Featured

Unvaccinated Children Suffer Fewer Infectious Diseases: Study

March 13, 2013 by admin in Vaccines with 17 Comments

This study stated a conclusion absolving vaccinations of causing harm to children. But their conclusion doesn’t match their results! Worse, though, is that close inspection shows that the study was utterly inadequate. That they showed vaccinated children have more infectious diseases, though, is rather humorous.

Sick Child, by Marty Hergert

Sick Child, by Marty Hergert

by Heidi Stevenson

A German study has found that unvaccinated children suffer from significantly less infectious disease than vaccinated children. Particularly humorous is that the article’s introduction contradicts the findings:

Protective vaccinations are among the most important and effective preventive measures in modern medicine. They make a substantial contribution to reducing the probability of contracting many infectious diseases as well as their severity. The immediate goal of a vaccination is to protect the vaccinated person from a disease. Achieving high rates of
vaccinated persons additionally results in the so called herd immunity.

The study found:

  • Vaccinated children aged 1-5 had 27% more infectious disease than unvaccinated children.
  • Vaccinated children aged  11-17 had 16% more infectious disease than unvaccinated children.

The conclusion, though, doesn’t even mention this! Instead, it states:

The prevalence of allergic diseases and non-specific infections in children and adolescents was not found to depend on vaccination status.

Of course, the researchers’ conclusion had little to do with the findings, but it’s what you must expect from a study led one researcher who was lead researcher for a major study funded by Sanofi Pasteur and GlaxoSmithKline, and another who’s employed by the Robert Koch Institute. What’s remarkable is that the study was published.

The Study

Vax and Socioeconomic Status TableThe Robert Koch Institute, Germany’s agency for vaccine policy and its vaccination promoter, produced The German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS). It was an interview and examination study that ran from May 2003 to May 2006, set up “to collect representative data on the health status of children and adolescents aged up to 17 years.”  17,641 children aged newborn to 17 years were selected randomly from 167 German locations. Parents were asked to participate and 66.7% did.

Children who had received no vaccines were classified as unvaccinated, and those who’d received even one vaccination were classed as vaccinated. Only 0.7% of the children were unvaccinated, making that group quite small. They included 48 girls and 46 boys, for a total of 94 unvaccinated children.

Four Vaccination-Related Diseases

The study found that children who had received no vaccinations were significantly more likely to come down with pertussis, measles, mumps, or rubella than those they determined were “sufficiently vaccinated” against those diseases. Notice that this is a different comparison than made in all other cases, where all those classified as vaccinated were compared against those who were unvaccinated. Instead, they picked subsets of the vaccinated children for making comparisons about these diseases.

Infections Without Associated Vaccines

Graph - Number of Infections in Previous YearWhen the number of infections was calculated, the story changed dramatically, as can be readily seen in the graph to the left. The infections considered included:

  • Cold/flu-like infection.
  • Tonsillitis, herpesvirus infection. bronchitis (not when asthma was present).
  • Gastrointestinal infection.
  • Cystitis and/or urethritis.
  • Purulent conjunctivitis (bacterial conjunctivitis).
  • Croup (in children up to age 11).

Notice that unvaccinated children aged 1-5 and 11-17 were significantly less likely to suffer from any infection than vaccinated children, while the unvaccinated aged 6-10 were only slightly more likely to to suffer from an infectious disease than the vaccinated—and the p-value for that age group is exceptionally high, indicating that the age 6-10 results could easily have been reached by pure chance.

One must wonder what the results might have been if only those children who’d been fully vaccinated had been compared with unvaccinated children—as they did when they produced their results for four vaccination-related diseases. I suspect that they’d have found a significantly greater distinction between vaccinated and unvaccinated children than they did. That they did a different sort of calculation here than they did for vaccination-related diseases makes me wonder if they actually did run the numbers, but didn’t like the results.

Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis, Atopic Eczema, & Bronchial Asthma

Table - Eczema, Rhinoconjunctivitis, AsthmaThe results for allergic conjunctivitis, eczema, and bronchial asthma were quite mixed, as is apparent in the graph to the shown above. The results appear to be all over the place:

  • Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis seems to be more common in unvaccinated children aged 1-5, but becomes significantly less common as they age, until it’s twice as common in ages 11-17 in vaccinated children.
  • The rate of atopic eczema is nearly identical in ages 1-5, becomes more common in unvaccinated children aged 6-10, and then becomes nearly 2½ times more common in vaccinated children aged 11-17.
  • No cases of bronchial asthma were reported in unvaccinated children aged 1-10. Between the ages of 11 and 17, the unvaccinated had a slightly larger percentage of cases. However, the number is so small—just 2—that the comparison is fairly meaningless.

