The More Vaccines An Infant Receives In Its First Year, The Higher The Mortality Rate

[donnay]

The More Vaccines An Infant Receives In Its First Year, The Higher The Mortality Rate
by DAVE MIHALOVIC

How many babies have to die for Doctors to get it? Synergistic toxicity is a well-known phenomenon where the combination of toxic substances can be greater than the sum of its parts. Therefore, mixing two non-lethal levels of chemicals inside a vaccine can lead to an extremely toxic mixture. The medical community appears to gloss over this very pertinent fact that appears to be progressively killing more infants every year.

"Synergistic toxicity" refers to the effect that when exposed to two toxins, the toxicity level is far greater than the additive toxicity levels of the two toxins. A good example demonstrating ‘synergistic toxicity’ is a 1978 study on mice (Shubert et al. Combined Effects in Toxicology -- A Rapid systematic Testing Procedure: Cadmium, Mercury & Lead. J. of Toxicology & Environmental Health 4:763, 1978). The study took the amount of mercury salt that kills 1 in 100 mice and 1/20th of the amount of lead salt that kills 1 in 100 mice. When these amounts of mercury salt and lead salt were administered, the synergistic toxicity of these two toxins killed 100 in 100 mice.

It is important to understand the concept of ‘synergistic toxicity’, as research is increasingly showing that different toxins are typically synergistic rather than additive in the human body. However when testing is performed on a toxicity of a substance, the ‘level of harm’ is set based on an assumption that the substance is the only toxin to which he body is being exposed.

A study published in the Human and Experimental Toxicology journal has found a direct statistical correlation between higher vaccine doses and infant mortality rates. It is a confirmation that many anti-vaccine advocates have long awaited and further establishes and adds to preliminary evidence that vaccinations are toxic poisons having no place in the human body.

The study, Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?, was conducted by Gary S. Goldman and Neil Z. Miller who has been studying the dangers of vaccines for 25 years.

The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year--the most in the world--yet 33 nations have lower IMRs. Australia and Canada are a close 2nd and 3rd respectively with 24 vaccine doses.

Some countries have IMRs that areless than half the US rate: Singapore, Sweden, and Japan are examples. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "The relative position of the United States in comparison to countries with the lowest infant mortality rates appears to be worsening. "

Many nations adhere to an agreed upon International Classification of Diseases (ICD) for grouping infant deaths into 130 categories. Among the 34 nations analyzed, those that require the most vaccines tend to have the worst IMRs. Thus, we must ask important questions: is it possible that some nations are requiring too many vaccines for their infants and the additional vaccines are a toxic burden on their health? Are some deaths that are listed within the 130 infant mortality death categories really deaths that are associated with over-vaccination? Are some vaccine-related deaths hidden within the death tables?

"A single vaccine given to a six-pound newborn is the equivalent of giving a 180-pound adult 30 vaccinations on the same day. Include in this the toxic effects of high levels of aluminum and formaldehyde contained in some vaccines, and the synergist toxicity could be increased to unknown levels. Further, it is very well known that infants do not produce significant levels of bile or have adult renal capacity for several months after birth. Bilary transport is the major biochemical route by which mercury is removed from the body, and infants cannot do this very well. They also do not possess the renal (kidney) capacity to remove aluminum. Additionally, mercury is a well-known inhibitor of kidney function. "--Boyd Haley Ph.D.

How Many Deaths Are Necessary?

The end of 2011 was masked with sadness for Belgium parents Raphael Sirjacobs & Beatrice Dupont, as their nine week old daughter Stacy Sirjacobs lost her fight for life. Stacy died just one week after her first vaccinations and left her twin sister Lesly behind. The twins received Prevenar, a vaccine against meningitis and pneumonia, Infanrix Hexa, a six in one vaccination for diphtheria, tetanus, polio, pertussis, hepatitis B and Haemophilus type B, and finally the Rotarix, a preventive vaccine for gastroenteritis. This means that these tiny vulnerable babies received a staggering nine vaccines in one day, vaccines that may have caused one of them to die.


