Complusory Vaccination

The CDC had time and again claimed that Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism. Well-meaning scientists had disputed this statement and had sent letters to the CDC, only to be ignored. Here are 3 letters sent to them a few months ago. Despite evidence to the contrary the CDC still claims that there is absolutely no proof that vaccines could cause autism. Smart parents, I urge you to do your own research for the sake of your children.
letter1.jpg

letter2.jpg

letter3.jpg
 

Last edited:

bÜgz

Active Member
does anyone know of any clinic that offers the single measles only vaccination? Raffles Hospital & Japan Green Clinic no longer offer this option.
 

Nbsj

New Member
Hi winstonloh I would really like to have a talk to you regarding about vaccines as I am not sure what is good for my kids. I am totally stucked.
 
Some parents have asked: "Do we need to let a child take all recommended vaccinations before registering MOE schools."
The answer is "No".

Under the Infectious Diseases Act, vaccination against diphtheria and measles are compulsory. Other vaccinations under the National Childhood Immunisation Programme, although highly recommended, are optional.

Parents must evaluate the risks and benefits of vaccination if a child has medically conditions which parents have concerned.

The School Health Service visit to school yearly will seek parents consent to vaccine a child.
 

Ukm

New Member
Hi @winstonloh , i need answer asap. I'm gonna enroll my daughter tomorrow for K1 next year. She haven't got any single jab yet. Is there will be any problem if she want to enter kindergaten or primary sch later? So she already missed her compulsary vac. If the school insist that my daughter to get the jab, isit possible to do it now?

Thanks in advance
 
Hi,

You do not need to complete vaccinations to enter kindergarten and MOE schools.

But for certain large kindergarten organisations like PCF may insist your kid to go for vaccinations. Go for private kindergarten. You explain to them it is not necessary to have vaccinations. Just tell them why your kid got no vaccine.

Many Operators just follow without understanding why need vaccinations. One childcare principal called ECDA to enquire and ECDA said they understood why some parents do not alllow or complete vaccinations. The childcare principal then allowed the child to enrol. Many principals will understand after you explain.

For MOE schools, many schools do not even ask for vaccinations record. Even they ask you, just submit the health booklet and you can enrol your kid.

HPB will seek your consent every year for vaccinations in primary school.


Hi winstonloh i need answer asap. I'm gonna enroll my daughter tomorrow for K1 next year. She haven't got any single jab yet. Is there will be any problem if she want to enter kindergaten or primary sch later? So she already missed her compulsary vac. If the school insist that my daughter to get the jab, isit possible to do it now?

Thanks in advance
 

Nbsj

New Member
Hi,

I have not given my 2 year old son any other vaccines other than the BCG. With my second kid delivering soon, I am thinking of not giving her the BCG. Can I confirm that BCG is also not compulsory by law? Just thinking of how the nurses will react puts me off so just want to be sure.
Hi Helen
Can you share with me your experience on your child. Was he able to enrol for school
 
Hi Nbsj, my personal experience for primary school is that you are required to provide the immunization records (printed from here: https://www.nir.hpb.gov.sg/nirp/eservices/login) during enrolment. However there is no requirement that the child is immunized, therefore for my case I just printed from the website and my records listed zero vaccines. The printed slip was accepted as is and I had no issue enrolling my children for school.

Just put it this way - The MOH and the MOE are different government departments with different agendas.

The MOH's agenda is for the population to follow the recommended vaccine standards, which unfortunately was ultimately derived from the US CDC's standard which was proven by US regulatory watchdogs as corrupted (https://vaccinesafetycommission.org/cdc-conflicts.html).

The MOE's agenda is for the population to be educated. Whether or not your child is vaccinated is really secondary to them and they are not going to block your child from compulsory primary school education just because of vaccines.
 

Nbsj

New Member
Hi Nbsj, my personal experience for primary school is that you are required to provide the immunization records (printed from here: https://www.nir.hpb.gov.sg/nirp/eservices/login) during enrolment. However there is no requirement that the child is immunized, therefore for my case I just printed from the website and my records listed zero vaccines. The printed slip was accepted as is and I had no issue enrolling my children for school.

Just put it this way - The MOH and the MOE are different government departments with different agendas.

The MOH's agenda is for the population to follow the recommended vaccine standards, which unfortunately was ultimately derived from the US CDC's standard which was proven by US regulatory watchdogs as corrupted (https://vaccinesafetycommission.org/cdc-conflicts.html).

The MOE's agenda is for the population to be educated. Whether or not your child is vaccinated is really secondary to them and they are not going to block your child from compulsory primary school education just because of vaccines.
Thank you so much for your detailed reply. So how was your experience if you missed out the compulsory vaccinations .Thank you.
 
