They may have died at a time point after vaccination, but there is ZERO evidence to support the implication that the particular vaccine dose CAUSED any of those deaths! This is a BS headline, for creating clickbait for the anti-vax brigade - AGAIN.
Back to the primary subject at hand: what is causing the increased mortality in the third month of life if it isn't the vaccine assault at two months? https://zenodo.org/records/18262931
Bob, this would have to be one if the sloppiest pieces of “research” on thus topic ever presented - and of course it is ONLY available on one if, if not THE most unreliable sites imaginable. The bias is evident in the opening para thus -
“During the study period (2013-2024) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended immunization schedule [1] includes seven different immunizations for the age of 2-
months. A CDC compliant child could expect to be immunized for respiratory syncytial virus, hepatitis B, rotavirus (up to 5 live viruses), diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (3- or 4-antigens), haemophilus influenza type B, pneumococcal (up to 20 different strains), and poliovirus (all 3 strains, though two are now eradicated [2]). It is the largest single-day antigenic assault a person is ever likely going to encounter in their lifetime“! What arrant nonsense! Babies ESPECIALLY encounter hundreds of thousands EVERY DAY as they live and grow outside the protections of their mother’s womb. Then there’s the HUGE error introduced in the case selection process, because the State data could ONLY identify immunisation records for 1755 children out of the 5200 that died before age 3! So a CLASSIC example of GIGO - and YOU fell for it.
Now go look for ALL the OTHER research done where records for children are actually complete - like in UK’s biobank, Norway’s records or even ours in Australia. Because NONE of them share ANY of the OTHER causes of childhood deaths that the unfortunate infants in Louisiana do - and NONE of it has to do with vaccinations.
Only if a baby were allowed to run wild in one of the seediest ghettos on Earth would it be exposed to assaults commensurate with the current vaccine schedule. It would need to roll around in used needles contaminated with all kinds of pathogens, you know, like vaccines.
The human immune system has developed over tens of thousands of years to be exposed through the GI tract, not injected via needle with live or attenuated pathogens, nano-lipid encased experimental modified mRNA gene therapies designed to evade immune systems, or the unbelievably toxic metal adjuvants and preservatives in the poison needles they're subject to now. It's just common sense, just like you don't poke yourself in the eye with a sharp stick because no good will come from it.
You write like you have that study completely figured out. So identify the actual confounder that is causing the consistent results across all 55 subgroups. If vaccines were actually safe, the timing of vaccination should have zero relationship to timing of death, and yet it's absolutely consistent whether subgroups are selected on race or sex or specific vaccine combinations; it's impossible that this signal is noise; so what's causing it if it's not the vaccines? Are you suggesting the the State of Louisiana cherry-picked the one third of records that irrefutably prove vaccines are harmful?
The following is impossible to ascribe to anything other than vaccine toxicity: "CDC recommendation compliant female children were more likely to die of non-leading causes of death, and in this analysis included 3 infectious disease and 4 nervous system related mortalities in the vaccinated and zero, in either, for the unvaccinated." This is consistent with the known general immune suppressive effect of any vaccination and neurotoxic effects of metal adjuvants. The game is over: vaccines maim, kill, and for those who survive them, cause lifetimes of chronic disease.
Bob, the authors and you drew that “conclusion” based on an improperly selected set of data in the first place! Since the LOUISIANNA dataset is unable to match the records if several THOUSANDS of children who died with a single vaccination record, are you actually concluding they weren’t, or were vaccinated! Either way, it means the cases “selected” were NOT representative of the all children who died!
As to environmental antigens encountered by newborns, infants, toddlers and young children, you really have NO IDEA how contaminated their world actually is, and how their immune systems are far better placed to encounter the tiny number of antigens in ALL the currently recommended vaccines than they are when faced with the overwhelming doses which cause even one single disease!
