Vaccinated Children Have 2 to 5 Times More Diseases and Disorders Than Unvaccinated

[Texashiker]

As linked to earlier in the thread, the actual trend appears to be:

The lifetime prevalence of diseases preventable by vaccination was markedly higher in unvaccinated than in vaccinated subjects

(this time entirely using KiGGS data, and teasing out the differing groups of vaccinated/unvaccinated kids).

The question is not vaccine preventable diseases.

If you look at the article you linked to,

The lifetime prevalence of at least one atopic disease:

1 - to 5-year-olds was 12.6% (5.0%–28.3%) in unvaccinated children and 15.0% (13.6%–16.4%) in vaccinated children.

6- to 10-yearolds, the prevalence figures were 30.1% (12.9%–55.8%) for unvaccinated children versus 24.4% (22.8%–26.0%) for vaccinated children,

11- to 17-year-olds were 20.3% (10.1%–36.6%) versus 29.9% (28.4%–31.5%).

Unless I am reading that wrong, 1-5 year old and 11-17 year old unvaccinated children have a lower rate of illness then vaccinated children.

Keep in mind, we are talking about non-vaccine preventable conditions and diseases.

~~ EDIT ~~

In the above link, go to page 101 and look at figure 2, except in the 6 - 10 year olds, unvaccinated children had a lower rate of illnesses then vaccinated children.

 

[woolfe9999]

The HPV vaccine detractors tend to be right wing as it's a prevention measure against an STD. Anything that prevents an STD that isn't abstinence only education tends to be something that the right wing is against.

True in the specific case of HPV, but anti-vaxx in general is a form of idiocy which unfortunately crosses party lines. Some of it is rooted in the homeopathy/natural medicine cultures which in general tend to be more liberal than conservative.

 

[shira]

That is the study of a nutty person from a nutty website.

All you need to know about this so-called "study" is this line near the top of the study page:

"The survey is an ongoing project, so if you have unvaccinated children or are unvaccinated yourself, please fill in the questionnaire."


In other words, this isn't a random, double-blinded experiment. And it's not a longitudinal study where the participants are NOT self-selected, worried parents signing up to to be study subjects on a "http://www.vaccineinjury.info" website.

This "study" is brought to you by the same know-nothings that reject climate change and say that "Evolution is just a theory."

 

[Gooberlx2]

In the above link, go to page 101 and look at figure 2, except in the 6 - 10 year olds, unvaccinated children had a lower rate of illnesses then vaccinated children.

Except the disparities aren't statistically significant when you look at the confidence intervals.

 

[xBiffx]

This "study" is brought to you by the same know-nothings that reject climate change and say that "Evolution is just a theory."

Damn those scientists.

 

[busydude]

This really confirms for me that you are a titanic idiot. It's irresponsible brain dead imbeciles like you that keep this vaccine shit alive threatening the lives of countless children. You are disgusting.

This post should be made as an auto-reply for every post the OP makes, as 90% of the time it is true.

 

[JSt0rm]

Because not even the CDC is incompetent enough to do a study that badly.

LOL

 

[Texashiker]

Except the disparities aren't statistically significant when you look at the confidence intervals.

You linked to the article, do not try to pick and choose which parts to dismiss and which parts to believe.

From the charts on page 101 and 103, unvaccinated children had a lower rate of illness (for non-vaccine preventible conditions) for the 1 - 5 and 11 - 17 age groups.

The 6 - 10 year olds had a slightly higher rate of illness.

The numbers are there, you can try to deny them, but they are there.

 

[First]

Your posts are awful, consider another hobby.

 

[Texashiker]

Your posts are awful, consider another hobby.

Do you have anything of value to contribute to the discussion?

 

[Macamus Prime]

We all know that vaccines are a way the government is trying to manipulate and control people. They want the American race to suffer and die.

Those commie bastards started with the common cold - which was sent over to the US during the Cold War. They also gave poor Ronald Regan alzheimers.

They then invented MTV, telling our young women it's OK to sleep around with all sorts of strange men. Programming it in their head that they can mix with any man they want. It's a ploy to taint the purity of the American race.

 

[Gooberlx2]

You linked to the article, do not try to pick and choose which parts to dismiss and which parts to believe.

