It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Study shows that multiple vaccinations in one visit increase a child's chances of illness or death

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:01 AM
Scary news; a new study indicates that the more vaccinations your child gets in one visit to the doctor, the greater his chance of ending up sick or dead. To top this all off, the CDC never tested the effects of multiple vaccinations on children. They only approved them individually, then recommended kids gets loads at a time to keep up with their ever increasing vaccination schedules.

Infants receiving the most vaccines are the most likely to be hospitalized and die

Researchers found statistically significant correlations between the number of vaccine doses administered to infants and infant hospitalization and mortality rates: babies who receive the most vaccines tend to have higher (worse) hospitalization and death rates.

Infants who received 2 vaccines simultaneously were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than infants who received 3 or more vaccines at the same time. Infants who received 3 vaccines simultaneously were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than infants who received 4 or more vaccines at the same time. Babies who received 6, 7, or 8 vaccines during a single pediatric well-baby visit were the most likely to be hospitalized following their injections. In fact, the hospitalization rate increased linearly from 11.0% for infants receiving 2 vaccine doses to 23.5% for infants receiving 8 vaccine doses.

The authors of the study, Dr. Gary Goldman and Neil Z. Miller, also discovered that younger infants were significantly more likely to be hospitalized after receiving vaccinations than older infants. In addition, infants who received 5-8 vaccines simultaneously were significantly more likely to die following their shots than infants who received 1-4 vaccines simultaneously.

Natural News

Of course, this is all done in the interests of keeping our precious children safe from those evil disieases. Never mind the fact that their very vaccination schedule may be placing the children in far more danger than the risk of ever catching any of those diseases would.

In 1990, infants received a total of 15 vaccine doses prior to their first year of life. By 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended 26 vaccine doses for infants: 3 DTaP, 3 polio, 3 Hib, 3 hepatitis B, 3 pneumococcal, 3 rotavirus, and 2 influenza vaccines.

The CDC's Childhood Immunization Schedule Was Not Tested for Safety, Lacks Scientific Veracity:

While each childhood vaccine has individually undergone clinical trials to assess safety, studies have not been conducted to determine the safety (or efficacy) of combining vaccines during a single physician visit as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) guidelines. For example, 2-, 4-, and 6-month-old infants are expected to receive vaccines for polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and pneumococcal, all during a single well-baby visit -- even though this combination of 8 vaccines was never tested in clinical trials.

But, there's no need to worry because after all; they're from the government and they are here to help.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:19 AM
reply to post by FortAnthem


About two weeks ago we took our newborn daughter to the Pediatrician for her shots. Normally, they are given 3 shots, with one of the shots being a cocktail of 3 different vaccines.

Well, the company that produces the 3 in 1 shot was apparently behind schedule, so the nurse informed us she would need 5 separate shots..!

Dude, I hate shots myself and wasn't about to watch my 8 week old daughter take 5 in one sitting. I looked at the wifey and said no way. She agreed, so we only had her given 3 of the 5, knowing we had to return in a few weeks for the rest.

So, it appears that my fear of shots saved my daughter's life...I always knew being soft in that area would pay off.

Good info usual.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:43 AM
reply to post by facelift

Its scary sometimes the amount of needles they want to stick in the very young children these days. Makes you wonder if they're using our kids as voodoo dolls in some type of evil illuminati ritual or something.

They really don't take into account the amount of mental trauma this will cause the children. All they care about is getting as much drugs into them as fast as they can. It really goes to show that the CDC is run by the drug companies anymore.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 06:20 PM
Why is it a surprise to anyone that when you inject people with viruses they get sick? Our society has a suicidal lack of common sense.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 10:26 PM
reply to post by FortAnthem

Yes they do. When my child was born he was given a FLU vaccine at ONE day old, the doc just came up to me and stated"I"m going to give him a flu shot.", I hesitated and she started glaring at me she looked like she was going to kick my face in, I could practically see the steam coming from her nose and ears. A red flag went waving all over my brain even as I said, "Go ahead." After that I studied and researched, that was the LAST day he's been vaccinated. When I got home and started getting stuff in the mail about vaccine schedules and how it's the "KEY" to health, I noticed he wasn't supposed to have gottent he flu shot till he was 6 MONTHS, that got me angry.

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:41 AM
That study raises some red flags for me.

It's on NaturalNews.

The people who performed it are a computer scientist (who actually runs Medical Veritas, an anti-vaccine group) and a journalist (who runs an anti-vaccine website!).
So no bias there then.

They way they have set out the study almost seems to point to an inevitable conclusion, which indeed it does with the help of some poor statistical interpretation and some glaring assumptions and omissions.

In the conclusion it states "Studies have not been conducted to determine the safety (or efficacy) of administering multiple vaccine doses in a variety of combinations as recommended by CDC guidelines."
Well, actually there have. Lots of them.
Why have they written a lie in the study....?
What else are they lying about?

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:41 AM
EDIT: Double post.
Mods, please remove

edit on 28/12/12 by Pardon? because: Double post.

posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 10:26 AM
Ok, where to begin here...

First off, one of the PIs is a well known anti-vaccine activist. It's also unrealistic to establish causal relationship based on VAERS. It is true that infants are inundated with vaccines, which is out of necessity. What these "researchers" have shown through lazy statistics is that when more infants are hospitalized, rates of mortality are higher.

Outright it looks legitimate to someone who is not familiar with the dangers of using a passive reporting system like VAERS to establish clinically relevant correlations. The fact that these researchers used only VAERS for their data is the first issue. The largest (among many) problems with this study is that their conclusion is in no way related to the study. Not even slightly. They analyzed submissions to a safety reporting database, then suggest that the cases of infants receiving larger numbers (but not the largest number, 9+) of vaccines had reports with higher rates of hospitalization or death. Thus, they conclude, infant mortality and hospitalization are increased by increasing numbers of vaccines.

(reports of hospitalization and death) / (total reports) is meaningless if the database does not capture enough events to approximate actual outcomes, and thus has zero clinical/societal significance. Billing data, SEER, and plenty of other databases allow one to produce high quality retrospective studies of this type, but this is total fluff.

They also state that their results were statistically significant without giving a lot of their methodologies. Their correlations are awful and have data points all over the place. They were able to get a statistically significant correlation by throwing out data points (like infants that had only 1 vaccine or infants that had more than 8 vaccines). They actually say that including this data messes up their results, so they discarded it and then list some phony assumptions about why these data points were "outliers."

They then bash legitimate clinical studies and cite themselves multiple times and do the typical tactic of making the legitimate medical professionals look like evil conspirators in some plot to vaccinate children.

Finally, neither author is an actual scientist. They are journalists looking for a story. They publish a poorly done article using a passive database that provides unreliable data and then cherry pick the data to make it look like there is a correlation.

The final nail in the coffin of this study is that it was funded by the National Vaccine Information Center, which is a source of anti-vaccine propaganda and pseudo-science designed to steer parents away from vaccinating their children.

These researchers are simply looking for data that agrees with their agenda. It is not science and it is not honest. These kind of studies are the ones that these well meaning parents read and on which they make so called informed decisions.

I am critical of these things. As a Med Student I'm all for vaccines when they are indicated because I care about patients and am confident that I understand the evidence in their favor. I do not get compensated more for vaccinating or not vaccinating. I am sick of these illegitimate studies that try to blanket legitimate scientists and practitioners as evil doers. If a well done study is published and it is established that vaccines are causing more harm then good then I will gladly accept that because that is how science works.


log in