Health Kids/Children Latest Vaccine Injury Vaccines World

The new Danish MMR study shows that the speed of autism from 1 to 100 – CDC should rush to Denmark!

The new Danish MMR study shows that the speed of autism from 1 to 100 - CDC should rush to Denmark!

By JB Handley, Youngsters's Health Director and Founder of Era Salvation

COPENHAGEN, Denmark – We now have another "Danish research" that will all the time be all talking. It’s too dangerous for anyone to learn (or understand) the particulars of these studies, each sponsored and researched by vaccine producers (funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and a study by the Danish vaccine manufacturer Statens Serum Institut.)

I didn't deliver it to you ways significantly this vaccine manufacturer has helped to publish counterfeit studies used right here in the United States to show that "vaccines do not cause autism", but it is a lengthy, messy historical past. So, I'm just going to make six fast factors about why this analysis doesn't change anything from the dialogue (however Paul Offit and others will surely use them "Slaming the door" once more):

1. We've solely studied one vaccine. Although youngsters receive 11 vaccines and MMR is just not given till 12 months, lengthy after many different vaccines. The following table shows

. The media say "to prove that vaccines do not cause autism." No, it isn’t. In the event you present Vioxx causing heart assaults, this does not imply that all medicines trigger coronary heart attacks… Sigh.

2. The most convincing info in the study won’t ever be handled: why is the amount of autism in this study solely 1?

On this United States we’re at 1:36! Should CDC researchers not rush to Denmark to discover out why their autism is a lot decrease than ours? Of every 1,000 Danish youngsters, solely ten have autism. However right here in the US we now have 28 per 1000, which is 177% more autism! I assumed Paul Offit needed everybody to consider that the amount of autism was the similar in all places?

My private concept of why the Danes have a lower price of autism (and it's just a concept): they don't give hepatitis B vaccine. No youngster in this study acquired this vaccine, and the Chinese language lately confirmed Hep B vaccine inflicting mind injury in mice. I feel it's a huge half of the drawback. (The Danes additionally do not give a rotavirus vaccine or an influenza vaccine, a a lot lower vaccination requirement for Danish youngsters than American youngsters is NOT talked about in any study.)


The authors of the study forged the word "unvaccinated", however at the least in the study they explain that this only means "not receiving MMR". in a different way, the youngsters acquired one another vaccine. See when individuals attempt to say it's a vaccinated and unvaccinated study. It isn’t. Here is an instance:

"There is a huge difference between large epidemiology (such as Danish research) and growing biological science, which clearly and unequivocally shows that aluminum adjuvant is used in laboratory animals to cause brain damage causing vaccines. "

four. This does not inform us anything about aluminum adjuvant as triggers for immune activation occasions

Like many of you who comply with my writing, they have written an entire e-book on what science shows how the aluminum adjuvant utilized in vaccines is likely to set off immune activation occasions in infants' brains and certain weak youngsters inflicting autism. You possibly can read most of this info here.

There is a big distinction between giant epidemiology (corresponding to Danish research) and the rising science of BIOLOGY, which clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that aluminum adjuvant is used as a vaccine-causing brain injury in laboratory animals. This research, of course, doesn’t prove or contradict this growing amount of revealed science. Any.

5. In accordance to revealed science, the Danish nationwide register is unreliable

Lower than two years in the past, a study was revealed which contained the inconsistency of the Danish nationwide register, which is the materials used on this study. The coverage of Danish MMR vaccinations is considerably greater than reported, the study discovered:

Conducting a medical examination in 19 randomly chosen basic practices the place a complete of 1712 listed youngsters aged 18 to 42 months skilled significantly larger MMR1 vaccination coverage (94%) than register-based mostly knowledge. (86%). This finding is shocking, particularly considering that official nationwide vaccination rates are based mostly on these register-based mostly knowledge, which are mixed with the corresponding knowledge from four different areas. Greater than half of the youngsters who were not vaccinated according to the register (55%) have been truly vaccinated on the basis of medical knowledge.