My experience missing out vaccination, for 2 children 7 and 5:
1. Minor ailments once or twice a year. Self recovery within a day or two
2. Never had any drugs (panadol, ibuprofen, antibiotics)
3. Excellent mental and physical skills
4. No chronic disease (allergy, tics, seizures, gut issues, skin issues). No eye issues, sleep issues. Never had any infection.
5. After birth, had only visited the doctor once each for consultation (not because of illness). As a result they don't know what a doctor visit looks like.

Check out parents' experience in antivax groups. Most parents there inadvertently conducted vaccinated (eldest child) vs unvaccinated studies (subsequent children), and the results are consistent across the board. You can learn it by sacrificing your first child, or you could learn from their experience.
 
Last edited:
The propaganda: People who don't vaccinate are nuts.

The science:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15231927
"Unvaccinated children tended to be white, to have a mother who was married and had a college degree, to live in a household with an annual income exceeding 75,000 dollars, and to have parents who expressed concerns regarding the safety of vaccines and indicated that medical doctors have little influence over vaccination decisions for their children."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17194865
Low maternal educational levels and low socioeconomic status were associated with high vaccination completion rate.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18816357
Parents who don’t vaccinate their children are highly educated, value scientific knowledge and are sophisticated at researching vaccines.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15837208
Highly educated parents and healthcare workers reject vaccines for their children.

https://www.bmj.com/content/332/7553/1312
"Mothers of unimmunised infants are older and more highly qualified than those of partially immunised infants"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21941215
"Maternal characteristics such as higher education and income are associated with nonreceipt of the Hepatitis B vaccination during the perinatal period. (master's degree vs eighth grade or less; income >$75,000 vs <$15,000)"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5923798/
Respondents with a lower level of education, compared with those with higher, more often declared vaccinations to be safe.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3113438/
College graduates delayed and refused vaccines whereas school dropouts (<12 years education) follow the recommended schedule.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18309964
Negative attitude of highly educated parents and health care workers towards future vaccinations in the Dutch childhood vaccination program.

https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2017/16_0314.htm
College-educated mothers have lower intent to have their child vaccinated with HPV. This is consistent with previous research that found an association between the refusal of all childhood vaccines and white, college-educated mothers and high-income parents. Other studies also show higher rate of HPV vaccination among low-income and minority adolescents.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20454567
"Having a family with two parents, ... and having more education was associated with a decreased likelihood of having a daughter receive the HPV vaccine."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17628649
Highly educated parents are the least likely to allow their daughters to receive the HPV vaccine

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17259050
College graduates reject HPV vaccination for their daughters; high school dropouts endorse it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18710678
"In a multinomial, multivariable logistic regression model, those mothers who had less than a high school degree... were more likely to be favorable about their daughter being vaccinated [with HPV]."

https://www.theatlantic.com/…/wealthy-la-schools-va…/380252/
Wealthy L.A. Schools' Vaccination Rates Are as Low as South Sudan's [60%-70% vaccination exemption rate]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26562114
Higher income, White population, and private school type significantly predicted greater increases in vaccination exemptions from 2007 to 2013, whereas higher educational attainment was associated with smaller increases.
 

Hsm1j5

New Member
Hi,

@winstonloh and @DerrickLee do you know about giving birth a hospitals in Singapore and whether they the jabs mandatory? I’m very afraid to be put in a position where I’m not informed or they compel me to give the jab at birth? I’m due andvery worried.

does anyone know of doctors who allow for a delayed schedule or have given exemption? Do you know what it’s based on?
 
At birth, baby will be given BCG and Hep 'B' vaccines. Both are not mandatory.

In Singapore, as mentioned in the posting, only two vaccines are compulsory. However, depending on the baby health conditions and risk factors, you may not need to give them.

Nobody can "force" you to give your baby vaccination if you are not comfortable to do so.

Lastly, I encourage you to find out individual vaccine's risks and benefits.
 

axioms

Member
The propaganda: People who don't vaccinate are nuts.

The science:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15231927
"Unvaccinated children tended to be white, to have a mother who was married and had a college degree, to live in a household with an annual income exceeding 75,000 dollars, and to have parents who expressed concerns regarding the safety of vaccines and indicated that medical doctors have little influence over vaccination decisions for their children."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17194865
Low maternal educational levels and low socioeconomic status were associated with high vaccination completion rate.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18816357
Parents who don’t vaccinate their children are highly educated, value scientific knowledge and are sophisticated at researching vaccines.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15837208
Highly educated parents and healthcare workers reject vaccines for their children.

