Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated: The Study Skeptics Tried to Hide

JUNE 11, 2017 BY  17 COMMENTS

Snopes Was Part of the Coverup

A long-awaited research study came to light recently, the first of its kind to compare goodly numbers of vaccinated vs unvaccinated kids.

What was the study seeking to learn?

The researchers cautiously asked a logical, but unorthodox question: is it possible that all this immune–mediated disease has anything to do with the immune-mediating drugs that children are given in doses five times that of their parents? (And yes, autism is brain damage but it is almost certainly the result of a damaged immune system). Could it have anything to do with the 50 doses of 15 immune-stimulating vaccines before age six compared to the three doses of three vaccines the last generation — that wasn’t so sick — got?1

First of Its Kind

When I say long-awaited, it’s because this kind of study has never been done.

It compared well-matched children who were vaccinated and unvaccinated, and tracked how they fared from age 6-12.

It is one of very few studies to examine the explosion of once rare disorders and conditions affecting modern children (all the millions of 21st century First World earaches, allergies, hayfever, ADD, neurodevelopmental disorders and autism, that is damaging young children’s brains in spiking numbers).2

And, The Envelope, Please

The results were quite striking.

The vaccinated kids had significantly greater health challenges, especially the chronic, long lasting kind:

Vaccinated children were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with the following: allergic rhinitis (10.4% vs. 0.4%, p <0.001…), other allergies (22.2% vs. 6.9%, p <0.001…), eczema/atopic dermatitis (9.5% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.035…), a learning disability (5.7% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.003…), ADHD (4.7% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.013…), ASD (4.7% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.013…), any neurodevelopmental disorder (i.e., learning disability, ADHD or ASD) (10.5% vs. 3.1%, p <0.001…) and any chronic illness (44.0% vs. 25.0%, p <0.001…).3

Oh, and ASD? Yes, that’s Autism Spectrum Disorder.

In simple language,

The researchers got some very troubling answers. They reported Odds Risk ratios similar to smoking and lung cancer for vaccination and immune-mediated allergic rhinitis, for example. And a more than four-fold higher risk of vaccinated children having been diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum than unvaccinated children.4

Kids and Animals? Not All That Different

They all suffer similar chronic diseases, with allergies of one kind or another topping the list.

While the humans tend to show allergies in their respiratory tracts (sneezing, stuffed up noses), the favored organs for our pets to show allergies are usually skin and ears.

And, as you may remember, we have over a decade’s worth of data showing allergic skin disease and allergic ear inflammation are the #1 and #2 reasons dogs get taken to vets.

So, this recent study is significant to you, as you choose who’s going to wear the “prevention pants” in your family.

Are you going to give them to Dr. WhiteCoat?

Or put them on yourself?

Because the number of vaccinations your pet gets really depends on who owns this conversation.

Does your Dr. WhiteCoat still recommend annual (God forbid!) or triennial vaccinations for your pet? With a bit of study on this site and elsewhere, you’ll quickly learn there’s zero science behind such protocols.

Dirty Tricks Department

Here’s where you get the lowdown on who’s on your side and who’s not to be trusted.

I wrote about the so-called skeptics earlier and suggested they aren’t worth your time and attention. But they are worth keeping a cautious eye on.

That’s really become clear with what happened to this study on kids, vaccinated vs unvaccinated.

The study, even before publication in a peer-reviewed journal, was withdrawn. Why?

When the Mawson paper was under review at Frontiers last year, a Skeptic named Leonid Schneider leapt into action.

“I pride myself to have caused the Frontiers anti-vaxx retraction with one tweet!” he tweeted. “The anti-vaxx paper was published as abstract, a reader alerted me, I tweeted, Frontiers got scared, pulled the paper.” Before it was published.5

Scared the publisher? (Frontiers is one who published the author’s work)

Yep, bring those jackboots down on the publisher, and get all proud of scaring him out of publishing something that could help us understand vaccines and health better.

See why you want to keep an eye out for these guys and their shenanigans?

Truth Triumphs Over Fear. Snopes Loses All Credibility.

It didn’t take long before cooler heads prevailed, and the paper was indeed published.

Snopes has yet to update their posts about the paper being “retracted,” which it never was. It was just delayed.

In case you haven’t heard it before, Snopes is not a trustworthy source of ferreting out truth, as I once thought it was. Looking more like a grocery store tabloid lately, it’s clearly aligned with those biased skeptics whose goal is to keep you in the dark.

In another example, Snopes defended Trifexis’ safety.

Based on what?

The manufacturer’s brief safety studies that got Trifexis to market quickly. And some vets who believed that Elanco study and are selling big bunches of Trifexis to unwary pet owners.

Umm, sorry, Snopers, you’re no longer going to be believed as a source of neutral inquiry into what’s real on the internet.

How Does This Human Study Affect Your Decisions?

Let us know in the comments if this study has ramifications for your vaccination choices for your animals.

Does it confirm your present stance, start you thinking it’s time to shift, or drive you in some other direction?

Vaccination is, in my mind, your most significant decision, bar none. Tell us where you stand.