Analysis: Study Found Wanting

It’s good to see these results, but most interesting that they’ve been utterly ignored by the press and the agencies responsible for our vaccination policies. Considering the fact that the study is steeped in Big Pharma funds, the most amazing thing is that it was published. I can only imagine that there must have been some pre-arranged agreement that forced its publication.

It’s too bad, though, that the authors were allowed to get away with a conclusion that absolutely does not reflect the findings:

  • Unvaccinated children clearly suffered fewer infectious diseases than vaccinated children.
  • The trends in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and atopic eczema as children get older clearly favors the unvaccinated. Only bronchial asthma might show a different trend, but that result is, as explained, questionable.

In terms of the selected vaccination-related diseases, the authors showed only numbers of cases. That, though, tells us little. It isn’t, after all, a serious matter getting these diseases in most cases. What would have been worthwhile noting is how many children suffered harm or death from them. Interestingly, the study is quiet on that.

They got only a two-thirds response from parents, but they don’t adjust for that. Could that have skewed their results. I would think so, since parents who don’t vaccinate their children tend to be suspicious of medicine and might fear taking part in such a trial.

The study did not lump all infectious diseases together, including both vaccination-related ones and non-vaccine-related conditions. That might have told a more interesting story.

They further failed to consider that only four of the vaccination-related diseases were considered, which means that each one could have been gotten by a child only once. So, from birth to age 17, they could have gotten ill only four times from those conditions, and two of those four diseases, mumps and rubella, are exceptionally mild. On top of that, they didn’t simply take note of all infectious diseases the children might have had, but only some of them. Pneumonia wasn’t considered. Are they suggesting that not a single child had pneumonia? What about encephalitis?

In terms of serious autoimmune disorders, which are the greatest concern nowadays, the study is entirely silent.

There is no investigation into the epidemic of autoimmune and neurological disorders. What about diabetes? Arthritis? Autism? Obesity? Cancer? These are all becoming more and more common in our children. Yet, the study didn’t even look at any of them.

Their claim that the study set out ”to collect representative data on the health status of children and adolescents” is demonstrably false, since the most common and worst diseases that today’s children are subject to were not even addressed.

The lack of morbidity and mortality information, the lack of any reference to autoimmune or neurological disorders, and the limitation to mostly mild infectious diseases and only four vaccination-related ones, are salient points.

If the authors had truly been interested in verifying whether vaccinated children’s health is improved orharmed, they surely would have focused on the modern plague of autoimmune and neurological disorders and accounted for all incidents of infectious diseases. It’s telling that they didn’t. It even suggests that they didn’t dare, that they had a good idea that, even though this study required some spinning, it would have been far worse, possibly unspinnable, if they’d produced an honest study.

In spite of themselves, the authors and their funders have provided information that supports the hypothesis that vaccines harm children’s health. What might have been found if they’d done an honest study investigating all aspects of health, not just a few select ones?

Any parent who presumes that agencies like the ones that produced this study actually care whether vaccines are beneficial or harmful need to think again. If they did, they’d do a genuine study comparing a large number of unvaccinated children with vaccinated ones, and they’d investigate all aspects of health, not just a few carefully selected ones.

But we can take heart in noting that, even when they tried to produce a study giving the false impression of vaccine safety, they bungled it!

Source:

  1. Vaccination Status and Health in Children and AdolescentsDeutsches Ärzteblatt International; Roma Schmitz, Christina Poethko-Müller, Sabine Reiter, Martin Schlaud; DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2011.0099

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

Related Posts

  • DocLee

    “Notice that unvaccinated children aged 1-5 and 11-17 were significantly less likely to suffer from any infection than vaccinated children, while the unvaccinated aged 6-10 were only slightly more likely to to suffer from an infectious disease than the vaccinated—and the p-value for that age group is exceptionally high, indicating that the age 6-10 results could easily have been reached by pure chance.”

    Somebody needs a basic course in statistics. None of the p-values are “significant.” A p-value of 0.05 or less would be significant. Also, overlapping 95% confidence intervals does not mean significant. There’s a reason the authors of the paper made the correct conclusions of “The prevalence of allergic diseases and non-specific infections in children and adolescents was not found to depend on vaccination status.” It’s because that’s what the data shows. There is no significance no matter how much you want there to be. Also, we’re dealing with non-specific diseases and allergic reactions, both of which aren’t vaccinated against. It’s not as if you get a vaccine for mumps and it automatically means you’re protected from something like norovirus or a skin rash.

