Jew World Order

This article has been updated and corrected.

What Happened: A new study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health has, according to the authors, discovered that vaccinated children require far more healthcare than unvaccinated children. At least that’s what they found from the group of children used to collect the data.

This type of study is interesting to see given the fact that studies comparing unvaccinated children to vaccinated children are lacking, there aren’t many of them. These studies are, as the authors state, “rarely conducted.”

None of the post licensure-vaccine safety studies have included comparisons to groups completely unexposed to vaccines.

The study concludes that “the unvaccinated children in this practice are not, overall, less healthy than the vaccinated and that indeed the vaccinated children appear to be significantly less healthy than the unvaccinated.

The data source for this study was all billing and medical records of Integrative Pediatrics, a private pediatric practice located in Portland, Oregon.

The study emphasizes the need for more research given the fact that, again, there is hardly any in this area. They concur with Mawson et al., 2017 , who reported: “Further research involving larger, independent samples is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health” and with Hooker and Miller 2020, who wrote: “Further study is necessary to understand the full spectrum of health effects associated with childhood vaccination”.

These studies mentioned above also had similar findings.

According to the authors,

Vaccines are widely regarded as safe and effective within the medical community and are an integral part of the current American medical system. While the benefits of vaccination have been estimated in numerous studies, negative and nonspecific impact of vaccines on human health have not been well studied. Most recently, it has been determined that variation exists in individual responses to vaccines, that differences exist in the safety profile of live and inactivated vaccines, and that simultaneous administration of live and inactivated vaccines may be associated with poor outcomes. Studies have not been published that report on the total outcomes from vaccinations, or the increase or decrease in total infections in vaccinated individuals.

This is important because, although vaccinations in some cases may protect against the target disease, what else might they be doing not only on the short term, but in the long term? It’s also important to point out that in other cases, like the HPV vaccine, there is no evidence that they do protect against the target disease.

Another great example comes from a study published in 2017 that examined the introduction of the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine (DTP) in an urban community in Guinea-Bissau in the early 1980s. They found that the DTP vaccine was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated. The authors state the following:

All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. Though (this) vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.

This new study points out,

Pre-licensure clinical trials for vaccines cannot detect long-term outcomes since safety review periods following administration are typically 42 days or less. Long-term vaccine safety science relies on post-market surveillance studies using databases such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC’s) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink. VAERS is a passive reporting system in which, according to Ross 2011 , “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) can, in principle, according to the Institute of Medicine (IOM, 2013), be used to compare outcomes of vaccines and unvaccinated children. Based on the IOM’s recommendation, in 2016, the CDC published a white paper (CDC, 2016; Glanz et al., 2016) on studying the safety of their recommended pediatric vaccine schedule. Unfortunately, to date, no studies have been published comparing a diversity of outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Below is one of many graphs from the study. The orange line represents the vaccinated children, and the blue one represents the unvaccinated.

For methods used, limitations, and more please refer to the study.

The parents that I work with in New York, that I see around the country are very concerned that their rights are being taken away, that their knowledge about the science is being pushed away by an agenda that only says, unvaccinated children are a problem.

No study has every been done in this country, appropriately, to address the health outcomes of children who are vaccinated versus the children who are unvaccinated. I have been seeing families in my practice for over 20 years, that have opted out of vaccination, they are the healthiest children I’ve ever seen. – Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, a NY licensed paediatrician

Facebook Fact. Checker Health Feedback Responds: 

The claim that unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated children is common in vaccine-skeptic and anti-vaccine circles. The claim was recently revived on Facebook after a study was published on 22 November 2020 in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

Several studies were cited to support this claim, two of which were also cited in the latest study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. One of them is a study by Mawson et al. published in 2017, which was replete with methodological errors and flawed statistical analyses, as detailed in this Snopes article. The other was published by journalist Neil Miller and chemical engineer Brian Hooker, which was also found to contain several methodological problems, as covered in an earlier review by Health Feedback.

One of the most significant problems in the study by Hooker and Miller was its failure to account for differences in healthcare-seeking behaviours between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Vaccination status itself is associated with other factors that can influence health outcomes, but do not result from vaccination itself. For example, vaccinated children are more likely to see a doctor when they feel unwell compared to unvaccinated children for various reasons, such as socioeconomic status, accessibility to healthcare services, and possibly greater trust in healthcare professionals^[2,3].

As a result, vaccinated children are much more likely to be diagnosed with medical conditions, even though they are not necessarily more likely to develop such conditions compared to unvaccinated children.

The November 2020 study was published by James Lyons-Weiler, who wrongly claimed that the virus that causes COVID-19 contains a manmade sequence, and Paul Thomas, a pediatrician who has spread vaccine misinformation. Thomas’ medical license was recently suspended by the Oregon Medical Board, on grounds that he breached “the standard of care” and placed “the health and safety of many of his patients at serious risk of harm.”

The study examined the billing and medical records of 3,324 patients from Integrative Pediatrics, a clinic run by Thomas. Of the 3,324 patients, 2,763 received between one and 40 vaccines. To determine if there was a difference in disease burden between unvaccinated and vaccinated children, the authors compared the children based on a new metric created for the study, called Relative Incidence of Office Visits (RIOV).

