ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, June 03, 2012

Additional vaccine info

After yesterday's post on the potential link between the vaccine schedule and the twin VAERS and SIDS death spikes at 2-4 months, I spent a little time playing around with the VAERS database myself. Here are some of the things I found interesting:

1. In the last five years, from 2007 through the end of 2011, 28.5 percent of ALL reported vaccine-related deaths for ALL AGES occurred between the ages of 2-4 months. It is truly remarkable that a two-month period that represents one-fifth of one percent of a person's expected lifespan should account for nearly a third of the reported vaccine-related deaths, especially because the death rate is much higher than in the two months that immediately follow childbirth. That percentage is 13,500 percent higher than would be statistically indicated. The pattern continues in 2012 as 55 percent of the 20 vaccine-related deaths reported so far this year took place in that same two-month window.

2. I was too conservative in my estimates yesterday. During that same five year period, 60 PERCENT of all reported vaccine-related deaths under the age of one occurred between 2-4 months. The period from 2-3 months alone accounted for the previously estimated 40 percent.

3. The 2-4 month death spike appears consistently even if one goes all the way back to 1990, the earliest date available. The situation appears to have improved consideraby, as the worst years were 1991 through 1994, so it would be informative to learn if there was a change in the vaccine schedule between 1994 and 1995. It is also interesting to note that SIDS deaths are reported to have declined from 1993 to 2004, and by a proportion similar to the decline in VAERS-reported deaths. Of course, it's also theoretically possible that the anti-SIDS sleep campaign which began in 1994 is responsible for decline in vaccine deaths, as perhaps stomach sleeping somehow exacerbates the problem of receiving a vaccine overload.


None of this can be considered conclusive yet. Perhaps it is just a 22-year coincidence that parents and doctors are more likely to report the deaths of 2-4 month old children than those of 8-10 month old children, or any other age, for that matter. But the statistical evidence is unusually consistent and the growing number of correlations does appear to indicate that there is a causal factor involved, most likely concerning the size of the child and the amount of the vaccines administered, which suggests that simply delaying the current schedule by six months or more would significantly reduce the risk of fatal vaccine damage to a child.

Labels:

51 Comments:

Anonymous Difster June 03, 2012 7:46 AM  

My friend's wife just had twins. I haven't been able to speak to him but I emailed him and told him to do some research before allowing his babies to have a full course of vaccines and to immediately find a pediatrician who is at least cautious about over-vaccinating.

I don't know if he has done that or not. He tends not to question "established" practice.

Anonymous The Great Martini June 03, 2012 8:03 AM  

Just for the sake of clarity, what again is your argument that if the vaccine schedule is pushed back, that the mortality rate won't just shift to the new time frame? I mean, it is already acknowledged that there is a finite risk to vaccination. Beyond hand waving, what is your argument based on statistics that putting vaccination off will offer less risk?

Blogger Vox June 03, 2012 8:14 AM  

Just for the sake of clarity, what again is your argument that if the vaccine schedule is pushed back, that the mortality rate won't just shift to the new time frame? I mean, it is already acknowledged that there is a finite risk to vaccination. Beyond hand waving, what is your argument based on statistics that putting vaccination off will offer less risk?

First, you don't appear to understand what "hand-waving" is. Second, I'm not arguing that the mortality rate will not simply shift back to the new time frame, in fact, I specifically mention that possibility and what it would signify if the death spikes shift instead of decline in my column tomorrow.

However, the fact that the current schedule calls for 9 vaccines at the age of 12-15 months, which results in 12x fewer reported deaths than the 11 vaccines given at the age of 2-4 months, indicates - not proves, but indicates - that the vital issue is likely one of size and/or body weight. Pushing the schedule back should therefore reduce both the amount and gravity of adverse events.

But that's just the hypothesis. I'd like to see an experiment performed with five groups, an unvaccinated control group, then four groups getting the schedule at current, +3 month, +6 month, and +12 month starting points. That would provide a lot of useful information about the true extent of the risks involved.

