The study also found evidence that some infant deaths attributed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) may actually be vaccine-related.
According to a recent press release:
The current study by Miller and Goldman, "Infant Mortality Rates Regressed Against Number of Vaccine Doses Routinely Given: Is There a Biochemical or Synergistic Toxicity?" found a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates.This raises an important question: Would fewer vaccines administered to infants reduce the number of infant deaths?
Other study findings:
The United States spends more per capita on healthcare than any other country; yet 33 nations have better infant mortality rates. Some infant deaths attributed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) may be due to over-vaccination.
Progress on reducing infant deaths should include monitoring immunization schedules and official causes of death (to determine if vaccine-related infant deaths are being reclassified). Infant mortality rates will remain high in developing nations that cannot provide clean water, proper nutrition, improved sanitation, and better access to health care.
At times it is later revealed that vaccines are not even effective. For instance, pneumonia vaccinations for people over 65 are soon to be halted by the UK government, on the grounds that the injections do not save lives.
Millions of people were injected with the vaccine, which was supposed to offer ten-year protection against an infection that causes pneumonia. But independent expert government advisors say the program has had 'no discernible impact' on rates of pneumococcal disease. According to the Daily Mail:
"... [T]he protection provided by the vaccine is poor and not long-lasting in older people."
Finally, someone's dared to compare vaccination rates vs. infant mortality numbers and then publicly ask the same questions some of us have been asking for a long time: How can a nation that spends more on healthcare per capita than any other country in the world have 28,000 children die every year before their first birthdays?
And if vaccines are so effective in preventing infant mortality, why does the most-vaccinated country in the world have such an abysmal infant mortality rate?
The rate is so bad that the Centers for Disease Control decided to do its own study on why this could be – but didn't come up with an answer, although they did point out there's been an increase in preterm birth babies, and these babies are more likely to die of "preterm-related causes." It didn't elaborate on what those causes were, but vaccine defenders were quick to claim that preterm births were skewing the numbers.. However, the CDC disputed that, saying:
"It appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation of the United States' relatively low international rating."
Evidence Linking Vaccines to Sudden Infant Deaths
The CDC didn't mention that U.S. vaccination schedules are not altered for preterm babies, even though their immune systems are severely undeveloped and vulnerable. They also didn't mention that sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths had skyrocketed exponentially with increasing vaccination rates, or that babies most often die of SIDS from 2 to 4 months old – the same time they begin their primary vaccinations.
But the Miller and Goldman study did look at SIDS – and found that a subset of infants may be more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated, particularly after receiving multiple vaccines all at once. Citing several studies on infant deaths after the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccine, Miller and Goldman showed that it's highly possible that vaccine-related deaths are being misclassified as SIDS.
When you consider that Miller and Goldman also found two other studies have shown that the SIDS mortality is seven to eight times higher for infants within three days of their receiving the DPT, it seems only logical to ask: Would fewer vaccines administered to U.S. infants reduce the number of infant deaths?
In my opinion the only way to determine this would be through a comprehensive study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children, especially since other health data are beginning to link vaccines to an increase in chronic diseases like asthma and disabilities like autism.
More than 32 Million U.S. Children are Chronically Sick
Today, half of all U.S. children are chronically sick with asthma, allergies, learning disabilities and other illnesses such as autism and epilepsy. That's 32 million U.S. children who are sick all the time, every day. As Barbara Loe Fisher said in a Memorial Day commentary for vaccine-injured children, it wasn't like this when my generation was growing up. And it just makes you wonder: how is this possible in the United States a decade into the 21st century?
What's different since 1960,
- When the U.S. was 12th in the world in infant mortality?
- How did we slip five spots in just five years, between 2004 and 2009, from 29th to 34th?
- Why do 1 in 6 kids have a developmental disability – a 17 percent increase between 1997 and 2008 alone?
- Why does 1 in 63 have autism? Why are sudden infant death rates – SIDS – still the leading cause of death for infants under age 1, even with the back-to-sleep program that was touted a few years ago as being the answer to SIDS?
- And since U.S. children now get 49 mandated doses of 14 vaccines before the age of 6 – compared to NONE mandated in 1960 – it seems only reasonable to ask if vaccines have anything to do with all this.
How Vaccine Myths Contribute to Illness and Death
Dr. Paul Offit is a co-inventor of the infant rotavirus vaccine, RotaTeq – one of two vaccines which FDA officials found in June 2010 to contain deadly pig virus DNA. Offit also holds the $1.5 million Merck-endowed chair at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and is a vociferous vaccine proponent who scoffs at parents' claims that vaccines might have harmed their children, even though he's publicly admitted "there are no risk-free choices with vaccines."