https://www.bmj.com/content/332/7553/1312
"Mothers of unimmunised infants are older and more highly qualified than those of partially immunised infants"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21941215
"Maternal characteristics such as higher education and income are associated with nonreceipt of the Hepatitis B vaccination during the perinatal period. (master's degree vs eighth grade or less; income >$75,000 vs <$15,000)"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5923798/
Respondents with a lower level of education, compared with those with higher, more often declared vaccinations to be safe.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3113438/
College graduates delayed and refused vaccines whereas school dropouts (<12 years education) follow the recommended schedule.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18309964
Negative attitude of highly educated parents and health care workers towards future vaccinations in the Dutch childhood vaccination program.

https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2017/16_0314.htm
College-educated mothers have lower intent to have their child vaccinated with HPV. This is consistent with previous research that found an association between the refusal of all childhood vaccines and white, college-educated mothers and high-income parents. Other studies also show higher rate of HPV vaccination among low-income and minority adolescents.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20454567
"Having a family with two parents, ... and having more education was associated with a decreased likelihood of having a daughter receive the HPV vaccine."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17628649
Highly educated parents are the least likely to allow their daughters to receive the HPV vaccine

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17259050
College graduates reject HPV vaccination for their daughters; high school dropouts endorse it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18710678
"In a multinomial, multivariable logistic regression model, those mothers who had less than a high school degree... were more likely to be favorable about their daughter being vaccinated [with HPV]."

https://www.theatlantic.com/…/wealthy-la-schools-va…/380252/
Wealthy L.A. Schools' Vaccination Rates Are as Low as South Sudan's [60%-70% vaccination exemption rate]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26562114
Higher income, White population, and private school type significantly predicted greater increases in vaccination exemptions from 2007 to 2013, whereas higher educational attainment was associated with smaller increases.
LOL. finally one of the self proclaimed experts (on both sides) , particularly one with claimed IQ>162 and 3 years of research posted something that is not found via google or wikipedia.

Glad you discovered Pubmed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

I was reading the thread laughing at both sides because both camps clearly are rank amateurs at medical research.

Side note to those not in the know, if you know anything about medical research, you will use Pubmed (or rather medline ) to do actual research not Google.

Not sure what this anti-vxer trying to show here though.

it's well known the anti vaxxer community are mostly white and better off, influenced by celebrities like Jenny McCarthy.

Does that mean they are right? Given that you are ignoring Doctor's advise why would you follow "rich, well educated whites?" lol

Now show me a few non retracted research article you can find off pubmed/medline that shows that vaccines have serious negative effects, then I might reconsider.

Honestly leave medical research to the real experts.

Tip to those reading - Anytime you see someone post Google or Wikipedia links to debate on medical matters you know they are clueless about medical research.

Even first year medical students know to use Pubmed.

I can easily tell Derrik and co are clueless on how medical research works.

I mean Google and see how many web pages come up on anti vax vs those that are not? Google just shows webpages based on various ranking factors (including roughly popularity), you cant use that to tell what is the truth.
 

axioms

Member
one last post, mothers who trust this thread really make me realise why the fake news law exists.


XelaChen I followed derrick lee's vol1 guide. I checked the measles rate charts. All the official websites really don't show the 1900s statistics so I agree they are hiding the info from people. The measles rate has really fell 99% before vaccines started. What do u think of this?

Also do u take the vaccine boosters and flu shots?
Repeat after me correlation does not imply causation.

You cannot say vaccination caused or did not cause fall in measles rates by just looking at a graph.

There is no doubt I think other factors such as better hygiene, on top of immunization contributed. How much is due to immunization you cant say either way by just looking at a graph like that.
 

axioms

Member
Here's my take.

Nothing is 100% safe as past posters have mentioned even panadol can very rarely cause problems.

That's why Winston/derrik is stupid to keep insisting no doctor will *sign* something to say vaccination is 100% safe. you can replace vaccination with any medical procedure or drug and no doctor will sign, so are you not going to do any medical procedure? lol

The only question is what exactly are the risks and is the benefit worth the risk?

Let's consider a model where vaccination negative effects are rare , say one in 10 million (I just randomly picked a number).

what's happening here is some selfish individuals are trying to benefit from the fact that everyone else is immunized so the need for them to be is much less plus they save on costs.

But if everyone thinks like that, than we are in trouble when a outbreak occurs that would otherwise be limited by vaccination protected people (and yes vaccinations dont always 100% work but again nothing is 100%)

This is essentially the prisoners dilemma, you defect by not doing vaccination while others cooperate then you are better off, everyone is a bit worse off (since they took the 1 in 10 million risk and also paid for vaccination) But if everyone thinks like that and defects by not doing vaccination the whole society will be seriously in trouble as diseases would spread faster.

That is why the law exists to ensure everyone vaccinates. So the risks and benefits are fairly distributed.

The problem is anti vaxxers are not smart, if they were smart and discovered the law wasn't really enforced they would quietly not vaccinate their kids but dont yell at the top of their lungs they doing it.

