First Ever Study of Unvaccinated Vs. Vaccinated Kids, Pulled from Journal, Erased from Internet

In recent years, the glaring spotlight of skepticism has been turned to the topic of vaccines, bitterly dividing parents and giving doctors of modern medicine conniption fits — but no matter where you stand on vaccinations, the fact two groundbreaking, scientific, peer-reviewed studies painting inoculations in not-so favorable light have vanished from the Internet is cause for concern.

Originally, the study, titled, “Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S. children,” was published in Open Access Text.

Until, that is, Open Access Text removed it and a second, similar study by the same authors from their archives without explanation. In fact, The Free Thought Project attempted to contact Open Access Text on multiple occasions for an explanation on the abrupt decision to pull the studies — but, as of publishing, had yet to receive a response.

Lead author Anthony R. Mawson, Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Jackson State University’s School of Public Health, establishes that his team takes no issue with vaccinations, in their own right, stating in the study’s introduction,

“Vaccines are among the greatest achievements of biomedical science and one of the most effective public health interventions of the 20th century. Among U.S. children born between 1995 and 2013, vaccination is estimated to have prevented 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 premature deaths, with overall cost savings of $1.38 trillion. About 95% of U.S. children of kindergarten age receive all of the recommended vaccines as a requirement for school and daycare attendance, aimed at preventing the occurrence and spread of targeted infectious diseases. Advances in biotechnology are contributing to the development of new vaccines for widespread use.”

Mawson responded by email to The Free Thought Project’s request for a comment concerning the studies’ abrupt disappearance, stating only,

“I am forwarding your inquiry to our funding agency for comment. I am not at liberty to provide details at this moment.”

Although that sheds no light on the motivation for OAT to pull the study, it provides added evidence studies running counter to the long-held assumption vaccinations should not be questioned are far more frequently so explosive, the ensuing controversy and rush by modern medicine — often backed by the pharmaceutical industry — to denigrate such results is powerful and swift.

The study stated,

“Under the currently recommended pediatric vaccination schedule, U.S. children receive up to 48 doses of vaccines for 14 diseases from birth to age six years, a figure that has steadily increased since the 1950s, most notably since the Vaccines for Children program was created in 1994. The Vaccines for Children program began with vaccines targeting nine diseases: diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b disease, hepatitis B, measles, mumps, and rubella. Between 1995 and 2013, new vaccines against five other diseases were added for children age 6 and under: varicella, hepatitis A, pneumococcal disease, influenza, and rotavirus vaccine.”

Mawson and his team of researchers included nine charts and a full 71 references in their comparison of the long-term health prospects between vaccinated children attending public schools and their unvaccinated, homeschooled peers, to determine what results from the current scheduling of vaccines that could, perhaps, be overlooked under the general assumption of vaccine safety.

Results were astonishing.

“Assessment of the long-term effects of the vaccination schedule on morbidity and mortality has been limited,” the study stated, with paragraphs artificially inserted for clarity. “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 [Neurodevelopmental disorders] 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.”

Explosive, indeed.

The study continued,

“Although short-term immunologic and safety testing is performed on vaccines prior to their approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the long-term effects of individual vaccines and of the vaccination program itself remain unknown. Vaccines are acknowledged to carry risks of severe acute and chronic adverse effects, such as neurological complications and even death, but such risks are considered so rare that the vaccination program is believed to be safe and effective for virtually all children.”

Mawson and his team found vaccinated children significantly more likely their unvaccinated counterparts to be prone to allergic rhinitis (hay fever) [10.4% versus 0.4%], other allergies [22.2% vs. 6.9%], eczema/atopic dermatitis [9.5% vs. 3.6%], a learning disability [5.7% vs. 1.2%], ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) [4.7% vs. 1.0%], ASD (autism spectrum disorder) [4.7% vs. 1.0%], any neurodevelopmental disorder (learning disability, ADHD, ASD) [10.5% vs. 3.1%], and “any chronic illness” [44.0% vs. 25.0%].

[Source…]