For those who wanna go further :
I use the javascript program they did (
http://www.medicalveritas.com/vaers.php) to recreate the study data.
- Age : 0 < 1 (this is the "infant" age span)
- Doses count : All doses (1-15)
- Report events : Deaths (we are talking about mortality so...)
- Combine years : 1990 to 2009 (and combine 2010 to 2010
- Ignore cases with doses : 16 and higher
The flaws of the article IMO :
#1 . Millions of infants are vaccinated, make your ratio.
#2 . The article is super biased :
That 50 number is from 1992 and that 100 number is from 1993... Come on... Plus under-reporting deaths ?! I mean, yeah some will not go to the hospital whatever reasons they have but stating as logical that only 1 to 2% of people goes to the hospital when a child is in life-threatening condition is kinda bizarre...
#3 . Even if so, where is the direct coorelation proven between the very vaccination and the hospitalization/death ?
#4 . Reading the data :
From 1 to 4 doses, you do have 423 deaths and 11504 infants who lived, making a 3.6 ratio (423 / 11504 + 423)
From 5 to 8 doses, you do have 1458 deaths and 25416 infants who lived, making a 5.4 ratio (1458 / (25416 + 1458)
From 9 to 11 doses you have 4 deaths and 277 infants who lived, making a 1.4 ratio (4 / 277 + 4)
In that case, if you want to vaccinate your child, take the giga-cocktail with 11 vaccines because your child would have better chances to live !!
In a few words, if I were a pro-vaccine nut working for the pharmaceutical industry, I could have taken the same study and make the exact opposite article stating that :
"Mortality rate 157% lower if you give your child from 9 to 11 vaccines than 1 to 4 ! Better, mortality rate 286% lower than if you take from 5 to 8 ! If you want your child safer, vaccinate him ! A lot !"
Yeah people would have told me than there was a flaw in my statement (it should have been 9 to 12 instead of 9 to 11), but what's reason when you got big numbers to show off ?
ARTICLE DISMISSED
On a more serious note, I really wanna know why the authors dismissed those 9 to 11 vaccines as insufficient. They did follow the same modus operandi with lower doses, why didn't take the 9 to 11 numbers into account if the 1 to 8 numbers were significant ?