Infant Death Rates Show Vaccines Kill 16,000/year (1/250 babies)

Infant death rates show vaccines kill. This article is an analysis of the following peer-reviewed scientific study:

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

In summary, the study shows a very strong positive correlation; the more vaccines given, the higher the infant mortality. The USA is among the highest infant mortality, at 6/1000. The lowest nations have less than 2/1000 infant deaths, and they give about 1/3 the vaccines given in the USA.

To me, the study suggests that vaccines are responsible for the higher infant death rate. This could be as much as 4/1000 deaths, or more, which is 1/250, or expressed another way, is 16,000 deaths across the 4 million babies born each year in the USA. The study does not mention these numbers, they are my own.

The pro vaccine people try to say this study is “debunked” or proven wrong by the following blog post by an “Orac” of “respectful insolence”:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/16/vaccines-and-infant-mortality-rates/

That blog tries to point out a few flaws in the study, as follows.

1. Vaccines are counted wrong. A 3 in 1 vaccine should be counted as one shot, not three shots.

2. Some nations count infant mortality differently than others.

3. The USA has a higher rate of premie births, partly explaining the higher infant death rate.

4. The study authors “cherry picked” a year, 2009.

5. The study authors have a monetary conflict of interest, and are biased.

6. A few tiny nations are excluded.

7. Other nations with worse infant death rates should be included.

My own conclusions; both from the study, and from the critique of the study are as follows:

To respond to Orac’s ideas:

1. Vaccines are not counted wrong. The study is couting vaccines, not shots.

2. While some nations count infant deaths differently, the difference is slight, and I think this is a weak criticism.

3. The high premie birth rate in the USA is partly because mothers are vaccinated!

4. There is no “cherry picking” a year. The year 2009 was current for the 2010 study. Infant death rates in the USA have remained at about 6/1000 over the last 20 years. The vaccine schedule has remained very constant, too, and has grown slightly during the last 20 years.

5. The monetary conflict of interest was disclosed and was very small, $2500, and not near the $40 billion conflict of interest of the entire vaccine industry. Bias is not a factor if a person’s views are in line with the evidence. IE, believing in gravity does not make a paper proving the existence of gravity not true.

6. A few tiny nations are excluded, yes, this is common to exclude tiny, outlying data points.

7. Most nations with worse infant death rates have many other confounding cofactors, because perhaps they are not first world nations; they don’t have clean water, or high living standards. The point of a control group is to look at similar people; not entirely different groups. And who is ORAC of “respectful insolence”? http://www.truthwiki.org/orac-david-h-gorski/

None of the critics was capable or willing to say what the real infant death rate of the usa should be, or actually is.

None of the critics was capable or willing to say what the real infant death rate of the best nations in the study, Singapore, Sweden, and Japan should be, or actually is.

Nor were they capable or willing of providing any estimates of what they think the numbers should be.

Yet they think the entire study is worthless because of criticism that might tweak the numbers very slightly?And yet, the study is a very strong study, because it looks at very high numbers of people, basically all the world’s first world nations.

I asked if there was another study like this study, a better study, and they did not know of one.

But somehow, at their blog, I lost the debate because I’m a narcissist, and an idiot…, and the study was “debunked”. I posted this to my facebook page, and Neil, the author of the study, had this to say:

Neil Z. Miller: Jason,Briefly,

1. Vaccines are counted correctly.

2. There are slight differences in how a few nations count live births. This was discussed in our paper. When we adjusted for these differences, the correlation actually improved.

3. Reducing preterm birth rates is only part of the solution to reduce IMRs. Some nations in our paper such as Ireland and Greece, which have very low preterm birth rates (5.5% and 6%, respectively) compared to the United States, require their infants to receive a relatively high number of vaccine doses (23) and have correspondingly high IMRs.

4. We calculated data for the most current year.

5. There was no monetary conflict of interest. No one paid to have our paper published. Our paper was accepted by the journal editors and sent out to be peer-reviewed. The peer-reviewers analyzed our paper and recommended it for publication. After it was accepted for publication by the journal editors, we collected donations to make our paper Open Access, so that no one would have to pay to read our paper. Most PubMed articles have a high fee to read the full paper but authors (or the institution that supports the authors) can pay a one-time fee and the full paper will be freely available to everyone. Our paper would have been published even if we did not pay to make it Open Access.

6. Four nations had extremely wide confidence intervals and IMR instability due to small populations and few annual infant deaths. It would have been scientifically improper to include these nations. (Also, including these nations would not change the high correlation.)

7. Out cutoff was the U.S. and all nations with better IMRs.

In summary, our paper was not “debunked.” Orac or anyone else can write anything they want on a website. If they have concerns with the paper, they can try and get their concerns published in a journal. Also, I don’t recommend wasting your time arguing with trolls who exhibit premeditated bias and are not interested in honest communication. Your time is better spent sharing information with those who have shown an interest in learning.

One comment