Our study also revealed that registry knowledge and medical data have been primarily due to administrative errors in the registration system for common follow and area. Most commonly docs used the right particular person code for MMR1 vaccination, however there have been administrative errors in the substitution process that affected the registry-based mostly knowledge.

Clearly, if the knowledge utilized in the study is unreliable as a result of it appears to be a display …

6. Finally, and this is truly the most essential factor, but in addition the most complicated: the study doesn’t think about healthy consumer-orientation

This is the most necessary and confusing thing, and it’s the similar trick The Lewin Group utilized in its MMR research a couple of years ago, I wrote here about this. Luckily, my favorite website Vaccine Papers has been discussing the abuse of "HUB", so I will use them to explain first:

"Healthy Consumer Conduct (HUB) is a significant issue in vaccine safety analysis. HUB is created when individuals suffering from well being issues keep away from vaccinations. When this happens, unhealthy, unvaccinated people are used as controls. Thus, the vaccinated group has better well being at the beginning. Higher well being of vaccinated animals has been wrongly given to the vaccine. The vaccine will get a credit score for enhancing well being when it truly causes harm. ”

I would like to attempt to clarify. A hypothetical Danish baby (“Kid B”) has an older brother with autism. Kid B will get all his vaccine before MMR (not given 15 months in Denmark) and at the age of 12 months this Danish youngster isn’t working nicely, missing all of his milestones (keep in mind that his brother is autism, he is in all probability extra at risk, however he’s Mother and father at the moment are really frightened, in order that they miss the MMR vaccine. They stop vaccination. Nevertheless it's too late for him to develop autism. However he by no means received an MMR. In this study, he shows that "MMR does not trigger autism." Parents avoided MMR because he was already so bad. But he becomes the one that these writers want to find the most: a child with autism with a sibling who did not get an MMR that still has autism. If you do not consider this healthy bias of the user, your information will begin to become meaningless, of course CDC knows this because they have written everything about it.

This point is so important and so confusing that I give Papers one chance:

Vaccine safety studies generally compare health outcomes to vaccinated and unvaccinated people. To get accurate results, these two groups need to be "reconciled", which suggests that they’ve comparable well being and way of life traits. The corresponding groups are simple if the researchers have control over the vaccinees and who doesn’t. If the researchers shouldn’t have this management (the so-referred to as “Surveillance Survey”), it’s unimaginable to ensure that the groups fit together. The resulting group differences may cause biases that significantly distort the outcome of the study. Poor coordination can lead to the study being utterly improper.

Most of the vaccine safety research are illustrative and don’t embrace the investigator's control of vaccine exposure. For example, surveys are often performed with "administrative knowledge", which are health information collected by insurance companies or governments. Researchers can use administrative data to compare the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The big problem is that vaccinated and unvaccinated people do not match. The critical differences are:

1) Healthy people are more likely to choose vaccination. People with chronic illnesses or health problems try to avoid the risk of vaccination.
2) People who have been vaccinated usually have other "well being-looking for" behaviors such as better diet and exercise, or regular screening and medical tests.

These differences create a "healthy consumer prediction" (HUB) or "wholesome consumer impact" in vaccination studies. Flu vaccine studies seem to have a strong impact on a healthy user profile. People who have a flu vaccine have significantly lower (50% lower) mortality and better health when it is not an influenza season (that is, in the summer). This is unlikely because of the vaccine; Rather, it is because people with influenza vaccines have better health and "healthier" behavior. Johns Hopkins University Dr. Peter Doshi describes the Healthy User Orientation of the British Medical Journal:

