vaccine comparison study revisited

Starting from the assumption that vaccines were good, valuable, and important, a Jackson State University study finds disconcerting patterns of injury to children by the simple expedient of collecting real data from vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

This SHOULD be a wakeup call.

People SHOULD be inspired to learn about the natural immune system, which is an amazing, intricate, successful masterpiece of nature. Take care of it; it takes care of us.

Reinforcing that is the $142 million that has been awarded to 337 vaccine injured families so far this year who had the tenacity, support and appropriate documentation to claim damages in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VCIP). By what logic are the vaccine companies immune to damages done by their products? And how is it the claims against them are exempt from the normal courts of law that preside over every other industry?

One thing that makes the vaccine industry SPECIAL is their $50 BILLION a year income distributing products that merely claim to work … regulated by “the experts” who used to work for the pharmaceutical industry, and will again after they serve their term in the agencies regulating those industries.

The proof that vaccines work? The producers’ assurances.
The proof they do no harm? The producers’ assurances.

Incredibly, the vaccines arrive at doctors’ offices with a very large, super-fine-print document detailing a litany of disabling and lethal KNOWN side effects.
You can read this before your child is injected, but you won’t.
Your doctor could read this before administering them, but he/she won’t.

Rise above the mundane. Ask to see “the insert”.

At least look around a bit.

In the movie VAXXED (which I highly recommend), there is a clip of the CDC head testifying before Congress trying to dodge the question, but finally cornered into admitting that they have never studied the health of vaccinated VS unvaccinated humans. Is that not the most fundamental and obvious question that should be asked?

One thing the Jackson State University study proves beyond a shadow of a doubt is that study should be undertaken on a larger scale.


P.S. Among the biggest challenges facing one who begins to question the approved vaccine narrative is the denial that people could do something bad to others, and in particular that doctors and federal regulators could. To attribute our own moralities to those people is nice, but may well be misplaced. Where do the sociopaths and narcissists go? Might they be attracted to power and money in places normal people would not? This concept might be a bit strong for one beginning to question, but you should be open to the possibility.

P.P.S. I published much of this a couple days ago. In revisiting it I found I wanted to clean it up a bit, and say more about it.


Confirmed science shows that vaccinated children have 420% higher risk of ADHD compared to non-vaccinated kids

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

(Natural News) For the longest time, I’ve wondered why scientists have not done more straightforward, direct comparisons of the health outcomes of vaccinated children versus those whose parents have chosen not to vaccinate them. After all, that would provide the definitive answer, wouldn’t it? No more of this shilly-shallying back and forth; if you took a group of kids around the same age, half of whom were vaccinated while the other half were not, and checked which group had the better health outcomes, the vaccine debate would be over.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other agencies have stubbornly refused to promote such uncomplicated, straight-forward scientific analyses – no points for figuring out why – but a group of scientists from the School of Public Health at Jackson State University has nonetheless risen to the challenge. For those who have been warning parents about the dangers of vaccines for years, like Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the scientists’ findings are not the least bit surprising.

The study, which was published recently in the Journal of Translational Science, sought to do two things: Firstly, the scientists wanted to compare a broad range of health outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated children; and secondly, they wanted to determine whether there was an association between vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) which remained significant after adjusting for other factors.

Interestingly, the study abstract begins by singing the praises of vaccines and all they have accomplished in preventing diseases in the past. They then go on to point out, however, that in terms of the current recommended pediatric vaccine schedule, children receive 48 doses of vaccines to prevent 14 different diseases by the age of 6 – a number which has increased steadily over the past 60 years.

The researchers point out that individual vaccines are tested before being rolled out to the public, and that though they are known to carry risks, these risks are believed to be minimal.

But here’s the kicker: It’s the long-term effects of these vaccines, and particularly having so many vaccines in such a short space of time, that scientists have not assessed. “There are very few randomized trials on any existing vaccine recommended for children in terms of morbidity and mortality,” they note, “in part because of ethical concerns involving withholding vaccines from children assigned to a control group.”

Okay, so scientists haven’t wanted to withhold vaccines from children in order to study them, as that would raise ethical concerns, so they’ve rather just gone ahead with vaccinating millions of children with pretty much untested vaccine combinations? Okay … moving on.

The abstract explains that the major controversy raging at the moment is whether vaccination can be linked to neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) like autism, ADHD and so on – a controversy which has been “fueled by the fact that the U.S. is experiencing what has been described as a ‘silent pandemic’ of mostly subclinical developmental neurotoxicity, in which about 15% of children suffer from a learning disability, sensory deficits, and developmental delays.”

For their study, researchers studied 666 children, 39 percent of whom were unvaccinated – they managed to find a large enough control group of unvaccinated kids by approaching homeschool organizations.

Though the vaccinated kids were found to have lower incidences of chicken pox and whooping cough, there were no significant differences in the rates of other diseases, including Hepatitis A or B, high fever over the previous 6-month period, measles, mumps, meningitis (either bacterial or viral), the flu or rotavirus!

And that’s not all. Vaccinated children were “significantly more likely than the unvaccinated” to have developed one or more of the following:

Autism: 4.2 times higher risk

ADHD: Also 4.2 times higher risk

Learning disabilities: 5.2 times greater risk

Eczema: 2.9 times higher risk

Allergic rhinitis: a massive 30 times higher risk

So, vaccines failed in both areas:

  1. The health outcomes with regard to the diseases being vaccinated against were not really any better for vaccinated children than for unvaccinated kids, with the exception of whooping cough and chicken pox; and
  2. The risk of developing a long-term NDD was much higher for vaccinated children than for those who were unvaccinated.

But then, that’s what we’ve been saying all along, isn’t it?

Sources include:[PDF]