I have some statistical training and I can tell you these issues of medical risk of drugs are a very complicated issue that you need formal training to understand. Definitely do not think Google is enough. Try reading a real medical research paper and see if you understand 100% of it , if you don't you are not qualified for sure.

"Derrik" claims to be an engineer, even if I believe this to be true (the writing style is way too imprecise imho) it's well known engineers are famous for over reaching, thinking they can understand anything and often are just proven fools when they go beyond their area of expertise.

Anyway he just googles and cuts and pastes stuff, any idiot with time can do that. I see no evidence he really understands what he is posting.

my advice is go with the compulsory vaccination, biostatisticians (yes that's a thing) have studied this far more in depth than Derrik/Winston who dont strike me as even less academic/medical trained than first year medical/pharmacy students.
 
Last edited:

axioms

Member
My experience missing out vaccination, for 2 children 7 and 5:
1. Minor ailments once or twice a year. Self recovery within a day or two
2. Never had any drugs (panadol, ibuprofen, antibiotics)
3. Excellent mental and physical skills
4. No chronic disease (allergy, tics, seizures, gut issues, skin issues). No eye issues, sleep issues. Never had any infection.
5. After birth, had only visited the doctor once each for consultation (not because of illness). As a result they don't know what a doctor visit looks like.

Check out parents' experience in antivax groups. Most parents there inadvertently conducted vaccinated (eldest child) vs unvaccinated studies (subsequent children), and the results are consistent across the board. You can learn it by sacrificing your first child, or you could learn from their experience.
This is the dumbest thing I heard. You dont really think parents vaccinating one child and not doing for the second is actual evidence?

Showing causation (whether doing something causes or does not cause something ) is hard. there are probably a bunch of confounding factors etc. All you have is anecdotal stories.

That's why real medical trials need to be done.

You really have no idea the quality of evidence needed for a proper trial and study. You need RCT (randomised control trials) , right sample size depending on power of test etc
 

axioms

Member
On the contrary the body of studies is dominated by papers showing vaccines' IN-effectiveness. It takes a blind to not see that. Just google a bit and check whether I'm right. Again you should filter away websites, opinion pieces, comments that do not back their claims up with papers/journals.
dominated by papers? show me a reference to a actual peer reviewed paper then. For all your big talk you just link to dubious websites not actually reputable journals that are peer reviewed. The only medical article you posted that is peer reviewed merely say in US white/rich mothers tend to not vaccinate. Duh, they the ones most swayed by the anti vaxxer movement aka white celebrities.

Honestly I dont even have to be an expert in the area to know you havent even done the basic medical research any 1st year freshman in bioscience knows how to do

Please stop BSing
 
There you go. I spent half an hour to compile it. If I have time I could have produced a few hundred.

BCG offered no overall protection in adults and a low level of overall protection (27%; 95% C.I. -8 to 50%) in children. This lack of protection could not be explained by methodological flaws, or the influence of prior sensitisation by non specific sensitivity, or because most of the cases arose as a result of exogenous re-infection. The findings at 15 years show that in this population with high infection rates and high nonspecific sensitivity, BCG did not offer any protection against adult forms of bacillary pulmonary tuberculosis.

DTP was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated. No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP. Unfortunately, DTP is the most widely used vaccine, and the proportion who receives DTP3 is used globally as an indicator of the performance of national vaccination programs.
It should be of concern that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality was not tested in randomized trials. All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.

Exclusively, breastfed infants (in Brazil) receiving a full recommended schedule of immunizations showed an exceedingly high exposure of Al (225 to 1750 μg per dose) when compared with estimated levels absorbed from breast milk (2.0 μg). This study does not dispute the safety of vaccines but reinforces the need to study long-term effects of early exposure to neuro-toxic substances on the developing brain. Pragmatic vaccine safety needs to embrace conventional toxicology, addressing especial characteristics of unborn fetuses, neonates and infants exposed to low levels of aluminum, and ethylmercury traditionally considered innocuous to the central nervous system.

The observation that aP, which induces an immune response mismatched to that induced by natural infection, fails to prevent colonization or transmission provides a plausible explanation for the resurgence of pertussis and suggests that optimal control of pertussis will require the development of improved vaccines.

Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated population. Of the 208 primary and secondary school children infected, 97.6% were vaccinated.

A persistent outbreak of measles despite appropriate prevention and control measures. 98.7% of students were appropriately vaccinated.

An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced.
We conclude that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune.

In early 1988 an outbreak of 84 measles cases occurred at a college in Colorado in which over 98 percent of students had documentation of adequate measles immunity (physician diagnosed measles, receipt of live measles vaccine on or after the first birthday, or serologic evidence of immunity) due to an immunization requirement in effect since 1986.