From the charts on page 101 and 103, unvaccinated children had a lower rate of illness (for non-vaccine preventible conditions) for the 1 - 5 and 11 - 17 age groups.

The 6 - 10 year olds had a slightly higher rate of illness.

The numbers are there, you can try to deny them, but they are there.

See the lines that look like |-----|. They're important...or rather they indicate just how unimportant vaccination is regarding unrelated disease. Mostly they indicate how little, and therefore unreliable, data is regarding unvaccinated kids because the sample size is so small.

Still, the researchers make the specific assertion that prevalence of unrelated diseases has to do with age, not vaccination. But you can look at and misinterpret bar graphs all you want.

 

[BladeVenom]

I don't know if I categorize anti-vacs as 'right wing' The Huffington post constantly preaches anti-vac stuff..

Agreed. It's mostly left wing hippies who are against vaccines.

 

[Capt Caveman]

It's always amusing to read the rabidness of the pro-vaccine crowd Fight the world through an internet forum!!!!!!!!

Yet, the OP is anti-vaccine posting in an internet forum about an online internet survey.

/facepalm

 

[Texashiker]

Still, the researchers make the specific assertion that prevalence of unrelated diseases has to do with age, not vaccination. But you can look at and misinterpret bar graphs all you want.

You can deny the graphs all you want, but its not going to help. The numbers are there, do not try to add or take anything away.

What would be nice is if the CDC would do a study like the germans did. But I do not know of any such studies.

Yet, the OP is anti-vaccine posting in an internet forum about an online internet survey.

If you read my post, you should see that I am not anti-vaccine.

 

[woolfe9999]

You can deny the graphs all you want, but its not going to help. The numbers are there, do not try to add or take anything away.

What would be nice is if the CDC would do a study like the germans did. But I do not know of any such studies.




If you read my post, you should see that I am not anti-vaccine.

You do know that the actual German study, the real one, which I linked on page one comes to the opposite conclusion as your online survey, right?

 

[Texashiker]

You do know that the actual German study, the real one, which I linked on page one comes to the opposite conclusion as your online survey, right?

The article you linked to shows vaccine preventable diseases, this thread is not about vaccine preventable diseases.

There is no doubt that vaccines help prevent certain diseases, the article you linked to affirms that.

The question is, is the rate of non-vaccine preventable diseases high or lower in the vaccinated / non-vaccinated groups?

 

[sactoking]

The question is, is the rate of non-vaccine preventable diseases high or lower in the vaccinated / non-vaccinated groups?

The original linked article doesn't answer that empirically. The "researchers" claim that they have proof that receiving an MMR vaccine causes more incidents of sniffoos but that isn't true. The first sign of impropriety is that the "researcher" is a practitioner of holistic medicine. Impartiality is, at that point, very much in question. The next sign is that the "researcher" is actively soliciting anti-vaccine participants to self-disclose. The "researcher" claims that the disclosure is backed by medical records, but this ignores silent evidence. The silent evidence in this case is the fact that an anti-vaccine parent who is willing to self-disclose medical records to a holistic practitioner is probably also likely to avoid standard medical practitioners. If they don't go to the doctor for the sniffoos there is no record of them not going so they can claim any damn thing they want regardless of the actual number of times their precious offspring got the sniffoos.

 

[Ns1]

We all know that vaccines are a way the government is trying to manipulate and control people. They want the American race to suffer and die.

Those commie bastards started with the common cold - which was sent over to the US during the Cold War. They also gave poor Ronald Regan alzheimers.

They then invented MTV, telling our young women it's OK to sleep around with all sorts of strange men. Programming it in their head that they can mix with any man they want. It's a ploy to taint the purity of the American race.

not sure if srs

 

[woolfe9999]

The article you linked to shows vaccine preventable diseases, this thread is not about vaccine preventable diseases.

There is no doubt that vaccines help prevent certain diseases, the article you linked to affirms that.

The question is, is the rate of non-vaccine preventable diseases high or lower in the vaccinated / non-vaccinated groups?

I think you missed this paragraph in my link:

Furthermore, no differences were found in rates of other infectious diseases whose burden was similar on each group, thus providing contradictory evidence to the claim that vaccines “overload” the immune system and make vaccinated children more vulnerable to other diseases. The same held true for medically diagnosed atopic disorders.