Anonymous jerry June 03, 2012 8:28 AM  

1995 changes to vaccine schedule.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038256.htm

Anonymous Godfrey June 03, 2012 9:06 AM  

Despite the propaganda to the contrary, we don't live in a society that values the objective scientific method. If we did, it would be very interesting to see where analysis of data like this would lead.

Unfortunately we live in a society where regime “scientists” and “doctors” apply the “political method” to justify oppression and the funneling of profits to large politically connected corporations. Most of them don't care about the truth. They care about protecting the secular myths of the corrupt political structure.

Anonymous MLS June 03, 2012 9:18 AM  

Japan recommends fewer vaccines in the first year of life than the US. At least a decade ago it was about half of the US schedule. May be a good comparison group if you can find reports on vaccine related deaths there.

Blogger Vox June 03, 2012 9:21 AM  

I don't see any modification of the vaccine schedule that would have caused the reduction in 2-4 month deaths. There simply weren't any real changes to the early part of the schedule.

Anonymous Robstar June 03, 2012 9:39 AM  

Vox, how does the US schedule compare with other developed countries and what are their statistics for vaccine related deaths? It could be a useful comparison

Blogger Astrosmith June 03, 2012 9:41 AM  

Vox: is there a similar database for Europe, and a link to the European vaccine schedule for us to make a comparison? That schedule is more "spread out" so do the European data show that death spike?

Blogger A Conservative Teacher June 03, 2012 10:04 AM  

Vox, I'm surprised that you are going along with government recommendations and government statistics so readily. You quote very easily from the CDC and knuckle under very quickly to the government-pushed shot program. I thought a guy like you would be more open minded than this.

Anonymous jay c June 03, 2012 10:33 AM  

If vaccinations are concentrated in the 2-4 month age group, I'm not sure what the significance of these statistics would be. It seems almost tautological to say that vaccine-related deaths increase at the same time that vaccinations increase. The SIDS numbers should be much more interesting. If they correlate as closely to the vaccination schedule, that would be telling.

Anonymous Mona Lisa June 03, 2012 10:36 AM  

The 2-4 month death spike goes back to the late 1800's. At that time they had smallpox, rabies, tetanus, and cholera vaccines, none of which were given to infants to my knowledge.

"Dr. Arnold Paltauf of Vienna presented tables, in an 1889 article on sudden unexplained infant deaths, showing that 59% of these children died between the ages of two and four months. A Surgeon of Police in Dundee, Scotland, reported in 1892 that of 258 instances of “overlaying” investigated between 1882 and 1891, 60% (154) were children two to four months old, and 62% (159) occurred between October and March, the cold months of the year."
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-dhs/medhum/newsletter/v6n1cribdeath.cfm

It's not at all surprising that this spike shows up in the VAERS database. All VAERS does is record adverse events that occurred after a vaccination was given. It does not investigate or confirm cause of death. Children have been more likely to die during that age range for far longer than vaccine have been around. Now parents have something to blame the death on instead of just hearing "we don't know why."

Perhaps vaccines do increase the incidence of SIDS during that age range, or during the first year. But I doubt it's by as much as it seems upon first glance.

Blogger Markku June 03, 2012 10:36 AM  

This is the Finnish vaccination schedule in its entirety, kk=month, v=year

I would assume it has quite a bit fever entries than the American one.

Anonymous VD June 03, 2012 10:39 AM  

Vox, I'm surprised that you are going along with government recommendations and government statistics so readily. You quote very easily from the CDC and knuckle under very quickly to the government-pushed shot program. I thought a guy like you would be more open minded than this.

Don't be a complete moron. Seriously, that's the conclusion you somehow managed to reach from this? Try to read what is there rather than leaping to whatever imaginary conclusions you've concocted.

Anonymous Josh June 03, 2012 10:45 AM  

Seriously, that's the conclusion you somehow managed to reach from this?

well, he is an educator...

Blogger Markku June 03, 2012 10:47 AM  

Quite a bit FEWER entries...

Sometimes a typo is particularly unfortunate.

