We know already the term “tobacco science”, meaning science that is paid for to show whatever is profitable and has nothing to do with facts. It won’t be long till this one will get a sibling: vaccine science, which fits the exactly same description. But till that happens we are stuck with the most absurd studies, like the one that shows that vaccines protect against strokes.
A drug that can cause a variety of really bad health problems in babies at once protects against a stroke: how many red flags do you want to rise? To start: I’m not good with numbers and I always need a bit of help to figure out how exactly numbers have been manipulated. But assuming the researchers haven’t made this study up (which could very well be), then at least they have made a real effort to get the results they wanted.
The researchers say that susceptibility to childhood strokes is largely genetic, but is it? The fact that some things run in families doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a genetic factor. Lifestyle is also something that runs in families. It’s said that minor infections can trigger a stroke in susceptible children. Funny that they are minor infections. Minor infections are very common, so how do they know that one influences the other? 18% of the children who had a stroke had such an infection in the week before. That means that 82% did not have that infection. So I don’t really see how you can come then to the conclusion that infection causes a stroke. But I’m not a scientist, so I’m sure I miss something here. Or maybe not.
Dr. Fullerton then states that fully vaccinated children have a much smaller chance for a stroke. That sounds interesting, but in the same paragraph the doctor shows that data have been manipulated (unless this is a typo of course, but I doubt it). “Under-vaccinated children (those who were not up to date on their vaccinations) were up to seven times more likely to have a stroke compared with children who had all or most of their immunizations.” Those who had not had all their shots had a bigger chance for a stroke than those who had had most of their shots. What’s the difference? It’s a nice way of saying that they just put children into one category or another, whatever was necessary. And many young children are not completely on schedule with their shots, as parents might come in a week later. That makes for an awful lot of “unvaccinated children”. The whole idea of sticking with the schedule is a complete fantasy anyway. Compare the schedules of ten different countries and you see ten completely different schedules. So how can these schedules be based on science?
“Vaccines clearly prevent major infections, such as those caused by chickenpox, measles and tetanus.” There we go with the inevitable nonsense. First: for everyone who knows their stuff it’s obvious that vaccines do not prevent anything. The chance of getting a certain disease is not any bigger if you aren’t vaccinated. It’s probably smaller. But never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Second: chickenpox and measles are not major infections, but mild childhood diseases. And whatever causes tetanus: it’s a very rare disease and almost non-existent in children. (And those who do get it are usually vaccinated).
“Fullerton added that parents who keep their children up to date on immunization may be more proactive about their child’s health care in general, compared with parents who don’t vaccinate.” Funny. I know loads of parents who don’t vaccinate (anymore) and most of them know exactly how to keep themselves and their children healthy. They usually don’t feed their children a lot of junk food and don’t run to the doctor for every sniffle. But staying healthy obviously doesn’t count as being pro-active. Nowadays good parenting seems to be measured by how often a parent takes the children to the doctor. Not a particularly scientific attitude.
“Biller said that vaccines appear to offer a lifetime of cardiovascular benefits.” Really? I get the feeling that it’s almost impossible to make it till a ripe old age without pharmaceutical intervention from cradle to grave. There is just one minor problem: the more vaccines, the higher the infant mortality and the higher the pediatric morbidity (number of sick children).
I didn’t dig into the details of this study to find how they had set up the study to get this result, but I can think of a few ways of doing it. Like I mentioned, if every child that is one day behind schedule is counted as not fully vaccinated you already go pretty well into the right direction. If then you make a difference between those who didn’t have all their shots and those who had almost all their shots, then you can say goodbye to any kind of credibility. And I’m sure that even that wasn’t enough to get this result. Maybe there were different definitions of stroke? I don’t know, but medical research is notoriously unreliable and unscientific, so let’s just leave it here.
“Vaccines are among the safest medical products,” Biller said. “The safety and effectiveness of vaccines routinely given to children and adults has been overwhelmingly favorable.” OK, that’s the usual unscientific crap. These researchers know very well that vaccines are dangerous. All doctors do. But for doctors it’s akin to blasphemy to openly admit it. And for scientists it’s professional suicide to say anything else than that vaccines are fantastic. Reality is that “vaccine science” is a contradiction in terms. You either have science, or you research vaccines. You can’t have your cake and eat it. Sorry guys.