And since all this clearly shows your lack of literacy in biomedical science AND an unwillingness to try to expand your knowledge or enhance your comprehension, I fail to see any purpose in continuing this exchange, especially on a thread dedicated to STOPPING ANTI-VAX PROPAGANDA! #stopantivaxpropaganda.org
But it isn’t “evidence” at all if you actually understood how such data should be collected! There is NO CONTROL GROUP - essential to such claims - which SHOULD have consisted of a group of age/sex/health - matched infants who were UNVACCINATED but also died of SIDS in the same time period. You apparently have very limited understanding of statistical bias - this is a very clear example of confirmation bias and as such COMPLETELY undermines the claim.
As to your other claim that “vaccination is big business”, there is plenty of evidence that most American paediatricians make a loss on providing vaccinations to their patients. If profit was the actual driver, NOT vaccinating children and caring for them with the resulting illnesses would be far more cost-effective - just highly unethical and constitute gross professional misconduct!
You apparently have very limited understanding of what the paper was about and that it was illegitimately and unethically retracted without fulfilling a single criterion to support retraction but rather the retraction was based solely on an anonymous tweet. Why have these studies that you demand not been done? The answer is obvious: they know the vaccines kill and a rigorous study would prove exactly that.
That's how the gatekeeping works: a paper that shows evidence that an investigation is required is nipped in the bud before that investigation can even be discussed, let alone performed.
There is plenty of evidence that doctors are compensated on an exponentially increasing scale so that the higher the percentage of their patient base that they vaccinate, the higher their compensation. Maiming children with toxic vaccines is highly profit-effective as it provides life-long customers for the pharmaceutical companies for all the chronic diseases they cause which is exactly why they bribe doctors to inject them.
Bob I am VERY familiar, it is you who have been led by the nose down a VERY dangerous rabbithole into a place where scientific data and accuracy can no longer be seen. Please come back into the light and understand why your grandparents were so glad to see the “parents” of today’s even better vaccines come to pass. Your claim of bribery only highlights the depths of misinformation you have reached.
The studies you claim NOT to have been done ARE widely available IF you are prepared to be as diligent in your search for them as you seem to have been on the dark side of the line. Do better.
They may have died at a time point after vaccination, but there is ZERO evidence to support the implication that the particular vaccine dose CAUSED any of those deaths! This is a BS headline, for creating clickbait for the anti-vax brigade - AGAIN.
Back to the primary subject at hand: what is causing the increased mortality in the third month of life if it isn't the vaccine assault at two months? https://zenodo.org/records/18262931
Bob, this would have to be one if the sloppiest pieces of “research” on thus topic ever presented - and of course it is ONLY available on one if, if not THE most unreliable sites imaginable. The bias is evident in the opening para thus -
“During the study period (2013-2024) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended immunization schedule [1] includes seven different immunizations for the age of 2-
months. A CDC compliant child could expect to be immunized for respiratory syncytial virus, hepatitis B, rotavirus (up to 5 live viruses), diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (3- or 4-antigens), haemophilus influenza type B, pneumococcal (up to 20 different strains), and poliovirus (all 3 strains, though two are now eradicated [2]). It is the largest single-day antigenic assault a person is ever likely going to encounter in their lifetime“! What arrant nonsense! Babies ESPECIALLY encounter hundreds of thousands EVERY DAY as they live and grow outside the protections of their mother’s womb. Then there’s the HUGE error introduced in the case selection process, because the State data could ONLY identify immunisation records for 1755 children out of the 5200 that died before age 3! So a CLASSIC example of GIGO - and YOU fell for it.
Now go look for ALL the OTHER research done where records for children are actually complete - like in UK’s biobank, Norway’s records or even ours in Australia. Because NONE of them share ANY of the OTHER causes of childhood deaths that the unfortunate infants in Louisiana do - and NONE of it has to do with vaccinations.
Only if a baby were allowed to run wild in one of the seediest ghettos on Earth would it be exposed to assaults commensurate with the current vaccine schedule. It would need to roll around in used needles contaminated with all kinds of pathogens, you know, like vaccines.
The human immune system has developed over tens of thousands of years to be exposed through the GI tract, not injected via needle with live or attenuated pathogens, nano-lipid encased experimental modified mRNA gene therapies designed to evade immune systems, or the unbelievably toxic metal adjuvants and preservatives in the poison needles they're subject to now. It's just common sense, just like you don't poke yourself in the eye with a sharp stick because no good will come from it.