Blogger Vox June 03, 2012 10:50 AM  

"Dr. Arnold Paltauf of Vienna presented tables, in an 1889 article on sudden unexplained infant deaths, showing that 59% of these children died between the ages of two and four months.

The correct response to a hypothesis is to test it, not to refer to outdated and unreliable accounts of unscientific evidence. Why do you hate science? If the vaccine link to the death spikes is purely coincidental, then moving the vaccine schedule back would suffice to demonstrate this. Regardless of one's opinion on the matter, there is no good reason to oppose such empirical testing.

Blogger Markku June 03, 2012 10:54 AM  

Vaccination is voluntary here, and for example the Romani as a policy don't get any vaccines at all.

Anonymous Augie June 03, 2012 11:04 AM  

Some 20 years ago Japan moved DPT shots up to age 2 decreasing SIDS death consideraly. See my vaccine fact sheet http://j.mp/vaxkits

Anonymous Mona Lisa June 03, 2012 11:06 AM  

"The correct response to a hypothesis is to test it, not to refer to outdated and unreliable accounts of unscientific evidence. Why do you hate science? If the vaccine link to the death spikes is purely coincidental, then moving the vaccine schedule back would suffice to demonstrate this. Regardless of one's opinion on the matter, there is no good reason to oppose such empirical testing."

I'm not at all opposed to it. I'd very much like to see it done. I'd also like to see the data from other countries which have different vaccine schedules to see how they compare. My point was that I don't find the spike in deaths for that age range to be all that surprising considering the history of SIDS/crib death.

Blogger Markku June 03, 2012 11:27 AM  

There are about 15 crib deaths annually in Finland, so there would be too much statistical noise if such a small number were divided to those age groups.

Anonymous dh June 03, 2012 11:28 AM  

> But that's just the hypothesis. I'd like to see an experiment performed with five groups, an
> unvaccinated control group, then four groups getting the schedule at current, +3 month, +6 month, and
> +12 month starting points. That would provide a lot of useful information about the true extent of
the risks involved.

It sure would. But if you theorize that body size/weight is an important part of the equation, you should also control for that factor in your sample size.

Blogger Vox June 03, 2012 11:38 AM  

My point was that I don't find the spike in deaths for that age range to be all that surprising considering the history of SIDS/crib death.

Fair enough. But I still think the size and the consistency of it is unusual and potentially informative.

Blogger Markku June 03, 2012 11:40 AM  

The Finnish crib death statistic is divided as under 5 months, and 5 months to 1 year. There were 8 deaths in the former group and 5 deaths in the latter. So it is obvious that the younger group would be HUGELY overrepresented in the US statistic, from what I see in the chart.

Blogger Markku June 03, 2012 11:44 AM  

Corrrection, 10 deaths for younger, 5 for older. I didn't notice the column for 1-4 week olds, that contained two deaths.

Anonymous rienzi June 03, 2012 11:46 AM  

I wonder what the graph looks like for a group of Amish, Jehovah's Witness, or Christian Science children? Those children, who most probably would have not gotten any vaccinations at all, would appear to make a pretty good control group.

Blogger Spacebunny June 03, 2012 1:02 PM  

Vaccine rates in Europe vary widely - and many countries don't require them even if they have a recommended schedule, whereas in the US it is difficult in many states to enroll your child in daycare, much less a public school without a laundry list of vaccinations.

Anonymous The other skeptic June 03, 2012 1:10 PM  


whereas in the US it is difficult in many states to enroll your child in daycare, much less a public school without a laundry list of vaccinations.


Correct. When my children moved to the People's Republic of Mexifornia, they could not be enrolled in school until we proved that they had been vaccinated for lots of stuff.

Anonymous David June 03, 2012 1:16 PM  

California actually has a very permissive personal allowance exemption. What I found is that the school staff will be adamant that they won't let the child in until all the vaccinations are up to date...right up until you say the magic words "I am taking a personal exemption from [this or that vaccine] and my child will not receiving those vaccination(s)."

Then the school staff immediately caved. It was pretty eye-opening.

Now there are legal challenges to take away that particular exemption but so far it has held.

