contact of a child with the health care system is regarded as an opportunity for immunization.  this policy has increased vaccination rates to 97 percent. The same strategy is now being used in the United States46.'

So the job of today's doctors is to chase and vaccinate as many children and possible and since children present to the doctor when sick, they aren't concerned about vaccinating sick children.  In fact, they'll even vaccinate you with egg containing vaccines if you are allergic, which is against their Hippocratic Oath to protect and not cause harm:

'The vaccine was well tolerated even by those with a history of severe allergy; only 7 of 135 severely allergic children were not vaccinated because of a positive reaction to the MMR vaccine on a skin-prick test12.'

And They Don't Care if They Get Your Consent Under Pressure, Even for a Trial

Again, the same study says:

'The target population of the program was 563,000 children, of whom 86 percent were vaccinated in 1982 through 1986. A special campaign was then undertaken,13 beginning with reports in the national media and the local newspapers. Lists of unvaccinated children were then sent to the public health nurses, who personally contacted the parents. Finally, personal letters were sent to the nonparticipating families. These efforts resulted in the vaccination of 62,000 additional children, increasing participation to 97 percent. The hard-to-reach group was characterized by a survey and has since received special attention.'

This was a TRIAL of a 2 dose vaccine programme, an experiment, yet those who did not want to participate were harrassed by public health nurses and sent unwanted letters after they had already declined.

Personal information including the addresses of non MMR vaccinated children were passed on to nurses WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT, which should be against privacy laws.  If it isn't, it's certainly very immoral practice.  Basically, they will chase you down and vaccinate you and your children at any cost, regardless of whether you want to or not, or whether you are contraindicated or too sick to be vaccinated.  They don't care about you or your children, all they care about is their quest to eradicate specific diseases and create more and more vaccines.

If consent is obtained under harrassment or you are afraid to say no, that isn't consent.

N Engl J Med 1994; 331:1397-1402November 24, 1994 - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199411243312101#t=articleDiscussion