Recently Offit told the Chicago Tribune it would be unethical to study vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children because "withholding" vaccines from children for that purpose could cause "suffering, hospitalization and death" for the unvaccinated group.
Besides, he said, a study's already been done of "relatively" unvaccinated vs. vaccinated children, and it proved there "was no difference" in neurological outcomes.
But we're not talking about a "relatively" unvaccinated vs. vaccinated study. What people are asking for – including the National Vaccine Advisory Committee's Vaccine Safety Working Group – is a study of completely unvaccinated vs. fully vaccinated children. Since we do have groups of children in the U.S. who are not vaccinated – and who are not suffering, hospitalized or near death as a result of their lack of "immunity" – who could be part of a study like this, it's puzzling why Offit continuously denounces the idea.
You would think that vaccine proponents would be the first to propose just such a study, if for no other reason than so it could put to an end, once and for all, the "myth" that vaccines cause harm to children. So why would they be so against it? Could it be that they're afraid that such a study would make a myth out of vaccine safety by mirroring what a group of lawyers recently found in the U.S. government's own vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) which suggests that:
"… the VICP has been compensating cases of vaccine-induced encephalopathy and residual seizure disorder associated with autism since the inception of the program. Through this preliminary study the authors have found 83 cases of autism among those compensated for vaccine-induced brain damage."
Or could it be that they're afraid other countries might learn from the study and ultimately cut off the vaccine pipeline around the world? I'm not being radical here. Paul Offit can scoff all he wants, but the truth is more and more ordinary people, as well as health professionals and researchers are asking questions about whether vaccine "safety" is a myth.
People Deserve Answers
A list of who else would be interested in a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study would be so long that it would take a book to highlight even a portion of them. So, I'll just give a few examples, such as this one, where The Times of India reported that 128 children died in 2010 following a vaccine dose. Everyone, from families to the media, wants to know why. They deserve to know why. But like American newspapers, the Times had to file Freedom of Information Act requests to get an answer – and, they said:
"Experts feel the actual number (of deaths) could be even more than what government statistics show. 'Many vaccine deaths reported in the media do not find a mention in the government statistics,' says Dr. Jacob M Puliyel, head of paediatrics at St Stephen's Hospital, Delhi."
Other countries where people think they deserve answers are:
- Canada – A dismal five points ahead of the U.S. in infant mortality at 28th, Canada has an uprising of parents asking questions about vaccines and how they're related to their children's asthma, learning disabilities, allergies, and ADHD.
- The United Kingdom – ranking 25th in infant mortality, the UK had 40 deaths linked to vaccines reported in October 2010 – with as many as 2,100 other children injured or sick from serious vaccine adverse reactions.
- Australia – ranking 23rd – has so many parents questioning vaccine safety that they're having a terrible time getting them to give their kids flu vaccines this year – especially since the flu vaccine last year was pulled when it was linked to fevers, seizures and death. Following parents' lead, the Australian press recently talked about vaccine injuries in a recent story about a perfect little girl whose parents believe she was crippled by the flu vaccine.
And in many countries in Africa, the poorest of the poor were questioning as far back as 2003 whether vaccines were the cause of Nigeria's raging surge in autism. They also questioned why thousands of children died after the polio vaccine was introduced in Uganda. And today, mothers in South Africa are asking why babies are dying within hours of their vaccinations.
Again, these are just a few examples. These stories go on and on, with more and more people demanding, and deserving answers – in India, for example, babies have been dying by the hundreds right after their vaccines for several years! In just the past three years, the number of Indian children dying after vaccination has doubled, and Indian parents want to know why. But what's most puzzling is that this is becoming a regular occurrence in both industrialized and Third World nations – and, as usual, health officials continue to try to explain away the deaths as "coincidental."
UK Scraps Pneumonia Vaccines Because They 'Don't Work'
When deciding whether or not to vaccinate, it's important to consider the risks versus the benefits. Case in point, new advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) in the UK has determined that routine vaccination of people over 65 with the pneumococcal vaccine should be discontinued. The Committee stated:
"JCVI has concluded that the protection the vaccine provides is poor and is not long-lasting in older people. In addition, the programme has had no discernable impact on the incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease in older people. The committee has advised, therefore, that there is little benefit to continuing the programme and that it should be stopped."
Millions of people over 65 have already received the pneumonia vaccine, which was often offered alongside the flu vaccine in the UK -- and the Department of Health was reportedly still promoting it as recently as January.
For a vaccine that has provided "poor" protection against illness, the stakes have been high. Mail Online reported official figures from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency that stated the vaccine, sold under brand names Pneumovax and Pneumovax II, has been linked to 30 deaths and more than 3,300 reported side effects.
