Vaccination studies

.
I am posting few links collected in the course of on-line reading. They are by no means complete or definite but a place to start. I will be adding to the list and will include more screeenshots (if the links are paywalled) as we go.

New Study: Hepatitis B Vaccine Triples the Risk of Autism in Infant Boys

Quote:

To begin with, it is unscientific and perilously misleading for anyone to assert that “vaccines and autism” have been studied and that no link has been found. That’s because the 16 or so studies constantly cited by critics of the hypothesis have examined just one vaccine and one vaccine ingredient.

And, the population studies themselves have had critical design flaws and limitations.

The current US childhood immunization schedule calls for 28 injections with 11 different vaccines against 15 different diseases by two years of age. Of those 11 vaccines, only the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) shot has been studied in association with autism, (although a CDC study of an MMR-plus-chickenpox vaccine did show that the risk for febrile seizures in infants was doubled.) Meanwhile, those 11 vaccines contain scores of ingredients, only one of which, thimerosal, has ever been tested in association with autism.

More studies

Updated from Twitter 14-Jan-2020

by Chris Masterjohn @ChrisMasterjohn
(Feb 1, 2019 Replying to @TuckerGoodrich and @ddhewitt68)
This is measles mortality leading up to the vaccine introduction in 1963.

In the UK:

Why is that the fatalities rates from measles begun declining decades before the mass vaccination programmes have begun (US 1963, UK 1970)? Did the vaccines really helped?


-----
From facebook

cereal-free diet with vit D suppresses dental caries in children

.
By an order of magnitude, as shown in the following intervention study done on young children age 5-6 over 6 months:


Remarks
ON THE INFLUENCE OF A CEREAL-FREE DIET RICH IN VITAMIN D AND CALCIUM ON DENTAL CARIES IN CHILDREN
BY MAY MELLANBY AND C. LEE PATTISON, The British Medical Journal, MARCH 19, 1932

Summary:

1. A group of children averaging 5.1 years of age were given a cereal-free diet rich in vitamin D and calcium for a period of six months. The teeth of the children were defective in structure (hypoplastic), and much active dental caries was present at the beginning of the investigation.

2. Initiation and spread of caries were almost eliminated by these diets, and the results were better than those of the previous investigation in which-the vitamin D alone was increased in a diet containing bread and other cereals.

Quotes:

They indicate that a diet rich in vitamin D and calcium and devoid of cereals has greater inhibitory and curative effects on dental caries than any previously tested. Thus the new carious points observed to develop during the feeding period were only 0.05 per child as compared with the previous best result of 0.2 per child. The figure 0.05 is so small that it probably falls within the margin of error of this type of observation, and new caries may be considered, therefore, to have been suppressed.
...
The tests do not indicate that in order to prevent dental caries children must live on a cereal-free diet, but in association with the results of the other investigations on animals and children they do indicate that the amount of cereal eaten should be reduced, particularly during infancy and in the earlier years of life, and should be replaced by an increased consumption of milk, eggs, butter, potatoes, and other vegetables. They also indicate that-a sufficiency of vitamin D and calcium should be given from birth, and before birth, by supplying a suitable diet to the pregnant mother. The teeth of the children would be well formed and more resistant to dental caries instead of being hypoplastic and badly calcified, as were those in this investigation.

Comment

Want healthy teeth? Don't eat cereals, better yet eat high animal fat low carb diet with no wheat. I  haven't been to and had no need to use a dentist since 1998. I am 62.

"give us our daily bread" - on second thought - no thanks!

Heretic

how corporations use scientists to manipulate the public

.
The lawsuit and a verdict against Monsanto described in the article below illustrates the way large corporations use scientists to manipulate public opinion and to hide the inconvenient facts. I expect similar outcomes when the corporations and activists behind "Global Warming/Climate Change" and "Cholesterol/Fat Theory of Heart Disease" will be brought to trial in the similar fashion.

Monsanto ordered to pay $289m as jury rules weedkiller caused man's cancer

Quotes:

Johnson’s lawyers argued over the course of a month-long trial in San Francisco that Monsanto had “fought science” for years and targeted academics who spoke up about possible health risks of the herbicide product.
...
In the extraordinary verdict, which Monsanto said it intends to appeal, the jury ruled that the company was responsible for “negligent failure” and knew or should have known that its product was “dangerous”.

“We were finally able to show the jury the secret, internal Monsanto documents proving that Monsanto has known for decades that ... Roundup could cause cancer,” Johnson’s lawyer Brent Wisner said in a statement.
...
Johnson’s case was particularly significant because a judge allowed his team to present scientific arguments. The dispute centered on glyphosate, which is the world’s most widely used herbicide. The verdict came a month after a federal judge ruled that cancer survivors or relatives of the deceased could bring similar claims forward in another trial.

During the lengthy trial, the plaintiff’s attorneys brought forward internal emails from Monsanto executives that they said demonstrated how the corporation repeatedly ignored experts’ warnings, sought favorable scientific analyses and helped to “ghostwrite” research that encouraged continued usage.
...
Another Roundup cancer trial is scheduled to begin in the fall in St Louis, Missouri. According to Johnson’s lawyers, Monsanto is facing more than 4,000 similar cases across the US.

"Ghostwrite" research means that the corporations hired and paid some scientists to publish falsified or incomplete material in scientific journals in order to portray the company in a favorable light or to obfuscate the wrong-doings.

The following letter outlines the tactics employed by the corporation to manufacture a false outcry in the media and rally the public opinion against the whisteblowers and organisation (in this case IARC / WHO ) that have published damaging facts.

How Monsanto Manufactured ‘Outrage’ at IARC over Cancer Classification

As a side note I find it amusing that the similar to the above-described public-opinion manipulation techniques have been employed since 2016 in the English language media to manufacture an artificial anti-Trump and anti-Republican 'outrage', known as "Trump-Derangement Syndrome". :)

Heretic

salt and cardiovascular risk debunked

.
It was a fake theory! Fake - I like this word.

A Canadian study, just published in The Lancet:
Urinary sodium excretion, blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and mortality: a community-level prospective epidemiological cohort study
Andrew Menteet al., VOLUME 392, ISSUE 10146, P496-506, AUGUST 11, 2018

Quote:

The association between mean sodium intake and major cardiovascular events showed significant deviations from linearity (p=0.043) due to a significant inverse association in the lowest tertile of sodium intake (lowest tertile <4.43 g/day, mean intake 4.04 g/day, range 3.42-4.43; change -1.00 events per 1000 years,...

Sodium intake was associated with cardiovascular disease and strokes only in communities where mean intake was greater than 5 g/day.

Halite (rock salt) from the Wieliczka salt mine,

Note: "inverse" association means that lower sodium INCREASES the rate of disease. In this case the cutoff threshold for the inverse relation is about 4g per day. The recommended daily dose of sodium by the fake (I love it) medical authorities is about 2g/day. Also, the usage of the unit "minus one event per 1000 years" has to be interpreted such that statistically there is one event less than the average, per 1000 patients per year rather than having to wait 1000 years for one patient event.

Read also here:

Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

Quote:

The study suggests that very low levels of salt could lead to more heart attacks and suggests that moderate salt consumption may be protective.
...
The World Health Organization recommends cutting sodium intake to no more than 2g a day - the equivalent of 5g of salt - because of the link to increased blood pressure, which is in turn implicated in stroke.