Anonymous Bluesman June 03, 2012 2:10 PM  

One does not win a war by invading everywhere at once. You have to start somewhere. SIDS may well be an excellent place to start to chip away at the willful blindness of the "the only risk with vaccines is not having them" crowd. So I am heartened by your courageous willingness to ask a simple honest question, Vox. It is one of many that deserve to be asked.

Personally, I did not skip vaccinations for my child because of a fear of vaccine-induced death. I did so because the indeterminate risk to immune system and brain health--at the most critical point in development--is unwarranted for the marginal temporary protection from diseases that are extinct, rare or uncommon and/or tend to be relatively harmless. I was concerned about ADHD, autism spectrum, allergies, and other as-yet-unidentified reductions in optimal function brought about by repeated massive insults to an immunologically immature organism: my son.

The funny thing about systems as complex as the human body, with its unimaginably sophisticated immune system and unique microbiome, is that when you issue a series of indistinct challenges to it, as the contaminants intentionally added to vaccines as adjuvants do--by design--you get an almost infinite variety of responses. Some of those responses will involve auto-immunities and other dysfunctions where the body goes to war against some of its own tissue. The vast majority of these adverse responses will not be evident for months, years, or decades and they will cover a gamut that causes them to disappear in the noise of variables encountered in life overall. The one thing I can say with certainty is that they will not show up in VAERS data.

Science is the greatest thing that we humans have yet made or discovered, but it is not currently at a stage where it can begin to deal with the complexities involved in even reliably measuring the impact of vaccination. Therefore I choose to let the intricate engineering, honed over millions of years of fine-tuning by nature (or maybe even crafted by God), go about its business unmolested by an industry that just a hundred years ago thought that diseases were cured by bleeding them out of people.

Anonymous Boris June 03, 2012 2:57 PM  

The VAERS data isn't really useful for this type of exercise. It just isn't very good and has likely been contaminated by lawyers encouraging their clients to file reports.

The "spike" at 2-4months is likely because 2 months is generally when the first vaccines are given. Babies that die before they have vaccinations are not going to be reported to VAERS.

Anonymous Johnycomelately June 03, 2012 5:44 PM  

Apparently there is a risk factor caused by babies having vaccines while taking atibiotics and the resulting increased oxalate production combining with mercury and creating mercury oxalate, which is very insoluble and is deposited in the body rather than being expelled.

So there seems to be a connection between gut flora maturity, antibiotics, oxalate and mercury.

Anonymous Cornucopia June 03, 2012 5:49 PM  

First, you don't appear to understand what "hand-waving" is.

In this case, it would be failing to even offer a complete statistical or scientific argument. You might be right just from chance, or you might not be showing your work, but just asserting hypotheses like that older, heavier children are less likely to die from vaccination isn't enough to prove or even show anything. It is quite possible, for instance, that immunological immaturity would make vaccination a less risky process. The point is, folk intuition isn't going conclusively prove anything in cases like this. Either you have a solid case, or you're just adding to the hysteria.

Anonymous David Of One June 03, 2012 6:12 PM  

You've seemed to have aptly named yourself Cornucopia ... a goats horn overflowing with colorful sounding stuff ...

What is the complete statistical or scientific argument for your asseration that anyone is "adding to the hysteria"? What "hysteria" are you referring to? Fear of sticking infants? Fear of itty bitty tiny organisms for which vaccinations are administered for? Fear of discourse or debate for which one or more individuals may have a vested professional benefit of defending regarding any topic or endeavor they are peripherally or personnally involved in?

I doubt you are able to provide "complete statistical or scientific agruement" for the "hysteria" for which you are making an accusation regarding Vox's analysis ... all so as to elminate any reasoned discourse regarding the thread being discussed.

It always seems the same ... on one side there is "If it saves one child!" and on the other end there is the demand to provide a titanic amount of "proof" before any discourse or analysis may be engaged in regarding any reasoned questions as to the efficicay or positive benefits of any governmental mandated actions based upon questionable data and/or logic.