A government inquiry was launched in 2011 has found that polio vaccines for infants funded by the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunisation are causing deaths and disabilities in regional countries including Pakistan. The report on The Express Tribune also suggested suspending the mass polio campaign, including the administration of pentavalent vaccines -- a mixture of five vaccines until an inquiry finds these vaccines safe for children. There is now evidence that polio paralysis has also been a very common yet discreetly hidden side effect associated with polio vaccines.

When the first, injectable, polio vaccine was tested on 1.8 million American children, within a few days they had a huge epidemic of paralytic polio: in the vaccinated, their parents and other contacts.

On February 21, 2013, a one month-old baby girl died after receiving 5 vaccinations. Baby Ayushi Gupta died at the Maltibai Hospital, Thane, West Mumbai in India just hours after receiving her vaccinations for Hepatitis B, DPT (diptheria, pertussis and tetanus) and oral pulse polio drops.

Vaccine Composition

This analysis calculated the total number of vaccine doses received by children but did not differentiate between the substances, or quantities of those sub-stances, in each dose. Common vaccine substances include antigens (attenuated viruses, bacteria, toxoids), preservatives (thimerosal, benzethonium chloride,2-phenoxyethanol, phenol), adjuvants (aluminum salts), additives (ammonium sulfate, glycerin, sodium borate, polysorbate 80, hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, potassium chloride), stabilizers (fetal bovine serum, monosodium glutamate, human serumal bumin, porcine gelatin), antibiotics (neomycin, strep-tomycin, polymyxin B), and inactivating chemicals (formalin, glutaraldehyde, polyoxyethylene). For the purposes of this study, all vaccine doses were equally weighted.

Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of 0.70 was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. When nations were grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges, 98.3% of the total variance in IMR was explained by the unweighted linear regression model. These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rate.

Mercury Still In 50 Percent of All Flu Vaccines

In 2009, eight out of ten H1N1 vaccines had thimerosal. For 2011/2012 flu vaccine season, three out of five FDA approved vaccines has thimerosal. This past year, the 2012/2013 season offered three out of six flu vaccines which contained thimerosal and were FDA approved.

If you have any doubts on the neurotoxic potential of thimerosal, please review the following scientific publications which document the adverse effects of mercury, merthiolate and ethyl mercury.

"One publication showed that combining mercury and lead both at LD1 levels caused the killing rate to go to 100% or to an LD100 level (12). An LD1 level is where, due to the low concentrations, the mercury or the lead alone was not very toxic alone (i.e. , killed less than 1% of rats exposed when metal were used alone). The 100% killing, when addition of 1% plus 1% we would expect 2%, represents synergistic toxicity. Therefore, mixing to non-lethal levels of mercury plus lead gave an extremely toxic mixture! What this proves is that one cannot define a “safe level of mercury” unless you absolutely know what others toxicants the individual is being exposed to. The combined toxicity of various materials, such as mercury, Thimerosal, lead, aluminum, formaldehyde, etc. , is unknown. The effects various combinations of these toxicants would have is also not defined except that we know they would be much worse than any one of the toxicants alone. So how could the ADA take any exception, based on intellectual considerations, to my contention that combinations of Thimerosal and mercury could exacerbate the neurological conditions identified with autism and AD? Autism and AD have clinical and biological markers that correspond to those observed in patients with toxic mercury exposure. Why would the ADA take this position? I personally feel like I have been in a ten-year argument with the town drunk on this issue. Facts don’t count and data is only valid if it meets the pro-amalgam agenda. The synergistic effects of mercury with many of the toxicants commonly found in our environment make the danger unpredictable and possibly quite severe, especially any mixture containing elemental mercury, organic mercury and other heavy metal toxicants such as aluminum. " ~ Boyd Haley

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.


Sources:
safeminds.org
vactruth.com
scribd.com
tribune.com.pk
whale.to

[angelatc]

"One publication showed that combining mercury and lead both at LD1 levels caused the killing rate to go to 100% or to an LD100 level (12).