Major measles epidemic in the region of Quebec despite a 99% vaccine coverage

Vaccination status was known for 127 studied cases and 76.4% of them had received measles vaccine before their first birthday, with the rest unvaccinated or status unknown. The history of previous vaccination did not diminish the number of complications of the cases studied.

Measles outbreak in a fully vaccinated school infecting 77 school children
 
This is the dumbest thing I heard. You dont really think parents vaccinating one child and not doing for the second is actual evidence?

Showing causation (whether doing something causes or does not cause something ) is hard. there are probably a bunch of confounding factors etc. All you have is anecdotal stories.

That's why real medical trials need to be done.

You really have no idea the quality of evidence needed for a proper trial and study. You need RCT (randomised control trials) , right sample size depending on power of test etc
I'm so glad that you mentioned Randomised Control Trials. The total lack of Randomised Double-Blind Controlled Studies with an INERT placebo to qualify vaccine is exactly what the woke people (like Winson and I) are complaining about. I DARE YOU TO LOOK FOR IT. I can assure you that there are a handful done, and they were hidden because they show that vaccines are a disaster. You will never find one that shows that vaccine is good.

Vaccine safety trials are conducted using other vaccines as placebo. This is something like testing whether being hit by iron rod is safe, while using a baseball bat as placebo. And the conclusion will say that the injury caused by an iron rod is statistically insignificant to the injury caused by the placebo, therefore being hit by an iron rod is safe. I DARE YOU TO PROVE ME WRONG.
 

axioms

Member
It's amazing once I point out how amateurish your arguments are, a few weeks later you come back and suddenly seemingly "know" the right lingo.

Did a lot of Google in the last few weeks did you? Still not good enough unfortunately.

I'm so glad that you mentioned Randomised Control Trials. The total lack of Randomised Double-Blind Controlled Studies with an INERT placebo to qualify vaccine is exactly what the woke people (like Winson and I) are complaining about. I DARE YOU TO LOOK FOR IT.
Okay first you say you complaining about lack of RCTs.

I can assure you that there are a handful done, and they were hidden because they show that vaccines are a disaster.
Then you "assure" me there are some and they are hidden.

What other conspiracies theories? The moon landings are fake and the earth is flat and NASA and all the govts are lying to us? But somehow only you found evidence?

You will never find one that shows that vaccine is good.
Oh dear. Anyone reading this will know this is false. You should argue any research that shows vaccines work are fake. More believable...

Or argue vaccines don't provide 100% protection which is true. Come on.. Up your game :)

Vaccine safety trials are conducted using other vaccines as placebo. This is something like testing whether being hit by iron rod is safe, while using a baseball bat as placebo. And the conclusion will say that the injury caused by an iron rod is statistically insignificant to the injury caused by the placebo, therefore being hit by an iron rod is safe
LOL, this is the dumbest misunderstanding of how RCTS work. Of course trials use placebos. They are the control!

. I DARE YOU TO PROVE ME WRONG.
Again showing zero understanding of the scientific method. You claim vaccines caused autism. Burden of proof is on you.

But let me help you out and teach you a few other things you can Google later. .

While RCT are the gold standards, they are very costly to do and can be unethical. Eg if 95% of mothers want to vaccinate now, you can't force them not to just to get randomized results. They tend to be done only at the early stages of developing a drug.

Other research design methods like cohort studies done with thousands of subjects over many years or case studies when done numerical times add up to strong evidence as well.

They definitely beat your "my two friends child had autism" so it must be the vaccine causing it.

To those who followed up to here, It's clear that Derrik doesnt even the basic level of understanding of science much less medical science a well educated science degree holder would have. Listen to him at your own risk.

I'm going to bow out from heere because further "debating" with him, I fear just allows him to google and learn the lingo to fool laypersons into thinking he is an expert.
 
Last edited:

axioms

Member
Looks like you fell into the trap.. showing again how much you don;t understand how science works.

Firstly, have you noticed in newspapers, they report one paper saying drinking red wine will cut heart disease risks and then a while later report an opposite study? That is because studies are statistical in nature. Even with a reported p value of 0.05, there is still a 5% chance the study effect could have gotten by chance (people who really understand what pvalues means, please excuse this very layperson explaination but good enough for Derrik). And that is without going into other problems like p-hacking, reproducability etc.

That is why clinical recommendations do not change on just one paper , particularly if there are just one or two results that are not based on the strongest research designs. You need a mass of research findings of high quality all mostly pointing at the same direction for recommendations to change.

Secondly, I bet you derrik didnt' even read the papers he put here. I dare him to explain to us, each of the papers in his own words what he thinks it says. I also suspect not being an academic he doesnt have access to the full text of the non-Open access papers. Reading the full paper is important, research findings are subtle, you can't just look at the abstract.

He just puts a bunch of things to try to intimate people, but if you look at the ones he "cited" , he doesn't understand what he is citing (e.g. a paper that says it does not dispute safety).

