Bitcoin Forum

The first-ever, peer-review study has been published comparing total-health in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Dr. Anthony Mawson led a research team that investigated the relationship between vaccination exposures and acute or chronic illnesses in home-schooled children. The vaccinated children had a much higher rate of autism and ADHD, at a rate of 470% higher than those who received no shots.  Vaccinated children were also more vulnerable to allergies and eczema. Unvaccinated children contract mild childhood diseases more frequently, but their vaccinated counterparts suffer pneumonia and ear infections more frequently. The finding that vaccination introduces a significant risk for autism is devastating to the vaccine industry and, therefore, will be vigorously attacked. –GEG

Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6-12 Year Old US Children

In a development that autism parents have long anticipated, the first-ever, peer-reviewed study comparing total health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children was released on line yesterday. According to sources close to the project, the study had been reviewed and accepted by two different journals, both of which pulled back on their approval once the political implications of the findings became clear. That's largely because, as parents have long expected, the rate of autism is significantly higher in the vaccinated group, a finding that could shake vaccine safety claims just as the first president who has ever stated a belief in a link between vaccines and autism has taken office.

Working in partnership with the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI), Dr. Anthony Mawson led a research team that investigated the relationship between vaccination exposures and a range of over 40 acute and chronic illnesses in home schooled children, a population chosen for its high proportion of unvaccinated children. Surveying families in four states–Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oregon—the study (officially titled Vaccination and Health Outcomes: A Survey of 6- to 12-year-old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children based on Mothers' Reports), reported a number of startling findings.

Vaccinated children were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder: most notably, the risk of being affected by an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) was 4.7 fold higher in vaccinated children; as well, ADHD risk was 4.7 fold higher and learning disability risk was 3.7 fold higher. Overall, the vaccinated children in the study were 3.7 times more likely to have been diagnosed with some kind of neurodevelopmental disorder.

Vaccinated children were also significantly more likely to be diagnosed with an immune-related disorder. The risk of allergic rhinitis (commonly known as hay fever) was over 30 times higher in vaccinated children, while the risk of other allergies was increased 3.9 fold and the eczema risk was increased 2.4 fold.

With respect to acute illness and infectious disease the outcomes were in some respects surprising.  As might be expected, unvaccinated children were significantly (4-10 times) more likely to have come down with chicken pox, rubella or pertussis. Perhaps unexpectedly, the unvaccinated children were less likely to suffer from otitis media and pneumonia: vaccinated children had 3.8 times greater odds of a middle ear infection and 5.9 times greater odds of a bout with pneumonia.

The study was based on a survey with participants recruited in a process led by NHERI and coordinated through 84 state and local homeschool groups. The survey itself was, according to the authors, "nonbiased and neutrally worded."

These findings in a study population of 666 children, 261 of whom (39%) were unvaccinated, are sure to stir controversy, in part because it is the first of its kind. The scientific literature on the long-term effects of the vaccination program is virtually silent. Most studies on the safety of vaccines only consider immediate or short-term effects. There was no obvious explanation for the differences in health outcomes observed between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups of children other than vaccination itself.

The finding that vaccination is a significant risk for autism is the most explosive finding in the paper. For well over a decade, parents concerned that vaccines were involved in autism's sharp rise have been calling for what has long been labelled the "vax/unvax" study. Public health officials such as Paul Offit have resisted these calls with claims that a comparative study of autism risk and other health outcomes in unvaccinated and vaccinated children would be retrospectively impossible and prospectively unethical.

Despite opposition from those like Offit, attempts to launch a formal vax/unvax study have been made for many years. In 2006, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D, NY) authored what is now called Vaccine Safety Study Act. Said Maloney to the opponents, "Maybe someone in the medical establishment will show me why this study is a bad idea, but they haven't done it yet." In 2007, Generation Rescue (one of the Mawson study's sponsors) retained a market research firm to undertake a similar survey (it is available on line and had similar findings but was never published in a scientific journal).