The same fallacies over and over and over. Fallacy #1: There is no mercury in the overwhelming majority of childhood vaccines now.

[angelatc]

Despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country,4 33 nations have better IMRs. Some countries have IMRs that are less than half the US rate: Singapore, Sweden, and Japan are below 2.80. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “The relative position of the United States in comparison to countries with the lowest infant mortality rates appears to be worsening.”5
There are many factors that affect the IMR of any given country. For example, premature births in the United States have increased by more than 20% between 1990 and 2006. Preterm babies have a higher risk of complications that could lead to death within the first year of life.6

Fallacy #2 - there is no standard for reporting infant mortality. The United States considers infants to be born alive even when they are incredibly premature, while other nations don't.

http://10centimeters.com/friday-fall...e-third-world/

[angelatc]

Fallacy #3:

However, this does not fully explain why the United States has seen little improvement in its IMR since 2000.7

[angelatc]

Fallacy number 4:

Infant mortality

The infant mortality rate is expressed as the number of infant deaths per 1000 live births. According to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which keeps accurate, up-to-date infant mortality statistics throughout the world, in 2009 there were 33 nations with better infant mortality rates than the United States (Table 1).8 The US infant mortality rate of 6.22 infant deaths per 1000 live births ranked 34th.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...cine-movement/

[angelatc]

Fallacy #5:

Assuming that the authors are scientists:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...cine-movement/

The first author, Neil Z. Miller, is described as an “independent researcher, and the second author, Gary S. Goldman, is described as an “independent computer scientist.” This is not a promising start, as neither of them appear to have any qualifications that would lead a reader to think that they have any special expertise in epidemiology, vaccines, or science.

Also a "back at ya " logic fail - if all studies are financially contaminated by the people who stand to profit from said study:

NaturalNews.com points out that the “National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) donated $2500 and Michael Belkin donated $500 (in memory of his daughter, Lyla) fo r open access to the journal article (making it freely available to all researchers).” The NVIC, as you recall, was founded by Barbara Loe Fisher and is one of the oldest and most influential anti-vaccine groups in the U.S., having recently teamed up with Joe Mercola to promote anti-vaccine views.

Conflict of interest:

Miller has a long history of anti-vaccine activism, having written books with titles like Vaccine Roulette: Gambling With Your Child’s Life, Immunization Theory vs Reality: Expose on Vaccinations, andVaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?, among others. But that’s not all; he’s also the director of the ThinkTwice Global Vaccine Institute and in fact is hosting a copy of this study on his website. Gary S. Goldman is even more interesting. It turns out that he is the President and Founder of Medical Veritas, a rabidly anti-vaccine “journal” that is into HIV/AIDS denialism, having published dubious “reanalyses” of autopsy results of victims of AIDS, such as Eliza Jane Scovill. He also notes at his website that he’s written books entitled The Chickenpox Vaccine: A New Epidemic of Disease and Corruption.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...cine-movement/

[angelatc]

Cherry picking data:

First, why did the authors use 2009 data? The cited reference notes that the data were accessed back in April 2010. That’s over a year ago. Did it really take over a year between submission and publication. Be that as it may, whenever I see investigators trying to correlate two variables like infant mortality and the number of vaccines I ask: What is the rationale? It’s the “storks deliver babies” fallacy all over again. In fact, it’s amazingly simple to find spurious “correlations,” as has been demonstrated time and time again as bloggers find correlations between unrelated things, such asvaccines and automobile deaths and the rise in global temperatures and the number of pirates.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...cine-movement/

[angelatc]

Intentionally misrepresnting numbers:

the way Miller and Goldman are counting vaccines is completely arbitrary and riddled with mistakes.