Vaccine-Related Deaths are Mounting
I started this article with U.S. statistics. But as you can see from the UK example above, the information is relevant around the globe as vaccine deaths mount -- in both industrialized and poor countries. According to The Hindu:
"The concern over the increasing number of deaths among children following vaccination is not confined to India. Many countries have been facing this problem and the governments and the WHO have started addressing the risk factor with a view to enlarging its among larger sections of children all over the world."
As a final example, take a look at the poorest country in the world – Zimbabwe, where except for tetanus, vaccination rates are at 89 to 99 percent, meaning the country is almost fully vaccinated. If you click the link above, you'll see that the number of vaccines they get have increased dramatically over the past 25 or 30 years.
But if you click this link, you'll also see that Zimbabwe's infant mortality rate tripled between 1990 and 2010 – when the most vaccines were added to their vaccination schedule! Like U.S. health officials, Zimbabwe is explaining this away with things that have nothing to do with vaccines, such as lack of good hospital facilities and equipment. But it doesn't make sense that there would be LESS medical care available in Zimbabwe today than there was 20 years ago.
That's why you can't help but ask one more time whether there's a common denominator in infant deaths that could explain this. And again, since vaccines are one common factor, I repeat: Would fewer vaccines administered to infants reduce the number of infant deaths, whether it's in developed countries, where clean water and sanitation are not a factor, or in poor countries, where vaccines are being given in record numbers?
How Water, Nutrition, Sanitation and Poverty Figure into Disease
There are so many myths about vaccine safety concerns that it's impossible to list them here. But for a few scientific answers to common vaccine questions, take a look at the National Vaccine Information Center's (NVIC) "Myths and Facts" section on its website.
When it comes to how water, nutrition, sanitation and poverty figure into disease, regular Mercola.com readers website already know that vaccine immunity is not the same as naturally acquired immunity. They also know that I'm a firmly believe that good nutrition is the best provider of natural immunity.
When it comes to world health officials, from the CDC to the WHO to individual countries' health boards, they all agree that clean water, nutrition, sanitation and poverty are the front line runners for lowering disease rates. Even the WHO says on its vaccines-are-good-for-you page that the one thing that performs better than vaccines is clean water:
"Wherever people achieve reliable access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation they have won a major battle against a wide range of diseases," says WHO Director-General Dr. LEE Jong-wook."
Sadly, we don't seem to be concentrating on getting clean water to children around the world as much as we are on getting them vaccines. From Bill Gates to every U.S. foreign aid office to world governments like the WHO and the Global Alliance on Vaccines and Information (GAVI), billions of dollars are being poured into poor countries for vaccines every year.
But where do you hear about the same people and agencies pumping equal dollars into getting clean water and sanitation to poor countries? You don't. And that's shameful because, water aside, the simple lack of toilets is the cause of more than 2 million preventable deaths every year.
As far as clean water goes, what's really interesting is that at least one major vaccine maker knows that it's is the true key to ending disease, as evidenced on the front page of GlaxoSmithKline's presentation to shareholders in June 2010:
"With the exception of clean drinking water, vaccines are the most cost-effective public health measure," GSK said.
That's right. Even vaccine giants know that it's clean water – not more vaccines – that will save the world.
A Call to Action: It's Time for a Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Trial
If you look at the chart provided in the Miller and Goldman study I've used as a reference for this article, you'll see other industrialized nations have something in common with the U.S.: the countries that give the most vaccines also have the worst infant death rates. Don't you think it's time to question why?
NVIC has collected scientific data and personal stories on vaccine reactions since 1982, and is dedicated to telling the truth about vaccines, from the good they're supposed to do, to the possible reactions that some children might have to them. NVIC's vision is that everyone should have the right to study the vaccine science, and to choose whether or not to have themselves and their children vaccinated.
Now NVIC is sponsoring the ground-breaking Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Health Outcomes Research Project. Its goal is to evaluate short- and long-term health outcomes and potential health differences in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. This study also supports scientific investigation of the safety and effectiveness of:
- Vaccinating children when they are sick
- Revaccinating those who have suffered convulsions, mental regression, development of immune dysfunction and other serious health problems after previous vaccinations
- Simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines
- Evaluation of adverse health outcomes that occur following vaccination, including the sudden onset of brain and immune system dysfunction or death routinely dismissed as "coincidence".
I've been excited about this since the NVIC vaccine conference in fall 2009, when the project was launched when the audience raised more than $100,000 to get it started. Now I'm hoping you will join me in supporting this effort. Don't you think it's time for a call to action?