    Your analysis is absolute trash as well. There have been numerous studies that you choose to ignore showing that vaccines do not cause diabetes, neurological disorders, obesity, arthritis, autoimmune disorders, or cancer. Keep your head in the sand and keep on screaming. I’m sure you’ll get some where.

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

      If that’s the case, then why would they bother to produce graphs? There would be no point.

      The article said not one word about confidence intervals. In general, a significant p-value is not defined – though one as high as .7137 is nearly equivalent to getting results by pure luck.

      The study is trash. And your statement that vaccines don’t cause “diabetes, neurological disorders, obesity, arthritis, autoimmune disorders, or cancer” is based on absolutely nothing. There is documentation of vaccines causing diabetes, neurological disorders, autoimmune disorders, and arthritis – and, of course, we have the BMJ stating that a vaccine caused narcolepsy, clearly a neurological disorder. But you don’t care about that. Shills never do.

      • Statisque

        1. They produce the graphs to prove that there is no difference in
        acquired infections between vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups.

        2. The article mentions confidence intervals (CI) at least 27 times! Those
        error bars in Figure 2 represent confidence intervals for example. Click on the link provided about and look for yourself.

        3. P-values are well defined in general. When you have a p-value of
        less than 0.05 then you have a 95% chance that your result is not from
        chance alone. This means that all three differences in Figure 2 are not statistically significant.

        4. The article authors even tell us this plainly: “The slight differences between the vaccination status groups did not reach significance.”

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

          So, you’re saying that the authors claim that there study demonstrated nothing – but it was published as if it demonstrated something.

          If the authors didn’t believe that a set of data demonstrated anything, then there’s no need to produce a graph. The fact is that the graph does not demonstrate anything about the p-values. So if a graph was produced, it was produced to show something else.

          Statistical significance refers to the difference between groups. To suggest that there was no statistical significance between vaccinated and unvaccinated in infectious diseases is absurd. Likewise with the selected chronic conditions listed. It requires picking and choosing which groups and how to set up groups to suggest that there are no siginificant differences.

          The statement about “slight differences” is just plain absurd.

          If the authors had believed that there was no validity to their data because of poor p-values or confidence intervals, then they should simply have stated that and pointed out that they don’t believe the data resulting is meaningful. But they didn’t do that.

          Then, there’s the fact that the authors didn’t look at the elephant in the room: chronic disease.

          Apparently, on one thing we agree: This is junk science.

          • Statisque

            No. The authors demonstrated from the data in Figure 2 that in the year before the survey non-vaccinated and vaccinated groups of children had statistically the same number of infections in direct contrast to this article’s title and the claim that “The study found: Vaccinated children aged 1-5 had 27% more infectious disease than unvaccinated children. Vaccinated children aged 11-17 had 16% more infectious disease than unvaccinated children.” cannot be supported by the data from the paper.

            To repeat again, the differences between the non-vaccinated and vaccinated in each age group would only reach significance if the respective p-values would be less than 0.05. None of then come close to being that small, thus statistically there is no difference.

            As an example look at Figure 1, which was not reproduced in this article. It shows lifetime percentage prevalence of Pertussis, Measles, Mumps, and Rubella in vaccinated and non-vaccinated children. It clearly shows that vaccines protected against Pertussis (P<0.0001), Measles (P=0.0095), Mumps (P=0.0307), but not Rubella (P=0.1038). Curiously, Figure 1 or it's implications were not discussed in this article.

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

            The study DID find what the article stated, and the study DID publish the data.

            The degree of value of the data is referenced by the p-value. The value of the p-value is not set in stone.

            Actually, the point of the pertussis, measles, mumps, and rubella was discussed – along with the fact that the comparison used – “fully vaccinated” only was entirely different from that used for infectious diseases in general. And that’s not legitimate.

            Also, the fact is that the full range of potential adverse effects wasn’t included. Nor was a comparison between vaxxed and unvaxxed kids in terms of chronic disease included. As was made clear in this article, that’s significant – very much so in an age when chronic disease in children has grown so massively that ill health is not standard.

            This study was bogus from the start – and that, of course, was the real point of the article.

          • Maddy

            Why should one study have to do every study? This was a study on how infectious diseases relate to vaccination. Another study can look at autoimmune diseases and vaccination. That this study didn’t does not negate its results.