Less formal surveys focused on whether or not autism was present in the unvaccinated have also been undertaken in unusual populations, including the Amish and the patients of alternative health practitioners. Age of Autism founder Dan Olmsted investigated autism in the Amish, who vaccinate less frequently. Autism is rare among the Amish and the only autistic Amish children we discovered were also vaccinated. (Others reported cases in Amish children with birth defects, but not "idiopathic autism," the kind that occurs in otherwise typical children who are the heart of the current epidemic). The late Mayer Eisenstein reported in his HomeFirst practice in Chicago that he delivered more than 15,000 babies at home, and thousands of them were never vaccinated. Of these unvaccinated children, none had autism.

and whats missing

those 'home/birth' 'home schooled' parents who dont believe in medicine .. dont go to doctors to even get their kid diagnosed as autistic. they instead shelter them at home and just call them their special lil munchin and try feeding them wheatgrass soup thinking it will cure them

thus numbers of unvaccinated kids wont show as having much/any medical history because they avoid doctors to not have their actual illnesses recorded
these parents are the ones that dont want to have their kids branded/defined/diagnosed

I'll trade chickenpox for mild ear infection every day.
Same for pertussis, I'd rather have a pneumonia

And it is a study based on a survey, wow !  much scientific

And 666 children, if it is the devil's number, then they must definitely be right. 

This danish study on 657 000 kids followed during 13 years (for the first kids, and only to 4 years for the one joining last)  showed that there was no relation between MMR and autism. 
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-2101

But, hey, that large scale study must have been faked, but yours is the truth.

Did they have a control group? Are Danish vaccines different than USA vaccines? Not enough details in the study as listed in your link.

8)

Statistical Analysis
The main goal of our modeling strategy was to evaluate whether the MMR vaccine increases the risk for autism in children, subgroups of children, and time periods after vaccination. We defined subgroups according to 1) sibling history of autism (“genetic susceptibility”), sex, birth cohort, and prior vaccinations in the first year of life and 2) a summary index estimated from a disease risk model combining multiple environmental risk factors. The motivation for a summary index was that the combination of several factors each associated with only a moderate risk increase in autism had the potential of identifying children at higher risk through multiple risk factors, in contrast to many stratified analyses of single moderate risk factors.

We analyzed the study cohort by using survival analysis (14). Children in the cohort contributed person-time to follow-up from 1 year of age and until a first diagnosis of autism, death, emigration, unexplained disappearance from the source registers, diagnoses of autism-associated conditions or syndromes, or end of the study on 31 August 2013.

The MMR vaccination status was considered a time-varying variable; children could contribute time as both unvaccinated and vaccinated in our study. Using the cases of autism among siblings, we constructed a time-varying variable summarizing each child's sibling history of autism with the states “no siblings,” “siblings without autism,” or “siblings with at least one case of autism”; a missing value category covered the children who had unknown fathers. We used sibling history at study entry unless otherwise specified.

In a preliminary analysis based on maternal age, paternal age, smoking during pregnancy, method of delivery, preterm birth, 5-minute Apgar score, low birthweight, and head circumference, we estimated a disease risk score (15) (termed “autism risk score” throughout) for each child in the cohort. The autism risk score was derived in the complete study cohort by fitting a proportional hazards model of autism risk with attained age as underlying time-scale comprising the preselected variables as covariates. For each child, a score (in the form of a hazard ratio

---

relative to a child with reference values for all variables included) was calculated as the exponential of the sum of the estimated regression coefficients corresponding to the characteristics of the child. The score was categorized according to deciles which were combined into 4 risk groups: very low (first to third decile), low (fourth to sixth decile), moderate (seventh to ninth decile), or high (10th decile).

Survival times were then analyzed by using Cox regression with attained age as underlying time scale, producing HRs according to vaccination status. For fully adjusted models, the baseline hazard function was stratified on birth year, sex, other childhood vaccines received, sibling history of autism and autism risk score (in deciles). We evaluated the proportional hazards assumption of the main analysis by a joint test of homogeneity allowing the effect of vaccination to vary between the age intervals 1 to 3 years, 3 to 5 years, 5 to 7 years, 7 to 10 years, and more than 10 years (16).