Arbitrary: they count number of vaccines in US bins (DTaP is one, hib is separate) and non-specific designations (some "polio" is still given as OPV in Singapore), rather than antigens. If they did that, Japan, still giving the live bacterial vaccine BCG, would immediately go to the top of the list. That wouldn't fit the agenda, of course. But if you go by "shot" rather than by antigen, why are DTaP, IPV, hepB and hib counted as 4 shots for example in Austria, when they are given as Infanrix hexa, in one syringe?

Mistakes: The German childhood vaccination schedule recommends DTaP, hib, IPV AND hepB, as well as PCV at 2, 3 and 4 months, putting them squarely into the 21 - 23 bin. The fourth round of shots is recommended at 11 to 14 months, and MenC, MMR and Varicella are recommended with a lower age limit of 11 months, too, which means that a number of German kids will fall into the highest bin, at least as long as you count the Miller/Goldman way.

Then, they neatly put those arbitrarily counted doses into bins. Binning (i.e. grouping numbers before correlating them to something) always makes me suspicious. I don't have the time to check each country's vaccination schedule - I assume there will be mistakes in many claims, but I am guessing that if we plotted the infant mortality against the actual number of recommended vaccines, the correlation would be less good than engineered in this paper, i.e. the dose count above is probably not all that "arbitrary".

http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2011/...go-to-bed.html

[angelatc]

Sleight of hand:

From the paper:

Nations differ in their immunization requirements for infants aged less than 1 year. In 2009, five of the 34 nations with the best IMRs required 12 vaccine doses, the least amount, while the United States required 26 vaccine doses, the most of any nation. To explore the correlation between vaccine doses that nations routinely give to their infants and their infant mortality rates, a linear regression analysis was performed.

The rebuttal:

This is known as starting with a reasonable observation and then switching to a hypothesis with little or no scientific justification, in essence pulling it out of thin air. The second question I would have is: Why a linear relationship? No justification is given for performing a linear regression analysis.

[talkingpointes]

Angela did actually read the table you posted in number 1. These people took most of the mercury out in 1999-2009. Most of the country was born before those years. Anyway. Keep going the rest is pretty damn good.

[angelatc]

And it goes on and on.

First two peer reviews I could find are partially, but nowhere near completely quoted above. For those of you that might actually care about science, they're here and here.

But I give credit for finally finding something that was in a peer reviewed journal. The next step is aknowledging that's just the first step in getting a theory accepted in the scientific community.

Apparently the bar is a lot lower in the anti-vax circles.

[angelatc]

Angela did actually read the table you posted in number 1. These people took most of the mercury out in 1999-2009. Most of the country was born before those years. Anyway. Keep going the rest is pretty damn good.

Most thermosil was removed in 2003. The stat set they studied was 2009.

Here's their chart:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...05/figure1.jpg

[donnay]

The study:

http://www.nvic.org/PDFs/Infant-Mortality-study.aspx

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The same fallacies over and over and over. Fallacy #1: There is no mercury in the overwhelming majority of childhood vaccines now.

The discussion of mercury was largely discussed in the article about the study, but not central to the actual study. The scope of the study includes all vaccine ingredients (not just mercury) as measured in the variable of dose. You might say that each ingredient should be measured against the hypothesis; however, that would be a study limitation and not a fallacy.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Fallacy #2 - there is no standard for reporting infant mortality. The United States considers infants to be born alive even when they are incredibly premature, while other nations don't.

http://10centimeters.com/friday-fall...e-third-world/

No methodological fallacy. In fact, if you link to your quote, you'll see the CDC itself maintains, "However, it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking." I'll accept the CDC statement over your source of http://10centimeters.com/friday-fall...e-third-world/, a website that self-identifies as "a group of science-loving people."

You might also note the study's authors actually recalculated a second set of results, adjusting for your variances in international standards.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Fallacy #3:

Not sure where the fallacy lies here. In fact, your chart actually confirms your quote.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Fallacy #5:

Assuming that the authors are scientists:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...cine-movement/

If you're going to talk credentials, then consider that all of the material you quote is from "blogs." One is from a website that self-identifies as "a group of science-loving people." Another is "Catherina and Science Mom," two people who don't even bother to list any credentials. Your doctor source even sometimes seems incapable or unwilling to form his own opinion, so he cites Science Mom and even Wikipedia.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Cherry picking data:
[from the blogger Science Mom]: Did it really take over a year between submission and publication[?].