Anonymous VD June 03, 2012 6:14 PM  

The point is, folk intuition isn't going conclusively prove anything in cases like this.

That's a stupid and obvious point. Do you so little understand the scientific method that you don't understand the difference between the formulation of a hypothesis and the performance of an experiment?

I have previously formulated a hypothesis, on the basis of my pattern recognition, and scientists have performed experiments and written papers on it. Perhaps someone will do the same here. I have never claimed that the hypothesis should be viewed as proof of any kind. What on Earth do you think "None of this can be considered conclusive yet" indicates is claimed as proof?

Anonymous VD June 03, 2012 6:18 PM  

The "spike" at 2-4months is likely because 2 months is generally when the first vaccines are given. Babies that die before they have vaccinations are not going to be reported to VAERS.

False. You've clearly never had a child or even read the vaccine schedule. Hep B is given at birth and again at one month. Tuberculosis and polio vaccines are the two other vaccines licensed for use at birth, but not in the USA.

Anonymous bob k. mando June 03, 2012 6:44 PM  

a new definition of science arises:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/06/mayhem-in-the-lab-is-productive/
"In short, he presents the hard truth that science is actually about personality."

it seems that Vox is doing science after all ...

Anonymous vikingkirken June 03, 2012 8:26 PM  

Another possibility here is that the high number of deaths in this age group is due to an allergic/autoimmune reaction to one type of vaccine... since many of the ones received later in the year are boosters of the same vaccines, children who survive the first round would be expected to also survive the boosters. Vox's idea of shifting the vaccine schedule could address this theory as well.

Anonymous MikeM June 03, 2012 8:40 PM  

Vaccines are dangerous to undeveloped immunes systems. the presence of thimerithol is really deadly.

There is also an intersting correlatiob between vaccinations from the beginning of the 1900's to date and the onset of autism. Austism rates have gone up about 500% since infant vaccinations were introduced.

Correlaton is not proof of causality, but it is certainly noteworhty.

Coutnries that limit child vaccinations to age 6 and later do quite well.

Anonymous Anonymous June 03, 2012 8:46 PM  

Sigh. Why in nether hell are we giving Hep B at birth? The infection rate of Hep B amongst pre-pubertal children is almost nil...

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Vaccinologist June 03, 2012 9:58 PM  

WE'VE GOT CHARTS!!won!1!!


Hepatitis B vaccine at birth? Stupid idea. Perinatal (mother to embyro/fetus during pregnancy/childbirth) transmission of this particular hepadnavirus is usually only in developing countries like China, not the United States. Hepatitis B and C are much harder to transmit than Hepatitis A and E, which is good news, since the former are more pathogenic.

I might recommend it at 11-12 years, before a child becomes sexually active though. Of course, their are outliers with kids have sex at 9, but let us look at the big picture here.


The problem with these vaccines we're giving:

1) A lot of them are new (developed since the early 1990s, Hepatitis A vaccine was 1996), so we really have no idea the long term implications of them on the immune system in a general population.

2) We've created new and more powerful vaccine forms. Instead of merely a live or attenuated virus vaccine like in the old days with Jenner, we can go in now and alter a virus or other subunits and use it as a vector to transmit immunity. This could change how they operate over the long and short term on the immune system.

3) These vaccines are not as permanant as we once thought. So even if you vaccinated your children at birth, would you need booster shots? No one knows.

4) We keep giving more and more vaccines in a shorter and shorter time period. Is this messing things up? No one knows.

You gotta understand here: vaccines are coupled to immunology. The immune system is incredibly intricate, both with large organ parts (thymus, bone marrow, spleen, ect.) and microbiological components (T-cells, macrophages, ect.) and it is very complicated how it works. Most of the big discoveries have just happened in the last 20 years. We just discovered what a virophage is in 2008.

Anonymous Wendy June 03, 2012 10:04 PM  

Sigh. Why in nether hell are we giving Hep B at birth? The infection rate of Hep B amongst pre-pubertal children is almost nil...

Hep B is passed from mother to child, so apparently they think the best protocol is to assume all women giving birth are sluts and have Hep B.