 

[DrPizza]

The article you linked to shows vaccine preventable diseases, this thread is not about vaccine preventable diseases.

There is no doubt that vaccines help prevent certain diseases, the article you linked to affirms that.

The question is, is the rate of non-vaccine preventable diseases high or lower in the vaccinated / non-vaccinated groups?

And the answer is: statistically, there is NO DIFFERENCE. That you're stupid enough to think that flipping a coin 10 times and getting 6 heads and 4 tails means that heads are more likely than tails is your problem. Everyone with an IQ over 100 knows that it's a .50 probability of each. (Actually, there's a *very* slight difference from exactly .50; I thought I'd point this out since you likely don't understand significant figures either.) Intelligent people understand that the number of trials, 10, isn't enough to determine the statistical validity. Those really good at math (statistics) can determine the statistical likelihood of heads, with a certain confidence interval. i.e. based on 6/10, (I'm not wasting time with the math), they could say that the probability of getting a heads is 60%, plus or minus 23%, with 95% confidence. That is, that limited amount of data makes them 95% certain that the probability of heads is somewhere between 37% and 83%. In the study that was linked to, there's no statistical significance between the groups - the unvaccinated group is too small.

 

[Texashiker]

I think you missed this paragraph in my link:

The site linked to by Gooberlx2 does show a difference.

And the answer is: statistically, there is NO DIFFERENCE.

How do you explain a 9% point difference in the 11 - 17 age group on the page Gooberlx2 linked to?

So you do not have to look up the link - http://www.aerzteblatt.de/v4/archiv/pdf.asp?id=80869

Page 101, figure 2

Page 103, figure 3

the unvaccinated group is too small.

If part of the study is going to be discredited, then the whole thing has to be discredited. We can not take the parts we want and leave the rest.

If someone knows of a similar CDC study, please post it.

 

[Screech]

atopic excema

6-10, unvaccinated: 26.4% (10 to 53.3)
6-10, vaccinated: 15.6% (14.3 to 17.1)

This is from the table on page 102. We could be retarded and take this to mean that vaccinations not relating to atopc excema obviously cause a massive drop in it, or we could realize that the study is completely worthless as far as these statistics go. I've bolded the numbers in parantheses to show the uncertainty window. That the 95% confidence interval is from 10 to 53 percent is so full of lol that is isn't even worth debating further.

edit: Also, you will note that the confidence interval for preventable diseases shows that there is a statistically significant increase in the percent of kids who get them for the unvaccinated group (the difference between unvaccinated and vaccinated is larger than the error bars) whereas this is absolutely not the case for the other comparisons made in the study. So essentially, it proves that not getting vaccinated does in fact increase your risk for those diseases while it has no significant effect on the "atopic" disorders.

 

[SirStev0]

Higher rates of illness probably has more to do with chronic inflammation from the microchips the government implants around the time of vaccinations.

 

[shira]

This is freedom of speech. Any idiot can start a thread on any subject no mater how "out there" it night happen to be.

It is sad that actual people will make important life decisions based on this retardation.

People like the OP have no problems rejecting a hundred year worth of medical knowledge because somebody on the internet said so. It's pathetic, it's revolting, it's disgusting but they have the right to do so.

And inteligent people buy into this nonsense. Steve Job went holistic and delayed medical treatment. By the time he realized it was not working, it was already too late.

Sad.

The approach of the anti-vaccine crowd is exactly the same as the approach of the anti MM-climate-change crowd. When confronted with an abundance of studies overwhelmingly supporting the scientific consensus (that vaccines do far more than good and don't cause autism; that MMCC is real and significant), (1) they cherry-pick studies that they THINK support their preconceived notions - ignoring all other studies, and (2) they willfully distort the meanings of studies.

Take the current study - the REAL "German study." Just look at its two main conclusions (direct quotes from the study itself, but my bolding):

● The evaluation showed that vaccinated children and unvaccinated children differed substantially only in terms of the lifetime prevalence of vaccine preventable diseases; as is to be expected the risk of such diseases is notably lower in vaccinated subjects.
● In the largest study in children and adolescents so far none of the often anticipated health differences—such as allergies and the number of infections—were observed in vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects aged 1–17 years.

Just think how disturbed a human mind must be to distort these conclusions into "proof" that unvaccinated children are healthier than their vaccinated counterparts.