You write like you have that study completely figured out. So identify the actual confounder that is causing the consistent results across all 55 subgroups. If vaccines were actually safe, the timing of vaccination should have zero relationship to timing of death, and yet it's absolutely consistent whether subgroups are selected on race or sex or specific vaccine combinations; it's impossible that this signal is noise; so what's causing it if it's not the vaccines? Are you suggesting the the State of Louisiana cherry-picked the one third of records that irrefutably prove vaccines are harmful?
The following is impossible to ascribe to anything other than vaccine toxicity: "CDC recommendation compliant female children were more likely to die of non-leading causes of death, and in this analysis included 3 infectious disease and 4 nervous system related mortalities in the vaccinated and zero, in either, for the unvaccinated." This is consistent with the known general immune suppressive effect of any vaccination and neurotoxic effects of metal adjuvants. The game is over: vaccines maim, kill, and for those who survive them, cause lifetimes of chronic disease.
Bob, the authors and you drew that “conclusion” based on an improperly selected set of data in the first place! Since the LOUISIANNA dataset is unable to match the records if several THOUSANDS of children who died with a single vaccination record, are you actually concluding they weren’t, or were vaccinated! Either way, it means the cases “selected” were NOT representative of the all children who died!
As to environmental antigens encountered by newborns, infants, toddlers and young children, you really have NO IDEA how contaminated their world actually is, and how their immune systems are far better placed to encounter the tiny number of antigens in ALL the currently recommended vaccines than they are when faced with the overwhelming doses which cause even one single disease!
And since all this clearly shows your lack of literacy in biomedical science AND an unwillingness to try to expand your knowledge or enhance your comprehension, I fail to see any purpose in continuing this exchange, especially on a thread dedicated to STOPPING ANTI-VAX PROPAGANDA! #stopantivaxpropaganda.org
Only because the powers that be systematically and illegitimately remove the evidence because vaccination is a highly lucrative business. Here is just one example: https://jessicar.substack.com/p/pubpeer-responsible-for-the-sids
But it isn’t “evidence” at all if you actually understood how such data should be collected! There is NO CONTROL GROUP - essential to such claims - which SHOULD have consisted of a group of age/sex/health - matched infants who were UNVACCINATED but also died of SIDS in the same time period. You apparently have very limited understanding of statistical bias - this is a very clear example of confirmation bias and as such COMPLETELY undermines the claim.
As to your other claim that “vaccination is big business”, there is plenty of evidence that most American paediatricians make a loss on providing vaccinations to their patients. If profit was the actual driver, NOT vaccinating children and caring for them with the resulting illnesses would be far more cost-effective - just highly unethical and constitute gross professional misconduct!
You apparently have very limited understanding of what the paper was about and that it was illegitimately and unethically retracted without fulfilling a single criterion to support retraction but rather the retraction was based solely on an anonymous tweet. Why have these studies that you demand not been done? The answer is obvious: they know the vaccines kill and a rigorous study would prove exactly that.
That's how the gatekeeping works: a paper that shows evidence that an investigation is required is nipped in the bud before that investigation can even be discussed, let alone performed.
There is plenty of evidence that doctors are compensated on an exponentially increasing scale so that the higher the percentage of their patient base that they vaccinate, the higher their compensation. Maiming children with toxic vaccines is highly profit-effective as it provides life-long customers for the pharmaceutical companies for all the chronic diseases they cause which is exactly why they bribe doctors to inject them.
Bob I am VERY familiar, it is you who have been led by the nose down a VERY dangerous rabbithole into a place where scientific data and accuracy can no longer be seen. Please come back into the light and understand why your grandparents were so glad to see the “parents” of today’s even better vaccines come to pass. Your claim of bribery only highlights the depths of misinformation you have reached.
The studies you claim NOT to have been done ARE widely available IF you are prepared to be as diligent in your search for them as you seem to have been on the dark side of the line. Do better.
Here are the depths of accurate information I have reached: https://providernews.anthem.com/kentucky/articles/covid-19-vaccine-provider-incentive-program-9502
Do better.
And since when were Covid vaccines part of this thread? Only when YOU deflected to them! Do MUCH better!