David Gorski, professor of surgery and Wayne State University and editor of Science-Based Medicine, explained the numerous problems with the authors’ approach in this article, particularly with the use of RIOV, a metric that has not been shown by the authors to be a reliable proxy for disease incidence:

“The authors claim that RIOV ‘reflects the total number of billed office visits per condition per group, reflecting the total disease burden on the group and the population that it represents,’ but no good analysis or references are provided to show that RIOV does, in fact, correlate with disease burden, particularly when using billing data. Doing matched analyses for patients with similar ‘days of care’ (DOC) in the practice, which is claimed to be ‘unbiased’ (excuse me if I doubt this, given that there wasn’t really a good demonstration that […] the choice of children with matched DOC was, in fact, ‘unbiased’) doesn’t change this. If the primary outcome is a new, unvalidated metric, it is incumbent upon the investigator to demonstrate its robustness.”

Gorski also highlighted the possibility that Thomas’ own views on vaccines affect the way that his practice approaches diagnoses of autism:

“Dr. Thomas believes that vaccines cause autism. That right there introduces unconscious bias that could affect how likely he and his staff are to investigate subtle signs of autism and [to refer out] for evaluation based on vaccination status and how likely he is to ascribe various diagnoses to ‘unvaxxed’ children compared to ‘vaxxed’ children. One can easily imagine this bias leading to unvaccinated children to be less likely to be given an autism diagnosis than vaccinated children or to be—dare I say?—brought into the office as often for various conditions that Dr. Thomas attributes to vaccines.”

Ironically, as Gorski pointed out out, the study’s Table 7 (see here) demonstrates that vaccines work, with a statistically significant decrease in the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases in vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated children.

Several well-designed studies examining differences in health and developmental outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children did not detect adverse health outcomes in vaccinated children. A 2004 study in Pediatrics showed no association between vaccines and developmental delay^[4]. Another study found that children who were vaccinated in the first year of their lives performed better on cognitive tests^[5]. Similarly, children who received measles vaccination in developing countries, specifically Ethiopia, India, and Vietnam, achieved better cognitive test scores than those who didn’t^[6]. A 2011 study in Germany, which examined the incidence of allergies and infections among more than 13,000 individuals, did not find adverse health outcomes associated with vaccination^[7].

Another study in Germany, published in 2014, examined more than 1,300 individuals and found that vaccination was associated with a significantly lower incidence of asthma^[8]. A 2020 Cochrane Review of 138 studies showed no evidence supporting an association of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination with asthma, bacterial or viral infections, cognitive delay, type 1 diabetes, dermatitis/eczema, and hay fever^[9]. At least 20 studies found that vaccines are not associated with autism^[4,10-29], as this Health Feedback review discussed.

Vaccines are safe and effective. The U.S. Institute of Medicine concluded in a 2013 review that the childhood immunization schedule is safe^[13]. The Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia also summarized the scientific evidence showing that vaccines are not associated with a higher risk of asthma or allergies and neurodevelopmental problems like attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The American Academy of Pediatricians compiled a list of studies relevant to vaccine safety here.

Why This Is Important: Given the fact that the  National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) has paid out approximately $4 billion dollars to families of vaccine injured children, there are clearly, in my opinion, some valid points here, especially against compulsory vaccinations. Again, as mentioned above, VAERS only accounts for an estimated 1 percent of vaccine injuries, this one percent is what is recorded.

A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million.

Take the MMR vaccine for example, if you search on VAERS, as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. Again, don’t forget about that 1% figure cited in the study.

There are a number of legitimate concerns about vaccine safety that would require quite a long and very in-depth article, but I just wanted to let the reader know here briefly. Aluminum for example, is another concern I’ve written quite a lot about.

These are a few reasons as to why vaccine hesitancy is at an all time high, even among many physicians and scientists. This has actually been observed for a while. For example, one study published in the journal EbioMedicine  in 2013 outlines this point, stating in the introduction:

Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts and science. These two dimensions are at the core of vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviours and attitudes varying according to context , vaccine and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.

At a 2019 conference on vaccines put on by the World Health Organization this fact was emphasized by Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project. She is referenced, as you can see, by the authors in the study above. At the conference, she emphasized that safety concerns among people and health professionals seem to be the biggest issue regarding vaccine hesitancy.

She also stated,

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…

Is there not enough information here alone to warrant informed consent? I have a hard time understanding how someone who would take the new COVID-19 vaccine, for example, would be worried about me contracting the virus if they are protected?

Why have we given governments the ability to mandate such actions? Why have we given them so much power to dictate what we do and how we want to live? Is this really how we want to live, is this really the kind of world we want to create?

A Deeper Discussion. What Do We Do About The Increasing Vaccine Pressure? 

So many are concerned about mandatory vaccination. Further, many are starting to see that mandated vaccines may not be the future, but that services and options will be denied unless you can prove you have been vaccinated. Is it still the time to point the blame? Or is there a radical new approach we must take? A shift in our worldview, re-examining who we think we are, why we are here and what world we want to create is where we will begin to find the answers we are looking for. Has the dualistic fight the enemy method worked in the past? Are we not still here regardless of having used this method in the past? Maybe it’s time for a new conversation, one that looks at ourselves in a whole new light. This perhaps is how we will solve our ongoing challenges at their core.

Below is a deeper discussion about it from CE Founder Joe Martino.  You can follow me, Arjun, here on Instagram.