But then, hospital protocol's do tend to be one-size-fits-all-as-long-as-we-don't-get-sued-best-interest-of-the-patient-be-darned.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Vaccinologist June 03, 2012 10:26 PM  

Something I forgot to add though. Another major problem with research in immunology is the fact that the immune system, unlike other pieces of the body, can be very idiosyncratic.

Take allergies for instance. One person might be allergic to shellfish and mold, another person just sneezes around cats. One person can take any antibiotic they want, and another person must avoid amoxicillin and fluoroquinolones. One person has an itchy mouth when eating nuts, and another person dies from anaphylactic shock after an almond cookie.

It depends. Now apply that to vaccines.

Anonymous TMQ_Fanboy June 03, 2012 11:45 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Anonymous The other skeptic June 04, 2012 1:30 AM  

Vaccination issues seem unimportant when a professor of law thinks we could see ethnic cleansing in the US

Anonymous Cornucopia June 04, 2012 1:35 AM  

What on Earth do you think "None of this can be considered conclusive yet" indicates is claimed as proof?


Sorry, didn't mean to sound antagonistic. It's just important not to cry wolf on these things. This is one topic where you have to be sure.

Anonymous Daniel Moore June 04, 2012 2:05 AM  

I'm sure you're familiar with the work of two of my favorite medical heretics: Dr. Andrew Moulden and Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Both have done important work on vaccinations; both have been demonized. I was born in 1948 and managed to live through most of the childhood diseases known to man. Some were very unpleasant; none of them disabled me. Malthusian aspects have increased the spread and, perhaps, the virulence of some of these diseases . . . but as the French might say, cherchez l'argent. It's a multibillion-dollar business. And, unfortunately, connections seem to exist to the eugenics crowd.

Anonymous Nicholas June 04, 2012 2:25 AM  

Anyone familiar with sql can download the raw data from the same site: http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/vaers.zip. It's actually fascinating. For example, to duplicate Vox's results, you would do this:

select cdbl(age_yrs), count(1) as cnt from vaersdata where died = 'Y' and age_yrs like '0.%' group by cdbl(age_yrs)

If you wanted to look include gender:

select count(1) as cnt, cdbl(age_yrs), sex from vaersdata where died = 'Y' and age_yrs like '0.%' and sex in ('M','F') group by cdbl(age_yrs), sex

You can look at the distribution of the number of vaccines administered that caused a fatal reaction for kidsunder 1:

select count(1), vax_cnt from vaersdata where died = 'Y' and age_yrs like '0.%' group by vax_cnt

The particular vaccines administered, with their associated manufacturers, can be found in the vax1 to vax8 and vax1man to vax8man column, respectively.

Looking at various reports broken down by gender, it looks like boys die at a greater rate than girls. Of course, no idea if it's a reporting artifact or what, but still interesting.

Blogger Spacebunny June 04, 2012 2:43 AM  

...that older, heavier children are less likely to die from vaccination isn't enough to prove or even show anything

Of course it doesn't. Although it's worth considering that there is almost no other medication, vitamin or supplement that doctors will give that a person's weight is not taken into consideration when giving a dose - vaccines aren't. The same amount is given to a 2 month old as is given to an adult in most cases.

Blogger Spacebunny June 04, 2012 2:47 AM  

It's just important not to cry wolf on these things. This is one topic where you have to be sure.


The only hand-waving and crying of wolf being done is by the medical/pharma community at large.

Anonymous Venger June 04, 2012 3:42 AM  

There was a study published last year in the journal "Human and Experimental Toxicology" by Miller and Goldman that compared the infant mortality rates of several nations against the number of vaccine doses given in the first year of life. Here is the journal citation:
Hum Exp Toxicol. 2011 Sep;30(9):1420-8. You can obtain a free full text version of the article at PubMed.

The study showed that countries that give fewer doses of vaccines in the first year of life had lower infant mortality rates. The United States, which gives 26 vaccine doses before an infant's first birthday, was ranked 34th in infant mortality based on the data referenced in the article (2009 IMR data).

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts