Waist-Hip Ratio and female beauty

The sexual dimorphism for this metric is obviously lowest on Asians.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8366421

Evidence is presented showing that body fat distribution as measured by waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is correlated with youthfulness, reproductive endocrinologic status, and long-term health risk in women. Three studies show that men judge women with low WHR as attractive. Study 1 documents that minor changes in WHRs of Miss America winners and Playboy playmates have occurred over the past 30-60 years. Study 2 shows that college-age men find female figures with low WHR more attractive, healthier, and of greater reproductive value than figures with a higher WHR. In Study 3, 25- to 85-year-old men were found to prefer female figures with lower WHR and assign them higher ratings of attractiveness and reproductive potential. It is suggested that WHR represents an important bodily feature associated with physical attractiveness as well as with health and reproductive potential. A hypothesis is proposed to explain how WHR influences female attractiveness and its role in mate selection.

Hello sexual selection, tied intimately to natural selection.

PDF here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/05d6/0e201efb208e8561641d13df30fc6ba3bc1a.pdf

also connected to “desire and capability for having childrenp7 or 299.

so K-type women may have better WHR.

Normal weight women have the most positive attributes associated.

Overweight category was universally unattractive.
It’d be nice to see a male study on this. I think Western women would want more children if fewer men were obese.

Why Asians are considered youthful but not sexy (they’d usually fall in the underweight group):

The variables of attractiveness, sexiness, and good health were located close to each other, suggesting that subjects perceived them to be closely related.

Attributes of desire and capability for having children were located close to each other in the solution space but farther from attractiveness, sexiness, and good health, implying that subjects did not perceive a great similarity between these two sets of attributes.

Finally, the attribute of youthfulness was located alone and away from both sets of other attributes. Thus, subjects apparently did not perceive youthfulness to be related to any other measured attributes of good health, sexiness, attractiveness, and desire and capability for having children.

So there’s that. Nobody’s jealous.

Figure N7 was located closer to attractiveness, sexiness, and good health as well as desire and capability for having children than any other Figure.

Normal weight for frame (and race) + most nubile WHR would make sense.
More of those genes survived.

Figure N9 was located closest to desire and capability for having children, whereas Figure N8 was located between Figure N7 and Figure N9. The figure N10 was grouped along with overweight figures, which were not perceived to be closely associated with any of the attributes under investigation. Underweight female figures, U7 and U8, were associated only with youthfulness. However, underweight figures with high WHR (U9 and U10) were perceived as neither youthful nor healthy, in spite of the fact that their depicted body weight was quite similar to figures with lower WHR.

Women with an atrocious WHR (boy hips, no waist) and under or overweight for their skeleton are objectively unattractive from an evolutionary standpoint. This would apply whether it’s a Jap, a Ruskie or an American.

Stop calling sexy science ‘racist’ because it doesn’t share your fetish.

This chart drags you harder than I ever could.

Your Asian girlfriend with the boy hips is approximately as attractive to the world as the average WHR white fat chick. That’s your level, accept it.

It’s also a fact we cannot accurately perceive attractiveness of the racial outgroup as well as our own, so an awareness of ingroup flaws changes nothing.

Most modern women straight up don’t look healthy, whether they’re American, European or, yes, Asian.

Stop trying to make boy hips = sexy happen. It’s not going to happen.

Look at the damn gradient on that underweight thing. The solution to fat women isn’t anorexia. That also suggests bad genes. In fact, at least the fat percentage on slightly overweight 0.7 WHR women suggests femininity and fertility.

“Overall, it seems that subjects inferred reproductive capability from body fat”

What does a foetus feed from?

“Thus, it seems that although WHR is related to health and attractiveness, body weight is perceived to be related to reproductive capability”

Obviously.

“As a group, underweight figures were assigned the lowest reproductive capability, followed by overweight figures and then normal weight figures.”

Suck on that, soyboys.

You actually tend to downgrade. That’s why the Democrat-voting soyboys all want an Asian girlfriend and expressly don’t want kids with it.

“Overall, it appears that both fatness and thinness are perceived as unattractive, and such figures are not perceived as having especially high reproductive potential. “

Not womanly. Remember that word? This:

Not girly, not sexy, not cute, not hot. Womanly.

You can’t discuss women in a reproductive, evolutionary context without it.

Thus, consistent with the present findings, men did not find thin or underweight figures attractive.

If you only care for other male opinions.

There is some evidence that suggests that being extremely underweight or overweight can have adverse effects on female reproductive functions.

Ya don’t say?

A critical body mass has been shown to be significantly related to the onset of menstrual cycle and its maintenance (Frisch & McCarthur, 1974), although recent evidence (DeRidder et al., 1990) suggests that it is the body fat distribution, rather than body fat mass or body weight, that is related to early pubertal development.

Distribution varies by race.

Africans are the most pronounced in women then Europeans shapely but delicate then Asians last – no shape, very yang flesh (broad but flat or full in the middle like cortisol fat) and almost nothing to distribute.

Am I imagining all of this?

Underweight females (15% below ideal body weight) have been reported to have a higher incidence of oligomenorrhea (menses 35 days or more apart) and amenorrhea and to have a higher prevalence of ovu-latory infertility than normal weight females (Green, Weiss, & Daling, 1986).

Underweight women also give birth to infants who are small and growth delayed, and such infants often have permanently impaired intellectual and physical development (Supy, Steer, McCusker, Steele, & Jacobs, 1988).

Menstrual dysfunction and ovulatory infertility also occur more often in females who are 20% above ideal body weight (Green et al., 1986). Morbid obesity in females with high WHR has been shown to increase the degree of androgenicity (increased percentage of free testosterone) and associated menstrual and ovulatory problems (Kirschner & Samojilik, 1991). Thus, the reproductive success of a woman may be low in spite of a high level of fat deposits if the regional distribution of fat is not appropriate, that is, gynoid.

=Womanly.

Finally, the finding that underweight figures were assigned high rankings for youthfulness but not for attractiveness (or other attributes related to reproductive potential) is difficult to reconcile with some evolutionarily based mate selection hypotheses.

Normal men aren’t pedos.

Youthfulness and health have been proprosed as absolute criteria for female attractiveness (Symons, 1987).

Stick with health.

Health has good or bad, you have no negative way to assess youth e.g. immature.

Features of physical appearance associated with youth supposedly provide the strongest and most reliable cues for female reproductive potential. The present finding illustrates that the relationship of youthfulness and attractiveness is quite complex.

Not really.

A woman who is judged to be attractive is also found to be youthful; however, youthfulness alone does not make a woman attractive. Apparently, youthfulness is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for determination of female physical attractiveness.

crazed pointing-

also, don’t try to chalk this up to taste:

“Furthermore, if the ideal of female attractiveness is arbitrary and ever changing, no evidence of transgenerational stability in the meaning of WHR should be found, as older men are more likely to be exposed to different ideals of attractiveness than are younger men.”

but

“Older men did not associate health with underweight figures, including those with lower WHR.”

TLDR: Pedos are wrong. Underweight, waistless wonders are not attractive.

Study 2, rubbing salt in that fact.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009042

Optimal Waist-to-Hip Ratios in Women Activate Neural Reward Centers in Men

Secondary sexual characteristics convey information about reproductive potential. In the same way that facial symmetry and masculinity, and shoulder-to-hip ratio convey information about reproductive/genetic quality in males, waist-to-hip-ratio (WHR) is a phenotypic cue to fertility, fecundity, neurodevelopmental resources in offspring, and overall health, and is indicative of “good genes” in women. Here, using fMRI, we found that males show activation in brain reward centers in response to naked female bodies when surgically altered to express an optimal (∼0.7) WHR with redistributed body fat, but relatively unaffected body mass index (BMI). Relative to presurgical bodies, brain activation to postsurgical bodies was observed in bilateral orbital frontal cortex. While changes in BMI only revealed activation in visual brain substrates, changes in WHR revealed activation in the anterior cingulate cortex, an area associated with reward processing and decision-making. When regressing ratings of attractiveness on brain activation, we observed activation in forebrain substrates, notably the nucleus accumbens, a forebrain nucleus highly involved in reward processes.

These findings suggest that an hourglass figure (i.e., an optimal WHR) activates brain centers that drive appetitive sociality/attention toward females that represent the highest-quality reproductive partners. This is the first description of a neural correlate implicating WHR as a putative honest biological signal of female reproductive viability and its effects on men’s neurological processing.

Quality.

Study 3

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X08002298

Men report stronger attraction to femininity in women’s faces when their testosterone levels are high

Many studies have shown that women’s judgments of men’s attractiveness are affected by changes in levels of sex hormones. However, no studies have tested for associations between changes in levels of sex hormones and men’s judgments of women’s attractiveness. To investigate this issue, we compared men’s attractiveness judgments of feminized and masculinized women’s and men’s faces in test sessions where salivary testosterone was high and test sessions where salivary testosterone was relatively low.

This is why we need studies on men too.

Men reported stronger attraction to femininity in women’s faces in test sessions where salivary testosterone was high than in test sessions where salivary testosterone was low. This effect was found to be specific to judgments of opposite-sex faces. The strength of men’s reported attraction to femininity in men’s faces did not differ between high and low testosterone test sessions, suggesting that the effect of testosterone that we observed for judgments of women’s faces was not due to a general response bias. Collectively, these findings suggest that changes in testosterone levels contribute to the strength of men’s reported attraction to femininity in women’s faces and complement previous findings showing that testosterone modulates men’s interest in sexual stimuli.

Study 4

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886906004995

Beauty is in the eye of the plastic surgeon: Waist–hip ratio (WHR) and women’s attractiveness

Attractiveness conveys reliable information about a woman’s age, health, and fertility. Body fat distribution, as measured by waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), is a reliable cue to a woman’s age, health, and fertility, and affects judgment of women’s attractiveness. WHR is positively correlated with overall body weight or body mass index (BMI). Some researchers have argued that BMI, rather than WHR, affects judgments of female attractiveness. To evaluate the role of WHR, independent of BMI, we secured photographs of pre- and post-operative women who have undergone micro-fat grafting surgery. In this surgery, surgeons harvest fat tissue from the waist region and implant it on the buttocks. Post-operatively, all women have a lower WHR but some gain weight whereas others lose body weight. Results indicate that participants judge post-operative photographs as more attractive than pre-operative photographs, independent of post-operative changes in body weight or BMI. These results indicate that WHR is a key feature of women’s attractiveness.

Duh.

Let’s look historically. Study 5

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/72/6/1436/4729453

Trends in waist-to-hip ratio and its determinants in adults in Finland from 1987 to 1997

Background: Although abdominal obesity has been shown to be an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease and a variety of other diseases, secular changes in fat distribution in populations have rarely been documented.

Objective: Our objective was to assess trends in waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) in the Finnish population during a 10-y period. In addition, we investigated the associations of WHR with body mass index (BMI), age, education, and lifestyle factors.

Design: Three independent cross-sectional surveys were carried out at 5-y intervals between 1987 and 1997. Altogether, 15096 randomly selected men and women aged 25–64 y participated in these surveys.

Results: The WHR increased in both men and women during the 10-y period (P< 0.0001). In men, the strongest upward trend took place in the first 5-y period and then seemed to plateau; in women, the WHR continued to increase into the 1990s. In both sexes, the most prominent increase was observed in subjects aged ≥45 y. The WHR increased in all education-level groups, the lowest WHR being among those with the highest education. Age (18% in men, 12% in women) and BMI (33% in men, 25% in women) accounted for most of the variation in WHR, whereas only 3% was explained by education and lifestyle factors.

Conclusions: Abdominal obesity is a growing problem in Finland, especially in persons aged ≥45 y. These adverse changes in body shape continued to take place, particularly in women, in the 1990s.

Something in the food?

More history, prehistoric. Study 6

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123284

Preferred Women’s Waist-to-Hip Ratio Variation over the Last 2,500 Years

The ratio between the body circumference at the waist and the hips (or WHR) is a secondary sexual trait that is unique to humans and is well known to influence men’s mate preferences. Because a woman’s WHR also provides information about her age, health and fertility, men’s preference concerning this physical feature may possibly be a cognitive adaptation selected in the human lineage. However, it is unclear whether the preferred WHR in western countries reflects a universal ideal, as geographic variation in non-western areas has been found, and discordances about its temporal consistency remain in the literature. We analyzed the WHR of women considered as ideally beautiful who were depicted in western artworks from 500 BCE to the present. These vestiges of the past feminine ideal were then compared to more recent symbols of beauty: Playboy models and winners of several Miss pageants from 1920 to 2014. We found that the ideal WHR has changed over time in western societies: it was constant during almost a millennium in antiquity (from 500 BCE to 400 CE) and has decreased from the 15th century to the present. Then, based on Playboy models and Miss pageants winners, this decrease appears to slow down or even reverse during the second half of the 20th century. The universality of an ideal WHR is thus challenged, and historical changes in western societies could have caused these variations in men’s preferences. The potential adaptive explanations for these results are discussed.

Should’ve controlled for race.

Why not look at male WHR? Plus sperm health? Found:

https://www.drelist.com/blog/bmi-waist-circumference-semen-quality/

  • The volume of ejaculate decreases in a linear fashion with increasing BMI (suggesting an inverse relationship).
  • The sperm quality and viability declines with increasing waist circumference.
  • Investigators also discovered that quality of semen decreases (such as sperm viability, motility, semen volume) with increasing body size; however, no relationship was observed between sperm DNA fragmentation index and physical activity or obesity.

Latter requires time.

Various research and clinical studies suggests that subfertility in men is multifactorial i.e. several factors can impact the quality of reproductive health.

  • Abnormal sperm production: Study conducted by Jensen and associates (2) suggested that abnormal BMI is very strongly linked to impaired sperm production. One of the many reasons is, abnormal metabolism of testosterone (which plays a key role in the production of healthy and viable sperms).
  • Abdominal obesity and risk of metabolic disorders: According to a new study reported in the Human Reproduction (3), investigators provided statistical evidence that abnormal BMI and abdominal obesity is very strongly linked to a number of health issues (such as cardiovascular dysfunction, atherosclerosis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and others). Needless to say that these health issues have a deleterious effect on the sexual health regardless of the body-mass index (or BMI).
  • Obesity, physical activity and testosterone: Testosterone levels tends to decline in males who have a sedentary lifestyle. Various research and clinical studies indicates that aerobic activity or exercise can improve testosterone metabolism in males significantly.

1. Eisenberg, M. L., Kim, S., Chen, Z., Sundaram, R., Schisterman, E. F., & Louis, G. M. B. (2014). The relationship between male BMI and waist circumference on semen quality: data from the LIFE study. Human Reproduction, 29(2), 193-200.

2. Jensen, T. K., Andersson, A. M., Jørgensen, N., Andersen, A. G., Carlsen, E., & Skakkebæk, N. E. (2004). Body mass index in relation to semen quality and reproductive hormones among 1,558 Danish men. Fertility and sterility, 82(4), 863-870.

3. Hammiche, F., Laven, J. S., Twigt, J. M., Boellaard, W. P., Steegers, E. A., & Steegers-Theunissen, R. P. (2012). Body mass index and central adiposity are associated with sperm quality in men of subfertile couples. Human reproduction, 27(8), 2365-2372.

Yet they don’t tell men this information.

Back to women

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24789138

Cross-cultural variation in men’s preference for sexual dimorphism in women’s faces.

Both attractiveness judgements and mate preferences vary considerably cross-culturally.

Racially.

We investigated whether men’s preference for femininity in women’s faces varies between 28 countries with diverse health conditions by analysing responses of 1972 heterosexual participants. Although men in all countries preferred feminized over masculinized female faces, we found substantial differences between countries in the magnitude of men’s preferences. Using an average femininity preference for each country, we found men’s facial femininity preferences correlated positively with the health of the nation, which explained 50.4% of the variation among countries. The weakest preferences for femininity were found in Nepal and strongest in Japan. As high femininity in women is associated with lower success in competition for resources and lower dominance, it is possible that in harsher environments, men prefer cues to resource holding potential over high fecundity.

Asia is weird for dimorphism studies.

Hence the focus on health.

While the economy is bad, it isn’t surprising men prefer manly looking women.

It’s temporary. There’ll be a flood of divorces as the economy improves. Men will suddenly see how mannish the wife has been and be repulsed. Menopause also makes women look more mannish, including higher WHR. So much for a youth argument there.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5177465/pdf/nihms827194.pdf

Factors Underlying the Temporal Increase in Maternal Mortality in the United States

They don’t say more non-white mothers or more mixed race babies, so it’s wrong. They guess.

Unvaccinated mortality rate and scapegoating

Rhetoric: “If you don’t vaccinate, you’re much more likely to die.”
Fact: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00079/full

Title: “Evidence of Increase in Mortality After the Introduction of Diphtheria–Tetanus–Pertussis Vaccine to Children Aged 6–35 Months in Guinea-Bissau: A Time for Reflection?” 2018

35 months? A decent study length, for once.

I could leave it at this but since “cherrypicked” is the next goalpost position they slide to, shamelessly, after claiming “no valid empirical studies”, this’ll be a slightly longish post. It’s a doozy. Bring tea. 8k words.

When studies are available, there is a range of errors in the method.
A range of “errors”. I also debunk the myth at the end of unvaccinated children being ‘dangerous’. It’s the biggest font, can’t miss it and also the “ahrp” link, if you text search.

You can ignore me, but not your loud conscience.

https://www.oatext.com/Pilot-comparative-study-on-the-health-of-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-6-to-12-year-old-U-S-children.php

Mawson, published April 2017. STILL available, contrary to lies. Abstract:

Vaccinations have prevented millions of infectious illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths among U.S. children, yet the long-term health outcomes of the vaccination schedule remain uncertain. Studies have been recommended by the U.S. Institute of Medicine to address this question. This study aimed 1) to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children on a broad range of health outcomes, and 2) to determine whether an association found between vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD), if any, remained significant after adjustment for other measured factors. A cross-sectional study of mothers of children educated at home was carried out in collaboration with homeschool organizations in four U.S. states: Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oregon. Mothers were asked to complete an anonymous online questionnaire on their 6- to 12-year-old biological children with respect to pregnancy-related factors, birth history, vaccinations, physician-diagnosed illnesses, medications used, and health services. NDD, a derived diagnostic measure, was defined as having one or more of the following three closely-related diagnoses: a learning disability, Attention Deficient Hyperactivity Disorder, and Autism Spectrum Disorder. A convenience sample of 666 children was obtained, of which 261 (39%) were unvaccinated. The vaccinated were less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDD. After adjustment, vaccination, male gender, and preterm birth remained significantly associated with NDD. However, in a final adjusted model with interaction, vaccination but not preterm birth remained associated with NDD, while the interaction of preterm birth and vaccination was associated with a 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD (95% CI: 2.8, 15.5). In conclusion, vaccinated homeschool children were found to have a higher rate of allergies and NDD than unvaccinated homeschool children. While vaccination remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD. Further research involving larger, independent samples and stronger research designs is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health.

Bravo.

Let’s quote, shall we? I didn’t list everything sig, just the big findings.

Under ‘results’, 92% of the children studied were white, as a liar tries to claim later, race cannot be a factor preventing such studies. 8.5% high school or less, no SES confound. 91.2% Christian, other categories unlisted. 93.7% married women.

Table 3 contains chronic conditions.
ADHD 4.7% vacc 1% NOT – p=0.013
ASD 4.7% vacc 1% NOT – p=0.013
Learning disability 5.7% vacc, 1.2% NOT – p=0.003
Neurodevelopment Disorder 10.5% vacc, 3.1% NOT – p=< 0.001
Any Chronic Condition (inc minor) 44% vacc, 24.9% NOT – p=< 0.001.

Table 6
Used antibiotics in the past 12 months p=< 0.001
Sick visit to doctor in the past year p=< 0.001
Seen doctor for checkup in past 12 months p=< 0.001

The figure shows that the single largest group of diagnoses was learning disability (n=15) followed by ASD (n=9), and ADHD (n=9), with smaller numbers comprising combinations of the three diagnoses.”

NDD “Two factors that almost reached statistical significance were vaccination during pregnancy (OR 2.5, 95% CI: 1.0, 6.3) and three or more fetal ultrasounds (OR 3.2, 95% CI: 0.92, 11.5).”

Table 7 NDD and vaccination status p=<0.001

Following a recommendation of the Institute of Medicine [19] for studies comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, this study focused on homeschool children ages 6 to 12 years”
“Data from the survey were also used to determine whether vaccination was associated specifically with NDDs, a derived diagnostic category combining children with the diagnoses of learning disability, ASD and/or ADHD.”

Important.

“With regard to acute and chronic conditions, vaccinated children were significantly less likely than the unvaccinated to have had chickenpox and pertussis but, contrary to expectation, were significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with otitis media, pneumonia, allergic rhinitis, eczema, and NDD.”

The vaccinated were also more likely to have used antibiotics, allergy and fever medications; to have been fitted with ventilation ear tubes; visited a doctor for a health issue in the previous year, and been hospitalized.”

“The reason for hospitalization and the age of the child at the time were not determined, but the latter finding appears consistent with a study of 38,801 reports to the VAERS of infants who were hospitalized or had died after receiving vaccinations.

I don’t think they included deceased children (no) in this one so the numbers would go up.

The study reported a linear relationship between the number of vaccine doses administered at one time and the rate of hospitalization and death; moreover, the younger the infant at the time of vaccination, the higher was the rate of hospitalization and death [55]. The hospitalization rate increased from 11% for 2 vaccine doses to 23.5% for 8 doses (r2 = 0.91), while the case fatality rate increased significantly from 3.6% for those receiving from 1-4 doses to 5.4 % for those receiving from 5-8 doses.”

Informed consent?

“However, the ASD prevalence of 2.24% from a CDC parent survey is lower than the study rate of 3.3%. Vaccinated males were significantly more likely than vaccinated females to have been diagnosed with allergic rhinitis, and NDD. The percentage of vaccinated males with an NDD in this study (14.4%) is consistent with national findings based on parental responses to survey questions, indicating that 15% of U.S. children ages 3 to 17 years in the years 2006-2008 had an NDD [28].”

“Vaccination was strongly associated with both otitis media and pneumonia, which are among the most common complications of measles infection [56,57]. The odds of otitis media were almost four-fold higher among the vaccinated (OR 3.8, 95% CI: 2.1, 6.6) and the odds of myringotomy with tube placement were eight-fold higher than those of unvaccinated children (OR 8.0, 95% CI: 1.0, 66.1).”

“found an increased frequency of M. catarrhalis colonization in the vaccinated group compared to the partly immunized and control groups (76% vs. 62% and 56%, respectively). A high rate of Moraxella catarrhalis colonization is associated with an increased risk of AOM [65].”
“These observations have suggested that eradication of vaccine serotype pneumococci can be followed by colonization of other bacterial species in the vacant nasopharyngeal niche, leading to disequilibria of bacterial composition (dysbiosis) and increased risks of otitis media. Long-term monitoring has been recommended as essential for understanding the full implications of vaccination-induced changes in microbiota structure [67].”

After adjustment, the factors that remained significantly associated with NDD were vaccination, nonwhite race, male gender, and preterm birth.”

“The present study suggests that vaccination could be a contributing factor in the pathogenesis of NDD but also that preterm birth by itself may have a lesser or much reduced role in NDD (defined here as ASD, ADHD and/or a learning disability) than currently believed. The findings also suggest that vaccination coupled with preterm birth could increase the odds of NDD beyond that of vaccination alone.”

Conclusion:
Assessment of the long-term effects of the vaccination schedule on morbidity and mortality has been limited [71]. In this pilot study of vaccinated and unvaccinated homeschool children, reduced odds of chickenpox and whooping cough were found among the vaccinated, as expected, but unexpectedly increased odds were found for many other physician-diagnosed conditions. Although the cross-sectional design of the study limits causal interpretation, the strength and consistency of the findings, the apparent “dose-response” relationship between vaccination status and several forms of chronic illness, and the significant association between vaccination and NDDs all support the possibility that some aspect of the current vaccination program could be contributing to risks of childhood morbidity.

Vaccination also remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors, whereas preterm birth, long considered a major risk factor for NDD, was not associated with NDD after controlling for the interaction between preterm birth and vaccination. In addition, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD above that of vaccination alone. Nevertheless, the study findings should be interpreted with caution. First, additional research is needed to replicate the findings in studies with larger samples and stronger research designs. Second, subject to replication, potentially detrimental factors associated with the vaccination schedule should be identified and addressed and underlying mechanisms better understood. Such studies are essential in order to optimize the impact of vaccination of children’s health.”

True. Tell Gorski that. Further reading.

55 Goldman GS, Miller NZ (2012) Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990-2010. Hum Exp Toxicol 31: 1012-1021
71 Fisker AB, Hornshøj L, Rodrigues A, Balde I, Fernandes M, et al. (2014) Effects of the introduction of new vaccines in Guinea-Bissau on vaccine coverage, vaccine timeliness, and child survival: an observational study. Lancet Glob Health 2: e478-e487.

However, tetanus might be a good one to get, if you are likely to be exposed.
https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/Article_2010.pdf?ua=1

Preferably before pregnancy.

The foreign death rate for rotavirus doesn’t actually check if vaccines decrease deaths?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309911702535

Flu benefit lies
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7578881_Influenza_Vaccination_and_Mortality_in_the_United_States

<10% elderly deaths from flu in USA, claimed benefit five-fold.

Infant mortality:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/
In conclusion “These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.”
“A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential. All nations—rich and poor, advanced and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.”

True.

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/182/9/791/96333
Vaccination and All-Cause Child Mortality From 1985 to 2011: Global Evidence From the Demographic and Health Surveys
“Childhood vaccination, and in particular measles and tetanus vaccination, is associated with substantial reductions in childhood mortality.”
Nobody really dies from measles anymore.
Their estimations, not a real study.
“The results indicate that measles vaccination is associated with a relative risk of mortality of 0.83, whereas maternal tetanus vaccination is associated with a relative risk of 0.92
Really? So little. I retract the tetanus thing.
“Generally, it is not possible to estimate the association between vaccination status and mortality at the individual level in household survey data, such as the DHS, because the vaccination status of children who have died is not usually reported (36)”
Lying directly. So just get the data?
“An additional advantage of this aggregate analysis is that it allows us to capture potential herd immunity (37–39), which would not typically be observed in an individual-level analysis.”

36 Cutts FT, Izurieta HS, Rhoda DA. Measuring coverage in MNCH: design, implementation, and interpretation challenges associated with tracking vaccination coverage using household surveys. PLoS Med. 2013;105:e1001404.
I hope I’m including enough references, wouldn’t want to disappoint anyone.

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/116/3/510/99513?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Measles study method issues.

Growing infertility epidemic, CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/infertility/whitepaper-pg1.htm#tabs-793807-1

“Although some perceive infertility as a quality-of-life issue, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) regards infertility as a disease (3). A U.S. Supreme Court opinion agreed with a lower court statement that reproduction is a major life activity and confirmed that conditions that interfere with reproduction should be regarded as disabilities, as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (4).”

And according to international law, deliberately bringing about impaired fertility is GENOCIDE, see d.

Wait, is preventing reproduction (a “major life activity”) by forced poverty, thanks to tax redistribution so others CAN have kids, illegal? Seems so.

“Although the focus of research and services has traditionally been on women (and, as a consequence, much of this article reflects it), fertility impairments may be just as common among men (6). The statistics cited above distinguish impaired fecundity from infertility. In this article we refer to infertility more broadly, including all fertility impairments. Recurrent pregnancy loss (miscarriage) is a component of impaired fecundity, distinct from infertility (ASRM, unpublished data) and is not included in this presentation.”

It started with Boomers, the free love generation, putting off reproduction. I wonder if STDs might be a cause?

“African American women had a twofold increase in odds of reporting a history of infertility (9).”

Mixed women? Is the same true in full African immigrants?

“Different subgroups may have infertility of different etiology.”

“In 2006, reported chlamydia rates were eight times higher among African Americans than among whites, highlighting the large disparities in this important risk factor for infertility (13).”

“Other modifiable factors contribute to the burden of infertility. Although the proportion of male factor infertility due to varicocele is unknown, this common condition is reported in approximately half of the inpatient surgery services and approximately two thirds of office visits for male factor infertility in the United States (14)”

“Although the proportion of infertility that is due to tobacco smoking is unknown, infertility specialists are increasingly aware that exposure to tobacco products can cause infertility”

Including secondhand?
The ban moaners have explaining to do.

“Obesity in men is associated with erectile dysfunction and decreased androgen production, but its effects on male fertility are not as clear (30).”

“A public health strategy focusing on primary prevention (e.g., through removal of risk factors for infertility such as those described above) would reduce the prevalence of infertility,”

Why do I mention that? Here.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287394.2018.1477640?journalCode=uteh20
“A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection” 2018

“Shortly after the vaccine was licensed, several reports of recipients experiencing primary ovarian failure emerged.”

trans. Instant shutdown.

“Using logistic regression to analyze the data, the probability of having been pregnant was estimated for females who received an HPV vaccine compared with females who did not receive the shot. Results suggest that females who received the HPV shot were less likely to have ever been pregnant than women in the same age group who did not receive the shot. If 100% of females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, data suggest the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by 2 million. Further study into the influence of HPV vaccine on fertility is thus warranted.”

h/t https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccine-safety/vaccine-boom-population-bust-study-queries-the-link-between-hpv-vaccine-and-soaring-infertility/

“If the association is causation, however, DeLong’s math suggests that if all the females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by two million. That’s not two million missing children. That’s two million women who can’t conceive one, two, or any children.”

Less contraceptive use should translate to more babies among the vaccinated.”

“Male sperm counts have nosedived in recent decades – scientists published data last year showing that globally, they have dropped 50 percent in just the past 40 years – signalling serious unidentified environmental hazards.”

They should look at whether r or K-types have higher or lower than normal fertility.

HPV vaccination – as well as tetanus vaccination – has been linked in medical literature to a condition called anti-phospholipid syndrome which is a poorly defined disease caused when the immune system erroneously manufactures antibodies against certain lipid proteins found in membranes that are in a host of tissues — eyes, heart, brain, nerves, skin – and the reproductive system. One 2012 study by Serbian researchers at the Institute for Virology, Vaccines and Ser “Torlak” found that “hyperimmunisation” of the immune system with different adjuvants, including aluminum, in mice, resulted in induction of antiphospholipid syndrome and the tandem lowering of fertility.””

That study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235053

You cannot discuss female fertility without male.

“Other research has implicated aluminum in conception problems. French infertility researcher Jean-Philippe Klein and his colleagues at the University of Lyon published the results of their 2014 study of the sperm of men seeking assistance at a French infertility clinic.”

That study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25461904

From it:

This study provided unequivocal evidence of high concentrations of aluminum in human semen and suggested possible implications for spermatogenesis and sperm count.

I recommend chelation therapy studies, for all concerned with what I think.

And back:

Merck’s HPV vaccine test ““placebos” contained both the high doses of aluminium as well as another scary ingredient, polysorbate 80. This chemical has exhibited delayed ovarian toxicity to rat ovaries at all injected doses tested over a tenfold range.”

I’m sure they aren’t planning to make you infertile. (Scroll down).

“None of the trials accurately assessed the long-term impact of the vaccine on the reproductive health of girls”

Actually many brought that up at the time it was pushed.

“Why make a vaccine for a disease that afflicts less than 0.3% of people in their lifetime?”

It’s now being pushed on men like they’re gay (anal cancer risk). Penile cancer may go up though thanks to anal sex.

[checked:

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/penile-cancer/incidence

increase of 23% of this rare cancer alone since early 90s, when porn use was lower]

Actually, decided to look up anal cancer, look at this:

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/anal-cancer#heading-Zero
“Since the early 1990s, anal cancer incidence rates have increased by almost two-thirds (63%) in the UK. Rates in males have increased by a fifth (20%), and rates in females have increased by almost two times (99%).”
What could possibly account for such a huge sex difference? I wonder…
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/anal-cancer/risk-factors#heading-Two
“91% of anal cancer cases in the UK are caused by HPV infection.
Around 91% of anal cancers in women and 75% in men are HPV-positive, a meta-analysis showed.
Anal cancer risk may be higher in people participating in anal sexual behaviours (including but not limited to receptive anal intercourse)”

MAY BE?

https://www.medinstitute.org/2016/08/the-consequences-of-heterosexual-anal-sex-for-women/

“In the case of heterosexual anal intercourse it is the woman who is at risk to develop fecal incontinence.”
Lovely way to treat the wife.
http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/v111/n2/full/ajg2015419a.html

“The American Cancer Society reports, “Receptive anal intercourse also increases the risk of anal cancer in both men and women, particularly in those younger than 30.” 7 HPV (human papillomavirus) is the main cause of anal cancer; but apparently, anal intercourse in particular increases the likelihood that the virus will attack the anus or rectum.”
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/analcancer/detailedguide/anal-cancer-risk-factors

Why does this remind me of the Pill?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2126920
Relevance of immuno-contraceptive vaccines for population control
sterilization!


Gates Foundation own vaccine stock
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1021577629748680000?ns=prod/accounts-wsj

High-titre measles vaccine and female mortality
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(03)14867-2/fulltext
“Hence, the new hypothesis has created increasing consistency in existing data, which suggest that causal processes might be involved. This consistency across different studies should reduce the likelihood of chance as an explanation.”

https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/underreporting-vaccine-adverse-events
Underreporting Vaccine Adverse Events
“How can they dismiss placebo-controlled trials that raise serious possibilities of vaccine-caused illness?”

https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/pill-temporarily-diminish-fertility-study-article-1.1850643

No comment.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673681925150

“Whatever their previous menstrual history women, especially the nulliparous, who are concerned about their future fertility should be recommended oral contraception in preference to an intrauterine device.”
Compared to?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5967601/#B15
2018 Discrepancies in the evaluation of the safety of the human papillomavirus vaccine
“In this article we bring the attention on certain adverse effects of the vaccine against HPV that have not been well studied as they are not well defined.”
It seems the WHO lied.
“We also compare the different approaches on HPV vaccine policies regarding its adverse reactions in countries like Japan and Colombia, vs. the recommendations issued by the WHO.”

https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-018-0931-2
“Pandemic mortality rates in 1918 and in 2009 were highest among those with the lowest socioeconomic status (SES). Despite this, low SES groups are not included in the list of groups prioritized for pandemic vaccination, and the ambition to reduce social inequality in health does not feature in international and national pandemic preparedness plans. We describe plans for a systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between SES and pandemic outcomes during the last five pandemics.”
Interesting.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18305607
Estimating the annual attack rate of seasonal influenza among unvaccinated individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis
“Conclusion
Overall, we found that approximately 1 in 5 unvaccinated children and 1 in 10 unvaccinated adults were estimated to be infected by seasonal influenza annually, with rates of symptomatic influenza roughly half of these estimates. Our findings help to establish the background risk of seasonal influenza infection in unvaccinated individuals.”
Okay, compared to? Why not look at vaccinated?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18305462
2018 Does consecutive influenza vaccination reduce protection against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis
“Dose-response results (≥3 consecutive vaccinations) did show a reduction in effectiveness.
Certainty in the evidence is very low due to inconsistency and imprecision.
The findings do not rule out the possibility of reduced effectiveness.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X1830094X
2018 Influenza vaccine effectiveness in older adults compared with younger adults over five seasons
“Conclusions
Over 5 seasons, influenza vaccination provided similar levels of protection among older and younger adults, with lower levels of protection against influenza A(H3N2) in all ages.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X1631218X
Effectiveness of MF59-adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccine in the elderly: A systematic review and meta-analysis
“Adjuvantation with MF59 may increase vaccine effectiveness among seniors.”

Lucky them.

http://ahrp.org/immunocompromised-children-what-are-their-infectious-risks-from-the-unvaccinated/
Read the whole thing for this link, it’s short. Quoting in case it gets taken down.

EXCUSE:

“In the last few days there have been multiple news articles and testimonies in the Maine and Vermont legislatures about the need to impose vaccine mandates to protect immunocompromised children.[1] [2] I attended the vaccine bills’ hearing in Augusta, Maine on May 11, which lasted into the night. I also attended the Vermont Senate hearing 3 weeks earlier. The Vermont Senate committee said it would only hear testimony from physicians, which is why I was invited. Not very many doctors are familiar with the vaccine literature. Vaccines are, surprisingly, an arcane area of medicine.

I feel safe.

Unfortunately, I heard not a single expert (at either hearing) provide any data about the magnitude of the problem that vaccine mandates are supposed to fix. In fact, I was quite surprised to learn that helping the immunocompromised seemed to be the major justification to remove vaccine exemptions.

I heard no one mention the fact that vaccine efficacies of 40%, 60%, 80% (approximately correct for influenza, diphtheria, mumps vaccines) might also pose some risk to the immunodeficient. (These are just examples; most other vaccines have efficacy in the 60-90% range.) Actually, any statistician could tell you that low efficacy poses considerably more risk than exemption rates of 1-5% in Maine (depending on which required vaccine we are discussing). Vaccines with low efficacy make the claim of herd immunity a joke–but did even one “expert” at the hearings know or care?

Herd immunity of 100% (impossible) wouldn’t prevent mortality.

Herd immunity is a myth. The extreme case’s claim is demonstrably false.

How much risk is actually posed by “vaccine-preventable” diseases to the immunocompromised? I reviewed the most common infections seen in those at highest risk: stem cell transplant recipients[3] and leukemia patients.[4]

Here is what I found….”

Shit, someone who cares.

“The limited data show that community acquired respiratory viruses (CARVs) and herpesviruses are the most common pathogens.”
“The reports on human herpes virus (HHV)-6 diseases are increasing…”
“Herpesvirus pneumonia is usually caused by reactivation of latent viruses which occurs in severe immunosuppression.”
“… viral encephalitis was mainly caused by human herpes virus (HHV)-6, followed by EBV, HSV, JC virus, CMV, VZV in the recipients of allo-HSCT. Our data showed that herpesvirus-associated encephalitis was mainly caused by EBV followed by HSV, CMV and VZV…
The most frequent pathogens of viral hepatitis are hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV). Besides these, other viruses such as CMV and HSV may also result in hepatitis. Hepatitis B and C can be caused by either virus reactivation or blood transmission…””

There are also many bacterial and fungal infections they may develop: too many to list. Of the many infections these patients tend to develop, the only 3 infections commonly seen, for which there exists a vaccine and which spread between children, are chickenpox (varicella zoster virus or VZV), influenza, and rotavirus.

Rotavirus is a relatively mild gastrointestinal virus and mortality, even in those with impaired immunity, is rare.[5]

Influenza is a real concern, but influenza vaccines are notoriously ineffective. This year, CDC said the vaccine had 19% efficacy.[6] (A Canadian study found no efficacy for this year’s flu vaccine.) Over the past ten years, CDC’s efficacy estimates for influenza vaccines averaged 40%.[7] So even if everyone in America was vaccinated, you could not generate herd immunity for influenza. You could not achieve the desired “cocoon” for those most vulnerable.

Remember the word cocoon, please.

Chickenpox is caused by a virus that, once you have been infected, will live forever in your nerve cells. The vaccine virus also does this. Immunocompromised patients developing chickenpox/VZV infections are usually reactivating latent virus long present in their own bodies. Only very rarely are they “catching” chickenpox virus from someone else. Fortunately, we have antiviral drugs and immune globulin to prevent and treat these common reactivations.”

Her bold in this paragraph:

“Let me repeat: vulnerable, immunodeficient children are susceptible to many viral, bacterial and fungal infections, but these are very rarely caused by child to child spread of microorganisms for which we have vaccines. They are listed in footnotes 3 and 4.

FYI

[3] http://www.jhoonline.org/content/pdf/1756-8722-6-94.pdf
[4] http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/39664.pdf

For those who want to waste my time digging up a never-ending stream of references.

It is troubling that vulnerable families have been encouraged to fear and stigmatize unvaccinated children, when the rates of primary and secondary vaccine failures (i.e., number of vaccinated kids who lack immunity despite their vaccinations) are far greater than the rates of children lacking vaccinations. [CDC’s 2012-13 kindergarten vaccine exemption rates by state ranged from a low of 0.1% to a high of 6.5%.]

In fact, the vaccine failures pose a much larger risk. But are the immunocompromised suffering and dying due to other childrens’ vaccine failures? We are not hearing about it.

KEY:

If the vulnerable are not being harmed by vaccinated children who lack immunity, then it follows they are not suffering from exposure to the unvaccinated, either.

LOGICALLY.

You have no right to forbid children their education on medical grounds, it is a right.

Low IQ is medical too, you heap those ghetto kids in. Being stabbed is a more prevalent danger.

Don’t vulnerable families have enough real problems, without adding unfounded and unjustified fears? Isn’t it time to drop this canard?

But then how will they emotionally blackmail us into buying their products?

The gaslighting of “you’re killing babies” – seldom levied at the aborting parents?

As I said in an earlier post, the last measles deaths in the United States (there were 2) occurred in 2003. One was elderly; the other was aged 13 and had had a bone marrow transplant. I was unable to learn if his infection was from a vaccine strain or wild-type measles virus. Not a single American has died from measles since.

We need to know if vulnerable, immunocompromised children are catching and dying from vaccine-preventable diseases, and from whom they are catching these diseases: from the vaccinated, from the unvaccinated, or from their own latent viruses? From vaccine strains or wild-type infections?

from WHOM indeed

test the genetics of what they come down with, check for a match to the vaccine genes

if they don’t match, they’d have something to brag about

How many children are affected? Where are they? Which diseases are killing them? I am not finding evidence of a problem in the medical literature.”

Listen and obey.

Fine, let’s look up the strawman victims being used to push this.

http://lymphosign.com/doi/10.14785/lymphosign-2016-0007

“In the above regard, vaccines play an important role in preventing infections in the immunocompromised host. Prevention can be achieved by a combination of strategies. Besides vaccination of the immunocompromised patient (in whom immune responses might be suboptimal), there is a recognition of the importance of the “cocoon strategy” that is widely used in protecting susceptible patients from specific vaccine-preventable diseases (Forsyth et al. 2015). In the context of immunocompromised patients, one vaccinates parents, caregivers, and other close contacts, which provides indirect protection by preventing disease in those in close proximity to the immunocompromised person.”

Parents are the primary disease vector (risk) to their immunocompromised children.
THE PARENTS.

Proven by the cocoon strategy designed specifically for compromised children.

Given the frequent physical interactions, this is quite obvious.

They don’t get to blame the world for their mistakes. If the kid catches something, they should immediately test the parent and drain some antibodies.

The latest data claims immunocompromised children MUST STILL BE VACCINATED.

https://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/immunization-of-the-immunocompromised-child-key-principles

As in, no, your child is not exempt.

Highlights:

Indirect protection is provided by ensuring that all household members and other close contacts are immunized against infections that they may transmit to the immunocompromised child”

Inactivated vaccines may be given safely to immunocompromised patients, but responses may be diminished or absent, and increases in dose or in number of doses may be indicated (e.g., hepatitis B, conjugate pneumococcal vaccines) [1]–[4].”

Live vaccines may cause disease by uncontrolled replication and are usually contraindicated in immunocompromised individuals, with the exception of those with isolated IgA deficiency, IgG subclass deficiency, complement deficiency, or anatomical or functional asplenia. Another exception is that live viral vaccines are safe for most children with phagocyte or neutrophil disorders (including chronic granulomatous disease) but live bacterial vaccines (e.g., BGG, live typhoid vaccine) are contraindicated [1][3]. Live vaccines may be given to individuals with HIV infection who are not severely immunocompromised [1]–[3].”

EVEN THE HIV KIDS GET IT.

Who do you have to hide behind now?

Don’t blame the world for your kid getting sick, scapegoating doesn’t reduce your personal culpability.
Scapegoating is disgusting.
Sacrificing other people’s kids doesn’t make you exempt.

Additional vaccines: Immunocompromised children may require vaccines that are not routinely recommended for all children (e.g., 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide), or not routinely given beyond a certain age (e.g., Haemophilus influenzae type b).”

They need MORE, MORE VACCINES.

Assuming other people can do your job for you is ass-backwards wrong!

Even if everyone in the world got vaccinated, your child would still need vaccines, according to the authorities you appeal to!

“The duration of the immune response may be diminished, necessitating extra booster doses (e.g., children at ongoing risk of hepatitis B exposure should undergo annual testing for hepatitis B antibody and receive booster doses if indicated) [2].”
When long-term immunosuppression is required, inactivated vaccines are given when the patient is on the lowest anticipated dose of immunosuppressive agents. Also, if feasible, immunosuppression is held or reduced temporarily to maximize response.”

MUH Medication – NOT AN EXCUSE.

“Response to a vaccine should not be assumed”

Refusing to listen to these OFFICIAL MEDICAL GUIDELINES makes you an abusive parent, according to the Canadian government.
Lovely.

General antibody production problem?

“No delay is required for live oral or intranasal vaccines or for inactivated vaccines [5].”

u r WRONG, Karens. Mz ‘my kid can’t get any’. Not a barrier.

But, I hear you cry, what about the cancer patients?

Low, but K. I am willing…. to go there. This once.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3448241/

OT “reactivation infection with herpes group viruses”
where would children get that?
More evidence in favour of slut shaming.

You might notice something odd, a paper on managing infection risk in cancer patients doesn’t mention vaccines.
At all.

Conclusion “Infection in immunocompromised patients offers a particular clinical challenge because the pathogens are often unusual, and appropriate treatment must begin early in the course of the illness. These patients also must receive the highest tolerated dosages of antimicrobial agents and for maximum durations. Prophylactic antibiotics should also be given based on the pathogens likely to reactivate during the time of more severe immunosuppression.”

They’re commonly struck down by unusual microbes, not the ones we’re told to vaccinate for!

To close, here is a paranoid misogynistic shill telling us we’re evil for wanting the standard of proof in medicine, and anyway, it would cost money. Can’t put the breaks on the gravy train!

“The low vaccination rates in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods have been attributed to a faulty perception that fervently religious Jews are protected from infection by the insulated nature of their communities, as well as discredited rumors that the life-saving practice is dangerous.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/measles-vaccination-rates-in-anti-vaxxer-areas-of-jerusalem-leap-to-80/

(((Gorski))) has no conflict of interest at all, as you’ll see.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-perils-and-pitfalls-of-doing-a-vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated-study/

“However, there is one trait of the anti-vaccine movement that, however its camouflaging plumage may evolve, never, ever changes. It is as immutable as believers say that God is. That trait is that, whatever other claims, the anti-vaccine movement makes, at its core it is always about the vaccines. Always…
at its core the anti-vaccine movement is about fear and loathing of vaccines. Always. When inconvenient science doesn’t support their views, anti-vaccine activists either ignore the science, distort the science, or launch ad hominems against the people doing the science or citing the science. And, as I said before, the claims of the anti-vaccine movement evolve. Never again will the anti-vaccine movement make the horrific mistake of yoking itself to a hypothesis that is as easily testable”

Just do the studies, shill.
That bolded contradicts his conclusion. We noticed.

“Thimerosal was removed from nearly all childhood vaccines (the sole exception being some flu vaccines),”

Wait, mercury is in childhood vaccines still, known neurotoxin?
It’s also in the adult flu jab, which others? That explains why the elderly here pop their clogs after getting one.
We all know people.

“This “too many too soon” chant has lead to a demand by the anti-vaccine movement that the government conduct a large study of “unvaccinated” versus the “vaccinated” children to compare them for health outcomes and, especially, the prevalence of autism.”

They refuse despite that being the gold standard.

How queer.

“I don’t think that people like J.B. Handley realize how risky their gambit is.”

It isn’t just the gravy train, it’s the crazy train!

What echo chamber?

The Ivory Tower sure can echo!

“Such a study would have a very high risk of torpedoing virtually everything the anti-vaccine movement has been working toward in terms of promoting their message of fear about vaccines as being somehow credible (or at least not unreasonable) and based on science (more on that later).”

Then do it.

They want to be proven wrong, huh? Like… scientists?
Shit, if only that were your job. If you only received taxpayer money from these people too.
We live in a society – where you need to do what people pay you for.

Comparisons allowed on a single vaccine basis are clear (top link) so I’d expect a compounded, huge differential between the complete schedule and none whatsoever. The former is sufficient evidence to conduct the latter.

Of course, Ms. Tamaro is either ignorant or disingenuous herself in that some anti-vaccine advocates do indeed call for just such a study, even going so far as to demand a randomized, double-blinded study. J.B. Handley himself has attacked people who correctly call demands for such a study “unethical.””

Correctly? First harm none. Burden of proof.
Are you sure correctly is your word of choice?
He completely dismisses the woman on no grounds.

She says:

“Research studies are divided into two categories, observational studies and experimental studies. An observational study observes individuals and measures variables of interest but does not attempt to influence the responses. (The “epidemiological” studies to which Dr. Insel refers are actually observational studies.) An experimental study, on the other hand, deliberately imposes some treatment on individuals in order to observe their responses; the purpose of an experiment is to study whether the treatment causes a change in the response.”

True, you could find plenty of volunteers to submit data of what they were GOING TO DO ANYWAY.
Why not collect the evidence?

“This paragraph just goes to show how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
Misogynist.

but no observational study has been done comparing the prevalence of autism diagnoses in a vaccinated human population compared to an unvaccinated human population. When Dan Olmsted points out that he has identified large populations of unvaccinated children in the United States and asks why a study has not been done on them, he is actually asking why an observational study has not been done.”

She is being perfectly reasonable.

He ignores this question.

“When Senator Harkin asks Dr. Insel why a study has not been done on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated American children, he too is actually asking why an observational study has not been done to date. Dr. Insel, however, chooses to respond by saying that an experimental study would be required in order to resolve the issue.”

Get someone else to do it and pull his funding.
This is fraud. They are refusing to do their job.

Playing shell games means you are not qualified.

“ignoring the fact that there have been calls from the anti-vaccine movement for experimental studies, which, of course, would be highly unethical because they would leave large numbers of children completely unvaccinated and thus vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases”

that is your hypothesis, NOT a fact
this is WHY we need studies
the vaccine failure children are vulnerable, not biologically bulletproof
these intellectually dishonest douches, e.g.

“In any case, here’s where Tamara goes right off the deep end:

He…. he literally says that. Go look.

“”I would like to point out the epidemiological similarity between smoking/lung cancer and vaccines/autism. Smoking has been proven to cause lung cancer, yet not a single experimental study on humans was ever done – all of the human studies proving that smoking causes lung cancer were observational. The experimental studies were performed on research animals only. Attached at the end of this letter is a lesson taken verbatim from an introductory course in college statistics describing how the connection between smoking and lung cancer was made.””

Proven fact?
Proven fact is ‘off the deep end’?

Introductory course on statistics – she has a sense of humour, this is basic.

“Both Prometheus and Autism Diva enumerated the numerous flaws and ethical lapses in that experiment.”

So what? Try to replicate it or STFU.
Ethical lapses – for data we ALREADY HAVE.

Does Gorski own a time machine?
Let’s all entrust the safety of American children to one ‘autism diva’.

“Then there was the more recent (and even more unethical) Laura Hewitson experiment looking at vaccinated and unvaccinated Macaque monkey infants. I was appalled at how badly designed and grossly unethical that experiment was, not to mention at the enormous undisclosed conflicts of interest of the investigators.”

In your opinion.
Screeching about ethics won’t change biology.

“The problem, of course, is that there is not yet a good animal model of autism”

In your opinion.

So all your method ‘flaws’ you spot make it impossible to meet your standard. Wow.

“Moreover, the history of such research (i.e., Hornig and Hewitson) is not exactly cause for optimism, given how badly done these studies were.”

In your opinion.
The weasel words in this should be studied.

So the gist of this ENTIRE LENGTHY POST is “don’t try, don’t note data that already exists, the method is always wrong, the models aren’t good enough and whatever you do, IT’S UNETHICAL” as if that’s ever stopped science before.
Didn’t the vaccination guy abuse his children?

https://curiosity.com/topics/thank-edward-jenner-and-cow-pus-for-vaccines-curiosity/

Yup.

Where’s the kitchen sink? Oh, it comes. At the end.

“While she is correct to say that an experimental (i.e., randomized, blinded) study is not always necessary to provide sufficient evidence of causation to conclude that there is causation, she’s picked the wrong example for a number of reasons.”

He’s beating his strawmen hard.

In any case, Ms. Tamara is also wrong when she says that a study of the vaccinated and unvaccinated has never been undertaken.”

She’s right but she’s wrong, guys!

The study he discusses blames RACIAL DIFFERENCES for why his comparison ‘didn’t count’.

But, you said about how it hasn’t been done earlier and later you say it hasn’t been done because statistics?

He doesn’t have the Mawson study above.

It’s this study he is referring to and weirdly, if you follow his link nothing comes up.
PAYWALL. I smelled bullshit before but linking the wrong URL?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/114/1/187
Here it is, the right link.

Parts he didn’t quote:

“Unvaccinated children are at increased risk of acquiring and transmitting vaccine-preventable diseases.”

What bias? And as opposed to what? Increased compared to….?

The largest numbers of unvaccinated children lived in counties in California, Illinois, New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, and Michigan.”
“Unvaccinated children have characteristics that are distinctly different from those of undervaccinated children. Unvaccinated children are clustered geographically, increasing the risk of transmitting vaccine-preventable diseases to both unvaccinated and undervaccinated children.”

So it just says who they are (and Jews are white here) and nothing whatsoever about HEALTH OUTCOMES, as he implied it did.

He LIED. Please, check. I implore you.
Lie of omission is still a lie. Blatant intellectual dishonesty.

The topic is health outcomes, Gorski. We could compare the hair colour of the vaccinated/not (that study essentially does) and it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand. Clutching at straws, why?

I can only conclude that Ms. Tamara is also quite naive in that she clearly has no clue just how much money and how many children an observational study of the vaccinated versus unvaccinated would require to do properly, much less how tricky it would be to control for confounders, given that the unvaccinated vary in significant ways from the vaccinated.”

OH, THE SHILL WANTS MORE TAXPAYER MONEY.
Shocker. Sounds like he’s holding you to ransom.

But he knows there are huge differences. Huh.

“Skeptical blogger extraordinaire Prometheus tells the tale. First, he points out how few completely unvaccinated children there are to study, perhaps around 50,000 in the entire U.S., in the 3-6 year old age cohort that would be most fruitful to do a study looking at autism incidence in the vaccinated and unvaccinated.”

Perhaps?

What, so let’s not bother? Yes, let’s listen to a blogger.
A ‘skeptic’, no less. Saying no to everything isn’t hard.

Well, plugging those numbers in – along with the current 1 in 150 autism prevalence – we find that we need over 360,000 children in each group to detect a 10% difference (you can try it yourself here). Unfortunately, that is more than the total number of unvaccinated children in the US, so that’s not going to happen.”

Wait, numbers you literally just made up? And the highest, most unlikely prevalence?
84% of statistics are made up, including that one.
Again, don’t bother is the best you can come up with? Over time you’d get enough data.
A 1% increased risk is medically valid, their significance in medicine is 0.001%.

What can we get with our “sample” of 49,652 unvaccinated children? If we manage to include each and every unvaccinated child in the US in the study, we could detect a 26% or more difference in autism prevalence.”

Why not do it, the kids already exist in that condition?

The data is RIGHT THERE.

Of course, it’s not even remotely practical to expect to get 100% of the unvaccinated children in the country into a study.”

So don’t try?

“How more about a practical number – say, 10% of them?”

Bullshit artist literally making up “samples” with quote marks is the best argument they have.

“That would allow us to detect a 70% or greater difference – about a three-fold difference in autism prevalence between the fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.”

Okay, so at least conduct A study?
Why not?
Why say, oh, let’s not bother, we know the results?
That is not science, but faith. Fuck these baby-killers.
If you know it’s safe, why not check?

Shut your critics up?

Does anyone here think that parents who fervently believe that vaccines cause autism would accept negative results from a study that’s only powered to detect a three-fold difference in autism rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated as sufficiently reassuring to accept the current vaccination as safe?”

Sure, you won’t do it because the people who want it wouldn’t like the results.
Not you. The people who want it.
You’d definitely accept results that show you’ve been encouraging child abuse for years?

Appeal to incredulity. Someone else’s.

“Given the religious fervor with which the anti-vaccine movement clings to the myth that vaccines cause autism, I doubt that it would accept a negative result from a study powered to detect a 1% difference in autism rates as sufficiently reassuring to abandon its fear.”

If it’s a myth, settle it with the study. It doesn’t have to be specific to autism. Health outcomes.

Any percentage is better than nothing!

“Moreover, as Prometheus tells us, even the study described above would be inordinately expensive and difficult to do.”

Who cares is we’re advocating the harm of children, it’s expensive to prove this thing is safe?

Wasn’t Prometheus tortured?

“Finally, let’s “run the numbers” on a more practical study – one where we are able to enroll 500 unvaccinated children and 5000 fully vaccinated controls”

Made up numbers, again.
You said there are thousands of unvaccinated in America.
Why not 5000/5000? Why not even groups? That would be ‘practical’.

“I can’t help but note that the study described by Prometheus would probably fail to find the well-known increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease due to smoking, the more so since the incidence of lung cancer in nonsmokers is considerably lower than 1 in 150, which is how many children are estimated to be autistic.”

So it’s let’s not ever look or bother because the made-up numbers of a blogger say it wouldn’t find anything?

“The only way to get around the problems inherent in designing a study …would be to expand the study to multiple nations. Of course, doing such a study would be even more enormously expensive, take several years, and, because funding for autism research is pretty much a zero sum game, would divert huge amounts of money from more promising research to chasing down a highly implausible hypothesis that has virtually no credible empirical support behind it, either from basic science, epidemiology, or other evidence, certainly nowhere near enough evidence to justify such a huge expenditure and effort.”

Yep. He’s lying.
DON’T LOOK AT THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.

Virtually no?

Nowhere near enough – in his opinion.

I hope these people go to prison for fraud, when this study is eventually conducted. Obstruction.

“Certainly the government does, hence its reluctance to spend all sorts of money chasing a highly improbable hypothesis….

Not Pharma Super PACs?

In reality, the “vaccinated versus unvaccinated” gambit is just that–a gambit. The leaders of the anti-vaccine movement probably know that doing a study with sufficient power and numbers to exclude even a modest risk of autism due to the current vaccine schedule is so expensive and impractical that it would probably never be done and that smaller studies that are feasible will have too little power to reassure those who believe that vaccines cause autism that vaccines are in fact safe. Why do it then?

So, conspiracy now?
The researchers won’t do their job and it ‘won’t’ be done, instead of can’t?

Here’s the kitchen sink:

In fact, I rather suspect that the smarter among the anti-vaccinationists know all the problems”

That’s an insane conspiracy. Everyone deserves to know the results. Public interest.

“On the other hand, antivaccinationists should be very careful what they ask for. They may just make enough of a pain of themselves to get it.”

….Good?

Worse, if the government ever did spend the money on such an enormous study and it was resoundingly negative, it’s easy to predict that it would make no difference.”

You don’t discuss what would happen if they’re right.
This article of yours was an old whore, windbagging about how impractical, expensive and unethical it is to hold you accountable. The projected paranoia is exquisite, it would be their worst nightmare – but they suggested it?

“As they have done before for other large studies, anti-vaccinationists would discount the results and cry bias.”

Would you accept it if you’re wrong?
If it’s a good study, solid statistically, that wouldn’t be an argument. And you couldn’t find fault with it either, if YOU didn’t like the result.

Kinda why it’s done? Objectivity?

not the dubious study

custom designed

to have the maximal chance of a false positive result,

which is

of course

what the anti-vaccine movement really wants.”

Conspiracy theorist. By all means, do the most accurate study, I’d love to write about it.

He’s literally attacking a study he says is impossible. Nothing to fear, nothing to hide.