We estimated autism HRs (aHRs) according to MMR vaccination status (yes or no), overall in the cohort and in several subanalyses: 4 analyses, each restricting risk time to young children by censoring observed survival times at 3, 5, 7, or 10 years of age; in subgroups characterized by sex, birth cohort, other childhood vaccines received, autism risk score, or autism history in siblings (joint tests for homogeneity of aHRs between levels of each factor were carried out [16]); and in specific periods after vaccination (comparing the hazard rates of autism in the first, second, third, and fourth year after vaccination and more than 4 years after vaccination, respectively, with the rate among unvaccinated children. A test for homogeneity of aHRs between intervals was conducted using a type 3 test (16).

We conducted several sensitivity analyses. To increase the validity of our autism case definition further, we conducted a main analysis with a case definition requiring at least 2 autism diagnosis registrations; an event was defined at date of second autism diagnosis. We evaluated specific autism phenotypes by conducting main analyses of autistic disorder and other autism spectrum disorder separately (with right censoring of other autism spectrum disorder when analyzing autistic disorder and vice versa). We conducted a dose-dependent fully adjusted analysis taking the second MMR dose into account by estimating the increase in HR per vaccination. Instead of adjusting for birth year, sex, other childhood vaccines received, sibling history of autism, and autism risk score by stratification of the baseline hazard, we included these as covariates. Finally, we replaced the autism risk score of the previous model with the 8 variables on which it was based.

Crude associations between variables included in the analyses and autism were estimated in proportional hazards models with attained age as underlying time-scale and autism as outcome, including only the specific variable of interest as a covariate.

Data management and statistical analyses were conducted by using SAS, version 9.4; the figures were created by using R, version 3.5.1. All Cox regressions were fitted by using the SAS PHREG procedure with the Breslow option for handling ties. Cumulative risks were calculated from the Kaplan-Meier estimates using the survfit function in R with the log-log option for confidence limits.

A control group, (did yours had one ?).  I'll let you read the extract below showing that they indeed assessed kids based on if siblings or family already had autism. Age of the parents, smoking, and other factors that are known to increase the risk of autism in babies.

The anti-Vax people believe that ALL the vaccines that exist in the word cause/give autism.
Hence, to prove them wrong, we just need a vaccine that doesn't cause autism.  (even though the  burden of proof should really be done by the anti-vax).
Even if Danish vaccines are different than USA ones, it shows that some danish vaccines don't cause autism and are safe.  Maybe you guys should source yours from the Danes.



I'll put here an extract of the Danish  link :

...

Based on more than 500 000 kids.

What are we comparing when we compare these studies? Is it apples to apples or apples to oranges?

What if one study had only two ingredients in all the vaccines? These two things would be a saline solution, and the dead virus.

What if the other study use the saline solution, the dead virus, formaldehyde, monkey kidney extract, dead baby tissue, mercury, aluminum, and other things.

Do the studies go into enough detail to determine what was in the actual vaccines? Makes a difference.

8)

wait
is badecker for once having an independant thought
is badecker finally grasping that its not actually the vaccine, but the adjunct ingredients in the mixture

wow. id never expected to see the day where badecker peels his mind away from his influencers that are virus deniers.

good on you badecker. a clear independent and actually relevant question to ask
scrw it. ill even give you some merit for this fluke event of an actual real valid question coming from you
but dont let it go to your head

What are we comparing when we compare these studies? Is it apples to apples or apples to oranges?

What if one study had only two ingredients in all the vaccines? These two things would be a saline solution, and the dead virus.

What if the other study use the saline solution, the dead virus, formaldehyde, monkey kidney extract, dead baby tissue, mercury, aluminum, and other things.

Do the studies go into enough detail to determine what was in the actual vaccines? Makes a difference.

8)

I admire the intellectual thinking you just did.
If done properly,  a vaccine shouldn't be harmful to the body (ie if it was just a dead virus with saline solution).

