I noticed someone posted about vaccine dangers, and in particular childhood vaccines. There is a truckload of studies now out that is outright damming about them. There is no one in this world after reading these posts/studies that can say there were uninformed about childhood shots.
If they continue to administer childhood vaccines, there are guilty of abuse of children.
Dr Paul Thomas studies;
One of the most striking studies
was conducted by Dr. Paul Thomas in 2020. Thomas examined the health outcomes of
561 unvaccinated children, finding zero cases of autism among them. In contrast, among 894 children who followed the CDC-recommended vaccination schedule, 15 cases of autism were documented. With a p-value of 0.0008, the results were statistically significant, revealing an extraordinary disparity between the two groups. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated as infinity, with a 95% confidence interval suggesting a high likelihood that the vaccinated group faced significantly higher risks of autism.
The vaccinated children were also more likely to struggle with a host of other chronic health issues, including asthma, developmental delays, reoccurring ear infections, chronic sinusitis, etc.
Although the study was temporarily retracted after critics argued that increased autism rates could be attributed to more frequent doctor visits in the vaccinated group, this claim was later disproved
by further research from Lyons-Weiler and Blaylock.
Interestingly, Thomas's pioneering research is now being replicated by pediatricians across the country.
Liz Mumper reduced the incidence of autism in her practice six-fold by simply limiting the number of vaccines given to children.
In 2007,
the Generation Rescue (GR) study, which looked at the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, also found that vaccinated children fared worse in every category tested. Despite being a small study funded with minimal resources, the results raised serious concerns about the safety of vaccines, prompting the organization to question why similar studies have not been conducted on a larger scale by institutions like the CDC.
GR’s study, which was conducted by a third-party survey firm to ensure unbiased results, found significant differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, including higher rates of autism, allergies, and other chronic health issues in the vaccinated group.
"We surveyed over 9,000 boys in California and Oregon and
found that vaccinated boys had a 155% greater chance of having a neurological disorder like ADHD or autism than unvaccinated boys" the study authors reported in June 2007. The study’s findings, however, have never been replicated by government agencies, and critics argue that the lack of follow-up studies on the issue is suspicious.
Hooker's and Mawson's research
Another key study, led by Dr. Brian Hooker and Neil Miller in 2021, found a 5.03 times higher odds ratio for autism in vaccinated children compared to their unvaccinated peers. Hooker’s research reignited concerns over the safety of vaccines, particularly given the increasing rates of autism diagnoses in recent decades. Hooker’s study, alongside
another by Dr. Tony Mawson in 2017, also found an increased risk of autism among vaccinated children, with Mawson's study reporting a 4.2 odds ratio for autism in vaccinated children. Mawson's latest dataset (not yet published) includes a much larger dataset (50,000 children) and shows the same odds ratios for chronic diseases in the vaccinated children.
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of these studies is that they seem to challenge data from larger institutions like the CDC, which continue to affirm the safety of vaccines. Hooker’s findings in particular led to his access being revoked by the CDC, further fueling suspicions about transparency and data manipulation within government agencies.
The Garner control group study
In 2022, Dr. Paul Garner and colleagues
published a groundbreaking study that revealed an astonishing 82 times higher odds ratio for autism in vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated children. This study, which involved a large control group, found that among children who had zero exposure to vaccines, the rate of autism was effectively zero. Garner's team conducted a comprehensive analysis using data from 10,000 children, finding a statistically significant association between vaccinations and autism, with a confidence interval ranging from 5.12 to 1315.
The findings of Garner's study were particularly noteworthy because they aligned with those of the Control Group study, a long-running research initiative focused on unvaccinated children. Researchers noted that the Control Group’s data showed not only lower autism rates but also better health outcomes across a range of conditions.
Together, these studies point to the simple truth -- vaccines do have a major role in the autism epidemic. And, vax freedom leads to fewer health issues in children, including autism.
Then the Flu vaccine;
Findings from
three important Cochrane reviews on the effectiveness of the influenza vaccination aren’t consistent with the advice we’re been given.
Cochrane reviews are independent systematic reviews, which are comprehensive analyses of most of the literature relevant to a research topic. Cochrane reviews summarise the results in a multitude of studies, and are regularly updated to absorb new research.
These three Cochrane reviews have been recently updated, as well as stabilised, which is what happens when it looks as if it seems unlikely new research would be published that would change the conclusions.
What the reviews found
The
first Cochrane review looked at the effects of the influenza vaccine in healthy adults from 25 studies conducted over single influenza seasons in North America, South America, and Europe between 1969 and 2009. It found the vaccine reduced the chance of getting laboratory confirmed influenza from 23 cases out of 1,000 to 9 cases out of 1,000.
While this seems to be a reduction of more than 50%, that seems less optimistic expressed in absolute terms.
The infection rate in adults drops from 2% per year to 1%. You could say that’s halved, but it effectively only drops by 1%.
So this means that out of every 100 healthy adults vaccinated, 99 get no benefit against laboratory confirmed influenza.
The
second Cochrane review – which looked at trials in children over single influenza seasons in the US, Western Europe, Russia, and Bangladesh between 1984 and 2013 – found similar results.
The
third Cochrane review looked at vaccines for the elderly in nursing homes. It found much less good evidence, with only one randomised trial –
considered the gold standard in clinical trials as it establishes causation rather than correlation.
While
observational studies (that draw inferences from a population to establish associations) have been done to show benefits of the vaccines, bias means we
cannot rely on their results.
There are also potential harms from influenza vaccines noted in the reviews. They range from serious (a neurological disease called Guillain Barre) through to moderate (fevers, in children especially – some of which will cause febrile convulsions), and trivial (a sore arm for a couple of days).
The major issue with any and all vaccines, is not the attenuated ingredient that is designed to attribute protection, but the excipients that are the dangerous component. Toxic levels of mercury, aluminum, lead, formaldehyde, various other excipients that have no business being in a medical intervention treatment/prevention. These dangerous ingredients make their way easily through the blood brain barrier and cause a host of illness that are of greater danger than what the medical treatment/intervention procedure is trying to do.
