Vaccinated children have up to 500% more disease than unvaccinated

[Stupid]

Vaccinated children have up to 500% more disease than unvaccinated children
http://www.naturalnews.com/036220_va...allergies.html

The Bachmair study is actually a survey. In fact, it's just a voluntary questionnaire.
Who's filling out this questionnaire ? ...people who already believe or suspect their illnesses come from vaccines.
That's no "study" - that's just a confirmation of bias. The results of such a strong bias should not be compared to the results of a rigorously controlled study.

Originally, the recent still ongoing study compared unvaccinated children against a German national health survey conducted by KiGGS involving over 17,000 children up to age 19. This currently ongoing survey study was initiated by classical homoeopathist Andreas Bachmair.

Further down in the NaturalNews article it mentions a 1992 study,

The differences were dramatic, with unvaccinated children showing far less incidence of common childhood ailments than vaccinated children (http://www.vaccineinjury.info/images...s1992study.pdf).

In the 1992 IAS study also is mentioned in Sue Claridge' book...(also a write-in survey with no controls), it also contains the same bias - survey questionnaires (data) were sent in by IAS "members and associates".


I'm surprised the 500% figure was not more, given that the "data" used for the survey was heavily biased because it came from parents, friends, and colleagues.....and most likely were "guesses or suspicions" by people afraid or worried of vaccines, .....laying blame to any illness to that of vaccines.
It's a survey, more clearly....a pole from some fringe believers, and who are mostly medically non-professional.

Here's one opinion of the survey responders, included in in the Bachmair study, showing an distrust of conventional medicine.

http://www.vaccineinjury.info/vaccin...y-results.html

[Lee Wilson]

@Stupid



Great post.

[Stupid]

Interesting discussion over at Icke forums....
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=214026

...does not get to brass tacks until pages 2-3, of which I participated.

[Stupid]

(Icke forum post)
The opening post has a link to this guy (Dr Tim O'Shea DC (doctor of chiropractic))....which seems to be a popular site among health-related conspiracy believers.
http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/intro/

A quick view of his site reveals his real intentions...($$$)
While his written articles are adequate in length, they are largely non-chiropractic....but they provide a fear motive, in order to purchase his products. (sound familiar ?)
Looking at the remainder of his site......it's a massive store of fear-relinquishing products, services, and purchased seminars.
I could post examples here, but have a look at the site...nuff said.

It is surprising that he states in his "mission statement"....claiming "the natural healing powers of the body" can work, (but if that don't work, buy something that will, from me ( my text)).

Ironically, he also claims the fallacy of media predatory forces that espouse "The eternal advertising of drugs, drugs, and more drugs", while his site advertizes supplements, supplements and more supplements.

"...But the field of alternative medicine itself is like a wild jungle, full of unsubstantiated claims, junk science, and the most sophisticated marketing hype."
...here it seems, is his autobiography.

Now, I don't normally like to trash a well intentioned person. He may well be that person. But when I see the sheer amount of products listed on his site...I seriously question those well-intentions.

[Stupid]

Nobel Prize in vaccines

http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplaye...id=1737&view=2

[Kubla]

Stupid says the website is trying to sell supplements, supplements and more supplements. Did Stupid actually look at the website? I saw a total of 7 supplements for sale here. Kinda strange. On the supplements page, try clicking on one of the "product categories" at the top. Each one (and there are seven) takes you to a single product in the list that appears on the same page.

As for the matter of survey questionnaires that began this thread, surveys are a valid way of collecting epidemiological data In Some Instances. This happens to be one. Respondents were not asked in the latest survey to link childhood illnesses or chronic diseases to vaccines. They were instead asked to list their child's illnesses and other diagnoses alongside their child's vaccination status. There is only one valid (and of dubious reliability) claim to bias here. A significant number of respondents fudged the data to match their biases. For example, the parent of an non-vaccinated child failed to report their child's illnesses, or the parent of a vaccinated child reported illnesses their child did not in fact have. Your only other option for impugning the study outright is to show the researchers manipulated data.

Short of it is, claims of bias must be followed up by the exact mechanism of the bias in the context of the study. It is irrational for people to speak so highly of science yet fail to employ basic logic for data analysis. Survey results have provided valid and reliable data for a very long time in the social sciences (including public health) and medicine. Surveys can be a cost-effective way to gather large amounts of data.

To make my point clear: "I'm surprised the 500% figure was not more, given that the "data" used for the survey was heavily biased because it came from parents, friends, and colleagues.....and most likely were "guesses or suspicions" by people afraid or worried of vaccines, .....laying blame to any illness to that of vaccines."

Respondents were not queried on what they believed the source of their child's illnesses. Hence, this particular claim of bias is wrong. It gets worse. Parents of vaccinated children were allowed to respond, but the bulk of data on vaccinated children was previously collected in an unrelated survey. Are you claiming the German national survey was biased as well?

"Here's one opinion of the survey responders, included in in the Bachmair study, showing an distrust of conventional medicine."

