tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8176396831571099855.post6407426398871568486..comments2023-08-12T10:33:17.801-04:00Comments on Getting to Zero: Vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children – the realityRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12298292710222455199noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8176396831571099855.post-41018339232467422152011-09-02T01:32:30.237-04:002011-09-02T01:32:30.237-04:0094 unvaccinated children for the study. That seem...94 unvaccinated children for the study. That seems way too small of a sample population to give reliable results. Were all other variables controlled? Without knowing if all other significant variable were held constant in both sample populations these results mean nothing. For instance the vaccinated kids could have all be chosen from a healthier socioeconomic status than the non vaccinated. The unvacinated group could have all been chosen in an area that happened to have an outbreak while the other didn't. Without knowing the facts of the study I'm not inclined to believe anything one way or the other. It is BS that they can't do a controlled study. Plenty of parents are not vaccinating their kids and would happily volunteer them to be monitored to collect statistical data. You can't trust the drug companies or the FDA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8176396831571099855.post-38244227088716835282011-04-04T19:04:36.501-04:002011-04-04T19:04:36.501-04:00Be careful what studies you believe. The study you...Be careful what studies you believe. The study you are referencing was wrought with errors. Here are just a couple I noted. I have indicated quotes directly from the study below.<br /><br />a) "...children who had by then received at least one vaccination according to their vaccination card were categorized as vaccinated." Children with only one vaccine were lumped in the same category as children with multiple vaccines, which leaves the possibility of improving the level of health in the vaccinated group.<br /><br />b) "Study data regarding diseases may also depend on people’s ability to remember and on the assessment of those surveyed as well as on a medical diagnosis. We therefore cannot completely rule out that the true prevalence may be over- or underestimated." They did not use medical records to determine the level of health of the subjects. They used the recollection of the parents.<br /><br />c) "Subjects for whom at least one atopic disorder ever was reported were assigned the characteristic “atopic disorder.” There was no distinguishing sort-of sick with really sick on the basis of atopic disorders.<br /><br />d) "Dr Schlaud was the lead investigator of an epidemiological study of deaths in children aged 2–24 months (TOKEN Study) in 2004–2009, which was jointly funded by the Federal Ministry of Health, the Paul Ehrlich-Institute, Sanofi Pasteur, and Glaxo Smith Kline. <br />Dr Poethko-Müller was responsible for coordinating the study mentioned before." And as usual, the researchers spent 6 years working on another study funded by Sanofi and GSK - potential conflict of interest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com