The same way, a blue cheese  (that has "mold") done according to the best practice isn't toxic for the body but contain something that should, in theory, makes us sick

Like not all humans are created equal, not all vaccines are  made the same way

To start, Google "CDC vaccine ingredients."     8)

maybe start by googling
adjunct vs adjuvants
(not essential/supplement/junk additive) vs (essential/enhancing/catalyst additives)

then you will realise that there is a difference
then do some research about how 'monkey kidneys' have not even been a thing for ~50 years so kids today have no worries..
.. well unless your the 51+yo kid in question


..
then look at the amount of ingrediants (microlitre values) in a vaccine and then google that 'ingrediant' in comparison to how much of it is contained in daily food/drink.

then come back once you have some answers.

please atleast while your having this independant thought moment. spend some time within those thoughts to do some proper research outside your cultish websites.

you may learn something. instead of just repeating a cultish narrative.
you may even be surprised by the less hostility you receive by actually doing more independant thinking/research

lets see..

(research spoiler: theres more of these 'ingredients' in a weeks food than a lifetime of vaccines)
(research spoiler: mercury was never in MMR or chickenpox vaccines or other similar childhood vaccines)
(research spoiler: white-bread/non-organic veg contains more mercury than a vaccine. but you can just ask for a mercury free vaccine)
(research spoiler: your cultish websites are not looking to heal kids. they want folowers to buy THEIR chemical supplements, so the cutish people can work at home and not get proper jobs. by deceiving people into handing them money on trust without proper credability, just scare tactics)
(research spoiler: when cultish leaders try to tell its flock that the world is a scary place out to kill them. and the only safe place is to hand the cultish leaders money/assets/devotion. and do the influencers bidding. you start to see the real agenda)

maybe start by googling
adjunct vs adjuvants
(not essential/supplement/junk additive) vs (essential/enhancing/catalyst additives)

then you will realise that there is a difference
then do some research about how 'monkey kidneys' have not even been a thing for ~50 years so kids today have no worries..
.. well unless your the 51+yo kid in question


..
then look at the amount of ingrediants (microlitre values) in a vaccine and then google that 'ingrediant' in comparison to how much of it is contained in daily food/drink.

then come back once you have some answers.

please atleast while your having this independant thought moment. spend some time within those thoughts to do some proper research outside your cultish websites.

you may learn something. instead of just repeating a cultish narrative.
you may even be surprised by the less hostility you receive by actually doing more independant thinking/research

lets see..

(research spoiler: theres more of these 'ingredients' in a weeks food than a lifetime of vaccines)
(research spoiler: mercury was never in MMR or chickenpox vaccines or other similar childhood vaccines)
(research spoiler: white-bread/non-organic veg contains more mercury than a vaccine. but you can just ask for a mercury free vaccine)
(research spoiler: your cultish websites are not looking to heal kids. they want folowers to buy THEIR chemical supplements, so the cutish people can work at home and not get proper jobs. by deceiving people into handing them money on trust without proper credability, just scare tactics)
(research spoiler: when cultish leaders try to tell its flock that the world is a scary place out to kill them. and the only safe place is to hand the cultish leaders money/assets/devotion. and do the influencers bidding. you start to see the real agenda)

I would tell you that consuming compared to injecting a substance that crosses the blood brain barrier along with an adjuvant has two TOTALLY different effects, but you already know that now don't you?

i would tell that vaccines are not injected directly in the brain. and your body has many complex things tht go on before anything even reaches the bloodbrain barrier

In the past you linked to safety studies. But safety studies that have control groups regarding vaccines have never been forthcoming. There is a reason for this, of course. Viruses mutate too rapidly for a study to have any value. The virus is gone or has changed, so the vaccine safety study is useless... if there even is one.

Got any links for anything that you state? Wuhan uses monkey brains and anything else they want.

i would tell that vaccines are not injected directly in the brain. and your body has many complex things tht go on before anything even reaches the bloodbrain barrier

Is that what I said? Is that your expert opinion Dr. Franky?

The Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) has now infected over 5.6 million people worldwide, according to data from Johns Hopkins University. As experts continue to study the contagion, some have suggested that there is more than one strain of the coronavirus. They believe that these mutations have greatly altered how infectious and deadly the virus is.

Since the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen behind COVID-19, researchers have looked into the virus’s genetic material and found variations in its genetic sequence. These mutations have raised questions about whether they influence how easily the coronavirus infects target cells and if they can increase a person’s likelihood of dying from COVID-19.

Looking for answers

According to virus experts, SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped RNA virus — that is, a type of virus with an outer wrapping (that comes from an infected cell) and whose genetic material is encoded in single-stranded RNA. Enveloped viruses make their own replication machinery inside their host cells.

RNA viruses are known for having high mutation rates, as their enzymes are more prone to errors during the replication process.

According to Jonathan Stoye, a virologist at the Francis Crick Institute in London: “A mutation is a change in a genetic sequence. The fact of a mutational change is not of primary importance, but the functional consequences are.”

then do some research about how 'monkey kidneys' have not even been a thing for ~50 years so kids today have no worries..
.. well unless your the 51+yo kid in question

In 1962, ..... a young biologist named Leonard Hayflick at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia had been quietly obtaining aborted fetuses from the University of Pennsylvania Hospital across the street. Hayflick was setting out to create a cell line, a group of self-replicating cells, from the lungs of an aborted fetus which he thought would serve as a great tool for those seeking to make vaccines in a safe and clean environment.

At the time, monkey kidney cells were being used to make the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines, which were the great public health victory of the day. However, simian monkey viruses were found lurking in those monkey kidney cells. One of these, called SV40, caused lethal cancers in laboratory hamsters. Tens of millions of American and British children were vaccinated with Salk vaccine that may well have contained the SV40 virus. So regulators were extremely concerned. Hayflick thought, If I can get cells from one fetus, determine that they’re clean, and not prone to cause cancer we can have a safe, clean micro-vaccine factory for making these viral vaccines.

WI-38 is a diploid human cell line composed of fibroblasts derived from lung tissue of a 3-month-gestation aborted female fetus.[1][2] The cell line, isolated by Leonard Hayflick in the 1960s,[3] has been used extensively in scientific research, with applications ranging from developing important theories in molecular biology and aging to the production of most human virus vaccines.[4] The contributions from this cell line towards human virus vaccine production have been credited with avoiding disease in, or saving the lives of, billions of people.[5][6]

I'll add some source to this.
It was very very interesting to read about it.

Basically monkey kidney vaccines  were stopped in the 60s

I'll add some source to this.
It was very very interesting to read about it.

Basically monkey kidney vaccines  were stopped in the 60s



source : https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/02/vaccine-race-history-science-politics-meredith-wadman/#:~:text=At%20the%20time%2C%20monkey%20kidney,lethal%20cancers%20in%20laboratory%20hamsters.

And wiki :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WI-38

Wikipedia has two basic kinds of information. It has the simple info that it tells the truth about. The sky is blue. Grass is green. Milk is racist, I mean white.

you inferred that whats injected stays in its exact same state and passes the bloodbrain barrier as is.
i corrected your assumption that your body does things to it before even getting near the brain. and the only way for your inference/scare tactic to be real is if someone was to directly inject the vaccine into the brain. which never happens

if you really want something to concern yourself that has some factual relevance. and not your cultish anti-vaxxer nonsense
is that if its injected in the fatty tissue vs the muscle.
the body metabolises it in the muscle and takes care of your first fears..
but if dont in the fatty tissue. it lingers there and can cause some irritation and to simplify it down.. gets all sticky and forms a fatty shell thus less metabolised as it goes around your system once it gets into your blood stream. but here is the good part. the fatty one.
once cycling your bodie blood stream wont get into your brain very well. thus less likely to be immunised up there.

so in short. your main worry is the skin irritation at the injection spot because the doctor didnt stick it in deep enough

...
However, vaccines have saved billions of people, that is a fact.
Vaccines have also killed "some" people  (the one in a million cases).