The survey included a section on reasons for the child's vaccination status. This is not the survey results, merely another section of the survey. Again, your claim of bias rests on claiming a significant number of respondents Lied about their child's illnesses and/or vaccination status. This is either a disingenuous or irrational claim. Take your pick or provide some evidence of bias. It's amusing that someone "debunking" a study would fail to link or even mention the actual results of the study. They are here. http://www.vaccineinjury.info/vaccin...illnesses.html

[Mick]

Stupid says the website is trying to sell supplements, supplements and more supplements. Did Stupid actually look at the website? I saw a total of 7 supplements for sale here. Kinda strange. On the supplements page, try clicking on one of the "product categories" at the top. Each one (and there are seven) takes you to a single product in the list that appears on the same page.

So? O'Shea recommends you buy ALL SEVEN, at a cost of $778 for 60 days. That certainly looks like a strong profit motive to me. Combine that with his books, videos and seminar business - he's got a huge financial incentive to promote bunk, because it sells his product.

[Kubla]

So?

"trying to sell supplements, supplements and more supplements." Mathematically, I guess "supplements" = 2 and "more supplements" = 3?

"A cost of $778 for 60 days" Would this concern you less, Mick, if it were covered by Medicaid? I'm assuming, until you say otherwise, that you don't know the manufacturing or packaging costs of these products, so you have zero knowledge of the profit involved. Right? Not a very scientific claim either of you are making. I always feel safer making assumptions when the person I'm responding to has done so first.

[Stupid]

Respondents were not queried on what they believed the source of their child's illnesses. Hence, this particular claim of bias is wrong. It gets worse. Parents of vaccinated children were allowed to respond, but the bulk of data on vaccinated children was previously collected in an unrelated survey. Are you claiming the German national survey was biased as well?

No, I'm pointing out that the German study found....

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

....whereas the http://www.vaccineinjury.info/vaccin...illnesses.html survey claimed:

The results of our survey with currently 11570 participants show that unvaccinated children are far less affected by common diseases than vaccinated children.

The vaccineinjury survey had 11,000+ volunteer entries. (with likely bias)
The German study had 17,000+ random entries. (with unknown bias)
(narrowed to 13,000+ to meet the study criteria)

Respondents were not queried on what they believed the source of their child's illnesses.

....but in essence, they were...based on the type of questions, and the source and dissemination of the survey. It's like asking for a survey on the existence of extraterrestrials, coming from a UFO believers site.

Now, of course there are differences in the two studies.......# of un-vaccinated compared to vaccinated, ......illness prevalence/trends based on geographical location, ........age, .....etc.
But the two big elephants in the room are,
1) volunteer vs. random (surveys).
2) age majorities in each study vary widely. (over 3/4 of the German participants were 6-17 years old, whereas about 1/2 of the vaccineinfo study was 0-2 years old.)

...and of the vaccineinfo study, many questions/symptoms could not possibly be determined or attributed to those of a 2 year old or under. The questionnaire asked about:
"Migraine or headaches"
"Hayfever or chronic rhinitis"
"Fine motor skills problems"
"Thyroid disease"
the questionnaire (link)

So perhaps the two studies are not comparable at all, and I think that's where we might agree.......but nevertheless the NaturalNews article did so, and so did the vaccineinfo site. Perhaps you can suggest a better comparison ?

[Stupid]

So?

"trying to sell supplements, supplements and more supplements." Mathematically, I guess "supplements" = 2 and "more supplements" = 3?

"A cost of $778 for 60 days" Would this concern you less, Mick, if it were covered by Medicaid? I'm assuming, until you say otherwise, that you don't know the manufacturing or packaging costs of these products, so you have zero knowledge of the profit involved. Right? Not a very scientific claim either of you are making. I always feel safer making assumptions when the person I'm responding to has done so first.

http://www.immunitionltd.com/products.html
But the site and it's products make the first assumptions, we make the second. That makes you the third.
(actually, the invented internet fear was the first, so you are the fourth.)

If you feel safe in making any assumptions, then you understand where we (any of us) came from in the first place. Your justification comes from your implied assertion that I and others are wrong, inherently.
But what we (I) are saying, is that there seems to be no basis for a needed cure in the first place. We question the "need" for supplements, and assume there is a margin of profit. By "assume"...I suggest that the dear Doctor is not selling products to break-even, or at a loss.
Scientific claims as to a cure, need proof that there is an ailment first.
It's all too easy to make-up an mystery ailment , and then offer a cure for that enlightened ailment.
It's been done like that for ages.

[Plautus Satire]

The data shows vaccinated children exhibit a 500% greater incidence of disease, what's up for debate exactly? So everyone who took this survey was lying? What about the government survey to which this data was compared? Were they all lying? That's some theory, to say it's wrong just because everyone involved is lying. Are there any competing theories, like aliens or UFO's or reptilians fudging the data? haha

[Cairenn]

It was just a SURVEY, not a study. Surveys are very easy to skew to get the results you want. Let's take a survey about pet ownership for instance. If I take this survey at a dog show it is very likely to be skewed toward dog ownership. I ask the same question at a cat show and I would get a preference for cats.

That is why the German study is important. Please explain how a 2 yr old could describe a migraine headache.

Naturalnews is not very good about making sure that what shows up there is accurate. I have found MANY errors in thing they post.