          • Maddy

            You appear to be suggesting the only data that should be published is data that shows an effect. That would be fraudulent in the extreme. Sometimes, isolated studies show an effect – maybe for some freak reason – but several other replicates of the same study show no effect. The overall conclusion is that there i no effect, but if only the study showing an effect were published, that would give utterly the wrong impression of the truth.

            All data, if collected with a valid method, is meaningful. Data that does not disprove a null hypothesis is useful and demonstrates something – it provides support for the null hypothesis, in this case, that there is no difference in the incidence of infectious diseases (those not vaccinated against) between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. If that data had shown a difference, the null hypothesis would have been disproved. It did not, however, show a statistically significant difference. This graph was produced to support the null hypothesis.

            Statistical significance refers to the likelihood that the difference between the groups was, in this case, due to vaccination, as opposed to due to chance. Something in biology is generally considered to be statistically significant if there is only a 5% or less possibility that the difference in the means is by chance. In the three age cohorts, the % are 17%, 75% and 58% respectively. NOT significant enough for biology (and biology is the most relaxed in terms of what p value is needed for significance; chemistry and physics expect lower p values for a difference to be conclusive).

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

            The problem is that the study makes conclusions that it cannot support, and has been promoted according to those conclusions. Had it been honest about finding nothing of significance, that would be fine – but that’s not the case. Furthermore, this study, which demonstrates nothing of value, is being used by pro-vax shills to “prove” that there’s legitimate science saying that vaccines don’t do harm. It’s not true.

            But thank you for the lecture.

  • http://twitter.com/mnjobdi Muhammad Njobdi

    such as Educating Report especially to my people of
    Africa.

  • Pingback: Unvaccinated Children Suffer Fewer Infectious Diseases: Study | Health Impact News

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

    Nothing invites absurd commentary from vaccination shills more than a well written anti-vaccine article. They seem to be in the air as disembodied beings who are able to infest the internet with their garble.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Sprout0912 Connie Lagle Daugherty

    Ok… first… how is there any kind of validity to this study at all…

    “Children who had received no vaccines were classified as unvaccinated, and those who’d received even one vaccination were classed as vaccinated. [Only 0.7% of the children were unvaccinated, making that group quite small.] They included 48 girls and 46 boys, for a total of 94 unvaccinated children.”

    That’s 94 unvaccinated children out of 17,641 children aged newborn to 17 years…. 94 children versus 17,547… How in the world do they even begin to consider this a valid study…

    I mean seriously, one group comprising less than 1% of the subjects… there is no way for them to get any degree of comparable information with any degree of accuracy.

    I agree with Heidi…. This study is pure trash. I don’t understand “p-values” I’m guessing that means percentages???? I don’t know, but just looking at the sheer absence of balance in this so-called study is enough to turn me off from it. It’s irresponsible to conduct a study that is so severely skewed.

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

      P-values are a statistical estimate of the likelihood of getting the same result by chance. A p-value of .05 suggests that if you run the same type of study 20 times, then you’ll get that result by chance once. A p-value of .7 says that you’d get that result by chance 7 out of 10 times.

      But the fact is that the authors ran with that study and drew a conclusion.

      The funny thing is that this piece of junk study was tossed at me (figuratively) by a provaxxer trying to claim that there is research showing that vaccinated children aren’t harmed.

      Yes, the study is pure trash – but what little can be seen does suggest that the health of vaccinated children is harmed. The study’s conclusion is completely bogus.

      • Maddy

        High p values do not mean the study is trash. They mean there is no statistical difference. The conclusion the study made fits their data and its p values.
        Sure, having such a small sample size of unvaccinated people is more likely to result in high p values, but the study itself had over 17 000 participants. That’s not a small sample size at all. It is not the researcher’s fault that most people had sought at least one vaccine for the study participants.

        What IS a bogus conclusion is trying to claim this study shows a significant difference, when it clearly does not. Your conclusion is bogus. And if you think the study is junk, then so is your conclusion anyway.

  • Pingback: Capitalisme monopoliste et la science détournée… La saga continue… – editionsmariquita

  • http://twitter.com/arnicanetwork ANNA WATSON

    http://www.efvv.eu/images/Kogel.pdf
    Angelika
    is here talking about the Koch Institute study (the translation is above) filmed
    in 2010 so perhaps the Kriggs study looked again at the date in 2011?
    Is it the same data? If so the figures do not add up 17 x 641 makes me suspect some selection of the 18,000 but I am no
    researcher.
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgnpiw_les

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