The best you can say looking at the bunch of thing he probably searched and copied in a few minutes is that vaccines don't 100% protect. Hardly a big surprise.

There's also a problem with this type of cherry picking evidence because it is one sided. You dont see examples where vaccination worked and there was no outbreak!

TLDR : The practice of science, particularly medical science is complicated and subtle. Laypersons who think they can go in, "read" a paper or two by scanning the abstract and google terms are deluded.









There you go. I spent half an hour to compile it. If I have time I could have produced a few hundred.

BCG offered no overall protection in adults and a low level of overall protection (27%; 95% C.I. -8 to 50%) in children. This lack of protection could not be explained by methodological flaws, or the influence of prior sensitisation by non specific sensitivity, or because most of the cases arose as a result of exogenous re-infection. The findings at 15 years show that in this population with high infection rates and high nonspecific sensitivity, BCG did not offer any protection against adult forms of bacillary pulmonary tuberculosis.

DTP was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated. No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP. Unfortunately, DTP is the most widely used vaccine, and the proportion who receives DTP3 is used globally as an indicator of the performance of national vaccination programs.
It should be of concern that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality was not tested in randomized trials. All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.

Exclusively, breastfed infants (in Brazil) receiving a full recommended schedule of immunizations showed an exceedingly high exposure of Al (225 to 1750 μg per dose) when compared with estimated levels absorbed from breast milk (2.0 μg). This study does not dispute the safety of vaccines but reinforces the need to study long-term effects of early exposure to neuro-toxic substances on the developing brain. Pragmatic vaccine safety needs to embrace conventional toxicology, addressing especial characteristics of unborn fetuses, neonates and infants exposed to low levels of aluminum, and ethylmercury traditionally considered innocuous to the central nervous system.

The observation that aP, which induces an immune response mismatched to that induced by natural infection, fails to prevent colonization or transmission provides a plausible explanation for the resurgence of pertussis and suggests that optimal control of pertussis will require the development of improved vaccines.

Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated population. Of the 208 primary and secondary school children infected, 97.6% were vaccinated.

A persistent outbreak of measles despite appropriate prevention and control measures. 98.7% of students were appropriately vaccinated.

An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced.
We conclude that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune.

In early 1988 an outbreak of 84 measles cases occurred at a college in Colorado in which over 98 percent of students had documentation of adequate measles immunity (physician diagnosed measles, receipt of live measles vaccine on or after the first birthday, or serologic evidence of immunity) due to an immunization requirement in effect since 1986.

Major measles epidemic in the region of Quebec despite a 99% vaccine coverage

Vaccination status was known for 127 studied cases and 76.4% of them had received measles vaccine before their first birthday, with the rest unvaccinated or status unknown. The history of previous vaccination did not diminish the number of complications of the cases studied.

Measles outbreak in a fully vaccinated school infecting 77 school children
 
Last edited:
I had quoted many studies and testimonials of vaccines being harmful and useless. Whereas you countered with words. Enough said.
 

axioms

Member
I had quoted many studies and testimonials of vaccines being harmful and useless. Whereas you countered with words. Enough said.
Too tired to Google the terms I used? Or just realizing you have no hope of matching me?

Such an *expert* who can't even match the knowledge of a med student lol. Yes, very convincing, particularly funny how you don't even understand what a placebo is in the control and think that means they didn't test the vaccine.

BTW "Studies" that you copied and pasted from pubmed after I introduced you to pubmed means nothing if you don't explain what even a single paper means.

You have shown exactly zero papers causing harm. You have shown a few papers showing vaccinations are likely not 100% so what? Bullet proof vests don't 100% save your life when you are shot so they are useless?

Honestly your logic and writing is so bad, you don't need to be educated in medical science to know you are a poorly educated person.
 
Last edited:

axioms

Member
I must say I really enjoy studying more in-depth this. There seems to be only one study in 1998 , Wakefield et al (1998) that claimed a link between autism and measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The paper was since retracted in 2010.

And worse it was later shown to be fraud https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.

Since then epidemiological studies , case studies , cohort studies all consistently show no link.

Latest studies


Jain, Anjali, et al. “Autism Occurrence by MMR Vaccine Status Among US Children With Older Siblings With and Without Autism.” JAMA, vol. 313, no. 15, 2015, pp. 1534–1540.

"Conclusions and Relevance In this large sample of privately insured children with older siblings, receipt of the MMR vaccine was not associated with increased risk of ASD, regardless of whether older siblings had ASD. These findings indicate no harmful association between MMR vaccine receipt and ASD even among children already at higher risk for ASD "

Fascinating so even if one family had a child with autism already (and hence more predisposed to it), if the 2nd child took MMR vs one that didn't there was no difference in risk .