One year is a blip in the peer review process. Many studies often take longer to publish.

Cherry picking data:
[from the blogger Science Mom]: Be that as it may, whenever I see investigators trying to correlate two variables like infant mortality and the number of vaccines I ask: What is the rationale? It’s the “storks deliver babies” fallacy all over again. In fact, it’s amazingly simple to find spurious “correlations,” as has been demonstrated time and time again as bloggers find correlations between unrelated things, such asvaccines and automobile deaths and the rise in global temperatures and the number of pirates.

Determining correlation between two variables is the foundation of the scientific method, and hence, "the rationale." Inquiring about correlation between vaccines and IMR easily passes the scientific plausibility test, and would easily qualify as something to be justifiably observed and measured.
What is "amazingly simple" however, is to enroll in psychology 101 class, create the silliest correlations imaginable (remember how your professor did that?), and then proclaim your expertise regarding the plausibility of measuring more subtle variables.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Intentionally misrepresnting numbers:
[from the blogger Science Mom]: the way Miller and Goldman are counting vaccines is completely arbitrary and riddled with mistakes.

The only mistakes I see here are Science Mom's ability to use proper syntax to construct coherent sentences. I'm still trying to figure out this sentence from Science Mom:

"...the correlation would be less good than engineered in this paper..."

Science Mom's entire sentence is even more comical:

- I assume there will be mistakes in many claims, but I am guessing that if we plotted the infant mortality against the actual number of recommended vaccines, the correlation would be less good than engineered in this paper, i.e. the dose count above is probably not all that "arbitrary".

Nothing like guesswork in good science, eh "Science" Mom?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Intentionally misrepresnting numbers:
[from blogger Science Mom]: I don't have the time to check each country's vaccination schedule

Science Mom is critical of the study's authors for not undertaking the complex task of separating ingredients into variables (authors acknowledge that this is not the scope of the study anyway), but then, she herself, declines the simple task of checking vaccine schedules.

Sounds like Science Mom is more adept at creating wacky spurious relationships using pirates.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

[Science Mom has questions]:
This is known as starting with a reasonable observation and then switching to a hypothesis with little or no scientific justification, in essence pulling it out of thin air. The second question I would have is: Why a linear relationship? No justification is given for performing a linear regression analysis.

Why linear?
Well, probably because the authors weren't investigating the relationship of global warming to pirates.

And justification?
The authors discuss this in the paper. Sounds like Science Mom didn't read the whole study.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

First two peer reviews I could find are partially, but nowhere near completely quoted above. For those of you that might actually care about science, they're here and here.

One of your scientific "peer reviews" is a blog from people calling themselves "Catherina and Science Mom." The other is a doctor who quotes Catherina and also uses "Wikipedia" as one of his sources.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

But I give credit for finally finding something that was in a peer reviewed journal. The next step is aknowledging that's just the first step in getting a theory accepted in the scientific community.

Yes, most studies are often a start. If your sources think that this study is too "simple," then perhaps they would like to run different and multivariate analyses. The study authors discussed limitations and confounding variables, so I would certainly welcome replication of the study to include items such as ecological bias.

I won't count on this from Science Mom, however, since half of her Facebook type page seems to be more interested in commenting about all the conspiracy theory demons around her.

[ThePenguinLibertarian]

If mercury was the cause of Autism? why isn't autism going down? the answer is that we've radically redefined Autism and made is into a spectrum. Which is bull$#@!.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

If mercury was the cause of Autism? why isn't autism going down? the answer is that we've radically redefined Autism and made is into a spectrum. Which is bull$#@!.

Yeah, I've had a lot of completely normal acquantinces reveal to me they're technically autistic. Whatever, buddy. I guess you can use that as an excuse to claim disability and withdraw your 401k early.