”After at least 2005, non-CDC researchers have pointed out that prevention of influenza vaccines can prevent 50% of all deaths from all causes when influenza is estimated to cause only about 5% all winter deaths.14 15 How could these studies – as published high-impact, peer-reviewed magazines and non-commercial funds by academic and state researchers – be wrong? Considering one study in which CDC does not mention that influenza vaccination was associated with 51% reduced mortality in the treatment of patients with pneumonia (28,352 [8%] from the vaccinated patient died compared to 53 deaths from 352 [15%] unvaccinated control groups). Although the results are similar to those of the CDC studies, the unusual part of this study was that it focused on non-influenza patients – when it is hard to imagine that the vaccine could bring benefits. And the authors, academics, Alberta, Canada, knew this: the purpose of the study was to show that the fantastic benefits they expected and found – and others have found, like the two studies mentioned by CDC – are simply unlikely and probably a "wholesome consumer impact" (in this case, healthier people tend to get vaccinations more likely than less healthy people). Others have shown that this presence is present in other influenza vaccination studies.17 18 The impartiality of healthy users threatens to make observational studies in which the scientific case of the officials rests, is unlikely. ”–Dr Doshi Johns Hopkins U. 2013

The neutrality of healthy users is a special type of" choice crisis ". The choice crisis is well-known. For instance, the generally used epidemiology and statistics ebook accommodates the following info:

”The choice disaster leads to the selection of goal group of topics. If college students are in a position to select their very own research staff, those who are extra educated, more fascinating or more well being acutely aware might want to attempt a new remedy or preventative measure. The discrepancies noticed later may be due partially or in full to the differences between the themes and not to the effect of the intervention. Virtually any non-regular technique of distributing subjects to analysis teams can produce a variety item. ”(Unique emphasis)

Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Preventive Drugs, Jekel et al., 3rd ed., 2007, web page 70

Research by CDC Researchers Healthy Consumer Bias

In 1992, CDC researchers Dr. Paul Positive and Dr. Robert Chen revealed an necessary doc describing the evidence of HUB in the research of the DPT vaccine and Sudden Childhood Syndrome (SIDS). They arrange a mathematical mannequin for calculating the power of HUB. Their paper states:

”… Individuals uncovered to SIDS or encephalopathy are comparatively unlikely to receive DPT vaccination. Studies that don’t adequately control this “confusing form of labeling” estimate that the precise risks related to vaccination are underestimated. ”


“ Mixing… is a common problem in the study of the side effects of preventive measures. because they may have refused some people just because they already have a high risk of side effects. "


" If such studies are to prove useful, they must include a strong effort to control such factors in their design, analysis and interpretation. Discussion may be possible, if possible. The difficulty of doing so is undeniable. ”(Emphasis added)

So a easy question about this new MMR study: Is the word (s)“ Healthy User ”in any research? No, of course not (do a word seek for yourself), because this is not a real epidemiology, this can be a firm epidemiology title to create, and it in all probability works. They don’t bear in mind the bias of Wholesome Users in a state of affairs where this conduct massively impacts the outcomes. With out it, the info really is meaningless. The authors are scripting this matter in their conclusion, but do not give it shut to the attention that an trustworthy vaccine epidemiologist is aware of it deserves:

As you already know, "HUB" has an incredible influence on results, especially when only 1 % of patients have a factor you’re measuring (autism). But why give details to a great story?

My harasser loves to level out that I'm not a scientist, so how dare to write these essays that speak about science? So here is a superb weblog submit about this research by scientist Dr. James Lyons-Weiler. When you’ve got a pal who’s an epidemiologist, I'll ship them to this hyperlink:

Post-mortem in Hid et al. 2019 MMR / Vaccine Science Sort Activities

* The article initially appeared in the protection of youngsters's well being.

(perform (d, s, id)
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName (s) [0];
if (d.getElementById (id))
js = d.createElement (s); = id;
js.src = "//";
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore (js, fjs);
(document, manuscript, & # 39; fb-jssdk & # 39;)) (perform (d, s, id)
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName (s) [0];
if (d.getElementById (id)) returns;
js = d.createElement (s); = id;
js.src = & # 39; https: //connect.fb.internet/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&model=v3.1&appId=1184360661727447&autoLogAppEvents=1&#39 ;;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore (js, fjs);
(doc, script & # 39; fb-jssdk & # 39;));