The statistics below ... Notice the risk ratios for taking MMR 1 dose or 2 doses is in all but one case *lower* then unvaccinated. This holds whether the first child did have ASD (column 1) or did not (column 2).
RR.png


The only exception is for 5 years older child did not have ASD (left column, last row), where taking 1 dose vs unvaccinated had slightly higher risk of ASD 1.16. But 2 doses had much lower risk 0,74! So you should go for 2 doses :p (I'm going to pretend I don't know how to read p values and Confidence intervals. ha!..)

This is a huge study btw on all Danish privately insured kids who have older siblings.

Just one study, but I see there are dozens of cohort studies, case studies all around the world, with similar results, if there was some sort of link you would see it by now or at least some weak pattern but if anything the pattern is backwards
 
Last edited:

Kaninana21

New Member
All the anti-vax people should not be going to the doctor or take any medicines when they are sick. It’s contradicting how they think vaccines are useless but medicine is a good or that they trust the doctor.

Like in the event they get dengue/ H1N7 or whatever, they should just let their body fight the viruses itself.
 
Gosh, the Danish study again. First of all, if you are vaccinated with every vaccines in the world except for MMR then you are put into the "unvaccinated" group. And if you are vaccinated with only the MMR, then you are put into the "vaccinated" group. How could you make a conclusion based on this?

There are also other issues such as laid down by this scientist: https://www.focusforhealth.org/scientists-rebuttal-to-danish-cohort-study/

This is an extremely broad claim that unfortunately is not supported by the evidence they present. There are eight fundamental flaws in the research study that lead to questions about the accuracy of the conclusions.

1. Children were notably missing from the study sample:
First and foremost is the underascertainment of autism cases within their data sample. The study authors used Denmark population registries of children born in Denmark of Danish-born mothers which should reflect the current reported autism incidence in Denmark at 1.65% (Schendel et al. 2018, JAMA). However, the autism incidence within the sample of the Hviid et al. paper is 0.98%, meaning that approximately 4,400 autistic children are missing from this study. The authors do not discuss the discrepancy in the number of cases.

2. Many of the children in the sample were too young for an autism diagnosis:
The most probable reason for the discrepancy in cases is that the sample in the Hviid et al. paper is too young to completely ascertain autism diagnoses. The average age of sample is 8.64 years with a standard deviation of 3.48 years. Age of autism diagnosis on average is reported as 7.22 years with a standard deviation of 2.86 years. Assuming that the age of diagnosis follows a standard bell curve, this would mean that 31.5% of the sample was too young to get an autism diagnosis. This could account for as many as 3,400 additional cases not included in the analysis, which would bias the outcomes to favor not finding a relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism.

3. Failure to eliminate those with autism related to genetic conditions from the sample:
In addition, individuals who were diagnosed with genetic comorbidities (known to lead to autism) after age 1 were “censored,” meaning that they were followed until the time of diagnosis, but not removed from the study. Thus, they were counted among the sample with many of them most likely autistic due to a genetic condition. These should have appropriately been eliminated from the sample.

4. Use of two (2) different MMR vaccines:
Also, two different MMR vaccines were used in this study. The GlaxoSmithKline Prolix® formulation was used from 2000 to 2007 and Merck’s MMR®II formulation was used from 2008 to 2013. Prolix® contains the Schwarz measles strain and MMR®II contains the Ender’s Edmonston measles strain. Thus, children using the Merck formulation were much too young to receive an autism diagnosis as the oldest they would be at the time of study is 6 years of age or younger. This is important for comparison to the experience in other countries, especially the U.S. where the Merck formulation was used exclusively for the entire study period.

5. Failure to control for the “dosage effect”:
In addition, the age at which Danish children in the sample received their second dose of MMR vaccine was dropped from 12 years to 4 years in 2008. This means that children born after 2004 would get two MMR vaccines prior to the average age of an autism diagnosis, whereas children born prior to 2004 would have received only one MMR vaccine. If indeed there is a “dosage effect” of the MMR (i.e., where both doses were causally related to autism), this could not be elucidated in the sample and again, this would bias the results erroneously to not find a relationship.

6. Statistical method failed to capture those children with a delayed diagnosis of autism:
The authors also used a non-transparent statistical method where “person-years” were considered following the MMR vaccine to an autism diagnosis where children who received a diagnosis soon after receiving their first MMR vaccine would be weighted more heavily than children with a delay in diagnosis. This makes no sense given that the age of autism diagnoses varies widely among populations based on access to services and severity of the autism case, among other factors. This type of method is “borrowed” from infectious disease epidemiology where an exposure directly leads to a disease state rather quickly, for example, chicken pox. However, the method has no place in evaluating chronic sequelae to vaccination which may take a period of years to receive an accurate diagnosis.

