Featured

More Vaccines Equal More Infant Deaths: Study Documents

July 14, 2012 by admin in Vaccines with 11 Comments

Vaccines are proclaimed to save babies’ lives. But is it true? This study provides compelling evidence that it is not, that in reality they’re killers.

Multicolored Vaccines in Ranksby Heidi Stevenson

The reason for giving vaccinations to infants is supposedly to protect them from harm. If that’s true, then it would follow that the countries giving the most vaccines would have the lowest rates of infant mortality.

But they don’t. In fact, a new study documents just the opposite. The Journal of Human & Experimental Toxicology(1) published a study in which the authors carefully compared the vaccination rates of the nations with the lowest infant mortality rates to see if there’s a correlation between number of vaccines and death rates of infants. The results could not be clearer:

Infant Mortality Rates Table

The more vaccinations a country gives, the more babies die.

The Study

The table to the right, adapted from the study report, shows the infant mortality rates (IMRs), in terms of deaths per thousand, during the first year of life for the top 34 nations in the world. This data, from the US’s Central Intelligence Agency database, is the study’s source for IMRs.

Four of the nations, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and San Marino are quite small, so the number of deaths were too low, resulting in extremely large confidence intervals, a statistical indication of accuracy in the figures. Therefore, they were not included in the study because they held the potential of skewing the results. That left 30 countries for the study.

They obtained the immunization schedules for the first year of life in the other 30 countries, which ranged from a total of 12 in Sweden, Japan, Iceland, Norway, and Denmark, up to 26 in the United States.

Each country’s number of vaccine doses was plotted against the IMR. That graph is not shown here, but does provide a visual correlation between the number of vaccine doses and infant mortality.

The countries were arranged into five groups, as shown here with the number of scheduled vaccines in parentheses:

  • Group 1: Sweden(12), Japan(12), Iceland(12), Norway(12), Denmark(12), Finland(13)
  • Group 2: Malta(15), Slovenia(15), South Korea(15), Singapore(17), New Zealand(17)
  • Group 3: Germany(18), Switzerland(18), Israel(18), Italy(18), France(19), Czech Republic(19), Belgium(19), United Kingdom(19)
  • Group 4: Spain(20), Portugal(21), Luxembourg(22), Cuba(22), Austria(23), Ireland(23), Greece(23)
  • Group 5: Netherlands(24), Canada(24), Australia(24), United States(26)

Infant Mortality vs Vaccine Doses GraphThe results of that arrangement are quite dramatic, as shown in the graph to the left. Although there is a wide variance, the trend is unmistakable. The p-value, which is a statistical representation of the likelihood of reaching these results by chance is tiny, only 0.0009, which indicates almost no chance that the results were obtained by chance.

The more vaccines given, the higher the death rate in infants under a year of age.

The authors also discussed the fact that the most important requirements for health in babies are “clean water, proper nutrition, improved sanitation, and better access to health care”. They give examples of nations lacking in these necessities that put scarce money into vaccinations. Examples cited, including number of doses scheduled in the first year, coverage rate, and IMR, are

  • Gambia: 22 doses, 91-97% coverage, IMR = 68.8
  • Mongolia: 22 doses, 95-98% coverage, IMR = 39.9

In regard to the focus of vaccines over basic health requirements, the authors state:

As developing nations improve in all of these areas a critical threshold will eventually be reached where further reductions of the infant mortality rate will be difficult to achieve
because most of the susceptible infants that could have been saved from these causes would have been saved.

It’s clear that a nation putting money into vaccinations in a population suffering from inadequate basic necessities is throwing its money away. It could better improve health by providing more of the primary requirements for it.

In spite of the claims that vaccinating infants saves lives, in populations where the basic health requirements are met, the actual effect is contradictory to the promise. The more vaccines given, the higher the death rate.

Purchasing vaccines is not equivalent to purchasing health.

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

The authors go on to discuss one likely cause of the higher death rate with greater numbers of vaccines, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), also known as cot death or crib death. This aspect of the study will be covered in an upcoming article.

Source:

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

  • Pingback: The Only Credible Cause of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Is Vaccines | Gaia Health

  • Pingback: The Only Credible Cause of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Is Vaccines |

  • http://www.facebook.com/paul.fassa Paul Fassa

    Get ‘em Heidi. Speak intelligently while carrying a big stick!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Juvastol/1154903070 Eric Juvastøl

    the most amazing is that this page have as of today, 827 likes on facebook. It should have been 80 million ! People, please educate !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/chris.cole.7967 Chris Cole

    Yes, when you group the countries in a particular way, “the results of that arrangement are quite dramatic”. If you group them in another way, the results are less dramatic. I wonder why the published version has them grouped as they are? Hmmm.

    Twenty minutes extracting the latest WHO figures for infant (< 1yr) and child (< 5yrs) mortality for all of the countries included in this study, plotted against the number of vaccines recommended in each country, yields a scatter plot which is much less impressive.

    Specific grouping of data like this is the equivalent of post-hoc subset analysis and is academically disingenuous, or just plain dodgy, depending on how you'd prefer to look at it.

    It also fails to take into account the degree of compliance with the recommended vaccine schedule in each country. One could hypothesise, for example, that one of the (many and varied) reasons why the USA has such high infant and child mortality might be the very large proportion of the population that either religiously or conscientiously object to vaccination.

    The child mortality figures also more sensibly reflect, one might argue, the balance of effects from vaccination, as most mortality in the first year of life will either be from non-vaccine-preventable disease, or diseases which cannot be vaccinated for at < 12 months of age.

    • Maddy

      Why group them at all? The analysis could, and should, be done without.

      It was my understanding that if your error bars overlap, your results are not statistically significantly different. All of these results are overlapped by the error bar for 15-17.

      And of course if you’re looking at data on actual infant/child mortality, then you need to compare that with data for actual vaccination rates, not with the schedule, as Chris says.

      • http://gaia-health.com/ Heidi Stevenson

        If you wanted to bother checking the study, you would find that the graph’s slope is virtually identical, whether each country is graphed or they’re done in groups. The groups were by relative numbers of vaccination doses. I opted to use this particular graph because it’s simpler than the other – but the results are the same.

        Of, course, I did state in the article that another graph was available – but you chose to ignore that.

        As to the validity of the results, you might also take a look at the exceptionally low P-value.

        It would be better to base a study on actual vaccination rates – but I think you know quite well that most modern countries with a lot of vaccines in their schedule have socialized medicine, resulting in particularly high rates of vaccination. I’m sure you know that the results are not going to change significantly if the actual rates could be ascertained for each country.

        The rest of the evidence provided also adds to the validity of the graphed evidence.

        I do wonder how much effort you put into criticising the pro-vax studies, which are almost uniformly abysmally done – which is, of course, no surprise, considering that they’re paid for, directly or indirectly, by the vaccine industry.

  • Pingback: Flu, Flu, Flu–what to do? « Dregs of the Future

  • Pingback: Flu Season Propaganda Goes Into Overdrive | The Chronicle Watch

  • Pingback: Oil from Petroleum Used as Vaccine Adjuvant « Set You Free News

  • Pingback: OIL FROM PETROLEUM USED AS VACCINE ADJUVANT | IS MOLD IN YOUR HOME MAKING YOU SICK?

Search Gaia Health

Subscribe to the Gaia Health
Newsletter

Don't miss breaking Gaia Health articles.
Rest assured that your e-mail address will never be sold or shared.

newsletter software