7. Vaccinated male siblings of children with autism show more autism diagnoses:
It is interesting to note the increased incidence of autism in boys with autistic siblings in the vaccinated group shown in Figure 2 of the article’s supplement. The increase towards the end of the “survival curve” shows that more boys vaccinated with MMR (with autistic siblings) are diagnosed with autism than unvaccinated boys. The difference is not statistically significant but this may be an artifact of the very small subset of boys considered in this analysis.

The study authors also cite the CDC’s Destefano et al. 2004 study which actually shows a statistically significant relationship between MMR timing and autism incidence. This is discussed further in a reanalysis of CDC’s data in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Hooker, 2018).

8. Conflict of interest of the study authors
It should be noted that three of the study authors are currently employed at the Statens Serum Institut which is a for-profit vaccine manufacturer in Denmark. In addition, this work was funded by a grant from the Novo Nordisk foundation. Novo Nordisk is a Danish multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer. These are two serious conflicts of interest.

The lead author, Anders Hviid was the second author on the New England Journal of Medicine MMR autism paper from 2002 (Madsen et al. 2002). This research was completed despite the fact that the study authors had never received proper ethics approval to complete the study. A detailed analysis of this is featured by Children’s Health Defense.

With these issues, this paper cannot be relied upon as evidence that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism.
 

axioms

Member
Since you copy and pasting things you don't understand, I can copy and paste too.

"
A scientist’s rebuttal to Hooker’s rebuttal.

1 – the study was controlled as well as possible for genetic and environmental differences by strictly limiting it to children of Danish-born mothers. It is doubtful the incidence reporting you reference used that same criteria. Of course, this would also mean an unusually high incidence among non-Danes, also a ludicrous assumption (more on those later)

2- you state that as many as 3400 children were too young to have been diagnosed. Using your incidence rate from point 1 of 1.65%, that extrapolates to at most 57 additional cases, not statistically significant.

3- why should those genetically predisposed be eliminated? Presumably they are vaccinated at an identical rate to other children. Determination of whether the MMR vaccine affects their prognosis is entirely within the scope of this study.

4, 5, 6 – First, as an epidemiologist, you should know better than to invoke something like “causally related”. You are also making the assumption that the “causal agent” is the strain of Measles virus, while, no consensus has remotely been reached, even among the staunchest of Wakefield worshippers, as to what the causative agent may be.
Also, the greater the temporal difference, the more tenuous the causality becomes. Six years is pretty tenuous to begin with. It is entirely appropriate to give items with temporal similarity a heavier weight.

7 – this shouldn’t have been discussed at all. As you said, it is not statistically significant. In addition, your own conflict of interest and bias are showing more when you mention the CDC study, but link your own analysis of it rather than the original study.
Which brings us to 8.

8- The authors fully disclosed their places of employment, etc. Any conflict is tenuous at best, since the two vaccines in this study were manufactured by GSK and Merck, respectively. You failed, however, to disclose your conflicts. Were you paid to write this article? By whom? It wasn’t until the comments that you acknowledged the article was your personal opinion, despite your credentials being fully visible from the beginning."
 

axioms

Member
Gosh, the Danish study again. First of all, if you are vaccinated with every vaccines in the world except for MMR then you are put into the "unvaccinated" group. And if you are vaccinated with only the MMR, then you are put into the "vaccinated" group. How could you make a conclusion based on this?
I'll reply to this because this is the only part that comes from you but is so stupid an argument that even the PhD you cite isn't arguing this way.

If you want to do science as opposed to handwaving and copy pasting things you don't understand, you need to understand we need to test things one at the time.

The purpose of the study is test those who did MMR vs those who didn't so obviously you use those two groups. You test things step by step by isolating variables one by one. If we did "all" the vaccines and no effect you probably go well maybe the vaccines counter react each other or some shit.

BTW I looked up this Hooker guy. It's interesting to see his papers on autism and vaccination are RETRACTED. Why ? See below.

Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and autism among young African American boys: a reanalysis of CDC data


"Retraction
The Editor and Publisher regretfully retract the article [1] as there were undeclared competing interests on the part of the author which compromised the peer review process. Furthermore, post-publication peer review raised concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis, therefore the Editors no longer have confidence in the soundness of the findings. We apologise to all affected parties for the inconvenience caused."

That's right Hooker himself has conflict of interest and dares accuse others lol.

Doing further checking on retraction watch database, this guy has more than 1 retracted paper! Oh dear... Are you sure you want to use him as your authority?

retraction.png


For those who don't know Retraction is a great loss of face for a researcher. In this particular case the reason for retraction is "Conflict of interest" and/or "Unreliable data", "unreliable results" etc.

Hooker and wakefield are pretty much two researchers with discredited work on autism and vaccines...
 
Last edited:

Top